The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009-10-21; City Council; MinutesCITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP SPECIAL MEETING Faraday Administration Offices 1635 Faraday Avenue Room 173-A Carlsbad, CA 92008 Wednesday, October 21, 2009 11 a.m. to conclusion of business at approximately 1 p.m. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 11:00 a.m. by Mayor Pro Tern Kulchin. ROLL CALL: Present: Kulchin, Hall, Blackburn. Packard arrived at 11:10 a.m. Absent: Lewis 1. There was no discussion on item No. 1. Council discussion on Council Member reports on regional roles and assignments, as necessary, including: Blackburn Buena Vista Lagoon JPC Chamber of Commerce Liaison City/School Committee Encina Joint Powers (JAC) Encina Wastewater Authority North County Dispatch Joint Powers Authority (alternate) Packard Buena Vista Lagoon JPC City/School Committee North County Transit District Board of Directors *North County Transit District Planning Committee League of California Cities - SD Division North County Dispatch Joint Powers Authority Hall Chamber of Commerce Liaison SANDAG Board of Directors SANDAG Executive Committee SANDAG Transportation Committee Kulchin CalCoast Board of Directors Carlsbad ConVis (alternate) Encina Joint Powers (JAC) Encina Wastewater Authority (EWA) North County Transit District (alternate) *San Diego Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) SANDAG Board of Directors (2nd alternate) *SANDAG Shoreline Preservation Committee Lewis LAFCO Cities Advisory Committee North County Mayors and Managers SANDAG (1st alternate) San Diego County Water Authority Board of Directors Requests to Speak on a listed item: A total of 15 minutes is provided. Please submit a speaker card indicating the item you wish to address. Comments/speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. There were no Public Comment speakers. By consensus, Council determined to move Item No. 3 for consideration at this time. 3. Presentation and discussion by representatives of the Historic Preservation Commission regarding historic trees within the City. The staff report was presented by Suzanne Smithson, Deputy Library Director and Kyle Lancaster, Public Works Superintendent, using a PowerPoint presentation (on file in the City Clerk's Office). Ms. Smithson presented a brief history of Phase I of the Heritage Tree Report for the Historic Village District, which was previously reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission. Mr. Lancaster continued with the report explaining the criteria for the proposed heritage designation. In addition, he showed pictures of some of the heritage tree sites, both on City property and private property. He reported that forty-five, or approximately one-half, of the proposed heritage trees are on city-owned property, and that the remainder of the trees are located on private property. He noted that the intent of the recommendations is to promote the health of heritage trees that can live for many years prior to needing removal or replacement. Mr. Lancaster stated that the same recommendations are suggested to be provided to private site owners - as advisory only - for maintaining their heritage trees. Mr. Lancaster further explained the potential budgetary and staffing impacts of the recommendations in relation to the city-owned heritage tree candidates. The majority of the expense would be utilized for an annual inspection and reporting of heritage trees by a qualified certified arborist. In response to an inquiry from Council Member Packard, Mr. Lancaster stated that several city staff have certifications, but do not possess the higher levels of certification that consulting arborists possess. City Manager Hildabrand noted that staff is requesting that Council consider accepting the report at this time, but is not requesting allocation of funding. By consensus, Council accepted Phase 1 of the Carlsbad Heritage Tree Report for the Historic Village District. 2. Presentation and discussion of the Joint First Responders Training Facility project, including the Feasibility and Business Plan. The staff report was presented by Skip Hammann, Special Projects Director, Don Her of RRM Design Group, and Matt McCleary of Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc., with the aid of a PowerPoint Presentation (on file in the City Clerk's Office) and a copy of the site plan for the project. Matt McCleary reviewed the following feasibility study components: Verification of current training costs Identification of potential cost savings Verification of market demand Analysis of competition Quantification of potential revenues Mr. McCleary reported that much of the safety training is mandatory, and that approximately 20% of training funds are spent on travel related expenses. He shared operating cost comparisons for comparable government facilities, and presented an overview of options for operation of the proposed facility and estimated operating expenses. In response to Council inquiry, Ms. Hildabrand explained that the replacement costs for the facility would be provided through the Infrastructure Replacement Fund. At 11:55 a.m. the Mayor Pro-Tern called a brief recess for lunch and resumed the Council Workshop at 12:10 p.m. with four members present, and Mayor Lewis absent. In response to Council inquiry, Police Chief Zoll explained that travel costs are incurred because staff must travel to several locations for different types of training (pistol, rifle, tactical) as some venues limit the types of training that are available. Also in response to Council inquiry, Fire Chief Crawford stated that getting staff to other training locations is a challenge. He also explained that there are several types of training that are not currently available, such as trench rescue and live fire on multiple story levels. Don Her noted that the proposed training facility would include both commercial and residential burn props. The Council discussed the estimated operating expenses for each proposed option and concurred that any further discussion should be withheld until all Council Members were present. 4. Review, discussion, and direction to staff on processing Special Event Permits, including discussion of proposed process, procedures and policies. There was no discussion on Item No. 4. 5. Discussion of Council efficiency and effectiveness including impact of regional assignments with regard to contact with other Council members, decision and policymaking, serving the community and effective methods of feedback. There was no discussion on item No. 5. 6. City Manager review of goal and major project tracking report and update discussion of Council goal setting process and discussion of capacity and effectiveness in the delivery of City processes and services. City Manager Lisa Hildabrand reviewed the top priority list of strategic goals, (copy on file in the City Clerk's Office) noting that the completed projects on Pages 8-9 will be removed from the list. In response to Council inquiry regarding the Traffic Management Plan Implementation (Page 6), Deputy City Engineer Bob Johnson stated that staff is currently developing cost estimates for inclusion in the CIP for next year. Also in response to Council inquiry regarding the Agua Hedionda Channel Dredging and Improvement (Page 3), Public Works Director Glenn Pruim explained that the emergency dredging has been completed, but that staff is currently working to obtain necessary permits from all regional agencies for completion of the work on the west side of El Camino Real. 7. Discussion of feedback, communications or correspondence on issues for the good of the community, including directions to the City Manager or City Attorney, as appropriate, for the scheduling of items for future agendas, workshops or study sessions. There was no discussion on Item No. 7. Requests to Speak: Continuation of Requests to Speak (if necessary) None. ADJOURNMENT The Mayor Pro Tern adjourned the meeting at 12:50 p.m. KAREN^RJ^UJtlDT^CMC AssistanfCity Clerk October 19, 2009 TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: Deputy City Manager Library Director HERITAGE TREE REPORT At its October 21 Study Session, the Council will be introduced to the Heritage Tree Report for the Village area of Carlsbad. This represents the first phase of a heritage tree program that was undertaken as a result of Council direction in 2003 to approve the Community Forest Management Plan, including a section on heritage trees. An ordinance adopted in 2000 allows for "trees in the community which have significant historical or arboricultural interest" to be officially designated as heritage trees (Carlsbad Municipal Code §11.12.140). The first phase report was prepared by Arborist Mark Wisniewski under the direction of the Historic Preservation Commission, and was accepted by the Parks and Recreation Commission in 2007 in preparation for inclusion in the Community Forest Management Plan. The Heritage Tree Report represents significant effort to document the living history of Carlsbad represented in its historic trees. The Historic Preservation Commission has been dedicated to sharing this history with the community in fulfillment of one of its key roles: to promote and disseminate public information on historic sites and areas in Carlsbad. The hope is that tree owners and residents will have the opportunity to learn about the historic significance of these trees, their locations and best practices on caring for them. Because trees are living and changing, the report also preserves their history at the point when it was written, and is important documentation even after a tree is gone. Before the report is published, we would like to ensure that the Council is familiar with the purpose, development, and progress of the report toward public distribution; is comfortable with the content; and knows how it may be used. Staff will review these points at the Study Session. In case the Council would like background information in advance, attached are several documents that cover these points: -Heritage Tree Report Summary -Heritage Tree Study Area map -Press release for public review and comment period for Phase I -Agenda Bill, Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting, November 19, 2007 -Letter sent to property owners with heritage trees on their property -Memo evaluating impacts of the Heritage Tree Report Recommendations -Chart with impacts of implementing Heritage Tree Report Recommendations -Heritage Tree Report (Phase I with addendums) Staff is recommending that the Council accept the report so that it may be published and placed in Carlsbad City Library locations for community access, and shared with owners of property where historic trees are located. The Council may also direct staff to come back with additional actions for consideration at a future Council meeting. HEATHER PIZZUTO Attachments cc: Deputy Library Director Parks Superintendent Heritage Tree Report - Summary The City of Carlsbad's Historic Preservation Commission retained Arborist Mark Wisniewski to identify, inventory and map the most significant trees in the Village area of Carlsbad. This represents the first phase of a heritage tree program undertaken in conjunction with the City's 2002 Forest Management Plan. The attached map identifies the location of these trees. A second phase will identify significant trees in the remaining parts of Carlsbad. The Heritage Tree Report for the Historic Village District (Phase I) recommends 110 trees for designation as Heritage Trees. As defined by Carlsbad Municipal Code §11.12.020 (A)(4), "Heritage trees shall be trees with notable historic interest or trees of an unusual species or size." The trees proposed for this designation are candidates because of their species, rarity, size, age, shape, historic or cultural significance. An addendum to the report finds that since the original survey was completed in 2002, at least 20 trees at 18 sites have been removed or died. Others have declined in condition. In 2002, all but one of the trees was actively growing and only one showed signs of decline. The report also identifies trees that are rare or endangered in their native habitat. The report provides historical perspective on the trees of Carlsbad. Botanical descriptions and locations are included for each tree, with accompanying photos of many. Additional information such as media coverage of Carlsbad trees is also contained in the report. Fifteen recommendations are made to provide for the health, safety and longevity of Heritage Trees. Public Works staff has evaluated the impacts of these recommendations on its General Services Division, if the City Council were to adopt the report with the directive that compliance be mandatory for all city-owned trees as proposed by the Arborist. A number of recommendations can be implemented with no significant impact. Others present challenges in the form of fiscal impact, funding sources or feasibility. The attached report details the impacts of each recommendation and is followed by a summary chart. September 2007 Carlsbad Heritage Tree Study Area Legend |£~ J Heritage Tree Study Area Parcel Boundary Park Water XXX Railroad 800 400 800eet /cargis2/products/library/r87Q1/hentagetree-Cover.mxd City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 December 21, 2007 For Information, Contact: Denise Vedder Communications Manager, (760) 434-2957 PHASE I OF THE HERITAGE TREE REPORT AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW Carlsbad, CA - The City's public review and comment of the draft of Phase I of the Carlsbad Heritage Tree Report for the Historic Village District, and the corresponding Impacts Memorandum on addressing the reports recommendations, will be available from December 26, 2007 to January 26, 2008. An electronic copy will be posted online at www.carlsbad.Ga.gov/librarv/treesurvey.html. A hard copy will be placed at the following public counters during regular business hours: City Hall, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive; the Georgina Cole Library, 1250 Carlsbad Village Drive; and the Carlsbad City Library, 1775 Dove Lane. A city-wide survey to identify potential Heritage Trees within the Historic Village District has been undertaken by the Library Administration staff, on behalf of the Historic Preservation Commission. This survey resulted in the compilation of a draft Heritage Tree Report for incorporation into the Community Forest Management Plan (CFMP), which was originally adopted by the City Council in April 2003. Heritage Trees are defined by Carlsbad Municipal Code §11.12.020. as "...any tree existing within the city limits which has been so designated by resolution by the City Council. Heritage Trees shall be trees with notable historic interest or trees of an unusual species or size." The report includes trees within the public right-of-way (street trees) and public park sites, but also includes trees located on private property that can readily be viewed from a public street, alley or sidewalk. The intent of this report is to recommend specific trees for designation as heritage trees; to identify best practices for managing heritage trees; and to provide relevant information/guidance to private property owners regarding their heritage trees. The Historic Preservation Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission, have accepted this draft report and recommended that it be forwarded to the City Council for formal adoption. The item is expected to be placed on an agenda for a City Council Meeting in February (date to be determined). ii ii ii if if 11 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - AGENDA BILL AB# MTG. DATE: 11-19-07 STAFF: Lancaster TITLE: PHASE I OF THE CARLSBAD HERITAGE TREE REPORT. " 'NF° FOR THE HISTORIC VILLAGE DISTRICT ACTION RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept Phase I of the Carlsbad Heritage Tree Report for the Historic Village District, and request that it be forwarded to the City Council for adoption and incorporation into the Carlsbad Community Forest Management Plan - with the report's recommendations for City-owned Heritage Trees to be addressed as indicated in the corresponding Impacts Memorandum/Matrix from Public Works to the Library Director (Dated 9/12/07). ITEM EXPLANATION: Background The Carlsbad Community Forest Management Plan was adopted by the City Council in April 2003. Prior to the plan's adoption, it was reviewed and accepted by the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Community Forest Management Plan contains goals and policies that guide the city in its actions and decisions affecting public trees, predominantly those within the categories of the Street Tree Assessment Districts, Hosp Grove, or Heritage Designation. Any amendments or addendums to this plan are subject to the same acceptance/adoption process. According to Chapter 7 - 'Heritage Trees' - of the Community Forest Management Plan. "The City's Historic Preservation Commission is responsible for and provides oversight for the Heritage Tree Study". As a result of this charge, the Historic Preservation Commission - working through the Library Administration staff - previously retained Arborist Mark Wisniewski to identify, inventory and map the most significant trees in the Village area of Carlsbad. This work represents phase one of the heritage tree program undertaken by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Library Administration staff. Phase two of the report will identify significant trees in the remaining areas of Carlsbad, and will be submitted for review at a later date. Phase I of the Heritage Tree Report, for the Historic Village District (Exhibit 1), recommends trees at 110 different sites for designation as heritage trees in 2002. As defined by Carlsbad Municipal Code §11.12.020.A.4., "Heritage trees shall be trees with notable historic interest or trees of an unusual species or size." The trees proposed for heritage designation under this report are candidates because of one or more of the following characteristics: species, rarity, size, age, shape, historic or cultural significance. This report provides a historical perspective on the trees of the City of Carlsbad. The botanical and common names of the heritage tree candidates are included for each site, with accompanying photos of many of these trees. The report also identifies trees that are rare or endangered in their native habitat. Additional information, such as media coverage of Carlsbad trees, is also contained in the report. Recent addenda to the report (in January 2006, and in September 2007) reveal that since the original surveys were completed, trees at twenty-two sites have been stricken from heritage status due to death, decline, or topping. Seven of those twenty-two tree sites were City-owned. As of September 2007, forty-five, or approximately one-half, of the remaining tree sites are City-owned. Page 1 The .Community Forest Management Plan indicates that, as part of the compilation of a 'Heritage Tree Study', "A recommended management plan will also be developed based on current best management practices to be utilized in maintaining the City-owned trees. The information should also be provided to the private property owners as a guide to assist them in managing their privately owned trees. The intent is to have healthy trees that can live successfully for many years before they need to be removed and replaced..." To this end, fifteen recommendations for the health, safety and longevity of the heritage tree candidates, are contained within in the report. As proposed, adherence to the recommendations would be voluntary on non city-owned heritage trees, and mandatory on city-owned heritage trees. Public Works staff has evaluated the potential budgetary and staffing impacts of these recommendations in relation to the city-owned heritage trees, A detailed memorandum and accompanying matrix (Exhibit 2) was prepared in order to describe those impacts. Seven of the fifteen recommendations (Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, and 15) are already addressed under existing Municipal Code/Community Forest Management Plan sections, or current department protocol, and would therefore not have any significant budgetary or staffing impacts. Four of the recommendations (Nos. 1,6, 11, and 12), to the degree they are feasible, would have limited budgetary and staffing impacts. Two of the recommendations would require specific project scopes to determine any budgetary and staffing impacts. Finally, two of the recommendations (Nos. 2 and 8) would have a combined budgetary impact of approximately $29,000 annually, and a limited staffing impact. It is therefore suggested that the related increases to the Street Tree Assessment District and Parks Maintenance budgets be made during the FY 08-09 budget adoption process, with the City Council's approval. Process After receipt of Mr. Wisniewski's most recent addendum in September 2007, Phase I of the Heritage Tree Report for the Historic Village District, was submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission. During their meeting of November 5, 2007, they formally accepted the report, and requested that it be forwarded to the Parks and Recreation Commission for review/action towards adoption and incorporation into the Community Forest Management Plan, by the City Council. Upon that acceptance, a notification letter (Exhibit 3) was mailed to the property owners of all private heritage tree candidates. This letter provided the owners of those private sites with the municipal code definitions of heritage trees, a brief description of the designated tree on their property, the development and intent of the report, an opportunity to contact city staff members with any related questions, and an invitation to attend the Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting when the report would be presented on November 19, 2007. EXHIBITS: 1. Phase I of the Heritage Tree Report for the Historic Village District (Including Addenda) 2. Impacts Memorandum/Matrix from Public Works to the Library Director (9/12/07) 3. Notification Letter to Property Owners of Private Heritage Tree Candidates (11/06/07) Page 2 November 9, 2007 Carlsbad Property Owner «Street_Address» Carlsbad CA 92008 Re: City of Carlsbad's Historic Village DistricM||£ritage Tree Re Dear Carlsbad Property Owner: The City of Carlsbad is pleased to inform potential Heritage Trees within the Historic Villa Library Administration staff, on behalf of the Histon survey resulted in the compilation of a into the Community Forest Management jHr||£MP), by the City Council in April 2003. survey to identify trict has be^ndert^cen by the servation'^^^^sion. This Report ftiPmcorporation riginally adopted Heritage Trees are defined by C existing within the city limits Council. unusual §li recogni: id Mumc has been sdldesigiiat The city 020. as "...any tree y resolution by the City ees with n^^bl^iistoric interest or trees of an 0(A) furtSilfpulates that "The City Council history and development of Carlsbad and t a wide variety?m trees c1|||grc^ in its unique and tempered climate, officially designate^ heritagjplrees those trees in the community which"j>y£vy>v •" »-' <$£* jr&rhave significa^mistoric or arboriculoural inrcrest...." The trees in the arborist, Mark Wis public spaces in the compile the report. Draft H^itage Tree Report were evaluated by a licensed i, who^rsonally walked public streets, public parks, and ed historic photographs and archival material to The rrt includes trees within the public right-of-way (street trees) and public park sitebut also includes trees located on private property that can readily be viewed from a public street, alley or sidewalk. The following tree(s) identified in the report are located on your property at: «Street_ Address*: a «Common_name» identified as tree number «Tree_j» in the report. The intent of this report is to recommend specific trees for designation as heritage trees; to identify best practices for managing heritage trees; and to provide relevant information/ guidance to private property owners regarding their heritage trees. CMC §11.12.040(A) states that "...It is the policy of the City Council that all designated heritage trees that are on public streets (property) shall be protected." The best management practices referenced above are therefore proposed to become requirements for all city-owned heritage trees. The same practices are proposed to become recommendations for privately-owned heritage trees, but not legal mandates. As part of the CFMP incorporation process, Mr. Wisniewski will present the Historic Village District Draft Heritage Tree Report to the Parks & Recreation Commission at their regular meeting on November 19, 2007 at 5:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive. A copy of the report is available for your review at each of the Library Administration offices, the Georgina Cole Library at 1250 Carlsbad Village Drive, and the Carlsbad City Library at 1775 Dove Lane, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday thro http: / / www.carlsbadca. gov / library/ treesu to access the file) This meeting is open to th may submit any related written responses prior to the meeting, and/or you may provide Public Comment segment of the meeting. Should the Parks and Recreation Commissi would advise staff to forward it to the Ci Draft Heritage Tree Report would then b addendum to the CFMP. Should you have any questio. Heather Pizz the Parks/ Sincer^l electronic format at type in the entire link invited to attend. You ecreation Commission •esponses during the m. larding this Kyle Lanca: accept l||kreport as "MSmitted, they for conjuration of adoption. The |y:o City o|||£|rror adoption as an ease' feel free to contact either blic Works Superintendent for /s/ Heather Pizzuto Library Director (760) 602-2056 hpizz@ci.carlsbad.ca.us /*/ Kyle Lancaster Public Works Superintendent (760) 434-2941 klanc@ci.carlsbad.ca.us Date: September 12,2007 To: LIBRARY DIRECTOR From: Public Works Superintendent IMPACTS FROM IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE HERITAGE TREE REPORT Per the request of Assistant City Manager Hildabrand, this memo is to provide you with an evaluation of the Recommendations Summary of the draft 'Carlsbad Historic Village District Heritage Tree Report - 2002' (henceforth referred to as the Heritage Tree Report). The evaluation is specific to the anticipated impacts on the General Services Division if the City Council were to adopt the report, with the directive that compliance with these recommendations shall be mandatory for all City-owned Heritage Trees within the Historic Village District. The projected impacts are based on the recent determination that approximately half (45 out of 92) of the numeric tree sites remaining valid from the original Heritage Tree Report are either City properties, or City rights of way. In addition, it is important to note that three of the numeric tree sites (#24, #78, and #81) actually contain multiple trees. When all of these additional trees are factored into the calculation, the total number of Heritage Trees that the City is responsible for maintaining equals 56. There are a total of fifteen potential mandates for City-owned Heritage Trees listed within the Recommendations Summary of the report. Each of the fifteen recommendations is detailed below, along with the corresponding anticipated impact to the General Services' budgets and staff. 1. City Arborist to provide copies of this report to each City employee in charge of managing a Heritage Tree and to every property owner of a Heritage Tree located on private property. In some locations it is unclear if a tree is publicly or privately owned and who is responsible for its care. These tree locations should be clarified by the City Arborist. All tree locations have been clarified by City staff and the author of the Heritage Tree Report. The current ownership tally of Heritage Tree sites is: City - 45; Private - 44; North County Transit District - 2; State - 1; Federal -1. Providing a copy of the report to each of the City staff in charge of managing Heritage Trees, and a copy to each of the non-City owners of Heritage trees would entail color printing and mailing/distribution expenditures estimated at $1800. These costs were not anticipated in the FY 07-08 budget process, but they could be absorbed within the Parks Maintenance (or other General Fund) budget, if necessary. An alternative to this recommendation would be to post an electronic version of the report on the City's website, then send a letter to each of the non-City owners advising them that the document was available on line (or by disk/hard copy upon request). This action could reduce the above expenditure estimate by as much as 50% - 75%. The staff impacts of either option would be limited and temporary, and therefore could be accommodated within the normal workload. 2. Have all public Heritage Trees inspected at least annually by a qualified certified arborist who shall provide written recommendations for any required maintenance including pruning. The reports are to be kept in a permanent file for each tree for future reference along with a record of any work performed on the tree and the result of that work. Annually inspecting all City-owned Heritage Trees (56) by a qualified certified arborist, and obtaining written recommendations from that arborist for any necessary maintenance would entail professional services expenditures for a consulting arborist estimated at $25,200 annually. Permanent records retention or document imaging costs could ultimately increase these expenditures by $600 -$1200 annually. These costs were not anticipated in the FY 07-08 budget process. It is suggested that the costs therefore be accounted for in the FY 08-09 budget forward, with the drafting of the reports commencing in July 2008. Based on the ratio of the City- owned Heritage Trees (Street Trees - 36; Parks/Facilities Trees - 20), approximately 65% of these costs should be paid from the Street Tree Assessment District account, and 35% of these expenditures should be paid from the Parks Maintenance account. The staff impacts in administering this contract and coordinating the compilation/retention of the reports would be limited, and therefore could be accommodated within the normal workload. 3. Remove any signs or wires that have been attached to any publicly-owned Heritage Tree, if this can be done without damaging the tree any further. Do not remove any signs of historic significance attached to the tree. City staff currently removes signs or wires that have been attached to any City- owned trees, as such postings are prohibited by City Ordinance No. NS-545 - Section 11.12.080.E.3. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This ordinance was adopted by the City Council in June 2000. Continuing to remove signs/wires from City-owned Heritage Trees should not have a significant fiscal or staffing impact. 4. Adopt a City policy or regulation prohibiting the "topping" of any public tree. As referenced in the impact statement to Recommendation No. 3, the City Council previously adopted City Ordinance No. NS-545, which relates to the proper maintenance of public trees and shrubs. Sections 11.12.080.A. & D. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code address the unacceptable practice in arboriculture of "topping" trees. Continuing to adhere to and enforce - as applicable - the provisions of this Ordinance should not have a significant additional fiscal or staffing impact. 5. Adopt a City policy or regulation that the appropriate pruning standards will be followed when pruning publicly-owned trees. The standards would include the "Best Management Practices - Tree Pruning" published by the International Society of Arboriculture and the "American National Standards for Tree Care Operations, ANSI A300 (Part 1)-2001 Pruning" and any safety standards that apply. Pursuant to City Ordinance NS-545 - Sections 11.12.130.A. & B. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code address the adoption of appropriate pruning standards for City- owned trees. These sections identify the Community Forest Management Plan as providing direction for the goals and policies related to the proactive management of trees on City property. The Tree Pruning Specifications of the International Society of Arboriculture are included within the Community Forest Management Plan. The City Council adopted this document in its entirety in April 2003. Chapter 7 of the Community Forest Management Plan, titled 'Heritage Trees', introduces the Heritage Tree Report, and indicates that the full report will be adopted and incorporated when completed. Continuing to adhere to and enforce - as applicable - the provisions of this Ordinance should not have a significant fiscal or staffing impact. 6. Require that all pruning work on publicly-owned Heritage Trees would be performed by a certified arborist or by certified tree workers under the full-time supervision of a certified arborist. Certifications are to be current. Approximately half of the pruning work on City-owned trees is currently performed by a certified arborist or by certified tree workers under the full-time supervision of a certified arborist. Although requiring such pruning work to be performed on all publicly-owned Heritage Trees should not have a significant fiscal impact, it will necessitate temporary staffing shifts and/or scheduling adjustments to the regular workload. 7. Pruning should be timed so as not to interfere with nesting birds. City staff currently schedules maintenance pruning of City-owned trees so that it does not interfere with nesting birds, when they are known to be present. The exception to this rule is for emergent pruning or removals. Continuing this process specifically in relation to City-owned Heritage Trees should not have a significant fiscal or staffing impact. 8. Root damage to publicly-owned Heritage Trees should be minimized. Any proposed construction work under the canopy or within 100' of the trunk of the tree to be reviewed by a qualified certified arborist during the planning stage of the work. The arborist shall specify a Tree Protection Zone and a Tree Protection and Preservation Plan that is site and tree specific. No activity or soil disturbance in the Tree Protection Zone will be permitted unless specifically approved in writing. Ensuring that any proposed construction work under the canopy or within 100' of the trunk of a City-owned Heritage Tree is reviewed by a qualified certified arborist during the planning stage of the work would entail professional services expenditures for a consulting arborist estimated at $2,250 annually. Such expenditures would allow for the arborist's review/inspection, specification of a Tree Protection Zone, and development of a Tree Protection and Preservation Plan on up to 5 (of the 56) City-owned Heritage Trees each year. These costs were not anticipated in the FY 07-08 budget process. It is suggested that the costs therefore be accounted for in the FY 08-09 budget forward, with the institution of this program commencing in July 2008. Based on the ratio of the City-owned Heritage Trees (Street Trees - 36; Parks/Facilities Trees - 20), approximately 65% of these costs should be paid from the Street Tree Assessment District account, and 35% of these expenditures should be paid from the Parks Maintenance account. The staff impacts in administering this contract and coordinating the compilation of the plans would be limited, and therefore could be accommodated within the normal workload. 9. In the vicinity of publicly-owned Heritage Trees appropriate alternative means of underground construction, such as the use of tools like an "Air-Knife" or "Air-Spade", boring or tunneling, should be utilized to protect and prevent damage to the root system of the tree. The use of alternative means of underground construction, such as "Air-Knifes", "Air-Spades", boring or tunneling, are often considered around City-owned trees. There are some projects or circumstances, however, where these methods of construction are not feasible. Where the methods are feasible, they are also generally more expensive and time consuming than traditional means of underground construction, such as trenching or excavation. It is difficult to quantify the precise amount of additional expense or staff/contractual time needed for these methods without being able to refer to a specific project scope. Estimations are that such work can typically be twice as costly and labor intensive. Although unanticipated, up to $2000 of these types of costs could be absorbed within the respective Street Tree and Parks Maintenance FY 07-08 budgets for publicly-owned Heritage Trees. Any additional project costs would need to be budgeted for on an individual basis. 10. Hardscape conflicts should be remedied without damaging the root system of a publicly-owned Heritage Tree. Some methods that may be utilized include: the use of flexible paving such as sand laid unit pavers like brick or rubber sidewalk sections; grinding raised pavement sections; ramping or bridging over roots with pliable paving or wooden walkways; removing pavement and replacing it with decomposed granite or mulch; rerouting the hardscape to accommodate the current and future trunk expansion and root growth, even if it means the loss of a parking spot or two. This would also provide additional exposed soil surface that would be beneficial to the tree's health. Much of the impact statement provided to Recommendation No. 9 also applies to Recommendation No. 10. The use of alternative hardscape is often considered around City-owned trees. There are some projects or circumstances, however, where these methods of construction are not feasible. Where they are feasible, and depending upon the type of alternative utilized, they may be more expensive and/or more time consuming than traditional means of hardscape, such as concrete or asphalt. It is difficult to quantify the precise amount of additional expense or staff/contractual time needed (if any) without being able to refer to a specific project scope. Estimations are that some of alternative work, such as sand laid unit pavers, can be more costly and labor intensive; while other alternative work, such as decomposed granite or mulch, can be less costly and labor intensive. Although unanticipated, up to $2000 of these types of costs could be absorbed within the respective Street Tree Assessment District and Parks Maintenance FY 07-08 budgets. Any additional project costs would need to be budgeted on an individual basis. 11. Turf, at least under the drip line of the tree, should be covered with a 3"-4" deep layer of organic mulch such as ground or chipped tree prunings. The mulch should be kept at least V away from the trunk of the tree. The mulch should be inspected at least twice a year and additional mulch added when it has been reduced to a depth of 1" or less through decomposition. The mulch cover will shade and kill the grass. For small trees, or trees with a narrow upright growth habit, install the mulch to at least a 5' distance from the trunk. Killing existing grass and installing mulch under the drip line of City-owned Heritage Trees would only be feasible in certain locations, predominantly City park sites. The drip line is essentially a ring around the tree, with the radius being equal to the furthest extending branch. The installation of this type of mulch pattern would not be practical to most City street trees, due to existing hardscapes (sidewalks, driveways, and streets), appurtenances (curbs, gutters, and storm drains), and adjacent private properties (front or side yards, and buildings or structures). As previously noted, 36 of the 56 City-owned Heritage Trees are City street trees. The remaining 20 City-owned Heritage Trees are located on either City park or facility sites. In several of these cases, the installation of this type of mulch pattern would not be practical due to some of the issues listed above, and tot lot or picnic area encroachment. The mulch pattern could, however, be installed around these trees to the greatest degree possible. It is estimated that the cost of the required mulch would be $1000 or less annually. This expenditure could be absorbed within the Parks Maintenance Budget. The time involved in procuring and distributing the mulch could also be added to the standard mode of operations without a significant staffing impact. 12. Compaction under the canopies of trees can be partially corrected by several methods. The least damaging and costly method is to install organic mulch as specified above for turf removal over the compacted area or where surface roots are exposed. As described in the impact statement to Recommendation No. 11, removing turf and installing mulch within the drip lines of City-owned Heritage Trees would be feasible on a limited scale only. 13. Require a report from a qualified certified arborist for any public Heritage Tree recommended for removal because it represents a "hazardous" condition. The arborist shall use a national standard, the 'ISA - Hazard Evaluation Form", as a method to determine the hazard rating of a tree. The City Arborist has the discretionary right to approve, request a second opinion in writing, or recommend actions that may reduce the condition to a less than significant level of hazard. If this type of hazard reduction cannot be done and it is the City's Arborist's recommendation to remove the tree it will remain the City Council's option to approve or deny the removal or require additional measures. Pursuant to City Ordinance NS-545 - Sections 11.12.090.C., E. & F., and 11.12.140. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code address the protection of City-owned Heritage Trees, and stipulate the process that must be followed for any potential removal of these trees. These sections thoroughly ensure the desired preservation of such trees, without the need to develop additional arboricultural reports. Presuming that the removal of a City-owned Heritage Tree will be a rare occurrence, it is expected that the related costs could be absorbed within the respective Street Tree Assessment District or Parks Maintenance budgets. The staff time needed for such removals could also be included in the workload without significant impact. 14. For any publicly-owned Heritage Tree that is removed a suitable replacement tree shall be replanted. Pursuant to City Ordinance NS-545 - Sections 11.12.100A, B. & D. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code address the replacement of City street trees with suitable species and sizes. City-owned Heritage Trees that are also City street trees are already subject to these provisions. The same provisions could also be applied to City-owned Heritage Trees that are on City parks/facilities sites. Again presuming that the replacement of a City-owned Heritage Tree will be a rare occurrence, it is expected that the related costs could be absorbed within the respective Street Tree Assessment District or Parks Maintenance budgets. The staff time needed for any replacements could also be included in the workload without significant impact. 15. A Technical Manual for Trees modeled on the City of Palo Alto's should be developed for the City of Carlsbad. Such a manual would not only benefit the City's Heritage Trees, but all of the City's publicly-owned trees. As noted in the impact statement to Recommendation No. 5, the City Council adopted The Community Forest Management Plan in June 2003. This plan provides the direction for the goals and policies related to the proactive management of trees on City property. The Heritage Tree Report is to be adopted by the City Council and incorporated into this Community Forest Management Plan. The plan is a comprehensive document, which does not appear to be in need of supplemental technical manuals. Based on that determination, there would be no additional fiscal or staffing impacts. On a final note, similar fiscal and staffing impacts should be anticipated on the General Services Division when the 'Heritage Tree Report - Phase II' is completed and forwarded for review/adoption. Should you have any questions or comments regarding the impact statements herein, please contact me at extension 2941. Isl KYLE LANCASTER C: Public Works Director Public Works Manager Clavier Deputy Library Director Smithson Public Works Supervisor Bliss Public Works Supervisor Meadows CARLSBAD HISTORIC VILLAGE DISTRICT TREE REPORT IMPACTS FROM IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATIONS No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Recommendation Details City Arborist to provide copies of this report to each City employee in charge of managing a Heritage Tree and to every property owner of a Heritage Tree located on private property. In some locations it is unclear if a tree is publicly or privately owned and who is responsible for its care. These tree locations should be clarified by the City Arborist. Have all public Heritage Trees inspected at least annually by a qualified certified arborist who shall provide written recommendations for any required maintenance including pruning. The reports are to be kept in a permanent file for each tree for future reference along with a record of any work performed on the tree and the result of that work. Remove any signs or wires that have been attached to any publicly-owned Heritage Tree, if this can be done without damaging the tree any further. Do not remove any signs of historic significance attached to the tree. Adopt a City policy or regulation prohibiting the "topping" of any public tree. Adopt a City policy or regulation that the appropriate pruning standards will be followed when pruning publicly-owned trees. The standards would include the "Best Management Practices - Tree Pruning" published by the International Society of Arboriculture and the "American National Standards for Tree Care Operations, ANSI A300 (Part 1)-2001 Pruning" and any safety standards that apply. Require that all pruning work on publicly-owned Heritage Trees would be performed by a certified arborist or by certified tree workers under the full- time supervision of a certified arborist. Certifications are to be current. Pruning should be timed so as not to interfere with nesting birds. Root damage to publicly-owned Heritage Trees should be minimized. Any proposed construction work under the canopy or within 100' of the trunk of the tree to be reviewed by a qualified certified arborist during the planning stage of the work. The arborist shall specify a Tree Protection Zone and a Tree Protection and Preservation Plan that is site and tree specific. No activity or soil disturbance in the Tree Protection Zone will be permitted unless specifically approved in writing. Budgetary Impacts Printing and mailing or distribution expenditures estimated at $1800. Professional services expenditures for a consulting arborist and records retention estimated at $26,400 annually. No significant impact. No significant impact. No significant impact. No significant impact. No significant impact. Professional services expenditures for a consulting arborist estimated at $2,250 annually. Staffing Impacts Limited and temporary, and could therefore be accommodated within the normal workload. Limited, and could therefore be accommodated within the normal workload. No significant impact. No significant impact. No significant impact. Necessitates temporary staffing shifts and/or scheduling adjustments to the normal workload. No significant impact. No significant impact. Related Data All tree locations have been clarified by City staff and the author or the Heritage Tree Report. Suggested that the costs be accounted for, and the drafting of reports commence in FY 08- 09. Staff currently removes signs or wires attached to City-owned trees. Municipal Codes address this practice. Municipal Codes address the adoption of appropriate pruning standards for City-owned trees, via the Community Forest Management Plan. Approximately half of the pruning work on City-owned trees currently performed in this manner. Staff currently prunes in this manner. Suggested that the costs be accounted for, and that the program commence in FY 08- 09. •• No. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Recommendation Details In the vicinity of publicly-owned Heritage Trees appropriate alternative means of underground construction, such as the use of tools like an "Air- Knife" or "Air-Spade", boring or tunneling, should be utilized to protect and prevent damage to the root system of the tree. Hare/scape conflicts should be remedied without damaging the root system of a publicly-owned Heritage Tree. Some methods that may be utilized include: the use of flexible paving such as sand laid unit pavers like brick or rubber sidewalk sections; grinding raised pavement sections; ramping or bridging over roots with pliable paving or wooden walkways; removing pavement and replacing it with decomposed granite or mulch; rerouting the hardscape to accommodate the current and future trunk expansion and root growth, even if it means the loss of a parking spot or two. This would also provide additional exposed soil surface that would be beneficial to the tree's health. Turf, at least under the drip line of the tree, should be covered with a 3"-4" deep layer of organic mulch such as ground or chipped tree prunings. The mulch should be kept at least 1 ' away from the trunk of the tree. The mulch should be inspected at least twice a year and additional mulch added when it has been reduced to a depth of1"or less through decomposition. The mulch cover will shade and kill the grass. For small trees, or trees with a narrow upright growth habit, install the mulch to at least a 5' distance from the trunk. Compaction under the canopies of trees can be partially corrected by several methods. The least damaging and costly method is to install organic mulch as specified above for turf removal over the compacted area or where surface roots are exposed. Require a report from a qualified certified arborist for any public Heritage Tree recommended for removal because it represents a "hazardous" condition. The arborist shall use a national standard, the 'ISA - Hazard Evaluation Form", as a method to determine the hazard rating of a tree. The City Arborist has the discretionary right to approve, request a second opinion in writing, or recommend actions that may reduce the condition to a less than significant level of hazard. If this type of hazard reduction cannot be done and it is the City's Arborist's recommendation to remove the tree it will remain the City Council's option to approve or deny the removal or require additional measures. For any publicly-owned Heritage Tree that is removed a suitable replacement tree shall be replanted. A Technical Manual for Trees modeled on the City of Palo Alto's should be developed for the City of Carlsbad. Such a manual would not only benefit the City's Heritage Trees, but all of the City's publicly-owned trees Budgetary Impacts Estimations are that such construction work can be twice as costly as traditional means. Some alternative work can be more costly; while other alternative work can be less costly. Mulch procurement and delivery estimated at $1,000 annually. Mulch procurement and delivery estimated at $1 ,000 annually. No significant impact. No significant impact. No significant impact. Staffing Impacts Estimations are that such construction work can be twice as labor intensive as traditional means. Some alternative work can be more labor intensive; while other alternative work can be less labor intensive. No significant impact. No significant impact. No significant impact. No significant impact. No significant impact. Related Data Specific project scopes would be required to quantify the precise amount of additional expense & staff/contract time. Specific project scopes would be required to quantify the precise amount of additional (if any) expense & staff/contract time. This practice would only be feasible in certain locations, predominantly City park sites, where hardscapes, appurtenances, amenities, or adjacent properties are not in conflict. This practice would only be feasible in certain locations, predominantly City park sites, as noted above. Municipal Codes address the protection of these trees, and stipulates the process that must be followed for any potential removals. Municipal Codes address replacement of City-owned trees. Municipal Codes address the adoption the Community Forest Management Plan. Significant Projects for the City of Carlsbad - TOP PRIORITY LIST ATHENA TOP PRIORITY - BY STRATEGIC GOAL WPPre Construction gH Schedule Change Where we are today X Completed Begin New Fiscal Year I Construction Other/Ongoing QTR's align w/fiscal year Council Focus | Goal/Project Title [ Comments Team Leader/LT 2008 - 09 Q1 J A S Q2 O N D Q3 J F M Q4 A M J 2009-10 Q1 Q2 J A S CJN D Q3 J F M Q4 1 Q1 A M J|J A S Balanced Community Development Power Plant Housing Element Revise & Circulate CEQA Public Hearings/Recommendations (Housing Comm & Plan.Comm) CC Public Hearing-Adopt HE & Submit to HCD for Certification Village Redevelopment Agency Expiration Options Extension of Village Area Land Use Economic Enhancement Identify potential economic opportunities & needed services Draft list of revenue-enhancing implementing land use actions Finalize list, prepare & distribute final report Redevelopment Project State & Grand RFQ & Selection of Developer Report to CM Negotiation w/Developer, ENA & discussion with NCTD Agreement with Developer to CC/Housing and Redev. Comm. CEC Review HCD finding rec'd, draft in compliance. HC reviewed; PC review pending completion of MND. On Hold. Regulatory Relief for Legal Non-conforming Uses & Buildings At Coastal Commission Garuba LH de Cordova SH Fountain SH [ Barberio SH Holder DeCerbo SH [J L 10/20/2009 1 Of 9 Significant Projects for the City of Carlsbad - TOP PRIORITY LIST ATHENA TOP PRIORITY - BY STRATEGIC GOAL r*p Pre Construction gig Schedule Change where we are today Construction X Completed Begin New Fiscal Year^Other/Ongoing QTR's align w/fiscal year Council Focus | Team | Goal/Project Title | Comments Leader/LT 2008 - 09 Q1 J A S Q2 O N D Q3 J F M Q4 A M J 2009-10 Q1 | Q2 J A S O|N D Q3 J F M Q4 1 Q1 A M J|J A S Citizen Connection & Partnership Envision Carlsbad Initial Reconaissance Preliminary Opp's & Constraints/Formation of Citizens Committee Issues & Visioning Present Vision Report to PC & CC Citizen Response/Interaction (Citywide Service Connection) CRM Define & Develop Needs Implement System Communication Website Enhancements / Maintenance Holder Curtis JE Peterson CH 10/20/2009 2 of 9 Significant Projects for the City of Carlsbad - TOP PRIORITY LIST ATHENA TOP PRIORITY - BY STRATEGIC GOAL [other/Ongoing QTR's align w/fiscal year rjw Pre Construction gH Schedule Change where we are today Construction X Completed Begin New Fiscal Year Council Focus | Team (Goal/Project Title Comments Leader/LT 2008 - 09 Q1 J A S Q2 O N D Q3 J F M Q4 A M J 2009-10 Q1 Q2 J A S Oj|N D Q3 J F M Q4 1 Q1 A M j|j A S Environmental Management Total Maximum Daily Load Investigative Order Study Regulation Development Regulation Implementation City Projects Energy Generation & Conservation Hydro - Construction Solar - Study & Feasibility Solid Waste Rate Study Conduct Analysis of Requested Increase Present Options to Council Data sampling and Analysis to June 30, 2009. Modeling, numeric targets, load allocations w/RWQCB through tentative 6/30/10 1 yr. after adoption to write Implementation Plan for compliance. Lukey GP Garuba/Hamman Hauler submitted request for rate increase 12/08; Denied initial request; Requested additional financial data to analyze updated info. Kermott Solid Waste Master Plan Consultant Selected Comprehensive options presented to Council Begin Implementation Tree Policy (Sewer Lateral) Sewer Master Plan Agua Hedionda Channel Dredging & Improvement Environmental, Permits, & Studies Design Advertise and Award Construction To include strategies on services, disposal, diversion, pricing, etc. Is tree policy consistent w/City Ordinance? Revisions to existing CIS sewer data base more extensive than anticipated. Mitigation site property acquisition in process. Meeting with Resource Agencies 10-13-09 Kermott GP Lancaster GP Cahill GP 10/20/2009 3 of 9 Significant Projects for the City of Carlsbad - TOP PRIORITY LIST ATHENA TOP PRIORITY - BY STRATEGIC GOAL Financial Health Economic Development Strategic Plan Selection of Consultant Final Report to LT Final Report to CC Management of Recession Impacts Budget Reductions Selective Hiring Freeze Increase Revenue/Cost Reduction Team Structural Realignment I Other/Ongoing QTR's align w/fiscal year Pre Construction Construction gjg Schedule Change Where we are today X Completed Begin New Fiscal Year Council Focus Goal/Project Title Comments Team Leader/LT 2008 - 09 Q1 J A S Q2 O N D Q3 J F M Q4 A M J Q1 J A S 2009-10 Q2 o N D Q3 J F M Q4 1 Q1 A M j|j A S Draft report complete. Council Interviews conducted. On going. Haas/Irvine SH/CH Irvine/Clark LH Fleet Master Plan & Policies pending AB approval. Guidelines for Managed Service Delivery, Contracting for Services Evaluation of HRIS System Implementation scheduled for Jan. 2010. Go Live July 2011. Learning, Culture & Arts Sister City Program Administration Assistin tr t ansition of Sister City Prog, from a CityWritten recommendation for Administration of Sister City Program committee to an Report back to Council independent non-profit org. Pizzuto JE 10/20/2009 4 of 9 Significant Projects for the City of Carlsbad - TOP PRIORITY LIST ATHENA TOP PRIORITY - BY STRATEGIC GOAL I Other/Ongoing QTR's align w/fiscal year Pre Construction Construction ^ Schedule Change Where we are today X Completed Begin New Fiscal Year Council Focus Goal/Project Title | Comments Parks/Open Space/Trails *** Alga Norte Community Park Swim Complex Update Cost Estimate Council approved Operational models analysis advertising for rough grading Grading Contract bids 10-6-09. Team Leader/LT Hammann LH 2008 - 09 Q1 J A S Q2 O N D Q3 J F M Q4 A M J y^ 2009-10 Q1 | Q2 J A S O)N D Q3 J F M Q4 1 Q1 A M j|j A S I S I ^^^^^^— ^^— Open Space Acquisition Oversight City Lagoons in Partnership with Foundations and State Lake Calavera Trails Master Plan Safe Community Joint First Response Facility (Tom, Kevin, Skip) Business/Operations Plan Preliminary Design, CUP & CEQA Final Design & Permits Advertise and Award (Estimated 6 months) Construction (Estimated 12-18 months) On going process. Batiquitos Lagoon 10 Yr Report received August, 2009. Buena Vista Lagoon scoping underway by Resource Agencies. CMWD input may effect design & schedule: Contingent upon Resource Agency turnaround on comments. Business & operating plan completed, briefing Council, Workshop scheduled for 10/21. Holder Cahill GP Steyaert JE Hammann LH Completed in Q2. Start 6 mos. Process end of Q2 Start Construction Q3 10/20/2009 5 Of 9 Significant Projects for the City of Carlsbad - TOP PRIORITY LIST ATHENA TOP PRIORITY - BY STRATEGIC GOAL Transportation/Circulation Traffic Calming Program: Sierra Morena/Donna Drive La Costa Road Diet Encinas Creek Bridge Traffic Management Plan Implementation RV Parking Carlsbad Blvd. Realignment Study/Update Preliminary design Water 10/20/2009 Desalination Permit Approval Construction 24-30 months Water Supply Planning & Conservation Oceanside Water Rights Water Master Plan Recycled Water Master Plan Vista/Carlsbad Sewer Forcemain IPre Construction Construction Other/Ongoing QTR's align w/fiscal year yft Schedule Change X Completed Begin New Fiscal Year Where we are today Council Focus Team | Goal/Project Title 1 Comments Leader/LT 2008 - 09 Q1 J A S Q2 0 N D Q3 J F M Q4 A M J 2009-10 Q1 Q2 J A S O N D Q3 J F M Q4 1 Q1 A M j|j A S Sierra Morena residents approved concept plan. Donna Drive residents finalizing concept plan. Both projects will be on hold pending revisions to the CRTMP being approved by City Council. Report being revised per residents comments. CC meeting to be scheduled. Resrouce Agency permits submitted. Authorization to bid to Council 10-20-09. Workshop to be scheduled with RV owners. Meeting w/ State Parks 10- 22-09. Scope of coast ROW study underway. Permits approval & vesting FY 09-10 Q2 construction start FY 09-1 OQ3&Q4 On Hold. In progress. In progress. Planning Dept. scheduling a Planning Comm. Meeting. Johnson GP Cahill GP Jonnson GP Pruim Stone Hammann Stone GP Plajzer GP Ahles GP Ahles GP 6 of 9 Significant Projects for the City of Carlsbad - TOP PRIORITY LIST ATHENA TOP PRIORITY - BY STRATEGIC GOAL I J2» Pre Construction gH Schedule Change where we are today Construction X Completed Other/Ongoing Begin New Fiscal Year QTR's align w/fiscal year Council Focus Team Goal/Project Title Comments Leader/LT 2008 - 09 Q1 J A S Q2 O N D Q3 J F M Q4 A M J 2009-10 Q1 | Q2 J A S OJN D Q3 J F M Q4 1 Q1 A M j|j A S Carlsbad Economic Stimulus Package Endless Summer Marketing Program * Village Lighting - Lighten Up Program Program Development Phase I Implementation - Grant Program for Lighting Improvements Phase II Implementation -Additional lighting in public R-O-W * Development Dialogue - Regulatory Process Gary, Glenn, Will, Mike Chris, Jim W * Arts District/Catalyst for Village Oak Street Property Visioning •:• Business Incubator Transfer Storage to other building RFP Implementation •:« Special Events Process Review / Policy Initial Review Ordinance Change Insurance Review New Special Events Policy * City Marketing Partnerships Stakeholder Workshop & Partnership Program Tina, Cynthia, Debbie, Craddock, Karen C. CC Approved S100K upon receipt of business plan Claims building vacated. Finance CH [] Fountain SH Barberio SH Fountain SH Chen SH Houston CH Houston CH Chen/Ray 10/20/2009 7 Of 9 Significant Projects for the City of Carlsbad - TOP PRIORITY LIST ATHENA TOP PRIORITY - BY STRATEGIC GOAL I Other/Ongoing QTR's align w/fiscal year Pre Construction Construction ym gig Schedule Change Where we are today X Completed Begin New Fiscal Year Council Focus (Goal/Project Title [ Comments Team Leader/LT 2008 - 09 Q1 J A S Q2 O N D Q3 J F M Q4 A M J 2009-10 Q1 | Q2 J A S OE N D Q3 J F M Q4 1 Q1 A M j|j A S Completed Projects Village Redevelopment Agency Expiration Options Options Report & Resolution of Intention to CC Process Ordinance Revisions Fountain SH Regulatory Relief for Legal Non-conforming Uses & Buildings Survey other jursidictions & analyze ordinance alternatives Complete prepartation of draft ordinance amendment Public Outreach Web Infrastructure/Development/Implementation Web Infrastructure & Security Web Development & Implementation Content Update & Migration E-Zoning/GIS Implementation of Waste Discharge Requirements Asset Maximization Evaluating and Ranking of Property Present report to LT Recreation Cost Recovery Analysis Update Purchasing Ordinance for Charter Status Design/Build DeCerbo SH Peterson CH Ray LH Von Schleider SH Dale GP Haas SH Calarco JE Wengenrot Kemp J: 10/20/2009 8 Of 9 Significant Projects for the City of Carlsbad - TOP PRIORITY LIST ATHENA TOP PRIORITY - BY STRATEGIC GOAL ! 2^Pre Construction gig Schedule Change where we are today Construction X Completed Other/Ongoing Begin New Fiscal Year QTR's align w/fiscal year Council Focus (Goal/Project Title ] Comments Team Leader/LT 2008 - 09 Q1 J A S Q2 O N D Q3 J F M Q4 A M J Q1 J A S 2009-10 Q2 O|N D Q3 J F M Q4 1 Q1 A M j|j A S Completed Projects (Continued) Swim Complex Renovation (CHS modernization) Spickard JE Standards of Coverage Traffic Management Strategic Plan Advanced Traffic Management System Drought Ordinance Water Allocation Tiered Water Rates Interim Agricultural Plan Village Public Parking Diagonal Parking Study with recommendations for Grand Ave Report to Traffic Commission & City Council Implementation of approved tasks New Village Arts Lease Revise Ord. to CC Q4. Crawford Johnson GP Stone GP Fountain SH Fountain SH 10/20/2009 9 of 9 Heritage Tree Report Phase I -Historic Village District City Council Study Session October 21, 2009 Item Explanation •As an outcome of a 1999 Street Tree Policy Committee, the City Council adopted a revised Street Tree Policy and Ordinance in 2000, and a Community Forest Management Plan in 2003. Those provisions guide the city in decisions affecting trees within the categories Street Tree Districts, Hosp Grove, and Heritage Designation. Chapter 7 of the CFMP is reserved for adoption of Phase I and Phase II of the Heritage Tree Report. Heritage Tree Report •The City’s Historic Preservation Commission provides oversight of the Heritage Tree Report. •This Commission -working through the Library Administration staff –retained arborist Mark Wisniewski to identify, inventory and map the most significant trees in the Historic Village of Carlsbad. Those documents were edited into Phase I of the Heritage Tree Report in 2002. Once complete, Phase II of the report will address the city’s balance. Heritage Tree Report •Phase I of the report recommended trees at 110 different sites for designation as heritage trees. •As defined by the city ordinance, “Heritage trees shall be trees with notable historic interest or trees of an unusual species or size.” The trees in this report are proposed for heritage designation because of one or more of the following characteristics: species, rarity, size, age, shape, historic or cultural significance. Heritage Tree Report •Phase I of the report contains: Botanical and common names of the heritage tree candidates for each site, with accompanying photos of many of these trees. Identifications of trees that are rare or endangered in their native habitat. A collection of media coverage and other literature on several of Carlsbad’s trees. Heritage Tree Report Heritage Tree Report Heritage Tree Report Heritage Tree Report Heritage Tree Report •Recent addenda to the report reflect that, since 2002, trees at twenty-two of the one hundred ten proposed sites had been stricken from heritage status due to death, decline, or topping. Seven of the twenty-two stricken heritage tree sites were city-owned. Forty-five, or approximately one-half, of the remaining proposed heritage tree sites are city- owned. Heritage Tree Report •Phase I of the report also contains a set of recommendations to be utilized in maintaining the city-owned heritage trees. The same recommendations are suggested to be provided to private site owners -as advisory only - in maintaining their heritage trees. The intent of the recommendations is to have healthy heritage trees that can live successfully for many years prior to needing removal/replacement. Heritage Tree Report •Staff evaluated the potential budgetary and staffing impacts of these recommendations in relation to the city-owned heritage tree candidates, and prepared a detailed response memorandum. Seven of the fifteen recommendations are already addressed under the existing policy, ordinance, plan, or other city’s current protocol. Six of the recommendations would either have limited to no budgetary and staffing impacts, or would require specific project scopes to review. Heritage Tree Report Two of the recommendations would have a combined budgetary impact of approximately $29,000 annually, and a limited staffing impact. No. 2 entails the annual inspection and reporting of heritage trees by a qualified certified arborist. No. 8 entails the as needed review of construction under heritage trees by a qualified certified arborist. Heritage Tree Report •After receipt of the 2007 addendum, Phase I of the report was submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission for acceptance. •The Historic Preservation Commission accepted the report in November 2007, and requested that it be forwarded to the Parks and Recreation Commission for review/action towards adoption. •The Parks and Recreation Commission accepted the report in November 2007, and requested that it be forwarded to the City Council for review/action. Heritage Tree Report •Upon initial acceptance of the report, a notification letter was mailed to the property site owners of all private heritage tree candidates. The letter provided the owners of the sites with: The city ordinance definition of heritage trees A brief description of the tree to be designated The development and intent of the report An opportunity to contact city staff members Heritage Tree Report •A press release was issued in December 2007, advising that the report would be available for public review and comment through January 2008. Only a few contacts were received from the letter to private site owners and the public review period, none of which required modifying the report. •After the public review period, staff held the report until a council requested review could be undertaken on the responsibility for roots from city street trees that impact private sewer laterals. Heritage Tree Report Recommended Action •Accept Phase I of the Carlsbad Heritage Tree Report for the Historic Village District. This action will not incorporate Phase I of the report into the Community Forest Management Plan, nor will it officially designate any tree candidates as heritage trees. Incorporation of the report into the CFMP, and designation of the trees therein as heritage, may be accomplished by future adoption of the report. Heritage Tree Report Joint First Responders Training Facility Feasibility Review October 21, 2009 Rosenow Spevacek Group Inc. •Government Services •Real Estate Economics •Real Estate Acquisition •Redevelopment Planning •Economic Development •Affordable Housing •Financing •Construction Management •Sustainable Design & Development Founded in 1979 Relevant Experience •City of La Quinta •Irvine Unified School District •City of La Mesa Strategic Business Plan Program and Fee Assessment •City of Mission Viejo •City of Morgan Hill •City of Carson •City of Rancho Mirage Government Services •County of San Diego –Contract analysis •County of Los Angeles –Fire department fee analysis •County of San Bernardino –Sheriff consolidation analysis •City of Chino Hills –New city transition RSG Work Program Verify current training cost Identify cost savings Verify market demand Analyze competition Quantify potential revenue Current Training Costs $1 million for training •$800,000 in training activity •$206,000 traveling related Potential Cost Savings $206,000 or 21% directly related to: •Travel time •Rental fees •Fuel •Vehicle maintenance Training Cost Summary $6,000 $0 $6,000 Range Rental Fees $206,000$32,000$12,000$156,000Total $51,000$16,000$5,000$30,000Fire $155,000$16,000$7,000$126,000Police Total Vehicle Maintenance Cost Fuel Cost Personnel Travel Time Cost JFRTF Feasibility Review Market demand Competition Operating expenses Potential revenue Market Demand Mandated training Previous questionnaires Letters of interest Competition Camp Pendleton Iron Sights Pala Otay Mesa Escondido Police & Fish and Game Rancho Santa Fe San Marcos Oceanside Long Beach Police Fire SAN DEGO COUNTY COMPlTlNG FAClllTlES CARLSBAD JM FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY HHt i I USiamx~ajci~~a~dheCaysd~dSBIIkgn Operating Expenses Data provided by City Verified by RSG Operating Cost Comparison Other Agency Operating Costs Analyzed: •City of Fairfield (firing range) •City of Corona (firing range and Corporate Yard Training Facility) •Orange County Fire Authority (fire training) City Outside Agencies Unused City Outside Agencies City Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C City Use Only Maximum Use Conservative Use Operating Expenses Operating Expenses Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C City Use Only Maximum Use Conservative Use $260,000 $557,000 $409,000 DESCRIPTION POLICE SHOOTING RANGE FIRE PROP HOUSES PUBLIC WORKS OVERHEAD TOTAL Operation Description Internal Internal Internal Guests/Customers none none none Staffing none none .75 FTE (1) Salary & Benefits S&B Subtotal 46,800 18,240 45,139 110,179 Maintenance & Operation M&O Subtotal 157,700 64,500 58,228 280,428 Total Costs 204,500 82,740 103,367 390,607 * Estimated Costs Currently Budgeted 111,900 18,240 - 130,140 Net New Costs 92,600$ 64,500$ 103,367$ 260,467$ (1) Includes Maintenance Worker & Custodian Carlsbad Joint First Responders Training Facility Operating Budget Scenario A DESCRIPTION POLICE SHOOTING RANGE FIRE PROP HOUSES PUBLIC WORKS OVERHEAD TOTAL Operation Description Internal/External Internal/External Internal Guests/Customers Maximum Maximum none Staffing 2 Range Masters none .75 FTE (1) Salary & Benefits S&B Subtotal 222,558 18,240 45,139 285,937 Maintenance & Operation M&O Subtotal 233,200 110,000 58,228 401,428 Total Costs 455,758 128,240 103,367 687,365 * Estimated Costs Currently Budgeted 111,900 18,240 - 130,140 Net New Costs 343,858$ 110,000$ 103,367$ 557,225$ (1) Includes Maintenance Worker & Custodian Carlsbad Joint First Responders Training Facility Operating Budget Scenario B DESCRIPTION POLICE SHOOTING RANGE FIRE PROP HOUSES PUBLIC WORKS OVERHEAD TOTAL Operation Description Internal/External Internal/External Internal Guests/Customers Limited Limited none Staffing 1 Range Master none .75 FTE (1) Salary & Benefits S&B Subtotal 134,679 18,240 45,139 198,058 Maintenance & Operation M&O Subtotal 195,450 87,250 58,228 340,928 Total Costs 330,129 105,490 103,367 538,986 * Estimated Costs Currently Budgeted 111,900 18,240 - 130,140 Net New Costs 218,229$ 87,250$ 103,367$ 408,846$ (1) Includes Maintenance Worker & Custodian Carlsbad Joint First Responders Training Facility Operating Budget Scenario C Revenue Potential Firing range PRISM Commercial burn props Residential burn props Classrooms City Outside Agencies Unused City Outside Agencies City Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C City Use Only Maximum Use Conservative Use Revenue Potential Revenue Potential –Firing Range •$650 full day •$400 half day •City use -30%$185,000$370,000 Outside Agency Bookings 35% Outside Agency Bookings 70% City Outside Agencies Unused City Outside Agencies Scenario B Scenario C Revenue Potential -PRISM •$650 full day •$400 half day •City use -25%$99,000$198,000 Outside Agency Bookings 37.5% Outside Agency Bookings 75% City Outside Agencies Unused City Outside Agencies Scenario B Scenario C Revenue Potential –Commercial Burn Props •$450 full day •$250 half day •City use –60%$35,000$69,000 Outside Agency Bookings 20% Outside Agency Bookings 40% City Outside Agencies Unused City Outside Agencies Scenario B Scenario C Revenue Potential –Residential Burn Props •$450 full day •$250 half day •City use -60%$35,000$69,000 Outside Agency Bookings 20% Outside Agency Bookings 40% City Outside Agencies Unused City Outside Agencies Scenario B Scenario C Revenue Potential -Classrooms •$250 full day •$150 half day •City use -40% $30,000$60,000 Outside Agency Bookings 30% Outside Agency Bookings 60% City Outside Agencies Unused City Outside Agencies Scenario B Scenario C Revenue Summary $385,000$766,000Total $30,000$60,000Classroom Space $35,000$69,000Residential Burn Props $35,000$69,000Commercial Burn Props $99,000$198,000PRISM System $185,000$370,000Firing Range Scenario C Conservative Use Scenario B Maximum Use Bottom Line -Scenario A City Unused * Excludes construction costs -$54,000Net Fiscal Impact $206,000Plus Cost Savings -$260,000Operating Costs* Bottom Line -Scenario B City Outside Agencies Net Fiscal Impact Plus Revenue Potential Plus Cost Savings Operating Costs* $415,000 $766,000 $206,000 -$557,000 * Excludes construction costs Bottom Line -Scenario C City Outside Agencies Unused Net Fiscal Impact Plus Revenue Potential Plus Cost Savings Operating Costs* $182,000 $385,000 $206,000 -$409,000 * Excludes construction costs Net Fiscal Impact of Scenarios $182,000$415,000-$54,000Net Fiscal Impact $385,000$766,000$0Plus Potential Revenue $206,000$206,000$206,000Plus Cost Savings -$409,000-$557,000-$260,000Net New Operating Costs Scenario CScenario BScenario A Replacement Fund Impact -$270,000-$270,000-$270,000 Yearly Replacement Fund $182,000$415,000-$54,000Net Fiscal Impact -$88,000$145,000-$324,000 Impact of Replacement Fund Scenario CScenario BScenario A RSG 760.765.3070 714.541.4585 www.webrsg.com CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. www.webrsg.com JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY City of Carlsbad October 21, 2009 CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY i TABLE OF CONTENTS OVERVIEW 1 MARKET ANALYSIS AND DEMAND 1 COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS 1 NET NEW OPERATING COSTS AND TRAVEL EXPENSES 1 FISCAL IMPACT AND MARKETING PLAN 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 JFRTF HISTORY 3 MARKET ANALYSIS AND DEMAND 5 COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS 6 FIRING RANGE TRAINING 6 FIRE TRAINING 7 COMPETITIVE SUMMARY 8 NET NEW OPERATING AND TRAVEL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH EXTERNAL TRAINING 10 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 10 EXTERNAL TRAINING COSTS 12 POTENTIAL JFRTF REVENUE 15 Firing Range 15 PRISM System 16 Commercial Burn Props 17 Residential Burn Props 17 Classroom Space 18 Revenue Estimate Summary 19 FISCAL IMPACT OF SCENARIO A 20 FISCAL IMPACT OF SCENARIO B 21 FISCAL IMPACT OF SCENARIO C 22 FISCAL IMPACT OF REPLACEMENT FUND 24 MARKETING PLAN 25 POTENTIAL USE GROUPS 25 APPENDIX 26 DATA SOURCES 27 Cost Factors for Police Department 27 Cost Factors for Fire Department 27 Breakdown of $1 Million Spent in External Trainings 28 BREAKDOWN OF FEES FOR CITY OF ANAHEIM FIRE TRAINING FACILITY 32 FIRING RANGE FEE SCHEDULE FOR CITY OF FAIRFIELD 33 CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY ii OPERATING COST DETAILS OF CITY OF FAIRFIELD FACILITY 34 COMPARISON OF JFRTF SCENARIO C OPERATING COSTS WITH CITY OF FAIRFIELD FIRING RANGE OPERATING COSTS 35 OPERATING COST DETAILS OF CITY OF CORONA FACILITY 36 RESPONSES TO RSG SURVEY OF OUTSIDE AGENCIES 37 RSG SURVEY USED TO INTERVIEW CITY STAFF 44 SAMPLE LETTERS INDICATING INTENT TO USE JFRTF 46 PARTIAL LIST OF AGENCIES THAT COULD UTILIZE THE JFRTF 50 MARKETING BROCHURE FOR CITY OF CORONA’S FIRING RANGE 51 2004/2006 FIRING RANGE BUSINESS PLAN 52 CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 1 OVERVIEW Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. (“RSG”) was retained to conduct an independent analysis of the revenue the proposed Joint First Responders Training Facility (“JFRTF”) may generate, and how much the City of Carlsbad (“City”) could save by conducting select Police and Fire Department trainings at the JFRTF. RSG interviewed City staff who is directly involved with the development of the JFRTF, contacted outside agencies that could potentially train at the JFRTF, and reviewed the previous business plan that was completed in September 2004 and revised in January 2006 (“2004/2006 Business Plan”). RSG projections and findings are summarized into distinct scenarios based on the amount of time that the JFRTF could potentially be booked by outside agencies. The following summarizes the contents of this report. MARKET ANALYSIS AND DEMAND RSG verified potential JFRTF usage from independent research and interviews of probable users. RSG supplemented the list of organizations that were contacted for the 2004/2006 Business Plan by contacting law enforcement and fire protection agencies that may elect to use this facility because of its location or because of its proposed state of the art facilities. This effort provides an updated forecast of current demand and how this demand could enhance projected revenue. We have included the relevant feedback and responses received from the groups and individuals contacted during the research phase at relevant points throughout the document. COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS RSG has included an overview of existing and planned facilities that might compete with the JFRTF. This overview summarizes the services that these facilities offer and the potential opportunities and advantages that the JFRTF may have over these competing facilities. NET NEW OPERATING COSTS AND TRAVEL EXPENSES Staff provided RSG with projected net new operating costs. Staff also provided training data to estimate the costs of sending Police and Fire Department personnel to trainings outside of the City that would be replicated at the JFRTF. These estimated costs include the personnel time spent traveling to and returning from the training activity, external range fees, and vehicle fuel and maintenance costs. FISCAL IMPACT AND MARKETING PLAN The fiscal impacts of operating the JFRTF are presented via three different operating scenarios: Scenario A (only the City utilizes the JFRTF), Scenario B (the JFRTF is utilized every day of the year by the City or outside agencies), and Scenario C (the JFRTF is utilized by the City and a conservative amount of days by outside agencies). Should the City move forward with an active marketing plan, RSG has also provided marketing recommendations that could serve as a starting point for future marketing efforts. CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RSG was tasked with evaluating the fiscal impact the proposed JFRTF would have on the City’s budget. In conducting the analysis, RSG met with City staff members1, all highly involved in the planning and development of the JFRTF. Staff provided valuable data in relation to existing training requirements and how training would be addressed at the JFRTF, as well as financial information relating to the estimated net new operating costs of the JFRTF. In addition, RSG reached out to other agencies that operate similar training facilities and agencies who have indicated an interest to utilize the new JFRTF for their training requirements. As outlined by staff, no decisions have been made in terms of opening the JFRTF to outside agencies. Because the primary purpose of the JFRTF is to meet public safety officers’ training needs, staff indicated that no determination has been made that potential revenue generated by the JFRTF would completely offset the net new operating costs to maintain the JFRTF. RSG synthesized all of the data collected, and estimates that the City is currently spending approximately $1 million annually to send Police and Fire personnel to trainings that currently occur outside of the City that could be replicated at the proposed JFRTF. This total does not represent the training budgets of these Departments because it includes travel time, fees charged at external ranges, and fuel and vehicle maintenance costs. Of the total $1 million amount, approximately $206,000 is being spent on personnel costs incurred during travel, range fees, and fuel and vehicle maintenance costs related to traveling to outside training facilities. This is the savings the City would realize by conducting training at the JFRTF. The remaining amount is being spent on the time public safety personnel are spending in the training activity. Because the amount of time spent in the actual training activity does not change with the JFRTF, there is no cost savings opportunity on the remaining amount. A breakdown of the $1 million spent on training that occurs outside of the City is included in the Appendix. Once these cost savings were calculated, RSG estimated the revenue generating potential of the JFRTF. The revenue potential was addressed separately for each of the five unique training areas that the JFRTF will offer.2 Utilizing different net new operating costs provided by staff for each scenario, RSG organized the net fiscal impact into three distinct scenarios. Construction costs were not included in the analysis. The first scenario, Scenario A, assumes only the City would utilize the JFRTF. There is no revenue generating potential in this Scenario. By taking into account the $206,000 of cost savings (travel time, rental fees, and vehicle fuel and maintenance costs) from the estimated net new operating cost of $260,000, Scenario A would result in a net negative fiscal impact of -$54,000. The second scenario, Scenario B, assumes the JFRTF would be used every day of the year by outside agencies whenever the City was not using the JFRTF. This maximum-use scenario would incur higher net new operating costs than Scenario A because increased use would result in higher net new operating costs and addition of two range masters (net new operating costs increase by $297,000). The estimated net new operating cost of $557,000 would be offset by the $206,000 cost savings, plus an estimated $766,000 in revenue generated from bookings by outside agencies. Scenario B would result in a net positive fiscal impact of $415,000. The third scenario, Scenario C, assumes the City would utilize the JFRTF along with a conservative amount of bookings from outside agencies based upon prospective user feedback. This scenario would incur higher net new operating costs than Scenario A because increased use would result in higher net new maintenance costs and addition of one range master (net new operating costs increase by $149,000). The estimated net new operating cost of $409,000 would be offset by the $206,000 cost savings, plus an estimated $385,000 in revenue generated from bookings by outside agencies. Scenario C would result in a net positive fiscal impact of $182,000. 1 Staff members interviewed included Skip Hammann, Special Projects Director, Battalion Chief Mike Lopez, Fire Department, Captain Bill Rowland, Police Department, Brent Gerber, Finance Department, and Bill Plummer, Engineering and Public Works. 2 Potential revenue generating training areas include the firing range, PRISM system, commercial burn props, residential burn props, and classroom space. CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 3 In summary, City-only use of the JFRTF would increase net new operating costs by $260,000 per year. This amount could be offset by the $206,000 cost savings (based on personnel travel time, range rental fees, vehicle fuel and maintenance cost savings); if the City elects to rent the JFRTF to other agencies (when not in City use); the JFRTF could generate a projected revenue surplus of $182,000 to $415,000 per year. JFRTF HISTORY For twenty years, the Carlsbad Police Department maintained a firearms training range near Palomar Airport, at the eastern end of Marcario Canyon. The facility included twelve shooting lanes with weapons cleaning tables. The facility lacked any full-time range staff, and the training staff consisted of specially selected sworn personnel whose primary duties were elsewhere in the Police Department. In the Fall of 2005, the range was closed to facilitate the City’s new golf course. Since then, the Police Department has been without a dedicated firearms training facility located within close proximity of the City and has had to rely on other facilities located some distance away. To address the loss of local police training facilities and to address other City training needs, staff embarked upon the design of a comprehensive training facility as a result of the closure of the previous facility. As part of this effort, staff prepared the 2004/2006 Business Plan; however, specific fire training components were not addressed. As the scope of the City’s needs increased, the JFRTF evolved and fire training and operations were added to the design. The JFRTF would be located on the ball field at the existing Safety Center on Orion Way. Other surrounding uses include the Police Safety Center, Fire Station No. 5, the City’s Skateboard Park, and Public Works fleet maintenance yard. The proposed JFRTF is planned on being built in two phases and ultimately involve four separate buildings ranging from 2,246 square feet to 33,183 square feet in size. These buildings include:  A two-story shooting range and classroom facility – Phase I  A four-story commercial burn prop – Phase I  A two-story residential burn prop – Phase I  A two-story fire administration building (Phase II – operating costs of this building not included in projections) The commercial and residential props will be used by both the Police and Fire departments for various training exercises. The JFRTF will also include an outside drill grounds to practice tactical situations and maneuvers, a motor vehicle extrication area, a cul-de-sac training area for vehicle maneuverability training, and an outside classroom area. The JFRTF has been designed to meet the City’s current and future public safety training needs. A site plan outlining these features of the proposed JFRTF is included in Exhibit 1 on the following page. The 2004/2006 Business Plan, prepared by City staff, analyzed the potential revenue and expenditures resulting from operating a firing range only. Potential revenue and expenses from fire training elements were not included. The 2004/2006 Business Plan outlined three models:  Model 1 - City Use Only  Model 2 - Moderate Schedule (fee-paying guests use the range an average three days per week)  Model 3 - Full Schedule (fee-paying guests use the range an average of six days a week) While none of the scenarios produced a revenue surplus, the Moderate and Full Schedule scenarios produced revenue to somewhat mitigate some of the projected net new operating expenses. While the goal was not to produce enough revenue to completely offset the net new operating expenses, the existing plan did prove that significant revenue could be generated from the firing range operations. A copy of the 2004/2006 Business Plan is included in the Appendix of this report. CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 4 Exhibit 1—Site Plan of Proposed JFRTF Prepared by RRM Design Group Note: This drawing includes the Fire Administration Building, which will not be built in Phase 1. Operating costs for this building are not included in any of the projections in this report. CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 5 MARKET ANALYSIS AND DEMAND Based upon information provided by City staff on Police and Fire Department training requirements, RSG has projected the City’s use of the five training areas available for simultaneous use. Because the City will not utilize all of these areas every day of the year, there is an opportunity to recoup some amount of net new operating costs by renting out the JFRTF when it is not in use by the City. City staff has indicated that the JFRTF would not be made available to the general public; however, there is an interest in renting the JFRTF to outside law enforcement and fire protection agencies. Therefore, RSG has conducted research on the level of demand of the proposed JFRTF by outside agencies. A select group of outside law enforcement agencies were surveyed as part of the 2004/2006 Business Plan. The purpose was to gauge interest in using the proposed firing range. A variety of Federal, State, and local agencies completed a questionnaire which inquired about their anticipated frequency of use, preferred times of day, and ratings of intended features. According to the 2004/2006 Business Plan, the survey results indicated that most agencies had an interest in using the proposed firing range. However, given the period of time that has lapsed since those surveys were completed and the expanded scope of development and features available at the JFRTF, RSG contacted these and other agencies to independently verify the level of demand for the proposed JFRTF. Eighteen law enforcement and fire protection agencies, as well as a major firearm manufacturer who might be interested in hosting firearm safety courses at the JFRTF, were contacted3. These interviews indicate that there would be demand to utilize the JFRTF when not in use by the City. RSG’s estimated demand for the JFRTF by outside agencies is conservative, given the relatively small number of agencies interviewed when compared to the entire San Diego County market. Therefore, this would suggest that with an effective marketing strategy, the JFRTF could potentially be booked more days than RSG has estimated as part of this study. This information is further validated by existing levels of use in comparable California facilities. The City of Corona recently rehabilitated an existing warehouse facility into a police firearms range, and leases their firing range facility when not in use by its own police force. According to Corona staff, their facility is leased out approximately 50% of the available time based upon a ten-hour per day operating schedule. According to Corona staff, however, it has taken approximately three years to build up to this level of outside agency use. RSG also interviewed the staff from the Cities of Escondido and Fairfield. Both Cities have their own police firing ranges which may be rented to outside law enforcement agencies. In the case of Escondido, the City’s firing range is estimated to be used between 30% and 40% of the available time by the City’s own police department. While staff could not specifically quantify the level of demand by outside agencies, the Escondido staff did offer that there is great demand from Federal, State, and local municipal agencies. In the case of the City of Fairfield, their facility is booked internally or by outside agencies on most days of the year except during the summer months. Confirmed agencies expressing an interest in utilizing the new JFRTF include: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Oceanside Police Department, Federal Drug Enforcement Agency, State Insurance Investigators, California State Parks, California State University San Marcos Police Department, and Mira Costa College Police Department. While a variety of agencies have expressed interest in utilizing the JFRTF to meet their individual training needs, the current economy’s negative impact on Federal, State, and local public agency revenues and budgets could reduce this demand. Nonetheless, this may be offset by the real need to keep public safety personnel properly trained even during tough financial times. 3 These include: California State Parks, Oceanside Police Department, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, Cal State San Marcos Police Department, Palomar College Police Department, Mira Costa College Police Department, State Insurance Investigators, California Highway Patrol – Oceanside, Colt, San Clemente Police Department, Dana Point Police Department, San Juan Capistrano Police Department, Corona Police Department, Escondido Police Department, Fairfield Police Department, Rancho Santa Fe Fire Department, San Marcos Fire Department, and Oceanside Fire Department. CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 6 COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS In analyzing the potential competition for the JFRTF, RSG looked at facilities from both the firing range and fire training perspectives. FIRING RANGE TRAINING RSG utilized existing information and independent verification in identifying other public firing ranges in the greater San Diego County area. Table 1 below identifies various firing ranges in San Diego County:4 Table 1 – Public Firing Range Facilities in San Diego County Range Location Indoor / Outdoor American Shooting Center Kearny Mesa Indoor Carrizo Creek Range Jacumba Outdoor Discount Gun Mart San Diego Indoor Escondido Fish & Game Association Escondido Outdoor Hidden Valley Range Escondido Outdoor Iron Sights Oceanside Indoor Lakeside Sportsman’s Club Lakeside Outdoor Lemon Grove Rod & Gun Club Lemon Grove Outdoor Orosco Ridge Shooting Area Ramona Outdoor Pala Range Pala Indian reservation Outdoor Palomar Sportsmen’s Club Ranchita Outdoor Project 2000 Range El Cajon Indoor/Outdoor Rainbow Range Rainbow Outdoor San Diego Police Revolver Club Range San Diego Outdoor San Diego Shotgun Sports Miramar Outdoor South Bay Rod & Gun Club Dulzura Outdoor These facilities offer handgun, rifle, and shotgun training areas. In meeting with staff, the primary firing range training facilities utilized by the Police Department include Camp Pendleton, Escondido Firing Range, Iron Sights, Pala Indian Reservation, and Otay Mesa. These are the firing range facilities that RSG considers to be in direct competition with the proposed JFRTF. The remaining facilities listed above are open to the general public, and are not necessarily configured to adequately address training needs required by law enforcement officers. One competing firing range facility that has been funded since the 2004/2006 Business Plan was completed is the City of Escondido’s training facility. This firing range facility includes a 175-yard rifle range adjacent to a 50-yard pistol range. Other components of the $1.6 million renovation include steeper backstops to stop stray bullets, an improved access road, a larger parking lot, and a fence to prevent hikers from gaining access to the 22-acre range.5 4 Table taken from http://shooting.forsandiego.com/Ranges.html 5 Escondido: Major Facelift of City Firing Range Complete. David Garrack. North County Times. August 30, 2008. CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 7 While not in San Diego County, the City of Corona’s firing range facility could also be potential competition. Corona’s facilities include pistol and rifle ranges, meeting space, and outdoor tactical training areas. They will soon be upgrading their electronic firing range simulator; this simulator is similar to the proposed PRISM system at the JFRTF. While the Corona facility is approximately 75 miles away and not convenient for all San Diego County public agencies, the Corona facility could potentially draw State and Federal agencies away from the JFRTF. FIRE TRAINING In terms of competing fire training facilities, the Carlsbad Fire Department trains the most in Rancho Santa Fe, San Marcos, and Oceanside. According to the Fire Department, these facilities all offer basically the same training opportunities; they all would compete with the JFRTF for fire safety trainings. The Rancho Santa Fe Protection District currently operates out of four full-time fire stations serving communities surrounding and within Rancho Santa Fe, 4S-Ranch and Fairbanks Ranch Cielo, and The Crosby. The District’s training facility includes the following6:  Areas for emergency medical scenarios, auto extrication, confined space, high and low angle rescue, Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus, Rope/Rescue Systems, and progressive hose lays  Live-fire training  Emergency Vehicle Operations Course  Fire Readiness Exercises The San Marcos Fire Department’s regional emergency services training facility is operated under the Emergency Services Department. The San Marcos facility includes7:  A fire and rescue drill tower  Fully equipped instructional building  Reconfigurable floor plans to assist with search and rescue training opportunities.  Ventilation prop that can be fitted for either a flat or pitched roof  An environmental burn room for conducting live fire training exercises  Working sprinkler and standpipe system  All-weather prop area for vehicle extrication and controlled propane/natural gas training exercises The Oceanside Fire Training Facility includes8:  Training Division Staff and Offices  A training tower equipped with standpipe  A confined space prop  Classrooms  A flashover simulator  A tool and hose repair shop 6 According to Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District website, www.rsf-fire.org 7 According to San Marcos Fire Department website, www.ci.san-marcos.ca.us 8 According to Oceanside Fire Department website, www.osidefire.com CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 8 COMPETITIVE SUMMARY There are other choices for firing range and fire training facilities in and around San Diego County. However, based upon the research conducted by RSG, it would appear that the JFRTF will be a unique public safety training destination in the County which will offer local, County, State, and Federal agencies the opportunity to conduct a wider range of training activities that would involve more people. Unlike other firearm training facilities, the JFRTF would provide an indoor firing range with sound baffling and complete environmental control. It is also entirely possible that the firing range component of the JFRTF could be operated around the clock. While there are other fire training facilities with some of the same features, the JFRTF would allow for a wider range of training environments in commercial and residential scenarios. The JFRTF will have a competitive advantage in the marketplace because it would be a unique training destination for members of the public safety community. Exhibit 2 on the following page identifies the location of firing range and fire training facilities that could compete with the JFRTF. As previously stated, however, these facilities present opportunities for either police training or fire training but not both. The training facilities that could cause competition for the fire training components, primarily the commercial and residential burn props, of the JFRTF are identified by a red fire hydrant, and the facilities marked by a handgun are firing ranges that could compete with firing ranges at the JFRTF. Additionally, Exhibit 2 shows the location of local law enforcement stations for the County Sheriff, city police, and university campus police, as well as stations for the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency. CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 9 CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 10 NET NEW OPERATING AND TRAVEL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH EXTERNAL TRAINING RSG prepared financial models to estimate the total amount currently being spent to train Police and Fire personnel outside of the City. Certain training will still be required to be completed offsite and not at the JFRTF; these offsite trainings are not included in the analysis. Our calculations are based upon the JFRTF operating 365 days per year, eight hours per day. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Staff estimated the JFRTF’s net new operating costs. These costs included utility usage, employee costs associated with operations and facility maintenance, materials costs, and fire training waste water and rain water treatment costs (this water will be treated and used for irrigation). Based on these assumptions, staff determined that the estimated net new operating costs would range from $260,000 to $557,000 based on how much use is generated at the JFRTF by the City and outside agencies. The operating cost estimates in the 2004/2006 Business Plan ranged from $115,500 to $323,000 (these cost estimates only assumed a firing range and did not include fire training facilities). RSG compared the total operating costs provided by staff with total operating costs obtained from other agencies as part of this study. Total operating costs were utilized instead of net new operating costs to more accurately compare operating budgets for similar training facilities. Table 2 outlines total operating costs of each proposed Scenario of the JFRTF, along with the operating costs of comparable training facilities at the City of Corona. It should be noted that the operating costs for the City of Corona are for their firing range and Corporate Yard Training facilities. The City of Corona conducts similar training exercises at the Corporate Yard Training facility that are proposed for the JFRTF, such as car extrications and other emergency training scenarios. Corona’s operating costs, however, do not include any commercial or residential burn props proposed for the JFRTF. Table 2 – Comparison of Total Operating Costs Total Operating Costs JFRTF - Scenario A $390,607 JFRTF - Scenario B $687,365 JFRTF - Scenario C $538,986 Corona (firing range and Corporate Yard Training) $596,850 Based on the training activities estimated by the City of Corona staff for their firing range and Corporate Yard Training Facility, their estimated usage would fall between Scenario B and Scenario C. While not a direct comparison due to different training components, the City of Corona’s operating costs for their public safety training and firing range facilities is $596,8509. This amount falls between the estimated operating costs for Scenario B and Scenario C. This is one indicator that the JFRTF’s operating costs are in line with those experienced at another municipal facility. 9 $596,850 is the amount listed for the Training Section in the FY 2008-09 Adopted Budget for the City of Corona. The Training Section covers both the firing range and the Corporate Yard Training facility. CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 11 RSG also obtained operating cost data from the City of Fairfield. Fairfield operates a firing range; their personnel identified yearly usage and bookings by outside agencies that are comparable to Scenario C. Scenario C assumes the City will utilize the facility, as well as a conservative amount of bookings by outside agencies. In the initial assessment, the yearly costs for the firing range component of Scenario C would be $218,229; this compares to Fairfield’s annual operating cost of $225,587.10 Upon closer inspection, several adjustments must be made. The firing range component of Scenario C includes overtime, ammunition, and liability insurance costs whereas Fairfield’s operating budget does not include these costs. If these three costs are removed from the firing range component of the Scenario C operating budget, the operating cost of the firing range component of Scenario C drops to $175,629, which is lower than Fairfield’s operating cost of $225,587. RSG also analyzed the maintenance and utility costs for the two facilities. Scenario C of the JFRTF is budgeting $77,950 for maintenance costs, which includes targeting system replacement, supplies, and upgrades. Fairfield budgets $83,273 for the same type of items. It is important to note that the operating costs listed here for Scenario C are for costs attributable to the firing range, and do not include any operating costs attributable to fire training operations. As these analyses indicate, the estimated operating costs of the JFRTF are in line with those experienced at the City of Fairfield. A detailed table comparing the operating costs of the firing range component of Scenario C with the operating costs of the firing range facility at the City of Fairfield is included in the Appendix. Finally, RSG analyzed partial operating costs for fire training facilities. The Orange County Fire Authority (“OCFA”) is a regional fire service agency that provides fire services to 22 cities and all of the unincorporated territory in the County of Orange. The OCFA owns and operates a sophisticated Regional Fire Operations and Training Center (“RFOTC”). RSG requested information regarding OCFA’s maintenance and operating costs for the components that would be comparable to fire training components of the JFRTF. However, because OCFA does not lease out the RFOTC to outside agencies (apart from strategic partners such as the Orange County Sherriff’s Office whom they do not charge to use the facility) they do not track maintenance and operating costs of the training components separately from the administration/operations components. However, OCFA staff did estimate utility expenditures associated with fire training based upon their Fiscal Year 2008-09 budget. OCFA staff arrived at these estimates by taking their total budgeted amount of various utility costs and multiplied them by the estimated amount of utility usage consumed by the training component of the RFOTC. OCFA staff also reported that the RFOTC is utilized almost daily for fire training purposes. This intensive use would be comparable to the amount of use estimated in Scenario B of the JFRTF. RSG also conducted a field survey of the RFOTC, and observed a larger area and more training equipment such as a tanker car on a segment of train track. These field observations indicate, along with OCFA’s Fiscal Year 2008-09 total budget of $294 million, that the RFOTC would likely have a higher operating cost than the JFRTF. A comparison of estimated utility costs for the fire training components of the JFRTF assuming a maximum use scenario and the RFOTC are provided in Table 3 on the following page. 10 $225,587 is the estimated operating cost of the City of Fairfield’s firing range for 2009. This number was chosen as a comparison to the firing range component of Scenario C because staffing and operational levels for the Fairfield facility in 2009 compare more accurately to the staffing and operational levels of Scenario C of the JFRTF. CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 12 Table 3 – Comparison of Utility Costs between JFRTF Scenario B and Orange County Fire Maintenance & Operation JFRTF Scenario B - Max Use* OC Fire** Water (fire attack)15,000 17,591 Propane for fire props 15,000 7,380 Heat and Light 2,000 26,814 Water 2,000 17,591 Total Comparable Costs $34,000 $69,376 * Scenario B used for comparison because OC Fire stated their facility is used virtually every day ** OC Fire numbers are estimated by OC Fire personnel In summary, RSG believes that from the data collected and analyzed, the total operating costs provided by staff for the JFRTF are within an acceptable range when compared to available data from other municipal training facilities. EXTERNAL TRAINING COSTS When members of the Police and Fire Departments are sent to trainings outside of the City, many cost factors must be accounted for. Not only is time spent in the training activity itself, but the individual also spends time in a vehicle traveling to and from the training location, which consumes fuel and incurs vehicle maintenance costs. The Police Department must also pay range rental fees when training at external firing ranges. By having public safety personnel close to the City and available, not scattered all over the County at various training facilities, a significant benefit is realized in the event of an emergency or critical incident. While it is challenging to quantify this benefit, it is still an invaluable asset having public safety officers close to home when conducting their training. This benefit was echoed by public safety officials contacted during RSG’s research. Another benefit that is difficult to quantify is reduced liability exposure. City employees will spend less time on freeways traveling for training, which will decrease exposure to accidents that endanger the health and safety of personnel and damage to public vehicles. RSG has estimated total costs involved with outside training activities; the costs are broken down into personnel (based on overtime at time and a half), external range fees, and fuel and vehicle maintenance that are all associated with traveling to and from the training facility. Police Department The Police Department estimated that in 2008, approximately 12,000 hours were spent in training for all sworn officers. Of this total, approximately 3,200 hours were spent in firearm, defensive and tactical training that will be replicated at the JFRTF. These training hours were then allocated to general training, SWAT training, sniper training, and training required for certified range masters. As provided by Captain Bill Rowland, the primary locations that the Police Department travels to train include Camp Pendleton, Iron Sights, the facilities at the Pala Indian Reservation, Otay Mesa, and the Escondido Firing Range. To generate the estimated cost of training outside of the City, RSG calculated an average travel distance based on the five aforementioned locations. Utilizing an average of two hours of travel time (preparing for, traveling to, and returning from the training facility), and multiplying that time by the estimated hourly personnel cost (based on overtime at time and a half), RSG calculated an estimated personnel cost to travel to the training facility and return to the City. Fuel and vehicle maintenance costs were calculated by taking the rates provided by the City’s fleet center multiplied by the average fuel economy of vehicles used for training, and multiplying that figure by the estimated miles driven by the Police Department to and from training activities. The Police Department provided RSG with the total amount of fees paid at external range facilities. As depicted in Table 4, the estimated cost for Police Department personnel travel time, external range fees, and vehicle fuel and maintenance expenses is $155,000. Again, this is the estimated cost for CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 13 only the training activities the Police Department currently conducts outside of the City and anticipates replicating at the JFRTF. Table 4 – Estimated Training Costs for Police Department Personnel Travel Time Cost Range Rental Fees* Fuel Cost Vehicle Maintenance Cost Total Travel Related Training Cost $126,000 $6,000 $7,000 $16,000 $155,000 * Fee amount provided by the Police Department RSG also calculated the estimated personnel cost for time spent in the training activity itself. RSG calculated this amount by taking the average time spent in the training activity (provided by the Police Department), and multiplying it by the estimated hourly personnel cost. Because the personnel cost for time spent in training activities will be the same at the JFRTF, this cost is not included as part of the savings when replicating training at the JFRTF. A calculation of this cost is included in the Appendix. Fire Department The Fire Department estimates that every member of the department spends approximately twenty hours every month in training. As provided by Battalion Chief Mike Lopez, the primary training locations are Rancho Santa Fe, San Marcos, and Oceanside. RSG looked at total hours spent in training, estimated the total hours and quantity of training activities. Assuming some training would still occur outside of the City, RSG made adjustments to account for this. To generate the estimated cost of training outside of the City for the Fire Department, RSG utilized the same methodology as described for the Police Department. RSG calculated an average travel distance based on the three aforementioned locations. Utilizing an average of two hours of travel time (preparing for, traveling to and returning from the facility), and multiplying by an estimated hourly personnel cost (based on overtime at time and a half), RSG then calculated an estimated personnel cost to travel to the training facility and return to the City. Fuel and vehicle maintenance costs were calculated by taking the rates provided by the City’s fleet center, average fuel economy of vehicles used for training, and multiplying them by the estimated miles driven by the Fire Department to and from training activities. As depicted in Table 5, these estimated annual costs are $51,000. Again, this is the estimated cost for only the training activities the Fire Department anticipates replicating at the JFRTF, not all training activities that may still occur outside of the City in the future. Table 5 – Estimated Training Costs for Fire Department Personnel Travel Time Cost Fuel Cost Vehicle Maintenance Cost Total Travel Related Training Cost $30,000 $5,000 $16,000 $51,000 CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 14 RSG also calculated the estimated personnel cost for time spent in training activities; the same methodology was used as described for the Police Department. These cost calculations are included in the Appendix. Summary RSG estimates that the City spends approximately $1 million on total training costs to send members of the Police and Fire Departments outside of the City. The estimated cost of the travel time, rental fees, and fuel and vehicle maintenance costs associated with these outside training activities equals $206,000. Conducting these training activities at the JFRTF could generate $206,000 of savings. It is important to note that this estimate is a static one year estimate and has not been projected over time with cost inflators. Table 6 summarizes these travel-related costs. Table 6 – Summary of Training Costs for Police and Fire Departments Personnel Travel Time Cost External Rental Fees Fuel Cost Vehicle Maintenance Cost Total Travel Related Training Cost Police $126,000 $6,000 $7,000 $16,000 $155,000 Fire $30,000 - $5,000 $16,000 $51,000 Total $156,000 $6,000 $12,000 $32,000 $206,000 A separate outside training cost analysis for the Public Works Department was not completed. According to staff, the only major training activity that Public Works could perform at the JFRTF would be confined space training. The amount of Public Works personnel travel time and fuel and vehicle maintenance costs for this type of activity are very minimal, and were not included in the savings estimate calculated by RSG. CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 15 POTENTIAL JFRTF REVENUE In estimating the revenue potential of the JFRTF, RSG assumed three different revenue scenarios:  Scenario A - Only the City would use the JFRTF (no revenue generated).  Scenario B - Whenever the City was not using the JFRTF, the JFRTF would be completely booked by outside agencies.  Scenario C - Whenever the City was not using the JFRTF, a conservative estimate of how many days the JFRTF could be booked for outside agency use. The first step in estimating the revenue potential of the JFRTF involved identifying the revenue generating training modules that could simultaneously occur at any given time. These modules include:  Firing range (both pistol and rifle range)  PRISM (digital weapons and situational simulator)  Commercial Burn Props  Residential Burn Props  Classroom space The following methodology was used to calculate the revenue potential of these training modules: 1. The total amount of revenue that each module could generate was calculated. 2. Full- and half-day rates were established for outside agencies training for each module. These rates were either provided by staff or estimated by RSG based on comparable rates from other facilities. 3. The percentage of time that the City would use each training module was projected, and this time was deducted from the total available time. City staff provided estimates on City use for each training module. 4. The remaining revenue, after the time the City would estimate using the training areas was removed, equals the maximum amount of revenue that could be expected to be generated. This amount was used to calculate the net fiscal impact for Scenario B. To estimate the more conservative revenue assumption in Scenario C, RSG assumed only half of the amount of revenue to be collected in Scenario B would be realized. These revenue estimates are based on a 365 -day per year, eight-hour day operating schedule. Should the ultimate plan involve a different operating schedule, the revenue assumptions would change. Firing Range To calculate the estimated firing range revenue potential, RSG separated the projections into pistol and rifle range estimates. Per staff and input from other agencies contacted for this study, it is possible that one agency could book the pistol range while another agency books the rifle range. Based upon the estimates provided in the 2004/2006 Business Plan and input gathered from other agencies that operate a firing range, RSG assumed the pistol and rifle ranges at the JFRTF would be booked at $650 for a full day or $400 for a half day. By taking averages of full- and half-day usage and multiplying the amount by 365 days, RSG was able to determine the maximum estimated revenue the firing range could generate. Based on feedback from the Police Department and other agencies, it was estimated that the Police Department would utilize the firing range component of the JFRTF approximately 30% of the total available time. By removing the Police Department’s estimated usage of 30%, 70% of the total available time could be available for outside agency use. This amount of outside use, multiplied by the daily average booking rate of the firing range, was utilized in the calculation of the maximum revenue scenario. To calculate the conservative revenue expectation, RSG assumed only half of the remaining time after the City’s use was CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 16 removed would be booked by outside agencies, or 35% of the total available time in the year. The estimated revenue projections from both the maximum and conservative approaches are detailed in Table 7. Table 7 – Estimated Maximum and Conservative Revenue Generated by Firing Range Revenue Based on 70% of the Year Booked by Outside Agencies Scenario B Revenue Based on 35% of the Year Booked by Outside Agencies Scenario C $370,000 $185,000 RSG contacted sixteen outside agencies11 to determine the number of days they would be interested in booking the firing range. To date, RSG has received return calls from seven agencies. These seven agencies have combined to verbally commit to 135 days, or 37% of the amount of total days available in the year. While only verbal commitments, RSG feels that if all agencies with the potential to utilize the firing range provided feedback, the estimated usage of outside agencies would be considerably higher than 35%. To provide perspective, RSG learned from the City of Fairfield that they realized approximately 170 days of bookings by outside agencies last year, or 47% of the available time in the year. PRISM System To calculate the estimated revenue potential of the PRISM System, RSG used estimates provided in the 2004/2006 Business Plan and input gathered from other agencies that operate PRISM or similar systems. RSG assumed the PRISM system at the JFRTF would be booked at $650 for a full day or $400 for a half day. By taking averages of full- and half-day usage and multiplying the amount by 365 days, RSG determined the maximum estimated revenue the PRISM system could generate. Based on feedback from the Police Department and other agencies contacted, it was estimated that the Police Department would utilize the PRISM system approximately 25% of the available time in the year. By removing the Police Department’s estimated usage of 25%, 75% of the total available hours remain. This amount of outside use, multiplied by the average daily booking rate, was utilized in the calculation of the maximum revenue scenario. To calculate the conservative revenue expectation, RSG assumed only half of the remaining time would be booked by outside agencies, or 37.5% of the available time in the year. The estimated revenue projections are detailed in Table 8. Table 8 – Estimated Maximum and Conservative Revenue Generated by PRISM Revenue Based on 75% of Remaining Year Booked by Outside Agencies Scenario B Revenue Based on Half of Remaining Year (37.5%) Booked by Outside Agencies Scenario C $198,000 $99,000 11 These agencies include: California State Parks, Oceanside Police Department, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, Cal State San Marcos Police Department, Palomar College Police Department, Mira Costa College Police Department, State Insurance Investigators, California Highway Patrol – Oceanside, Colt, San Clemente Police Department, Dana Point Police Department, San Juan Capistrano Police Department, Corona Police Department, Escondido Police Department, Fairfield Police Department. CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 17 Every agency contacted did not own and operate a PRISM system, or a comparable digital firing and tactical simulator. However, based on comments received and input received from the Carlsbad Police Department, it is RSG’s opinion that this estimated amount of booking by outside agencies is conservative. Commercial Burn Props To calculate the estimated revenue potential of the commercial burn props, RSG utilized input from the Fire Department and from other agencies that operate similar facilities. RSG assumed the commercial burn props at the JFRTF would be booked at $450 for a full day or $250 for a half day. By taking averages of full- and half-day usage and multiplying the amount by 365 days, RSG was able to determine the maximum estimated revenue the commercial burn prop area could generate. Based on feedback from the Fire Department and other agencies contacted, it was estimated that the Fire Department would utilize the commercial burn props approximately 60% of the time. By removing the Fire Department’s estimated usage of 60%, 40% of the total available time in the year remains. This amount of outside use, multiplied by the average daily booking rate, was utilized in the calculation of the maximum revenue scenario. To calculate the conservative revenue expectation, RSG assumed only half of the remaining time would be booked by outside agencies, or 20%. The estimated revenue projections from both the maximum and conservative approaches are detailed in Table 9. Table 9 - Estimated Maximum and Conservative Revenue Generated by Commercial Burn Props Revenue Based on 40% of Remaining Year Booked by Outside Agencies Scenario B Revenue Based on Half of Remaining Year (20%) Booked by Outside Agencies Scenario C $69,000 $35,000 It is RSG’s opinion that the estimated booking fees for outside agencies to utilize the commercial burn props and their estimated usage is conservative. While many fire training facilities in San Diego do not charge other fire agencies to utilize their facilities, RSG received information from the City of Anaheim that included a booking fee of $600 per day. A detailed breakdown of billing fees for the City of Anaheim is included in the Appendix. Residential Burn Props To calculate the estimated revenue potential of the residential burn props, RSG utilized input from the Fire Department and from other agencies that operate similar facilities. RSG assumed the residential burn props at the JFRTF would be booked at $450 for a full day or $250 for a half day. By taking averages of full- and half-day usage and multiplying the amount by 365 days, RSG was able to determine the maximum estimated revenue the residential burn prop area could generate. Based on feedback from the Fire Department and other agencies contacted, it was estimated that the Fire Department would utilize the residential burn props approximately 60% of the available time in the year. By removing the Fire Department’s estimated usage of 60%, 40% of the total available time in the year remains. This amount of outside use, multiplied by the average daily booking rate, was utilized in the calculation of the maximum revenue scenario. To be conservative, RSG assumed only half of the remaining time would be booked by outside agencies, or 20% of the total available time. The estimated revenue projections from both the maximum and conservative approaches are detailed on the following page in Table 10. CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 18 Table 10 - Estimated Maximum and Conservative Revenue Generated by Residential Burn Props Revenue Based on 40% of Remaining Year Booked by Outside Agencies Scenario B Revenue Based on Half of Remaining Year (20%) Booked by Outside Agencies Scenario C $69,000 $35,000 As mentioned previously, many fire training facilities in San Diego do not charge other fire agencies to utilize their facilities. However, the City of Anaheim did provide a breakdown of fees for their fire training facility. While their fees are broken down into many more categories, it does provide insight into how fees are structured and their relationships to each other. It is RSG’s opinion that the estimated booking fees for outside agencies to utilize the residential burn props and their estimated usage is conservative. Classroom Space To calculate the estimated revenue potential of the classroom space, RSG utilized input from all members of the JFRTF team and RSG’s independent estimates. RSG assumed the classroom space at the JFRTF would be booked at $250 for a full day or $150 for a half day. By taking averages of full- and half-day usage and multiplying the amount by 365 days, RSG was able to determine the maximum estimated revenue the classroom space could generate. Based on feedback from the JFRTF team, it was estimated that the City would utilize the classroom space approximately 40% of the available time in the year. By removing the City’s estimated usage of 40%, 60% of the total available time in the year remains. This amount of outside use, multiplied by the average daily booking rate, was utilized in the calculation of the maximum revenue scenario. To calculate the conservative revenue expectation, RSG assumed only half of the remaining time would be booked by outside agencies, or 30% of the total available time in the year. The estimated revenue projections from both the maximum and conservative approaches are detailed below in Table 11. Table 11 - Estimated Maximum and Conservative Revenue Generated by Classroom Space Revenue Based on 60% of Remaining Year Booked by Outside Agencies Scenario B Revenue Based on Half of Remaining Year (30%) Booked by Outside Agencies Scenario C $60,000 $30,000 It is RSG’s opinion that the booking rates and estimated amount of booking by outside agencies is conservative. The City currently charges as much as $40 per hour for meeting room space and $100 per hour to utilize the auditorium.12 In data provided by the City of Anaheim, their booking rates for all three of their classrooms at their training facility costs $100 per hour. In comparison, the $250 per day booking fee utilized for this analysis for the classroom space at the JFRTF is on the conservative side. 12 According to the City’s website: http://www.carlsbadca.gov/carlsbadmedia/3fee.html CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 19 Revenue Estimate Summary Table 12 provides a summary of each of the training module revenue estimates for both the maximum and conservative approaches. Table 12 – Summary of Maximum and Conservative Revenue Estimates Maximum Revenue Estimate Scenario B Conservative Revenue Estimate Scenario C Firing Range $370,000 $185,000 PRISM System $198,000 $99,000 Commercial Burn Props $69,000 $35,000 Residential Burn Props $69,000 $35,000 Classroom Space $60,000 $30,000 Total $766,000 $385,000 * All Values Rounded CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 20 SUMMARY As presented in the Executive Summary, three distinct scenarios have been outlined and analyzed to provide the best insight into the fiscal impacts of the proposed JFRTF. In order to provide an overview of the findings and analysis, RSG has summarized the potential fiscal impact of the three scenarios on the following pages. SCENARIO A In this scenario, only City departments would utilize the JFRTF. Without outside agencies utilizing the JFRTF, there would be very little, if any, revenue generating capabilities. If only the City uses the JFRTF, no additional staff would need to be hired, resulting in the lowest net new operating costs of the three scenarios of approximately $260,000. The projected cost savings from conducting training exercises at the JFRTF that were previously conducted outside the City would be $206,000. Scenario A, with no revenue generation expectations, could result in a projected net negative fiscal impact of -$54,000. Scenario A is summarized below in Table 13. Table 13 – Fiscal Impact of Scenario A * Excludes construction costs Net New Operating Costs* -$260,000 Plus Cost Savings $206,000 Net Fiscal Impact -$54,000 CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 21 SCENARIO B In this scenario, the JFRTF would be fully booked every day when not used by the City. While this may not be the most realistic scenario, it does provide a benchmark for the maximum revenue that the City could generate. In this maximum capacity scenario, net new operating costs would be higher than any other scenario. Staff estimates the net new operating costs of Scenario B would equal $557,000. These net new operating costs includes increased amounts for items such as maintenance of the firing range backstops, gas, electric and water utility costs, custodial services, maintenance and upkeep of the targeting systems, and hiring two full-time range masters. The estimated cost savings of conducting training at the proposed JFRTF would remain constant at approximately $206,000. When including the maximum revenue potential of $766,000, Scenario B would potentially generate a net positive fiscal impact of $415,000. Scenario B is summarized below in Table 14. Table 14 – Fiscal Impact of Scenario B * Excludes construction costs Net New Operating Costs* -$557,000 Plus Cost Savings $206,000 Plus Revenue Potential $766,000 Net Fiscal Impact $415,000 CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 22 SCENARIO C In this scenario, the JFRTF would be booked only half of the total available days when not used by City departments. This conservative estimate is based on researching other facilities to determine realistic levels of outside agency use. Staff estimates that the net new operating costs for Scenario C would equal $409,000. In this Scenario, staff provided higher net new operating costs than expected in Scenario A based on increased amounts for items such as maintenance of the firing range backstops, gas, electric and water utility costs, custodial services, maintenance and upkeep of the targeting systems, and hiring one full-time range master. The estimated cost savings of conducting training at the proposed JFRTF would remain constant at approximately $206,000. When including $385,000 in revenue from conservative usage by outside agencies, Scenario C would potentially generate a net positive fiscal impact of $182,000. Scenario C is summarized below in Table 15. A summary of all of the Scenarios net fiscal impact can be found on the following page. Table 15 – Fiscal Impact of Scenario C * Excludes construction costs Net New Operating Costs* -$409,000 Plus Cost Savings $206,000 Plus Revenue Potential $385,000 Net Fiscal Impact $182,000 CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 23 Table 16 – Summary of Net Fiscal Impact of all Scenarios Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Net New Operating Costs -$260,000 -$557,000 -$409,000 Plus Cost Savings $206,000 $206,000 $206,000 Plus Revenue Potential $0 $766,000 $385,000 Net Fiscal Impact -$54,000 $415,000 $182,000 CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 24 FISCAL IMPACT OF REPLACEMENT FUND Another financial impact of operating the JFRTF that RSG analyzed included the fiscal implications of the City’s Replacement Fund policy. In order to cover future maintenance and replacement costs of items such as the roof, HVAC systems, and the building structure itself, the City would budget an annual amount to fund these future costs. In initial estimates, the City would set aside $270,000 each year to fund these maintenance and replacement costs. From a budgetary standpoint, this is an additional cost that must be accounted for in the ongoing operations of the JFRTF. Table 17 below summarizes the impact this contribution to the Replacement Fund would have on the overall net fiscal impact of the JFRTF. The Net Fiscal Impact of each Scenario is carried over from Table 16 on page 23. Table 17 – Fiscal Impact of Replacement Fund in All Scenarios Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Net Fiscal Impact -$54,000 $415,000 $182,000 Replacement Fund Contribution -$270,000 -$270,000 -$270,000 Net Impact of Replacement Fund -$324,000 $145,000 -$88,000 * Excludes construction costs Table 17 shows that only Scenario B would generate sufficient revenue to offset the annual contribution of $270,000 to the Replacement Fund. However, Table 17 displays data for a static one year time period. Over time, RSG has calculated that it would be possible for the JFRTF to generate sufficient revenue under Scenario C to offset both operating expenses and the contribution to the Replacement Fund. It should be noted that the decision to open the JFRTF to outside agencies for the purposes of generating a revenue stream is a policy decision the City will make in the future. Table 17 is only meant to demonstrate what impact the contribution to the Replacement Fund would have on the operational costs of the JFRTF. CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 25 MARKETING PLAN The value of any business plan is enhanced by a well designed and implemented marketing strategy. The 2004/2006 Business Plan clearly identified potential customers for the firing range, but did not include strategies for any other component in the new proposed JFRTF. In the case of the proposed JFRTF, the marketing plan will be critically important should the City decide to allow other agencies to utilize the proposed JFRTF. POTENTIAL USE GROUPS The following broad markets have been identified as potential groups that would be interested in utilizing the proposed JFRTF:  Police and law enforcement agencies (firing range, PRISM, classrooms, commercial and residential props) 1. Local 2. County 3. State 4. Federal  Law enforcement vendors (firing range, PRISM, classrooms) 1. Firearm manufacturers 2. Firearm training organizations  Fire departments and agencies (commercial and residential burn props and classrooms) 1. Local 2. Regional  Groups needing meeting or event space (classrooms) 1. City Departments other than Police, Fire, and Public Works 2. Other local agencies 3. Local community groups Other possibilities include special events for the general public and hosting professional shooting events. Once the City determines who will be the targeted groups for the proposed JFRTF, the next step will entail developing strategies to attract those groups. Based on research already completed by staff, plus outreach RSG conducted to other agencies that operate similar training facilities, the following are broad strategies to attract interest to the JFRTF:  Public media campaign for grand opening and ongoing life of the JFRTF  Website/webpage dedicated to the JFRTF to allow for online booking and sharing of information  Targeted mailings to agencies who utilized the previous firing range and also to potential agencies  Publication of details about the JFRTF in trade magazines and regional newsletters  Attendance and booth presence at trade shows, training seminars, and applicable conferences All the above mentioned strategies should be accompanied by a tracking system to better understand how effective they are and which ones should be continued over time. A sample of the brochure distributed by the City of Corona for their firing range is included in the Appendix. CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 26 APPENDIX  Data Sources  Police Department  Fire Department  Breakdown of $1 Million in External Training Costs  Detailed Operating Costs of Scenario A, B, and C  Breakdown of Fees for City of Anaheim Fire Training Facility  Firing Range Fee Schedule for City of Fairfield  Operating Cost Details of City of Fairfield Facility  Comparison of JFRTF Operating Costs with City of Fairfield Firing Range Operating Costs  Operating Cost Details of City of Corona  Reponses to RSG Survey of Outside Agencies  RSG Survey Used to Interview City Staff  Letters Indicating Intent To Use JFRTF  Marketing Brochure for City of Corona’s Firing Range  2004/2006 Firing Range Business Plan CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 27 DATA SOURCES Cost Factors for Police Department Estimated hours traveling to and from external training sites provided by Police Department: 1400 hours Estimated hours engaged in actual training activities provided by Police Department: 4000 hours Blended hourly rate to calculate personnel costs for traveling to and from training locations provided by City: $60 per hour (based on overtime at time and a half) Average distance driven for training calculated by RSG: 49 miles based on average distance to and from Camp Pendleton, Escondido Firing Range, Iron Sights (Oceanside), Pala Indian Reservation (Pala), and Otay Mesa Average Training Vehicle Fuel Economy provided by City: 8 miles per gallon Fuel rates provided by City’s fleet center: $ 2.45 per gallon Vehicle maintenance costs provided by fleet center: Average of $0.67 per mile based on patrol car at $0.75 per mile and commuter vehicle at $0.59 per mile Cost Factors for Fire Department Estimated hours engaged in actual training activities per month per department employee provided by Fire Department: 20 hours Estimated number of trainings per month per department employee provided by Fire Department: 10 trainings (two classroom, four field trainings outside of the City, and four field trainings inside the City) Blended hourly rate to calculate personnel costs for traveling to and from training locations provided by City: $45 per hour (based on overtime at time and a half and different from Police Department because of hours worked a week – 56 hours for Fire [2,912 per year] and 40 for Police [2080 per year]) Average distance driven for training calculated by RSG: 38 miles based on average distance to and from Rancho Santa Fe, San Marcos, and Oceanside Average Training Vehicle Fuel Economy provided by City: 4 miles per gallon Fuel rates provided by City’s fleet center: $ 2.45 per gallon Vehicle maintenance costs provided by fleet center: Average of $2.04 per mile based on fire engine at $3.56 per mile and fire commuter vehicle at $0.52 per mile CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 28 Breakdown of $1 Million Spent in External Trainings Total Personnel Travel Costs* $156,000 Total External Range Fees* $6,000 Total Fuel Costs* $12,000 Total Vehicle Maintenance* $32,000 Total Personnel Costs for Training Activity** $803,000 Total $1,009,000 *Cost utilized to calculate the estimated savings amount of $206,000 by replicating training at the JFRTF **Cost of personnel time spent in actual training activity, and not considered part of the savings of replicating training at the JFRTF. CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 29 DESCRIPTION POLICE SHOOTING RANGE FIRE PROP HOUSES PUBLIC WORKS OVERHEAD TOTAL Operation Description Internal Internal Internal Guests/Customers none none none Staffing none none .75 FTE (1) Salary & Benefits Salary -$ -$ 26,543$ 26,543$ PERS - - 7,384 7,384 MediCare - - 385 385 Life Insurance - - 121 121 Health Insurance - - 10,337 10,337 Long Term Disability - - 212 212 State Disability - - 130 130 Unemployment - - 27 27 Overtime for Training Staff 46,800 *18,240 *- 65,040 S&B Subtotal 46,800 18,240 45,139 110,179 Maintenance & OperationAmmunition 34,000 *- - 34,000 Cardboard and targets 2,500 *- - 2,500 Eye and hearing protection 600 *- - 600 Cleaning supplies 1,500 *- - 1,500 Target system replacements 2,000 - - 2,000 Backstop maintenance (mining)5,000 - - 5,000 Welding/concrete/other maint.3,000 - - 3,000 Portable backstop maint.3,500 *- - 3,500 Miscellaneous Supplies 1,500 *- - 1,500 Fire prop maintenance - 5,000 - 5,000 Software upgrades (PRISM, fire props)1,500 *1,500 - 3,000 Targeting system replac/deprec.20,000 - - 20,000 PRISM system replac/deprec.20,000 *- - 20,000 Fire prop replac/deprec.- 33,000 - 33,000 Office equipment (Xerox lease)2,100 - - 2,100 Smoke fluid - 3,000 - 3,000 Misc. training equipment (plywood etc)- 2,000 - 2,000 Water (fire attack)- 9,000 - 9,000 Propane for fire props - 9,000 - 9,000 IT Recharge (computer, phone)22,000 - - 22,000 Telephone and Communications 1,000 - - 1,000 Heat, Light, Exhaust Fans, A/C 34,000 1,000 - 35,000 Water 1,000 1,000 - 2,000 General Liability 2,500 - - 2,500 Minor Building Repairs - - 8,591 8,591 Misc. Outside Services - - 41,046 41,046 Electrical Supplies - - 3,818 3,818 Janitorial Supplies - - 2,864 2,864 Misc. Office Supplies - - 1,909 1,909 M&O Subtotal 157,700 64,500 58,228 280,428 Total Costs 204,500 82,740 103,367 390,607 * Estimated Costs Currently Budgeted 111,900 18,240 - 130,140 Net New Costs 92,600$ 64,500$ 103,367$ 260,467$ Revenues Firing Range ----$ PRISM System ----$ Commercial Burn Props ----$ Residential Burn Props ----$ Classroom Space ----$ Total Revenues N/A N/A N/A $0 Cost Savings N/A N/A N/A 206,000 Net Fiscal Impact N/A N/A N/A (54,000)$ (1) Includes Maintenance Worker & Custodian Carlsbad Joint First Responders Training Facility Operating Budget Scenario A CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 30 DESCRIPTION POLICE SHOOTING RANGE FIRE PROP HOUSES PUBLIC WORKS OVERHEAD TOTAL Operation Description Internal/External Internal/External Internal Guests/Customers Maximum Maximum none Staffing 2 Range Masters none .75 FTE (1) Salary & BenefitsSalary 102,000$ -$ 26,543$ 128,543$ Overtime 10,200 - - 10,200 PERS 28,028 - 7,384 35,412 MediCare 1,480 - 385 1,865 Life Insurance 466 - 121 587 Health Insurance 25,104 - 10,337 35,441 Long Term Disability 966 - 212 1,178 State Disability 612 - 130 742 Unemployment 102 - 27 129 Workers' Compensation 6,800 - - 6,800 Overtime for Training Staff 46,800 *18,240 *- 65,040 S&B Subtotal 222,558 18,240 45,139 285,937 Maintenance & OperationAmmunition 34,000 *- - 34,000 Cardboard and targets 2,500 *- - 2,500 Eye and hearing protection 600 *- - 600 Cleaning supplies 1,500 *- - 1,500 Target system replacements 4,000 - - 4,000 Backstop maintenance (mining)9,000 - - 9,000 Welding/concrete/other maint.5,500 - - 5,500 Portable backstop maint.3,500 *- - 3,500 Miscellaneous Supplies 1,500 *- - 1,500 Fire prop maintenance - 9,000 - 9,000 Software upgrades (PRISM, fire props)1,500 *2,500 - 4,000 Targeting system replac/deprec.40,000 - - 40,000 PRISM system replac/deprec.20,000 *- - 20,000 Fire prop replac/deprec.- 55,000 - 55,000 Office equipment (Xerox lease)3,100 - - 3,100 Smoke fluid - 5,500 - 5,500 Misc. training equipment (plywood etc)- 4,000 - 4,000 Water (fire attack)- 15,000 - 15,000 Propane for fire props - 15,000 - 15,000 IT Recharge (computer, phone)34,000 - - 34,000 Telephone and Communications 2,000 - - 2,000 Heat, Light, Exhaust Fans, A/C 64,000 2,000 - 66,000 Water 2,000 2,000 - 4,000 General Liability 4,500 - - 4,500 Minor Building Repairs - - 8,591 8,591 Misc. Outside Services - - 41,046 41,046 Electrical Supplies - - 3,818 3,818 Janitorial Supplies - - 2,864 2,864 Misc. Office Supplies - - 1,909 1,909 M&O Subtotal 233,200 110,000 58,228 401,428 Total Costs 455,758 128,240 103,367 687,365 * Estimated Costs Currently Budgeted 111,900 18,240 - 130,140 Net New Costs 343,858$ 110,000$ 103,367$ 557,225$ Revenues Firing Range ---370,000$ PRISM System --- 198,000 Commercial Burn Props --- 69,000 Residential Burn Props --- 69,000 Classroom Space --- 60,000 Total Revenues N/A N/A N/A 766,000 Cost Savings N/A N/A N/A 206,000 Net Fiscal Impact N/A N/A N/A 415,000$ (1) Includes Maintenance Worker & Custodian Carlsbad Joint First Responders Training Facility Operating Budget Scenario B CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 31 DESCRIPTION POLICE SHOOTING RANGE FIRE PROP HOUSES PUBLIC WORKS OVERHEAD TOTAL Operation Description Internal/External Internal/External Internal Guests/Customers Limited Limited none Staffing 1 Range Master none .75 FTE (1) Salary & BenefitsSalary 51,000$ -$ 26,543$ 77,543$ Overtime 5,100 - - 5,100 PERS 14,014 - 7,384 21,398 MediCare 740 - 385 1,125 Life Insurance 233 - 121 354 Health Insurance 12,552 - 10,337 22,889 Long Term Disability 483 - 212 695 State Disability 306 - 130 436 Unemployment 51 - 27 78 Workers' Compensation 3,400 - - 3,400 Overtime for Training Staff 46,800 *18,240 *- 65,040 S&B Subtotal 134,679 18,240 45,139 198,058 Maintenance & OperationAmmunition 34,000 *- - 34,000 Cardboard and targets 2,500 *- - 2,500 Eye and hearing protection 600 *- - 600 Cleaning supplies 1,500 *- - 1,500 Target system replacements 3,000 - - 3,000 Backstop maintenance (mining)7,000 - - 7,000 Welding/concrete/other maint.4,250 - - 4,250 Portable backstop maint.3,500 *- - 3,500 Miscellaneous Supplies 1,500 *- - 1,500 Fire prop maintenance - 7,000 - 7,000 Software upgrades (PRISM, fire props)1,500 *2,000 - 3,500 Targeting system replac/deprec.30,000 - - 30,000 PRISM system replac/deprec.20,000 *- - 20,000 Fire prop replac/deprec.- 44,000 - 44,000 Office equipment (Xerox lease)2,600 - - 2,600 Smoke fluid - 4,250 - 4,250 Misc. training equipment (plywood etc)- 3,000 - 3,000 Water (fire attack)- 12,000 - 12,000 Propane for fire props - 12,000 - 12,000 IT Recharge (computer, phone)28,000 - - 28,000 Telephone and Communications 1,500 - - 1,500 Heat, Light, Exhaust Fans, A/C 49,000 1,500 - 50,500 Water 1,500 1,500 - 3,000 General Liability 3,500 - - 3,500 Minor Building Repairs - - 8,591 8,591 Misc. Outside Services - - 41,046 41,046 Electrical Supplies - - 3,818 3,818 Janitorial Supplies - - 2,864 2,864 Misc. Office Supplies - - 1,909 1,909 M&O Subtotal 195,450 87,250 58,228 340,928 Total Costs 330,129 105,490 103,367 538,986 * Estimated Costs Currently Budgeted 111,900 18,240 - 130,140 Net New Costs 218,229$ 87,250$ 103,367$ 408,846$ Revenues Firing Range ---185,000$ PRISM System ---99,000 Commercial Burn Props ---35,500 Residential Burn Props ---35,500 Classroom Space ---30,000 Total Revenues N/A N/A N/A 385,000 Cost Savings N/A N/A N/A 206,000 Net Fiscal Impact N/A N/A N/A 182,000$ (1) Includes Maintenance Worker & Custodian Carlsbad Joint First Responders Training Facility Operating Budget Scenario C CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 32 BREAKDOWN OF FEES FOR CITY OF ANAHEIM FIRE TRAINING FACILITY ROOM/AREA FIRE DEPTS.FIRE LESS 20%NON FIRE CONFERENCE ROOM $ 65.00/HR $ 52.00/HR $ 90.00/HR MULTIPURPOSE ROOM $ 40.00/HR $ 32.00/HR $ 55.00/HR SIMULATOR ROOM $ 20.00/HR $ 16.00/HR $ 30.00/HR CLASSROOM A $ 20.00/HR $ 16.00/HR $ 30.00/HR CLASSROOM B $ 20.00/HR $ 16.00/HR $ 30.00/HR CLASSROOM A & B $ 35.00/HR $ 28.00/HR $ 50.00/HR CLASSROOM C $ 20.00/HR $ 16.00/HR $ 30.00/HR ALL INSIDE (CLASSROOMS)$ 100.00/HR $ 80.00/HR $ 150.00/HR ALL OUTSIDE AREAS $ 90.00/HR $ 72.00/HR $ 120.00/HR ENTIRE FACILITY $ 150.00/HR $120.00/HR $ 200.00/HR DRILL GROUND $ 45.00/HR $ 36.00/HR $ 65.00/HR TOWER $ 45.00/HR $ 36.00/HR $ 65.00/HR DRILL GROUND & TOWER $ 70.00/HR $ 56.00/HR $ 95.00/HR DRILL GROUND & TOWER, 10 HOURS $ 600.00/DAY $480.00/DAY $700.00/DAY CONFINED SPACE PROP $ 00.00/HR $ .00/HR $700.00/DAY HELIPORT $ 75.00/HR $ 75.00/HR $ 75.00/HR HELIPORT W/PUMPER STANDBY COFFEE $ 8.00/DAY $ 8.00/DAY $ 8.00/DAY CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 33 FIRING RANGE FEE SCHEDULE FOR CITY OF FAIRFIELD CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 34 OPERATING COST DETAILS OF CITY OF FAIRFIELD FACILITY CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 35 COMPARISON OF JFRTF SCENARIO C OPERATING COSTS WITH CITY OF FAIRFIELD FIRING RANGE OPERATING COSTS DESCRIPTION JFRTF SCENARIO C Police Component Only JFRTF Subtotals for Comparison to Fairfield FAIRFIELD Firing Range JFRTF Adjusted Operating Costs Staffing 1 Range Master 2 retired police officers and 1 part time range master Salary & Benefits Salary 51,000$ 51,000 Overtime 5,100 5,100 PERS 14,014 14,014 MediCare 740 740 Life Insurance 233 233 Health Insurance 12,552 12,552 Long Term Disability 483 483 State Disability 306 306 Unemployment 51 51 Workers' Compensation 3,400 3,400 Overtime for Training Staff 46,800 (remove overtime) S&B Subtotal 134,679 97,509 87,879 Maintenance & Operation Ammunition 34,000 (remove ammo) Cardboard and targets 2,500 2,500 Eye and hearing protection 600 600 Cleaning supplies 1,500 1,500 Target system replacements 3,000 3,000 Backstop maintenance (mining)7,000 7,000 Welding/concrete/other maint. 4,250 4,250 Portable backstop maint. 3,500 3,500 Miscellaneous Supplies 1,500 1,500 Software upgrades (PRISM, fire props)1,500 1,500 Targeting system replac/deprec.30,000 30,000 PRISM system replac/deprec.20,000 20,000 Office equipment (Xerox lease)2,600 2,600 IT Recharge (computer, phone) 28,000 28,000 Telephone and Communications 1,500 1,500 Heat and Light 49,000 1,500 Water 1,500 1,500 General Liability 3,500 (remove liability) Marketing 7,210 M&O Subtotal 195,450 128,078 110,450 Total Costs 330,129 225,587 198,329 77,950 83,273 CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 36 OPERATING COST DETAILS OF CITY OF CORONA FACILITY CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 37 RESPONSES TO RSG SURVEY OF OUTSIDE AGENCIES CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 38 CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 39 CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 40 CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 41 CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 42 CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 43 CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 44 RSG SURVEY USED TO INTERVIEW CITY STAFF CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 45 CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 46 SAMPLE LETTERS INDICATING INTENT TO USE JFRTF CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 47 CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 48 CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 49 CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 50 PARTIAL LIST OF AGENCIES THAT COULD UTILIZE THE JFRTF California State Parks – Rangers and Lifeguards* Oceanside Police Department – Patrol and Tactical Teams* U.S. Secret Service* Federal Bureau of Investigation* U.S. Marshall’s Service U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration* San Diego Integrated Narcotics Task Force* U.S. Attorney General’s Office* San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Security* Palomar College Police Academy* U.S. Internal Revenue Service U.S. Fish and Game U.S. Border Patrol California State Fish and Game Cal State San Marcos Police Department Palomar College Police Department Mira Costa College Police Department State Alcohol Beverage Control State Insurance Investigators California Highway Patrol – Oceanside Office California Department of Motor Vehicle Investigators San Diego County Sheriffs Office – Encinitas, Del Mar, Vista, San Marcos Federal Flight Deck Officers Law Enforcement Firearms Training Organizations Private Security Companies Firearms Industry raining Programs – Heckler & Koch, Beretta, Remington, Smith and Wesson, Colt, Sig Sauer * Indicated agencies that previous used the former City of Carlsbad firing range. CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 51 MARKETING BROCHURE FOR CITY OF CORONA’S FIRING RANGE CITY OF CARLSBAD JOINT FIRST RESPONDERS TRAINING FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY 52 2004/2006 FIRING RANGE BUSINESS PLAN Carlsbad Police Department POLICE FIRING RANGE BUSINESS PLAN Prepared September 2004 Revised January 2006 2 Carlsbad Police Department FIRING RANGE BUSINESS PLAN Introduction This business plan was developed to help determine if and how the new police firing range could become a partially or fully self-funded operation and identify key factors in the smooth and efficient running of the new facility. In addition, developing the business plan helped determine if an external market exists for the new firing range and what the key factors for success would be. Preliminary cost estimates were developed for three different scenarios. These figures are only estimates and may vary widely depending on the final construction and configuration of the facility and the actual level of market interest once the facility is operational. Range History and Current Status Until September of 2005 the Carlsbad Police Department maintained a firearms training range in eastern end of Marcario Canyon, north of Palomar Airport. The range was accessed by a gated dirt road that intersects the 1400 block of Faraday Avenue. This facility was in use for approximately 20 years. It consisted of an earthen backstop and side berms and was enclosed by a chain link fence, topped with barbed wire. The 12 shooting lanes extended out 50 yards from the backstop and were constructed of a partial mix of poured concrete and gravel base. There was an open covered seating area with weapons cleaning tables. Range storage consisted of two shipping containers. Southern California Edison owned one and the other is owned by the City of Carlsbad. There was no running water at the site. Restroom facilities were comprised of two portable toilets that were placed outside the range perimeter fence. A dumpster which was maintained by Southern California Edison was used for trash disposal. There were no full-time range staff assigned. The current police firearms training staff consists of specially selected sworn personnel whose primary duties are elsewhere in the department such as investigations or patrol. Range duties are ancillary and are often performed on an overtime or adjusted schedule basis. The building of the City’s new golf course required the closure and relocation of the police firing range. Several potential sites have been identified and a site plan is under development. 3 Product Overview In late 2002 a team was created to review the department’s firearms facility and training needs. This team consisted of one lieutenant, three sergeants, two corporals and three officers, and represented a broad range of firearms and training expertise. The team concluded that the minimum facility requirements include a pistol range consisting of not less than 10 individual shooting lanes with a minimum of 25 yards unobstructed distance from the farthest shooting station to the target line, (this range should be configurable for combat “shoot and move” training) and a rifle range consisting of, not less than 6 lanes at a minimum distance of 100 yards from the farthest shooting station to the target line. All lanes must be completely enclosed along their perimeter with a wall or berm system capable of retaining all types of ammunition that may be used in the facility. An environmentally safe, bullet trap system must be installed along the full length of the impact area. Active shooting areas must be equipped with an overhead baffling system for safety and sound mitigation. The shooting stations and impact area should be covered. The facility should include dedicated restroom, weapons cleaning and storage facilities and should have permanent lighting systems for use at night. Additional proposed features include: advanced targeting systems (pop-up and turning), classroom space, a dedicated armory and ammunition storage area, a loading dock for heavy equipment and ammunition delivery and a room designed for the use of an interactive video training system. As an additional benefit, unused space behind the perimeter walls can be configured for the secure storage of property and vehicles. Storage for evidence, especially large items, department equipment and vehicles is always in short supply. The development of a dedicated armory and ammunition storage rooms would free up space for future growth within the Safety Center building delaying or eliminating the need for expansion of that facility, and storage of ammunition in the Safety Center. The police shooting range business plan proposes a full-service range that will not only meet the current and future training needs of Carlsbad’s officers, but may also provide a service to other law enforcement agencies. Providing range facilities to other agencies benefits Carlsbad Police Department in a variety of ways including:  Increased interagency communication and cooperation  Provide access to additional resources by working with other agencies.  Positions Carlsbad as a key player in regional training  Reflects well on the City, especially with agencies that would see significant reductions in travel time by having access to this North County resource. 4  Consistent with our vision to be a leader in law enforcement  Potential for interagency training opportunities Federal, State and Local, which is especially important with the emphasis on Homeland security and multi- jurisdictional operations. Competitive Analysis The number of range facilities in San Diego County is very limited. Ranges equipped to handle law enforcement training are in even shorter supply. The most recent listing of ranges open to the public shows 15 facilities of varying size and capabilities. Only four (4) of those are located in North County (Iron Sights, Oceanside; Linea de Fuego, Pala Indian Reservation; Escondido Fish & Game Association, Escondido; Palomar Sportsman’s Club, Ramona). The last three of these ranges are more than 15 miles from Carlsbad. Ranges that are located beyond 15 miles from the Safety Center begin to present significant logistical and fiscal limitations due to the increased out-of-service time for on-duty officers, the increased overtime costs, and the increased travel/vehicle expense associated with traveling greater distances. The San Diego Sheriff’s Department maintains several ranges throughout the County but only one is located in North County -- a small indoor range in the basement of the Vista station. The Sheriff’s Department’s full-scale training ranges are located in Otay Mesa and at MCAS Miramar. Oceanside Police Department has a small outdoor range with limited space and hours of operation. Escondido Police Department has a range under development near the site of the Fish & Game Association facility east of the City of Escondido. Firearms ranges are occasionally available on board MCB Camp Pendleton but their use is limited and subject to cancellation without notice. Only the Vista Station range is within 15 miles of Carlsbad. If Carlsbad does not develop a range within the City limits the most likely alternatives will be to approach the City of Escondido or the County Sheriff’s Department to determine if space/time is available at their facilities. Survey A survey was developed to help determine the level of interest that other law enforcement agencies may have in using Carlsbad’s proposed range. Agencies surveyed include: California Department of Justice Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement, US Marshals Service, CSU San Marcos Police, Oceanside Police Department, FBI, DEA, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, San Diego County Integrated Narcotics Task Force (NTF), U.S. Treasury Department Inspector General’s Office, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Security, and California State Parks (Lifeguards and Rangers) Questions regarding frequency of use, preferred times of day, as well as ratings for various features were asked (See Appendix A). Many of these agencies have used Carlsbad’s range in the past and most expressed an interest in using the new facility. The information regarding preferred times of day, day of week, number of personnel 5 per session, and feature ratings will all be used to help develop marketing plans and schedules. Pricing To help determine pricing for outside users, the estimated operational expenses for only internal use were compared to the estimated operational expenses if the range were made available to other agencies on a moderate (outside users 3 days per week) or full (outside users 6 days per week) schedule. The additional cost per day to open the range up on a moderate or full schedule is approximately $625 to $700 per day. These numbers may change as the details of the range and its equipment are further refined. In discussions with other law enforcement agencies, these amounts appears to be reasonable and are consistent with fees charged with other ranges with comparable features. A pricing strategy similar to the table below is recommended: 25-YARD RANGE 100-YARD RANGE Both Ranges Half-Day $400 $400 $750 Full-Day $650 $650 $1200 PRISM CLASSROOM Half-Day $400 $100 Full-Day $650 $150 Marketing Plan Three broad markets have been identified:  Law enforcement agencies  Law enforcement vendors  Public through scheduled classes and events Marketing to other law enforcement agencies can include open houses, tours, and demonstrations for various audiences such as the county chiefs, SWAT team leaders, and range instructors to introduce the product. A full-time civilian range master would conduct ongoing marketing, serving as the liaison to other law enforcement agencies. A website for the range that can provide customers with the ability to check range availability and to book reservations on-line is recommended. Marketing the range to law enforcement vendors such as firearms manufacturers and training providers can be beneficial not only for the offsetting revenue that would be provided but also for the student seats that are customarily provided at no charge to the host agency. This can help reduce training costs. 6 If public use options become available (i.e.: instructional classes, competitive shooting events, open range days, etc.) it is recommended that registration for these events be conducted via the Parks and Recreation Department. Parks and Recreation has an established system for class registration and facility use. This system would allow the Police Department to arrange adequate staffing and to pre-screen members of the public who wish to use the facility. Regularly scheduled firearms safety classes could be scheduled with instruction at the new range provided by Carlsbad Police range staff. These types of classes would be a valuable resource to the public and could serve to make Carlsbad a safer community. The rental of the facility for tournaments and competitive shooting events such as International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC), Police Pistol Combat (PPC), Action Pistol, Small Bore Rifle and Cowboy Action shoots could be an additional source of offsetting revenue. These events are usually held on weekends when internal use and use by other law enforcement agencies would be low. Operating Plan This business plan contacts three different models for operation. Model 1 assumes the same operations as with the current range but in the new location. Range staff have primary duties elsewhere in the department. The range is open and operating only on specially selected days and is used by internal customers only. With the proximity of the new range to the Safety Center, quarterly qualification shoots are done on duty instead of on an overtime basis as is currently done with approximately 50 percent of the sworn personnel. Model 2 is defined as a moderate schedule. The range is staffed by a full-time range professional and supplemented with part-time and volunteer assistance. Fee-paying guests use the range approximately three days per week, half the time the range is open. Auxiliary duty range staff overtime decreases significantly since there is now a full-time range master. Sworn employees continue to shoot on duty, saving overtime dollars. Model 3 is defined as a full schedule. Outside users are scheduled an average of six days a week, with multiple groups training at different features simultaneously. The range is staffed by two full-time civilians along with part-time and volunteers, and limited auxiliary range staff overtime. Operating Equipment The operating equipment needs for the new shooting range will depend on the facility’s final details and configuration; however basic operating equipment must include:  Backstop targeting system  Safety equipment  Props for scenario training 7 Suppliers and vendors Vendors and suppliers will be selected based on current purchasing procedures. Personnel; use of volunteers Staffing will depend on the model selected for operation. Model one (see previous page) would use current range staff on an overtime basis according to current practice, along with one volunteer. Model two staffing would include a full-time range professional and supplemented with part-time and volunteer assistance, and limited auxiliary range staff overtime. Model three staffing would include two full-time civilians along with part-time and volunteers, and limited auxiliary range staff overtime. General operations/hours of operation; restrictions; booking of facility A detailed operations plan will be developed to guide the operations of the new facility. Some of the operational issues to be addressed will include:  No non-police employees on site unless a Carlsbad range master is present.  Outside agencies must bring their own Carlsbad-certified range safety officer.  No alcohol.  No one under 18 from outside agencies.  No unsupervised use of range.  All operations limited to scheduled hours only.  No armor-piercing ammunition.  Any same-day payments will be made at the cash register in the lobby of the Safety Center.  All outside users will be required to sign a release of liability form each time they use the facility.  Ongoing facility users must enter into a memorandum of understanding for range use.  Ongoing users may store ammunition and equipment on sight temporarily; long- term storage may be arranged for a reasonable fee on a space available basis.  A pre-use and post-use inspection will be conducted with outside users; outside users will be responsible for any damage they cause.  All outside users will provide their own ammunition and target supplies unless arrangements have been made for the outside user to purchase a ”package deal” including ammunition and other supplies at a fair market price. Management and Organization It is recommended that a new division be created within the police department within the support operations division, and that a new organization key be developed within the police department for the budget. 8 Carlsbad Police Department Proposed Range Organization Patrol Traffic Community Services Comm Center Field Operations Investigations Hiring Training Information Technology Police Records Police Firing Range Support Operations Police Chief The civilian range master would serve as the range safety officer, and be responsible for the scheduling of internal training classes and departmental qualification exercises, the marketing and scheduling of outside classes, the supervision of part-time and volunteer personnel, inventory control and the ordering and purchasing of supplies, and the unit’s budget. In addition, this position would serve as the liaison with other agencies, coordinate outside vendor courses and training, provide basic maintenance and repair, Ideally, the civilian range master would have a law enforcement or military background with an expertise in firearms, be an experienced armorer, and hold an NRA range safety officer certification. 9 Goals and Strategies Business goals The following key business goals have been identified for the proposed new shooting range:  Reduction of overtime within our organization and more efficient use of training time by reducing travel time.  More comprehensive training for our employees resulting in increased competency, reduced liability, and higher operational readiness.  Outside agency use is self- supporting; if revenue does not meet or exceed the additional expenses associated with hosting outside users, the business model will be revised or operations will revert back to internal use only for the range. Keys to success The following have been identified as the “Keys to Success” for the new shooting range:  Develop a facility that is designed to meet law enforcement training needs  Effective marketing while balancing internal needs of the department  Safe, efficient, and cost effective operation of the facility. Future plans The proposed range will be able to accommodate the Carlsbad Police Department’s needs at build out. However, technology will change – the range needs to be built with the flexibility to take advantage of emerging technology. Financials The following expense projections are broad estimates only. Actual expenses will depend on the new range’s final design, features, and selected products and vendors. Operation Description Current Range New Range-Internal Only Moderate Schedule Full Schedule Guests None None 3 days per week 6 days per week Staffing No Full-Time No Full-Time 1 Full-Time 2 Full-time 0.5 Part-Time 1.0 Part-Time Salary & Benefits Salary $0 $0 $50,000 $100,000 Overtime $0 $0 $5,000 $10,000 Benefits $0 $0 $21,243 $42,486 Current Range Staff OT $34,560 $34,560 $17,280 $17,280 Hourly @ $ 12/hr $0 $0 $12,000 $24,000 Quarterly Qualification Sworn OT $19,260 $0 $0 $0 Maintenance & Operation Ammunition $28,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 Cardboard and targets $1,800 $1,800 $1,800 $1,800 Staple guns/stapler $250 $250 $250 $250 Eye and hearing protection $600 $600 $600 $600 Cleaning supplies $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 Batteries $100 $100 $100 $100 Tape $50 $50 $50 $50 Lumber $1,500 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 Metal target replacements $500 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 Backstop maintenance (mining)$0 $3,000 $5,000 $8,000 PRISM software upgrades $0 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 Gas and Electric $0 $3,000 $7,000 $10,000 Water $0 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 IT (computer, phone)$0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Custodial Services $0 $3,000 $6,000 $9,000 Groundskeeping $0 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 Welding/concrete/other maint.$0 $2,000 $3,000 $6,000 Portable backstop maint.5600 $5,600 $10,000 $15,000 Miscellaneous Supplies 500 $500 $1,000 $1,200 Targeting system replac/deprec.0 $20,000 $25,000 $33,000 Total $94,220 $115,460 $207,823 $322,766 11 Revenue and Expenses Below is a summary of the projected annual revenue for the range based on the estimated pricing on page five and the budget expenses for the three different models for external utilization presented on page ten. CURRENT OPERATION MODEL 1 MODEL 2 MODEL 3 Former Police Range New Range- Internal Only Moderate Schedule Full Schedule Projected Revenue $0 $0 $131,325 $262,650 Expenses $94,220 $115,460 $207,823 $322,766 Difference ($94,220) ($115,460) ($76,498) ($60,116) These are general estimates only and are based on many factors that have yet to be determined or finalized. 12 Carlsbad Police Department is in the process of developing a full-service, state-of- the-art firearms facility. The new facility will be located adjacent to the Carlsbad Safety Center, just east of Interstate 5 near Palomar Airport in Carlsbad. We anticipate opening the range to other law enforcement agencies and would like to gauge your agency’s level of interest in using the facility and the level of importance of various features of the new facility. Agency: Contact: Phone: Our agency would be interested in using the new Carlsbad firearms training facility.  Yes  No Estimated frequency of use:  Weekly  Monthly  Every 2 months  Quarterly  Other Preferred days of week: Preferred times of day:  Daytime  Nighttime  Both Estimated number of personnel per session LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE FEATURE Not Important Moderately Important Very Important 25-yard lanes 1 2 3 4 5 50-yard lanes 1 2 3 4 5 100-yard sniper range 1 2 3 4 5 Live fire shoot house 1 2 3 4 5 Shooting with vehicle access 1 2 3 4 5 Judgment shooting system (ex: FATS or PRISim) 1 2 3 4 5 Moving target system (ex: Dueltron or Running Man) 1 2 3 4 5 Armory 1 2 3 4 5 Weapon cleaning station 1 2 3 4 5 Obstacle/agility course 1 2 3 4 5 Gas house 1 2 3 4 5 Classroom for 25 with audio-visual capabilities 1 2 3 4 5 Other: ____________________________________________________________________________________ Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey – your input is greatly appreciated. Please fax the completed survey to Carlsbad Police Department at 760-931-8473 by August 20, 2004. If you have any questions, please contact Carlsbad Police Lieutenant Bill Rowland at 760-931-8473 or brow@ci.carlsbad.ca.us. Carlsbad Police Department 2560 Orion Way, Carlsbad, California 92008 760-931-2100 Carlsbad Police Department POLICE FIREARMS FACILITY QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX A 13 APPENDIX B