Presentation to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors
FY 2015 – 2016 Budget Request
April 6, 2015
1
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.
Stanley Boulevard Safety and Streetscape Improvements Project
Awards
NorCal APWA Project of the Year
League of Cities Project of the Year
CTF Tranny Award – Project of the Year (Finalist)
American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE)
San Francisco Section Award –
Sustainable Project of the
Year
6
FY 2014-15 Accomplishments
Completed 11 transportation projects valued over $9.0M
Completed 6 flood control projects valued over $11.4M
7
8
9
CHABOT CREEK RESTORATION, CASTRO VALLEY
SUSTAINABILITY
Grant Avenue – San Lorenzo
Sidewalk and Drainage Improvements
Heyer Rd. & Cull Canyon Rd. – Castro Valley
Pavement Rehabilitation
Hacienda Ave. – San Lorenzo
Traffic Safety Sidewalk Installation
Road Rehabilitations – Various Locations
11
San Leandro Creek Channel
Rehabilitation in Oakland
Construction of Pump Station in San Leandro
Sulphur Creek Levee Remediation
Levee work in Fremont
12
FY 2014-15 COMMUNITY SERVICES
Processed 500 cubic yards of
green waste and distributed the
compost to local schools,
community gardens and non profit
businesses.
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
FY 2015-16 Initiatives Transportation Improvement Program
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
FY 2015-16 Initiatives
Flood Control Program
Award $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
Financial Summary
Public Works
Agency
Appropriations
Revenue
Net
FTE – Mgmt
FTE – Non Mgmt
Total FTE
Positions
2014-15
Budget
2015-16
Request
$192,477,563 $182,744,809
$192,016,905 $182,284,151
$460,658
$460,658
73.2
73.2
365.0
365.0
438.2
438.2
469
469
Difference
Amount
%
($9,732,754)
(5%)
($9,732,754)
(5%)
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
Major Components of Net County Cost Change (General Fund Only)
Component
Salary and Employee Benefits
ISF adjustments
Increased costs
Revenue
Savings
TOTAL
NCC Change
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
17
Appropriations by Major Program
Dollar amounts in millions
County Bridges, $3.5 , 2%
County Service Area's,
$4.4 , 2%
General Fund, $4.8 ,
3%
Flood Control, $71.9 ,
39%
Road Fund, $98.0 , 54%
2015/16 Appropriation - $183M
18
Appropriations by Major Object
Dollar amounts in millions
Salary & Benefits,
$55.7 , 30%
ISF, $5.2 , 3%
Services & Supplies,
$108.1 , 59%
Designation Change, $5.1 , 3%
Operating Transfers, $2.3 , 1%
Capital Equipment, $3.0 , 2%
Other Charges, $3.4 , 2%
2015/16 Appropriation of $183M
19
Total Revenue by Source
Other Revenue, $22.3 ,
12%
Dollar amounts in millions
Gas Tax/New HUTA ,
$25.7 , 14%
Charges for Services,
$18.3 , 10%
Property Tax, $24.9 ,
14%
Meas B/BB/F, $5.6 , 3%
Fed & State Aid, $7.0 ,
4%
Balance Transfers,
$79.2 , 43%
2015/16 Revenues - $183M
20
Major Programs & Budget Request
Discretionary/
Mandated
Revenue
Source
FY 2015-16
Request ($M)
Net County
Cost ($M)
School Crossing Guard
Program
None
$0.3
$0.3
Fees and
Partial
Reimbursements
$0.6
$0.2
Total Net County Cost
$0.5
County Surveyor
21
Major Services & Revenue Sources
Mandated
Services
Building
Inspection
Flood Control
Revenue
Source
FY 2015-16 Net County
Request ($M) Cost ($M)
Building Permit Fees
$3.0
$0
Property Tax; Fees; Benefit
Assessments; including
Reserves/AFB
$71.9
$0
22
Major Services & Revenue Sources
Mandated Services
Road Services &
Transportation
Planning
Estuary Bridges
Street Lighting
Other CSA’s
Revenue Source
Gas Tax; New HUTA; Measure
B, BB, & F;
State/Caltrans/Federal
Reimbursements and Grants;
Mitigation Fees
Measure B; Road Fund;
State/Federal
Reimbursements
County Service Area Benefit
Assessment
County Service Area Benefit
Assessment
FY 2015-16
Request ($M)
Net County
Cost ($M)
$98.0
$0
$3.5
$0
$1.5
$0
$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
THANK YOU!
25