1

Presentation to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors

FY 2015 – 2016 Budget Request

April 6, 2015

Overview Public Works Agency Vision, Mission, and Goals Statements

FY 2014-15 Accomplishments

FY 2015-16 Initiatives

FY 2015-16 Financial Summary

Appropriations by Program

Appropriations by Major Object

Total Revenue by Source

Budget Request Overview

Challenges

2

Vision and Mission Statements

Vision Statement

Alameda County Public Works Agency is recognized by the community and

professional organizations as a leader in innovation, service delivery and

employee excellence.

Mission Statement

Enhance the quality of life for the people of Alameda County by providing a

safe, well-maintained and lasting public works infrastructure through

accessible, responsive and effective services.

3

Goals Statement Maximize mobility through safe and well-maintained roadway systems.

Provide the highest level of flood protection.

Provide service levels that optimize infrastructure life cycle and minimize deferred maintenance.

Ensure development and building construction adhere to applicable state and county plans, codes and ordinances.

Optimize disaster preparedness response and recovery.

Ensure that the Agency’s operations and services minimize negative impacts on the environment.

Support, sustain and advance County and Agency programs through a vital business and administrative support system.

4

Daniel Woldesenbet, Ph.D., Director of the Alameda County Public Works Agency, was named

“2014 Top Ten Public Works Leader of the Year” by the American Public Works Association

(APWA).

This annual “Top Ten Public Works Leader” award is internationally recognized for

outstanding contributions to the engineering and management professions and to the

American Public Works Association.

This award carries with it a level of prestige as the highest individual award given by APWA.

6

League of Cities Project of the Year

Stanley Boulevard Safety and Streetscape Improvements Project

AwardsNorCal APWA Project of the Year

American Society of Civil

Engineers (ASCE)

San Francisco Section Award –

Sustainable Project of the

Year

CTF Tranny Award – Project of the Year (Finalist)

7

Completed 11 transportation projects valued over $9.0M

Completed 6 flood control projects valued over $11.4M

FY 2014-15 Accomplishments

8

9

CHABOT CREEK RESTORATION, CASTRO VALLEYSUSTAINABILITY

11

Heyer Rd. & Cull Canyon Rd. – Castro Valley

Pavement Rehabilitation

Hacienda Ave. – San Lorenzo

Traffic Safety Sidewalk Installation

Grant Avenue – San Lorenzo

Sidewalk and Drainage Improvements

Road Rehabilitations – Various Locations

12

San Leandro Creek Channel

Rehabilitation in Oakland

Construction of Pump Station in San Leandro Levee work in Fremont

Sulphur Creek Levee Remediation

FY 2014-15 COMMUNITY SERVICES

Removed 7,800 cubic yards of

illegally dumped debris from

roadways in unincorporated areas

and from Flood District facilities to

improve public safety, reduce the

potential for flooding and limit the

amount of garbage entering the

bay. 13

Processed 500 cubic yards of

green waste and distributed the

compost to local schools,

community gardens and non profit

businesses.

FY 2015-16 Initiatives Award $35M in the Transportation Improvement Program to improve traffic safety, preserve pavement infrastructure, provide sidewalk and bicycle facilities and improve traffic circulation in Unincorporated Alameda County.

Transportation Improvement and Safety Projects

Hesperian Boulevard – construct improvements to improve safety for all users, enhance the San Lorenzo community, and underground the utilities

Meekland Avenue – construct sidewalk, bike lane, and transit access improvements to improve safety and access for all users

A Street – construct sidewalk and bike lane improvements

Main Street at Kilkare Road Intersection Improvements – construct intersection improvements to improve safety and traffic circulation

Patterson Pass Road mm 6.4 Realignment – construct roadway improvements to prevent history of sideswipe accidents

Safe Routes to School Projects

Mabel Avenue – construct sidewalk and other safety measures adjacent to Castro Valley High School

East Avenue – construct sidewalk and other safety measures in the vicinity of Hayward High School and East Avenue Elementary School

Santa Maria Avenue – construct sidewalk and other safety measures in the vicinity of Castro Valley High School

14

Transportation Improvement Program

FY 2015-16 InitiativesAward $18M in the Flood Control Program to deliver:

Flood Protection Projects

Construct additional box culvert along Laguna Creek at Auto Mall Parkway crossing, Fremont

Construct channel widening along Laguna Creek between Grimmer Blvd. and Auto Mall Parkway, Fremont

Capacity improvements (construct additional culvert), Newark

Optimize Infrastructure Life Cycle

Rehabilitation of the Estudillo Canal Tidegate Structure, San Leandro

Environmental Enhancement Projects

Low impact development (LID) demonstration project at Turner Court PWA County Facility, Hayward.

Alameda Creek Restoration, Fremont

Mission Creek Restoration, Fremont

15

Flood Control Program

Financial Summary

Public Works

Agency

2014-15

Budget

2015-16

Request

Difference

Amount %

Appropriations $192,477,563 $182,744,809 ($9,732,754) (5%)

Revenue $192,016,905 $182,284,151 ($9,732,754) (5%)

Net $460,658 $460,658 $0 0

FTE – Mgmt 73.2 73.2 0 0

FTE – Non Mgmt 365.0 365.0 0 0

Total FTE 438.2 438.2 0 0

Positions 469 469 0 0

16

Major Components of Net County Cost Change (General Fund Only)

Component NCC Change

Salary and Employee Benefits $0

ISF adjustments $0

Increased costs $0

Revenue $0

Savings $0

TOTAL $0

17

Appropriations by Major Program

18

2015/16 Appropriation - $183M

General Fund, $4.8 ,

3%

Road Fund, $98.0 , 54%

Flood Control, $71.9 ,

39%

County Service Area's,

$4.4 , 2%

County Bridges, $3.5 , 2%

Dollar amounts in millions

Appropriations by Major Object

19

2015/16 Appropriation of $183M

Services & Supplies,

$108.1 , 59%

Other Charges, $3.4 , 2%

Capital Equipment, $3.0 , 2%

Operating Transfers, $2.3 , 1%

Designation Change, $5.1 , 3%

ISF, $5.2 , 3%

Salary & Benefits,

$55.7 , 30%

Dollar amounts in millions

Total Revenue by Source

20

2015/16 Revenues - $183M

Gas Tax/New HUTA ,

$25.7 , 14%

Property Tax, $24.9 ,

14%

Meas B/BB/F, $5.6 , 3%

Fed & State Aid, $7.0 ,

4%Balance Transfers,

$79.2 , 43%

Charges for Services,

$18.3 , 10%

Other Revenue, $22.3 ,

12%

Dollar amounts in millions

Major Programs & Budget Request

Discretionary/

Mandated

Revenue

Source

FY 2015-16

Request ($M)

Net County

Cost ($M)

School Crossing Guard

ProgramNone $0.3 $0.3

County Surveyor

Fees and

Partial

Reimburse-

ments

$0.6 $0.2

Total Net County Cost $0.5

21

Major Services & Revenue Sources

Mandated

Services

Revenue

Source

FY 2015-16

Request ($M)

Net County

Cost ($M)

Building

InspectionBuilding Permit Fees $3.0 $0

Flood Control

Property Tax; Fees; Benefit

Assessments; including

Reserves/AFB$71.9 $0

22

Major Services & Revenue SourcesMandated Services Revenue Source FY 2015-16

Request ($M)

Net County

Cost ($M)

Road Services &

Transportation

Planning

Gas Tax; New HUTA; Measure

B, BB, & F;

State/Caltrans/Federal

Reimbursements and Grants;

Mitigation Fees

$98.0 $0

Estuary Bridges

Measure B; Road Fund;

State/Federal

Reimbursements

$3.5 $0

Street LightingCounty Service Area Benefit

Assessment$1.5 $0

Other CSA’sCounty Service Area Benefit

Assessment$2.9 $0

23

Challenges Gas Tax Revenues: New HUTA revenues are projected to decrease next fiscal year

by $6.3M, a 56% decrease from $11M to $4.7M due to reduction in gas prices. In

addition, Legacy HUTA continues in a long term revenue decline due to vehicle fuel

efficiencies. CSAC projects 8% average decrease a year in HUTA. In sum, Alameda

County’s overall gas tax is expected to decline by $8M year over year, from FY15

$33M level to FY16 $25M estimate.

Funding Challenges in selected Flood Zones, such as Zone 2. Currently working on

strategies to obtain voter approval for assessment increases.

Unfunded mandates. The State is continuing to require local governments to take on

more responsibility relative to the federal Clean Water Act than the act itself

actually requires.

Regulatory agencies that do not respond to and/or issue necessary permits within

their legislative timeframes are causing major delays in project delivery.

24

25

THANK YOU!