HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008/05/01 Agenda Packet
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am
employed by the City of Chula Vista in th~~ ~ ~
Office of the City Clerk and that I posted~ 2:::.
ument on the bulletin board aCCOrdj~
Act requirements. ~ = ~ ~
%5,41( Signed~~ISTA
Cheryl Cox, Mayor
Rudy Ramirez, Councilmember David R. Garcia, City Manager
John McCann, Councilmember Ann Moore, City Attorney
Jerry R. Rindone, Councilmember Donna Norris, Interim City Clerk
Steve Castaneda, Councilmember
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
May I, 2008
6:30 P.M.
Council Chambers
City Hall
276 Fourth Avenue
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Castaneda, McCann, Ramirez, Rindone, and Mayor Cox
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Persons speaking during Public Comments may address the Council on any subject
matter within the Council's jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State
law generally prohibits the Council from discussing or taking action on any issue not
included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the Council may schedule the topic for fUture
discussion or refer the matter to staff. Comments are limited to three minutes.
ACTION ITEMS
The Item(s) listed in this section of the agenda will be considered individually by the
Council, and are expected to elicit discussion and deliberation. If you wish to speak on
any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it
to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
1. REPORT ON AUDITING STANDARDS AND SELECTION OF AUDIT
COMMITTEE
Ms. Kathryn Beseau of Moreland and Associates, the City's auditing firm, will make a
presentation on the following:
Page 1 - Council Agenda
httn:/ /www.chulavistaca.gov
May 1, 2008
The Auditing Standards Board recently published a new standard associated with auditor
communications. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 114 establishes a requirement for
the auditor of financial statements to communicate certain significant matters related to
the audit to those charged with governance.
Staff recommendation: Council appoint two Councilmembers to serve on an audit
subcommittee for the purpose of communicating with the City's auditors regarding the
Fiscal Year 2007/2008 audit, throughout the duration of that audit.
2. REPORT ON POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS OTHER THAN PENSIONS AND
THE GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD STATEMENT NO.
45
The City's actuary, John Bartel of Bartel and Associates, will make a presentation on the
following:
In June 2004, the Govemmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) issued Statement
45, "Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Post-Employment Benefits
Other Than Pensions," which requires public agencies to report their costs and
obligations pertaining to health and other benefits of current and future retired employees
much like they now report pension plan obligations. This is a significant change in
accounting, reporting and disclosure for OPEBs, which are currently accounted for on a
pay-as-you-go basis. The most common types of post-employment benefits include
health care insurance, life insurance, long-term care and dental insurance for retirees.
(Finance Director)
Staff recommendation: Council accept the report.
3. REPORT ON THE PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM BUDGET
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008/2009
The annual Capital Improvement Program budget (CIP) is typically adopted as part of the
City's overall budget. The proposed Fiscal Year 2008/2009 CIP is $10,550,975.
(Engineering and General Services Director)
Staff recommendation: Council accept the report.
ADJOURNMENT to the Regular Meeting of May 6, 2008 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers.
In compliance with the
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista requests individuals who require special accommodations to access,
attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service, contact the City Clerk's Office
at (619) 691-50415041 or Telecommunications Devicesfor the Deaf(TDD) at (619) 585-5655 at
least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services and
activities. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired.
Page 2 - Council Agenda
hnn :!!www.chulavistaca.gov
May I, 2008
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
.:$'Yf=.. CITY OF
...... 'l:- CHULA VISTA
MAY L 2008, Item-L.
ITEM TITLE:
SELECTION OF AUDIT SUB-COMMITTEE
SUBMITTED BY:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE/TREASURER'--IJ~
REVIEWED BY:
CITY MANAGER
4/5THS VOTE: YES! I NO 0
SUMMARY
The Auditing Standards Board recently published a new standard associated with auditor
communications. Statement on Auditing Standards No.114 establishes a requirement for
the auditor of financial statements to communicate certain significant matters related to
the audit to those charged with governance. The City's audit firm will make a
presentation at tonight's meeting discussing the new auditing standard.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
Appoint two City Council members to serve on an audit sub-committee for the purpose of
communicating with the City's auditors regarding the fiscal year 2007-2008 audit,
throughout the duration of that audit.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable.
DISCUSSION
In the wake of emerging developments in corporate governance and in light of increasing
expectations by those who rely on audited financial statements the Auditing Standards
Board recently published new standards associated with auditor communications. Among
other things, Statement on Auditing Standards No.114 establishes a requirement for the
auditor of financial statements to communicate certain significant matters related to the
audit to those charged with governance. The matters include items that have been
addressed in prior standards, as well as certain new requirements. The Statement also
1-1
MAY 1, 2008, Item-L
Page 2 of3
provides additional guidance on the communication process including, for example (this
list is not all inclusive):
. the importance of effective two-way communication
. situations where management is involved with governance
. the adequacy of communications between the auditor and those charged with
governance
The purpose of the staff report is to outline of the new requirements and how they affect
those charged with governance. It is important for each member of an organization's
governing body to recognize hislher responsibilities as well as the responsibilities of the
independent auditor.
Definitions
The new standard clearly draws a distinction between those charged with governance and
the management of the organization. The following definitions are outlined in the new
standard:
. Those charged with governance means the person(s) with responsibility for
overseeing the strategic direction of the entity and obligations related to the
accountability of the entity. For entities with a board of directors (i.e. City
Council), this term includes the audit committee or similar subgroup.
. Management means the person(s) responsible for achieving the objectives of the
entity and who have the authority to establish policies and make decisions by
which those obj ecti ves are to be pursued.
Communication principles
With regard to communication, the new standard points to three principle purposes. It
indicates that the auditor:
1. Communicate clearly with those charged with govemance the responsibilities of
the auditor in relation to the financial statement audit, and an overview of the
scope and timing of the audit.
2. Obtain from those charged with governance information relevant to the audit.
3. Provide those charged with governance with timely observations.
Importance of two-way communications
While the standard is primarily focused on communication from the auditor to those
charged with governance, it also indicates the importance of effective two-way
communications. The new standard indicates that two-way communication assists those
charged with govemance in understanding matters related to the audit, important
transactions, sources of supportive documentation, and in satisfying their obligation to
oversee the financial reporting activities. The standard goes on to point out that poor two-
way communication might be an indication of the lack of an adequate control
1-2
MAY 1, 2008, Item~
Page 3 of3
environment, which might influence the auditor's assessment of risk, and consequently
the scope of the audit procedures.
According to the new standard, the auditor must assess the effectiveness of such
communications and whether it adequately fulfills the auditor's responsibilities. Based
upon that assessment, the auditor may determine that to fulfill hislher responsibility
he/she must communicate directly to the governing body, a right the auditor always
maintains.
To assess the effectiveness of communications with those charged with governance the
standard indicates that the auditor may look to numerous indicators. For example the
auditor may:
. Evaluate the appropriateness and timeliness of action taken by those charged 'With
governance in response to matters communicated by the auditor.
. Consider the openness of those charged with governance in their communications
with the auditor.
. Assess the apparent ability of those charged with governance to meet without the
presence of management.
. With regard to situations in smaller organizations where management may also be
involved with governance, evaluate the awareness of how matters discussed with
the auditor affect their broader governance responsibilities, along with their
responsibilities as managers.
The standard points out that good governance implies that the auditor should have access
to the audit committee or its subgroup, that the auditor actually meet with the committee
periodically, and the committee may meet with the auditor without the presence of
management at least annually. If, in the judgment of the auditor, the two-way
communication is not adequate, the standard indicates that the auditor may have to
ultimately withdraw from the engagement. The position makes it clear that the Auditing
Standards Board views two-way communication as a very component of the audit.
DECISION MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has detennined that it is
not site specific and consequently the 500 foot rule found in California Code of
Regulations section 1 8704.2(a)(l) is not applicable to this decision.
FISCAL IMP ACT
There is no impact to the General Fund by this action.
ATTACHMENTS
None
Prepared by: Phillip Davis, Assistant Director of Finance
1-3
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
;$\ljf::. CllY OF
- CHULA VISTA
MA Y 1,2008, ltemL
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS OTHER THAN PENSIONS
AND THE GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTlNG STANDARDS
BOARD STATEMENT NO. 45
DIRECTOR OF FlNANCE/TREASURE~
CITY MANAGER
4/5THS VOTE: YES i ! NO I Xi
ITEM TITLE:
SlJM1\1ARY
In June 2004. the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) issued Statement 45,
"Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Post-Employment Benefits Other Than
Pensions," which requires public agencies to rep0l1 their costs and obligations pertaining to
health and other benefits of current and future retired employees much like they now report
pension plan obligations. This is a significant change in accounting, reporting and disclosure for
Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB), which is currently accounted for on a pay-as-you-go
basis. The most common types of post-employment benefits include health care insurance, life
insurance, long-tenn care and dental insurance for retirees.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not Applicable
RECOMMENDATION
Council accepts the report.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Not Applicable
DISCUSSION
The City of Chula Vista is required to disclose their OPEB liability in the financial statements
ending June 30, 2008. This new accounting requirement is based on a rule that has been applied
to the private sector for about ten years. Governmental entities that offer OPEBs will be required
to disclose the financial liabilities in their annual financial statements resulting from these
2-1
MAY L 2008, Item~
Page 2 of 5
benefits similar to those of pension plan obligations. Actuarial reports will be required to
detelmine unfunded liabilities.
The City of Chula Vista does not directly pay for post employment benefits but does subsidize
the health care insurance premiums paid by retirees who opt to continue to participate in the
City's retiree health care program. The costs associated with the retirees are pooled with the
active members; this pooling creates an artificially low rate for the retirees. GASB believes that
retirees who are allowed to pay the same health care benefit rate as active employees are being
subsidized and the indirect cost of this "implicit rate subsidy" needs to be recognized as an
OPEB liability by the governmental entity. 1
Estimated Unfunded OPEB Liabilitv and Annual Required Contribution (ARC)
The city's actuary John Bartel of Bartel Associates, LLC has detennined that the unfunded
liability or the Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAA.L) created by the implicit subsidy is
approximately $8.6 million. The atmual book accrual (called Annual OPEB Cost) using the pay-
as-you-go method would require an estimated atlliual required cash contribution amount of
$1.149 million. To consider a retiree healthcare plan funded for GASB 45 purposes, assets must
be set-aside in a trust that Catlliot legally be used for any purpose other than to pay retiree
healthcare benefits. Thus the City" s retiree healthcare plat1 is not currently funded. A copy of
the Executive Summary - Retiree Health Plan prepared by our actuary is included as an
attacllli1ent to this memo.
GASB 45 doesn't require an agency make up any shortfall (UAA.L) inm1ediately. Instead. the
difference is amortized over time. An agency's Annual Required Contribution (ARC) is the
CutTent employer Normal Cost, plus the atllortized UAAL. Simply put, this contribution is the
value of benefits earned during the year by active employees plus the atnount contributed toward
paying down the unfunded liability (UAAL). For the City's valuation Bartel Associates
calculated the 2007/08 ARC as the Normal Cost plus a 30-year amoliization of the UAAL.
Calculation of Amiual Required Contribution
i Assumed Rate of Return
Nonnal Cost (FUl1ded Part of Plan)
UAAL Amortization (Unfunded Liability)
2007-08 Annual Required Contribution
Nol're- Funding
(payasYouGo)
4.50%
$795,000
$354,000
$1,149,000
I're- Funding
7.75%'
$490,000
$407,000
$897,000
Over the long telm, the failure to address the outstanding OPEB unfunded liabilities could have
an adverse effect on the agencies credit standing. As stated in Standat'ds & Poors OPEB Report
"S & P expects most state and local governments to eventually come up >vith workable strategies
I Government Finance RevieVl;- August 2006
1 Implied subsidy "benefits" paid from the City's General Fund is assumed to earn a 4.5% long term rate ofretum
3 Contributions made to an irrevocable trust through CalPERS "dth diversified assets, which are assumed to eam a
7.75% long-tenn rate ofretun1.
2-2
MAY 1,2008, ItemL
Page 3 of 5
for other post employment benefits without adversely affecting their credit quality. While near
term fiscal stress is unlikely. there could be some intermediate-term credit pressures."
Two-Tier Post Employment Health Benefit
In order to prevent the liability from growing to a level that would impact the City's financial
condition, effective July I, 2008, any new hire will not be allowed to paliicipate in the
subsidized post employment health program. In other words, anyone hired after this date will
have to pay 100% of the unsubsidized cost of pa11icipating in the City's health program when
they retire from the City.
Employee funded Health Savings Plans are offered through our deferred contribution providers,
Nationwide alld ICMA. City staff is cUlTently working with our providers to identify progranls
that employees can use to save for post employment health care costs on an ongoing basis.
These plans provide employees some options to consider which will help alleviate the long-tenn
financial challenges related to health care coverage.
Subsidized Health Premiums - Current Retirees
As discussed previously, the City of Chula Vista does not directly pay for post employment
benefits but does subsidize the health care insurance premiums paid by retirees who opt in to the
City's retiree health care program. Based on the most recent calculations provided by our health
care broker Bal'11ey & Barney, the al1l1ual cost of the subsidy is estimated at $387,983. That
translates to an annual "discount'" of approximately $4311 per retiree (monthly discount of
$359). There are culTently 90 retirees. including 5 surviving spouses, who participate in the post
employment health insurance program at an average out of pocket cost of $479 per month.
Retiree Health Plan Data
Blended Unblended
Retiree Health Plan Enrollment Rate Rate Subsid
,Kaiser-Early Retirees 43 $231,648 $449.230 $217,582
IpacifiCare HMO-Early Retirees 45 $264,9961 $435,3971 $170,401:
IPacifiCare PPO-Earlv Retirees 2 $20,620 $20.6201 $0'
Totals 90 $517.264 $905,247 $387.983
Avera $5,7471 510,058 54.311
IAveraqe Monthlv Payment er Retiree $479 5838 5359
Note: Does not include data for retirees age 65 and older because their health plan is not subsidized.
Reducing the Liability
The policy decision on whether the City should continue offering post employment benefits to
current and future retirees will continue to be reviewed. Some of the options to be fmiher
analyzed and discussed include the following:
. The City could continue to subsidize the health insurance premiums for all current retirees
and future retirees (employees hired prior to July L 2008). Due to anticipated increases in
2-3
MAY 1. 2008, Item 2-
. -
Page 4 of 5
health care premiums, the unfunded liability would continue to grow over time but eventually
phase out as retirees reach age 65 and become eligible for Medicare.
. The City could consider continuing to subsidize the current retirees and future retirees
(employees hired prior to July I, 2008) but at a lower rate. The following chart provides
some examples, which could be considered during the 2009 review of the City's health
premiums. (The figures reflected below are estimates based on the 2008 health care
premiums and are provided for comparison purposes only. Further analysis ""ill be done
when the 2009 premiums are determined)
Retiree Health Plan (Under A e 65
Kaiser-Early Retirees
PacifiCare HMO-Early Retirees
PacifiCare PPO-Ear]y Retirees
Tota]s
IAveraO"e Subsidy er Retiree
iMollthlv Estimated Illcrease to Retiree
lVlontIIlyPremium'lVl()llthly P~eI11iumslVlonthly pr~mium6
(100% Subsid ) (75% Subsid 50% Subsid )
$2]7,5821 $]63,1871 $108,926j
$170,4011 $127,8011 $85.201
$0 $01 $0
$387,983j $290.9881 $194,127
, ,
$4,3 II $3,233 $2,1561
$0 $90' $1801
. The City could consider not subsidizing the retiree health insurance premiums immediately
for all CUlTent and future retirees with the exception of those retirees that accepted the early
retirement program, which expires in December 2009. Based on CUlTent health insurance
premium rates, the average monthly out of pocket cost to existing retirees would increase
from $479 per month to $838 per month.
Funding Options
If the policy decision is to continue to subsidize the health insurance premiums for all current
and retired employees hired prior to July 1,2008, some options in addressing the requirements of
GASB 45 will include the following:
. Continue on a pay-as-you go basis and only record the OPEB liability. The new standard
does not require advance funding but if the benefits are not funded, the liability will
continue to grow due to health care cost inflation and the impending retirement of baby
boomers. Not funding the liability could lead to a downgrading of credit ratings
depending on the materiality of the liability and the approach taken by the City to
mitigate the fiscal impacts.
. Undertake a funding program using an ilTevocable OPEB trust. The advantage of this is
that higher investment return assumptions can be used to calculate the OPEB liability,
~ Assumes City would continue funding the retiree health at the blended (subsidized) rate.
5 Assumes the retiree paid health care premium subsidy will decrease by 25%. The City would continue to paJ.1ially
subsidize (75%) the health care premium.
6 Assumes the retiree paid health care premium subsidy win decrease by 50%. The City would continue to partially
subsidize (:50%) the health care premium.
2-4
MAY I,2008,Item~
Page 5 of 5
which would result in lower .A..1mual Required Contributions. For example, CalPERS
offers the California Employers' Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT) Fund that has an
assumed rate of return of 7.75%.
. Issuance of OPEB obligation bonds (similar to Pension Obligation Bonds) IS being
marketed to governmental agencies as a way to fund the unfunded liability.
DECISION MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has detelmined that it is not site
specific and consequently the 500 foot rule found in California Code of Regulations section
1 8704.2(a)(1 ) is not applicable to this decision.
FISCAL IMPACT
The net fiscal impact of recording the liability in the City's financial records will reduce total
Governmental Activities Net Assets from $910.6 million to $902.0 million, which equates to a
reduction of 0.994% as of June 30, 2007 (City of Chula Vista CAFR dated June 30, 2007, Page
17).
Recording of the liability does not affect cash or reserves of the City's Governmental Funds.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Bartel and Associates, Executive Summary - Retiree Healthcare Plan
2. Standard and POOl'S Report, OPEB Liabilities Pose Some Risk/or State and Local
Governments
Prepared b)': filaria Kachadoorial1, Director of Finance-Treasurer, Finance Department
2-5
D 1[)T.l=!
Ue-! L-, 1- L
1 -, ('1(-;:\! E (~ L L\_
A~c}-,'('r)e.nt- (
~ 'It.-
~Lb:~
~~~~
----
OW OF
CHULA VISfA
Retiree Healthcare Plan
June 30, 2007 Actuarial Valuation
Executive Summary
October 2007
2-6
o:\cJients\city of chula vista\opeb\6-30-07\reports\ba 08~04.23 chula vista opeb exec summary.doc
2-7
Executive Summary
City of Chula Vista
Retiree Healthcare Plan
June 30, 2007 Actuarial Valuation
On June 21, 2004, the Govemmental Accounting Standards Board approved Statement No. 45
(GASB 45), Accounting Standards for Other (than pensions) Post Employment Benefits (OPEB).
This report is based on the financial reporting standards established under GASB 45, and assumes
the City will implement GASB 45 for its 2007/08 fiscal year.
The City allows retirees to purchase healthcare coverage under the City's medical plan. Retirees
pay 100% of the premiums. Retirees not eligible for Medicare pay the same healthcare premiums as
active employees, even though retiree's healthcare costs are greater than that of active employee's.
This results in an implied subsidy of retiree's healthcare costs by the City. GASB 45 will require
the City account for this implied subsidy on an accrual basis (as benefits are eamed).
STUDY RES{]L TS
Funded Status: The plan funded status is equal to the Actuarial Accrued Liability (see definitions
and assumptions section below) less plan assets. When assets equal liabilities, a plan is considered
on track for funding.
To consider a retiree healthcare plan funded for GASB 45 purposes, assets must be set aside in a
trust that cannot legally be used for any purpose other than to pay retiree healthcare benefits. The
City's retiree healthcare plan is not currently funded. This has important implications on the
discount rate assumption used to calculate plan liabilities (see definitions and assumptions section
below). We have prepared valuation results under 2 scenarios:
II No Pre-Funding - Implied subsidy "benefits" paid ll'om the City's general fund which is
assumed to eam a 4.50% long term rate of return.
II Pre-Funding - Contributions made to an iITevocable trust through CalPERS with diversified
assets which are assumed to earn a 7.75% long term retull1.
The following table summarizes the plan's June 30, 2007 funded status (OOOs omitted):
No
Pre-Funding Pre-Funding
4.50% 7.75%
II Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL)
. Actives S 6.584 S 4,868
. Retirees 2.002 1.669
. Total S 8,586 S 6,537
II Plan Assets ~ ~
II Unfunded AAL (UAAL) S 8,586 S 6,537
~
\D"1 )
~l~
- -
~
October 9, 2007
2-8
CrTYOf
CHUlA VISrA
Executive Summary
City of Chula Vista Retiree Healthcare Plan
June 30, 2007 Actuarial Valuation
Page 2
Annual Required Contrihution (ARC): GASB 45 doesn't require an agency make up any shortfall
(unfunded liability) immediately, nor does it allow an immediate credit for any excess assets,
Instead, the difference is amortized over time, An agency's AlUmal Required Contribution is
nothing more than the CU1Tent employer Normal Cost, plus the amortized unfunded liability or less
tbe amortized excess assets. Simply put, this contribution is tbe value of benefits earned during tbe
year plus something to move tbe plan toward being on track for funding. For the City's valuation
we calculated tbe 2007/08 ARC as the Normal Cost plus a 30-year1 amortization (as a level percent
of pay) of the Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (OOOs omitted):
No
Pre-Funding Pre-Funding
4,50% 7,75%
. Normal Cost $ 795 $ 490
. UAAL Amortization 354 407
. 2007/08 AlUmal Required Contribution $ 1.149 $ 897
. Annual Required Contribution as a
percentage of estimated 2007/08 Payroll l.4~o 1.1%
. Estimated 2007/08 Payroll $ 82,]44 $ 82, ]44
Net OPEB Obligation (NOO): An agency's Net OPEB Obligation is tbe bistorical difference (from
implementation)' between actual contributions made and tbe Annual Required Contributions'. If an
agency has always contributed the required contribution, tben tbe Net OPEB Obligation equals zero.
HO\veveL an agency has not ;'made" the contribution unless it has been set aside and cannot legally
be used for any other purpose.
Annual OPEB Cost (AOC): GASB 45 requires tbe Annual OPEB Cost equal tbe Annual Required
Contribution, except wben an agency bas a Net OPEB Obligation at the beginning of the year.
When tbat bappens an agency's Alliual OPEB Cost will equal the ARC, adjusted for expected
interest on the Net OPEB Obligation and reduced by an amortization of tbe Net OPEB Obligation
(OOOs omitted):
No
Pre-Funding Pre-Funding
4.50% 7.75%
1/1 2007/08 Annual Required Contribution $ 1.149 $ 897
II Interest on Net OPEB Obligation 0 0
II Amortization of Net OPEB Obligation -----2 ---.J2
1/1 Total 2007/08 Annual OPEB Cost $ 1,149 $ 897
Maximum amortization period allowed under GASB 45.
GASB 45 specifies the initial Net OPEB Obligation (at implementation) be set to zero.
Benefits paid for current retirees are considered contributions.
~
~.D-1 )
~!I?-
- -
-
October 9, 2007
2-9
mY 0'
CHULA VISfA
Executive Summary
City of Chula Vista Retiree Healthcare Plan
Jnne 30. 2007 Actuarial Valnation
Page 3
The following illustrates the City's June 30, 2007 Net OPEB Obligation if the City adopts GASB 45
for the 2007/08 fiscal year (OOOs omitted):
No
Pre-Funding
4,50%
Pre-Funding
7.75%
. June 30, 2007 Net OPEB Obligation
. 2007/08 AIIDual OPEB Cost
. 2007/08 Contributions
. June 30, 2008 Net OPEB Obligation
$ 0 $ 0
1,149 897
(367)' ..ffi2l) 5
$ 782 $ 0
The City's actual June 30,2008 Net OPEB Obligation may differ slightly from the above because
actual implied subsidy benefit payments may be different from estimated.
Projected Benefit Payments: Following are 10-year open group benefit payout projections,
assuming the number of active City employees remains constant (OOO's omitted):
Implied Subsidy Implied Subsidy
Year Benefit Pavment Year Benefit PaYment
2007/08 $ 367 2012/13 $ 547
2008/09 355 2013/14 593
2009/1 0 395 2014/15 671
2010/11 440 2015/16 760
2011/12 492 2016/17 842
Sensitivity: The above results are based on a 30-year amonization of the unfunded liability.
Following illustrates the impact of changing the amonization to 20 years (OOOs omitted):
No
Pre-Funding - Pre-Funding
4.50% 7.75%
. 20-year amortization
. Total 2007/08 ARC $ $ 1,297 $ 1.003
. Total 2007/08 ARC % 1.6% 1.2%
II 30-year amortization
. Total 2007/08 ARC $ $ 1,149 $ 897
. Total 2007/08 ARC % 1.4% 1.1%
Estimated 2007/08 implied subsidy benefit payments.
Assumes full ARC is contributed.
(&0' .
t"/ I
H
J
October 9, 2007
2-10
~!f?
-n-
"'---
CIlYOF
CHUIA VISTA
Executive Summary
Cit)' of Cbula Vista Retiree Healtbcare Plan
June 30, 2007 Actuarial Valuation
Page 4
EARLY RETIRE.l\1ENT WINDOW STUDY RESULTS
Eligibility: The early retirement window being considered would be offered to employees of all
City departments and bargaining groups who are eligible to retire, with a 90-day opt-in window.
Benefit: The City would pay the single premium through December 31, 2009 for those who retire
prior to January 1. 2008, and through December 31. 2008 for those who retire during 2008.
Scenarios: Estimating the impact of an Early Retirement Window on the City.s GASB 45 liability
requires an assumption of how many employees will opt into the window. We calculated results
under two retirement assumption scenarios as follo\vs:
. Scenario 1 - An additional 10% of eligible employees over those already expected to retire
will opt to retire prior to 2008 and an additional 2.5% of eligible employees over those
already expected to retire will opt to retire during 20086
. Scenario 2 - An additional 20% of eligible employees over those already expected to retire
will opt to retire prior to 2008 and an additional 5.0% of eligible employees over those
already expected to retire will opt to retire during 2008.7
The follO\ving table summarizes results under the two scenarios. based on a 4.500/0 discount rate
($OOOs omitted):
Scenario 1
10% / 2.5%
Scenario 2
20% / 5%
. Funded Status
. Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL)
;;... Actives
~ Retirees
~ Total
. Plan Assets
$ 7,606 $ 8.198
2.002 2.002
$ 9.608 $ 10,200
---1! ~
$ 9,608 $ 10.200
. Unfunded AAL (UAAL)
. 2007/08 Annual Required Contribution (ARC)
. Normal Cost $ 967 $ 1,042
. UAAL Amortization 396 421
. 2007/08 ARC $ 1,363 $ 1.463
. ARC as a % of estimated 2007/08 payroll 1,7% 1.8%
6 Scenario 1 anticipates ;::.57 retirements before January 1,2008 and ::::38 retirements during 2008.
7 Scenario:2 anticipates;::.81 retirements before January 1,2008 and :::45 retirements during 2008.
(iQ)n ,
j.-O, j
L}"-i
October 9. 2007
2-11
~If?.
-~-
-
CTlYOf
CHULA VISTA
Executive Summary
City of Chula Vista Retiree Healthcare Plan
June 30, 2007 Actuarial Valuation
Page 5
BASIC DEFINITIONS AND AsSUMFTIONS
Present Value of Benefits: When an actuary prepares an actuarial valuation, (s)he first gathers
participant data (including active employees, former employees not in payment status, participants
and beneficiaries in payment status) at the valuation date (for example June 30, 2007). Using this
data and actuarial assumptions. (s)he projects future benefit payments. (The assumptions predict,
among other things, when people will retire, tenninate, die or become disabled, as well as what
salary increases, general (and healthcare) inflation and investment return might be.) Those future
benefit payments are discounted, using expected future investment retum, back to the valuation date.
This discounted present value is the plan's present value of benefits. It represents the amount the
plan needs as of the valuation date to pay all future benefits - if all assumptions are met and no
future contributions (employee or employer) are made. The City's June 30, 2007 retiree heaJthcare
Present Value of Benefits is $18 million using a 4.50% discount rate ($10.8 million using a 7.75%
discount rate). with $2 million of this for fonner employees who have already retired ($1.7 million
using a 7.75% discount rate).
Actuarial Accrued Liability: This represents the portion of the present value of benefits that
participants have earned (on an actuarial, not actual, basis) through the valuation date. The City..s
June 30. 2007 retiree healthcare Actuarial Accrued Liability is $8.6 million using a 4.50% discount
rate ($6.5 million using a 7.75% discount rate), with $2 miliion of this for fonner employees who
have already retired ($1.7 million using a 7.75% discount rate).
Normal Cost: The Normal Cost represents the portion of the present value of benefits expected to
be earned (on an actuarial, not actual, basis) in the coming year. The City's 2007/08 retiree
healthcare Nom1al Cost is SO.8 million (1.0% of base payroll) using a 4.50% discount rate and SO.5
million using a 7.75% discount rate (0.6% of base payroll).
Actuarial Cost Method: This detennines the method in which benefits are actuarially earned
(allocated) to each year of service. lt has no effect on the Present Value of Benefits, but has
significant effect on the Actuarial Accrued Liability and Normal Cost. The City's June 30, 2007
retiree healthcare valuation was prepared using the Entry Age Normal cost method.
Implied Subsidy: GASB 45 requires that the implied subsidy for retirees be included in the AAL
and the ARC for plans that are not community rated. An implied subsidy exists when the premium
for a group of employees is determined by aggregating the experience of the group. For example.
assume the premium for actives and non-Medicare eligible retirees is $600 per month. The
underlying medical cost varies by age and gender and might actually be $300 per month for a 40
year-old active employee and $900 per month for a 60 year-old retiree. In this case, the premium for
the younger employee is subsidizing $300 of the older retiree's cost. We have valued the implied
subsidy for the City's retiree healthcare plan. There is no cash subsidy because the retirees pay
100% oftheir medical premiums.
Actuarial Assumptions: Under GASB 45, an actuary must follow cunent actuarial standards of
practice~ \vhich generally call for explicit assumptions - meaning each individual assumption represents
the actuary's best estimate.
C"'\
~. \~:'--_.~ )
October 9, 2007
2-12
~!~
-
CnYOF
CHUlA V1SfA
Executive Summary
City of Chula Vista Retiree Healthcare Plan
June 30, 2007 Actuarial Valuation
Page 6
GASB 45 requires that the discount rate is based on the source of funds used to pay benefits. This
means the underlying expected Jong-tenn rate of return on plan assets for funded plans. Furthennore,
since the source of funds for an unfunded plan is usually the general fund and California law restricts
agencies' investment vehicles. this valuation uses a relatively low, 4.50%, discount rate. If the City
sets up a Trust (that could only be used to pay plan benefits), using CalPERS Section 115 Trust then
the discount rate would be based on the Trust's expected long-tenn investment return (established by
CalPERS at 7.75%).
Another key assumption is future healthcare inflation rates. Actual premiums for 2007 and 2008 were
used. The inflation rate for HMO's starts at 9.7% (the increase in 2009 premiums over 2008) and
grades down to 4.5% (2017 premiums over 2016) and remains at 4.5% into the future. The inflation
rate for PPO's starts at 10.5% (the increase in 2009 premiums over 2008) and grades down to 4.5%
(2017 premiums over 2016) and remains at 4.5% into the future. This assumption means healthcare is
assumed to increase. on the average, 7.1 % for HMO's and 7.5% for PPO's a year for the next 9 years
after 2008. Furthermore, since the valuation's general inflation assumption is 3%, it also means
health care is assumed to level off at 1.5% over general inflation.
o
~. _C\_\ )
~l!?-
- -
-
October 9. 2007
2-13
CllYOf
CHUIA Vl5fA
Executive Summary
City of Chula Vista Retiree Healthcare Plan
June 30, 2007 Actuarial Valuation
Page 7
BENEFIT PROMISE
The following table summarizes the City's retiree medical benefits:
. Eligibility . Service or disability retire directly from the City
. Age 50 & 5 years service under CalPERS
. Benefit . Continued participation in City medical plans
. Retiree pays 100% of premiwn
. Surviving Spouse . Based on retirement plan election
Continuation . Same benefit continues to surviving spouse
. Dental, Vision & . None
Life
. Pay-As-You-Go . None
Costs
,
. Possible Early . Eligibility:
Retirement . Offered to all City departments/bargaining groups
Window
. Must be eligible to retire
. 90 Day opt-in window
II Benefit:
. DOR < 111108 - City pays single premium through 12/31/09
I . DOR::: 111108 and DOR < 1/1/09 - City pays single premium
through 12/31/08
II Implied Subsidy III Participating retirees paying active rates vs. actual cost
. Value implied subsidy only, until age 65
([{)
October 9, 2007
2-14
~I~
_ fi
ClTYOf
CHULA VISJA
OPEB Liabilities Pose Some Risk For
State And Local Governments
Primary Credit Analyst:
Peter Block, Chicago (1) 312-233-7040; peter_block@standardandpoors,com
Secondary Credit Analysts:
Robin Prunty. New York (1) 212-438-2081; robin_prunty@standardandpoors.com
Marc Sa varia, Boston 11) 617-530-8315: marc_savaria@standardandpoors.com
Table Of Contents
.__n.n._____.__..._____..._...__.___._._____.______.__...-------...-.----.---------.-.-----------.---.---------.-
New Reporting Requirements Highlight Issue
OPEB Credit Analysis
www.standardandpoors.com/ratingsdirect
1
Standard & Poar's. All rights reserved No reprim or dissemination without S&p7s permission See Terms of
Use/Disclaimer on the last page 2 -1 5
OPEB Liabilities Pose Some Risk For State And
Local Governments
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services expects most state and local governments to eventually come up with workable
strategies for other postemployment benefits (OPEB) without adversely affecting their credit quality. While
near-term fiscal stress is unlikely, there could be some intermediate-term credit pressures - possibly as soon as three
to five years __ as governments grapple with funding solutions amid rising health care costs. If unmitigated, OPEB
costs _ which in some cases are projected to be several multiples larger than what governments currently pay to
cover retirees -- are likely to strain some" municipal budgets, potentially affecting other spending priorities and the
magnitude of reserves.
With the deadline for compliance with the new Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) requirement for
OPEB looming, all state and many local governments are developing solutions to address the liability. In many
instances, state legislative action has been taken and still may be required to provide local governments and school
districts a range of options to manage their OPEB liabilities, including authorizing trust funds, reserves, and
managing benefit levels.
OPEB liabilities are just one of many credit factors Standard & Poor's evaluates during the ratings process. We
recognize that the overall effect of the liabilities will be felt over many years. How the OPEB liability is managed by
issuers, along with a government's capacity to fund these obligations on an annual basis -- either on a pay-as-you-go
or an accrual basis -- will be an important element of the credit review. The framework for evaluating the solution
includes three broad areas: finances, management, and debt.
New Reporting Requirements Highlight Issue
OPEB requirements are not new and have been a part of the cost structure of state and local governments -- as well
as not-far-profit organizations -- for a long time. GASB Statement No. 45, "Accounting and Financial Reporting by
Employers for Postemployment Benefits Other Than Pensions," established new accounting and reporting practices
for OPEB liabilities for governmental entities. This standard affects all governmental entities, including state and
local governments, school districts, transportation sector issuers (including transit agencies, airports, and roll roads),
utilities, and housing ,agencies. GASB 45 is essentially a new way to account for, and report on, these accrued
liabilities. It can also be viewed as a tool to better manage OPEBs in the long term. GASB 45 is being phased in over
three years. Governments with annual revenues in excess of $100 million must adopt the standard for fiscal years
ending after Dec. 15,2006.
Standard & Poor's recently reported on OPEB liabilities for state governments (see "U.S. States Are Quantifying
OPEB Liabilities And Developing Funding Strategies As The GASB Deadline Neats,", Nov. 12,2007). Based on our
research, of the 40 states that have reported to date, the scope and range of OPEB liabilities -- $400 billion in total
and counting __ underscore the enormous challenges that OPEB presents for governmental entities in the future. This
is not simply because the absolute size of the liabilities is large, but ongoing costs to cover promised health care
benefits are projected to be many multiples larger than what governments currently pay.
Not-for-profit entities, primarily health care and higher education, that follow accounting rules established by the
Standard & Poor's RatingsDirect I January 30, 2008
2
Standard & poar's, All rights reserved. No reprint or dissemination without S&P?s permission. See Terms 01 Use/Oisclaimer on the last page.
2-16
OPEB Liabilities Pose Some Risk For State And Local Governments
Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) have been reporting OPEB liabilities for many years under FASB's
Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (SFAS) No. 106: "Employees' Accounting for Postretirement Benefits
Other Than Pensions." On Sept. 29, 2006, FASB issued its new standard, SFAS No. 158: "Employers' Accounting
for Defined-Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans." SFAS 158 amends SFAS 106, requiring employers to
recognize the overfunded or underfunded status of their defined-benefit OPEB plans as an asset or liability in their
statement of financial position for fiscal years ending after June 15,2007. Under prior accounting standards, the
funded status of an employer's OPEB plans was not always recorded in the balance sheet.
FASB 158 has had some impact on balance sheets and income statements of many not-for-profit organizations,
although to date, Standard & Poor's has not revised ratings solely because of unfunded liabilities. In many of these
cases, the new rule caused a weakening of balance sheets following an increase in liabilities and a decrease in equity.
Standard & Poor's will continue to monitor the impact of the new rule, especially the strategies used by these
organizations to absorb the cost of OPEB.
OPEB Credit Analysis
OPEB liabilities are just one of many credit factors Standard & Poorls evaluates during the ratings process. We
recognize that OPEB liabilities are likely to be more volatile than pension liabilities over time. In addition to
variation in actuarial methods and assumptions, OPEB liabilities factor in health care cost inflation assumptions,
which have varied over time and continue to increase at double-digit rates. We have already seen wide ranges of
liabilities for the same OPEB plan in subsequent actuarial valuations due to changes in assumptions. Nevertheless,
once the final OPEB liabilities and the annual required contribution (ARC) are determined, it will be up to
management and political leaders to decide how best to handle liabilities. Options include prefunding the liability
and paying the ARC, continuing with pay as you go, or some combination thereof.
Failure to fund the ARC or at least establish a workable plan to do so in an identifiable time frame may indicate that
the OPEB structure is unaffordable. If funding costs go largely unmitigated, OPEB has the potential to slowly crowd
out other spending priorities, potentially leading to credit problems. In analyzing the impact of OPEB liabilities on a
government's general credit, we focus on how OPEB affects management, finances, and debt.
Management
Management should be able to clearly discuss the details of OPEB, consequences of restructuring benefits if possible,
and demonstrate an understanding of the impacts of the results of GASB 45 actuarial valuations in terms of how
conservative (or aggressive) the methods are and the assumptions used to determine the OPEB liabilities. If OPEB
liabilities are material, Standard & Poor's is interested in the various alternatives that management is pursuing to
soften the impact on the government IS finances. Additionally, it should be clear where the OPEB problem ranks in
relation to other planning and spending priorities. If, after the OPEB liability has been agreed upon, the ultimate
solution to a governmentls OPEB liability is prefunding, additional challenges will arise, which must also be
considered.
Finances
As part of our financial review, we will analyze the effect of the OPEB liability, together with pension liabilities, on a
government's lncome statement and balance sheet. Our analysis will be enhanced when trend information for OPEB
becomes available.
www.standardandpoors.com/ratingsdirect
Standard & Poor's. All rights reserved. No reprint or dissemination without S&P?s permission. See Tenns of Use/Disclaimer on the last page.
2-17
3
i;7',L\l\l JDU,i} ','.
OPEB Liabilities Pose Some Risk For State And Local Governments
From an income statement perspective, the annual and projected costs of addressing both pension and OPEB
liabilities, along with annual debt service costs, will be analyzed as it relates to the size of the budget, the strength
and diversity of the revenue base, and other spending priorities. This analysis is similar to the way in which we have
traditionally analyzed the impact of unfunded pension liabilities. Specifically, we will measure the ARC and actual
contribution rates, along with funding progress. As with pension funding, OPEB contribution rates can lag and be
distorted by investment return assumptions, asset smoothing methodologies, and amortization periods for unfunded
actuarial accrued liabilities. Nevertheless, contribution rates and funding ratios are useful for comparison across
governmental entities because they shed light on the burden pension and OPEB liabilities and costs have on an
issuer1s budget and balance sheet. These metrics may be less significant for issuers who do not actually fund the cost
of OPEB but instead allow retirees to participate in their plans by paying for themselves.
From a balance sheet perspective, we will focus on the impact of unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities on reserves,
the ability to fund capital improvements, and retire debt obligations within a reasonable time frame.
Debt
Pension and OPEB liabilities are debt-like in nature, although the annual costs to service the obligations differ. Debt
costs are traditionallytixed and must be paid on time, whereas ARC payments for pension and OPEB can be
deferred or only partially paid. Further, OPEB ARCs are subject to significant variation based on the actuarial
methods and assumptions used to calculate the OPEB liability as well as the performance of any fund assets.
If pension obligation bonds or OPEB obligation bonds have been issued, we are concerned with the source of
funding for these obligations and the additional fixed costs associated with this prefunding solution. (For further
information about the risks and benefits of issuing bonds to prefund pension and OPEB liabilities, see "Time May
Be Ripe For A POB Revival," dated Jan. 23,2008, and "OPEB Obligation Bond Funding Strategies Offer Risks And
Rewards," dated Nov. 19,2007.)
Prefunding challenges
While there is no requirement under GASB 45 to prefund benefits, significant attention is placed on future funding
requirements due mainly to the rapidly escalating costs of health care and the implicit penalty of not prefunding
liabilities. Under GASB 45, governments are permitted to use the typically higher discount rate (about 8%) of the
OPEB trust fund assets, rather than the government's own rate of return (about 3%), for prefunding purposes. This
serves to reduce the government's overall OPEB liability and future cost requirements.
If governments try to prefund OPEB liabilities through bonds and achieve funding ratios consistent with or
exceeding pension plans, they will face several new challenges related to maintenance of adequate funding ratios.
Indeed, the annual process of balancing affordable and predictable contribution rates for the government while
maintaining adequate funding ratios for beneficiaries will likely become the government's priority in dealing with
the OPEB issue, similar to the situation faced currently with pension plans.
As government investment strategies became more diversified (away from fixed-income) in the 19805 toward equity
investments, pension funding ratios increased markedly in the latter part of the 1990s. However, as of the early part
of this decade, investment returns fell precipitously, depressing pension funding ratios. It is almost inevitable that
OPEB trust funds will face similar pressure over time. Therefore, if a government chooses to ]?refund OPEB
liabilities, management must be cognizant of the pressure to achieve outsized investment returns to stabilize and
reduce contribution rates. For these reasons, Standard & Poor's will also focus on the OPEB fund's structure,
Standard & Poor's RatingsDirect I January 30. 2008
4
Standard & Poor's. All rights reserved. No reprint or dissemination without S&P?s permission_ See Terms of Use/Disclaimer on the last page
2-18
OPEB Liabilities Pose Some Risk For State And Local Governments
governance, investment allocation, and return assumptions. This analysis is identical to the way in which we view a
government's pension plan and its impact on a government's general credit.
www.standardandpoors.com/ratingsdirect
Standard & Poor's An rights reserved. No reprint or dissemination without S&P?s permission. See Terms of Use/DiSClaimer on the last page.
. 2-19
5
:""l3'1G:'mlA!i
Copyright@2008, Standard & Poors, a division of The McGraw-Hili Companies, Inc.l?S&P?l. S&P and/or its third party licensors have exclusive proprietary rights in the data
or information provided herein, This data/information may only be used internally for business purposes and shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes.
Dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this data/information in any form is strictly prohibited except with the prior written permission of S&P, Because of the
possibility of human or mechanical error by S&P, its affiliates or its third party licensors, S&P, its affiliates and its third party licensors do not guarantee the accuracy,
adequacy, completeness or availability of any information and is not responsible for any errors or omissions or for the results obtained from the use of such information, S&P
GIVES NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
OR USE. In no event shall S&P, its affiliates and its third party licensors be liable for any direct indirect special or consequential damages in connection with subscriber?s or
others? use of the data/information contained herein. Access to the data or information contained herein is subject to termination in the event any agreement with a third-
party of information or software is terminated.
Analytic services provided by Standard & Poor's Ratings Services (Ratings Services) are the result of separate activities designed to preserve the independence and objectivity
of ratings opinions. The credit ratings and observations contained herein are solely statements of opinion and not statements of fact or recommendations to purchase, hold, or
sell any securities or make any other investment decisions. Acco rdingly, any user of the information contained herein should no trelyonanycreditratingorotheropinion
contained herein in making any investment decision. Ratings are based on information received by Ratings Services, Other divisions of Standard & Poor's may have
information that is not available to Ratings Services. Standard & Poor's has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of non-public information
received during the ratings process.
Ratings Services receives compensation for its ratings. Such compensation is normally paid either by the issuers of such securities or third parties participating in marketing
the securities. While Standard & Poor's reserves the right to diss eminatetherating,itreceivesnopaymentfordoingso,exceptfor subscriptions to its publications.
Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.standardandpoors.com/usratingsfees
Any Passwords/user IDs issued by S&P to users are single user-dedicated and may ONLY be used by the individual to whom they have been assigned. No sharing of
passwords/user IDs and no simultaneous access via the same password/user 10 is permitted. To reprint, translate, or use the data or information other than as provided
herein, contact Client Services, 55 Water Street, New York, NY 10041; (1)212.438.9823 Of bye-mail to:research_request@standardandpoors.com.
Copyright C9 1994-2008 Standard & Poors, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, All Rights Reserved.
_fI1'l71~'1it!i'i~'Jil:n!l,fJlw'PiiN;'"
....
'''''1'1'';< "'\A"; ""
2-20
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
5/01/08 , Item :)
ITEM TITLE:
REPORT ON THE PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008/2009
SUBMITTED BY:
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING AND GENERAL SERVICES~~'
REVIEWED BY:
CITY MANAGER
ASSISTANT CIT
4/5THS VOTE: YES D NO k8J
SUMMARY
The annual Capital Improvement Program Budget (CIP) is typically adopted as part of the City's
overall budget. The proposed fiscal year 2008/2009 CIP is $12,734,975.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project qualifies
for a Class 6 categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15306 (Information Collection) of the
State CEQA Guidelines. Thus, at this time, no further environmental review is necessary. As
funding is secured and each individual infrastructure project moves forward toward
implementation, further environmental review will be required and a CEQA/NEP A
determination completed prior to commencing construction of any of the infrastructure or
facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
No action is required at this time.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable.
3-1
5/01/08, Item .3
Page 2 of 4
DISCUSSION
The City's annual crp budget is adopted as part of the City's overall budget. The crp budget
includes funding recommendations for a range of different kinds of capital improvement proj ects.
The CIP Budget document typically contains a number of reports including a listing of
recommended projects sorted by funding source, project type and location. The budget document
also contains a five-year report by project type. This report provides some indication, particularly
with respect to ongoing/annual projects, as to their expected funding levels in the future. The
budget document also contains a report that lists all of the projects that the various City departments
submitted. Lastly, the budget document contains a project sheet for each capital project that is still
active. These project sheets include projects that are recommended for funding in the coming fiscal
year, future fiscal years (5 year look forward) or projects for which funds have already received
appropriations and are still in progress. These project sheets are still being completed and will be
included in the final CIP budget submittal.
Draft versions of all of those reports, except the project detail sheets, are included herein and the
review of those reports will make up the substance of the workshop meeting. The following tables
summarize the key reports.
Table 1
Projects By Funding Source Summary
Fund Number Fund Name Recommended Funding
..... .... ..... i <'>. .... ......./. .. ......... .. ..
221 Gas Tax ($175,610)
225 Traffic Signal Fund ($388,141)
227 TransNet $4,596,995
241 Parking Meter $241,860
261 California Library Services Act $102,644
268 State Recreation Grants ($140,000)
333 CDBG $345,423
412 Special Sewer ($50,304)
413 Trunk Sewer ($66,220)
414 Sewer Service Revenue $15,000
428 Sewer Facility Replacement $2,030,025
582 PFDIF (Recreation) ($68,328)
591 Transportation DIF $11,411
593 Western CV TDIF (loan from TDIF) $185,000
651 Redevelopment - Memed District $133,500
715 PAD Fee ($52,542)
717 Residential Construction Tax ($43,738)
723 TDA/Bicvcle Facilities $150,000
736 Federal Transportation Grant $4,668,000
737 Trans Equity Act $240,000
739 Proposition 42 Funds $1,000,000
.......... ........... <. ...... ....... ..>. ......... ............. ...i'...> .. <
Total $12,734,975
3-2
5/01108, Item .3
Page 3 of 4
Table 2
Projects by Project Type
Drainage
Library
Local Streets
Ma'or Streets
Other Pro' ects
Parks and Recreation
Public Safety
Sewer
Traffic
Recommended
($63,794)
$102,644
$6,032,881
$3,575,088
$379,432
($386,335)
($1,764)
$2,108,853
$1,008,970
Total
$12,734,975
Table 3
Projects By Location
Pro'ect Location
Recommended Fundin
Percenta e of Total
Cit ide
Eastern Chula Vista
Mont ornery
Western Chula Vista
$5,905,239
($389,702)
$2,691,145
46%
-3%
21%
36%
Total
$12,734,975
100%
DECISION MAKER CONFLICT
This item involves a report on the proposed Capital Improvement Program Budget for fiscal year
2008/2009, No action will be taken on this item, The Capital Improvement Program Budget is
adopted as part of the City's overall budget. If any potential conflicts of interest exist for any of
the projects included in the Capital Improvement Program Budget, those potential conflicts will
be addressed at the time the City's budget is adopted,
FISCAL IMPACT
No projects are proposed to be funded utilizing the City's General Fund, The fiscal impacts for
the various funding sources are found on the Projects by Funding Source Report (Attachment 1)
and in Table I above,
3-3
5/01/08, Item 3
Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1:
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3:
Attachment 4:
Attachment 5:
Projects by Funding Source
Projects by Project Type
Projects by Location
Projects by Location Summary
Departmental Submittals
Prepared by: Jack Griffin, Director, Engineering and General Services Dept.
M:\GENERAL SERVICES\GSADMINISTRATION\COUNCIL AGENDA\FY 2008 09 CIP BUDGET WORKSHOP\CIP BUDGET
WORKSHOP DOCUMENT.DOC
3-4
Draft
Attachment 1
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
221
Gas Tax
FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL
FY 2008-09
ADDITIONAL
FY 2008-09
PROPOSED
FY 2009-10
PROPOSED
TOTAL
PROPOSED
DR133 Drainage Improvements - Emerson Street
OP202 CIP Advanced Planning
OP206 General Services Automation -Auto Cad Upgrade
STL201 Block Act-Planning
STL286 Sidewalk Improvement - Otay Lakes Road
wSTL326 Cross Gutter Replacement - Various Locations
6,TF279 Install Internally Illuminated Street Name Signs
TF321 Citywide Traffic Count Program
TF338 Replace City Street Signs (Non-Illuminated)
TF999 Street Light Installation - Various Streets
IIIIIIII1'B
IIIIIIIIIi
IIIIIIII1'B
......
IIIIIIII1'B
......
IIIIIIII1'B
IIIIIIII1'B
Total Appropriated
$240,000
($415,610)
($2,237)
($63,582)
($40,960)
($38,207)
($25,000)
($175,610)
_Illi\~
~
~."".'
~
...--
...
...
$0
($175,610)
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
225
Traffic Signal
FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL
TF263 Traffic Signal Interconnect
TF279 Install Internally Illuminated Street Name Signs
TF295 Traffic Signal Detection Replacement Program
TF310 Emergency Preemption at Sixteen Intersections
TF328 Audible Pedestrian Signal Modifications
TF329 Traffic Management Center
TF333 Uninterruptible Power Supply Replacement
Cil
I TF348 Accessible Ped Signal Fac/Upgrades
en
TF351 Traffic Signal Device Rplmct Program
TFNewO Traffic Signal & Streetlight Maintenance
Total Appropriated
FY 2008-09
ADDITIONAL
11IIIIIIII
....
IIIIiIIIIIi
IIBIIIII
IIBIIIII
IiIIBIIII
11IIIIIIII
11IIIIIIII
11IIIIIIII
11IIIIIIII
$0
($388,141)
FY 2008-09
PROPOSED
($239,469)
($21,753)
($80,580)
($68,419)
($187,249)
($55,500)
($52,344)
$187,249
($27,797)
$157,721
($388,141)
FY 2009-10
PROPOSED
TOTAL
PROPOSED
...
~...
~
-- ...
....
~....-
-
-- ...
-- ...
-- .....
$0
($388,141)
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
227
Transportation Sales Tax
FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL
FY 2008-09
ADDITIONAL
OP202 CIP Advanced Planning
STL238 Pavement Rehabilitation - Future Allocations
STL280 Palomar Gateway
STL323 Pedestrian Master Plan
STL336 Sidewalk Safety Program
STL340 Pavement Rehabilitation FY 06 - 07 (revised)
STLNew Major Pavement Rehabilitation - FY 2008-09
fSTLNew Minor Pavement Rehabilitation - FY 2008-09
.....
STLNew Sidewalk Installation - FY 2008-09
STLNew Major Pavement Rehabilitation - Future Years
STLNew Minor Pavement Rehabilitation - Future Years
STM354 North Broadway Reconstruction
STM361 1-5 Multi-Modal Corridor Imp. Study
STM362 1-5/H Street Interchange Improvements
TF321 Citywide Traffic Count Program
TF325 Transportation Planning Program
TF332 Signing and Striping Program
TF344 1805 Direct Access Ramp, Hand E. Palomar
TF350 Traffic Signal Optimization
TF354 Traffic Congestion Relief Program
TF356 Olay Mesa Trans. System Improvements
IIlIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIII
-~
~
.....
--
--
.....
....
--
FY 2008-09
PROPOSED
$45,000
$341,231
$200,000
$61,000
($50,000)
($341,231)
$1,410,000
$600,000
$100,000
$540,000
$25,000
$50,000
$55,000
$50,000
$150,000
$75,000
$30,000
FY 2009-10
PROPOSED
TOTAL
PROPOSED
.... ---
---
.... ....
~
~
.... .....
IIIfIIIIII
--.....
~
-~
-~
.... .....
.... ....
....1IIIIIIl
.... ....
....
-..' ~.'.':
--
.... ....
.... IlIIIII1I
.... .....
.... IIIIIIIII
....
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
241
Parking Meter
261
California Library Services Act
TF359 SR 54 Corridor and Arterial Qps
TFNewo. Traffic Signal & Streetlight Maintenance
TFNewo. Urban Core Level of Service Study
TFNewo. Harborside Elementary Pedestrian Imps.
1IIIIIIII1IIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIII
Total Appropriated
$5,059,000
($462,005)
FY 20.0.8-0.9
ORIGINAL
FY 20.0.8-0.9
ADDITIONAL
IIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIII
OPNewo. Parking Meter Replacement Program
OPNewo. Parking District Improvements
w
I
co Total Appropriated
$0 $241,860
FY 20.0.8-0.9
ORIGINAL
FY 20.0.8-0.9
ADDITIONAL
LB137 Radio Frequency Identification Inventory Control System
LBNewo. Library Master Planning and Implementation
..... IIIIIIIIIII
.....
Total Appropriated
$102,644
$30,000
..... 1IIIIIIII' m. ~..'
. .. '..
* im1
.... 1IIIIIIII
....
....
$195,000
$50,000
$85,000
$4,596,995
$4,517,000
$9,113,995
FY 20.0.8-0.9
PROPOSED
FY 20.0.9-10.
PROPOSED
TOTAL
PROPOSED
$107,860
.... --
.... 1IIIIIIII
$134,000
$241,860
$0 $241,860
FY 20.0.8-0.9
PROPOSED
FY 20.0.9-10.
PROPOSED
TOTAL
PROPOSED
($97,356)
$200,000
....
.... 1IIIIIIII
$0
$102,644
$102,644
$205,288
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
268
State Recreation Grants
FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL
PR297 Eucalyptus Basketball Court
PR299 Greg Rogers Park Restroom
Total Appropriated
$0
FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL
<.o:l
cbSTL313 CDBG Street & Drainage Improvements
STL902 ADA Curb Cuts Annual Allocation
STLNew ADA Curb Ramps - FY 2008-09
Total Appropriated
$250,000
FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL
OP206 General Services Automation -Auto Cad Upgrade
OP208 CIP Mgmt and Equip Purchase
Total Appropriated
FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 TOTAL
ADDITIONAL PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED
--
--
($140,000)
$40,874
----
--...
33310
COBG CIP
($180,874)
($140,000)
$0
($140,000)
FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10
ADDITIONAL PROPOSED PROPOSED
TOTAL
PROPOSED
$95,423
FY 2008-09
ADDITIONAL
--
--
$0
($50,304)
--
----
--
412
Special Sewer
($4 577)
--
-- ...
--...
$350,000
$345,423
$250,000
$595,423
FY 2008-09
PROPOSED
FY 2009-10
PROPOSED
TOTAL
PROPOSED
($10,304)
--...
-~.~'."'~".
-~
($40,000)
($50,304)
$0
($50,304)
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
413
Trunk Sewer
FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL
FY 2008-09
ADDITIONAL
FY 2008-09
PROPOSED
FY 2009-10
PROPOSED
TOTAL
PROPOSED
SW205 Metro System Upgrade - Consultant Services
SW243 Telegraph Cyn Trunk Sewer Imp., Bay Blvd & J 51.
SWNewO Sewer Capacity Analysis
....
....
....
($11,989)
-- ...
-- ....
-- ....
($304,231)
$250,000
414
Sewer Service Revenue
Total Appropriated
$0
($66,220) ($66,220) $0 ($66,220)
w
I
~
FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL
FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 TOTAL
ADDITIONAL PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED
o
OP202 CIP Advanced Planning
....
$15,000
-- ....
Total Appropriated
$0
$15,000
$15,000
$0
$15,000
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
428
Sewer Facility Replacement
FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL
FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 TOTAL
ADDITIONAL PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED
$50,000
__1IIIIIiI
-- ....
___'ltillii
~~
-- ....
-- .....
--
DR120 Drainage Basin elo Second
SW247 Sewer Replacement @ Freeway Crossings
SW999 Sewer Rehabilitation - Annual Allocation
SWNewO Sewer Rehabilitation - FY 2008-09
SWNewO Robinhood Ranch II Pump Station Improvements
SWNewO North 5th Street Sewer Replacement
--
--
----
--
--
-
~
($145048)
($299,927)
$1,845,000
$580,000
w
I
582
Recreation Facilities DIF
Total Appropriated
$300,000
$1,730,025
$2,030,025
$300,000
$2,330,025
FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL
FY 2008-09
ADDITIONAL
FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10
PROPOSED PROPOSED
TOTAL
PROPOSED
PR270 Montevalle Recreation Center
--
($68,328)
-- ....
Total Appropriated
$0
($68,328)
($68,328)
$0
($68,328)
591
Transportation D1F
FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL
FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10
ADDITIONAL PROPOSED PROPOSED
TOTAL
PROPOSED
($124,682)
$125,000
-.IIIIIIII
-.~~..
--
-.IIIIIIII
-,IIIIIIII
STM363 OLR & East H Street Ped Study
TF325 Transportation Planning Program
TF329 Traffic Management Center
TFNewO TDIF Update
....
....
....
....
($38,907)
$50,000
593
Western TDlF
Total Appropriated
$0
$11,411 $11,411 $0 $11,411
'"
FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL
FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 TOTAL
ADDITIONAL PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED
STLNew Urban Core Bicycle and Pedestrian Access
TFNewO Western TDIF Update
....
....
$60,000
-. IIIIIIII
-. ....
$125,000
65140
Merged District
Total Appropriated
$0
$185,000
$185,000
$0
$185,000
FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL
FY 2008-09
ADDITIONAL
FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10
PROPOSED PROPOSED
TOTAL
PROPOSED
OPNewO Parking Meter Replacement Pro9ram
.... ....
$133,500
-. IIIIIIII
Total Appropriated
$0
$133,500
$133,500
$0
$133,500
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
714
erp with Fiscal Agent
DR120
DR133
DR160
DR165
PR249
PR284
PS149
c.:>
I
~
FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL
FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 TOTAL
ADDITIONAL PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED
Drainage Basin ela Second
Drainage Improvements - Emerson Street
F Street Drainage Facilities
04/05 CMP Rehab/Replacement - Phase 2
Harborside Park at Oxford
IIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIII
$42,356
$8,144
$39,609
($60)
($5,081)
($83,204)
($1,764)
-- .....
--
--
--
--
--
--
$0
$0
$0
Otay Park Improvements
Police Facility Master Plan/Expansion
715
Park Acquisition and Development
c.:>
Total Appropriated
$0 $0
FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL
FY 2008-09
ADDITIONAL
IIIIIIIII
PR250 Montevalle (Rolling Hills) Community Park
$0
($52,542)
Total Appropriated
FY 2008-09
PROPOSED
($52,542)
($52,542)
FY 2009-10
PROPOSED
--
TOTAL
PROPOSED
$0
($52,542)
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
717
Residential Construction Tax
FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL
FY 2008-09
ADDITIONAL
DR133 Drainage Improvements - Emerson Street
PR212 Outdoor Sports Courts Renovation
PR297 Eucalyptus Basketball Court
PR300 Replace Exercise @ Bonita Long Canyon
TF999 Street Light Installation - Various Streets
....
.... ....
....
....
.... ....
Total Appropriated
$185,000
($228,738)
FY 2008-09
PROPOSED
($6,558)
($37,180)
($43,738)
FY 2009-10
PROPOSED
TOTAL
PROPOSED
..... ~
-~....
~~
..... IIIIIlIJ
.....
..... ~
$240,000
$196,262
723
_ TDA/Bicycle Facilities
FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL
FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 TOTAL
ADDITIONAL PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED
STL324 Sidewalk Safety Program FY 07
STL999 Sidewalk Safety Program-Future Allocation
STLNew Bicycle Master Plan Update
STLNew Sidewalk Installation - FY 2008-09
.... ....
.... ....
....
....
Total Appropriated
$100,000
$50,000
($100,000)
$150,000
$100,000
$150,000
..... ~
..... ~
.....
..... IIIIlIII
$100,000
$250,000
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
736
Federal Trans Grant Fund
FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL
FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 TOTAL
ADDITIONAL PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED
STL280 Palomar Gateway
STM354 North Broadway Reconstruction
TFNewO Harborside Elementary Pedestrian Imps.
.... ....
....--
....
$2,000,000
...IIIIIIII
...IIIIIIII
... ....
$2,178,000
Total Appropriated
$0
$4,668,000 $4,668,000 $0 $4,668,000
$490,000
737
Trans Equity Act - 21 Fund
w
I
~
FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL
FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 TOTAL
ADDITIONAL PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED
(J'1
STLNew Urban Core Bicycle and Pedestrian Access
....
Total Appropriated
$0
$240,000
$240,000
... ....
$240,000
$0
$240,000
739
Proposition 42 Funds
FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL
FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 TOTAL
ADDITIONAL PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED
STL238 Pavement Rehabilitation - Future Allocations
STL286 Sidewalk Improvement - Otay Lakes Road
STLNew Minor Pavement Rehabilitation - FY 2008-09
STLNew Minor Pavement Rehabilitation - Future Years
--....
.... ....
.... ....
.... ....
Total Appropriated
$1,000,000
$7,236,644
$5,498,331
TOTAL
($21,000)
...
... ....
... ....
... ....
$1,021,000
$0
$1,000,000
$6,509,644
$2,000,000
$19,244,619
$1,000,000
$12,734,975
Attachment 2
Draft
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
FY 2009-10 TOTAL
PROPOSED PROPOSED
--
-
-
-
FY 2008-09
PROPOSED
FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL ADDITIONAL
-
-
-
($102,692)
Drainage Basin elo Second
DR120
($651)
Drainage Improvements - Emerson Street
DR133
$39,609
F Street Drainage Facilities
DR160
($60)
04/05 CMP Rehab/Replacement - Phase 2
DR165
w
I
~
($63,794)
$0
($63,794)
($63,794)
$0
Total Appropriated
a>
Library
TOTAL
PROPOSED
FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10
PROPOSED PROPOSED
-
-
FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL ADDITIONAL
--
-
($97,356)
Radio Frequency Identification Inventory Control System
LB137
$200,000
Library Master Planning and Implementation
LBNew01
$205,288
$102,644
$102,644
$0
$102,644
Total Appropriated
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL ADDITIONAL
--
--
-
-
-
-
-
--
--
-
--
--
--
--
--
STL201
Block Act-Planning
STL238
Pavement Rehabilitation - Future Allocations
STL280
Palomar Gateway
STL286
Sidewalk Improvement - Otay Lakes Road
STL313
w
2..STL323
-..J
CDBG Street & Drainage Improvements
Pedestrian Master Plan
STL324
Sidewalk Safety Program FY 07
STL326
Cross Gutter Replacement - Various Locations
STL336
Sidewalk Safety Program
STL340
Pavement Rehabilitation FY 06 - 07 (revised)
STL902
ADA Curb Cuts Annual Allocation
STL999
Sidewalk Safety Program-Future Allocation
STLNew01
Bicycle Master Plan Update
STLNew02
Major Pavement Rehabilitation - FY 2008-09
STLNew03
Minor Pavement Rehabilitation - FY 2008-09
FY 2008-09
PROPOSED
$341,231
$2,200,000
($84,582)
($4,577)
$61,000
($100,000)
($40,960)
($50,000)
($341,231)
$150000
$1410,000
$1,621,000
TOTAL
PROPOSED
FY 2009-10
PROPOSED
-
-
--
-
-
-
_'_"-ilfu'
. .. .' '''-
'4
--
-
-
--,
--
--
--
--
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
--
--
-
--
-
STLNew04
Sidewalk Installation - FY 2008-09
STLNew05
ADA Curb Ramps - FY 2008-09
STLNew06
Major Pavement Rehabilitation - Future Years
STLNew07
Minor Pavement Rehabilitation - Future Years
STLNew08
Urban Core Bicycle and Pedestrian Access
Totat Appropriated
$5,500,000
$511,881
$200,000
$350,000
$300,000
$6,011,881
--
--
--
--
--
$5,550,000
$11,561,881
Major Streets
FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL ADDITIONAL
--
--
-
-
c..>
I
~
CD
STM354
North Broadway Reconstruction
STM361
1-5 Multi-Modal Corridor Imp. Study
STM362
I-5tH Street Interchange Improvements
STM363
OLR & East H Street Ped Study
Totat Appropriated
$490,000
$3,085,088
FY 2008-09
PROPOSED
$3,073,995
$540,000
($38,907)
$3,575,088
FY 2009-10 TOTAL
PROPOSED PROPOSED
--
-
--
--
$0
$3,575,088
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL ADDITIONAL
--
--
-
-
-
OP202
CIP Advanced Planning
OP206
General Services Automation -Auto Cad Upgrade
OP208
CIP Mgmt and Equip Purchase
OPNew01
Parking Meter Replacement Program
OPNew02
w
I
~
Parking District Improvements
Total Appropriated
co
$54,000
$325,432
FY 2008-09
PROPOSED
$60,000
($15,928)
,
($40,000)
$241,360
$134,000
$379,432
FY 2009-10
PROPOSED
-
--
--
--
-
$47,000
TOTAL
PROPOSED
$426,432
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PR212
Outdoor Sports Courts Renovation
PR249
Harborside Park at Oxford
PR250
Montevalle (Rolling Hills) Community Park
PR270
Montevalle Recreation Center
PR284
c..>
~ PR297
o
Olay Park Improvements
Eucalyptus Basketball Court
PR299
Greg Rogers Park Restroom
Total Appropriated
FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL ADDITIONAL
--
--
--
-
--
--
--
$70,000
($456,335)
FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 TOTAL
PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED
--
-
--
-
-
-
--
($5,081)
($52,542)
($68,328)
($83,204)
$3,694
($180874)
($386,335)
$120,000
($266,335)
Public Safety
PS149
Police Facility Master PlanlExpansion
Total Appropriated
FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL ADDITIONAL
--
$0
($1,764)
FY 2008-09
PROPOSED
($1,764)
($1,764)
FY 2009-10 TOTAL
PROPOSED PROPOSED
--
$0
($1, 764}
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
SW205
Metro System Upgrade - Consultant Services
FY 2008-09
ADDITIONAL
-
--
-
--
-
-
--
--
FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL
SW243
Telegraph Cyn Trunk Sewer Imp., Bay Blvd & J SI.
SW247
Sewer Replacement @ Freeway Crossings
SW999
Sewer Rehabilitation - Annual Allocation
SWNew01
(,)
I
"" SWNew02
...
Sewer Rehabilitation - FY 2008-09
Robinhood Ranch II Pump Station Improvements
SWNew03
North 5th Street Sewer Replacement
SWNew04
Sewer Capacity Analysis
Total Appropriated
$300,000
$1,808,853
FY 2008-09
PROPOSED
($11,989)
($304,231)
($299,927)
$1,845,000
$50,000
$580,000
$250,000
$2,108,853
FY 2009-10 TOTAL
PROPOSED PROPOSED
--
--
--
-
-
--
--
--
$300,000
$2,408,853
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL ADDITIONAL
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
--
-
--
--
--
--
-
TF263
Traffic Signal Interconnect
TF279
. Install Internally Illuminated Street Name Signs
TF295
Traffic Signal Detection Replacement Program
TF310
Emergency Preemption at Sixteen Intersections
TF321
w
~ TF325
N
Citywide Traffic Count Program
Transportation Planning Program
TF328
Audible Pedestri,m Signal Modifications
TF329
Traffic Management Center
TF332
Signing and Striping Program
TF333
Uninterruptible Power Supply Replacement
TF338
Replace City Street Signs (Non-Illuminated)
TF344
I 805 Direct Access Ramp, Hand E. Palomar
TF348
Accessible Ped Signal Fac/Upgrades
TF350
Traffic Signal Optimization
TF351
Traffic Signal Device Rplmct Program
FY 2008-09
PROPOSED
($239,469)
($59,960)
($80,580)
($68,419)
$100,000
($187,249)
($180,182)
$55,000
($52,344)
$50,000
$187,249
$150,000
($27,797)
FY 2009-10 TOTAL
PROPOSED PROPOSED
--
--
-
-
-
-
--
--
-
-
-
--
--
--
-
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
-. .. .. ~.'~.!!~
~
--
--
--
-
-
-
-
--
--
--
--
--
-
-
-
-
--
$75,000
Traffic Congestion Relief Program
TF3S4
$30,000
Otay Mesa Trans. System Improvements
TF356
$30,000
SR 54 Corridor and Arterial Ops
TF359
Street Light Installation - Various Streets
TF999
$352,721
Traffic Signal & Streetlight Maintenance
TFNew01
$50,000
Urban Core Level of Service Study
TFNew02
$575,000
Harborside Elementary Pedestrian Imps.
TFNew03
$125,000
w
I TFNew04
N
w
TFNew05
TDIF Update
$125,000
Western TDIF Update
$1,398,970
$390,000
$1,008,970
$288,970
$720,000
Total Appropriated
$19,244,619
$6,509,644
$12,734,975
$5,498,331
$7,236,644
TOTALS
-~.---'-_. ------._---",- ----..--.--
Draft
Attachment 3
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
-~ ----_._._-~-_._._--"~.._.__.--._---
Citywide
FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL
FY 2008-09
ADDITIONAL
LB137
Radio Frequency Identification Inventory Control System
-
-
-
-
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
LBNew01 Library Master Planning and Implementation
c.JJP202 CIP Advanced Planning
I
....,
-I>OP206 General Services Automation -Auto Cad Upgrade
OP208 CIP Mgmt and Equip Purchase
PR212 Outdoor Sports Courts Renovation
STL238 Pavement Rehabilitation - Future Allocations
STL323 Pedestrian Master Plan
STL336 Sidewalk Safety Program
STL340 Pavement Rehabilitation FY 06 - 07 (revised)
STL902 ADA Curb Cuts Annual Allocation
STL999 Sidewalk Safety Program-Future Allocation
FY 2008-09
PROPOSED
($97,356)
$200,000
$60,000
($15,928)
($40,000)
$341,231
$61,000
($50,000)
($341,231)
FY 2009-10
PROPOSED
TOTAL
ADOPTED
-
-"
, '
-
-
--
--
-
-
--
--
--
--
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
-----------...-------------. _..--
__.______,__ ...._._____. .~_________ ____"_,_____u_____
FUNDING SUMMARY BY PROJECT LOCATION
_. .'. _. .c~.:ilJ...1f.lll.~~.
~
_ . ~.....llll...~iW4iJ
----~
--
-
-
--
-
-
-
$150,000
STLNewO Bicycle Master Plan Update
.
$1,410,000
STLNewO Major Pavement Rehabilitation - FY 2008-09
?
$1,621,000
STLNewO Minor Pavement Rehabilitation - FY 2008-09
.
$200,000
STLNewO Sidewalk Installation - FY 2008-09
A
$350,000
STLNewO ADA Curb Ramps - FY 2008-09
~
-
-.....-.......
" ""
. - --
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-
STLNewO Major Pavement Rehabilitation - Future Years
~
c..>
I. STLNewO Minor Pavement Rehabilitation - Future Years
~
en
SW205 Metro System Upgrade - Consultant Services
-
--
--
--
-
-
--
--
--
-
($11,989)
($299,927)
SW247 Sewer Replacement @ Freeway Crossings
SW999 Sewer Rehabilitation - Annual Allocation
$1,845,000
SWNew01 Sewer Rehabilitation - FY 2008-09
$250,000
SWNew04 Sewer Capacity Analysis
($59,960)
Install Internally Illuminated Street Name Signs
TF279
($80,580)
Traffic Signal Detection Replacement Program
TF295
($68,419)
Emergency Preemption at Sixteen Intersections
TF310
Citywide Traffic Count Program
TF321
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
FUNDING SUMMARY BY PROJECT LOCATION
TF328 Audible Pedestrian Signal Modifications
--
--
--
--
--
TF329 Traffic Management Center
TF332 Signing and Striping Program
TF333 Uninterruptible Power Supply Replacement
TF338 Replace City Street Signs (Non-Illuminated)
TF344 I 805 Direct Access Ramp, Hand E. Palomar
w
I TF348 Accessible Ped Signal Fac/Upgrades
...,
a>
TF350 Traffic Signal Optimization
-
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
TF351 Traffic Signal Device Rplmct Program
TF354 Traffic Congestion Relief Program
TF356 Otay Mesa Trans. System Improvements
TF359 SR 54 Corridor and Arlerial Ops
TF999 Street Light Installation - Various Streets
TFNew01 Traffic Signal & Streetlight Maintenance
Tota/ Appropriated
$6,721,644
($816,405)
($187,249)
($180,182)
$55,000
($52.344)
$50,000
$187,249
$150,000
($27,797)
$75 000
$30,000
$30,000
$352,721
$5,905,239
--
--
-
-
-
-",
"
-
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
$6,509,644
$12,414,883
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL
FY 2008-09
ADDITIONAL
PR250 Montevalle (Rolling Hills) Community Park
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
--
PR270 Montevalle Recreation Center
PR299 Greg Rogers Park Restroom
cJiTL286 Sidewalk Improvement - Olay Lakes Road
I
N
-STM363 OLR & East H Street Ped Study
SWNew02 Robinhood Ranch 11 Pump Slation Improvements
TF263
Traffic Signal Interconnect
TF325
Transportation Planning Program
TFNew04 TDIF Update
Total Appropriated
$0
($389,702)
FY 2008-09
PROPOSED
($52,542)
($68,328)
($180,874)
($84,582)
I
($38,907)
$50,000
($239,469)
$100,000
$125,000
($389,702)
FY 2009-10
PROPOSED
TOTAL
ADOPTED
--
-
-
-
-
--
--
--
--
$0
($389,702)
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL
FY 2008-09
ADDITIONAL
FY 2008-09
PROPOSED
FY 2009-10
PROPOSED
TOTAL
ADOPTED
STL280 Palomar Gateway
$2,200,000
-
-
_ ~1iiIImr.
-----------~
PR284 Otay Park Improvements
--
-
--
--
($651)
DR133 Drainage Improvements - Emerson Street
($83,204)
",TFNew03 Harborside Elementary Pedestrian Imps.
I
""
(Xl Total Appropriated
$575,000
$0 $2,691,145
$2,691,145
$0 $2,691,145
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Western Chula Vista
FY 2008.09
ORIGINAL
FY 2008-09
ADDITIONAL
DR120 Drainage Basin e/o Second'
-
-
DR160 F Street Drainage Facilities
DR165 04/05 CMP Rehab/Replacement. Phase 2
OPNew01 Parking Meter Replacement Program
w
I
~PNew02 Parking District Improvements
-
-
-
--
-
--
-
--
--
--
PR249 Harborside Park at Oxford
PR297 Eucalyptus Basketball Court
PS149 Police Facility Master Plan/Expansion
STL201 Block Act.Planning
STL313 CDBG Street & Drainage Improvements
STL324 Sidewalk Safety Program FY 07
STL326 Cross Gutter Replacement. Various Locations
STLNewO Urban Core Bicycle and Pedestrian Access
.
FY 2008-09
PROPOSED
($102,692)
$39,609
($60)
$241,360
$134,000
($5,081)
$3,694
($1,764)
($4,577)
($100,000)
($40,960)
$300,000
FY 2009-10
PROPOSED
TOTAL
ADOPTED
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
--
--
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
-
--
--
-
-
-
-
STM354 North Broadway Reconstruction
STM361 1-5 Multi-Modal Corridor Imp. Study
STM362 1-5/H Street Interchange Improvements
SW243 Telegraph Cyn Trunk Sewer Imp., Bay Blvd & J SI.
SWNew03 North 5th Street Sewer Replacement
TFNew02 Urban Core Level of Service Study
w
I TFNew05 Western TDlF Update
w
Q
Total Appropriated
$515,000
TOTALS
$7,236,644
--.----------..-- -
$4,013,293
$5,498,331
$3,073,995
$540,000
($304,231 )
$580,000
$50,000
$125,000
$4,528,293
$12,734,975
_. .. ~.~.. .1!l9"."'.-. .
.~
-
--
-
-...-....
. ...... ,-,,--
-
-
$6,509,644
$0
$4,528,293
--------....--- ------------
$19,244,619
Draft
Attachment 4
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Summary By Location
FY 2008-09
Proposed
Funding
FY 2009-10
Proposed
Funding
Two Year Total
Proposed Funding
Citywide
$5,905,239
$6,509,644
$12,414,883
f Eastern Chula Vista
w
~
($389,702)
$0
($389,702)
MontQomerv
$2,691,145
$0
$2,691,145
Western Chula Vista
$4,528,293
$0
$4,528,293
Total For All Locations
$12.734.975
$6,509,644
$19,244,619
Draft Attachment 5
FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL ADDITIONAL
FY 2008-09
TOTAL
Eng. & General Services
DR120
DR133
DR160
DR165
~33
I
(.0)
QI(j 33
DR120
DR177
OP206
OP202
OP202
OP208
OP206
OP202
OP204
OP212
PR284
PR249
CIP with Fiscal Agent
$42 356
liliiiililiiii
liliiiililiiii
liliiiililiiii
liliiiililiiii
liliiiililiiii
liliiiililiiii
liliiiililiiii
liliiiililiiii
liliiiililiiii
liliiiililiiii
liliiiililiiii
liliiiililiiii
liliiii
Drainage Basin e/o Second
Drainage Improvements ~ Emerson Street
CIP With Fiscal Agent
$8,144
F Street Drainage Facilities
CIP With Fiscal Agent
$39 609
04/05 eM? Rehab/Replacement - Phase 2
CIP With Fiscal Agent
($60)
Drainage Improvements - Emerson Street
Gas Tax
($2237)
Drainage Improvements - Emerson Street
Residential Construction Tax
($6 558)
Drainage Basin elo Second
Sewer Facility Replacement
($145048)
Drainage Master Plan' Addendum
Unspecified
$250 000
General Services Automation -Auto Cad Upgrade
Gas Tax
($5624)
CIP Advanced Planning
Gas Tax
CIP Advanced Planning
Sewer Service Revenue
$15000
CIP Mgmt and Equip Purchase
Special Sewer
($40,000)
($10304)
General Services Automation .Auto Cad Upgrade
Special Sewer
$45 000
CIP Advanced Planning
Transportation Sales Tax
Purchase New Survey Equipment
Unspecified
........
........
........
........
($5,081)
$48,000
Infrastructure Master Plan
Unspecified
$1 000,000
Otay Park Improvements
CIP With Fiscal Agent
($83,204 )
Harborside Park. at Oxford
CIP With Fiscal Agent
FUNDED
Y/N
l;zj
1.'1
t.'I
1-'1
RJ
blJ
~
IJ
1.'1
&/1
~
t.'I
I'iJ
I-LI
II
I I
&11
[",I
PS149
PR250
PR270
PR299
STLNew05
STL902
STM354
STL201
STL286
STL326
W
Sl!s238
W
STLNew03
STLNew07
SW247
SWNew02
SWNew03
SW999
SWNew01
STL324
STLNew04
STLNew01
STL999
STM363
STL340
Police Facility Master Plan/Expansion
CIP With Fiscal Agent
Montevalle (Rolling Hills) Community Park
Park Acquisition and Development
Montevalle Recreation Center
Recreation Facilities DIF
Greg Rogers Park Restroom
State Recreation Grants
ADA Curb Ramps - FY 2008-09
CDBG CIP
ADA Curb Cuts Annual Allocation
CDBG CIP
North Broadway Reconstruction
Federal Trans Grant Fund
Block Act~Planning
Gas Tax
Sidewalk Improvement ~ Olay Lakes Road
Gas Tax
Cross Gutter Replacement - Various Locations
Gas Tax
Pavement Rehabilitation - Future Allocations
Proposition 42 Funds
Minor Pavement Rehabilitation - FY 2008-09
Proposition 42 Funds
Minor Pavement Rehabilitation - Future Years
Proposition 42 Funds
Sewer Replacement @ Freeway Crossings
Sewer Facility Replacement
Robinhood Ranch II Pump Station Improvements
Sewer Facility Replacement
North 5th Street Sewer Replacement
Sewer Facility Replacement
Sewer Rehabilitation - Annual Allocation
Sewer Facility Replacement
Sewer Rehabilitation - FY 2008-09
Sewer Facility Replacement
Sidewalk Safety Program FY 07
TDAJBicycle Facilities
Sidewalk Installation - FY 2008-09
TDAlBicycle Facilities
Bicycle Master Plan Update
TDAJBicycle Facilities
Sidewalk Safety Program-Future Allocation
TDAJBicycle Facilities
OLR & East H Street Ped Study
Transportation DIF
Pavement Rehabilitation FY 06 - 07 (revised)
Transportation Sales Tax
FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL ADDITIONAL
FY 2008-09
TOTAL
($1,764)
..........
..........
.....
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
.....
.....
.....
.....
..........
..........
.....
($52,542)
($68,328)
($180,874)
$350,000
$2 178,000
($63,582)
($40,960)
$1 021,000
($299 927)
$50,000
$580,000
$1 845000
(5100000)
$100.000
$150000
($38 907)
($341,231)
FUNDED
Y/N
1,..1
1"'1
[,.il
1.,,1
I~
!ifl
~I
~
~
~
I~
~I
~
~
Ii'I
[,./'1
[itl
blI
~
~I
Ii'I
1-21
1"1
[",I
STLNew07
STL238
STL280
STL323
STL336
STM362
STLNew04
STLNew02
STM361
STM354
W
STLNew06
W
.j>o
STLNew03
SW205
SW243
SWNew04
TFNew03
TF321
TF279
TF999
TF338
TF999
TF263
TF351
TFNew01
Minor Pavement Rehabilitation - Future Years
Transportation Sales Tax
Pavement Rehabilitation - Future Allocations
Transportation Sales Tax
Palomar Gateway
Transportation Sales Tax
Pedestrian Master Plan
Transportation Sales Tax
Sidewalk Safety Program
Transportation Sales Tax
I-5tH Street Interchange Improvements
Transportation Sales Tax
Sidewalk Installation - FY 2008-09
Transportation Sales Tax
Major Pavement Rehabilitation - FY 2008-09
Transportation Sales Tax
1-5 Multi-Modal Corridor Imp. Study
Transportation Sales Tax
North Broadway Reconstruction
Transportation Sales Tax
Major Pavement Rehabilitation - Future Vears
Transportation Sales Tax
Minor Pavement Rehabilitation ~ FY 2008-09
Transportation Sales Tax
Metro System Upgrade - Consultant Services
Trunk Sewer
Telegraph eyn Trunk Sewer Imp., Bay Blvd & J St.
Trunk Sewer
Sewer Capacity Analysis
Trunk Sewer
Harborside Elementary Pedestrian Imps.
Federal Trans Grant Fund
Citywide Traffic Count Program
Gas Tax
Install Internally Illuminated Street Name Signs
Gas Tax
Street Light Installation - Various Streets
Gas Tax
Replace City Street Signs (Non-Illuminated)
Gas Tax
Street Light Installation ~ Various Streets
Residential Construction Tax
Traffic Signal Interconnect
Traffic Signal
Traffic Signal Device Rplmct Program
Traffic Signal
Traffic Signal & Streetlight Maintenance
T raffle Signal
FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL ADDITIONAL
....
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
........
....
....
........
........
........
....
FY 2008-09
TOTAL
$341,231
5200,000
$61,000
($50,000)
5540,000
$100,000
$1,410,000
$895,995
$600 000
($11,989)
($304,231 )
5250,000
5490,000
($25 000)
($38,207)
($239,469)
($27,797)
$157,721
FUNDED
Y/N
1,11
litl
1"'1
1'-'1
~J
1>'1
~l
[,tJ
[,tJ
[,tJ
[,tJ
[,tJ
[,tJ
[,tJ
[,tJ
&/1
~
~I
~
[,tJ
[,tJ
~
[,tJ
~I
TF295
TF310
TF328
TF329
TF333
TF348
TF279
TF329
TFNew04
TF354
c.:>
T~356
c.:>
01
TF359
TFNew01
TF350
TFNew02
TFNew03
TF344
TF332
TF325
TF321
TF352
TFNew05
Traffic Signal Detection Replacement Program
Emergency Preemption at Sixteen Intersections
Audible Pedestrian Signal Modifications
Traffic Management Center
Uninterruptible Power Supply Replacement
Accessible Ped Signal FaclUpgrades
Install Internally Illuminated Street Name Signs
Traffic Management Center
TDIF Update
Traffic Congestion Relief Program
Otay Mesa Trans. System Improvements
SR 54 Corridor and Arterial Ops
Traffic Signal & Streetlight Maintenance
Traffic Signal Optimization
Urban Core Level of Service Study
Harborside Elementary Pedestrian Imps.
I 805 Direct Access Ramp, Hand E. Palomar
Signing and Striping Program
Transportation Planning Program
Citywide Traffic Count Program
Street Light Maintenance Program
Western TOIF Update
Eng. & General Services Submission Total
Traffic Signal
Traffic Signal
Traffic Signal
Traffic Signal
Traffic Signal
Traffic Signal
Traffic Signal
Transportation OIF
Transportation OIF
Transportation Sales Tax
Transportation Sales Tax
Transportation Sales Tax
Transportation Sales Tax
Transportation Sales Tax
Transportation Sales Tax
Transportation Sales Tax
Transportation Sales Tax
Transportation Sales Tax
Transportation Sales Tax
Transportation Sales Tax
Unspecified
Western TOIF
$11,306,854
FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL ADDITIONAL TOTAL
--
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
--
--
--
----
----
($80,580)
($68,419)
($187,249)
($55,500)
($52,344)
$187,249
($21,753)
($124,682)
$125,000
$75,000
$30 000
$30 000
5195 000
$ 150,000
$50,000
$85 000
$50,000
$55,000
$50,000
$25 000
$80,000
$125,000
FUNDED
YIN
1",,1
I,tJ
l;il
l;il
~
1\11
1.tI
~
[,;<1
['II
[,,-j
1\11
~
~
r,,-j
~
~J
~
~J
1.tI
l '
-,
I",J
Fire
PSNew02
PSNew01
PS163
Fire Station NO.5 Maintenance
Fire Station No.5 Replacement
Fire Station NO.1 Replacement
FireSubmission Total
Housing and Redevelopment
STL313
CDBG Street & Drainage Improvements
Housing and RedevelopmentSubmission Total
Its
1'.."
en
GG1B3
Library
LBNew01
LB137
LBNew02
GIS _ OrthophotographylTopography Project
ITS Submission Total
Library Master Planning and Implementation
Radio Frequency Identification Inventory Control System
Civic Center Library Rehab/Renovations
LibrarySubmission Total
Nature Center
STL339
NIC Access Road and Water Line
Nature Center Submission Total
Unspecified
Unspecified
Unspecified
CDBG CIP
Unspecified
$32,904,212
($4,577)
$35,000
California Library Services Act
Unspecified
California Library Services Act
Unspecified
$16,510,444
$460,660
FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09 FUNDED
ORIGINAL ADDITIONAL TOTAL Y/N
.......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
$40,000
$10,314,212
$22,550,000
($4,577)
$35,000
$200 000
($97,356)
$16,407,800
$460,660
U
I-I
IJ
~I
[I
~
~I
[J
[J
Planning and Building
STLNew08
STLNew08
Urban COfe Bicycle and Pedestrian Access
Urban Core Bicycle and Pedestrian Access
Planning and Building Submission Total
Public Works
PR297
PR297
PRNew01
PR300
W
p~ewo2
-.l
Eucalyptus Basketball Court
Eucalyptus Basketball Court
Weather Station Installations @ Various Locations
Replace Exercise @ Bonita Long Canyon
Greg Rogers Park Irrigation
Public Works Submission Total
Public Works Operations
DR174
OP211
PR212
PR305
PR303
PR306
STL338
Drainage Fae Env. Study and Permits
Automatic Vehicle Locators
Outdoor Sports Courts Renovation
New Jogging Trail Bridge - Bonita and OLR
Menzel Ball Field Stairs
Slope Reconstruction at Rienstra Park
Bus Stop @ East H and Hidden Vista
Public Works Operations Submission Total
Western TDIF
Trans Equity Act - 21 Fund
$300,000
State Recreation Grants
Residential Construction Tax
Unspecified
Unspecified
Unspecified
Unspecified
Unspecified
$858,123
Unspecified
Residential Construction Tax
Unspecified
Unspecified
Unspecified
$1,306,140
FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL ADDITIONAL TOTAL
--~
----
--....
----
----
----
----
--.....
--.--
----
----
----
S240,000
S60,000
(S37,180)
$40,874
$37,164
$17,265
S800 000
S151,000
$35,640
S217800
S406,000
S300,000
S195,700
FUNDED
Y/N
l-ll
[,.I'J
1"'1
[;(1
[I
L1
o
[J
[]
[,.i]
Ll
[J
o
II
Recreation
OP209
SDG@E Substation Beautification
Unspecified
PRNew03
Aquatics Equipment Energy Efficiency
Unspecified
PR278
Norman Park Center Renovations
Unspecified
PR298
SOG&E Corridor Park Development
Unspecified
Recreation Submission Total
Redevelopment and Housing
OPNew01
Parking Meter Replacement Program
Merged District
Parking Meter Replacement Program
Parking Meter
OPNew01
W
*ew02
0:>
Redevelopment and HousingSubmission Total
Parking Meter Funds
Parking District Improvements
-_._.~.__.__.__.-- --.-.------.---.---
--------~---_.-.
Total Departmental Submittals
$1,781,400
$375,360
$65,833,616
-- .~-,---_..--_.-.._---_._-----~--_. ----
-- ..---..-------.--..-.--..------. ------ .----.-----.
FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09
ORIGINAL ADDITIONAL TOTAL
..........
.....--
----
----
----
----
----
$105.000
$156.400
$150.000
$1.370.000
$133.500
$107.860
$134.000
FUNDED
Y/N
[I
o
LI
o
~
[.zJ
~
____,..__..____n__._.. __.___________.___.._ __n.__._..__
.____u_____. _______u_ ______u____._u__~_
- ----------------------------------------
#frVbCJuf-
~Vt..
: ...~ :
""~~~
.............."'"~
CIlY OF
CHUlA VISfA
RETIREE HEALTHCARE PLAN
June 30, 2007 GASB 45 Actuarial Valuation
~_n
~
Preliminary Results
JOHN E. BARTEL
B4' RTEL
/ "OCl;\l F, II C
May 1, 2008
Agenda
IQpic Page
What Is GASB 45? 1
Definition of Terms 2
Benefit Summary 3
Participant Statistics 4
Actuarial Methods & Assumptions 5
Valuation Results 6
Projections 7
Early Retirement Window Study 9
o:lcIiCllI.\cH\'ufchulo"j"a\npcb\6_30..u7\rcport,\b.('S..u5-o1oityofcllulavi,l"2007-.(lSopeb"'mm"ynulhn.cforcOll11cil=till~_duc
I ~MaYI'2008
,
,
In
-
What is GASB 45?
. OPEB: (Other than pension Post Employment Benefits)
. Historically accounted for as Pay-As-You-Go:
· Generally ignored until employees stop rendering service
. Pay $1 / Account for $1
. GASB Statement No. 45, Issued June 2004:
· Requires agencies recognize their OPEB cost over the active
service life of their employees rather than on a pay-as-you-go basis
. Effective date:
. Based on GASB 34 Phase in
. City will be Phase I
· Mandatory implementation for 2007/08 Fiscal Year
~{~
..
=a
OlUAVISrA
Definition of Terms
. Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL):
· Liability for benefits "earned" for past service using actuarial
assumptions
. Normal Cost (NC):
· Value of benefits "earned" during the current year
. Annual Required Contribution (ARC):
. Normal Cost, plus
· Amortization of unfunded AAL
. Net OPEB Obligation (NOO):
· Historical difference between ARC and actual contribution
. PayGo:
· Cash payments for retiree benefits; no pre-funding
~ May I, 2008
2
~l~
7~
=a
CHUAVISrA
Benefit Summary
Eligibility
. Service or disability retire directly from the City
. Age 50 & 5 years service under CalPERS
Benefit
. Continued participation in the City's medical plans
. Retiree pays 100% of premium
Surviving
Spouse
. Based on retirement plan election
. Same benefit continues to surviving spouse
Implied
Subsidy
. Participating retirees paying active rates vs. actual cost
. Implied subsidy valued until age 65
(ij4) May 1, 2008
3
Participant Statistics
June 30, 2007
Miscellaneous Safety Total
. Actives:
. Count 851 359 1,210
. Average age 44.0 37,9 42,2
. Average service 8,6 9.4 8,9
. Average salary $64,763 $75,293 $67,887
. Total salary (OOO's) $55,114 $27,030 $82,144
. Retirees:
. Count 98 46 144
. Average age 64.3 60.7 63.1
. Average retirement age 58.5 51.3 56.2
(ij4) May I, 2008
4
L_
~f~
iWf
~a
CH..OA"'"
~f~
~5TA I
CH..OA~
Actuarial Methods & Assumptions
Valuation Date June 30, 2007
Fundinl! Method Entry Age Normal
VAAL Amortization 30 Years as Level Percent ofPavroll
Discount Rate . 4.50% No pre-funding, assets in Investment Fund
. 7.75% Pre-funded through CalPERS
Inflation 3.00%
Pavroll Increases 3.25%
Healthcare Trend Year HMO (non-Med/Med) PPO (non-Med/Med)
2008 Actual premiums Actual premiums
2009 9.7% 10.1 % 10.5% 10.9%
, , , , ,
2017+ 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5%
Retirement Age CaIPERS: Misc 3%@60 Average = 60 (M), 59 (F)
Police 3%@50 Average = 55
Fire 3%@,50 Average = 55
Termination, Mortality CalPERS
I ~..,~,
5
Valuation Results
(Amounts in $OOO's)
Continue
PayGo
4.50%
$ 17,973
.6/30/2007 Present Value of Benefits
. 6/30/2007 Funded Status
. AAL
. Assets
. VAAL
.2007/08 ARC
. Normal Cost
. VAAL Amortization
. ARC
. ARC as % of Payroll
. Projected 2007/08 Payroll
8,586
8,586
795
354
1,149
1.4%
$ 82,144
d}V May 1, 2008
6
.s.'~
-
=~
OUAVlSTA
Full
Pre-Funding
7.75%
$ 10,843
6,537
6,537
490
407
897
1.1%
$ 82,144
I
___J
~'ft..
Mj
=~
OUAVlSTA
Projections
Pay-As-You-Go Illustration
4.5% Discount Rate, 30- Year Amortization
(Amounts iu $000'0)
Beginning of Year Annnal Benefit
Fiscal Net OPEB Benefit OPEB Cost Payout as %
Year Obligation Payout (AOC) Payroll of Payroll
2007/08 $ $ 367 $ 1,149 $ 82,144 0.4%
2008/09 782 355 1,222 84,814 0.4%
2009/1 0 1,649 395 1,299 87,570 0.5%
2010/11 2,553 440 1,380 90,416 0.5%
2011112 3,493 492 1,463 93,355 0.5%
2012/13 4,464 547 1,549 96,389 0.6%
2013/14 5,466 593 1,638 99,521 0.6%
2014/15 6,512 671 1,731 102,756 0.7%
2015/16 7,572 760 1,825 106,095 0.7%
2016/17 8,637 842 1,921 109,543 0.8%
(ij4) May 1. 2008
7
~,~
-
=a
QUAVISlA
Projections
Full Pre-Funding Illustration
7.75% Discount Rate, 30-Year Amortization
(Amounts in $000'0)
Fiscal
Year
2007/08
2008/09
2009/1 0
2010/11
2011/12
Beginning of Year Annual Contribution
Net OPEB OPEB Cost as % of
Oblil(ation Contribution (AOC) Payroll Payroll
$ $ 897 $ 897 $ 82,144 1.1%
927 927 84,814 l.l%
957 957 87,570 l.l%
988 988 90,416 l.l%
1,020 1,020 93,355 1.1%
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
1,053 1,053 96,389 l.l%
1,087 1,087 99,521 1.1%
1,123 1,123 102,756 1.1%
1,159 1,159 106,095 1.1%
1,197 1,197 109,543 1.1%
I ffiA)
, . ::)4. May 1, 2008
L_
~."M\/?-. J
=a
QUAVISlA
8
Early Retirement Window Study
Eligibility . Offered to all City departmentslbargaining groups
. Must be eligible to retire (Age 50 & 5 years service under
CaIPERS)
. 90 Day opt-in window
Benefit . DOR < 1/1/08 - City pays single premium through 12/31/09
. 1/1/08::: DOR < 1/1/09 - City pays single premium through
12/31/08
Assumed . 10% in 2007 & 5% in 2008
Additional . Assumes ""57 elect window
Retirements
~MaYl'2008
9
~I~
-
=a
OUAVlSTA
Early Retirement Window Study
4.5% Discount Rate, 30-Year Amortization
(Amounts in $OOO's)
After
ERW
$ 19,919
.6/30/2007 Present Value of Benefits
. 6/30/2007 Funded Status
. AAL
. Assets
. VAAL
.2007/08 ARC
. Normal Cost
. VAAL Amortization
. ARC
. ARC as % of Payroll
. Projected 2007/08 Payroll
~MaYl'2008
10
9,608
9,608
967
396
1,363
1.7%
$ 82,144
Increase
$ 1,946
1,022
1,022
172
42
214
0.3%
~f~
~
=a
CHUAVlSTA