HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-07-2017 Agenda Packet
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
6:00 PM
REGULAR MEETING
Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo Page 1
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Heidi Harmon
ROLL CALL: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy
Pease, Vice Mayor Dan Rivoire and Mayor Heidi Harmon
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Carlyn Christianson
PRESENTATION
1. PRESENTATION - POLICE DEPARTMENT END OF 2016 UPDATE
(CANTRELL – 20 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.
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.
Packet Pg. 1
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda March 7, 2017 Page 2
2. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
Recommendation
Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
3. MINUTES OF JANUARY 17, 2017 (GALLAGHER)
Recommendation
Approve the Minutes of the City Council meeting of January 17, 2017.
4. WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY MEMBRANE EQUIPMENT
SYSTEM PRE-SELECTION.(MATTINGLY/HIX)
Recommendation
1. Authorize staff to advertise a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Membrane Bioreactor
Equipment System for the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) Project,
Specification No. 91539; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to award a contract to the supplier who presents the lowest
responsible bid (based on net present value) Membrane Bioreactor Equipment System if
such bid is within the engineer’s estimate of $10,000,000; and
3. Authorize the City Manager to approve funding for the design drawings for the
Membrane Bioreactor Equipment System from the selected supplier in an amount not to
exceed $250,000.
5. SLOCOG MOU WITH TRANSIT OPERATORS IN SLO URBANIZED AREA (UZA)
(GRIGSBY/ANGUIANO)
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving a Memorandum of Understanding between the San Luis
Obispo Council of Governments, San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority and the City
of San Luis Obispo regarding public transit planning and programming” of Federal Transit
Administration Funding.
Packet Pg. 2
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda March 7, 2017 Page 3
6. NEIGHBORHOOD MATCHING GRANT PILOT PROGRAM UPDATE AND
EVALUATION (CODRON/GERSHOW)
Recommendation
Continue the Neighborhood Matching Grant Pilot Program for two additional years, with
$20,000 available for grants in the 2017-19 Financial Plan, assuming current funding
sources are identified in the existing budget to reallocate to the Program.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND BUSINESS ITEMS
7. PUBLIC HEARING - 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
(CDBG) FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (CODRON/WISEMAN - 20 MINUTES)
Recommendation
1. As recommended by the Human Relations Commission (HRC), adopt a Resolution
entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California,
approving the 2017 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding
recommendations (GENP-4175-2016)” to approve funding allocations for $442,462 of
CDBG funds for the 2017 Program Year; and
2. Reallocate $31,200 in 2014 CDBG funds from the Women’s Shelter Program to Family
Care Network, Inc.
8. PUBLIC HEARING - JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TO FORM A
GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY
(MATTINGLY/FLOYD - 60 MINUTES)
Recommendations
1. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving and authorizing the Mayor to execute a Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement between the City of San Luis Obispo and the County of San Luis
Obispo to form the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin Groundwater
Sustainability Agency”; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to approve minor modifications to the Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement; and
3. Authorize the use of up to $200,000 of Water fund balance as the City’s portion of initial
operating capital for Fiscal Year 2017/18 for the Groundwater Sustainability Agency
(subject to reimbursement from the Groundwater Sustainability Agency); and
Packet Pg. 3
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda March 7, 2017 Page 4
4. Authorize the County of San Luis Obispo to take certain actions relative to the formation
of the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency;
and
5. Appoint one representative from City Council and the Utilities Director as an alternative
representative to serve on the Board of Directors of the San Luis Obispo Valley
Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency
9. PUBLIC HEARING - INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER
15.10 RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION PROGRAM OF TITLE 15 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE (CODRON/SCHNEIDER/PURRINGTON - 5 MINUTES)
Recommendation
Introduce an Ordinance entitled, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, repealing chapter 15.10 of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
regarding Rental Housing Inspection.”
10. PROCESS TO DEVELOP CODE ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES FOR
PROACTIVE AND COMPLAINT-BASED ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
HANDLED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
(CODRON/SCHNEIDER/PURRINGTON - 115 MINUTES)
Receive a presentation on the status of Community Development code enforcement
activities in the City of San Luis Obispo and provide staff with direction on the development
of revised code enforcement priorities for the 2017-19 Financial Plan.
11. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE COMPENSATION OF THE UNREPRESENTED
CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES (IRONS/SUTTER - 15 MINUTES)
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, regarding compensation for the unrepresented confidential employees
and superseding previous resolutions in conflict” with a one-year term (January 1, 2017 to
December 31, 2017).
LIAISON REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
(Not to exceed 15 minutes) Council Members report on conferences or other City activities.
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)
Packet Pg. 4
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda March 7, 2017 Page 5
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to a Special Meeting to be held Monday, March 13, 2017 at 10:00 a.m., in the Council
Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of
conducting a closed session to evaluate appointed officials.
A subsequent Special Meeting to be held Monday, March 13, 2017 at 1:00 p.m., in the Council
Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of
conducting a closed session to evaluate appointed officials.
A subsequent Special Meeting to be held Monday, March 13, 2017 at 2:00 p.m., in the Council
Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of
conducting a closed session to evaluate appointed officials.
A subsequent Special Meeting to be held Tuesday March 14, 2017 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council
Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of discussing marijuana
regulations.
The next Regular City Council Meetings are scheduled for Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 4:00 p.m.
and 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
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.
Packet Pg. 5
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 6
San Luis Obispo Page 1
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
Regular Meeting of the City Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, January
17, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, by Mayor Harmon.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor
Dan Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson,
Assistant City Manager; and Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk; were present at Roll
Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated
in the minutes.
STUDY SESSION
1. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
Community Development Director Codron and Community Development Deputy Director
Fowler provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, suggested a City initiated water demand offset program; he
referenced climate change and its effects on nonnative vegetation.
Allen Cooper, San Luis Obispo, noted the unintended consequences of trip generated CO2
from shared parking reduction requirements; he believes that job creation will outpace the
creation of affordable housing.
Lea Brooks, San Luis Obispo, Bike SLO County stated that more trips by bicycle will
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Packet Pg. 7
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 17, 2017 Page 2
Chris Read, San Luis Obispo, Energy Wise Program Coordinator at the County of SLO
reminded Council of existing available residential and government energy programs.
Steve Delmartini, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding the PACE Renovate America Program
noting pending legal matters.
Michael Boswell, San Luis Obispo, Cal Poly Professor of City and Regional Planning
provided keys to success for US Cities identified as national leaders in creating and
implementing climate plans.
Charlene Rosales, San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce, noted support for the
implementation plan and for staff’s recommendations as presented to Council.
Eric Veium, San Luis Obispo shared his hopes for the inclusion of a carbon neutrality goal
in the CAP; he noted the need to collaborate on a regional scale to achieve a real impact.
Ken Haggard, Santa Margarita, Green Architect provided Council with a handout, he
suggested consideration of daylighting and night ventilation.
Cheryl McLean, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding a need for an end to the rush for non-net
zero energy residency and agrees on expanding incentive programs for projects that exceed
title 24 energy efficient standards.
Jan Marx, San Luis Obispo, noted hope for a future City goal to include the Climate Action
Plan; she stated the need for funding and for expert opinions on the matter as well as student
input.
Rachel Kovesdi, San Luis Obispo, Project and Environmental Planner on the San Luis
Ranch Project stated that the City is in a leadership position on sustainability and noted her
hope for the incorporation of climate related legislation.
---End of Public Comment---
By consensus, Council directed staff to:
1. Participate in a Study Session on Climate Action Plan Implementation strategy and
receive and file the background reports; and
2. Consider the recommended Climate Action Plan implementation strategies to further the
City’s efforts to address climate change and to mitigate Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
emissions as part of the process of creating Major City Goals, Other Important
Objectives, and other budget priorities as part of the 2017-19 Financial Plan.
RECESS AT 5:22 PM TO THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY
17, 2017
Packet Pg. 8
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 17, 2017 Page 3
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, January
17, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, by Mayor Harmon.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor
Dan Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson,
Assistant City Manager; and Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk; were present at Roll
Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated
in the minutes.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Vice Mayor Dan Rivoire led the Pledge of Allegiance.
INTRODUCTION
2. KEITH AGGSON - DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF
Fire Chief Olson introduced Keith Aggson as the new Deputy Fire Chief.
PRESENTATIONS
3. PRESENTATION - POLICE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE AWARD
RECOGNITION
Police Chief Cantrell made a presentation recognizing the Police Department's 2016 Award
recipients.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Harry Busselen, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding the need for City wide bike safety; he
requested blood tests be administered to individuals involved in car accidents on Bishop Peak.
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, suggested that all City Commissions be directed to consider
climate change during deliberations.
Lydia Mourenza, San Luis Obispo, stated her belief that the Utilities Department sent out a
misleading City wide brochure; she inquired on the City’s process for Commission
Packet Pg. 9
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 17, 2017 Page 4
Correspondence handling.
---End of Public Comment---
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER
CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Consent Calendar Items 4 thru 11.
4. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
CARRIED 5-0, to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
5. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 1, NOVEMBER 15 AND DECEMBER 9, 2016
CARRIED 5-0, to approve the Minutes of the City Council meetings of November 1,
November 15 and December 9, 2016.
6. PARTIAL ACCEPTANCE OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 2560
PHASE 2, 215 BRIDGE STREET (TR 64-03)
CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 10767 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, partially accepting the public
improvements, certifying partial completion of the private improvements, and authorizing
release of the remainder of the securities once improvements are complete for Tract 2560-
Phase 2 (215 Bridge Street, TR 64-03).”
7. GRANT FUNDED CALLE JOAQUIN PARK & RIDE, SPECIFICATION NO. 91288
APPOINTMENTS
CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Award a contract and authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with RDZ
Contractors in the amount of $500,000 for the Calle Joaquin Park & Ride Lot,
Specification No. 91288; and
2. Appropriate $75,000 from Fund 460 – The Los Osos Valley Road Interchange Fund for
use on the project; and
3. Approve the transfer of $158,251.41 from Account No. 99821.953 - the Los Osos Valley
Road Interchange Project.
8. FY 2017-18 GRANT APPLICATION FOR OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY
CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Authorize the Police Department to submit a grant application to the Office of Traffic Safety
for a FY 2017-18 Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) not to exceed $125,000;
and
Packet Pg. 10
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 17, 2017 Page 5
2. If the grant is awarded, authorize the City Manager to execute all grant related documents
and authorize the Finance Director to make the necessary budget adjustments upon the
award of the grant.
9. SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION ACT (SORNA) GRANT
APPLICATION
CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Authorize staff to pursue a grant application submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice,
California Sex Offender Registry, for a total amount not to exceed $25,000 for equipment
and training that will enhance our ability to manage our local sex offender population; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary grant documents, and appropriate the
grant amount into the Police Department’s budget upon grant award.
Public Comments:
Lydia Mourenza spoke regarding the grant application; she requested additional information
be provided regarding reimbursement or provision information.
---End of Public Comment---
10. LOW CARBON TRANSIT OPERATIONS PROGRAM (LCTOP) GRANT
APPLICATIONS
CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Authorize the City Manager or their designee to annually apply fo r Low Carbon Transit
Operations Program funds on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo; and
2. Adopt Resolution No. 10768 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of San Luis Obispo, California, authorizing the City Manager or their designee,
to file, execute and fulfill any related Low Carbon Transportation Operations Program
grant applications, certifications, assurances, forms, agreements, and associated
documents on behalf of the City” for transit capital projects.
11. REPLACEMENT VEHICLE FIRE PREVENTION
CARRIED 5-0, to approve purchase of one 2017 Ford F150 from Perry Ford San Luis
Obispo in the amount of $25,995 for Fire Prevention, Hazardous Materials Program with
funding for this purchase coming from a dedicated account, rather than the General Fund or the
Fleet replacement fund or CIP.
Packet Pg. 11
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 17, 2017 Page 6
PUBLIC HEARINGS
12. PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY DONNA DUERK &
URSULA BISHOP) OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION’S
DECISION TO APPROVE A MIXED-USE PROJECT THAT INCLUDES 18
RESIDENTIAL UNITS, A COMMERCIAL SPACE AND PARKING WITHIN THE
DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL ZONE (560 HIGUERA STREET)
Ex Parte Communications:
Vice Mayor Rivoire reported meeting with the appellants and discussing their prospective
and reason for filing the appeal.
Council Member Pease recused herself from this item noting a potential conflict of interest;
she stated that her office is within a few hundred feet of the subject project and has been
advised by the City Attorney to not participate in discussions and left the dais at 6:30 p.m.
Council Member Gomez reported having met with the appellants to discuss their prospective
and look at the property.
Council Member Christianson reported having met with the appellants to look at the
property.
Mayor Harmon reported having met with the appellants, in addition to having a conversation
with Applicant Rob Rossi and a Planning Commissioner.
Community Development Director Codron and Associate Planner Cohen provided an in-
depth staff report and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
Co-Appellant: Ursula Bishop, provided a petition containing the signatures of 60 Dana
Street and surrounding neighborhood residents, she requested that Council send the project
back to the ARC for redesign.
Co-Appellant: Donna Duerk noted the basis for the appeal, she provided community design
guidelines and stated this project does not meet the guideline standards.
Applicant: Damion Mavis representing the applicants; with use of a PowerPoint presentation
provided project design elements, he noted the removal of the roof top deck option, and
provided steps taken to ensure neighborhood esthetics; he noted that community design
guidelines and Ordinances were taken seriously and incorporated into the design phase.
Public Support of the Appeal:
Allen Cooper, San Luis Obispo.
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo.
Mary Mitchell, San Luis Obispo.
Mary White, San Luis Obispo.
Packet Pg. 12
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 17, 2017 Page 7
Mark Johnson, San Luis Obispo.
Michael Murphy, San Luis Obispo.
Rachael Drake, San Luis Obispo and Founding Member of Mission Orchard Neighborhood
Association.
David Drake, San Luis Obispo.
Sandra Rowley, San Luis Obispo and Chairperson for Residents for Quality Neighborhoods.
Public Support of Denial of the Appeal:
Michelle Tassoff, San Luis Obispo.
Neither for or Against:
Brett Strickland, San Luis Obispo, stated that many requests asking for items to be sent back
to the ARC are outside of the ARC purview and feels these are Planning Commission
related issues.
Steve Delmartini, San Luis Obispo, noted agreement with prior speaker’s remarks.
---End of Public Comment---
Applicant: Damion Mavis, representing the applicants noted a transient problem in the area
and feels that shielding visibility and cutting off residents from the creek area is potentially a
bad idea, he is agreeable a low wall to block headlights without enclosing the area.
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY
COUNCIL MEMBER GOMEZ, CARRIED 4-0-1 (COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE
RECUSED) to adopt Resolution No. 10769 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, denying an appeal (filed by Donna
Duerk & Ursula Bishop) thereby approving the development of a mixed-use project
including 18 residential units and a commercial space within the Downtown Commercial
zone, with a categorical exemption from environmental review, as represented in the City
Council agenda report and attachments dated January 17, 2017 (560 Higuera Street, APPL-
4063-2016).” As amended with additional conditions of approval: Revision of condition
No. 9 the final building plans shall include additional screening in front of the parking
facing the creek to eliminate the potential of light and reduce noise trespass into the creek
and residential areas north of the project to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director. Additionally, project shall not include future rooftop decks, as well as revision of
landscaping to include varying sized evergreen trees and shrubs planted to screen views
from the Dana Street properties.
RECESS
Council recessed at 8:00 p.m. and reconvened at 8:20 p.m., with all Council Members
present.
Packet Pg. 13
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 17, 2017 Page 8
BUSINESS ITEMS
13. CONSIDERATION OF FEATURES FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING REGARDING
THE RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION PROGRAM
Community Development Director Codron and Code Enforcement Supervisor Purrington
provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
Sandra Rowley, San Luis Obispo, requested to view actual deficiencies and details on
reports subsequent to inspections and added that reports may be confusing the way they are
currently written.
Brett Strickland, San Luis Obispo urged the Council to include a loud tenants voice in
regards to the discussion going forward.
---End of Public Comment---
Council provided staff with unanimous direction to plan a forum style City Council Special
Meeting regarding the Rental Housing Inspection Program in the City of San Luis Obispo
scheduled for February 16, 2017 which should to include:
1) a two-way dialogue
2) to be held at a large venue
3) to be facilitated by a trained neutral individual
4) to have timed speaking limits
5) and staff scribes to gather ideas
PUBLIC HEARINGS
14. PUBLIC HEARING – ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION - SAFETY
ENHANCEMENT ZONES AMENDMENT
Police Chief Cantrell and Police Captain Smith provided an in-depth staff report with use of
a Power Point presentation and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
Warren Fox, San Luis Obispo noted that he was firmly against the Safety Enhancement
Zones Amendment and spoke against the introduction of the Ordinance tonight.
Riley Nilsen, San Luis Obispo speaking on behalf of the ASI Student Board of Directors,
requested noise appeal be eliminated from the proposed City Ordinance and provided a
replacement resolution in its place.
Jana Colombini, San Luis Obispo, Student Body President of Cal Poly, asked Council to
remove the noise violation out of the Safety Enhancement Zone as well as to stop using the
term St. Fratty’s Day.
Packet Pg. 14
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 17, 2017 Page 9
Kevin Scott, Cal Poly Student, encouraged Council to consider adopting the student drafted
resolution.
Haley Warner, San Luis Obispo questioned whether Council may be targeting a certain
demographic through this Ordinance; she feels City resources should be allocated elsewhere.
Brett Raffish, Cal Poly Student spoke regarding the dwindling of open lines of
communication between students and the City Council.
Daniel Halprin, President of Cal Poly SLO Inner Fraternity Council, requested the noise
violation be removed from the proposed Ordinance; he believes this Ordinance will
encourage unruly gatherings.
Jeff Eidelman, San Luis Obispo supports the recommended Ordinance, he noted distain over
loud noise and feeling unsafe in his neighborhood due to large crowd gatherings.
Carolyn Smith, San Luis Obispo noted chaos and noise in local neighborhoods; she voiced
support for staff’s recommendation to expand the Safety Enhancement Zone Ordinance
introduction.
Claudia Andersen, San Luis Obispo supports the proposed expansion of the Safety
Enhancement Zone Ordinance introduction.
Rita Elfarissi, Cal Poly Student, encouraged Council to consider the effectiveness of this
enhancement and asked that a common ground be reached.
Karen Adler, Chairperson of Alta Vista Neighborhood, supports the noise Ordinance and
Safety Enhancement Zone; she noted that noise is the first indication of an unruly gathering.
Stew Jenkins, San Luis Obispo stated that fines should be year round and fair for the
offence.
Alice Read, San Luis Obispo stated that lower income students are being targeted by this
Ordinance.
Sharon Whitney, San Luis Obispo noted support for the adoption of the proposed Ordinance
stating that noise is a wellness issue and a large problem in her neighborhood.
Camille Small, San Luis Obispo complimented the attending Cal Poly students and voiced
support for the proposed Safety Enhancement Zone noting scared residents and noise issues
in her neighborhood.
Sandra Rowley, San Luis Obispo representing RQN noted support for the approval of the
proposed Ordinance quoting from recent disturbance call logs.
Brett Strickland, San Luis Obispo stated that Council should not be targeting certain
portions of the City’s population.
Matt Boer, Cal Poly Student spoke regarding cooperation and co-governance between City
Packet Pg. 15
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 17, 2017 Page 10
staff, students and local neighborhood groups: he encouraged consideration of the proposed
student body Resolution by Council.
Michelle Tasseff, San Luis Obispo agreed with a previous speaks comments regarding
fairness in fines; she added that we are all responsible for our own actions and blame should
not be placed on other.
Harry Busselen, San Luis Obispo stated support for the proposed Ordinance but questioned
limitation of the enhancement zone.
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, SECOND BY VICE
MAYOR RIVOIRE, CARRIED 4-1 (CHRISTIANSON NO) to NOT introduce Ordinance
No. 1632 (2017 Series) entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, amending section 9.22.040 of the Municipal Code to increase the Safety
Enhancement Zone time period surrounding St. Patrick’s Day and St. Fratty’s Day.”
Mayor Harmon requested to agendize a community service program in lieu of fines failed
for a lack of a quorum.
STUDY SESSION
15. VOLUNTARY PARTY REGISTRATION
Police Chief Cantrell and Neighborhood Outreach Manager Wallace provided an in-depth
staff report with the use of a Power Point presentation and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
Warren Fox, San Luis Obispo voiced support for the proposed Voluntary Party Registration
Program.
Daniel Halprin, complimented the City for their work on this issue; he voiced support for the
proposed Voluntary Party Registration Program.
---End of Public Comment---
By consensus, Council directed staff to:
1. Receive a presentation on voluntary party registration program options; and
2. Provide guidance to staff regarding initiation of a voluntary municipal party registration
pilot program.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND LIAISON REPORTS
None received.
ADJOURNMENT Packet Pg. 16
3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 17, 2017 Page 11
Adjourn to a Special City Council meeting to be held on Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 8:30 a.m.,
in the City/County Library Community Room, 995 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for
the purposes of conducting the Goal-Setting Workshop.
The next Regular City Council Meetings are scheduled for Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 4:00
p.m. and 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
__________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2017
Packet Pg. 17
3
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 18
3
Meeting Date: 3/7/2017
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared By: Dave Hix, Utilities Deputy Director - Wastewater
SUBJECT: WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY MEMBRANE EQUIPMENT
SYSTEM PRE-SELECTION.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize staff to advertise a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Membrane Bioreactor
Equipment System for the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) Project,
Specification No. 91539; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to award a contract to the supplier who presents the lowest
responsible bid (based on net present value) Membrane Bioreactor Equipment System if
such bid is within the engineer’s estimate of $10,000,000;1 and
3. Authorize the City Manager to approve funding for the design drawings for the
Membrane Bioreactor Equipment System from the selected supplier in an amount not to
exceed $250,000.
DISCUSSION
Background
The reason that this RFP is before council is because purchases of this nature in excess of
$100,000 require City Council authorization, per the City’s purchasing policies. This request
also seeks approval to delegate authority to award the contract, if they are within budget to the
City Manager. A contract that exceeds the budget would return to Council for award or other
action.
On January 3, 2017, Council received an update on the WRRF project which included predesign
(30% design) information and changes from the original WRRF Facilities Plan that are now
reflected in the predesign report and cost estimates. The most significant change from the
Facilities Plan is the selection of a Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) for the secondary treatment
process. MBR will allow the WRRF’s disinfection process to be downsized, provides the ability
to consistently meet or exceed regulatory requirements, and presents the City with the most
flexibility for future potable reuse options.
While the WRRF project has numerous processes, the most crucial and complicated component
is the MBR system. It combines a biological nutrient removal system with a membrane system
that produces exceptionally clean water. This water exceeds the quality anticipated by the
Facilities Plan and, as mentioned above, will allow for more consistent compliance, positions the
1 As discussed in the staff report, the purchase contract for the MBR s ystem will be assigned to the contractor who is
awarded the WRFF upgrade project. Payment of the system will be folded into that contract.
Packet Pg. 19
4
City for future potable reuse options which would further diversify the City’s water supply
portfolio and is consistent with the WRRF’s triple bottom line policies.
The MBR system requires specialized process equipment to ensure the biological system and
membranes operate efficiently and effectively together. Each membrane supplier has distinct and
special equipment requirements for its system. Because each membrane system is unique, it is
necessary the City’s project designer understands the selected system’s required specifications
and configuration in order to properly incorporate it into the overall WRRF design.
Request for Proposal
Pre-selection of the equipment is a common practice for membrane equipment systems for two
reasons:
1. Pre-selection stipulates that after the City awards a contract to a membrane equipment
system supplier, the purchase contract will be assigned to the project construction
contractor, when selected, for the purchase of the equipment at the contractual price. This
will allow the City to understand the cost of the membrane equipment system prior to
construction which is scheduled to begin in 2018.
2. It allows the designer to efficiently incorporate the MBR supplier’s technical information
and specifications and design drawings early on to optimize the overall WRRF design.
Selection of a supplier will be based on lowest net present value (NPV) which is consistent with
the City’s obligation to purchase equipment based on the lowest responsible bid as defined in
Section 3.24.210 of the City’s Municipal Code. NPV takes a holistic look at not just the cost of
the equipment when it’s purchased, but its cost to operate and maintain during its lifespan. NPV
takes into consideration long-term factors, such as energy, labor, chemicals, parts and equipment
replacement. Since carbon footprint is largely related to energy, chemical use and equipment
replacement requirements, NPV inherently favors systems with a lower carbon footprint.
The RFP was developed by the City’s designer, CH2M Engineers, and reflects the exacting
scope required to ensure the City will procure the best and most appropriate membrane for the
WRRF. CH2M has extensive experience in the pre-selection and procurement process of
membrane systems. After contract award, the supplier will submit design drawings to the City
that will be used in construction documents for the WRRF project. Cost of these drawings is
estimated at $250,000.
CONCURRENCES
The City’s contract legal counsel (Best, Best & Krieger) and the City Attorney have reviewed the
documents for compliance with the City’s fiscal and purchasing policies and other State and
Federal funding requirements.
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost for the selected supplier’s membrane equipment system is estimated to be $10,000,000.
This cost will be assigned to the contractor who is awarded the WRRF project, which is
anticipated for the first half of 2018. The membrane equipment system is part of the overall
Packet Pg. 20
4
WRRF project cost estimate and is budgeted in the sewer fund. The costs of the design drawings
are not to exceed $250,000. $125,000 of the funding is available in the Sewer Fund’s completed
projects account and $125,000 is available in the 2015-16 unappropriated carry-over. This will
leave $154,000 in completed projects and $175,000 in carry-over funding.
This RFP conforms to all State of California requirements for funding through the State
Revolving Fund.
ALTERNATIVE
The City Council may choose not to pre-select the membrane equipment system for the WRRF
project. Should this be Council’s choice, the design engineer will have to make general
assumptions for the design of the membrane equipment system and provide detailed standards
and specifications in the construction bid documents. After the contractor receives information
on the approved membrane equipment, additional design will be required for its installation. This
alternative will take additional time and require additional funding for design and construction
support services after the beginning of construction. Minimizing schedule delays is critical in
reducing the potential for regulatory violations and fines. The project time schedule is already
impacted by selection of the MBR as a secondary treatment process.
Attachments:
a - Council Reading File: RFP FOR MEMBRANE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
Packet Pg. 21
4
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 22
4
Meeting Date: 3/7/2017
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Gamaliel Anguiano, Transit Manager
SUBJECT: SLOCOG MOU WITH TRANSIT OPERATORS IN SLO URBANIZED AREA
(UZA)
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the San Luis
Obispo Regional Transit Authority and the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
(SLOCOG) regarding the process of planning and programming of Federal Transit
Administration Funding.
DISCUSSION
Background
The results of the 1990 Federal Decennial Census established San Luis Obispo and its adjoining
developments (i.e. Cal Poly) as an "Urbanized Area" (see SLO UZA Map, Attachment B). This
designation qualifies the City of San Luis Obispo to receive what is known as “Small Urban
5307” funding for its SLO transit operations from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).
This is distinct from the “Rural 5311” funding, which uses a different formula for allocating
amounts.
Receipt of these funds compels the City to abide by several Federal requirements, one including
the publishing, for public review, the intended use of FTA 5307 funds (the primary federal
transit funds used by the City) in an approved “Program of Projects” (POP) notice. The approved
POP process requires the approval of a coordinating agency and the involvement of other transit
operators that are also eligible for FTA funding — namely the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit
Authority.
As the responsible coordinating agency, the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
(SLOCOG) is required by federal law to develop agreements with transit operators within
urbanized areas that establish the planning and budgeting process for the approved use of the
area’s federal transit funds. These agreements, or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), are
required to be updated with each new congressional authorization of transit funding.
The existing MOU for processing of FTA funding for the SLO UZA was adopted by Council in
April 2003 and had been successful in processing annual federal funding since its adoption. .
On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed the Fixing America's Surface Transportation
(FAST) Act (Pub. L. No. 114-94) into law—the first federal law in over a decade to provide
long-term funding certainty for surface transportation infrastructure planning and investment.
As part of this process, FTA is requiring recipients to update existing agreements to address any
Packet Pg. 23
55
changes in Federal guidelines.
City staff in cooperation with SLOCOG and RTA have developed minor revisions to the current
agreement and is recommending approval by Council of the revise d MOU as shown in
Attachment A.
Key Features of the MOU
City, SLOCOG and SLO RTA staffs cooperatively developed the draft MOU to include:
1. Programming Criteria (Section 4. I) that will be used to establish funding priorities. It is
important to note that" Maintenance of existing service levels" is the first criterion listed.
2. A Programming Process (Section 4.3 and 4.4), that involves transit operators, the public, and
interested organizations, would be employed every two years to develop the POP, with the
SLOCOG Board making the final decision to accept (or reject) the POP.
3. Maintenance of the existing Technical Committee where the City and RTA are voting
members and SLOCOG and Air Pollution Control District act as ex-officio members,
responsible for developing the draft POP. The MOU also maintains a Policy Committee that
provides recommendations for resolving any disputes that could arise from the process. The
flow chart shown in Exhibit A of Attachment 1 illustrates how the proposed process will work.
CONCURRENCES
The content of the draft MOU reflects the cooperative efforts of the City, RTA and SLOCOG
staff.
FISCAL IMPACT
Execution of the MOU has no direct fiscal impact on the City’s General Fund but is critical to
the City’s continued receipt of federal funds for transit purposes. The agreement establishes
methods by which the federal funds will be divided among the operators and has been successful
for many years in cording these activities at the regional level.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council may:
1. Recommend specific modifications to the MOU and forward these recommendations to
SLOCOG for consideration.
2. Continue this item pending resolution of any new issues identified by Council. (Since
execution of the MOU is a prerequisite for the City receiving FTA funds, staff does not
recommend continuance of this item.)
Packet Pg. 24
55
Attachments:
a - Resolution - Updated MOU SLOCOG - SLO Transit
b - 2017 Updated MOU - SLO Transit, RTA & SLOCOG
Packet Pg. 25
55
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF
GOVERNMENTS, SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT
AUTHORITY AND THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO REGARDING
PUBLIC TRANSIT PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING
WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (“SLOCOG”) has been
designated by the Governor, pursuant to Section 134 of Title 23 USC, as the Metropolitan Planning
Organization for the region; and
WHEREAS, part 450.31 0 (b) of Chapter I of Title 23 CFR requires that there shall be an
agreement between the Metropolitan Planning Organization and operators of publicly owned
transit services which specifies cooperative procedures for carrying out transportation planning
(including corridor and subarea studies) and programming; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) and the San Luis Obispo Regional
Transit Authority (“RTA”) are the providers of publicly owned transit systems serving the San
Luis Obispo urbanized area (UZA), and
WHEREAS, on April 2, 2003, SLOCOG, the City and RTA entered into an agreement for
the planning and programming of Federal transit funds that has been successful in coordinating
annual appropriations of funding, and
WHEREAS, Subsequent Federal regulations now require that the existing planning and
programming agreement be updated and as required by those regulations SLOCOG, the City and
RTA have met in good faith and have revised said agreement.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that the
Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between the City, SLOCOG and RTA attached hereto
is hereby approved.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2017.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
Packet Pg. 26
55
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 27
55
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, AND
SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
REGARDING PUBLIC TRANSIT
PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is entered into on March 7, 2017 is made by and
between the City of San Luis Obispo (“City”), the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority
(“SLORTA”), referred to herein as OPERATOR(S) and the San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments (“SLOCOG”), and, collectively referred to herein as AGENCIES.
WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments has been designated by the
Governor, pursuant to Section 134 of Title 23 USC, as the Metropolitan Planning Organization
for the region; and
WHEREAS, part 450.31 0 (b) of Chapter I of Title 23 CFR requires that there shall be an
agreement between the metropolitan planning organization and operators of publicly owned
transit services which specifies cooperative procedures for carrying out transportation planning
(including corridor and subarea studies) and programming; and
WHEREAS, the OPERATOR(S) are the providers of publicly owned transit systems serving the
San Luis Obispo urbanized area (UZA), shown by Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, SLOCOG and OPERATOR(S) desire to establish the basic structure for
cooperative planning and decision making for transit planning, and programming pursuant to the
above requirements.
IT IS THEREFORE MUTUALLY AGREED:
1. Limitation of Statutory Construction. Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to
interfere with the authority, under any State law in effect on the date of the enactment of
Section 134 of Title 23 USC, of a public agency with multimodal transportation
responsibilities to develop:
a. Plans and programs for adoption by a metropolitan planning organization; and
b. Develops long-range capital plans, coordinates transit services and projects, and
carries out other activities pursuant to State law.
2. Area wide Transit Coordination. SLOCOG and OPERATOR(S) agree to work
cooperatively with each other and with other public and private transit providers, and local
governmental agencies to ensure the provision of coordinated, cost-effective, area-wide
transit services. Such coordination includes, to the extent feasible and subject to action
by governing bodies: fares; operating service agreements; pass policies; transit
information and marketing; schedule and service coordination; capital needs; shared
support facilities; data needs to meet periodic reporting requirements; and other activities
Packet Pg. 28
55
as agreed upon by the parties.
3. Planning. SLOCOG and OPERATOR(S) shall coordinate, to the extent feasible, planning
efforts and studies as required by state and federal law. This coordination shall include
but not be limited to:
3.1 Overall Work Program. In accordance with state and federal requirements,
SLOCOG annually prepares, adopts, and updates an Overall Work Program
(OWP) describing regional planning activities. The OWP relates regionally
significant planning activities of the State, transit operators, local governments, and
SLOCOG in an integrated, comprehensive program document. OPERATOR(S)
agrees to annually prepare a list of regionally significant transit related planning
studies for the future fiscal year to be completed by the OPERATOR(S):
a. A brief description of said studies by December 1st of each year.
b. A detailed description of said studies by January 14th of the following year.
c. The contemplated funding sources to support such studies and a timeline.
Examples of regionally significant transit related studies include the joint
preparation and update of Short-range Transit Plans, input and review of the
Long-Range Transit Plan and route studies that involve intercity transit
connections.
3.2 Short-Range Transit Plan(s): OPERATOR(S) agree to prepare, adopt, and
maintain a Short Range Transit Plan, as required by law. This document will
provide the planning basis for transit capital and operating projects submitted by
OPERATOR(S) to SLOCOG for inclusion in the Federal and Regional
Transportation Improvement Programs (FTIP and RTIP).
3.3 Regional Transportation Plan Update. To comply with 23 USC 134, 23 CFR
450.(214) SLOCOG will prepare a Regional/Metropolitan Transportation Plan
which also meets the requirements of California Government Code Sections
65080 et. seq. and the California Transportation Commission's (CTC) Regional
Transportation Planning Guidelines, hereinafter referred to as RT P. SLOCOG
agrees to use each OPERATOR’s most recent Short Range Transit Plan as the
basis for the short-range transit and paratransit components of the RTP.
SLOCOG will then use the short-term assumptions as a starting point to project
long-range transit conditions. The RTP will bedirected at achieving a coordinated
and balanced regional transportation system. The RTP, updated every 4 years,
will be developed with the full cooperation and participation of all affected or
interested agencies, including OPERATOR (s), air quality agencies, Caltrans, the
public and private sectors and similar agencies from adjacent counties.
Any RTP provision proposed to achieve a coordinated regional transit system that
necessitates amendment to an OPERATOR’s Short-Range Transit Plan will be
identified and referred to the OPERATOR for consideration prior to adoption or
amendment of the RTP. OPERATOR may choose to amend its SRTP to achieve
Packet Pg. 29
55
consistency with proposed RTP provisions, consistent with the intent of this
section, or not pursue said amendment.
3.4 Regional and Federal Transportation Improvement Programs. SLOCOG is
responsible for the periodic development, endorsement, and amendment of both
a Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) and a Federal
Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP), pursuant to state and federal
requirements, respectively.
a. SLOCOG agrees that the RTIP/FTIP will be prepared cooperatively on a fair
and equitable basis as mutually agreed with OPERATOR(S) and all public
agencies eligible to receive project funding. This cooperative effort will
prioritize projects, whenever annual transit needs for scarce funding outstrip
the available funding levels
b. The OPERATOR(S) agree to report to SLOCOG a listing of projects for
which federal funds were obligated in the previous fiscal year by October 1 st
of every year.
c. SLOCOG agrees to include in the RTIP/FTIP projects recommended by
OPERATOR(S), which relate to FTA Section 5307, FTA Section 5339 and
other FTA funds that may become available, subject to provisions of this
agreement, and subject to a finding by SLOCOG of consistency with adopted,
short-range transit plans and the Regional Transportation Plan.
4. Programming. SLOCOG and OPERATOR(S) shall coordinate, to the extent feasible,
programming efforts and studies as required by state and federal law. This coordination
shall include but not be limited to:
4.1 Programming Criteria. SLOCOG and the OPERATOR(S) will employ the following
selection criteria to establish priorities for urban transit funding:
a. Maintenance of existing service levels
b. Project purpose and need
c. Anticipated benefits (including mobility and air quality)
d. Degree of improvement to transit viability and availability
e. Degree of improvement to transit system performance
f. Cost-effectiveness of transit improvements
g. Leveraging other funding sources and balancing the allocation of resources
among the three (3) small urbanized areas in the region
Prior to the preparation of the initial Program of Projects (POP) as specified by
Section 4.3 below, the SLO UZA Technical Committee shall establish definitions,
performance measures, standards, protocols and methodologies for ranking
prospective transit projects using each of the six programming criteria listed
above.
Packet Pg. 30
55
4.2 Transit Fund Programming. Pursuant to Section 134 (h)(5) of Title 23 U.S.C.,
except as otherwise provided in Section 5305(d)(1) of that code, and in addition
to the transportation improvement program development required under
subsection (b) of that code, the selection of federally funded projects for
implementation in metropolitan areas shall be carried out, from the approved
transportation improvement program, by:
a(1). in the case of projects under Title 23, the State; or
a(2). in the case of projects under Chapter 53 of Title 49, the designated
transit funding recipients; and
a(3). This programming covers the allocation of the Urbanized Area funds
(Section 5307), the Capital Section 5339 funds and other Federal
discretionary programs, as they may become available to the region.
Such programming will be performed in cooperation with SLOCOG,
serving as the Metropolitan Planning Organization.
4.3 Program of Projects (POP)
On a 2-year programming calendar, involving the OPERATORS and SLOCOG and their
advisory bodies, the following assignments in developing the Program of Projects (POP),
using urbanized area Federal funds per most recent apportionment or as derived from
historical levels, are as follows:
4.3.1 OPERATORS:
Based on the Federal Register’s publication of Federal full 12-month
apportionments in the SLO UZA, supply best estimate of Federal funds available
for the first year of the POP (year 1, including carryovers from prior years). In
addition, develop projections of Federal funds likely to be available in the second
year of the POP (year 2 values based on historical).
Develop respective wish lists of candidate projects with their target Federal
amounts under the Federal urbanized area program and other eligible funding
sources over the next two (2) years; spell out the rationale for each project , identify
the proposed source(s) and levels of local match by project type, and conform with
the OPERATOR’s short-range transit plan.
Meet with SLOCOG and other members of the Technical Committee (see
4.3.3) to review the list of candidate projects and reach a consensus on the final
scope of the POP within each year’s funding allowance.
Bring the draft POP to respective transit advisory bodies for their review and
comment. Then incorporate their feedback, as applicable.
If needed, reconvene a meeting of the Technical Committee and make any
refinements to the POP assumptions, based on the transit and regional advisory
bodies’ feedback (see 4.3.2).
Packet Pg. 31
55
Delegate to SLOCOG the responsibility to issue a public notice on behalf of
both operators and consistent with the FTA public participation requirements and
the SLOCOG Public Participation Plan.
4.3.2 SLOCOG:
Bring the proposed POP to the Social Services Transportation Advisory
Council, the Technical Transportation Advisory Committee and the Citizen’s
Transportation Advisory Committee for their review and recommendations prior to
consideration by the SLOCOG Board.
Consolidate and integrate comments received from above transit advisory
committees, regional committees and the public at large, based on consensus
reached by Technical Committee. Provide a summary of comments to the
SLOCOG Board.
Prepare a written description of the proposed POP elements by
geographical area and grantee (as part of the region -wide definition among all
UZA’s) with review by the OPERATORS, before its release for publication. This
should be in sufficient detail to enable affected citizens, private transportation
providers and, as applicable, local elected officials, the opportunity to examine the
proposed POP and comment on the projects identified in each year, whether local
or regional.
At least 3 weeks ahead of the SLOCOG Board meeting, publish public
hearing notices in local print media and on SLOCOG’s website, ensuring adequate
geographical coverage for the proposed projects. The approach will be adhere to
the most recent policies of the SLOCOG’s Public Participation Plan. In addition, all
notices will be published on behalf of the designated FTA grantees (OPERATORS)
for the FTA Section 5307, FTA Section 5339 and other pertinent FTA programs
per the FTA national guidelines on public participation and public noticing.
Per formal action by the SLOCOG Board, amend the FTIP with the final
version of the 2-year POP. Upon Board action, SLOCOG will keep the
OPERATORS abreast of the status of the formal state and Federal FTIP
amendment approvals, both by forwarding those electronically upon receipt and
their timely posting for easy downloading from the SLOCOG website.
4.4 Committees
The following committees are put in place through this agreement, as shown in Exhibit B:
a) The “San Luis Obispo Urbanized Area Technical Committee ”, made of three
(3) voting staff members. Those consist of two (2) from City of San Luis Obispo
and one (1) from the RTA. Two (2) non-voting staff members will respectively
Packet Pg. 32
55
represent SLOCOG and the Air Pollution Control District (APCD); both are ex-
officio members.
b) The “San Luis Obispo Urbanized Area Policy Committee”, made of four (4)
voting members: Two (2) elected officials from the City of San Luis Obispo and
Two (2) elected County supervisorial representatives with the highest population
in the San Luis Obispo UZA. Such Committee only meets if there is an unresolved
dispute regarding the POP at the level of the Technical Committee. It also may be
convened by request of the signatories to this agreement.
c) No amendment to this MOU is warranted if individual staff or individual
policy makers change due to turnover or elections’ results. Potential reasons for
formal amendments might be changes in composition or size of the Technical
Committee and/or the addition of voting members (representatives from other
agencies, such as the APCD or Caltrans District 5).
5. Labor Standards. Pursuant to Title 49 Section 5333(b)(2)(A) through Section
5333(b)(2)(F), SLOCOG and OPERATOR(S) shall ensure that interests of
employees affected by the assistance of federal funds shall be protected under
arrangements of the Secretary of Labor concluded to be fair and equitable. These
rights include the preservation of rights, privileges, and benefits under existing
collective bargaining agreements, the continuation of collective bargaining rights,
the protection of individual employees against a worsening of their positions
related to employment, assurances of employment to employees of acquired mass
transportation systems, priority of reemployment, and paid training or retraining.
6. Cooperation. The parties to this Agreement pledge full cooperation and agree to assign
representatives to serve as official members of the San Luis Obispo Urbanized Area -
Technical and Policy Committees.
7. Withdrawal and Dissolution. Any party to this agreement may terminate its participation in
this Agreement by resolution of its governing board. The withdrawal of the member shall
have no effect upon the continuation of the Agreement among the remaining members.
The Agreement as specified and required by federal law shall remain in full force and
effect in regard to the remaining members in order to continue to receive applicable
Federal transit funding.
City of San Luis Obispo
_________________________________
Heidi Harmon
Mayor
Date: ________
__________________________________
Katie Lichtig
City Manger
Date: ________
Packet Pg. 33
55
_________________________________
Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
Date: ________
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
_________________________________
Lynn Compton
SLOCOG President
Date: ________
_________________________________
Timothy McNulty
Legal Counsel
Date: ________
__________________________________
Ronald L. De Carli
Executive Director
Date: ________
San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority
_________________________________
Lynn Compton
SLORTA President
Date: ________
__________________________________
Geoff Straw
Transit Manager
Date: ________
_________________________________
Timothy McNulty
Legal Counsel
Date: ________
Packet Pg. 34
55
Packet Pg. 35
55
Packet Pg. 36
55
Meeting Date: 3/7/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Rebecca Gershow, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: NEIGHBORHOOD MATCHING GRANT PILOT PROGRAM UPDATE AND
EVALUATION
RECOMMENDATION
Continue the Neighborhood Matching Grant Pilot Program for two additional years, with
$20,000 available for grants in the 2017-19 Financial Plan, assuming current funding sources are
identified in the existing budget to reallocate to the Program.
DISCUSSION
On August 18, 2015, the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the Neighborhood
Matching Grant Pilot Program for two years, with $5,000 available for distribution in FY 2015 -
16, and $10,000 in FY 2016-17. As described in the Program’s Authorizing Resolution
(Attachment A), at the conclusion of the second year, the program will be evaluated and future
funding will be determined.
Background
The City Council identified Neighborhood Wellness as a Major City Goal in the 2013 -15
Financial Plan and carried the goal forward into the 2015-17 Financial Plan as an Other
Important Council Objective. One of the strategies identified was to support activities to
establish or bolster neighborhood cohesiveness. Neighborhood Matching Grants are a
mechanism to provide support to neighborhoods for activities and projects that engage neighbors
in positive ways.
Staff sought Council direction regarding a Neighborhood Matching Grant program on March 3,
2015. At that study session, staff provided examples of similar programs from other cities and
received Council direction to develop program guidelines and a process for implementing
Neighborhood Matching Grants (NMG). Council requested staff return with proposed guidelines
for program implementation in August. The approved Neighborhood Matching Grant Pilot
Program Guidelines are included with Attachment A. The City Council delegated the
responsibility of awarding Neighborhood Matching Grants to the Human Relations Commission
(HRC).
In February 2016 the HRC awarded the City’s first two Neighborhood Matching Grants, for the
Islay Park Creek Restoration and Trail Clean Up, and the Cerro San Luis Foothills Seasonal
Social Gatherings, totaling $5,320. On February 1, 2017 the HRC made funding decisions for the
program’s second year, awarding two matching grants, for Mitchell Park Landscaping and Serra
Meadows Pop Up Parties, for $6,982. Below is additional background information on the
program:
Packet Pg. 37
6
Grant Selection Process and HRC Role
The Neighborhood Matching Grant program is administered differently than either the Grants-in-
Aid or CDBG programs. Per City Council direction, the HRC is the final decision-making body
for Neighborhood Matching Grant awards. The HRC has the discretion to approve full or partial
funding for any or all of the project applications submitted, assuming allocation s align with
available funding. However, the HRC is not required to allocate any or all of the grant money for
a cycle if it determines that proposals require further refinement or consideration at a later date.
To help ensure project success, the Neighborhood Matching Grant application is a two-step
process: applicants submitted a Draft Application for review prior to finalizing and submitting
the Final Application. The purpose of the Draft Application is for staff to help identify whether
projects are consistent with existing policies, plans, and standards, and to identify any potential
issues or additional information needed.
YEAR 1: 2015-16 NEIGHBORHOOD MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM
In the first year, eight draft applications were submitted, totaling $22,715 in funding requests
(Table 1). A staff team made up of representatives from Community Development,
Neighborhood Services, Public Works, Parks and Recreation and Administration reviewed the
Draft Applications and CDD staff collated the input and met with each applicant.
Table 1
Year 1 Draft Neighborhood Matching Grants Submitted
Name Address/Location Applicant Funds
Requested
1. Emerson Park Corner
Beautification
Emerson Park; corner of
Pismo and Nipomo St
Emerson Park neighbors $5,000
2. Islay Park Creek Restoration
and Trail Clean Up
Islay Park; between Tank
Farm Rd and Spanish Oaks Dr
Islay Hill Arbors/Neighbors $5,000
3. Los Verdes Runoff Diversion Los Verdes Park II (LOVR
and S. Higuera St)
Los Verdes Park II HOA $1,040
4. Meadows Neighborhood
Pocket Park
Mariposa and Las Praderas Dr The Meadows Neighborhood
Group
$2,000
5. Seasonal Social Gatherings Cerro San Luis Foothills
Neighborhood (Ramona Dr)
Cerro San Luis Foothills
Neighborhood Stewards
$800
6. Serra Meadows Community
Area
Margarita Ave and Prado Rd Serra Meadows Group $5,000
7. Sharing Saturdays Pilot
Mobile Cart
El Cerrito/Encino, and Cerro
Romauldo Ave neighborhoods
El Cerrito/Encino $1,320
8. Willow Creek Park West end of Sunrose Ct, off
Tank Farm Rd
Willow Creek HOA $2,555
A wide-range of draft applications were submitted from throughout the City. This showed that
outreach was successful, and there was interest in the program. However, a number of the
applications submitted were very conceptual in nature, and applicants needed to do significant
Packet Pg. 38
6
work before submitting a final application. Some applicants did not realize there was a $5,000
cap on overall grant disbursements, and others were dis-incentivized to completing the full
application due to the amount of competition for a small amount of money.
Final applications were due January 8, 2016, and three applications were submitted, totaling
$7,875.41 in grant requests (Table 2). The staff team reviewed and ranked the projects using the
Project Criteria in the Grant Guidelines, page 3. At the February 2, 2016 meeting, the HRC
selected the first two projects for full funding.
Table 2
Year 1 Final Neighborhood Matching Grants Submitted
Name Address/Location Applicant Funds
Requested
1. Islay Park Creek Restoration
and Trail Clean Up
Islay Park; between Tank
Farm Rd and Spanish Oaks Dr
Islay Hill Arbors Neighbors $1,883.41
2. Seasonal Social Gatherings Cerro San Luis Foothills
Neighborhood (Ramona Dr)
Cerro San Luis Foothills
Neighborhood Stewards
$3,437
3. Willow Creek Park West end of Sunrose Ct, off
Tank Farm Rd
Willow Creek HOA $2,555
Listed below are project summaries and status reports on the two funded projects from 2015-16:
1. Islay Park Creek Restoration and Trail Clean Up
Project Summary: The neighbors living in
the Arbors, Park View Terrace and
surrounding homes provided volunteer
labor in order to remove abandoned drip
irrigation lines, dead plants, branches and
shrubs along the pedestrian path that
connects Islay Hill park to Spanish Oaks
Drive. The goal of the project was to
enhance the safety and enjoyment of the
popular neighborhood trail system.
Project Update: There were three work parties in July, with two days of pre-planning
meetings. Volunteers of all ages officially logged 217 hours. The project goal of a clean, safe
recreational trail free of dead brush, overhanging branches and old drip irrigation line was
met. KSBY produced a video on the project, and neighbors used Nextdoor.com to promote
the project, in addition to going door-to-door. The primary contact, Mary Lou Johnson, did
the bulk of the work in organizing and event planning.
Packet Pg. 39
6
2. Seasonal Social Gatherings
Application Summary: The Cerro San
Luis Foothills Neighborhood proposed to
organize gatherings of neighbors for
quarterly seasonal events designed to
increase neighborhood connections. Their
themes and events are: Summertime Ice
Cream Social (at the end of September
when students are back); Fall Halloween in
the Neighborhood; Winter Spiral of Lights
(January); Spring Scavenger Hunt (May).
Project Update: Three of the four neighborhood events have taken place. The ice cream
social had approximately 250 participants, and 18 gallons of ice cream were consumed.
There was a Dixieland jazz band, and neighbors of all ages participated. Halloween in the
Neighborhood included three different activities: a decorating contest, crafts, and a pumpkin
carving party and dinner. Approximately 75 neighbors participated. Reimbursement requests
were submitted for both events. Winter Spiral of Lights took place at the end of January and
was more or a challenge due to the weather. The applicant is on track for successful
completion of all four events.
YEAR 2: 2016-17 NEIGHBORHOOD MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM
For the second year of the program, a similar process was used for advertising the opening of the
grant cycle in September 2016. One exception is that the utility mailing notification was not used
this year because responses from it were low; instead targeted e-notifications were sent to
neighbors who expressed an interest in the program during the first year. Emails were also sent
to neighbors who submitted draft applications the first year but did not complete final
applications. Other outreach activities included two media releases, an informational meeting, a
presentation to the Central Coast Realtors Association, and an article in the Neighborhood Hub
Newsletter. By the October 17 deadline, five draft applications were submitted (Table 3, below).
Packet Pg. 40
6
Table 3
Year 2 Draft Neighborhood Matching Grants Submitted
Name Address/Location Applicant Funds
Requested
1. Bill Roalman Bike Boulevard
Village Building
Morro Street Robin Liepman $2,000
2. PUPs Pop-up Parklets Serra Meadows Cesar Torres Bustamante $3,900
3. Mitchell Park Renewed Mitchell Park Trudy Lindaman $2,960
4. Woodside Drive Neighborhood
Entrance Beautification
1370 Woodside Drive Erin Augustine $2,000
5. The “Woods” Neighborhood
Gatherings
Woodside, Briarwood
and Fernwood
Valerie Neuschwander $2,000
Staff reviewed the draft applications and provided input and direction to applicants. Similar to
the first year, a number of the applications submitted were very conceptual in nature, and
applicants needed to do significant work to meet the requirements of a final application, such as
generating neighborhood support and developing a project budget.
Final Applications were due January 3, 2017, and three applications were received, totaling
$8,927.21 in grant requests (Table 4). CDD staff performed a completeness review, and all three
applicants submitted additional information. The staff team then reviewed and ranked the
projects using the Project Criteria in the Grant Guidelines, page 3. At the February 1, 2017 HRC
meeting, the HRC selected the first two projects for funding , totaling $6,982 (they increased
the Mitchell Park grant to the maximum allowable $5,000).
Table 4
Year 2 Final Neighborhood Matching Grants Submitted
Name Address/Location Applicant Funds
Requested
1. Mitchell Park Santa Rosa St between Pismo
and Buchon Streets
Nextdoor Mitchell Park $4,945
2. PUPs – Pop Up Parties Serra Meadows Neighborhood Serra Meadows $1,982.12
3. Bill Roalman Bike Boulevard
City Repair Project
2 blocks of Morro St, between
Buchon and Leff
Bill Roalman Bike Boulevard
(Morro St.)
$2,000
Listed below is additional information on the two funded projects for Year 2:
PROJECT #1: Mitchell Park
Application summary and project update: Mitchell Park neighbors will refresh the
landscaping in two prominent park areas: the bandstand and the Senior Center. The project
will serve as a model of xeriscape gardening. Using drought-tolerant, low-maintenance
plants, the landscape will highlight and enhance the former Kindergarten School, one of the
city’s historic resources. Per HRC direction, staff will be developing a project contract for
$5,000 by March 1, 2017.
Packet Pg. 41
6
PROJECT #2: PUPs—Pop-Up Parties (Serra Meadows)
Application summary and project update: Serra Meadows is a new neighborhood and this
is a seed project for fostering a sense of community. PUPs are inclusive neighborhood events
that will connect neighbors -- fun activities will be combined with emergency preparedness
and organizing for a neighborhood watch group. Staff will be developing a project contract
for $1,982 by March 1, 2017.
LESSONS LEARNED
Below are some lessons learned (so far) regarding the Neighborhood Matching Grant Program as
it approaches the conclusion of its second year.
Staffing: Less staff time has been needed the second year compared to the first year, when the
program was being developed. In year 2, program guidelines and applications were updated but
no significant changes to the program were made. The original estimate of .12 FTE or 255 hours
annually for administering the program is an accurate reflection of staff time for the second year.
However, some applicants need more time and attention than others both in the application
submittal process and during project implementation. Also, project publicity takes a significant
amount of staff time and resources at the beginning of the grant cycle to get the word out and
keep the momentum going on the program. Publicity celebrating completed projects should
continue and possibly be increased.
Neighborhood effort: A good amount of work is involved in both applying for and
implementing neighborhood matching grants. This may discourage some applicants from
applying. Others may see problems in their neighborhoods as the City’s responsibility. It takes a
highly motivated and committed individual to champion a project, involve neighbors, and follow
through with the requirements of the program. More application streamlining may be able to take
place as the program matures, but since these are City funds and it is a matching grant requiring
neighborhood participation, the program may not be as flexible as some wish.
Lack of neighborhood associations: The fact that the City does not have an official
neighborhood association program makes applying for grant funds more onerous on individuals.
All four grants so far have been with “unofficial” groups of neighbors (rather than 501(c)(3) non-
profit organizations), which potentially allows more neighborhoods to apply for grants, but also
requires the project’s lead contact to be the fiscal agent and take on significant responsibility,
including incurring upfront costs.
Application Timing: The timing of the application process may have discouraged some from
completing final applications, as they were due the first week of January. If funded, staff
proposes opening the grant cycle earlier and having grants due in early December.
Funding: Draft applicants may have been discouraged to submit final applications the first year
because the funding level was low (at $5,000) and competition was high. This year, there weren’t
as many draft applications submitted, perhaps due to the difficulty in getting funded in year 1,
coupled with the amount of work needed for the application.
Packet Pg. 42
6
As the program continues to mature, $10,000 annually for the next two years, or $20,000 in the
2017-19 Financial Plan would be an appropriate amount of funding for neighborhood matching
grants, given the amount and quality of the applications received to date, and the staff time
available for project development and implementation support. Continuing the program for two
more years will give staff time to implement small program adjustments and identify whether the
program is truly meeting its goal of supporting grassroots projects that enhance and strengthen
neighborhoods.
CONCURRENCES
As part of the Neighborhood Matching Grant Pilot Program, the Community Development
Department works with staff in other departments in the evaluation of applications, project
assistance, and contract development. Specifically, Police (Neighborhood Services), Public
Works, Parks and Recreation, Administration, and the City Attorney’s office.
FISCAL IMPACT
Council allocated $15,000 in the 2015-17 Financial Plan for the Neighborhood Matching Grant
pilot program; at the completion of the two-year pilot program $12,302 will have been disbursed
for neighborhood matching grants.
Staff recommends increasing the allocation to $20,000 for Neighborhood Matching Grants for
the 2017-19 Financial Plan. This is a good investment in helping build strong neighborhoods, as
neighbors match these funds 100 percent. Funding sources will be identified within the 2016-17
Fiscal Year that may be approved for carryover funds and/ or other sources of departmental
budget will be reallocated to cover the cost of the program. Funding sources will require City
Manager approval.
Collective staff resources associated with administering the program are estimated at
approximately 255 annually, or .12 FTE (assuming two-three grants awarded each year).
ALTERNATIVES
1. Fund the program up to $20,000 ($10,000 annually) for the 2017-19 Financial Plan.
2. Fund the program up to $14,000 ($7,000 annually) for the 2017-19 Financial Plan, since
that is the amount that was funded this year.
3. Do not fund the program.
Attachments:
a - Resolution 10661 (2015 Series) Neighborhood Matching Grant Pilot Program for Fiscal
Years 2015-17
Packet Pg. 43
6
Packet Pg. 44
6
Packet Pg. 45
6
Packet Pg. 46
6
Packet Pg. 47
6
Packet Pg. 48
6
Packet Pg. 49
6
Packet Pg. 50
6
Packet Pg. 51
6
Packet Pg. 52
6
Packet Pg. 53
6
Packet Pg. 54
6
Meeting Date: 3/7/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Jenny Wiseman, Acting Housing Programs Manager
SUBJECT: 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDING
RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATION
1. As recommended by the Human Relations Commission (HRC), adopt a Resolution
(Attachment E) to approve funding allocations for $442,462 of CDBG funds for the 2017
Program Year; and
2. Reallocate $31,200 in 2014 CDBG funds from the Women’s Shelter Program to Family
Care Network, Inc.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City’s annual CDBG review process provides Council and the public with an opportunity to
provide early input in the grant award process and assist the City Council with direct input to
prioritize community needs. One of the main purposes of the process is to maintain an open,
inclusive and fair grant application process. The HRC advises the Council on community needs
and funding recommendations. The five major steps in the 2017 CDBG review process are as
follows:
1. HRC hosts a “Needs Workshop”: The HRC hosted a public hearing on September 7, 2016,
to inform the public about upcoming funding amounts, how to apply for grants, and to
receive community input on grant funding needs. The HRC discussed the community needs
identified during public comment and adopted grant funding priorities for Council
consideration.
2. Council priority-setting: On October 18, 2016, the City Council endorsed the HRC’s
recommended CDBG funding priorities for 2017. The ranked priorities established by the
HRC and City Council are listed below:
1. Provide emergency and transitional shelter, homelessness prevention and services.
2. Develop and enhance affordable housing for low and very-low income persons.
3. Promote accessibility and/or removal of architectural barriers for the disabled and elderly.
4. Enhance economic development (to include seismic retrofit, economic stability, low and
moderate income jobs).
These priorities were used by staff and the HRC in reviewing the applications to develop
their recommendations for the 2017 CDBG funds.
Packet Pg. 55
7
3. CDBG applications hearing: On December 7, 2016, the HRC held a public hearing to
review the 2017 CDBG applications with respect to the Council’s adopted funding priorities,
and forwarded its funding recommendations to the County for inclusion in the 2017 Draft
Action Plan. The Draft Action Plan review period lasts until February 28, 2017.
4. Reservation Letter: On January 3, 2017, Council approved a CDBG Reservation Letter to
reserve $200,000 in 2017 CDBG funds for Transitions Mental Health Association’s (TMHA)
property acquisition costs for the Bishop Street Studios project. Bishop Street Studios will
consist of renovating the existing Sunny Acres building and new construction of 21 units,
creating 34 new affordable units to income eligible residents served by TMHA’s mental
health programs. In order for the project to move forward, TMHA must apply for highly
competitive Low Income Housing Tax Credits requiring committed funding sources at time
of application. Since Tax Credit applications were due on March 1, 2017, the County
requested all projects applying for Tax Credits obtain a Reservation Letter prior to the March
CDBG public hearing. After approved by Council, the letter was sent to the County and
approved by the Board of Supervisors on February 7, 2017.
5. CDBG Program Hearing: On March 7, 2017, the City Council will hold a public hearing
to consider the HRC’s recommendation as shown in the Draft Action Plan and adopt
recommendations for projects to be funded during the 2017 CDBG Program Year. This
action will be submitted to the County Board of Supervisors for inclusion in the final 2017
CDBG Action Plan for the San Luis Obispo Urban County.
HRC and Staff Recommended 2017 CDBG Funding Allocations
On December 7, 2016, the HRC recommended funding allocations of $442,462 in 2017 CDBG
funds and reallocating $31,200 in 2014 CDBG funds, further explained below. The preliminary
funding estimate was provided by the County based on available information from the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The table below lists the projects
recommended for funding by the HRC in the amount of $442,462.
Packet Pg. 56
7
Applicant Project
2017 CDBG
Funding
Recommendation
2014
CDBG
Reallocation
Public Services (Maximum allocation allowed: 15% of $442,462 = $66,369)
CAPSLO Maxine Lewis Homeless
Shelter $66,369
Housing and Public Facilities
Transitions Mental
Health Association
Affordable Housing Property
Acquisition – Bishop Street
Studios
$200,000
Family Care Network Estelita Ct. Supported Housing
Rehabilitation $87,601 $31,200
Program Administration (Maximum allocation allowed: 20% of $442,462 = $88,492)
City of SLO CDBG Administration $30,972
County of SLO1 CDBG Administration $57,520
Total $442,462 $31,200
1CDBG administration funding share per the 2015-17 Cooperation Agreement between the City and County
Seven applications for the 2017 CDBG Program Year were received by the City, totaling
$648,782; approximately 46% more than anticipated available funding. Attachment A includes a
list of the applications submitted to the City for CDBG funding and the recommended funding
amounts. Attachment B includes the December 7, 2016, HRC staff report with a description of
each funding request, followed by the meeting minutes as Attachment C.
The City is limited to using 15% of its allocation for public service uses with CAPSLO
requesting $125,000 for the homeless shelter. In the past, the City has chosen to provide 100% of
this allowance to the shelter to maximize the benefit of these funds. The City will continue this in
2017 and is recommending $66,369 in funding. To help offset the difference, the City has
budgeted $48,000 from the General Fund for the shelter during the 2017-18 fiscal year.
The recommendation also reflects the maximum allowed grant allocation of 20% for program
administration. The City has entered into a Cooperation Agreement with the County for program
years 2015-17. This Agreement includes a provision for the County to retain 2/3 of the 20%
allocation to cover administrative costs associated with City funded projects. CDBG
administration includes processing CDBG applications, completing environmental clearances,
preparing contracts, preparing quarterly reports and monitoring projects as they progress. The
recommendation is consistent with the 2015-17 Cooperation Agreement.
CDBG Reallocation
On March 31, 2016, the Women’s Shelter informed staff that they could no longer carry out their
plumbing rehabilitation project that had received $31,200 in 2014 CDBG funding (Attachment
D). As the City is faced with timely expenditure requirements, Staff is now recommending that
the funds be reallocated to Family Care Network’s rehabilitation project. The rehabilitation
project is ready to move forward and will be able to use the funds towards their project in a
Packet Pg. 57
7
timely manner.
Next Steps
Final CDBG allocations from HUD have not been released; should an increase in CDBG funds
be announced, Staff recommends the additional funds be split evenly between both housing
projects after subtracting the public services and program administration increases. The Draft
Council Resolution reflects this possible modification (Attachment E, Draft Resolution).
The 2017 CDBG funding recommendations adopted by the City Council will be forwarded to the
County Board of Supervisors for inclusion in the 2017 Urban County Action Plan, which
includes funding allocations for all of the participating jurisdictions. The Board of Supervisors is
scheduled to review the Action Plan on April 11, 2017. Although the CDBG fiscal year begins
on July 1, 2017, funds for projects awarded by the City Council are not expected to be available
until October.
FISCAL IMPACT
Decisions made regarding CDBG funding determine how the limited pool of funds the City
receives through the Urban County allocation process is spent. To the extent that projects are
funded through CDBG, the burden on the City’s General Fund and Affordable Housing Fund to
pay for those projects is reduced. As a result, projects that receive CDBG funding have a
positive fiscal impact on the City if they otherwise would have been paid for out of the General
Fund or Affordable Housing Fund.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council may modify the proposed funding amounts within the applicable funding
constraints outlined in this report.
2. The Council may choose to fund an eligible CDBG application not recommended by the
HRC or staff.
3. The Council may continue consideration of funding for the 2017 CDBG Program Year. Staff
does not recommend this action because the City’s recommended funding priorities must be
received by the County by March 31, 2017, in order to be included in the final 2017 Action
Plan.
Attachments:
a - 2017 CDBG Funding Recommendations
b - Human Relations Commission Staff Report - December 7, 2016
c - Human Relations Commission December 7, 2016 Approved Minutes
d - Women's Shelter Program CDBG Declination Letter to City of SLO
e - Draft Resolution
f - Council Reading File - 2017 Community Development Block Grant Applications
Packet Pg. 58
7
Amount Requested2017 CDBG2014 CDBG ReallocationGeneral Fund (Note 1)(Note 2)(Note 3)1Maxine Lewis Homeless Shelter 125,000$ 66,369$ -$ 48,000$ 114,369$ 2Senior Homemaker Program 5,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ SUBTOTAL, Public Services 130,000$ 66,369$ -$ 48,000$ 114,369$ 3Affordable Housing Site Acqusition and Offsite Improvements: Bishop Street Studios200,000$ 200,000$ -$ -$ 200,000$ 4Estelita Ct. Supported Housing Rehab125,290$ 87,601$ 31,200$ -$ 118,801$ 5ADA Street Improvements - Curb Ramps105,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ SUBTOTAL, Housing/Public Facilities 430,290$ 287,601$ 31,200$ -$ 318,801$ 6aCDBG Administration30,972$ 30,972$ -$ -$ 30,972$ 6bCounty of SLO (Note 4)CDBG Administration57,520$ 57,520$ -$ -$ 57,520$ 88,492$ 88,492$ -$ -$ 88,492$ 648,782$ 442,462$ 31,200$ -$ 521,662$ 1Estimated Funding for CDBG Program Year 2017: $442,462234Reallocation of $31,200 in 2014 CDBG awards from Women's Shelter Program Award Returned to City in late 2015 Tentative General Fund allocations per current policy, updates for FY 17-18 pending.CDBG administration funding share per the 2015-17 Cooperation AgreementHousing & Public Facilities Program Administration $88,492 Available (20% of $442,462)Public Services $66,369 Available (15% of $442,462) Activity/ ProgramApplicantCity of SLOSUBTOTAL, Program Admin/Planning TOTALNOTES:HASLO & TMHAFamily Care Network, Inc.City of SLO 2017 CDBG Funding RecommendationsAmount RecommendedCAPSLOLifesteps Foundation, Inc No.TotalPage 1Packet Pg. 597
Meeting Date: December 7, 2016
Item Number: 2
2
HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: 2017 CDBG Funding Recommendations
PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide BY: Jenny Wiseman, Acting Housing Programs Manager
Phone Number: 781-7010
e-mail: jwiseman@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: GENP-4175-2016
BACKGROUND
The City received a total of five 2017 CDBG applications requesting a total of $560,290. Estimated
funding for the 2017 Program Year is $442,462. Of the total estimated allocation, 20% of the funds are
reserved for administrative costs. Since the County has taken over the main portion of each
jurisdiction's administrative duties, 65% of the total administrative funds for the City are claimed by
the County and only 35% of the total administration funds stay with the City. Therefore, of the City’s
$442,462 estimated allocation, the City will receive $30,972 for administration purposes and $57,520
goes to the County.
In addition, the City has $31,200 in additional CDBG funds to award in the 2017 CDBG cycle from
the unsuccessful 2014 CDBG award to the Women’s Shelter Program for renovations to their facility.
In late 2015, the Women’s Shelter Program returned the funds as they were unable to proceed with the
project due to funding and prevailing wage limitations.
FUNDING PRIORITIES
On October 18, 2016, the City Council endorsed the HRC’s recommended CDBG funding priorities
for 2017. The ranked priorities established by the HRC and City Council are:
1. Provide emergency and transitional shelter, homelessness prevention and services.
2. Develop and enhance affordable housing for low and very-low income persons.
3. Promote accessibility and/or removal of architectural barriers for the disabled and elderly.
4. Enhance economic development (to include seismic retrofit, economic stability, low and
moderate income jobs).
PROGRAMS RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING
The above priorities are used as the basis for making recommendations regarding the 2017 CDBG
applications. Staff is recommending funding three of the five applications, as shown in Attachment A,
these three programs are further described below. The recommendations were previously reviewed and
approved by the City’s Capital Improvement Plan Committee on November 7th. A copy of each of the
2017 CDBG applications is provided for HRC review (Attachment B).
Packet Pg. 60
7
GENP-4175-2016 (Citywide)
Page 2
Project Overview and Funding Recommendations
1. CAPSLO (Maxine Lewis Homeless Shelter): CAPSLO has requested $125,000 in CDBG funds to
assist with operational costs of the Maxine Lewis Memorial Homeless Shelter (MLMS). The City
typically chooses to fund 100% of the public services allocation of CDBG funds (15% total) to the
MLMS. The estimated public services allocation is $66,369 and therefore the City is recommending
funding $66,369 to CAPSLO. The City also helps fund MLMS with General Fund money. Should
CAPSLO have remaining funds when 40 Prado opens, those funds will be use to operate 40 Prado.
2. Transitions Mental Health Association (Bishop Street Studios): TMHA and the Housing Authority
of San Luis Obispo are partnering to develop Bishop Street Studios, a 34-unit affordable housing
development which will house clients participating in TMHA mental health programs. They have
requested $200,000 in CDBG funds to cover site acquisition and offsite improvements. Staff is
recommending funding the entire request of $200,000 to this very important affordable housing
project. The project has received full entitlements and will be applying for Low Income Housing
Tax Credits in March 2017. Should the HRC support funding this project, a reservation letter will
be sent to the City Council prior to the March 2017 hearing to ensure CDBG funding will be
included in their tax credit application. Any CDBG funds will be contingent upon a successful tax
credit application.
3. Family Care Network, Inc. (Estelita Court Supported Housing Rehabilitation): FCNI has
requested $125,290 in CDBG funds to renovate their existing four-unit apartment building which
houses up to seven transitional aged youth residents. These individuals are transitioning out of foster
care and are extremely or very-low income. The supported housing complex is in need of a wide
range of repairs including: replacing walkways and driveway asphalt, repairing the roof and
flooring, installing energy efficiency windows and appliances, installing increased security doors
and lighting, and bathroom renovations. Staff is recommending to fund $118,801 towards this
project.
PROGRAMS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING
In addition, staff is recommending not funding two of the five 2017 CDBG Applications. These
programs and recommendation reasoning are further described below.
4. Lifesteps Foundation, Inc. (Senior Homemaker Program): Lifesteps Foundation, Inc. (LFI) has
requested $5,000 to provide additional caregiving support to seniors through their Senior
Homemaker Program. Typically, the City recommends all public service funds be awarded to the
Homeless Shelter as that is the number one funding priority from Council. Since this program is
also categorized as a public service, funding the project would reduce available funding to the
Homeless Shelter, which is a higher priority. The County has also requested a minimum of $8,000
for all CDBG applications. Staff recommends the applicant apply to the City’s Grants-In-Aid grant
program to potentially fund the project.
5. City of San Luis Obispo (Curb Ramps): The City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department
has requested $105,000 for curb ramp replacement projects to remove architectural barriers for
disabled and elderly persons. Staff had previously recommended the project receive $58,000 in
CDBG funding; however, at the CIP Meeting on November 7th, the City Engineer and Public
Works Director both stated that the proposed funding recommendation would not be enough to
Packet Pg. 61
7
GENP-4175-2016 (Citywide)
Page 3
justify prevailing wage for the entire project and decided to allocate those funds to a higher priority
project.
HRC Role
These recommendations are provided for the benefit of the public and HRC. The HRC’s role is to
consider these recommendations in light of public testimony and either, (1) accept the allocations
proposed if the HRC concurs, or (2) make changes so that the recommendation reflects the views o f a
majority of the Commission. The adopted priorities should guide the Commission throughout the
discussion.
The HRC’s recommended allocations will be forwarded to the County for incorporation into the Draft
Action Plan for the 2017 CDBG program year. The entire Draft Action Plan will be considered by the
Council in March 2017.
Attachments
A. 2017 CDBG Funding Recommendations
B. 2017 CDBG Applications
Packet Pg. 62
7
Amount Requested2017 CDBG2014 CDBG ReallocationGeneral Fund (Note 1)(Note 2)(Note 3)1Maxine Lewis Homeless Shelter 125,000$ 66,369$ -$ 48,000$ 114,369$ 2Senior Homemaker Program 5,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ SUBTOTAL, Public Services 130,000$ 66,369$ -$ 48,000$ 114,369$ 3Affordable Housing Site Acqusition and Offsite Improvements: Bishop Street Studios200,000$ 200,000$ -$ -$ 200,000$ 4Estelita Ct. Supported Housing Rehab125,290$ 87,601$ 31,200$ -$ 118,801$ 5ADA Street Improvements - Curb Ramps105,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ SUBTOTAL, Housing/Public Facilities 430,290$ 287,601$ 31,200$ -$ 318,801$ 6aCDBG Administration30,972$ 30,972$ -$ -$ 30,972$ 6bCounty of SLO (Note 4)CDBG Administration57,520$ 57,520$ -$ -$ 57,520$ 88,492$ 88,492$ -$ -$ 88,492$ 648,782$ 442,462$ 31,200$ -$ 521,662$ 1Estimated Funding for CDBG Program Year 2017: $442,4622Reallocation of $31,200 in 2014 CDBG awards from Women's Shelter Program Award Returned to City in late 20153Tentative General Fund allocations per current policy4CDBG administration funding share per the 2015-17 Cooperation AgreementHousing & Public Facilities Program Administration $88,492 Available (20% of $442,462)Public Services $66,369 Available (15% of $442,462) Activity/ ProgramApplicantCity of SLOSUBTOTAL, Program Admin/Planning TOTALNOTES:HASLO & TMHAFamily Care Network, Inc.City of SLO 2017 CDBG Preliminary Funding RecommendationsAmount RecommendedCAPSLOLifesteps Foundation, Inc No.TotalPage 1Packet Pg. 637
Human Relations Commission Minutes
Wednesday, December 7, 2016
Regular Meeting of the Human Relations Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Human Relations Commission was called to order
on Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Tasseff.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Julia Jones, Paul Orton, Carol Sexton, Nancy Welts, Vice
Chair Robert Clayton and Chair Michelle Tasseff
Absent: Commissioner Gene Strohl
Staff
Present: Acting Housing Programs Manager Jenny Wiseman, Planning Technician
Steven Orozco, Associate Planner Rebecca Gershow
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1. Minutes of the Human Relations Commission Meeting of November 2, 2016
Motion by Vice Chair Clayton, second by Commissioner Welts, carried 6-0 to approve
the Minutes of the Human Relations Commission meeting of November 2, 2016.
BUSINESS ITEMS
2. Neighborhood Matching Grants Presentation
Associate Planner Gershow gave an annual update to the Commission on the
Neighborhood Matching Grants. Ms. Gershow also provided a PowerPoint Presentation
which described the background of the program, the grant selection process and the
HRC`s role, the number of applicants, the use of funds, and pictures from events funded
by the grant.
Vice Chair Clayton encouraged having events like the ice cream social to bring the
community together.
Commissioner Sexton and Orton suggested to Ms. Gershow to inform the HRC on future
events.
Packet Pg. 64
7
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Human Relations Commission Minutes of December 7, 2016 Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING
3.2017 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Draft Funding
Recommendations
Acting Housing Programs Manager Wiseman narrated a PowerPoint presentation which
provided an overview of the Community Development Block Grant Program and the
HRC`s role associated with the grant. Ms. Wiseman also updated the Commission on
the applicants who applied for funding and the amounts requested.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Chair Tasseff opened the public hearing.
Michael Kaplan, Transitions Mental Health Association, expressed gratitude for the
recommendation. Mr. Kaplan described the project and the need for funding the project.
Bryn Smith, Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo, would like to thank the
HRC and the City of San Luis Obispo for recommendations to fund projects for housing.
Ms. Smith summarized services provided by the Maxine Lewis Memorial Shelter and the
Prado Day Center. Ms. Smith also described how CAPSLO uses the grant funds to
provide positive services in San Luis Obispo.
Joanna Balsamo, Family Care Network, would also like to thank the HRC and the City of
San Luis Obispo for the recommendation. Ms. Balsamo described the need for funding
and the use of funding at Family Care Network.
Scott Smith, Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO), would like to thank staff for
everything they do and for considering the projects. Mr. Smith also described HASLO`s
role within the community and how they strive to create a positive impact for the
community.
There being no others desiring to speak on this item, the public comment was closed.
After final discussion, a motion to approve the CDBG Recommendations was made by
Vice Chair Clayton, second by Commissioner Jones, Carried 6-0.
COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
4.Final Review of 2017-19 Advisory Body Goals
Acting Housing Programs Manager Wiseman reviewed the goals selected by the HRC
and how to accomplish the goals.
Motion by Vice Chair Clayton to approve the 2017- Advisory Body Goals, Second by
Commissioner Jones.
Packet Pg. 65
7
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Human Relations Commission Minutes of December 7, 2016 Page 3
5.Consider Cancellation of January 2017 Meeting
The January HRC Meeting will be cancelled. Next meeting will be held February 1st.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Tasseff adjourned the meeting at 6:04 pm. to the
next regular meeting scheduled for Wednesday February 1, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council
Hearing Room at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.
APPROVED BY THE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION ON FEBRUARY 1, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
Steven Orozco
Recording Secretary
Packet Pg. 66
7
Packet Pg. 67
7
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE 2017 COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDING
RECOMMENDATIONS (GENP-4175-2016)
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo is a participating jurisdiction in the San Luis
Obispo Urban County, along with the cities of Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Morro Bay, Paso
Robles, Pismo Beach, and the County of San Luis Obispo; and
WHEREAS, said cities and County cooperatively administer several federal grant
programs under the provisions of the Cooperative Agreement executed between the City and
County on September 23, 2014, and under applicable U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development Department (HUD) rules; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to said agreement, the Urban County Public Participation Plan,
and HUD rules, the City Council held a public hearing on March 7, 2017, to consider funding
recommendations by the Human Relations Commission (HRC), to review applications for
federal grant funding, and to consider public comments on community needs and the use of such
funds; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered applications for Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funds, public testimony, the Urban County’s proposed One -Year Action
Plan, and the HRC and staff recommendations included in the agenda report; and
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Environmental Determination. The project is exempt from environmental
review per CEQA Guidelines under the General Rule (Section 15061(b)(3)). It can be seen with
certainty that CDBG funding allocations could not have a significant effect on the environment.
Section 2. 2017 Community Development Block Grant Program Amendments. The
City’s 2017 Community Development Block Grant Program is hereby approved, as shown in
Exhibit A, with reallocation of previous 2014 CDBG funds. The Community Development
Director is authorized to approve final dollar amounts once HUD releases allocations with the
direction to make up differences in the two amounts. Any additional increase in funding shall be
allocated evenly to each funded housing project once increases for public services (15% of
allocation) and program administration (20% of allocation) have been adjusted.
Section 3. Board of Supervisors Consideration. The Council hereby forwards the
above actions to the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors for consideration prior to the
Board’s final action on the Urban County’s 2017 Consolidated Plan.
Section 4. Community Development Director Authority. The Community
Development Director is authorized to act on behalf of the City in executing grant agreements
Packet Pg. 68
7
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
and other actions necessary to implement the approved Consolidated Plan and CDBG Program,
including revisions to funding amounts for the 2017 CDBG Program if the City’s actual CDBG
allocation is different than expected.
Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 7th day of March, 2017.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 69
7
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3
R ______
Exhibit A 2017 CDBG Funding Recommendations
Packet Pg. 707
Meeting Date: 3/7/2017
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared by: Aaron Floyd, Utilities Deputy Director – Water
SUBJECT: JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TO FORM A GROUNDWATER
SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approve a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving and authorizing the Mayor to execute a Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement between the City of San Luis Obispo and the County of San Luis Obispo
to form the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency”
(Attachment B); and
2. Authorize the City Manager to approve minor modifications to the Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement; and
3. Authorize the use of up to $200,000 of Water fund balance as the City’s portion of initial
operating capital for fiscal year 2017/18 for the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (subject
to reimbursement from the Groundwater Sustainability Agency); and
4. Authorize the County of San Luis Obispo to take certain actions relative to the formation of
the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency; and
5. Appoint one representative from City Council and the Utilities Director as an alternative
representative to serve on the Board of Directors of the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwat er
Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency.
REPORT IN BRIEF
The City of San Luis Obispo has a long history of groundwater use. The majority of
groundwater basins across the State have not been sustainably managed. With increased focus
due to the drought, the Governor signed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
(SGMA), which went into effect January 1, 2015. SGMA requires the formation of
Groundwater Sustainability Agencies to manage groundwater basins.
The Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) is recommended to be formed by a Joint Powers
Agreement between the City of San Luis Obispo and County of San Luis Obispo. Other entities
utilizing groundwater would be represented on the GSA. The deadline for formation of a GSA is
June 30, 2017.
Funding for this effort will be shared proportionally by all entities until a permanent funding
source can be secured.
DISCUSSION
Background
Groundwater has played a significant role in the City’s historical water use and is an integral part
Packet Pg. 71
8
of its One-Water future, in which water from all sources are used conjunctively to achieve the
greatest beneficial use. While the City relies more on surface water in average rain years,
groundwater is a vital part of the community’s multisource water supply. For example, the
drought that began in 1986 resulted in a significant decrease in surface water supplies and a
corresponding need for increased groundwater use. In 1990, at the height of that drought,
groundwater accounted for about 50 percent of the water supplied. As part of the 2016-17
Financial Plan supplement, Council authorized the expansion of the existing groundwater
program, including the rehabilitation of an existing well, as part of an overall water resiliency
strategy. As the City contemplates the best path towards potable reuse of highly treated
wastewater, the viable option of indirect potable reuse is directly tied to injection and extraction
of groundwater from the basin. For these reasons, it is important for the City to be actively
involved in the management of the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin (“SLO Basin”).
According to the California Department of Water Resources, thirty million Californians rely on
groundwater for a portion of their drinking water. Groundwater provides about 40 percent of the
State’s total water supply which, depending on wet or dry years, serves as a critical buffer
against drought and climate change. Currently, in the few regions where groundwater is
managed, it is done so by local and regional agencies, some of which sustainably manage their
resources. Other regions do not manage their basin or do not do so sustainably, resulting in
problems such as groundwater overdraft, land subsidence, wells going dry, and deteriorated
water quality.
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
Multiple years of drought combined with a lack of uniform standards for groundwater
management led to the Governor signing the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
(SGMA), which took effect January 1, 2015. This legislation requires the creation of new
institutions and adoption of planning documents, and grants the institutions the authorities and
resources to implement such requirements. SGMA includes enforcement tools to carry out
effective local sustainable groundwater management through the formation of Groundwater
Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) and development and implementation of a Groundwater
Sustainability Plan (GSP).
GSAs, and their respective GSPs, are required to ensure groundwater basins are managed
sustainably within 20 years of GSP adoption. Though the term “sustainability” is not specifically
defined in SGMA, the GSP must mitigate or avoid undesirable results, which are defined in the
California Water Code as one or more of the following effects caused by groundwater conditions
occurring throughout a groundwater basin:
(1) Chronic lowering of groundwater levels,
(2) Significant and unreasonable reduction of groundwater storage,
(3) Significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion,
(4) Significant and unreasonable degraded water quality,
(5) Significant and unreasonable land subsidence, and
(6) Depletions of interconnected surface water that has significant and unreasonable
adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water.
Packet Pg. 72
8
In order to communicate the condition of the various groundwater basins in the State, the
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) became responsible for prioritizing the
State’s groundwater basins. DWR designated 127 basins statewide as high and medium priority.
Six of these priority basins are located in whole or in part in San Luis Obispo County, including
the medium priority SLO Basin (Figure 1), the groundwater basin the City of San Luis Obispo
overlies.
Figure 1. Outline of San Luis Obispo (Edna) Valley Basin with overlying ent ities. Areas in blue represent the
service area of domestic water purveyors. Areas in yellow represent lands covered by Edna Valley Growers
Mutual Water Company, which provides agricultural water. All areas not shaded are represented by the
County of San Luis Obispo.
SGMA Requirements for GSA Formation
When SGMA was adopted, it became part of the California Water Code and Government Code.
Pursuant to the applicable section of this Code, an eligible local agency or combination of local
agencies (e.g. counties, cities, community services districts) overlying a groundwater basin may
decide to become a GSA for that basin. GSAs can be formed under a joint powers agreement, a
memorandum of agreement, or other legal agreement. Mutual water companies and water
corporations regulated by the Public Utilities Commission are also eligible to participate on a
GSA through a Participation Agreement (Attachment A). Pursuant to SGMA, the GSA must be
formed by June 30, 2017.
Collaborative Development of San Luis Obispo (Edna) Valley Basin GSA Agreement
Implementation of SGMA will involve local and State agencies, various water companies, and
concerned landowners. While SGMA specifies which agencies are eligible to participate on a
GSA, stakeholder outreach, coordination efforts, and the practical realities of preparing a GSP all
Packet Pg. 73
8
benefit from the involvement of the entire community.
Under the leadership of San Luis Obispo County, eligible entities in the SLO Basin 1) County of
San Luis Obispo, 2) Golden State Water Company, 3) Edna Ranch Mutual Water Company-East,
Varian Ranch Mutual Water Company, 4) Edna Valley Growers Mutual Water Company and the
5) City of San Luis Obispo) have met to collaboratively develop the governance and funding
strategies defined in the attached Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JPA) (Attachment A).
The Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
The proposed GSA will be a separate legal entity formed pursuant to the Joint Exercise of
Powers Act (“JEPA”), Government Code sections 6500 et seq. Under JEPA, two or more public
agencies can come together to form a separate legal entity in order to provide certain services or
regulatory functions. In regards to the GSA, the City and County will execute the JPA in order to
form the GSA as required under SGMA. Although only the City and County will sign the JPA,
the GSA will be comprised of a five-member board of directors which includes representatives
from the City, the County and the three eligible entities noted above.
SGMA allows a GSA to be formed via a JPA or a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”)
executed between all eligible entities overlying the basin. The consensus among the City and
County staff and representatives from the other entities is to form a JPA rather than execute
MOUs. The primary reasons for this recommendation is efficiency, focus and effectiveness.
With an MOU, the GSA will largely depend on City and County resources to develop and
implement the GSP and to manage the day to day operations of the agency. The City and County
obviously have differing priorities and fluctuating resources. In addition, with an MOA, both the
City and the County would need to take action on items relative to the operation of the GSA;
with a JPA, a single board with representatives from the City and County could make such
approval.
Below are some of the more significant components of the proposed JPA:
Five-member Board of Directors with representatives from the City, County, Public
Utilities Commission Water Company, and two mutual water companies overlying the
SLO Basin. The City and County will each appoint their own representative and an
alternate. Because the other entities are within the unincorporated area, the County will
appoint a representative for each company based on a recommendation from each
company.
The GSA will share the common powers of the City and County and will also have the
authorities and enforcement capabilities set forth in SGMA. As discussed in more detail
below, the GSA will have no land use authority.
Supermajority approval of the Board is required for approval of the annual budget,
levying assessments, taxes and fees, issuance of indebtedness, any stipulation to resolve
litigation regarding groundwater rights or groundwater management. Unanimous
approval is required for the adoption of the GSP or any amendments thereto. It should be
noted that through the JPA development process, there was some disagreement whether
Packet Pg. 74
8
any decisions should be unanimous.
The creation of a stakeholder advisory committee and technical advisory committee.
Initial contributions in the total amount of $500,000 for fiscal year 2017/18 in order to
cover the initial operating costs of the GSA. The City’s share is approximately $149,000
which is subject to reimbursement by the GSA once funding sources are secured. Any
subsequent contributions, beyond the amount requested in the attached Resolution, would
need the approval of the City and other contributing parties.
The JPA can be terminated by the City or the County upon ninety days prior written
notice.
The City and abovenamed entities held stakeholder forums in Fall/Winter 2016 to receive input
on governance strategies. Presenters at the meetings gave an overview of SGMA and detailed
how the community could be involved and have their interests heard during GSA formation and
creation of the GSP.
The importance of including stakeholder representation in the GSA decision-making process is
addressed through the formation of stakeholder and technical advisory committees through
development and implementation of the basin’s GSP. Figure 2 shows the proposed approach of
the governance structure for GSA formation.
Figure 2: Proposed Groundwater Sustainability Agency Structure
Once a GSA is formed, the City and County will each appoint a representative and alternate to
the governing board. Representatives for the Agricultural Mutual Water Company Group,
Domestic Mutual Water Company Group, and PUC Regulated Water Company Group will come
from nominations by their respective group with final appointment by the Count y Board of
Supervisors. This appointment process by the Board of Supervisors is required so as to not cede
governmental powers to a non-elected body. The rationale for the County Board of Supervisors
appointing the three entity representatives is the fact that those areas all lie within the
Packet Pg. 75
8
unincorporated area. Appointment terms are for four terms and the Board meeting are subject to
the Brown Act.
Relationship Between SGMA & Land Use Authorities
In accordance with SGMA, the GSA will function and exercise authorities as an independent
entity. One required action of the GSA will be creation of a GSP, which may result in the
regulation of groundwater extraction in a basin to ensure sustainability. Although the GSA will
not have any specific land use authority over the basin, SGMA does provide certain policy
statements and amends various provisions of the Government Code related to Planning and
Zoning Law. Specifically, the State Legislature declared that
“…it is vital that there be close coordination and consultation between California’s water
supply or management agencies and California’s land use approval agencies to ensure that
proper water supply and management occurs to accommodate projects that will result in
increased demands on water supplies or impact water resource management.”
Once the GSP is created, the GSA must review and report on any substantial amendments
proposed to the City’s General Plan for its effect on the GSP. This process is similar to the
referral provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which is commonly
performed for any substantial modification to the City’s General Plan. Unlike CEQA, SGMA
does not have a conformity finding requirement or overrule type of process. Instead, the
amendments to the Government Code require coordination and information gathering between
the Groundwater Sustainability Agency and the City before a General Plan may be substantially
modified. The City and the County retain full control of its land use authority.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The adoption of this resolution to form a JPA is not subject to CEQA. Preparation of an
environmental impact report or negative declaration would be too early in the process to provide
meaningful information for environmental assessment, as described in State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15004(b). Approval of the GSP is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Water
Code section 10728.6. Actions to implement the GSP are subject to environmental review.
FISCAL IMPACT
Costs associated with SGMA compliance can be separated into three stages. The first stage
involves the preparation of the JPA document, outreach efforts, and GSA formation. Associated
costs and efforts to-date have been made by County staff with in-kind support and stakeholder
outreach by the 1) City, 2) Golden State Water Company, 3) Edna Valley Growers Mutual Water
Company, 4) Varian Ranch Mutual Water Company, and 5) Edna Ranch - East Mutual Water
Company.
Costs associated with the second stage of the process have been reduced to a minimum and are
solely for administration of the newly formed GSA until a long-term funding solution can be
secured. This interim time-frame is expected to last through the second quarter of 2018 and
carries an estimated total expenditure of $500,000. This estimate includes legal fees for the first
Packet Pg. 76
8
fiscal year and an estimated $219,000 in annual operating and administration costs.
Of this initial amount, $250,000 is designated for the creation of a long-term funding mechanism
for continued expenses associated with administration of the GSA, creation of the GSP, and
future management of the basin (third funding phase). If this future independent funding is not
secured, per the Water Code, a GSA may withdraw from managing the basin by notifying DWR
in writing.
The City’s proportional share of this $500,000 is currently established at $149,948. This amount
was based on a variety of factors including population, water consumption and service area with
differing weights attached to each category. Staff is requesting a not-to-exceed amount of
$200,000 to allow the Utilities Department to make any necessary subsequent contributions
which may be needed. It is also anticipated that these initial funds will be re-paid to the entities
upon formation of a long-term funding mechanism. These initial funds are available in the Water
Fund from fund balance.
Long-term costs for the GSA to implement the GSP and manage the basin are unknowable at this
time. The methodology for collection of funds and share apportionment among the basin’s
entities are also unknown at this time and will need to be one of the initial work efforts of the
newly formed GSA. Efforts to lower costs include exploration of partnerships with other GSAs
in the County to minimize expenses through shared resources, continuation of in-kind services
where applicable, and pursuance of grants. The County has already secured funding of $150,000
towards a basin characterization study – a needed work effort for creation of a GSP.
Figure 3: GSA Formation Flowchart
Packet Pg. 77
8
ALTERNATIVES
Pursuant to SGMA, if any portion of the basin is not covered by a GSA, the County is presumed
to be the GSA for that area. If the County does not take on this role, then the State will intervene
until it can turn basin management back to a local entity. Activities could include groundwater
extraction reporting by basin users, development of Interim Plan(s) and related studies and
CEQA compliance as applicable, collection of fees, and issuance of cease and desist orders if
necessary to handle violations. The State’s clear intention is local groundwater issues should be
governed by local entities. As shown above, the ability for ongoing local control will require a
secured funding source.
1. Council could choose to form an independent GSA, isolated to those areas of the San Luis
Obispo (Edna) Valley Basin under the jurisdiction of the City. This is known as the
‘coordinated’ approach. The recommendation before City Council is known as the
‘collaborative’ approach. Regardless of the approach chosen, all areas of the entire groundwater
basin would still need to be covered by a GSA by the June 30, 2017 deadline. Selecting this
strategy would likely result in increased management complications and expenditures as
creation of a GSP and all future management would still require collaboration with other entities
in the basin.
2. Council could choose not to participate in the formation of a JPA with the County. If the City
still chose to participate in the GSA, not participating in the JPA would cede authorities (such as
appointments to the GSA) to the County; they would be the only agency with the designated
authorities and jurisdiction over the basin.
3. Council could choose to not participate in the GSA. As the GSA will prepare the GSP, which
will dictate groundwater use in the basin, including the portion the City overlies, this alternative
would result in the City having a diminished voice in basin management decisions.
4. Council could choose to appoint both the representative and alternative representative from
City Council to serve on the Board of Directors of the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater
Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency. The selection of the Utilities Director to serve as
the alternative representative was recommended as a consistent resource for the elected
official during the initial stages of SGMA and in particular, during the creation of a
Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Actions taken by the GSA will likely have significant
impacts on the City’s current and future water portfolio.
Attachments:
a - JPA Agreement Part Agreement
b - Resolution for SGMA
Packet Pg. 78
8
Page 1 of 27
JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO VALLEY
GROUNDWATER BASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY
This Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into on this
____ day of ____________, 2017 by and between the City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) and the
County of San Luis Obispo (“County”), sometimes each referred to individually as a “Member”
and collectively as the “Members,” for purposes of forming the San Luis Obispo Valley
Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (“Agency”) and setting forth the terms
pursuant to which the Agency shall operate.
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, both of the Members are local agencies, as defined in the
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (Water Code §§ 10720 et seq.) (“SGMA”) that
overlie (or overlie portions of) the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin (Basin Number 3-
9) (“Basin”); and
B. WHEREAS, SGMA requires the establishment of a groundwater sustainability
agency (“GSA”) for all basins designated as medium- or high-priority by the Department of
Water Resources (“DWR”) on or before June 30, 2017; and
C. WHEREAS, SGMA further requires the adoption of a groundwater sustainability
plan (“GSP”) for all basins designated as medium- or high-priority by DWR and not subject to
critical conditions of overdraft on or before January 31, 2022; and
D. WHEREAS, DWR has designated the Basin as a medium-priority basin; and
E. WHEREAS, the Members intend for the Agency to develop a GSP and to
manage the Basin pursuant to SGMA; and
F. WHEREAS, SGMA authorizes a combination of local agencies to form a GSA
through a joint powers agreement; and
G. WHEREAS, SGMA also authorizes water corporations regulated by the Public
Utilities Commission (“PUC”) and mutual water companies to participate in GSAs; and
H. WHEREAS, the Members have determined that the sustainable management of
the Basin pursuant to SGMA may best be achieved through the cooperation of the Members and
other eligible participants through a joint powers authority; and
I. WHEREAS, pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act (Government Code §§
6500 et seq.) (“JEPA”) and SGMA, the Members may create a joint powers authority to jointly
exercise any power common to the Members, and to exercise additional powers granted under
SGMA; and
Packet Pg. 79
8
Page 2 of 27
J. WHEREAS, based on the foregoing legal authority, the Members desire to create
a joint powers authority for the purpose of taking all actions deemed necessary by the joint
powers authority to ensure the sustainable management of the Basin as required by SGMA.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and covenants contained herein,
the Members agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1
DEFINITIONS
The following terms have the following meanings for purposes of this Agreement:
1.1. “Agreement” has the meaning assigned thereto in the Preamble.
1.2 “Auditor” means the auditor of the financial affairs of the Agency appointed
pursuant to Section 13 of this Agreement.
1.3 “Agency” has the meaning assigned thereto in the Preamble.
1.4 “Basin” means the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin (Basin Number 3-
9) as identified and defined by DWR in Bulletin 118 or as modified pursuant to Water Code
Section 10722.2.
1.5 “Board of Directors” or “Board” means the governing body of the Agency as
established by Article 2 of this Agreement.
1.6 “Bulletin 118” means DWR’s report entitled “California Groundwater Bulletin
118” updated in 2016, as it may be subsequently updated or revised in accordance with Water
Code Section 12924.
1.7 “Bylaws” means the bylaws, if any, adopted by the Board of Directors pursuant to
Article 11 of this Agreement.
1.8 “Director” and “Alternate Director” mean a director or alternate director
appointed pursuant to Sections 6.3 and 6.4 of this Agreement.
1.9 “DWR” has the meaning assigned thereto in Recital B.
1.10 “Effective Date” means the date on which the last Member executes this
Agreement.
1.11 “GSA” has the meaning assigned thereto in Recital B.
1.12 “GSP” has the meaning assigned thereto in Recital C.
1.13 “JEPA” has the meaning assigned thereto in Recital I.
Packet Pg. 80
8
Page 3 of 27
1.14 “Member” and Members” have the meaning assigned thereto in the Preamble.
1.15 “Mutual Water Company” has the meaning set forth in Corporations Code
Section 14300 and in Section 6.1.
1.16 “Officer(s)” means the Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary or Treasurer of the Agency to
be appointed pursuant to Article 7 and Article 13 of this Agreement.
1.17 “Public Water System” has the meaning set forth in Health and Safety Code
Section 116275.
1.18 “PUC” has the meaning assigned thereto in Recital G.
1.19 “SGMA” has the meaning assigned thereto in Recital A.
1.20 “State” means the State of California.
ARTICLE 2
CREATION OF AGENCY
2.1 Creation of a Joint Powers Authority. There is hereby created pursuant to JEPA
and SGMA a joint powers authority, which shall be a public entity separate from the Members to
this Agreement, and shall be known as the San Luis Obispo Valley Basin Groundwater
Sustainability Agency (“Agency”). The boundaries of the Agency shall be the boundaries of the
Basin as identified and defined by DWR in Bulletin 118 or as modified pursuant to Water Code
Section 10722.2. Within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date of this Agreement and after any
amendment thereto, the County or the Agency, respectively, shall cause a notice of this
Agreement or amendment to be prepared and filed with the office of the California Secretary of
State containing the information required by Government Code Section 6503.5, the State
Controller and with the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission. Within
ten (10) days after the Effective date of this Agreement, the County shall cause a statement of the
information concerning the Agency required by Government Code Section 53051 to be filed
with the Office of the California Secretary of State and with the County Clerk for the County of
San Luis Obispo, setting forth the facts required to be stated pursuant to Government Code
Section 53051(a). Within thirty (30) day after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County
shall inform DWR of the Agency’s decision to become a GSA and its intent to undertake
sustainable groundwater management within the Basin in accordance with Water Code Section
10723 et seq.
2.2 Purpose of the Agency. The purpose of the Agency is to serve as the GSA for the
entire Basin and to develop, adopt and implement a GSP for the entire Basin that considers all
interests as more specifically set forth in Article 5 below pursuant to SGMA and other applicable
provisions of law.
Packet Pg. 81
8
Page 4 of 27
ARTICLE 3
TERM
This Agreement shall become effective on the Effective Date and shall remain in effect
until terminated pursuant to the provisions of Article 15 of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 4
POWERS
4.1 The Agency shall possess the power in its own name to exercise any and all
common powers of its Members reasonably related to the purposes of the Agency together with
such other powers as are expressly set forth in the JEPA and in SGMA upon becoming the
exclusive GSA within the boundaries of the Agency pursuant to Water Code Section 10723.8. In
addition, if authorized by the GSP, each Member may take separate action to impose fees or
enforce the GSP. For purposes of Government Code Section 6509, the powers of the Agency
shall be exercised subject to the restrictions upon the manner of exercising such powers as are
imposed on the County of San Luis Obispo.
4.2 Powers Reserved to the City and County. SGMA expressly reserves certain
powers and authorities to and preserves certain powers and authorities of cities and counties,
including, without limitation, the issuance of permits for the construction, modification or
abandonment of groundwater wells, land use planning and groundwater management pursuant to
city and county police powers. Neither the Director representing the County nor the Director
representing the City shall have the ability to authorize the Agency to exercise or infringe upon
any such reserved powers and authorities (the Agency must seek and receive authorization by
formal action of the County Board of Supervisors or City Council) and this Agreement shall not
be interpreted as limiting or ceding any such reserved or preserved powers and authorities.
Without limiting the foregoing and as set forth in Water Code Sections 10726.8(f) and
10726.2(d), the Agency shall have no authority to supersede the land use authority of cities and
counties or to engage in the retail sale of water within the service area of a Public Water System
without the consent of that system.
ARTICLE 5
WATER RIGHTS
As required by Water Code Section 10723.2, the Agency shall consider the interests of all
beneficial uses and users of groundwater in the Basin, as well as those responsible for
implementing the GSP. Additionally, as set forth in Water Code Section 10720.5(a), any GSP
adopted pursuant to this Agreement shall be consistent with Section 2 of Article X of the
California Constitution and nothing in this Agreement modifies the rights or priorities to use or
store groundwater consistent with Section 2 of Article X of the California Constitution, with the
exception that no extraction of groundwater between January 1, 2015 and the date the GSP is
adopted may be used as evidence of, or to establish or defend against, any claim of prescription.
Packet Pg. 82
8
Page 5 of 27
Likewise, as set forth in Water Code Section 10720.5(b), nothing in this Agreement or any GSP
adopted pursuant to this Agreement determines or alters surface water rights or groundwater
rights under common law or any provision of law that determines or grants surface water rights.
ARTICLE 6
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
6.1 Formation of the Board of Directors. The Agency shall be governed by a Board
of Directors (“Board”). The Board shall be composed of five (5) Directors consisting of the
following representatives, who shall be appointed in the manner set forth in Section 6.3:
6.1.1 one (1) representative from each of the Members; and
6.1.2 one (1) representative from each of the following groups of participants
eligible to participate in a GSA (collectively, “Participants”): (a) mutual water companies that
have water supply or water management responsibilities within the boundaries of the Agency
and are comprised primarily of agricultural lands that each enter into a participant agreement
with the Agency (“Agricultural MWC Group”); (b) mutual water companies that have water
supply or water management responsibilities within the boundaries of the Agency and are
comprised primarily of residential lands that each enter into a participant agreement with the
Agency (“Residential MWC Group”); and (c) corporations regulated by the PUC that provide
retail water service within the boundaries of the Agency that each enter into a participant
agreement with the Agency (“PUC Regulated Group”) (collectively, “Groups”). A list of those
entities within each Group expected to sign a Participant Agreement with the Agency shortly
after the Effective Date is attached hereto as Exhibit A and a draft template Participant
Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
6.2 Duties of the Board of Directors. The business and affairs of the Agency, and all
of its powers, including without limitation all powers set forth in Article 4 are reserved to and
shall be exercised by and through the Board of Directors, except as may be expressly delegated
to the staff or others pursuant to this Agreement, the Bylaws, the GSP or by specific action of the
Board of Directors.
6.3 Appointment of Directors. The Directors shall be appointed as follows:
6.3.1 The representative from the County shall be appointed by the County
Board of Supervisors.
6.3.2 The representative from the City shall be appointed by the City Council.
6.3.3 The representative from the Agricultural MWC Group shall be appointed
by the County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 6.3.6
below.
Packet Pg. 83
8
Page 6 of 27
6.3.4 The representative from the Residential MWC Group shall be appointed
by the County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the procedure set forth in 6.3.6 below.
6.3.5 The representative from the PUC Regulated Group shall be appointed by
the County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 6.3.6
below.
6.3.6 Prior to the appointment of representatives as described in Section 6.3.3
through Section 6.3.5, each Group shall nominate a representative for appointment by the County
Board of Supervisors. The County Board of Supervisors shall consider the nominee(s) for
appointment at a regular meeting. The County Board of Supervisors shall not appoint a
representative to represent a Group that has not been nominated by the relevant Group.
However, the Board of Supervisors retains the absolute discretion to confirm or reject any
nomination.
6.4 Alternate Directors. The City Council and County Board of Supervisors may also
appoint one (1) Alternate to act as a substitute for each Director. All Alternates shall be
appointed in the same manner as set forth in Section 6.3, including, without limitation, in
accordance with the same procedures set forth in Section 6.3.6 (with respect to the appointment
of alternate representatives from each Group). Alternate Directors shall have no vote and shall
not participate in any discussions or deliberations of the Board unless appearing as substitute for
a Director due to absence or legal conflict of interest. If the Director is not present, or if the
Director has a legal conflict of interest which precludes participation by the Director in any
decision-making process of the Board, the Alternate Director appointed to act in his/her place
shall assume all rights of the Director, and shall have the authority to act in his/her absence,
including casting votes on matters before the Board.
6.5 Terms of Office.
6.5.1 First Set of Directors and Alternate Directors. Subject to Section 6.5.3
below, with respect to the initial set of Directors and Alternate Directors, the Directors and
Alternate Directors representing the City, the PUC Regulated Group, and the Residential MWC
Group shall be appointed for a term of four (4) years and the Directors and Alternate Directors
representing the County and the Agricultural MWC Group shall be appointed for a term of two
(2) years. Notwithstanding the actual date of their appointments, for purposes of establishing the
foregoing terms, the initial appointments shall be deemed to have commenced on the July 1
following such initial appointment.
6.5.2 Subsequent Directors and Alternate Directors. Subject to Section 6.5.3
below, all subsequent Directors and Alternate Directors shall be appointed for a term of four (4)
years.
Packet Pg. 84
8
Page 7 of 27
6.5.3 Removal and Reappointment of Directors. Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Agreement, a Director and Alternate Director may be removed during his or her
term or reappointed for multiple terms at the pleasure of the appointing entity in accordance with
the procedure set forth in Sections 6.3 and 6.4. No individual Director or Alternate Director may
be removed in any other manner, including by the affirmative vote of the other Directors.
6.6 Vacancies. Upon the vacancy of a Director, the Alternate Director shall serve as
Director until a new Director is appointed as set forth in Section 6.3. Each Member shall provide
notice of any change in Director or Alternate Director positions to the Board of Directors or its
designee in writing within sixty (60) days of said change.
6.7 Adjustment to Board of Directors. Should circumstances change in the future,
any person or entity may petition the Members to amend this Agreement so as to add or delete
representatives to the Board of Directors.
ARTICLE 7
OFFICERS
7.1 Officers. Officers of the Agency shall be a Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary and
Treasurer. The Treasurer shall be appointed consistent with the provisions of Section 13.3. The
Vice Chair shall exercise all powers of the Chair in the Chair’s absence or inability to act.
7.2 Appointment of Officers. Officers shall be elected annually by, and serve at the
pleasure of, the Board of Directors. Officers shall be elected at the first Board meeting, and
thereafter at the first Board meeting following January 1st of each year, or as duly continued by
the Board. The Director appointed by the County shall be designated as the Chair Pro Tem to
preside at the initial meeting of the Board until a Chair is elected by the Board. An officer may
serve for multiple consecutive terms, with no term limit. Any officer may resign at any time
upon written notice to the Board, and may be removed and replaced by a majority vote of all
appointed Directors.
7.3 Principal Office. The principal office of the Agency shall be established by the
Board of Directors and may thereafter be changed by a majority vote of all appointed Directors.
ARTICLE 8
DIRECTOR MEETINGS
8.1 Initial Meeting. The initial meeting of the Board of Directors shall be called by
the County and held in San Luis Obispo County, California within thirty (30) days after the date
on which the Agency becomes the exclusive GSA within the boundaries of the Agency pursuant
to Water Code Section 10723.8.
8.2 Time and Place. The Board of Directors shall meet at a date, time and place set
by the Board within the jurisdictional boundaries of one or more of the Members.
Packet Pg. 85
8
Page 8 of 27
8.3 Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Board of Directors may be called by
the Chair or by a majority of all appointed Directors, in accordance with the provisions of
Government Code Section 54956.
8.4 Conduct. All meetings of the Board of Directors, including special meetings,
shall be noticed, held and conducted in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government
Code §§ 54956 et seq.). The Board may use teleconferencing in connection with any meeting in
conformance with and to the extent authorized by applicable law.
8.5 Local Conflict of Interest Code. The Board of Directors shall adopt a local
conflict of interest code pursuant to the provisions of the Political Reform Act of 1974
(Government Code §§ 81000 et seq.)
8.6 Minutes. The Secretary shall cause to be kept minutes of all meetings of the
Board of Directors.
ARTICLE 9
DIRECTOR VOTING
9.1 Quorum. A majority of the Directors shall constitute a quorum for purposes of
transacting business, except that less than a quorum may vote to adjourn the meeting.
9.2 Director Votes. Voting by the Board of Directors shall be made on the basis of
one (1) vote for each Director. A Director, or an Alternate Director, when acting in the absence
of his or her Director, may vote on all matters of Agency business unless disqualified because of
a conflict of interest pursuant to California law or the local conflict of interest code adopted by
the Board of Directors.
9.3 Affirmative Decisions by the Board of Directors.
9.3.1 Majority Approval. Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement, all
affirmative decisions of the Board of Directors shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of
all appointed Directors, provided that if a Director and Alternate Director are both disqualified
from voting on a matter before the Board because of a conflict of interest, that Director shall be
excluded from the calculation of the total number of Directors that constitute a majority.
9.3.2 Super Majority Approval. The affirmative vote of four-fifths of all
appointed Directors shall be required to approve the following: (i) the annual budget; (ii) the
levying of taxes, assessments or fees by the Agency; (iii) the issuance of indebtedness; and (iv)
any stipulation to resolve litigation concerning groundwater rights within or groundwater
management for the Basin, provided that if a Director and Alternate Director are both
disqualified from voting on a matter before the Board because of a conflict of interest, that
Director shall be excluded from the calculation of the total number of Directors that constitute a
four-fifths majority.
Packet Pg. 86
8
Page 9 of 27
9.3.3 Unanimous Approval. A unanimous vote of all appointed Directors shall
be required to approve adoption of the GSP and any amendments thereto and adoption of the
Bylaws and any amendments thereto.
ARTICLE 10
AGENCY ADMINISTRATION, MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
The Board of Directors may select and implement an approach to Agency administration
and management that is appropriate to the circumstances and adapted to the Agency’s needs as
they may evolve over time. Details of the Board’s decision on Agency administration,
management and operation shall be incorporated into the Bylaws and reviewed and revised using
the established process for revising the Bylaws.
ARTICLE 11
BYLAWS
The Board of Directors shall cause to be drafted, approve and amend Bylaws of the
Agency to govern the day-to-day operations of the Agency. The Bylaws shall be adopted at or
before the first anniversary of the Board’s first meeting.
ARTICLE 12
ADVISORY COMMITTEES
12.1 Creation of External Advisory Committees. The Members hereby establish the
San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin Stakeholder Advisory Committee (“Stakeholder
Advisory Committee”) and the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin Technical Advisory
Committee (“Technical Advisory Committee”).
12.1.1 Stakeholder Advisory Committee. The Stakeholder Advisory Committee
shall be composed of members that the Board determines collectively represent the interests of
all beneficial uses and users within the Basin, as more specifically described in Water Code
Section 10723.2. The Stakeholder Advisory Committee shall provide input and feedback to the
Board of Directors on topics related to SGMA implementation within the Basin, including,
without limitation, funding strategies, metering and monitoring of groundwater extractions,
technical studies, development of the GSP and development of regulations implementing the
GSP.
12.1.2 Technical Advisory Committee. The Technical Advisory Committee shall
be composed of members that the Board determines possess technical expertise relevant to
SGMA implementation within the Basin, including, without limitation, expertise in financial
management, water law, irrigation management, policy administration, water resources and
hydrology. The Technical Advisory Committee shall provide input, feedback and
recommendations on topics related to SGMA implementation within the Basin, including,
Packet Pg. 87
8
Page 10 of 27
without limitation, funding strategies, metering and monitoring of groundwater extractions,
technical studies, development of the GSP and development of regulations implementing the
GSP.
12.2 Creation of Internal Advisory Committees. The Board of Directors may from
time to time appoint one or more advisory committees or establish standing or ad hoc
committees composed of less than a quorum of Directors to assist in carrying out the purposes
and objectives of the Agency.
ARTICLE 13
ACCOUNTING PRACTICES
13.1 General. The Board of Directors shall establish and maintain such funds and
accounts as may be required by generally accepted public agency accounting practices. The
Agency shall maintain strict accountability of all funds and a report of all receipts and
disbursements of the Agency.
13.2 Fiscal Year. The Fiscal Year of the Agency shall be July 1 – June 30.
13.3 Appointment of Treasurer and Auditor; Duties. Notwithstanding Section 7.2, the
Treasurer and Auditor shall be appointed in the manner, and shall perform such duties and
responsibilities, specified in Government Code Sections 6505.5 and 6505.6. Until such time as
the Board determines otherwise, the Agency’s Treasurer shall be the Treasurer of the County of
San Luis Obispo and the Agency’s Auditor shall be the Auditor of the County of San Luis
Obispo.
ARTICLE 14
BUDGET AND EXPENSES
14.1 Budgets.
14.1.1 Initial Budget. The initial budget of the Agency for Fiscal Year ending
June 30, 2018 shall not exceed $500,000 unless otherwise agreed to by the Board of Supervisors,
the City Council and each of the Participants.
14.1.2 Regular Budgets. Beginning Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019, no later than sixty
(60) days prior to the end of each Fiscal Year, the Board shall adopt a budget for the Agency for
the ensuing Fiscal Year.
14.2 Initial Contributions. In order to provide the necessary capital to initially fund the
Agency until the Agency is able to secure other funding sources, during Fiscal Year 2017 –
2018, the Members and Participants, as more specifically set forth in the participant agreements,
shall each provide the listed initial contribution to the Agency’s Treasurer no later than thirty
Packet Pg. 88
8
Page 11 of 27
(30) days after the date on which the Agency becomes the exclusive GSA within the boundaries
of the Agency pursuant to Water Code Section 10723.8 provided that each of the Participants
identified in Exhibit A has executed a participant agreement with the Agency:
County $223,437
City $149,948
Edna Valley Growers Mutual Water Company $71,450
Varian Ranch Mutual Water Company $11,513
Edna Ranch Mutual Water Company $11,513
Golden State Mutual Water Company $32,139
If the Agency’s Treasurer does not receive all such contributions on or before ten (10) days after
the due date set forth above and notwithstanding the noticing period set forth in Section 15.3,
either Member may terminate this Agreement upon ten (10) days written notice to the other
Member.
14.3 Reimbursement of Initial Contributions. To the extent the Agency is able to
secure other funding sources, and to the extent permitted by law, the Agency shall reimburse the
initial contributions set forth in Section 14.2 to the Members and the Participants on a
proportionate basis in relation to their initial contributions to the Agency.
14.4 Subsequent Contributions. In is anticipated that the Agency will secure other
funding sources to fund the Agency during Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019 and in subsequent Fiscal
Years. In the event that such other funding sources are not secured, the Board shall adopt a
resolution requesting each of the Members and the Participants to consider additional funding
and demonstrating in detail both the need for the funding and the purposes for which the
additional funding will be utilized, provided that nothing contained in this Section 14.4 shall be
construed as requiring either Member or any of the Participants to agree to any subsequent
contributions. For Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019 and following, both the budget and any cost sharing
agreement shall be determined prior to any financial expenditures or incurrence of any financial
obligations or liabilities by the Board.
ARTICLE 15
LIABILITIES AND TERMINATION
15.1 Liability. In accordance with Government Code Section 6508.1, the debt,
liabilities and obligations of the Agency shall be the debts, liabilities and obligations of the
Agency alone, and not the Members.
15.2 Indemnity. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Agency shall indemnify,
defend and save harmless each Member, each Director, and any officers, agents and employees
Packet Pg. 89
8
Page 12 of 27
of the Agency from and against any and all claims and losses whatsoever, occurring or resulting
to persons, firms or corporations furnishing or supplying work, services, materials or supplies to
the Agency in connection with the performance of this Agreement, and, except as expressly
provided by law, from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any persons, firms
or corporations, for damage, injury, or death arising out of or connected with the Agency’s
performance of its obligations under this Agreement.
15.3 Insurance. The Agency shall procure appropriate policies of insurance providing
coverage to the Agency and its Directors, officers and employees for general liability, errors and
omissions, property, workers compensation, and any other coverage the Board deems
appropriate. Such policies shall name the Members as additional insureds.
15.4 Termination of Agency. This Agreement may be rescinded and the Agency
terminated by either Member effective upon ninety (90) days written notice to the other Member,
except during the outstanding term of any Agency indebtedness. Upon termination of this
Agreement, each Member and each Participant shall remain obligated to pay its share of all
debts, liabilities and obligations of the Agency required of the Member or Participant pursuant to
the terms of this Agreement and the participant agreements, and that were incurred or accrued
prior to the effective date of such termination.
15.4 Return of Contribution. Upon termination of this Agreement, any surplus money
on-hand shall be returned to the Members and Participants in proportion to their contributions
made. The Board of Directors shall first offer any property, works, rights and interest of the
Agency for sale to the Members and Participants on terms and conditions determined by the
Board of Directors. If no such sale to the Members or Participants is consummated, the Board of
Directors shall offer the property, works, rights and interest of the Agency for sale to any non-
Member and non-Participant for good and adequate consideration. The net proceeds from any
sale shall be distributed among the Members and Participants in proportion to their contributions
made.
ARTICLE 16
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
16.1 Opinions and Determinations. Where the terms of this Agreement provide for
action to be based upon judgment, approval, review or determination of either Member hereto,
such terms are not intended to and shall never be construed as permitting such opinion,
judgment, approval, review or determination to be arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.
16.2 Notices. Notices to a Director or Member or hereunder shall be sufficient if
delivered to the respective Director or clerk of the Member agency addressed to the Director or
clerk of the Member agency. Delivery may be accomplished by U.S. Postal Service, private mail
service or electronic mail.
Packet Pg. 90
8
Page 13 of 27
16.3 Amendment. This Agreement may be amended or modified at any time only by
subsequent written agreement approved and executed by all of the Members.
16.4 Entire Agreement. The foregoing constitutes the full and complete Agreement of
the Members. This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, whether in
writing or oral, related to the subject matter of this Agreement that are not set forth in writing
herein.
16.5 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid or
unenforceable, the remaining provisions will remain in force and unaffected to the fullest extent
permitted by law and regulation.
16.6 Assignment. The rights and duties of a Member may not be assigned or delegated
without the written consent of the other Member. Any attempt to assign or delegate such rights
or duties in contravention of this Agreement shall be null and void.
16.7 Member Authorization. The legislative bodies of the Members have each
authorized execution of this Agreement, as evidenced by their respective signatures below.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Members hereto have executed this Agreement by
authorized officials thereof on the dates indicated below.
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
By: ________________________ Date: ________________________
Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
By: ________________________ Date: ________________________
County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors,
County of San Luis Obispo,
State of California
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT:
RITA L. NEAL
County Counsel
By: ________________________ Date: ________________________
Deputy County Counsel
Packet Pg. 91
8
Page 14 of 27
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
By: ________________________ Date: ________________________
Title: ______________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT
By: ________________________ Date: ________________________
Title: ______________________
Packet Pg. 92
8
Page 15 of 27
EXHIBIT A
POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE
Agricultural MWC Group:
Edna Valley Growers Mutual Water Company
Residential MWC Group:
Varian Ranch Mutual Water Company
Edna Ranch Mutual Water Company
PUC Regulated Group:
Golden State Water Company
Packet Pg. 93
8
Page 16 of 27
EXHIBIT B
DRAFT PARTICIPANT AGREEMENT TEMPLATE
PARTICIPANT AGREEMENT
This Participant Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into on this ____ day of
____________, 2017 by and between the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Sustainability
Agency (“Agency”), a joint exercise of powers agency formed under Government Code Sections
6500 et seq. (“Joint Exercise of Powers Act” or “JEPA”), and _______________, a
__________________________ (“Utility”) (referred to individually as “Party” and collectively
as “Parties”).
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (Water Code §§
10720 et seq.) (“SGMA”) requires the establishment of a groundwater sustainability agency
(“GSA”) for all basins designated as medium- or high-priority by the Department of Water
Resources (“DWR”) on or before June 30, 2017; and
B. WHEREAS, SGMA further requires the adoption of a groundwater sustainability
plan (“GSP”) for all basins designated as medium- or high-priority by DWR and not subject to
critical conditions of overdraft on or before January 1, 2022; and
C. WHEREAS, DWR has designated the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater
Basin (Basin Number 3-9) (“Basin”) as a medium-priority basin; and
D. WHEREAS, the County of San Luis Obispo (“County”) and the City of San Luis
Obispo (“City”) (also referred to individually as a “Member” and collectively as “Members”),
each a local agency, as defined in SGMA, have entered into that certain Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement of the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainability
Agency dated as of __________________ (“Joint Powers Agreement”) to form the Agency
pursuant to the authority provided in the JEPA and in SGMA; and
E. WHEREAS, the Agency has elected to be the GSA within the Basin; and
F. WHEREAS, Water Code Section 10723.6(b) permits water corporations
regulated by the Public Utilities Commission (“PUC”) and mutual water companies to participate
in a GSA through a memorandum of agreement or other legal agreement; and
G. WHEREAS, Utility is a ___________________ within the Basin; and
H. WHEREAS, the Joint Powers Agreement authorizes the Agency to enter into an
agreement with certain water corporations regulated by the PUC and certain mutual water
companies; and
Packet Pg. 94
8
Page 17 of 27
I. WHEREAS, Utility desires to become a participant under the Joint Powers
Agreement pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, terms, conditions and covenants
contained herein, the Parties to this Agreement hereby agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1
DEFINITIONS
Capitalized terms used but not separately defined in this Agreement shall have the
meaning assigned to such terms in the Joint Powers Agreement.
ARTICLE 2
TERM
This Agreement shall become effective on the date that the last Party executes this
Agreement and shall remain in effect throughout the term of the Joint Powers Agreement or until
terminated pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of this Agreement. Utility acknowledges that
either Member may terminate the Joint Powers Agreement on ninety (90) days written notice to
the other Member, except during the term of any Agency indebtedness.
ARTICLE 3
PARTICIPATION ON AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
In accordance with the provisions of the Joint Powers Agreement, the Utility shall have
the right to jointly nominate one (1) representative and (1) alternate representative to the Board
of Directors with the other Participants (if any) of the ________ Group for appointment by the
County Board of Supervisors. Said joint nomination(s) shall be provided to the Board of
Supervisors within sixty (60) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement and within sixty (60)
days of any vacancy. The representative for the _______ Group shall be eligible to serve as an
officer of the Agency, and, subject to the limitations set forth in Article 4 of this Agreement and
Water Code Section 10723.6(b), shall have all other rights and duties of members of the Board of
Directors permitted by law.
ARTICLE 4
NO CONFERRAL OF ADDITIONAL POWERS
Nothing contained in this Agreement shall confer on Utility the right to individually
exercise any powers of the Authority or any individual powers of its Members.
Packet Pg. 95
8
Page 18 of 27
ARTICLE 5
PAYMENT OF AGENCY COSTS
5.1 Initial Contributions. In order to provide the necessary capital to fund the Agency
until the Agency is able to secure other funding sources, during Fiscal Year 2017 – 2018, the
Utility, shall provide an initial contribution of $________ to the Agency’s Treasurer no later than
thirty (30) days after the date on which the Agency becomes the exclusive GSA within the
boundaries of the Agency provided that each of the Participants identified in Exhibit A to the
Joint Powers Agreement has executed a participant agreement with the Agency. Utility
acknowledges that if the Agency’s Treasurer does not receive all such contributions within ten
(10) days of the foregoing due date and notwithstanding the noticing period set forth in Section
15.3 of the Joint Powers Agreement, either Member may terminate the Joint Powers Agreement
upon ten (10) days written notice to the other Member.
5.2 Return of Initial Contributions. To the extent the Agency is able to secure other
funding sources, and to the extent permitted by law, the Agency shall reimburse Utility for the
initial contribution set forth in Section 5.1 in an amount proportionate to the initial contributions
of the Members and other Participants.
5.3 Subsequent Contributions. It is anticipated that the Agency will secure other
funding sources to fund the Agency during Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019 and in subsequent Fiscal
Years. In the event that such other funding sources are not secured, the Board shall adopt a
resolution requesting each of the Members and the Participants, including Utility, to consider
additional funding and demonstrating in detail both the need for the funding and the purposes for
which the additional funding will be utilized, provided that nothing contained in this Section 5.3
shall be construed as requiring Utility to agree to any subsequent contributions. Utility
acknowledges that for Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019 and following, both the budget and any cost
sharing agreement shall be determined prior to any financial expenditures or incurrence of any
financial obligations or liability by the Board.
ARTICLE 6
LIABILITY
As set forth in Section 15.1 of the Joint Powers Agreement, to the fullest extent permitted
by law, the Agency shall indemnify, defend and save harmless the Director nominated by the
___ Group from and against any and all claims and losses whatsoever, occurring or resulting to
persons, firms or corporations supplying work, services, materials or supplies to the Agency in
connection with the performance of the Joint Powers Agreement, and, except as expressly
provided by law, from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any persons, firms
Packet Pg. 96
8
Page 19 of 27
or corporations, for damage, injury or death arising out of or connected with the Agency’s
performance of its obligations under the Joint Powers Agreement.
ARTICLE 7
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
As set forth in Water Code Section 10720.5(a), any GSP adopted by the Agency shall be
consistent with Section 2 of Article X of the California Constitution and nothing in this
Agreement modifies the rights or priorities to use or store groundwater consistent with Section 2
of Article X of the California Constitution, with the exception that no extraction of groundwater
between January 1, 2015 and the date the GSP is adopted may be used as evidence of, or to
establish or defend against, any claim of prescription. Likewise, as set forth in Water Code
Section 10720.5(b), nothing in this Agreement or any GSP adopted by the Agency determines or
alters surface water rights or groundwater rights under common law or any provision of law that
determines or grants surface water rights.
ARTICLE 8
TERMINATION
8.1 Termination of Agreement. Utility may terminate this Agreement for any reason
or no reason, effective upon ninety (90) days prior written notice to Agency and each Member,
except during the outstanding term of any Agency indebtedness. Upon termination, Utility shall
remain responsible for its share of expenses and obligations of the Authority under this
Agreement prior to the effective date of such termination. If the Utility is the only member of
the ____ Group, the Director and Alternate Director representing the Group shall be deemed to
have resigned from the Board of Directors concurrent with termination of this Agreement and the
____ Group shall no longer be entitled to have a representative on the Board of Directors. If
there is more than one member of the ______ Group and the Director or Alternate Director
representing the _____ Group is from the Utility, the Director or Alternate Director shall be
deemed to have resigned from the Board, and the remaining member(s) of the Group shall
nominate a new Director and Alternate Director. Utility acknowledges that if a withdrawing
Participant is the only member of a Group, the Members will need to amend the Joint Powers
Agreement to reflect the new composition of the Board of Directors.
8.2 Termination of Agreement due to Termination of Joint Powers Agreement. As
set forth in Section 15.4 of the Joint Powers Agreement, upon termination of this Agreement due
to Termination of the Joint Powers Agreement, any surplus money on-hand shall be returned to
the Members and Participants, including Utility, in proportion to their contributions made. The
Board of Directors shall first offer any property, works, rights and interest of the Agency for sale
to the Members and Participants on terms and conditions determined by the Board of Directors.
Packet Pg. 97
8
Page 20 of 27
If no such sale to the Members or Participants is consummated, the Board of Directors shall offer
the property, works, rights and interest of the Agency for sale to any non-Member and non-
Participant for good and adequate consideration. The net proceeds from any sale shall be
distributed among the Members and Participants in proportion to their contributions made.
ARTICLE 9
PRIMACY OF JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
The obligations of the Agency under this Agreement shall be subject to the provisions of
the Joint Powers Agreement. On advice of counsel, Utility has reviewed the Joint Powers
Agreement and determined that the terms of the Joint Powers Agreement do not conflict with the
terms of this Agreement or with Utility’s obligations hereunder.
ARTICLE 10
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
10.1 Notices. All communications or notices in connection with this Agreement shall
be in writing and either hand-delivered or sent by U.S. first class mail, postage prepaid, or
electronic mail followed by written notice sent by U.S. mail and addressed to the Parties as
follows:
San Luis Obispo Valley GSA County of San Luis Obispo
_________________________ ________________________
_________________________ ________________________
_________________________ _________________________
_________________________ City of San Luis Obispo
_________________________ _________________________
_________________________ _________________________
_________________________ _________________________
10.2 Amendment. This Agreement may be amended or modified at any time only by
subsequent written agreement approved and executed by both Parties.
10.3 Entire Agreement. The foregoing constitutes the full and complete Agreement of
the Parties. This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, whether in
writing or oral, related to the subject matter of this Agreement that are not set forth in writing
herein.
10.4 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid or
unenforceable, the remaining provisions will remain in force and affected to the fullest extent
permitted by law.
Packet Pg. 98
8
Page 21 of 27
10.5 Assignment. The rights and duties of a Party may not be assigned to delegated
without the written consent of the other Party. Any attempt to assign or delegate such rights or
duties in contravention of this Agreement shall be null and void.
10.6 Authorization. Each signatory represents and warrants that he or she has the
appropriate authorization to enter into this Agreement on behalf of the Party for whom he or she
signs.
10.7 Construction and Interpretation. The Parties agree and acknowledge that the
terms of this Agreement have been negotiated by the Parties and the language used in this
Agreement shall be deemed to be the language chosen by the Parties to express their mutual
intent. The Agreement shall be construed without regard to any presumption or rule requiring
construction against the Party causing such instrument to be drafted, or in favor of the Party
receiving a particular benefit under this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement by
authorized officials thereof on the dates indicated below.
AGENCY
By: ________________________ Date: ________________________
Title: ______________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT
By: ________________________ Date: ________________________
Title: ______________________
UTILITY
By: ________________________ Date: ________________________
Title: ______________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT
By: ________________________ Date: ________________________
Title: ______________________
Packet Pg. 99
8
Page 22 of 27
PARTICIPANT AGREEMENT
This Participant Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into on this ____ day of
____________, 2017 by and between the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Sustainability
Agency (“Agency”), a joint exercise of powers agency formed under Government Code Sections
6500 et seq. (“Joint Exercise of Powers Act”), and _______________, a
__________________________ (“Utility”) (referred to individually as “Party” and collectively
as “Parties”).
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (Water Code §§
10720 et seq.) (“SGMA”) requires the establishment of a groundwater sustainability agency
(“GSA”) for all basins designated as medium- or high-priority by the Department of Water
Resources (“DWR”) on or before June 30, 2017; and
B. WHEREAS, SGMA further requires the adoption of a groundwater sustainability
plan (“GSP”) for all basins designated as medium- or high-priority by DWR and not subject to
critical conditions of overdraft on or before January 1, 2022; and
C. WHEREAS, DWR has designated the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater
Basin (Basin Number 3-9) (“Basin”) as a medium-priority basin; and
D. WHEREAS, the County of San Luis Obispo (“County”) and the City of San Luis
Obispo (“City”) (also referred to individually as a “Member” and collectively as “Members”),
each a local agency, as defined in SGMA, have entered into that certain Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement of the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainability
Agency dated as of __________________ (“Joint Powers Agreement”) to form the Agency
pursuant to the authority provided in the Joint Exercise of Powers Act (“JEPA”) and in SGMA;
and
E. WHEREAS, the Agency has elected to be the GSA within the Basin; and
F. WHEREAS, Water Code Section 10723.6(b) permits water corporations
regulated by the Public Utilities Commission (“PUC”) and mutual water companies to participate
in a GSA through a memorandum of agreement or other legal agreement; and
G. WHEREAS, Utility is a ___________________ within the Basin; and
H. WHEREAS, the Joint Powers Agreement authorizes the Agency to enter into an
agreement with certain water corporations regulated by the PUC and certain mutual water
companies; and
I. WHEREAS, Utility desires to become a participant under the Joint Powers
Agreement pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
DRAFT 02 23 17
Packet Pg. 100
8
Page 23 of 27
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, terms, conditions and covenants
contained herein, the Parties to this Agreement hereby agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1
DEFINITIONS
Capitalized terms used but not separately defined in this Agreement shall have the
meaning assigned to such terms in the Joint Powers Agreement.
ARTICLE 2
TERM
This Agreement shall become effective on the date that the last Party executes this
Agreement and shall remain in effect throughout the term of the Joint Powers Agreement or until
terminated pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of this Agreement. Utility acknowledges that
either Member may terminate the Joint Powers Agreement on ninety (90) days written notice to
the other Member, except during the term of any Agency indebtedness.
ARTICLE 3
PARTICIPATION ON AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
In accordance with the provisions of the Joint Powers Agreement, the Utility shall have
the right to jointly nominate one (1) representative and (1) alternate representative to the Board
of Directors with the other Participants (if any) of the ________ Group for appointment by the
County Board of Supervisors. Said joint nomination(s) shall be provided to the Board of
Supervisors within sixty (60) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement and within sixty (60)
days of any vacancy. The representative for the _______ Group shall be eligible to serve as an
officer of the Agency, and, subject to the limitations set forth in Article 4 of this Agreement and
Water Code Section 10723.6(b), shall have all other rights and duties of members of the Board of
Directors permitted by law.
ARTICLE 4
NO CONFERRAL OF ADDITIONAL POWERS
Nothing contained in this Agreement shall confer on Utility the right to individually
exercise any powers of the Authority or any individual powers of its Members.
ARTICLE 5
PAYMENT OF AGENCY COSTS
5.1 Initial Contributions. In order to provide the necessary capital to fund the Agency
until the Agency is able to secure other funding sources, during Fiscal Year 2017-2018, the
Utility, shall provide an initial contribution of $________ to the Agency’s Treasurer no later than
thirty (30) days after the last Participant identified in Section 14.2 of the Joint Powers Agreement
Packet Pg. 101
8
Page 24 of 27
has entered into a participant agreement with the Agency. Utility acknowledges that if the
Agency’s Treasurer does not receive all such contributions on or before _______ and
notwithstanding the noticing period set forth in Section 15.3 of the Joint Powers Agreement,
either Member may terminate the Joint Powers Agreement upon ten (10) days written notice to
the other Member.
5.2 Return of Initial Contributions. To the extent the Agency is able to secure other
funding sources, and to the extent permitted by law, the Agency shall reimburse Utility for the
initial contribution set forth in Section 5.1 in an amount proportionate to the initial contributions
of the Members and other Participants.
5.3 Subsequent Contributions. It is anticipated that the Agency will secure other
funding sources to fund the Agency during Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019 and in subsequent Fiscal
Years. In the event that such other funding sources are not secured, the Board shall adopt a
resolution requesting each of the Members and the Participants, including Utility, to consider
additional funding and demonstrating in detail both the need for the funding and the purposes for
which the additional funding will be utilized, provided that nothing contained in this Section 5.3
shall be construed as requiring Utility to agree to any subsequent contributions. Utility
acknowledges that for Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019 and following, both the budget and any cost
sharing agreement shall be determined prior to any financial expenditures or incurrence of any
financial obligations or liability by the Board.
ARTICLE 6
LIABILITY
As set forth in Section 15.1 of the Joint Powers Agreement, to the fullest extent permitted
by law, the Agency shall indemnify, defend and save harmless the Director nominated by the
___ Group from and against any and all claims and losses whatsoever, occurring or resulting to
persons, firms or corporations supplying work, services, materials or supplies to the Agency in
connection with the performance of the Joint Powers Agreement, and, except as expressly
provided by law, from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any persons, firms
or corporations, for damage, injury or death arising out of or connected with the Agency’s
performance of its obligations under the Joint Powers Agreement.
ARTICLE 7
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
As set forth in Water Code Section 10720.5(a), any GSP adopted by the Agency shall be
consistent with Section 2 of Article X of the California Constitution and nothing in this
Agreement modifies the rights or priorities to use or store groundwater consistent with Section 2
Packet Pg. 102
8
Page 25 of 27
of Article X of the California Constitution, with the exception that no extraction of groundwater
between January 1, 2015 and the date the GSP is adopted may be used as evidence of, or to
establish or defend against, any claim of prescription. Likewise, as set forth in Water Code
Section 10720.5(b), nothing in this Agreement or any GSP adopted by the Agency determines or
alters surface water rights or groundwater rights under common law or any provision of law that
determines or grants surface water rights.
ARTICLE 8
TERMINATION
8.1 Termination of Agreement. Utility may terminate this Agreement for any reason
or no reason, effective upon ninety (90) days prior written notice to Agency, except during the
outstanding term of any Agency indebtedness. Upon termination, Utility shall remain
responsible for its share of expenses and obligations of the Authority under this Agreement prior
to the effective date of such termination. If the Utility is the only member of the ____ Group, the
Director and Alternate Director representing the Group shall be deemed to have resigned from
the Board of Directors concurrent with termination of this Agreement and the ____ Group shall
no longer be entitled to have a representative on the Board of Directors. If there is more than one
member of the ______ Group and the Director or Alternate Director representing the _____
Group is from the Utility, the Director or Alternate Director shall be deemed to have resigned
from the Board, and the remaining member(s) of the Group shall nominate a new Director and
Alternate Director. Utility acknowledges that if a withdrawing Participant is the only member of
a Group, the Members will need to amend the Joint Powers Agreement to reflect the new
composition of the Board of Directors.
8.2 Termination of Agreement due to Termination of Joint Powers Agreement. As
set forth in Section 15.4 of the Joint Powers Agreement, upon termination of this Agreement due
to Termination of the Joint Powers Agreement, any surplus money on-hand shall be returned to
the Members and Participants, including Utility, in proportion to their contributions made. The
Board of Directors shall first offer any property, works, rights and interest of the Agency for sale
to the Members and Participants on terms and conditions determined by the Board of Directors.
If no such sale to the Members or Participants is consummated, the Board of Directors shall offer
the property, works, rights and interest of the Agency for sale to any non-Member and non-
Participant for good and adequate consideration. The net proceeds from any sale shall be
distributed among the Members and Participants in proportion to their contributions made.
ARTICLE 9
PRIMACY OF JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
Packet Pg. 103
8
Page 26 of 27
The obligations of the Agency under this Agreement shall be subject to the provisions of
the Joint Powers Agreement. On advice of counsel, Utility has reviewed the Joint Powers
Agreement and determined that the terms of the Joint Powers Agreement do not conflict with the
terms of this Agreement or with Utility’s obligations hereunder.
ARTICLE 10
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
10.1 Notices. All communications or notices in connection with this Agreement shall
be in writing and either hand-delivered or sent by U.S. first class mail, postage prepaid, or
electronic mail followed by written notice sent by U.S. mail and addressed to the Parties as
follows:
San Luis Obispo Valley GSA
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
10.2 Amendment. This Agreement may be amended or modified at any time only by
subsequent written agreement approved and executed by both Parties.
10.3 Entire Agreement. The foregoing constitutes the full and complete Agreement of
the Parties. This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, whether in
writing or oral, related to the subject matter of this Agreement that are not set forth in writing
herein.
10.4 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid or
unenforceable, the remaining provisions will remain in force and affected to the fullest extent
permitted by law.
10.5 Assignment. The rights and duties of a Party may not be assigned to delegated
without the written consent of the other Party. Any attempt to assign or delegate such rights or
duties in contravention of this Agreement shall be null and void.
10.6 Authorization. Each signatory represents and warrants that he or she has the
appropriate authorization to enter into this Agreement on behalf of the Party for whom he or she
signs.
Packet Pg. 104
8
Page 27 of 27
10.7 Construction and Interpretation. The Parties agree and acknowledge that the
terms of this Agreement have been negotiated by the Parties and the language used in this
Agreement shall be deemed to be the language chosen by the Parties to express their mutual
intent. The Agreement shall be construed without regard to any presumption or rule requiring
construction against the Party causing such instrument to be drafted, or in favor of the Party
receiving a particular benefit under this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement by
authorized officials thereof on the dates indicated below.
AGENCY
By: ________________________ Date: ________________________
Title: ______________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT
By: ________________________ Date: ________________________
Title: ______________________
UTILITY
By: ________________________ Date: ________________________
Title: ______________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT
By: ________________________ Date: ________________________
Title: ______________________
Packet Pg. 105
8
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. (2017 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE A JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE COUNTY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO TO FORM THE SAN LUIS OBISPO VALLEY
GROUNDWATER BASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY
AGENCY
WHEREAS, the California Legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act (SGMA) in September 2014 to take effect on January 1, 2015; and
WHEREAS, SGMA provides statutory authority related to groundwater use and the
creation of groundwater management agencies; and
WHEREAS, The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) is responsible for
prioritizing basins, including the San Luis Obispo (Edna) Valley Basin (medium priority), which
are subject to SGMA compliance; and
WHEREAS, the City overlies part of the San Luis Obispo (Edna) Valley groundwater
basin; and
WHEREAS, the City uses groundwater as part of its multi-source water supply and uses
groundwater for domestic purposes when available; and
WHEREAS, formation of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) is required by
SGMA to cover all areas contained within medium priority designated basins; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the most efficient and effective way to comply
with SGMA’s mandates is to form a Joint Powers Authority with the San Luis Obispo County in
order to serve as the GSA for the San Luis Obispo Valley groundwater basin and to carry out the
requirements of SGMA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Action. The City Council does hereby:
1. Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
(“Agreement”) between the City of San Luis Obispo and the County of San Luis Obispo in a
form substantially in compliance as set forth in Attachment 1, attached hereto and incorporated
herein.
2. Authorize the City Manager to approve minor modifications to the Agreement.
Packet Pg. 106
8
Resolution No. _______________ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
3. Authorize the use of up to $200,000 of Water fund balance as the City of San Luis Obispo’s
portion of initial operating capital for fiscal year 2017/18 for the Groundwater Sustainability
Agency pursuant to the terms and conditions of Article 14 of the Agreement.
4. Authorize the County of San Luis Obispo or, once formed, the San Luis Obispo Valley
Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency, to provide the required notices and
filings as set forth in Article 2 in the Agreement.
5. Authorize the City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Director to take any actions necessary in order
to carry out the approvals set forth herein.
6. Appoints ___________________ as the City’s representative and ___________________ as
the City’s alternate representative to serve on the Board of Directors of the San Luis Obispo
Valley Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency pursuant to the terms of
Article 6 of the Agreement. Such appointment is subject to the successful formation of the
San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency.
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds that adoption of this
Resolution and the formation of a Joint Powers Association to create the San Luis Obispo Valley
Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency is not subject to CEQA. Preparation of an
environmental impact report or negative declaration would be too early in the process to provide
meaningful information for environmental assessments, as described in CEQA Guidelines Section
15004(b).
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________, 2017.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 107
8
Resolution No. _______________ (2017 Series) Page 3
R ______
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 108
8
Meeting Date: 3/7/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Anne Schneider, PE, Chief Building Official
Teresa Purrington, Code Enforcement Supervisor
SUBJECT: AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 15.10 RENTAL HOUSING
INSPECTION PROGRAM OF TITLE 15 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
RECOMMENDATION
Introduce an Ordinance to repeal Chapter 15.10 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
regarding Rental Housing Inspection.
DISCUSSION
Background
For 2013-15 a Major City Goal included a more detailed focus on developing an inspection
program on rental properties. In 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1616 establishing
the current Rental Housing Inspection Program (RHIP).
The City Council conducted a Community Forum on February 16, 2017. At the conclusion of the
meeting, the Council provided direction to staff to suspend all initial inspections pursuant to the
RHIP. Staff was also directed to return to City Council with an ordinance to repeal the RHIP. An
ordinance to repeal Chapter 15.10 is attached for Council’s consideration (Attachment A).
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION.
The project is exempt from environmental review per CEQA Guidelines under the General Rule
Section 15061(b)(3).
FISCAL IMPACT
The RHIP was intended to be revenue neutral for the City after the initial investment to establish
the program. As such, a revenue stream was identified to support the program, which included
annual registration by all participating properties and a specific fee collected at the time of
inspection of the dwelling unit.
A general fund subsidy of $308,764 was budgeted for the first year (i.e. these were the
expenditures projected to be above program revenues). Expenditures included the Capital
Improvement cost of $153,750 for three fleet vehicles and construction cost to add space for four
new staff members at 919 Palm.
Packet Pg. 109
9
The revenue collected for Year 1 was $242,046, which was greater than projected because of
better than expected compliance with the initial registration requirement. This information was
used to update assumptions about program revenues and expenditures for the 2015-17 Financial
Plan supplement (current fiscal year budget). Based on updated information, the second year
budgeted subsidy was projected to be $17,645. General fund subsidies were expected to be
returned to the General Fund, or reimbursed, over time.
FY 15-16 Budget – Yr 1 FY 16-17 Budget – Yr 2
Revenue $146,150 $445,000
Expenditures $454,914 $462,645
General Fund Subsidy $308,764 $17,645
Invoices for registration for the second program year would normally have been issued in
January, however, staff delayed sending these invoices pending City Council review of the
program. Actual revenue for the 2016-17 Fiscal Year to date is $148,288, and expenditures are
$261,221 through February 24, 2017. The full amount of budgeted revenue for the 2016-17 fiscal
year will not be realized and will result in a greater general fund subsidy.
The following table consolidates the program budget across the 2015-17 Financial Plan, with
revenue and expenditures to date.
2015-17 Budget 2015-17 Actual
(through 2/24/17)
Variance
Revenue $591,150 $390,334 ($200,816)
Expenditures $917,559 $599,414 $318,145
General Fund
Subsidy
$326,409 $209,080 $117,329
The table above shows that program expenditures exceed revenues through February 24, 2017,
by $209,080. The total General Fund support for the program has been budgeted at $326,409,
leaving about $117,329 available to conclude program operations within the budgeted
subsidization from the general fund. Expenditures through the end of the fiscal year toward these
activities will be monitored not to exceed this amount.
As previously mentioned, this amount was to be returned to the General Fund through program
operations over time. With the repeal of the RHIP, there will be no revenue available to
reimburse the General Fund for the initial program operating costs. However, there are three new
fleet vehicles and four workstations (computers and phones) that may be reallocated to offset
future expenditures in other General Fund programs.
Attachments:
a - Ordinance - Repeal of RHIP
Packet Pg. 110
9
O _____
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX (2017 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING CHAPTER 15.10 OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING RENTAL
HOUSING INSPECTION
WHEREAS, on May 19, 2015, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo adopted
Ordinance No. 1616 (2015 Series) establishing the Rental Housing Inspection Program (the
“Program”) which became effective on June 18, 2015, and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to repeal the Program based on community feedback
and changed values of the Council since the original adoption of the Program.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The project is exempt from environmental
review per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
SECTION 2. Chapter 15.10 of Title 15 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, entitled
Rental Housing Inspection, is hereby repealed in its entirety.
SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with
the ayes and noes shall be published at least five days prior to its final passage in the Tribune, a
newspaper published and circulated in said City, and the same shall go into effect at the expiration
of 30 days after its final passage. A copy of the full text of this ordinance shall be on file in the
Office of the City Clerk on and after the date following introduction and passage to print and shall
be available to any member of the public.
Packet Pg. 111
9
Ordinance No. ----- (2017 Series) Page 2
O _____
INTRODUCED on the ____ day of ____________ 20__, AND FINALLY ADOPTED
by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the ____ day of 20__, on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
______________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
______________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 112
9
Meeting Date: 3/7/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Anne Schneider, Chief Building Official
Teresa Purrington, Code Enforcement Supervisor
SUBJECT: PROCESS TO DEVELOP CODE ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES FOR
PROACTIVE AND COMPLAINT-BASED ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
HANDLED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
RECOMMENDATION
Receive a presentation on the status of Community Development code enforcement activities in
the City of San Luis Obispo and provide staff with direction on the development of revised code
enforcement priorities for the 2017-19 Financial Plan.
DISCUSSION
On February 16, 2017, the City Council provided staff with direction to stay further
implementation of the Rental Housing Inspection Program (RHIP). The RHIP was developed
and implemented as a result of ongoing work on developing proactive code enforcement
activities in support of “Neighborhood Wellness” budget goals. A report is being prepared that
provides status updates on the Community Development Department’s code enforcement
activities and recommends a process to develop revised priorities for code enforcement activities
in the City with the expectation that the RHIP ordinance will be repealed.
The report will include a background section, an overview of current enforcement methods, a
table identifying the current resources allocated to the program, a summary of public input
provided at the February 16 workshop, and a proposal for public outreach to develop revised
code enforcement priorities to guide City code enforcement into the future. The report will be
provided to City Council by Friday, March 3, 2017.
Packet Pg. 113
10
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 114
10
Meeting Date: 3/7/2017
FROM: Monica Irons, Human Resources Director
Prepared By: Nickole Sutter, Human Resources Analyst II
SUBJECT: ADJUSTMENTS TO THE COMPENSATION OF THE UNREPRESENTED
CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution with a one-year term (January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017) adjusting the
compensation of the Unrepresented Confidential Employees (Attachments A & B).
DISCUSSION
Background
The City’s confidential group includes five employees: two Human Resources Administrative
Assistants, one Human Resources Specialist, one Legal Assistant, and one Administration
Executive Assistant. These employees are designated as unrepresented in accordance with the
Government Code 3507.5 and Employer-Employee Resolution 6620 because they are privy to
information that affects employee relations and labor negotiations. The confidential employees’
compensation and benefits are established by resolution adopted by Council that expired on
December 31, 2016.
In September 2014, Council adopted Labor Relations Objectives (LROs) that provided guidance
and high level direction for negotiations with all employee groups including discussions with
unrepresented employees. The LROs, outlined below, balance recruitment and retention of well-
qualified employees with fiscal responsibility:
1. Maintain fiscal responsibility by ensuring that fair and responsible employee
compensation expenditures are supported by on-going revenues.
2. Continue to make progress in the area of long-term systemic pension cost containment
and reduction, including reversing the unfunded pension liability trend and other actions
consistent with State law.
3. Continue to effectively manage escalating health benefit costs through balanced cost
sharing and other means while maintaining comprehensive health care coverage for all
eligible employees.
4. As necessary to attract and retain well-qualified employees at all levels of the
organization, provide competitive compensation as articulated in the City’s
Compensation Philosophy.
Framing the Recommendation
Confidential employees are unrepresented which means there are no formal negotiations, as there
are for other regular employees. The group met once in November and again in January given
holidays and schedules. The recommendation before Council was developed in January and is in
line with compensation changes other bargaining groups will receive during the same timeframe.
Discussions with the unrepresented confidential staff were collaborative, cooperative, and
Packet Pg. 115
11
supportive of Council objectives.
The following areas helped frame the recommendation for the unrepresented confidential group:
1) Movement in the labor market and Consumer Price Index (CPI), 2) Cost of living adjustments
provided in comparison agencies, 3) Changes in compensation negotiated with other bargaining
groups at the City, and 4) Council adopted LRO. The CPI for the San Francisco -Oakland-San
Jose area has experienced an average increase of 2.7% per year over the past five years.
Similarly, comparison agencies indicate negotiating COLAs in the range of 2% to 4% with 2.5%
being the median COLA for 2016-17. All of the City’s represented groups have current
agreements. The duties of the confidential group most closely align with classifications
represented by SLOCEA; therefore, it is recommended that compensation for the confidential
group keep pace with movement in SLOCEA compensation.
Confidential Resolution
The proposed resolution is for one-year and include the modest changes in compensation
outlined below. No further adjustments in compensation for the confidential group is committed
beyond 2017, allowing further analysis by Finance staff of the recent decision by the California
Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) to reduce the discount rate. While this change
by CalPERS is aimed at ensuring the financial sustainability of the retirement system, it will
have significant financial impacts on the City beginning in 2018-19.
The following is a summary of the key changes included in the Resolution. The Resolution
includes additional revisions as staff did a complete review of compensation and benefit
practices and incorporated more clarity into the resolution:
Term of Resolution
January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017
Salary
2% Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) effective the first full period in January 2017, given a
recommendation was developed in January.
Health Contribution
Effective the first payroll following Council adoption, increase City health insurance
contribution by approximately 5% to match contributions provided to the San Luis Obispo City
Employees Association (SLOCEA). Maintain the current cost-sharing model that increases the
City-contribution by 50% of the average percent increase in CalPERS medical premiums in
December 2017 for 2018 premium increases. Discontinue cash back for employees electing
coverage in the City’s health plan, ensuring compliance with the Affordable Care Act and
limiting overtime costs under FLSA.
Packet Pg. 116
11
FISCAL IMPACT
The cumulative annual ongoing total compensation cost after all items are implemented is
approximately $20,000. Funding is available in the current 2015-17 Financial Plan for cost
increases resulting during that timeframe and subsequent costs are modeled in the Five-Year
Fiscal Forecast.
ALTERNATIVES
Do not approve recommended changes to the resolution. Instead, adopt a resolution that
continues unrepresented confidential employee compensation without changes. This alternative
is not recommended as the resolution is in line with previous Council direction and maintains
parity with other employee groups.
Attachments:
a - Confidential Resolution 2017
b - Exhibit A-Confidentials 2017
Packet Pg. 117
11
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. (2017 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, REGARDING COMPENSATION FOR THE
UNREPRESENTED CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES AND SUPERSEDING
PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT
WHEREAS, the City has designated the following classifications as confidential
employees pursuant to the Government Code 3507.5 and Employer-Employee Resolution 6620:
Administration Executive Assistant, Human Resources Administrative Assistant I, II, III, Human
Resources Specialist, Legal Assistant, and Legal Assistant/Paralegal; and
WHEREAS, confidential employees are precluded from collective bargaining due to their
proximity to labor negotiations, and therefore are not governed by a collective bargaining
agreement, and
WHEREAS, the City Council is committed to providing competitive compensation as
provided in the City’s adopted Compensation Philosophy.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo hereby revises unrepresented confidential compensation as follows:
SECTION 1. The City agrees to increase the salaries of confidential employees with a
2% cost of living (COLA) effective the first full pay period in January 2017; and
SECTION 2. The City shall continue to provide employees certain fringe benefits as set
forth in Exhibit “A”, fully incorporated by reference; and
SECTION 3. The Director of Finance shall adjust the appropriate accounts to reflect the
compensation changes; and
SECTION 4. This Resolution shall be in effect from January 1, 2017 through December
31, 2017.
Upon motion of ___________________________, seconded by ________________________, and
on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Packet Pg. 118
11
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 7th day of March, 2017.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 119
11
EXHIBIT “A”
Page 1 of 8
CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES FRINGE BENEFITS 2015-20167
Section A Medical, Dental, Vision
The City shall establish and maintain medical, dental and vision insurance plans for confidential
employees and their dependents. The City reserves the right to choose the method of insuring
and plans to be offered.
PERS Health Benefit Program
The City has elected to participate in the PERS Health Benefit Program. The City shall
contribute an equal amount towards the cost of medical coverage under the Public Employee’s
Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) for both active employees and retirees. The City’s
contribution toward coverage under PEMHCA shall be the statutory minimum contribution
amount established by CalPERS on an annual basis. The City's contribution will come out of
that amount the City currently contributes to employees as part of the City’s Cafeteria Plan. The
cost of the City's participation in PERS will not require the City to ex pend additional funds
toward health insurance. In summary, this cost and any increases will be borne by the
employees.
Health Insurance Benefits for Domestic Partners
The City has adopted a resolution electing to provide health insurance benefits to domestic
partners (Section 22873 of the PEMHCA).
The City has elected to participate in the PERS Health Benefit Program pursuant to the Public
Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) at the PERS minimum contribution
rates, currently $122.00 per month for active employees and retirees.
Conditional Opt Out
Employees who at initial enrollment or during the annual open enrollment period, complete an
affidavit and provide proof of other minimum essential coverage for themselves and their
qualified dependents (tax family) that is not a qualified health plan coverage under an
exchange/marketplace or an individual plan, will be allowed to waive medical coverage for
themselves and their qualified dependents (tax family).
The monthly conditional opt-out amount is $200.
The conditional opt-out incentive shall be paid in cash (taxable income) to the employee. The
employee must notify the City within 30 days of the loss of other minimum essential coverage.
The conditional opt-out payment shall no longer be payable, if the employee and family
members cease to be enrolled in other minimum essential coverage. Employees receiving the
conditional opt-out amount will also be assessed $16.00 per month to be placed in the Retiree
Health Insurance Account. This account will be used to fund the City's contribution toward
retiree premiums and the City's costs for the Public Employee's Contingency Reserve Fund and
the Administrative Costs. However, there is no requirement that these funds be used exclusively
for this purpose nor any guarantee that they will be sufficient to fund retiree health costs,
although they will be used for negotiated employee benefits.
Packet Pg. 120
11
Resolution No. (20157 Series) EXHIBIT “A”
Confidential’ s Fringe Benefits 2015 - 20162017
Page 2 of 8
Employees with proof of medical insurance elsewhere are not required to participate in the
medical insurance plan and may receive the unused portion of the City’s contribution (after
dental and vision insurance is deducted) in cash in accordance with the City’s cafeteria plan.
Those employees will be assessed $16.00 per month to be placed in the Retiree Health Insurance
Account. This account will be used to fund the Cit y’s contribution toward retiree premiums and
the City’s costs for the Public Employees’ Contingency Reserve Fund and Administrative Costs.
However, there is no requirement that these funds be used exclusively for this purpose, nor any
guarantee that they will be sufficient to fund retiree health costs, although they will be used for
employee benefits.
Dental and Vision Insurance/Dependent Coverage
Effective the first full month following the adoption of this resolutionfor May 2017
premiumsMarch 23, 2017, employee participation in the City's dental and vision plans is
optional. Employees who elect coverage shall pay the dental and/or eye premium by payroll
deductions on a pre-tax basis through the City’s Cafeteria Plan. Employees will be required to
participate in the City’s dental and vision plans at the employee-only rate. Should they elect to
cover dependents in the City’s dental and vision plans, they may do so, even if they do not have
dependent coverage for medical insurance.
Employees shall participate in term life insurance of $4,000 through payroll deduction as a part
of the cafeteria plan.
Section B Cafeteria Plan ContributionHealth Flex Allowance
Employees electing medical coverage in the City’s plans shall receive a health flex allowance, as
defined by the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), and shall purchase such coverage through the
City’s Cafeteria Plan. If the health flex allowance is less than the cost of the medical plan, the
employee shall have the opportunity to pay the difference between the health flex allowance and
the premium cost on a pre-tax basis through the City’s Cafeteria Plan. Effective December 2017
(for January 2018 premiums), iIf the premium cost for medical coverage is less than the health
flex allowance, the employee shall not receive any unused health flex in the form of cash or
purchase additional benefits under the Cafeteria Plan.
The Effective the first full pay period following the adoption of this resolution, the monthly
health flex allowance amounts City’s contribution to the Cafeteria Plan for regular, full-time
employees are as followswill increase as shown below:
Level of Coverage
*with no cash back option
effective Dec 2017
Current Monthly Rates Monthly Rates Upon
Council Adoption
Employee Only $514 $539
Employee Plus One $1,017 $1,066
Family $1,375 $1,442
Opt-Out $200 monthly
Employee Only $539469 monthly
Employee + 1 $1,066928 monthly
Packet Pg. 121
11
Resolution No. (20157 Series) EXHIBIT “A”
Confidential’ s Fringe Benefits 2015 - 20162017
Page 3 of 8
Employee + Family $1,4421255 monthly
“Grandfathered” $790 monthly
Effective December 2015 (for the January 2016 premium) and effective December 20176 (for
the January 20187 premium), the City’s total Cafeteria Planhealth flex allowance for group
medical coverage contribution shall be modified by an amount equal to one-half of the average
percentage increase for family coverage in the PERS health plans available in San Luis Obispo
County. For example: if three plans were available and the year-to-year changes were +10%,
+15%, and +20% respectively, the City’s contribution would be increased by 7.5% (10% + 15%
+ 20% ÷ 3 = 15% x 1/2).
Employees hired on September 1, 2008 or thereafter who elect not to be covered and opt out of
the City medical plan will be required to provide proof of medical insurance elsewhere and
receive a $200 per month cafeteria contribution.
Employees hired prior to September 1, 2008 who elected either employee only medical coverage
or who elect to opt out of the City medical plan with proof of medical insurance elsewhere shall
be “grandfathered” in at the $790 per month contribution amount.
Less than full-time employees shall receive a prorated share of the City’s contribution.
The City agrees to continue its contribution to the cafeteria planhealth flex allowance for two (2)
pay periods in the event that an employee has exhausted all paid time off and leave approved under
the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the California Family Rights Act (CFRA)
due to an employee's catastrophic illness. That is, the employee shall receive regular City health
flex allowance for the first two (2) pay periods following the pay period in which the employee’s
accrued leave balances reach zero (0) and FMLA/CFRA benefits have been exhausted.
Section C Life and Disability Insurance
The City shall provide the following special insurance benefits:
1. Long-term disability insurance providing 66 2/3% of gross salary (maximum benefit
$5,000 per month) to age 65 for any sickness or accident, subject to the exclusions in
the long-term disability policy, after a 30-day waiting period.
2. In addition to $4,000 term life insurance purchased by the employee , the City
provides through the cafeteria plan $25,000 term life insurance, including accidental
death and dismemberment through the City’s Cafeteria Plan.
Section D Retirement
Employees hired before December 6, 2012
The City agrees to provide the Public Employees' Retirement System’s 2.7% at age 55 plan to all
eligible employees including the amendments permitting conversion of unused sick leave to
additional retirement credit, the 1959 Ssurvivor's Bbenefit – Level Four (4th level), one- year
Packet Pg. 122
11
Resolution No. (20157 Series) EXHIBIT “A”
Confidential’ s Fringe Benefits 2015 - 20162017
Page 4 of 8
final compensation, the Military Service Credit option, and the Pre-Retirement Option 2 Death
Benefit.
Effective June 27, 2013, employees covered by the 2.7% at 55 plan will pay the full eight percent
member contribution to PERS.
The employee pays to PERS their contribution; as allowed under Internal Revenue Service Code
Section 414 (h) (2) the contribution is made on a pre-tax basis.
“Classic Members” hired on or after December 6, 2012
For “Classic Members” hired on or after December 6, 2012, the City will provide the PERS 2%
at 60 retirement plan using the highest three- year average as final compensation. The second
tier formula will include the following amendments: conversion of unused sick leave to
additional retirement credit, the 1959 Ssurvivor's Bbenefit – Level Four (4th level), the Military
Service Credit option, and the Pre-Retirement Option 2 Death Benefit. Employees hired under
this plan will pay the full member contribution required under the plan, presently seve n percent
(7%). CalPERS determines who is a “classic member” within the meaning of the California
Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA).
The employee pays to PERS their contribution; as allowed under Internal Revenue Service Code
Section 414 (h) (2) the contribution is made on a pre-tax basis.
New Members
For all employees who CalPERS determines are “new members” within the meaning of the
PEPRA, the City will provide the PERS 2% at 62 retirement plan using the highest three- year
average as final compensation.
Effective upon their date of hire, new members will pay 50% of the total normal cost of the
member contribution, as determined by CalPERS.
The employee pays to PERS their contribution; as allowed under Internal Revenue Service Code
Section 414 (h) (2) the contribution is made on a pre-tax basis.
Section E Vacation
Vacation leave is governed by Ssection 2.36.440 of the Municipal Code, except that it may be
taken after the completion of the sixth calendar month of service since the benefit date or earlier
with department head authorization. Each confidential employee shall accrue vacation leave
with the pay at the rate of 12 days (96 hours) per year of continuous service since the benefit date
for the first five years, 15 days (120 hours) per year upon completion of five years, 18 days (144
hours) per year upon completion of ten years, and 20 days (160 hours) upon completion of
twenty years. Vacation leave shall be accrued as earned each payroll periodsemi-monthly
provided that not more than twice the annual rate (not including floating holiday leave) may be
carried over to a new calendar year.
Packet Pg. 123
11
Resolution No. (20157 Series) EXHIBIT “A”
Confidential’ s Fringe Benefits 2015 - 20162017
Page 5 of 8
Vacation schedules for confidential employees shall be based upon the needs of the City and
then, insofar as possible, upon the wishes of the employee. A department head may not deny a
confidential employee’s vacation request if such denial will result in the loss of vacation accrual
by the employee, except that, a department head may approve a two-month extension of
maximum vacation accrual. However, in no event shall more than one such extension be granted
in any calendar year.
Confidential employees are eligible, once annually in December, to request payment for up to 40
hours of unused vacation provided that an employee’s overall performance and attendance
practices are satisfactory.
Section F Administrative Leave
Confidential employees shall be granted 12 hours of administrative leave per calendar yearthe
first full pay period in January.
Administrative leave hours shall be pro-rated on a monthly basis when a confidential employee
is appointed or leaves employment during the calendar year. The employee’s final check will be
adjusted to reflect the pro-rated hours, however there is no provision to receive cash payment for
unused administrative hours. Unused administration leave will not be carried over year to year
but can be taken through the pay period that December 31st falls within.
Section G Holidays
Confidential employees shall receive eleven (11) fixed plus two (2) floating holidays per year.
The following days of each year are designated as paid holidays:
January 1 – New Year’s Day
Third Monday in January – Martin Luther King Jr. Birthday
Third Monday in February – Presidents’ Day
Last Monday in May – Memorial Day
July 4 – Independence Day
First Monday in September – Labor Day
November 11 – Veteran’s Day
Fourth Thursday in November – Thanksgiving Day
Friday after Thanksgiving
December 25 – Christmas
One half day before Christmas
One half day before New Year’s Day
When a holiday falls on a Saturday, the preceding Friday shall be observed. When a holiday
falls on a Sunday, the following Monday shall be observed. A holiday shall be defined as eight
(8) hours of paid time off for regular full time employees.
When Christmas or New Year’s Holiday falls on a Tuesday or Thursday, the City reserves the
right to close non-essential City services and offices on Monday or Friday (the day adjacent to
the observed holiday). Essential City services are determined at the discretion of the Department
Packet Pg. 124
11
Resolution No. (20157 Series) EXHIBIT “A”
Confidential’ s Fringe Benefits 2015 - 20162017
Page 6 of 8
Head. Employees scheduled to work in non-essential functions on the days adjacent to the paid
holidays would be required to use appropriate personal leave or take the days as non-pay. The
City would notify employees of closure of non-essential City services and offices no later than
October 31st of the same year in order to provide employees with ample time to plan accordingly.
Confidential employees shall receive 11 fixed plus 2 floating holidays per year. The two (2)
floating holidays shall be accrued on a semi-monthly basis and added to the vacation accrual.
Section H Sick Leave
Sick leave is governed by Ssection 2.36.420 of the Municipal Code. An employee shall accrue
sick leave with pay at the rate of twelve (12) days or the prorated shift equivalent per year of
continuous service since the benefit date. An employee may take up to 48 hours per calendar
year of sick leave if required to be away from the job to personally care for a member of his/her
immediate family as defined in Section 2.36.420, Labor Code 233 and/or Assembly Bill 1522.
This may be extended to 56 hours if a household family member is hospitalized and the
employee submits written verification of such hospitalization.
In conjunction with existing leave benefits, confidential employees with one year of City service
who have worked at least 1,250 hours in the previous year may be eligible for up to 12 weeks of
Family/Medical Leave in accordance with the federal Family and Medical Leave Act and the
California Family Rights Act.
Sick leave may be used to be absent from duty due to the death of a me mber of the employee’s
immediate family as defined in Section 2.36.420, provided such leave shall not exceed forty
working hours for each incident. The employee may be required to submit proof of relative’s
death before being granted sick leave pay. False information concerning the death or
relationship shall be cause for discharge.
According to the following schedule, Upon termination of employment by death or retirement, a
percentage of the dollar value of the employee’s accumulated sick leave will may be paid to the
employee if the employee requests upon termination by retirement, and will be paid to, or the
designated beneficiary or beneficiaries upon termination by death of the employeeaccording to
the following schedule:
(A) Death – 25%
(B) Retirement and actual commencement of CalPERS benefits:
(1) After ten years of continuous employment – 10%
(2) After twenty years of continuous employment – 15%
(3) After twenty-five years of continuous employment – 20%
(4) After thirty years of continuous employment – 25%
Section I Workers’ Compensation Leave
An employee who is absent from duty because of an on-the-job injury in accordance with State
workers’ compensation law and is not eligible for disability payments under Labor Code Section
Packet Pg. 125
11
Resolution No. (20157 Series) EXHIBIT “A”
Confidential’ s Fringe Benefits 2015 - 20162017
Page 7 of 8
4850 shall be paid the difference between his/her base salary and the amount provided by
workers’ compensation law during the first ninety (90) business days of such temporary
disability absence. Eligibility for workers’ compensation leave requires an open workers’
compensation claim.
Section J Overtime
Definition
Overtime is defined as all hours preauthorized by management and worked by the employee in
excess of forty (40) hours worked in a work week.
Holidays and sick leave will be counted as hours worked for purposes of overtime. All overtime
shall be authorized by the department head or designee prior to being compensated.
Compensation
All overtime as defined in this Section shall be paid in cash at one and one half (1 1/2) the
employee's base rate of pay. All overtime shall be compensated to the nearest five (5) minutes
worked.
Separate and apart from the City's contractual obligation to pay overtime in accordance with this
Section, the City is obligated to calculate and pay, at a minimum, FLSA overtime based on the
federally defined regular rate of pay.
Compensatory Time Off (CTO)
A confidential employee eligible for overtime compensation as defined in this Section may elect
compensation in the form of time off (CTO). An employee may not be compensated in CTO for
more than sixty (60) hours of overtime worked in the calendar year. Accumulated CTO may be
taken through December 31st of each calendar year. Accumulated CTO not taken by midnight
December 31st shall be compensated in cash at straight time. Such compensation shall be paid
in January of the following year.
Work Week for Calculation of Overtime
For all confidential employees working a regular 5/40 work schedule or a 4/10 alternative work
schedule, the work week for the purpose of calculating overtime as defined in this Section shall
be seven consecutive days, beginning at 12:00 am Thursday and ending at 11:59 pm Wednesday.
For all confidential employees working a 9/80 alternative work schedule, the work week for the
purpose of calculating overtime as defined in this Section shall be seven consecutive days,
beginning exactly four hours into their eight-hour shift on the day of the week which constitutes
their alternative regular day off.
Section K Work Out-of-Classification
An out-of-class assignment is the full-time performance of all the significant duties of an
available, funded position in one classification by an individual in a position of another
classification. An employee assigned in writing by management to work out-of-class in a
position that is assigned a higher pay range which is vacant pending an examination or is vacant
Packet Pg. 126
11
Resolution No. (20157 Series) EXHIBIT “A”
Confidential’ s Fringe Benefits 2015 - 20162017
Page 8 of 8
due to an extended sick or disability leave, shall receive no less than five percent (5%), but in no
case more than the top salary of the higher range, in addition to their regular base rate
commencing on the eleventh consecutive workday of the out-of-class assignment.
Packet Pg. 127
11
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 128
11