HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-02-2016 Agenda Packet
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
6:00 PM
REGULAR MEETING
Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo Page 1
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Jan Marx
ROLL CALL: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Carlyn Christianson, Dan
Rivoire, Vice Mayor Dan Carpenter, and Mayor Jan Marx
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Christianson
INTRODUCTIONS
1. MIGUEL BARCENAS - UTILITIES ENGINEER AND MICHELLE BULOW -
SUPERVISING ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT (MATTINGLY – 10 MINUTES)
PRESENTATIONS
2. PRESENTATION BY JOHN FOWLER, PRESIDENT & CEO OF PEOPLE'S SELF-
HELP HOUSING, REGARDING AN UPDATE ON LOCAL HOUSING MARKET
(CODRON/FOWLER – 10 MINUTES)
3. PRESENTATION BY FIRE CHIEF OLSON AND PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
GRIGSBY, REGARDING WINTER STORM PREPAREDNESS (OLSON/GRIGSBY –
10 MINUTES)
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA (not to exceed 15
minutes total)
The Council welcomes your input. You may address the Council by completing a speaker slip
and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. At this time, you may address the Council
on items that are not on the agenda. Time limit is three minutes. State law does not allow the
Council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the
Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons
exercising their public testimony rights (gov. Code sec. 54954.2). Staff may be asked to
follow up on such items.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda February 2, 2016 Page 2
CONSENT AGENDA
A member of the public may request the Council to pull an item for discussion. Pulled items
shall be heard at the close of the Consent Agenda unless a majority of the Council chooses
another time. The public may comment on any and all items on the Consent Agenda within the
three minute time limit.
4. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
Recommendation
Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
5. TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE & ON-CALL TRAFFIC MODELING SERVICES
STUDY REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS; SPECIFICATION NO. 91434
(GRIGSBY/HUDSON)
Recommendation
1. Approve the issuance of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to provide “Traffic Model
Update & On-call Modeling Services, Specification No. 91434”; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to award a contract is within the proposed budget of
$180,000; and
3. Authorize the Finance Director to execute and amend purchase orders for on-call
traffic modeling services purchase orders in an amount not-to-exceed the authorized
budget.
6. CALTRANS SPONSOR APPLICANT AGREEMENT WITH RACE SLO
(JOHNSON/CANO)
Recommendation
1. Approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of support (“Support Letter”) for the
2016 SLO Marathon + Half; and
2. Approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a CalTrans Sponsor Application Agreement
(“Agreement”) and supporting document (“Authorization Letter”) with Get Off The
Couch, Potato Sports Productions, LLC authorizing the City of San Luis Obispo to serve
as the Sponsor Applicant for the CalTrans encroachment permit for the 2016 SLO
Marathon + Half.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda February 2, 2016 Page 3
BUSINESS ITEMS
7. ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT,
SINGLE AUDIT REPORT, AND ANNUAL AUDIT OF TRANSPORTATION
DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS FOR 2014-15 (JOHNSON/WARNER – 30 MINUTES)
Recommendation
Accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Single Audit Report, and annual audit
of the Transportation Development Act Funds for Fiscal Year 2104-15.
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
(Not to exceed 15 minutes) Council Members report on conferences or other City activities.
Time limit—3 minutes each.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(Not to exceed 15 minutes) At this time, any Council Member or the City Manager may ask a
question for clarification, make an announcement, or report briefly on his or her activities. In
addition, subject to Council Policies and Procedures, they may provide a reference to staff or
other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the Council at a
subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of
business on a future agenda. (Gov. Code Sec. 54954.2)
ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 6:00
p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda February 2, 2016 Page 4
LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES are available for the hearing impaired--please see City Clerk.
The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the
public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to
persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or
accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City
Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7107.
City Council regular meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20. Agenda related
writings or documents provided to the City Council are available for public inspection in the
City Clerk’s Office located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California during normal
business hours, and on the City’s website www.slocity.org. Persons with questions concerning
any agenda item may call the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100.
Meeting Date: 2/2/2016
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Jake Hudson, Transportation Manager
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE & ON-CALL TRAFFIC MODELING SERVICES
STUDY REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS; SPECIFICATION NO. 91434
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve the issuance of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to provide “Traffic Model
Update & On-call Modeling Services, Specification No. 91434”; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to award a contract is within the proposed budget of $180,000;
and
3. Authorize the Finance Director to execute and amend purchase orders for on-call traffic
modeling services purchase orders in an amount not-to-exceed the authorized budget.
DISCUSSION
Traffic Model Update
As part of the City Transportation Impact Fee Program, funding is allocated for periodic updates
of the City’s Traffic Model. The Traffic Model is a key tool used in transportation policy,
planning, and engineering. This forecasting tool provides vital information used in the estimation
of infrastructure capacity, financial feasibility, and social viability of projects, programs, and
policies. The highly complex mathematical model works by estimating the amount of trips that
occur, where those trips are going, the mode (i.e. Car, Bike, Bus) those trips use, and the routes
those trips take. The current version of the City’s model was developed in 2010, for $200,000
and over the last five years the model has been used on numerous traffic studies, environmental
impact reports, and for the update of the City’s Land Use and Circulation Elements. The next
major project to utilize the traffic model is an update to the City’s impact fee programs.
In order to maintain the validity of the model it should be updated, recalibrated, and revalidated
about every five years to reflect the most current development and travel trends. In preparation
for the upcoming transportation impact fee program updates staff is proposing to complete this
update, revalidation, and recalibration now. In addition staff is proposing to update th e model
functionality to provide more detailed bicycle travel forecasts, align the City model with more
current regional traffic forecasts, and update the model’s reporting utilities.
5
Packet Pg. 5
On-Call Traffic Modeling Services
As part of the 2015-17 Financial Plan the Council approved a work program for Land Use &
Circulation Element implementation and Fee updates. This work program includes several traffic
modeling tasks particularly related to AB 1600 impact fee program updates and the associated
nexus studies. While most of the work for the AB 1600 study will take place under a separate
consultant contract, it’s desirable to retain the consultant team that performs the traffic model
update under this contract for modeling work in support of the larger AB 1600 study.
CONCURRENCES
The Community Development Department concurs with the staff recommendations.
FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost of this project is estimated at $180,000. The cost of the traffic mode update
element of the contract is $130,000 which is currently programed a part of the Transportation
Impact Fee Program. The cost of the on-call services element of the contract is estimated at
$50,000 which budgeted in the 2015-17 Financial Plan in transportation consultant services
funding for traffic modeling and a nexus study in support of updates to the City’s transportation
impact fee programs.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may choose not to authorize this traffic model update. However, staff does not
recommend this because the funding for this project has been allocated and without an update the
traffic model will become outdated which would affect the validity of future environmental
review and significantly impair updates to transportation impact fee programs.
Attachments:
a - Traffic Model Update RFQ
5
Packet Pg. 6
Notice
Request for Qualifications
Traffic Model Update & On-Call Services
Specification No. 91434
February 2016
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals from interested consultants to update the City’s
TransCAD travel demand model and provide on-call modeling services in support of an upcoming traffic impact fee
program update. Pursuant to this Specification No. 91434
All proposals must be received by the Public Works Department at 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
by 2:00 P.M. on February 25, 2016.
Proposals received after said time will not be considered. To guard against premature opening, each proposal
shall be submitted to the Public Works Department in a sealed envelope plainly marked with the proposal title,
specification number, Consultant name, and time and date of the proposal opening. Proposals shall be submitted
using the forms provided in the specification package.
Obtaining a Specification Package
Download from the City’s Web site www.slocity.org - Doing Business / Bids & Proposals page, or;
Pick up a copy of the RFQ at the above address
A list of companies that have requested a copy of the proposal is maintained on the web page.
Questions
Questions should be directed to Jake Hudson at jhudson@slocity.org.
Disadvantaged Business Participation
DBE and other small businesses as defined in Title 49 CFR 26, are encouraged to participate in t he performance of
agreements.
Rev 1 - 03.16.15 DMA
5.a
Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: a - Traffic Model Update RFQ (1236 : Traffic Model Update RFQ)
Specification No. 91434
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIPTION OF WORK ........................................................................................................................................... 3
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................... 5
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................................................... 5
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION ..................................................................................................................... 6
PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS ............................................................................................... 7
PROPOSAL CONTENT ................................................................................................................................................ 7
PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTION ................................................................................... 7
FORM OF AGREEMENT .............................................................................................................................................. 8
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORMS ............................................................................................................................. 15
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................. 15
INSURANCE CERTIFICATE ...................................................................................................................................... 15
AVAILABLE SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................. 16
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS ................................................................................... 16
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................... 17
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Consultant Services ............................................................................................. 19
5.a
Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: a - Traffic Model Update RFQ (1236 : Traffic Model Update RFQ)
A. DESCRIPTION OF WORK
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting proposals for an update of its TransCAD multimodal travel demand
forecasting model in preparation of upcoming traffic impact fee program studies and for providing on -call traffic
modeling services in support of those future studies.
Background:
The current TransCAD traffic model was developed by LSA Associates and Cambridge Systematics in November
of 2010 with 2008 as the base year and 2035 as the forecast year. Since then there have been a number of
updates to the San Luis Obispo county traffic model, city specific plans, and in 2014 the City’s Gene ral Plan was
updated. Due to the upcoming traffic impact fee program updates it’s the City’s desire to conduct a complete
update of the City’s TransCAD traffic model to reflect an updated base year and recalibrated forecast year.
The City will be conducting an AB1600 study in 2016/17 to update its transportation impact fee programs. This
study will be conducted under a separate contract. However it’s the City’s desire to retain the consultant team that
performs this traffic model update to provide general traffic model support.
Scope of Services:
The consultant(s) selected will be responsible to perform all necessary work to deliver an updated calibrated and
validated 2016 base year and 2035 forecast year multimodal traffic model, utilizing the most current version of
TransCad software, that is consistent with all applicable Federal, State, and local travel forecasting guidelines. The
update shall retain all of the intended functionality of the current model in addition to new functionality as described
below.
The outline below is meant to highlight the priority tasks, but not be an all-inclusive list of every task needed to achieve
the work product.
Assist staff in developing Citywide Transportation Survey to support traffic model update. The City will be
responsible for distribution and capture of the survey data, the consultant team will be responsible for
developing the survey and analyzing the data.
Perform network updates & refinement for base and forecast years. In addition assess and implement, i f
feasible, bikeway network in order to support segment bike volume forecasts and a more refined tool for
predicting the effect of off-street class I facilities.
o Traffic Counts will be provided to the consultant including 24 hr bike counts on street segmen ts and
class I trails. Data is expected to be available in April of 2016.
o Transit data will be provided to the consultant in the form of the short range transit plan which includes
routes, stops, headways, and boarding/alighting volumes.
Perform a base year landuse update to 2016 and refine TAZs based on recent tract maps and specific plans.
For landuse within the City SOI the City will provide parcel based landuse data, the consultant will be
responsible for compiling that data into the respective TAZs and model landuse categories. For landuse outside
the City SOI the consultant will be responsible for obtaining, updating, and processing any necessary data to
perform the update.
Perform a forecast year landuse update to 2035. For landuse within the City SOI the most current data which
reflects the recent general plan update is in the current traffic model. The consultant will however be
responsible for reviewing, updating, and validating this data based on new tract maps and specific plans
submitted since the general plan update. For landuse outside the City SOI the consultant will be responsible for
obtaining, updating, and processing any necessary data to perform the update.
Review and update trip generation and distribution models based on most current dat a. Perform trip generation
studies for special generators such as the Airport and CalPoly as necessary. Review and update penalties,
impedance, and friction factors based on most current data as necessary.
Update custom GISDK traffic model utilities based on most current data (ie. process turns tool, database
interface tool, etc.). Add new automated utilities, tasks, and reports such as select link/zone queries.
Obtain information from affected utility companies
Update the “San Luis Obispo Citywide Travel Model Model Documentation” and “San Luis Obispo Citywide
Travel Model User’s Guide” documents to reflect update made as part of this work effort.
5.a
Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: a - Traffic Model Update RFQ (1236 : Traffic Model Update RFQ)
On-Call Services Agreement Management:
For On-Call services work the selected consultant shall assign a single point person who understands the overall
agreement and can manage paperwork associated with it. This person does not need to be assigned to any of the
individual projects, but should be available to listen and follow-up on concerns regarding performance.
For On-Call work requests beyond the traffic model update the c onsultant shall prepare work scope and cost
proposals after project scoping meetings. The cost of the scoping meeting may be included in the cost proposal.
The City will evaluate the proposal upon receipt and negotiate the work scope further as needed. The consultant
will receive a Purchase Order after the proposal scope and cost has been accepted, signaling the start of the
project work.
5.a
Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: a - Traffic Model Update RFQ (1236 : Traffic Model Update RFQ)
B. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a proposal (Consultant) shall meet all
of the terms, and conditions of the Request for Qualification (RFQ) specifications package. By virtue of its
proposal submittal, the Consultant acknowledges agreement with and acceptan ce of all provisions of the RFQ
specifications.
2. Proposal Submittal. Each proposal must be submitted on the form(s) provided in the specifications and
accompanied by any other required submittals or supplemental materials. Proposal documents shall be
enclosed in an envelope that shall be sealed and addressed to the Publi c Works Department, City of San Luis
Obispo, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401. Each proposal submittal shall include one electronic
copy of the proposal, submitted in Adobe Acrobat format on CD or flash drive. In order to guard against
premature opening, the proposal should be clearly labeled with the proposal title, specification number, name of
Consultant, and date and time of proposal opening. No FAX submittals will be accepted.
3. Insurance Certificate. Each proposal must include a certificate of insurance showing:
a. The insurance carrier and its A.M. Best rating.
b. Scope of coverage and limits.
c. Deductibles and self-insured retention.
The purpose of this submittal is to generally assess the adequacy of the Consultant’s insurance coverage
during proposal evaluation; as discussed under paragraph 13 below, endorsements are not required until
contract award. The City’s insurance requirements are detailed in Section F.
4. Submittal of References. Each proposer shall submit a statement of qualifications and references on the form
provided in the RFQ package.
5. Statement of Contract Disqualifications. Each proposer shall submit a statement regarding any past
government disqualifications on the form provided in the RFQ package.
6. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A Consultant may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice prior to the
time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the City Engineer for its withdrawal,
in which event the proposal will be returned to the Consultant unopened. No proposal received after the time
specified or at any place other than that stated in the "Notice Requesting Proposals" will be considered. All
proposals will be opened and declared publicly. Consultants or their representatives are invited to be present
at the opening of the proposals.
7. Submittal of One Proposal Only. No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowed to make or file,
or to be interested in more than one proposal, except an alternative proposal when specifically requested;
however, an individual or business entity that has submitted a sub -proposal to a Consultant submitting a
proposal, or who has quoted prices on materials to such Consultant, is not thereby disqualified from submitting
a sub-proposal or from quoting prices to other Consultants submitting proposals.
8. Communications. All timely requests for information submitted in writing will receive a written response from
the City. Telephone communications with City staff are not encouraged, but will be permitted. However, any
such oral communication shall not be binding on the City.
9. Alternative Proposals. When specifically requested, the proposer may submit an alternative proposal (or
proposals) that it believes will also meet the City's project objectives but in a different way. In this case, the
proposer must provide an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternatives, and
discuss under what circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the other(s). If an alternative
proposal is submitted, the maximum length of the proposal may be expanded proportionately by the number of
alternatives submitted.
5.a
Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: a - Traffic Model Update RFQ (1236 : Traffic Model Update RFQ)
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION
10. Proposal Retention and Award. The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a period of 60 days for
examination and comparison. The City also reserves the right to waive non substantial irregularities in any
proposal, to reject any or all proposals, to reject or delete one part of a proposal and accept the other, except to
the extent that proposals are qualified by specific limitations. See the "Special Terms and Conditions" in
Section C of these specifications for proposal evaluation and contract award criteria.
11. Competency and Responsibility of Consultant. The City reserves full discretion to determine the
competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of Consultants. Consultants will provide, in a
timely manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a decision.
12. Contract Requirement. The Consultant to whom award is made (Consultant) shall execute a written contract
with the City within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the award has been sent by mail to it at the address
given in its proposal. The contract shall be made in the form adopted by the City and incorporated in these
specifications.
13. Insurance Requirements. The Consultant shall provide proof of insurance in the form, coverages an d
amounts specified in these specifications within 10 (ten) calendar days after notice of contract award as a
precondition to contract execution.
14. Business License & Tax. The Consultant must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business license and tax
certificate before execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the City's business license and tax
program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134.
15. Failure to Accept Contract. The following will occur if the Consultant to whom the award is made
(Consultant) fails to enter into the contract: the award will be annulled; any bid security will be forfeited in
accordance with the special terms and conditions if a Consultant's bond or security is required; and an award
may be made to the next highest ranked Consultant with whom a responsible compensation is negotiated, who
shall fulfill every stipulation as if it were the party to whom the first award was ma de.
5.a
Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: a - Traffic Model Update RFQ (1236 : Traffic Model Update RFQ)
C. PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS
PROPOSAL CONTENT
1. Submittal Forms
a. Acknowledgement
b. Insurance Certificate
c. Available Services
d. Statement of Past Disqualifications
e. References
2. Qualifications
a. Experience of your firm in performing similar services
b. Experience of the staff to be assigned to the project in performing similar services
c. Redundancy in the company of staff experienced in this type of work
d. Resumes of the individuals who would be assigned to this project, including any known sub-consultants
e. Proximity and staffing levels of the nearest company office
f. Statement and explanation of any instances where your firm has been removed from a project or
disqualified from proposing on a project
g. Standard hourly billing rates for consultant and sub-consultant staff
h. Detailed list of services available directly from the company
3. Work Program
a. Description of your approach to working with City staff to achieve their goal of completing the assigned
work.
b. Services or data anticipated to be provided by the City
c. Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decision
4. Proposal Length and Copies
a. Proposals should be the minimum length to provide the required information. Charts and other short form
approaches to convey information are encouraged.
b. 3 copies of the proposal must be submitted.
c. 1 PDF format electronic copy of proposal must be submitted on CD or flash drive.
PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTION
Proposals will be evaluated by a review committee and contract award process as follows:
5. Consultant Selection
Proposals will be reviewed by a selection committee and ranked in accordance with the responsiveness,
qualifications and understanding of the Consultant relative to these specification requireme nts. A group of
finalist (short list) may be selected for follow-up requests for information or interviews before a final ranking is
determined.
Contract award will be based on a combination of factors that represent the best overall value for completing
the work scope as determined by the City, including: the written proposal criteria; results of background and
reference checks; and proposed compensation rates.
6. Proposal Review and Award Schedule
The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for proposal review and contract award:
Issue RFQ ..................................................................... 2/3/16
Receive proposals ....................................................... 2/25/16
Complete proposal evaluation ..................................... 3/03/16
Award contract ............................................................... 3/8/16
Execute contract .......................................................... 3/31/16
5.a
Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: a - Traffic Model Update RFQ (1236 : Traffic Model Update RFQ)
D. FORM OF AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on [day, date, year] by and
between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and
[CONSULTANT’S NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS], hereinafter referred to as Consultant.
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, on February 3, 2016, City requested proposals for Traffic Model Update Services per
Specification No. 91434.
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Consultant submitted a proposal that was accepted by City for said
services.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter
contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and entered, as first written
above, until acceptance or completion of said services.
2. Start and Completion of Work. Work on this project shall begin within 5 calendar days after contract
execution. Individual projects shall be completed in accordance with approved project schedules.
3. Contract Term for On-Call Service Contracts. The services identified in this specification will be contracted
for by the City for three years. Actual work may extend beyond the final date.
4. Contract Extension and Cost Increases for On-call Service Contracts. The term of the contract may be
extended by mutual consent for an additional year. During this extended period, labor rates may be increased
to reflect increased labor costs and overhead at each 1 year contract anniversary, provided the City i s notified
of the increases in advance.
5. Work Delays. Should the Consultant be obstructed or delayed in the work required to be done hereunder by
changes in the work or by any default, act, or omission of the City, or by strikes, fire, earthquake, or any other
Act of God, or by the inability to obtain materials, equipment, or labor due to federal government restrictions
arising out of defense or war programs, then the time of completion may, at the City's sole option, be extended
for such periods as may be agreed upon by the City and the Consultant. In the event that there is insufficient
time to grant such extensions prior to the completion date of the contract, the City may, at the time of
acceptance of the work, waive liquidated damages that may have ac crued for failure to complete on time, due
to any of the above, after hearing evidence as to the reasons for such delay, and making a finding as to the
causes of same.
6. Termination. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Consult ant is not faithfully abiding
by any term or condition contained herein, or the Consultant’s work is determined to be deficient, the City may
notify the Consultant in writing of such defect or failure to perform. This notice will give the Consultant a 10
(ten) calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to perform said work or cure the deficiency.
If the Consultant has not performed the work or cured the deficiency within the ten days specified in the notice,
such shall constitute a breach of the contract and the City may terminate the contract immediately by written
notice to the Consultant to said effect. Thereafter, neither party shall have any further duties, obligations,
responsibilities, or rights under the contract except, however, any and al l obligations of the Consultant's surety
shall remain in full force and effect, and shall not be extinguished, reduced, or in any manner waived by the
termination thereof.
In said event, the Consultant shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its serv ices performed from the
beginning date in which the breach occurs up to the day it received the City's Notice of Termination, minus any
5.a
Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: a - Traffic Model Update RFQ (1236 : Traffic Model Update RFQ)
offset from such payment representing the City's damages from such breach. "Reasonable value" includes
fees or charges for goods or services as of the last milestone or task satisfactorily delivered or completed by
the Consultant as may be set forth in the Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any other work,
services or goods performed or provided by the Consultant shall be based solely on the City's assessment of
the value of the work-in-progress in completing the overall workscope.
The City reserves the right to delay any such payment until completion or confirmed abandonment of the
project, as may be determined in the City's sole discretion, so as to permit a full and complete accounting of
costs. In no event, however, shall the Consultant be entitled to receive in excess of the compensation quoted
in its proposal.
If, at any time during the term of the contract, the City determines that the project is not feasible due to funding
shortages, unforeseen circumstances, or is in its best interest to terminate the contract, the City reserves the
right to terminate the contract. Consultant will be paid compensation due and payable to the date of
termination.
7. Ability to Perform. The Consultant warrants that it possesses, or has arranged through subcontracts, all
capital and other equipment, labor, materials, and licenses necessary to carry out and complete the work
hereunder in compliance with any and all applicable federal, state, county, city, and special district laws,
ordinances, and regulations.
8. Sub-contract Provisions. No portion of the work pertinent to this contract shall be subcontracted without
written authorization by the City, except that which is expressly identified in the Consultant’s proposal. Any
substitution of sub-consultants must be approved in writing by the City. For any sub-contract for services in
excess of $25,000, the subcontract shall co ntain all provisions of this agreement.
9. Contract Assignment. The Consultant shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of the contract,
or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a contract to any individual or business en tity of any
kind without the previous written consent of the City.
10. Inspection. The Consultant shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain that the
services of the Consultant are being performed in accordance with the requir ements and intentions of this
contract. All work done and all materials furnished, if any, shall be subject to the City's inspection and
approval. The inspection of such work shall not relieve Consultant of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract
requirements.
11. Record Retention and Audit. For the purpose of determining compliance with various laws and regulations
as well as performance of the contract, the Consultant and sub-consultants shall maintain all books,
documents, papers, accounting records and other evidence pertaining to the performance of the contract,
including but not limited to the cost of administering the contract. Materials shall be made available at their
respective offices at all reasonable times during the contract period and for three years from the date of final
payment under the contract. Authorized representatives of the City shall have the option of inspecting and/or
auditing all records. For Federally funded projects, access to records shall also include authorized
representatives of the State and Federal government. Copies shall be furnished if requested.
12. Conflict of Interest. The Consultant shall disclose any financial, business, or other relationship with the City
that may have an impact upon the outcome of this c ontract, or any ensuing City construction project. The
Consultant shall also list current clients who may have a financial interest in the outcome of this contract, or any
ensuing City construction project which will follow. The Consultant staff shall pr ovide a Conflict of Interest
Statement where determined necessary by the City.
The Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest —direct, indirect or
otherwise—that would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the work hereunder. The
Consultant further covenants that, in the performance of this work, no sub -consultant or person having such an
interest shall be employed. The Consultant certifies that no one who has or will have any financial in terest in
performing this work is an officer or employee of the City. It is hereby expressly agreed that, in the
performance of the work hereunder, the Consultant shall at all times be deemed an independent Consultant
and not an agent or employee of the City.
5.a
Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: a - Traffic Model Update RFQ (1236 : Traffic Model Update RFQ)
13. Rebates, Kickbacks or Other Unlawful Consideration. The Consultant warrants that this contract was not
obtained or secured through rebates, kickbacks or other unlawful consideration, either promised or paid to any
City employee. For breach or violation of the warranty, the City shall have the right in its discretion; to
terminate the contract without liability; to pay only for the value of the work actually performed; to deduct from
the contract price; or otherwise recover the full amount of such rebate, kickback or other unlawful consideration.
14. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Consultant warrants by execution of this contract that no person or
selling agency has been employed, or retained, to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or
understanding, for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or
bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Consultant for the purpose of securing
business. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City has the right to annul this contract without liability;
pay only for the value of the work actually performed, or in its discretion, to deduct from the contract price or
consideration, or otherwise recover the full amount of suc h commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent
fee.
15. Compliance with Laws and Wage Rates. The Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and shall observe
and comply with all applicable state and federal laws and county and City of San Luis Obispo ordinances,
regulations and adopted codes during its performance of the work. This includes compliance with prevailing
wage rates and their payment in accordance with California Labor Code. For purposed of this paragraph,
“construction” includes work performed during the design and preconstruction phases of construction, including
but not limited to, inspection and land surveying work.
16. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the Consultant is
required to pay.
17. Permits, Licenses and Filing Fees. The Consultant shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges
and fees, and file all notices as they pertain to the completion of the Consultant’s work. The City will pay all
application fees for permits required for the completion of the project including building and regulatory permit
application fees. Consultant will provide a 10 day notice for the City to issue a check.
18. Safety Provisions. The Consultant shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety established
by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.
19. Public and Employee Safety. Whenever the Consultant's operations create a condition hazardous to the
public or City employees, it shall, at its expense and without cost to the City, furnish, erect and maintain such
fences, temporary railings, barricades, lights, signs and other devices and take such other protective measures
as are necessary to prevent accidents or damage or injury to the public and employees.
20. Preservation of City Property. The Consultant shall provide and install suitable safeguards, approved by the
City, to protect City property from injury or damage. If City property is injured or damaged resulting from the
Consultant's operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the Consultant's expense. The facilities shall be
replaced or restored to a condition as good as when the Consultant began work.
21. Immigration Act of 1986. The Consultant warrants on behalf of itself and all sub -consultants engaged for the
performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United States pursuant to the Immigration
Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws shall be employed in the performance of the work
hereunder.
22. Consultant Non-Discrimination. In the award of subcontracts or in performance of this work, the Consultant
agrees that it will not engage in, nor permit such sub -consultants as it may employ, to engage in discrimination
in employment of persons on any basis prohibited by State or Federal law.
23. Accuracy of Specifications. The specifications for individual projects are believed by the City to be accurate
and to contain no affirmative misrepresentation or any concealment of fact. Consultants are cautioned to
undertake an independent analysis of any test results in the specifications, as City does not guaranty the
accuracy of its interpretation of test results contained in the specifications package. In preparing its proposal,
the Consultant and all sub-consultants named in its proposal shall bear sole responsibility for proposal
preparation errors resulting from any misstatements or omissions in the specifications that could easily have
been ascertained by examining either the project site or accurate test data in the City's possession. Although
5.a
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: a - Traffic Model Update RFQ (1236 : Traffic Model Update RFQ)
the effect of ambiguities or defects in the specifications will be as determined by law, any patent ambiguity or
defect shall give rise to a duty of Consultant to inquire prior to proposal submittal. Failure to so inquire shall
cause any such ambiguity or defect to be construed against the Consultant. An ambiguity or defect shall be
considered patent if it is of such a nature that the Consultant, assuming reasonable skill, ability and diligence on
its part, knew or should have known of the existence of the ambiguity or defect. Furthermore, failure of the
Consultant or sub-consultants to notify City in writing of specification defects or ambiguities prior to proposal
submittal shall waive any right to assert said defects or ambiguities subsequent to submittal of the proposal.
To the extent that the specifications constitute performance specifications, the City shall not be liable for costs
incurred by the successful Consultant to achieve the project’s objective or standard beyond t he amounts
provided therefor in the proposal.
In the event that, after awarding the contract, any dispute arises as a result of any actual or alleged ambiguity
or defect in the specifications, or any other matter whatsoever, Consultant shall immediately notify the City in
writing, and the Consultant and all sub-consultants shall continue to perform, irrespective of whether or not the
ambiguity or defect is major, material, minor or trivial, and irrespective of whether or not a change order, time
extension, or additional compensation has been granted by City. Failure to provide the hereinbefore described
written notice within one (1) working day of Consultant's becoming aware of the facts giving rise to the dispute
shall constitute a waiver of the right to assert the causative role of the defect or ambiguity in the plans or
specifications concerning the dispute.
24. Indemnification for Professional Liability. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Consultant shall
indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City and any and all of its officials, employees and
agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and
expenses, including attorney’s fees and costs which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence,
recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant.
25. Non-Exclusive Contract. The City reserves the right to contract for the services listed in this proposal from
other consultants during the contract term.
26. Project Proposal Submittal. Upon completion of the project scoping meeting, the Consultant shall submit a
proposed workscope, compensation and schedule within 10 working days. The cost proposal shall include all
costs including miscellaneous direct cost items.
27. Standards. Documents shall conform to City Standards and City furnished templates shall be used.
28. Consultant Endorsement. Technical reports, plans and specifications shall be stamped and signed by the
Consultant where required.
29. Required Deliverable Products and Revisions. The Consultant will be required to provide documents
addressing all elements of the workscope. Plans shall be prepared using the City’s standardized title blocks
and coversheets. Draft plans shall be submitted for review in full D (24x36) format. Specifi cations and bid
documents shall conform to standard City formats unless authorized. The City’s current Standard Specifications
and Engineering Standards must be incorporated where applicable.
City staff will review any documents or materials provided by t he Consultant and, where necessary, the
Consultant will respond to staff comments and make such changes as deemed appropriate. Submittals shall
include the previous marked up submittal (returned to the Consultant) to assist in the second review. Changes
shall be made as requested or a notation made as to why the change is not appropriate.
Unless noted otherwise in the approved project work scope, consultant shall submit:
Fully functional update of the City’s Travel Demand Model: All associated electronic files
1 electronic copy (.pdf) of the traffic model development report documentation
1 electronic copy (.pdf) of the traffic model user guide
30. Ownership of Materials. Upon completion of all work under this contract, ownership and title to all reports,
documents, plans, specifications, and estimates produced as part of this contract will automatically be vested in
the City and no further agreement will be necessary to transfer ownership to the City. The Consultant shall
5.a
Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: a - Traffic Model Update RFQ (1236 : Traffic Model Update RFQ)
furnish the City all necessary electronic and hard copies of data needed to complete the review and approval
process.
The Consultant is not liable for claims, liabilities, or losses arising out of, or connected with the modification, or
misuse by the City of the machine-readable information and data provided by the Consultant under this
agreement. Further, the Consultant is not liable for claims, liabilities, or losses arising out of, or connected with
any use by City of the project documentation on other projects, except such use as may be authorized in writing
by the Consultant.
31. Release of Reports and Information. Any reports, information, data, or other material given to, prepared by
or assembled by the Consultant as part of the work or services under these specifications shall be t he property
of the City and shall not be made available to any individual or organization by the Consultant without the prior
written approval of the City.
The Consultant shall not issue any news release or public relations item of any nature, whatsoever, regarding
work performed or to be performed under this contract without prior review of the contents thereof by the City
and receipt of the City’s written permission.
32. Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports, drawings,
specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Consultant is required to furnish in limited quantities
as part of the work or services under these specifications, the Consultant shall provide such additional copies
as are requested, and City shall compensate the Consultant for the costs of duplicating of such copies at the
Consultant's direct expense.
33. Attendance at Meetings And Hearings . As part of the workscope, and included in the contract price, is
attendance by the Consultant at public meetings to present and discuss its findings and recommendations.
Consultant shall attend as many "working" meetings with staff as necessary in perf orming workscope tasks.
Although attendance at public hearings is not anticipated, the consultant may be required to attend and present
at a public hearing if necessary.
34. Permit and Filing Fees. The Consultant shall procure all permits, and licenses, pay all charges and fees and
file all notices necessary as they pertain to the completion of the Consultant’s work. The City will pay all
application fees for permits required for the completion of the project work. The City requires a 10 day notice to
issue a check.
35. Consultant Invoices. The Consultant shall deliver a monthly invoice to the City, itemized by project work
phase or, in the case of on-call contracts, by project title. Invoice must include a breakdown of hours billed and
miscellaneous charges and any sub-consultant invoices, similarly broken down, as supporting detail.
36. Payment. For providing services as specified in this Agreement, City will pay and Consultant shall receive
compensation in a total sum not to exceed the individual agreed upon p roject fee. Should the Consultant’s
work contain errors or deficiencies, the Consultant shall be required to correct them at no increase in cost to the
City.
For on-call services, the City will pay and the Consultant shall receive compensation as agreed to on a project
by project basis.
The Consultant shall be reimbursed for hours worked at the hourly rates attached to this agreement. Hourly
rates include direct salary costs, employee benefits, overhead and fee. In addition, the Consultant shall be
reimbursed for direct costs other than salary and vehicle cost that have been identified and are attached to this
agreement. The Consultant’s personnel shall be reimbursed for per diem expenses at a rate not to exceed that
currently authorized for State employees under State Department of Personnel Administration rules.
Travel time from consultant’s home office to job site shall not be billed to the City. Travel time between multiple
city projects may be billed in cases where Consultant is working on two or more City projects simultaneously.
37. Payment Terms. The City's payment terms are 30 days from the receipt of an original invoice and acceptance
by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment or services provided by the Consultant (Net 30).
5.a
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: a - Traffic Model Update RFQ (1236 : Traffic Model Update RFQ)
The Consultant shall pay all sub-consultants within 10 calendar days from receipt of each payment made to the
Consultant by the City.
38. Resolution of Disputes. Any dispute, other than audit, concerning a question of fact arising under this
contract that is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by a committee consisting of the City’s Project
Manager and the City Director of Public Works, who may consider written or verbal information submitted by
the Consultant. Not later than thirty days after completion of all deliverables necessary to complete the plans,
specifications and estimate, the Consultant may request review by the City Council of unresolved claims or
disputes, other than audit, in accordance with Chapter 1.20 Appeals Procedure of the Municipal Code.
Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an audit of this contract that is not disposed of by
agreement, shall be reviewed by the City’s Chief Fiscal Officer. Not later than 30 days after issuance of the
final audit report, the Consultant may request a review by the City’s Chief Fiscal Officer of unresolved audit
issues. The request for review must be submitted in writing.
Neither the pendency of a dispute, nor its consideration by the City will excuse the consultant from full and
timely performance in accordance with the terms of this contract.
39. Agreement Parties.
City: Jake Hudson
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Consultant:
All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by registered or
certified mail addressed as shown above.
40. Incorporation by Reference. City Request for Qualifications Specification No. 91434, Consultant's proposal
dated xx/xx/xxx, are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement.
41. Amendments. Any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing
and shall be effective only upon approval by the Transportation Manager.
42. Working Out of Scope. If, at any time during the project, the consultant is directed to do work by persons
other than the City Project Manager and the Consultant believes that the work is outside of the scope of the
original contract, the Consultant shall inform the Project Manager immediately. If the Project Manager and
Consultant both agree that the work is outside of the project scope and is necessary to the successful
completion of the project, then a fee will be established for such work based on Consultant's hourly billing rates
or a lump sum price agreed upon between the City and the Consultant. Any extra work performed by
Consultant without prior written approval from the City Project Manager shall be at Consultant's o wn expense.
43. Complete Agreement. This written agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by
reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No oral agreement,
understanding or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of any force
or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding or representation be binding upon the parties
hereto. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinbefor e mentioned to be made and
performed by City, Consultant agrees with City to do everything required by this Agreement, the said
specification and incorporated documents. Failure by the Consultant to carry out the requirements of this
Agreement is a material breach of this agreement which may result in the termination of this Agreement or such
other remedy as the City deems appropriate.
Authority to Execute Agreement. Both City and Consultant do covenant that each individual executing this
agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such
party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year first
above written.
5.a
Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: a - Traffic Model Update RFQ (1236 : Traffic Model Update RFQ)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO: CONSULTANT:
Name of Company
__________________________________
Katie Lichtig, City Manager By:
Name of CAO/President
Its: CAO/President
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
.
5.a
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: a - Traffic Model Update RFQ (1236 : Traffic Model Update RFQ)
E. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORMS
(Note: These forms are available in Word format – Request via email)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The undersigned declares that she or he:
Has carefully examined Specification No. 91434
Is thoroughly familiar with its content
Is authorized to represent the proposing firm; and
Agrees to perform the work as set forth in the specification and this proposal.
Firm Name and Address:
Contact Name:
Email:
Fax: Phone:
Signature of Authorized Representative:
Date:
INSURANCE CERTIFICATE
Insurance Company’s A.M. Best Rating
Certificate of insurance attached
5.a
Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: a - Traffic Model Update RFQ (1236 : Traffic Model Update RFQ)
AVAILABLE SERVICES
The City may wish to consult for other work elements such as environmental document preparation, regulatory
permit acquisition (creek related work) or construction management. Please identify below a simple list of other
services your firm provides. Detailed information should be included in your proposal attachment.
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS
The Consultant shall state whether it or any of its officers or employees who have a proprietary interest in it, has
ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal, state, or local
government project because of the violation of law, a safety regulation, or for any other reason, including but not
limited to financial difficulties, project delays, or disputes regarding work or product quality, and if so to explain the
circumstances.
Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to declare? Yes No
If yes, explain the circumstances.
Executed on ______________________at _______________________________________ under penalty of
perjury of the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
______________________________________
Signature of Authorized Consultant Representative
5.a
Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: a - Traffic Model Update RFQ (1236 : Traffic Model Update RFQ)
REFERENCES
Number of years engaged in providing the services included within the scope of the specifications under the
present business name: ____________________
Provide a short description of the last three contracts performed by your firm that demonstrate your ability to
provide the services included with the scope of the specifications. Attach additional detailed information in your
proposal. The City reserves the right to contact each of the references listed for additional information regarding
your firm's qualifications.
Reference No. 1
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
Reference No. 2
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
5.a
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: a - Traffic Model Update RFQ (1236 : Traffic Model Update RFQ)
Reference No. 3
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
5.a
Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: a - Traffic Model Update RFQ (1236 : Traffic Model Update RFQ)
F. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Consultant Services
The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to
persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder
by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or sub-consultants.
Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 20 10 Prior to 1993 or
CG 20 10 07 04 with CG 20 37 10 01 or the exact equivalent as determined by the City).
2. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto).
3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insuranc e.
4. Errors and Omissions Liability insurance as appropriate to the consultant's profession.
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than:
1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and pr operty damage. If
Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate
limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required
occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
4. Errors and Omissions Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence.
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and
approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or
self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall
procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense
expenses.
Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed
to contain, the following provisions:
1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects:
liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf o f the Consultant; products and completed operations
of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired
or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection
afforded to the City, its officers, official, employees, agents or volunteers.
2. For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as
respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance
maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers shall be excess of the
Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is
brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
4. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended,
voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limit s except after thirty (30) days prior written
notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. The Consultant agrees to notify
the City in the event that the policy is suspended, voided or reduced in coverage or limits. A minimum of 30
days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, will be provided.
Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than
A:VII.
Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing maintenance of
the required insurance coverage. Original endorsements effecting general liability and automobile liability coverage
required by this clause must also be provided. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that
insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work
commences.
5.a
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: a - Traffic Model Update RFQ (1236 : Traffic Model Update RFQ)
Page intentionally left
blank.
Meeting Date: 2/2/2016
FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Molly Cano, Tourism Manager
SUBJECT: CALTRANS SPONSOR APPLICANT AGREEMENT WITH RACE SLO
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of support (“Support Letter”) for the 2016
SLO Marathon + Half; and
2. Approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a CalTrans Sponsor Application Agreement
(“Agreement”) and supporting document (“Authorization Letter”) with Get Off The Couch,
Potato Sports Productions, LLC authorizing the City of San Luis Obispo to serve as the
Sponsor Applicant for the CalTrans encroachment permit for the 2016 SLO Marathon + Half.
DISCUSSION
Background
The SLO Marathon + Half (the “Marathon”) is an annual event produced by Get Off The Couch
Potato Sports Productions, LLC (“Race SLO”). Now entering its fifth year of production, the
annual event attracts thousands of participants and spectators to the City and County of San Luis
Obispo for the weekend events including: Family Fitness Day and t he SLO Life Expo, 5K run,
Children’s Fun Run, SLO Half Marathon, and the SLO Full Marathon. The event will occur
April 29-May 1, 2016.
The Marathon takes place on City, County and State right-of-way and the event organizer is
required to obtain an encroachment permit from each of these agencies for the event. In years
prior, Race SLO obtained their permit directly CalTrans for use of the State Highway. However,
this year, Race SLO has been notified that CalTrans’ permit regulations require that the applicant
or sponsor applicant must be a non-profit organization or a City or County or other public
agency.
Need for the City to Sponsor the CalTrans Encroachment Permit Application
Race SLO is a for-profit entity and is ineligible to submit an application for an encroachment
permit with CalTrans. Upon learning of this change in encroachment permit application practice,
Race SLO discussed with the City staff whether the City could serve as the sponsor applicant for
the CalTrans permit. Due to the time sensitive nature of the application and the significant local
and regional community benefits of the Marathon, staff recommends that the City move forward
as the sponsor applicant for the CalTrans encroachment permit. CalTrans staff has indicated that
6
Packet Pg. 26
this would be a permissible arrangement for its permit review purposes.
If approved, the proposed “Agreement” (Attachment A) and “Authorization Letter” (Attachment
B) would allow the City to serve as the sponsor applicant for Race SLO on the CalTrans
encroachment permit application. The Agreement requires Race SLO to indemnify the City and
have certain insurance in place in order to shift any additional liability imposed on the City as
part of this arrangement onto the event organizer Race SLO. It should be noted that of the
approximately 26 miles for the race course, less than 2 miles takes place on State right -of-way –
Highway 227 and the Marsh Street/Highway 101 on/off ramps (see map, Attachment C).
Additionally, Race SLO must also provide “Support Letter” (Attachment D) from the City or
County for the Marathon as part of the encroachment permit application.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this Agreement for the City of San Luis Obispo.
However should the event not take place in 2016, the estimated fiscal impact on the community
would be the loss of $3.2 million dollars county-wide based on the annual economic impact
report commissioned by the Event Producers.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Amend or Edit Materials Provided. The Council could direct staff to amend or edit the
letter of support and/or the agreement with Race SLO authorizing the City to serve as the
Sponsor Applicant for the CalTrans encroachment permit for the 2016 SLO Marathon +
Half. This is not recommended as the terms of the Agreement have been carefully
negotiated so that the City is indemnified of any liability and allows RaceSLO to hold
this important community event.
2. Disapprove. The Council could not to approve the agreement with Race SLO authorizing
the City to serve as the Sponsor Applicant for the CalTrans encroachment permit for the
2016 SLO Marathon + Half and not authorize the letter of support for the 2016 SLO
Marathon + Half. This is not recommended because without the City serving as the
sponsor applicant RaceSLO would not be able to receive the permit to hold this important
community event. If the event was not held in 2016, the result would create a loss in the
annual $3.2 million in economic impact from the event including the loss of hundreds of
overnight stay in our community which would directly impact the general fund through
the loss of transient occupancy tax and sales tax collection.
Attachments:
a - Agreement
b - Authorization Letter
c - 2016 Proposed Race Map
d - Support Letter
6
Packet Pg. 27
1
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION AGREEMENT
This Encroachment Permit Application Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered
into this _____ day of _______, 2016 (the “Effective Date”), by and between the City of San
Luis Obispo, a charter city and municipal corporation (“City”), and Get Off the Couch, Potato
Sports Productions, LLC, a California limited liability corporation (“GOTC”) doing business as
“Race SLO”.
WHEREAS, for the last four years, GOTC has organized and produced an annual marathon
event called “SLO Marathon + Half” (the “SLO Marathon”) which takes place within San Luis
Obispo County, primarily within the City’s limits;
WHEREAS, SLO Marathon’s route is within the City, San Luis Obispo County and State
California Department of Transportation’s (“CalTrans”) right-of-way;
WHEREAS, for the last four years, GOTC has obtained an encroachment permit from CalTrans
for the use of their right-of-way for the SLO Marathon event;
WHEREAS, this year, CalTrans has indicated that only public agencies or certain non-profit
organizations can apply for an encroachment permit;
WHEREAS, GOTC is a for profit entity, and therefore, CalTrans has indicated GOTC cannot
apply for an encroachment permit;
WHEREAS, City acknowledges that the SLO Marathon has become a widely popular event,
attracting thousands of participants and spectators to the central coast area. The City further
acknowledges that this event has become an important component of the City’s tourism industry
and has important and significant community benefits, including, but not limited to, providing a
unique recreational opportunity to enhance the quality of life for residents as well as visitors; and
the contribution of a significant economic impact to the City, community, and local businesses.
WHEREAS, the City desires for the SLO Marathon to continue on an annual basis and is
willing to apply for an encroachment permit from CalTrans on behalf of GOTC, subject to the
terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this
reference.
2. Authorized Agent. Subject to the terms and conditions hereof, GOTC hereby
authorizes City to act as its agent for the purpose of applying for an encroachment
permit from CalTrans for the SLO Marathon event. The scope of this agency
6.a
Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: a - Agreement (1241 : RaceSLO agreement for CalTrans permit)
2
relationship shall include the right to fill out and submit CalTrans’ Standard
Encroachment Permit Application (the “Permit”), a copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit A. GOTC agrees to provide, at its sole cost and expense, any and all
information, maps, bonds, financial assurances, certificates, traffic plans, contractor
and subcontractor information, insurance information, documents or other materials
needed to fill out and submit the Permit application with CalTrans. GOTC
acknowledges and agrees that City shall incur no costs or expenses under this
Agreement.
3. Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall commence as of the Effective
Date and shall automatically terminate upon: CalTrans’ denial of the Permit; or ten
days after completion of the 2016 SLO Marathon event. In addition to the foregoing,
either City or GOTC may terminate this Agreement without cause upon five (5) days
prior written notice to the other party. Either party may terminate this Agreement
immediately upon a material breach of the terms and conditions hereof. City and
GOTC acknowledge that a material breach of this Agreement includes, but is not
limited to:
i. GOTC’s failure to maintain insurance requirements as required herein;
ii. GOTC’s failure to be in good standing with the Secretary of State;
iii. GOTC’s failure to provide the information needed for the Permit
application;
iv. Bankruptcy of insolvency of GOTC;
v. Sale of GOTC or assignment of this Agreement; or
vi. GOTC’s failure to comply with the terms and conditions hereof.
4. Representations of GOTC: GOTC represents and warrants to City that:
i. It is a limited liability company organized under the laws of California and
is in good standing;
ii. That the insurance policies required herein are in full force and effect as of
the Effective Date; and
iii. CalTrans refuses to allow it to apply for the Permit and an authorized
representative(s) of CalTrans is aware of this Agreement and the terms
hereof.
5. Release. GOTC acknowledges and agrees that City is not, and shall not be, in any
way liable for any damages or injuries that may be sustained as a result of City’s
performance under this Agreement. GOTC further acknowledges that issuance of the
Permit is subject to discretionary approval of CalTrans. GOTC does hereby release
and forever discharge the City, its officials, officers and employees, from and agains t
any and all claims, causes of action, demands and liability whatsoever, the
undersigned now has or hereafter may have arising from or in any way related to the
SLO Marathon event, City’s application for the Permit, and/ or City’s performance
under this Agreement. GOTC, on behalf of itself, its successors, and assigns,
expressly waive the benefit of section 1542 of the California Civil Code with respect
6.a
Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: a - Agreement (1241 : RaceSLO agreement for CalTrans permit)
3
to all claims that arise from or relate to the this Agreement. Furthermore, GOTC, on
behalf of itself, its predecessors, successors, and assigns, understand and
acknowledge the significance and consequences of their specific waivers of section
1542 of the California Civil Code which provides as follows:
A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does
not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing
the release, which if known by him or her must have materially
affected his or her settlement with the debtor.
6. Insurance. GOTC shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement
insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise
from or in connection with the SLO Marathon event.
i. Minimum scope of insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage
(occurrence form CG 0001).
2. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87)
covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto).
3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of
California and Employer's Liability Insurance.
ii. Minimum limits of insurance. GOTC shall maintain limits no less than:
1. General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence, $4,000,000 general
aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage.
2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury
and property damage.
3. Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or
disease.
iii. Deductibles and self-insured retentions. Any deductibles or self-
insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the
option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such
deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers,
officials, employees and volunteers; or GOTC shall procure a bond
guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim
administration and defense expenses.
iv. Other insurance provisions. The general liability and automobile
liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following
provisions:
1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers
are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of
6.a
Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: a - Agreement (1241 : RaceSLO agreement for CalTrans permit)
4
activities performed by or on behalf of GOTC; products and
completed operations of GOTC; premises owned, occupied or used
by GOTC; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by
GOTC. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the
scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, official,
employees, agents or volunteers.
2. For any claims related to this Agreement or the SLO Marathon
event, GOTC's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as
respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and
volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the
City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers shall be
excess of GOTC 's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3. Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the
policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage
provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or
volunteers.
4. GOTC 's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against
whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the
limits of the insurer's liability.
5. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to
state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by
either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty
(30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt
requested, has been given to the City.
v. Acceptability of insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with
a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII.
vi. Verification of coverage. GOTC shall furnish the City with a
certificate of insurance showing maintenance of the required insurance
coverage. Original endorsements effecting general liability and
automobile liability coverage required by this clause must also be
provided. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized
by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to
be received and approved by the City.
7. Indemnity. To the fullest extent provided by law, GOTC shall indemnify, defend
(with counsel reasonably acceptable to City) and hold harmless CITY, its officials,
employees, agents and contractors (“Indemnitees”) from and against any and all
liability, costs, expenses (including attorney’s fees), demands, lawsuits, arising from
or related to the SLO Marathon, City’s application for and/ or the issuance of the
Permit, and/ or City’s performance under this Agreement for: bodily injury and/ or
6.a
Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: a - Agreement (1241 : RaceSLO agreement for CalTrans permit)
5
death to persons and damage to property of anyone. Except as provided by law, the
indemnification provisions stated above shall apply regardless of the existence or
degree of fault of Indemnitees. GOTC’s duty to indemnify City as provided herein
shall survive termination of this Agreement.
8. Notices. Unless otherwise specified herein, any notice which any party may or is
required to give shall be given by personal service or by depositing such notice with
the U.S. Postal Service, postage pre-paid, to the mailing address given below, or at
such other place as may be designated by the party in writing from time to time.
Notice shall be effective upon the date of personal delivery or 3 days after date of
mailing.
If to City: City of San Luis Obispo
Attn: Economic Development Director
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
With copy to: City of San Luis Obispo
Attn: City Attorney
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
If to GOTC: Get Off the Couch, Potato Sports Productions, LLC
205 Suburban Rd. Ste. 6
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
9. Relationship of Parties. GOTC shall not be considered a partner, agent, officer or
employee of the City. GOTC's officers, members, affiliates, volunteers, employees
and independent contractors shall not be considered agents, officers or employees of
the City.
10. Construction. When the context of any provision requires it, the singular shall be
held to include the plural, and the masculine shall be held to include the feminine
gender. Should any provisions of this Agreement require judicial interpretation, it is
understood by City and GOTC and agreed that a court interpreting or construing same
shall not apply a presumption that the terms hereof shall be more strictly construed
against one party by reason of the rule of construction that the document is to be
constructed more strictly against the party who prepared it sine the parties agree that
both have participated in the preparation of this document with the assistance of
counsel.
11. Authority to Sign and Binding Effect. The parties executing this Agreement
personally warrant that they have the full authority to enter into this Agreement on
behalf of the agency or entity for which they are signing, and that said agency or
entity will be legally bound to the Agreement by their signature hereto.
6.a
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: a - Agreement (1241 : RaceSLO agreement for CalTrans permit)
6
12. Attorney’s Fees. In the event that suit, motion or application is brought by one party
against another to declare rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be
entitled to recover their attorney’s fees and costs actually incurred
13. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts.
14. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the
parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior
or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, are
merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed on the date above stated, at San Luis
Obispo, California.
City of San Luis Obispo
By: ___________________________
Jan Marx, Mayor
Attest:
By: ___________________________
Traci R. McGinley, MMC
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
By:___________________________
J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
Get Off the Couch, Potato Sports
Productions, LLC
By: _____________________________
Its:
6.a
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: a - Agreement (1241 : RaceSLO agreement for CalTrans permit)
City of San Luis Obispo, Office of the City Council, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3249, 805.781.7114, slocity.org
February 3, 2016
Encroachment Permits Office
Caltrans District 5
50 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Authorization of Agent for 2016 SLO Marathon + Half
To Whom It May Concern,
I, the undersigned, hereby authorize Samantha Pruitt of Get Off The Couch Potato Sports
Productions, LLC (“Race SLO”), to act in all matters necessary with regards to the Encroachment
Permit Application for the 2016 SLO Marathon + Half.
Please contact Katie Lichtig, City Manager for the City of San Luis Obispo for any clarification or
verification at (805) 781-7114.
Sincerely,
Jan Howell Marx
Mayor
6.b
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: b - Authorization Letter (1241 : RaceSLO agreement for CalTrans permit)
6.c
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: c - 2016 Proposed Race Map (1241 : RaceSLO agreement for CalTrans permit)
City of San Luis Obispo, Office of the City Council, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3249, 805.781.7114, slocity.org
February 3, 2016
Encroachment Permits Office
Caltrans District 5
50 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Support for the 2016 SLO Marathon + Half
On behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo and the community members we serve, I would like to
express our support for the 2016 SLO Marathon + Half produced by Get Off The Couch Potato
Sports Productions, LLC (a.k.a Race SLO). I would also like to acknowledge the support of the use of
local roadways by the event participants.
Over the past five years, the SLO Marathon + Half event has become an anticipated happening in
and around the City of San Luis Obispo. This event directly supports our community values,
contributes to the quality of life for residents, and serves as a draw for regional, national, and
international visitors.
The City of San Luis Obispo strongly supports this annual event in our community. We look forward
to Caltrans’ approval of the necessary permits to make this event possible in 2016.
Sincerely,
Jan Howell Marx
Mayor
6.d
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: d - Support Letter (1241 : RaceSLO agreement for CalTrans permit)
Page intentionally left
blank.
Meeting Date: 2/2/2016
FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager/Interim Finance Director
Prepared By: Vilma Warner, Finance Operation Manager
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL
REPORT, SINGLE AUDIT REPORT, AND ANNUAL AUDIT OF
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS FOR 2014-15
RECOMMENDATION
Accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Single Audit Report, and annual audit of
the Transportation Development Act Funds for Fiscal Year 2104-15.
DISCUSSION
The accompanying Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) has been prepared as required
by the City’s Charter and applicable State laws requiring financial reporting. The CAFR provides a
final and audited representation of the City’s financial condition across all funds for the fiscal year
that ended June 30, 2015. The CAFR was published on the City’s website on December 29, 2015,
as required by City’ policies and hard copies were provided to the City Council in January 2016.
As required by the City Charter, the financial statements have been audited by independent certified
public accountants Glenn Burdette. The objective of a financial audit is to provide users of the
financial reports with reasonable assurance from an independent source that the reports are reliable.
The auditor issued the financial statements with an unqualified opinion which means that they are
presented fairly and in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (see pages 1-3 of
the CAFR).
The accompanying Single Audit Report, which is also prepared by Glenn Burdette, provides
information about the City’s expenditure of federal awards for the period ended June 30, 2015.
The Transportation Development Act annual audit was prepared by the same independent
certified public accounting firm and provides information on the City’s compliance with statutes,
rules and regulations of the Transportation Development Act (TDA), the California Code of
Relations, and instructions and resolutions of San Luis Obispo Council of Government for the
period ended on June 30, 2015. This report did not reflect any negative findings regarding the
City’s administration of the TDA monies.
7
Packet Pg. 37
In the 2014-15 fiscal year the City adopted two new Governmental Accounting Standards Board
(GASB) statements of financial accounting standards related to pension activities.
Statement No. 68, “Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions—an amendment of
GASB Statement No. 27,” and
Statement No. 71, “Pension Transition for Contributions Made Subsequent to the
Measurement Date—an amendment of GASB Statement No. 68”.
GASB Statement No. 68 establishes standards of accounting and financial reporting, but not
funding or budgetary standards, for the City’s defined benefit pension plans. This Statement
replaces the requirements of prior GASB statements impacting accounting and disclosure of
pensions.
The significant impact to the City of implementing GASB Statement No. 68 is the reporting of
the City’s unfunded pension liability on the full accrual basis of accounting in the government-
wide financial statements. There are also new note disclosure requirements and supplementary
schedules required by the Statement. The measurement date for the pension liabilities is as of
June 30, 2014. This date reflects a one-year lag in the release of actuaries from CalPERS and
was used so that these financial statements could be issued in a timely manner. Activity (i.e.
contributions made by the City) occurring during 2014‐15 fiscal year are reported as deferred
outflows of resources in accordance with Statement No. 71.
With the application of GASB Statement No. 68, the City restated the 2013-14 fiscal year
beginning net position for both governmental and business-type activities. Therefore, the
Summary of Changes in Net Position shows a decrease in net position to $99.3 million as of the
end of FY 14-15, compared to $182.6 million in FY 13-14 for Governmental Activities. This is
due to the reporting requirement of unfunded liability in the amount of $99.1 million, which
negatively impacts the net financial position.
The City’s net position not accounting for unfunded liability, increased to $15.8 million in FY
14-15 compared to $8.9 million in FY 13-14 for Governmental Activities. For Business-Type
Activities, the City’s net financial position, not accounting for unfunded liability, increased by
$13.8 million in FY 14-15 as compared to $8.6 million in the previous year. The net position for
Business-Type Activities shows a decrease in the amount of $19.5 million due to GASB 68
reporting requirements. The Transmittal Memorandum and the Management Discussion and
Analysis in the CAFR provide a more detailed discussion concerning GASB Statement No. 68.
A representative from Glenn Burdette, the City’s independent certified public accountants firm, will
attend the February 2, 2016 Council meeting to present the results of the audits and to respond to
any questions the Council may have relating to these audits.
Financial Results Highlighted in the CAFR
Within the CAFR, the Transmittal Memorandum and Management’s Discussion and Analysis
provide a comprehensive analysis of the City’s financial position as of June 30, 2015, as well as
7
Packet Pg. 38
summaries of significant City fiscal policies, practices and financial results. Key variances from
projected ending balances for 2014-15 are also highlighted in the Transmittal Memorandum.
Financial results for the year compare favorably with budget estimates in virtually all areas of the
City’s operations. For the General Fund, financial results for the year were better than final
estimates for revenues by $2.5 million, or 4%. Expenditures were $3.6 million or 7%, below
final estimates.
Changes in 2014-15 2014-15
General Fund Balance Estimated Actual Amount %
Fund balance, beginning of year 20,797,590 20,819,384 21,794
Revenues 62,071,072$ 64,615,546$ 2,544,474$ 4%
Expenditures 56,084,979 52,434,653 3,650,326 7%
Other sources (uses)(9,170,192)(8,433,470)736,722 -8%
Excess of revenues and sources
over (under) expenditures & uses (3,184,099)3,747,423 6,931,522
Prior Year restatement 0 0
Fund balance, end of year 17,613,491$ 24,566,807$ 6,953,316$
Less:
Nonspendable (60,181)
Restricted/Committed (6,874,085)
Assigned (12,432,556)
Unassigned Fund Balance, end of year 5,199,985$
Variance
Key revenue source estimates including Sales Tax, Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and
subventions and grants were updated at the Financial Plan supplement (June 2014) and at mid-
year (February 2015), resulting in an increase in overall budgeted revenues of almost $3.0
million or 5.0% over the original budget estimate.
The favorable variances in revenues and expenditures resulted in total General Fund Balance of
$24.6 million and unassigned balance of $5.2 million. Per City Council direction and in
conjunction with adopted Council policies; staff will provide a recommendation for the use of
any fund balance in excess of the 20% reserve not budgeted with the 2015-16 mid-year budget
review on February 16, 2016. Staff will make recommendations in light of the five year general
fund forecast and analysis of potential unfunded liabilities based on adopted City Council policy.
CAFR Organization
In accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for state and local governments, the
City’s CAFR is organized into three major sections: Introduction, Financial Reports and Statistical
Tables. The following is a brief summary of the contents of each of these sections.
Introduction. The Transmittal Memorandum and other information of general interest are
presented in this section, including: directory of officials, advisory bodies, and organization chart.
Financial Reports. This section includes the City’s primary financial statements in five major
parts:
1. Auditors’ opinion regarding the financial statements.
7
Packet Pg. 39
2. Management’s discussion and analysis providing a narrative overview of City-wide finances.
3. The basic financial statements presenting the government-wide results combining the activities
of the major funds (General, Capital Outlay and all Enterprise Funds) into governmental and
business-type categories; the fund financial statements; and the notes to the financial statements.
4. Required supplementary information presenting the General Fund actual results with both the
original and final adjusted budgets.
5. Other supplemental schedules and financial statements providing financial information for each
of the City’s non-major governmental and agency funds. This includes a financial schedule
presenting the Half Percent Sale Tax Measure revenues and uses in 2014-15.
Statistical Tables. This section provides demographic and financial tables showing current and
historical trend information for the City and is organized into six major parts:
1. Statistical overview. General information about the San Luis Obispo community.
2. General financial trends. Ten-year summary information on net assets, governmental
revenues and expenditures and fund balances.
3. Revenue capacity. Ten-year summary information on property and sales tax trends.
4. Debt capacity. Ten-year summary information on debt service requirements.
5. Economic and demographic trends. Ten-year summaries of taxable sales, building
permits and valuations, housing, population and other demographic trends.
6. Operating information. Ten-year trend information on operating indicators by function.
Recognition for Excellence in Financial Reporting
Beginning in fiscal year 1983-84, all of the City’s CAFRs have been awarded the certificate of
achievement for excellence in financial reporting from the Government Finance Officers
Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA). This is a prestigious national award
recognizing the City’s use of the highest standards in preparing our annual financial report. The
City received the award for its 2013-14 CAFR and has submitted the award application for the
2014-2015 CAFR.
Additional Reporting
The Federal Single Audit Act requires agencies expending $500,000 or more of Federal assistance
funding to undergo organization-wide audits of their internal controls. Accordingly, the
accompanying Single Audit Report provides a Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
and on Compliance and Other Matters. In the findings section of this report a material weakness
was reported, the City was recording excess development service fee revenue and transit TDA grant
revenues as unearned revenue instead of revenue when received.
7
Packet Pg. 40
The development service fee revenue should have been recorded at the point the fee became
nonrefundable in accordance with GASB Statement No. 33. The transit TDA grant revenue should
have been recorded as revenue when all applicable eligibility requirements were met. As a result a
prior year restatement of $502,205 was recorded in the General fund and $1,050,746 in the Transit
fund respectively to reduce the unearned liability and increase fund balance. These corrections
positively impact the fund balances for these funds.
Management agrees with this finding. In prior years management decided to record development
service fee revenue as deferred under the definition of deferred revenue which states “payments or
unearned revenue should be recorded as a liability until the services have been rendered or products
have been delivered”. In the case of the development service fee revenue, when monies are
collected the services have yet to be rendered. The uniqueness of these revenues is that they are
nonrefundable and should be recognized when received. Staff has coordinated with both Public
Works and Community Development to properly account for these revenues and process them in a
manner that is transparent and consistent with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with accepting and filing the Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report, Single Audit Report, and annual audit of the Transportation Development Act
Funds for fiscal year 2014-15.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council could decide to revise or not accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report, Single Audit Report, and annual audit of the Transportation Development Act Funds for
fiscal year 2104-15. This is not recommended as the reports have been prepared in conformance
with a variety of accounting and other reporting requirements and represent the professional
evaluation and analysis by the City’s independent auditors. They have rendered an unqualified
opinion meaning that which means that they are presented fairly and in conformity with generally
accepted accounting principles.
Attachments:
a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15
b - Single Audit Report for 2014-15
Council Reading File - City of SLO Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) FY-
2014-15
7
Packet Pg. 41
City of San Luis Obispo
Tr ansportation
Development Act Funds
Report and Financial Statements Year End
June 30, 2015 and 2014
7.a
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transportation Development Act Funds
Report and Financial Statements
Years Ended June 30, 2015 and 2014
7.a
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transportation Development Act Funds
Report and Financial Statements
Year Ended June 30, 2015 and 2014
Table of Contents
Page
Transit Fund
Independent Auditors’ Report 5-6
Statements of Fund Net Position –June 30, 2015 and 2014 7
Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position –
Years Ended June 30, 2015 and 2014 8
Statements of Cash Flows –Years Ended June 30, 2015 and 2014 9-10
Notes to Financial Statements 11-18
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Fund
Independent Auditors’ Report on Transportation Development Act Compliance
and State Bond Compliance 21-22
Independent Auditors’ Report 23-24
Balance Sheets –June 30, 2015 and 2014 25
Statements of Revenues, Other Uses and Changes in Fund Balance –
Years Ended June 30, 2015 and 2014 26
Notes to Financial Statements 27-29
Independent Auditors’ Report on Transportation Development Act Compliance 30-31
TDA Fund Supplementary Information
Schedule of Revenues and Other Uses –Budget and Actual –
Years Ended June 30, 2015 and 2014 32
2
7.a
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
3
City of San Luis Obispo,California
Transit Fund
Years Ended June 30,2015 and 2014
7.a
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4
7.a
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
7.a
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
7.a
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transit Fund
Statements of Fund Net Position
June 30, 2015 and 2014
2015 2014
Assets
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents 487,957$ 30,762$
Investments 1,439,683 696,682
Accounts receivable 170 4,657
Interest receivable 3,356 1,748
Due from other governments 1,107,522 1,767,272
Total current assets 3,038,688 2,501,121
Capital assets:
Buildings and improvements 5,016,142 5,016,142
Transit operating equipment 7,633,780 7,618,590
Construction in progress 60,038 39,038
Total capital assets 12,709,960 12,673,770
Less accumulated depreciation (5,842,773) (4,954,829)
Total capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation 6,867,187 7,718,941
Total assets 9,905,875 10,220,062
Deferred Outflows of Resources
Deferred pensions 42,732
Liabilities
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable 239,831 370,075
Accrued salaries and compensated absences 22,937 9,866
Unearned revenue 54,561
Total current liabilities 262,768 434,502
Noncurrent liabilities:
Compensated absences, net of current portion 4,844 2,000
Net pension liability 532,344
Total noncurrent liabilities 537,188 2,000
Total liabilities 799,956 436,502
Deferred Inflows of Resources
Deferred pensions 51,886
Net Position
Net investment in capital assets 6,867,187 7,718,941
Unrestricted 2,229,578 2,064,619
Total net position 9,096,765$ 9,783,560$
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
7
7.a
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transit Fund
Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position
Years Ended June 30, 2015 and 2014
2015 2014
Operating revenues:
Passenger fares 234,217$ 260,965$
Special transit fares 415,197 403,104
Total operating revenues 649,414 664,069
Operating expenses:
Purchased transportation 1,842,760 1,786,959
Other transportation services 390,771 386,286
Fuel and lubricants 335,970 434,031
Other materials and supplies 31,673 55,931
Salaries and wages 146,230 136,198
Fringe benefits 68,104 54,155
General and administrative 290,742 320,400
Depreciation 887,944 885,178
Total operating expenses 3,994,194 4,059,138
Operating loss (3,344,780) (3,395,069)
Nonoperating revenues and expenses:
Transportation Development Act operating grants 2,014,541 1,815,413
Transportation Development Act capital grants 82,400
Federal Transit Administration operating grants 1,134,111 1,263,352
Federal Transit Administration capital and planning grants 36,861
State EMA grant 45,498
Interest 7,613 6,129
Other nonoperating revenues (expenses)486 24,516
Total nonoperating revenues and expenses 3,156,751 3,274,169
Loss before transfers (188,029) (120,900)
Transportation Development Act capital contributions 60,063
Transfers (1,400)
58,663 -
Change in net position (129,366) (120,900)
Net position - beginning of year 9,783,560 9,556,239
Prior Year Restatement (557,429) 348,221
Net assets - beginning of year, as restated 9,226,131 9,904,460
Net position - end of year 9,096,765$ 9,783,560$
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
8
7.a
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transit Fund
Statements of Cash Flows
Years Ended June 30, 2015 and 2014
2015 2014
Cash flows from operating activities:
Cash received from customers 1,259,090$ 926,147$
Cash payments to suppliers for goods and services (2,731,418) (3,221,432)
Cash payments to General Fund for interfund services (290,742) (320,400)
Cash payments to employees for services (214,350) (190,487)
Other nonoperating cash receipts 486 24,516
Net cash used in operating activities (1,976,934) (2,781,656)
Cash flows from noncapital financing activities:
Operating grants received 3,148,652 2,458,640
Transfers (1,400)
Net cash provided by noncapital financing activities 3,147,252 2,458,640
Cash flows from capital and related financing activities:
Capital grants received 60,063 82,359
Acquisition and construction of capital assets (36,190) (61,719)
Net cash provided by capital and related financing activities 23,873 20,640
Cash flows from investing activities:
Interest on investments 6,005 5,120
Net cash provided by investing activities 6,005 5,120
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents and investments 1,200,196 (297,256)
Cash and cash equivalents and investments - beginning of year 727,444 1,024,700
Cash and cash equivalents and investments - end of year 1,927,640$ 727,444$
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
9
7.a
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transit Fund
Statements of Cash Flows, Continued
Years Ended June 30, 2015 and 2014
2015 2014
Reconciliation of operating loss to net cash used in operating activities:
Operating loss (3,344,780)$ (3,395,069)$
Adjustments to reconcile operating loss to net cash used in operating activities:
Depreciation 887,944 885,178
Other revenues and expenses 486 24,516
Changes in operating assets, deferred outflows, liabilities, and deferred inflows:
Accounts receivable 4,487 (4,629)
Due from other governments 659,750 (477,000)
Accounts payable (130,244) (558,225)
Unearned revenue (54,561) 743,707
Accrued salaries and compensated absences 15,915 (134)
Deferred pensions and net pension liability (15,931)
Net cash used in operating activities (1,976,934)$ (2,781,656)$
Reconciliation of cash and cash equivalents and investments to the statement
of fund net position:
Cash and cash equivalents 487,957$ 30,762$
Investments 1,439,683 696,682
Total cash and cash equivalents and investments 1,927,640$ 727,444$
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
10
7.a
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transit Fund
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2015 and 2014
Note 1: The Reporting Entity
The City of San Luis Obispo (the City) operates a fixed route public transportation system within the City limits and
to the California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly). Vehicle operations and vehicle maintenance are provided
under contract by a private transportation company. Nonvehicle-related support and administrative services are
provided by City staff.
The Transit Fund (the Fund) is an enterprise fund of the City created by resolution of the City Council to account for
the revenues received pursuant to the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Federal Transit Authority (FTA) and
the revenues received from the transit operations described above. Such revenues are allocated under specific
statutes and are legally restricted to finance expenditures made for transit operations, the development of public
transportation systems and transportation planning. When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available
for the same purpose, it is the City’s policy to use restricted funds first.
Note 2: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Measurement Focus, Basis of Accounting and Basis of Presentation
The Fund’s financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual
basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recognized when incurred regardless
of the timing of related cash flows. The Fund distinguishes operating revenues and expenses from nonoperating
items. Operating revenues and expenses generally result from providing services in connection with the Fund’s
principal ongoing operations. The principal operating revenues of the Fund are charges to customers for transit
services. Operating expenses for the Fund include cost of services, administrative expenses, and depreciation on
capital assets. All revenues and expenses not meeting this definition are reported as nonoperating revenues and
expenses, including non-exchange transactions such as TDA and FTA grants.
Nonexchange transactions, in which the Fund receives value without directly giving equal value in return, include
grants. Revenue from grants is recognized in the fiscal year in which all eligibility requirements have been satisfied.
Eligibility requirements include timing requirements, which specify the fiscal year when the resources are to be used
or the fiscal year when use is first permitted; matching requirements, in which the Fund must provide local resources
to be used for a specific purpose; and expenditures requirements, in which the resources are provided to the Fund
on a reimbursement basis.
Cash, Cash Equivalents and Investments
Cash and cash equivalents consist of cash on hand, cash balances in checking and money market accounts and short -
term investments, with an original maturity of three months or less. Investments which are in the City’s internal
investment pool are also treated as cash equivalents for the purposes of the statement of cash flows.
11
7.a
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transit Fund
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2015 and 2014
Note 2: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued)
Amounts Due from Other Governments
Generally, amounts due from other governments are recorded as revenues when earned. However, when the use
of funds is the prime factor for determining eligibility for grants, revenue is accrued when the related expenses have
been made on an approved grant.
Capital Assets
Capital assets are recorded at cost and depreciated using the straight-line method over their estimated useful lives,
ranging from 5 to 20 years.
Net Pension Liability, Deferred Outflows and Deferred Inflows
The City recognizes a net pension liability, which represents the City’s proportionate share of the excess of the total
pension liability over the fiduciary net position of the pension reflected in the actuarial reports provided by the
California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) plans (Plans). The City has allocated a proportionate share
of the net pension liability, deferred outflows, deferred inflows and pension expense to the Transit Fund. The net
pension liability is measured as of the City’s prior fiscal year-end. Changes in the net pension liability are recorded,
in the period incurred, as pension expense or as deferred inflows of resources or deferred outflows of resources
depending on the nature of the change. The changes in the net pension liability that are recorded as deferred inflows
of resources or deferred outflows of resources (that arise from changes in actuarial assumptions or other inputs and
differences between expected or actual experience) are amortized over the weighted average remaining service life
of all participants in the respective pension plan and are recorded as a component of pension expense beginning
with the period in which they are incurred.
For purposes of measuring the net pension liability and deferred outflows/inflows of resources related to pensions,
and pension expense, information about the fiduciary net position of the City’s CalPERS Plans and additions
to/deductions from the Plans’ fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis as they are reported
by CalPERS. For this purpose, benefit payments (including refunds of employee contributions) are recognized when
due and payable in accordance with the benefit terms. Investments are reported at fair value. Projected earnings
on pension investments are recognized as a component of pension expense.
Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect certain reported amounts
and disclosures. Accordingly, actual results could differ from those estimates.
12
7.a
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transit Fund
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2015 and 2014
Note 2: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued)
Subsequent Events
Events subsequent to June 30, 2015 have been evaluated through December 17,2015,which is the date the financial
statements were available to be issued. Management did not identify subsequent events that required disclosure.
Note 3: Cash and Cash Equivalents and Investments
At June 30, 2015 and 2014, cash and cash equivalents consisted of the following:
2015 2014
Deposits:
Cash in bank 487,957$ 30,762$
Custodial Credit Risk –Deposits
Custodial credit risk is the risk that in the event of a bank failure, the City’s deposits may not be returned to it. Cash
balances held in banks are insured up to $250,000 by the Federal Depository Insurance Corporation. For custodial
credit risk associated with deposits, the City follows California Government Code, which requires California financial
institutions to secure the City’s deposits by pledging government securities as collateral. The market value of the
pledged securities must equal 110% of the City’s deposits. California law also allows financial institutions to secure
the City’s deposits by pledging first trust deed mortgage notes equal to 150% of the City’s deposits. All deposits held
by financial institutions are fully insured or collateralized with securities, held by the pledging financial institutions’
trust departments in the City’s name.
At June 30, 2015 and 2014, investments consisted of the following:
2015 2014
Pooled Investment Funds:
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)1,439,683$ 696,682$
The City follows the practice of pooling cash and investments for all funds under its direct daily control. Funds held
by outside fiscal agents under provisions of bond indentures are maintained separately.
Interest earned on pooled cash and investments is allocated quarterly to the various funds based on the respective
fund’s average quarterly cash balance. Interest earned from cash and investments with fiscal agents is credited
directly to such funds.
13
7.a
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transit Fund
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2015 and 2014
Note 3: Cash and Cash Equivalents and Investments (Continued)
Interest Rate Risk
This is the risk that the market value of securities in the portfolio will fall due to changes in general interest rates. In
accordance with its policies in the Investment Management Plan, the City mitigates interest rate risk by:
Structuring the investment portfolio so that securities mature to meet cash requirements for ongoing
operations, thereby avoiding the need to sell securities on the open market before maturity.
Investing operating funds primarily in shorter-term securities.
The City’s investment policy also includes portfolio maturity targets. A minimum of 20% of the portfolio will be
invested in securities maturing in one year or less. Up to 80% of the portfolio can be invested in securities with a
maturity over one year, with no more than 10% of the portfolio invested in securities with a maturity over five years.
Credit Risk
This is the risk of loss due to the failure of the security issuer or backer. The City’s policies to mitigate credit risk
include:
Limiting investments to the safest types of securities. The California Government Code limits the investment
vehicles available to local agencies. The credit risk of these securities is measured by the assignment of a
rating by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization.
Pre-qualifying the financial institutions, broker/dealers, intermediaries and advisors with which the City will
do business.
Concentration of Credit Risk
The City’s policies contained in the Investment Management Plan provide guidelines (by type of investment that
limits either the dollar amount, the percent of the portfolio or the maturity term) for diversifying the investment
portfolio so that potential losses on individual securities will be minimized.
The City’s Investment Management Plan outlines the following criteria related to portfolio diversification:
No more than 5% of the City’s portfolio (exclusive of government agency issues or LAIF) shall be placed with
any financial institution.
14
7.a
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transit Fund
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2015 and 2014
Note 3: Cash and Cash Equivalents and Investments (Continued)
No more than 25% of the City’s portfolio shall be invested in collateralized certificates of deposit issued by
financial institutions.
Certificates of deposit (negotiable and collateralized) placed by the City shall not constitute more than 15%
of the total assets of the institution; and negotiable certificates of deposit will only be placed with
institutions with total assets in excess of $200 million and that maintain a ratio of equity to total assets of
at least 5%.
Additional Cash and Investment Disclosures
See the City of San Luis Obispo June 30, 2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for additional cash and
investment disclosures.
Note 4: Due from Other Governments
At June 30, 2015 and 2014, the amounts due from other governments were as follows:
2015 2014
Federal Transit Administration - capital and operating grants 1,107,522$ 1,292,819$
San Luis Obispo County of Governments - TDA 4th Quarter 474,453
1,107,522$ 1,767,272$
Note 5: Capital Assets
Capital assets activity for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, was as follows:
Balance Balance
June 30, 2014 Additions Deletions June 30, 2015
Capital assets not being depreciated:
Construction in progress 39,038$ 21,000$ $ 60,038$
Capital assets being depreciated:
Buildings and improvements 5,016,142 5,016,142
Transit operating equipment 7,618,590 15,190 7,633,780
Total capital assets being depreciated 12,634,732 15,190 - 12,649,922
Less accumulated depreciation (4,954,829) (887,944) (5,842,773)
Total capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation 7,718,941$ (851,754)$ -$ 6,867,187$
15
7.a
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transit Fund
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2015 and 2014
Note 5: Capital Assets (Continued)
Capital assets activity for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014, was as follows:
Balance Additions and Deletions and Balance
June 30, 2013 Transfers Transfers June 30, 2014
Capital assets not being depreciated:
Construction in progress 36,348$ 17,018$ (14,328)$ 39,038$
Capital assets being depreciated:
Buildings and improvements 5,016,142 5,016,142
Transit operating equipment 8,308,276 59,063 (748,749) 7,618,590
Total capital assets being depreciated 13,324,418 59,063 (748,749) 12,634,732
Less accumulated depreciation (4,818,400) (885,178) 748,749 (4,954,829)
Total capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation 8,542,366$ (809,097)$ (14,328)$ 7,718,941$
Note 6: Intergovernmental Allocations
The City has been allocated the following funds from the State Transit Assistance Fund (STAF) and Local
Transportation Fund (LTF) for the years ended June 30, 2015 and 2014. The amounts have been used for both
operating expenses and capital assets.
Article Section 2015 2014
LTF 4.0 99260 1,837,504$ 1,715,515$
STAF 6.5 99313 142,833 143,574
STAF 6.5 99314 34,204 38,724
Total Transportation Development Act revenue 2,014,541$ 1,897,813$
Applicable
Allocating TDA Statute Amount
The City also directly allocated for the years ended June 30, 2015 and 2014,$744,023 and $676,192, respectively of
LTF Article 4.0, Section 99260 funds to San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA),which are not shown in
the accompanying financial statements.
16
7.a
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transit Fund
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2015 and 2014
Note 7: Fare Revenue Ratios
The City had a fare revenue ratio of 23% for the years ended June 30, 2015 and 2014,computed as follows:
2015 2014
Operating revenues - fares 649,414$ 664,069$
(a) Net Operating revenues - fares 649,414 664,069
Net operating costs, net of depreciation and vehicle lease costs 3,106,250 3,173,960
Exclude capital expenses under uniform system of accounts
for purposes of calculating fare revenue ratios but
treated as operating expenses for financial statements (234,615) (228,805)
(b) Adjusted operating costs for purposes of calculating fare revenue ratios 2,871,635$ 2,945,155$
(c) Fare revenue ratio [(a) / (b)]23%23%
The City is in compliance with applicable TDA regulations pertaining to acceptable fare revenue ratios which require
a minimum ratio of 20%.
Note 8: Pensions
The City contributes to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) for its employees and
participates in an agent-multiple employer plan (Miscellaneous Plan) for its miscellaneous employees.The City has
allocated a proportion of the Miscellaneous Plan that relates to the Fund. The portion of the net pension liability
allocated to the Fund is $532,344. The portion of the deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of
resources allocated to the Fund are $42,732 and $51,886, respectively. The portion of the pension expense allocated
to the Fund is $15,931 and is shown as a part of total salaries and wages in the current year.
Additional Pension Disclosures
See the City of San Luis Obispo June 30, 2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for additional pension
disclosures as well as required supplementary information.
Note 9: Prior Year Restatements
The City implemented GASB Statement No. 68, Financial Reporting for Pensions –an amendment of Statement No.
27, and GASB Statement No. 71, Pension Transitions for Contributions Made Subsequent to the Measurement Date
–an amendment of GASB Statement No. 68, for the year ended June 30, 2015. The City has chosen to present prior
year data for the Fund, but not restate the data for the prior year because all of the information available to restate
prior year amounts was not readily available. An adjustment of $557,429 to reduce beginning net position has been
made to reflect the cumulative impact of implementing these standards.
17
7.a
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transit Fund
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2015 and 2014
Note 9: Prior Year Restatements (Continued)
In the current and prior year, the City recorded excess Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenue as unearned
revenue. The prior year has been restated to properly decrease unearned revenue by $1,050,746,increase
Transportation Development Act operating grants by $702,525, and increase net position in the Transit Fund for the
year ended June 30, 2014 by $348,221 for the TDA revenue that should have been recorded in a prior period.
18
7.a
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
19
City of San Luis Obispo,California
Transportation Development Act (TDA)Fund
June 30,2015 and 2014
7.a
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
20
7.a
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
7.a
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
7.a
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
7.a
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
7.a
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Fund
Balance Sheets
June 30, 2015 and 2014
2015 2014
Assets
Total assets -$ -$
Liabilities
Total liabilities -$ -$
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
25
7.a
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Fund
Statements of Revenues, Other Uses and Changes in Fund Balance
June 30, 2015 and 2014
2014 2015
Revenues - intergovernmental allocations 54,808$ 49,169$
Other financing uses - operating transfers to City of
San Luis Obispo (54,808) (49,169)
Excess of revenues over other financing uses - -
Fund balance - beginning of year - -
Fund balance - end of year - $ - $
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
26
7.a
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Fund
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2015 and 2014
Note 1: The Reporting Entity
The Transportation Development Act (TDA) Fund (the Fund) of the City of San Luis Obispo, California (the City) is a
special revenue fund created by resolution of the City Council to account for the revenues received pursuant to the
TDA. Such revenues allocated under specific state statutes are legally restricted to financial expenditures made of
the development and construction of local streets and roads, including pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Note 2: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Measurement Focus and Basis of Accounting
The Fund’s financial statements are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the
modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized when measurable and available. Revenues are
considered to be available when they are collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to pay the
liabilities of the current period. For this purpose, the City considers interest and grant revenues earned but not
received as susceptible to accrual under this method. Expenditures are generally recognized at the time liabilities
are incurred.
Fund Equity
The Fund’s financial statements report fund balance in classifications that comprise a hierarchy based primarily on the
extent to which the City is bound to honor constraints on the specific purpose for which amounts in the funds can be
spent. The Fund does not have a fund balance in the current fiscal year, therefore classification is not necessary.
However, GASB Statement No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions, identifies five
components of fund balance –nonspendable, restricted, committed, assigned and unassigned.
Nonspendable. This component includes amounts that cannot be spent because they are either (a) not in spendable
form or (b) legally or contractually required to be maintained intact.
Restricted. This component consists of amounts that have constraints placed on them either externally by third-parties
(creditors, grantors, contributors, or laws or regulations of other governments) or by law through constitutional
provisions or enabling legislation. Enabling legislation authorizes the City to assess, levy, charge or otherwise mandate
payment of resources (from external resource providers) and includes legally enforceable requirements (compelled by
external parties) that those resources be used only for the specific purposes stipulated in the legislation.
27
7.a
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Fund
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2015 and 2014
Note 2: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued)
Committed. This component consists of amounts that can only be used for specific purposes pursuant to constraints
imposed by minute order authorized by the City Council. Also included in this component are encumbrances which
represent legal and binding obligations for the acquisition of future goods and services. Those committed amounts
established by minute order cannot be used for any other purpose unless the City Council adopts a new minute order so
directing. With respect to encumbered amounts, the City may take steps to cancel the order for goods or services and
thereby terminate the obligation.
Assigned. This component consists of amounts that are constrained by the City’s intent to be used for specific purposes,
but are neither restricted nor committed. The City Manager or Director of Finance are authorized to assign amounts to
a specific purpose. Constraints imposed on the use of assigned amounts can be removed with no formal Council actions.
Unassigned. This classification represents amounts that have not been restricted, committed or assigned to specific
purposes.
Fund Balance Spending Policy
The City follows a practice in which restricted, committed, assigned, and unassigned fund balances are spent when
more than one amount is available for a specific purpose. When both restricted and unrestricted resources are
available for use, it is the City’s policy to use restricted resources first, then unrestricted resources (committed,
assigned and unassigned) as they are needed. When unrestricted resources (committed, assigned and unassigned)
are available for use, it is the City’s policy to use committed resources first, then assigned, and then unassigned as
they are needed.
Budgets and Budgetary Accounting
The City has received national recognition for its use of a two-year Financial Plan and budgetary process that
emphasizes long-range planning and effective program management. Significant features of the City’s two-year
Financial Plan include the integration of Council goal-setting into the budgetary process and the extensive use of
formal policies and measureable objectives. The Financial Plan includes operating budgets for two years and a
capital improvement plan (CIP) for five years.
Under this multi-year approach, appropriations continue to be made annually; however, the Financial Plan is the
foundation for preparing the budget for the second year. Additionally, unexpended operating appropriations from
the first year may be carried over for specific purposes into the second year with the approval of the City Manager.
28
7.a
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Fund
Notes to Financial Statements
June 30, 2015 and 2014
Note 2: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued)
Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect certain reported amounts
and disclosures. Accordingly, actual results could differ from those estimates.
Subsequent Events
Events subsequent to June 30, 2015 have been evaluated through December 17, 2015, which is the date the financial
statements were available to be issued. Management did not identify subsequent events that required disclosure.
Note 3: Intergovernmental Allocations
For the years ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, the City has been allocated the following funds from the Local
Transportation Funds (LTF):
Amount
Article Section 2015 2014
3.0 99233.3 54,808$ 49,169$
Allocating TDA Statute
Applicable
Note 4: Operating Transfers
The City expends all amounts for alternate transportation projects in its General Fund or Capital Outlay Fund. LTF
monies received by the City are initially deposited in the Fund and subsequently transferred to the General Fund,
where such funds are expended or transferred to the Capital Outlay Fund to be expended on designated
transportation projects.
29
7.a
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
7.a
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
7.a
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Fund
Supplementary Information
Schedules of Revenues and Other Uses –Budget and Actual
June 30, 2015 and 2014
Variance with
Final Budget
2015 Original Final Actual Positive (Negative)
Revenues - intergovernmental allocations 54,800$ 54,800$ 54,808$ 8$
Other financing uses - operating transfers
to City of San Luis Obispo (54,800) (54,800) (54,808) (8)
Excess of revenues over other financing uses - $ - $ - $ - $
Variance with
Final Budget
2014 Original Final Actual Positive (Negative)
Revenues - intergovernmental allocations 49,100$ 49,100$ 49,169$ 69$
Other financing uses - operating transfers
to City of San Luis Obispo (49,100) (49,100) (49,169) (69)
Excess of revenues over other financing uses - $ - $ - $ - $
Budget
Budget
32
7.a
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
7.a
Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: a - TDA Funds Audit Report for 2014-15City of SLO TDA Funds Final FS 6-30-15 (1229 : CAFR)
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Federal Awards
Reports and Schedule
Year Ended June 30, 2015
7.b
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: b - Single Audit Report for 2014-15 (1229 : CAFR)
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Table of Contents
June 30, 2015
Page
Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on
Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements
Performed in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards 3-4
Independent Auditors’ Report on Compliance for Each Major Program and on
Internal Control Over Compliance Required by OMB Circular A-133 5-7
Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards 8
Note to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards 9
Findings and Recommendations Section
Schedule of Audit Findings and Questioned Costs and Status of Prior Audit Findings and
Questioned Costs 10-12
2
7.b
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: b - Single Audit Report for 2014-15 (1229 : CAFR)
7.b
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: b - Single Audit Report for 2014-15 (1229 : CAFR)
7.b
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: b - Single Audit Report for 2014-15 (1229 : CAFR)
7.b
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: b - Single Audit Report for 2014-15 (1229 : CAFR)
The Honorable City Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California
San Luis Obispo, California
Page 2
Opinion on Each Major Federal Program
In our opinion, the City,complied, in all material respects, with the types of compliance requirements referred to
above that could have a direct and material effect on each of its major federal programs for the year ended June 30,
2015.
Report on Internal Control Over Compliance
Management of the City, is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance
with the types of compliance requirements referred to above.
In planning and performing our audit, we considered the City’s internal control over compliance with the
requirements that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal program to determine the auditing
procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing an opinion on compliance for each
major federal program and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with OMB Circular A-
133, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance.
Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control over compliance.
A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over compliance does
not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent,or
detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program on a timely basis. A
material weakness in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal
control over compliance, such that there is a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of
compliance requirement of a federal program will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A
significant deficiency in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal
control over compliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program that is less severe than a
material weakness in internal control over compliance, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with
governance.
Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of
this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance that might be material
weaknesses or significant deficiencies. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that
we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified.
Report on Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Required by OMB Circular A-133
We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund,
and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City,as of and for the year ended June 30, 2015,and the related
notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements. We issued our
report thereon dated December 17, 2015, which contained unmodified opinions on those financial statements. Our
audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the basic financial statements. The accompanying
6
7.b
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: b - Single Audit Report for 2014-15 (1229 : CAFR)
7.b
Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: b - Single Audit Report for 2014-15 (1229 : CAFR)
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Year Ended June 30, 2015
Federal Grantor/Federal Pass-Through
Pass-Through Grantor/CFDA Grantor's Federal
Program Title Number Number Expenditures
Major Programs:
U.S. Department of Transportation
Urban Mass Transportation -
Section 9 Capital and Operating
Assistance Formula Grants 20.507 N/A 1,107,522$
Total Major Programs 1,107,522
Non-Major Programs:
U.S. Department of Transportation
Passed through the State of California
Highway and Bridges Rehabilitation
and Replacement Program 20.205 N/A 145,539
U.S. Department of Justice
Edward Byrne Memoria Justice Assistance Grant Program 16.804 N/A 10,355
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Passed through the County of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Block Grant 14.218 N/A 214,791
U.S. Office of Emergency Services
Assistance to Firefighters Grant 97.044 N/A 15,617
Total Non-Major Programs 386,302
Total Expenditures of Federal Awards 1,493,824$
See independent auditors’ report.
See the accompanying note to schedule.
8
7.b
Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: b - Single Audit Report for 2014-15 (1229 : CAFR)
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Note to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Year Ended June 30, 2015
Note 1: Basis of Presentation
The purpose of the accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards (the schedule) is to present a summary
of those activities of the City of San Luis Obispo, California (the City) for the year ended June 30, 2015, which have
been financed by federal awards. For purposes of the schedule, federal awards include all federal contracts and
grants received directly from the federal government and sub-awards from nonfederal organizations made under
federally sponsored agreements. Because the schedule presents only a selected portion of the activities of the City, it
is not intended to and does not present either the financial position or changes in net assets of the City.
The information in the accompanying schedule is presented in accordance with the requirements of OMB Circular
A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations. Therefore, some amounts presented in this
schedule may differ from amounts presented in the basic financial statements. The accounting principles followed by
the City and used in preparing the schedule are as follows:
Expenditures for direct costs are recognized as incurred using the modified accrual basis of accounting and the cost
accounting principles contained in OMB Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments
and Administrative Requirement for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments (OMB
Common Rule). Under those cost principles, certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to
reimbursement. Additionally, expenditures include a portion of costs associated with general City activities (indirect
costs) which are allocated to federal awards under negotiated formulas commonly referred to as indirect cost rates.
9
7.b
Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: b - Single Audit Report for 2014-15 (1229 : CAFR)
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Schedule of Audit Findings and Questioned Costs
and Status of Prior Year Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2015
Section I: Summary of Auditors’ Results
Financial Statements
(a) Type of auditors’ report issued on financial statements: Unqualified.
(b) Internal control over financial reporting:
Material weakness(es)identified: Yes. See Finding 2015.1.
Significant deficiencies identified not considered to be material weaknesses: None reported.
(c)Noncompliance material to financial statements noted: No.
Federal Awards
(d) Internal control over major programs:
Material weakness(es) identified: No.
Significant deficiencies identified not considered to be material weaknesses: None reported.
(e) Type of auditors’ report issued on compliance for major programs: Unqualified.
(f) Any audit findings disclosed that are required to be reported in accordance with Circular A-133, Section .510(a): No.
(g) Dollar threshold used to distinguish between Type A and Type B programs: $300,000.
(h) Major Programs:
Federal Transit Formula Grants (CFDA Number 20.507)
(i) Auditee qualified as low-risk auditee: No.
10
7.b
Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: b - Single Audit Report for 2014-15 (1229 : CAFR)
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Schedule of Audit Findings and Questioned Costs
and Status of Prior Year Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2015
Page 2
Section II: Findings Relating to the Financial Statements which are Required to be Reported in
Accordance with Government Auditing Standards
Finding 2015.1: Improper Classification of Revenue –Material Weakness
Criteria: GASB Statement No. 33, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Nonexchange Transactions,states that
governments should recognize a receivable in connection with an imposed nonexchange revenue as soon as they
obtain an enforceable legal claim to the resources. Impact or developer fees meet the definition of an imposed
nonexchange revenue, and revenue is recognized at the point the fees become nonrefundable. In addition, voluntary
nonexchange transactions, such as grants, are recorded as revenue when all applicable eligibility requirements are
met.
Condition: The City was recording excess development service fee revenues and transit TDA grant revenues as
unearned revenue instead of revenue when received. The development service fee revenues should have been
recorded at the point the fee became nonrefundable in accordance with GASB Statement No. 33. The transit TDA
grant revenue should have been recorded as revenue when all applicable eligibility requirements were met.
Effect: A prior year restatement of $502,205 and $1,050,746 was recorded in the General Fund and Transit Fund,
respectively, to reduce the unearned revenue liability and increase net position. In addition, an audit adjustment was
required in the General Fund to record $1,443,420 of development service revenues as current year revenues rather
than unearned revenue.
Recommendation: We recommend that the City record all development service fee revenue and transit TDA grant
revenue as revenue when received and at the point the fee becomes nonrefundable or the grant eligibility
requirements have been met in accordance with GASB Statement No. 33. We also recommend that the City tracks
any unspent development service and grant revenue that is restricted for specific programs and record the remaining
balance in restrict net position. As the related project costs are incurred, the restricted net position would be
reduced.
City Response: Management agrees with this finding. In prior years, management decided to record development
services fee revenue as deferred revenue under the definition of deferred revenue which states “payments or
unearned revenue should be recorded as a liability until the services have been rendered or products have been
delivered.” In the case of the development services fee revenue, when monies are collected the services have yet to
be rendered. The uniqueness of these revenues are that they are nonrefundable and should be recognized when
received.
11
7.b
Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: b - Single Audit Report for 2014-15 (1229 : CAFR)
City of San Luis Obispo, California
Schedule of Audit Findings and Questioned Costs
and Status of Prior Year Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2015
Page 3
Management has followed the Auditors’ recommendation and revenues have been recorded in the corresponding
years, including proper classification of TDA revenues within the Transit Fund. In addition, designations in fund
balance have been created for this purposes.
Section III: Findings and Questioned Costs for Federal Awards
None.
Section IV: Status of Prior Year Findings and Questioned Costs –2014/15
Finding 2014-01: Capital Assets (Material Weakness)
Finding: During audit testwork, it was noted that there were differences between the City’s capital assets tracking
system and governmental activity type capital assets recorded at the government-wide financial statement level. This
resulted in a prior year restatement to reduce capital assets and net position related to disposals from prior years that
had been properly recorded in the capital asset tracking system but not recorded at the government-wide financial
statement level.
Recommendation: We recommended that in addition to the regular reconciliation process performed for Proprietary
fund types, the City perform a review of governmental activity type capital assets and reconcile to the balances
recorded at the government-wide financial statement level.
Status: Implemented
12
7.b
Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: b - Single Audit Report for 2014-15 (1229 : CAFR)
Page intentionally left
blank.