HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-18-2017 Agenda Packet
Tuesday, April 18, 2017
4:00 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
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS
1. PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF THE CITYWIDE USER AND REGULATORY
FEE STUDY, PREPARED TO INFORM A PROPOSED UPDATE TO FEES
CHARGED FOR SERVICES (JOHNSON/CARLONI/BRADFORD – 30 MINUTES)
Recommendation
Adopt the draft Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo, California, amending the City’s master fee schedule with updated user and
regulatory fees based on the fee study prepared by NBS Government Finance Group, as
represented in the City Council agenda report and attachments dated April 18, 2017,”
including the recommendation regarding revised appeal fees. The resolution also includes
adjustments to Parks and Recreation cost recovery policies and an increase to 100% cost
recovery for state-mandated multi-dwelling inspections for the Fire Department.
2. STRATEGIC BUDGET DIRECTION AND MAJOR CITY GOAL WORK
PROGRAMS FOR THE 2017-19 FINANCIAL PLAN (LICHTIG/BRADFORD/STECK
– 60 MINUTES)
Recommendation
1. Review updated General Fund Five-Year Fiscal Forecast and Enterprise Funds
forecasts; and
2. Review and provide guidance to the City Man ager regarding proposed Major City
Goals and Other Important Objective work programs; and
Packet Pg 1
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 18, 2017 Page 2
3. Review and provide guidance to the City Manager regarding the recommended use and
allocation of one-time and ongoing budget resources to fund proposed Significant
Operating Program Changes (SOPCs), the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Fleet
Replacement Fund, Information Technology (IT) Replacement Fund, and Major
Facility Replacement Fund; and provide direction whether Parks Element Update
should be funded; and
4. Approve a policy for the Insurance Benefit Fund, establishing funding and fund balance
requirements for newly formed Excess Liability Insurance program; and
5. Receive an update on key informational items regarding future financial uncertainties
and challenges.
*** Item to be continued to the 6:00 p.m. regular meeting ***
ADJOURN TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 18, 2017
Packet Pg 2
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 18, 2017 Page 3
6:00 PM
REGULAR MEETING
Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
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 Aaron Gomez
PRESENTATIONS
3. PRESENTATION BY PETER WILLIAMSON REPRESENTING SAN LUIS
OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (SLOCOG), REGARDING
RIDESHARE'S BIKE MONTH (HARMON/WILLIAMSON – 5 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 3
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 18, 2017 Page 4
4. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
Recommendation
Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
5. ACCEPTANCE OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 3057 (3080
ROCKVIEW, TR 202-13) (CODRON / DOSTALEK)
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, accepting the public improvements, certifying completion of the private
improvements, and authorizing release of the securities for Tract 3057 (3080 Rockview
Place, TR 202-13).”
6. MADONNA – LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD (LOVR) REHABILITATION PROJECT,
SPECIFICATION NO. 91511 (GRIGSBY / HORN / NELSON)
Recommendation
1. Approve plans and specifications for the Madonna – Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR)
Rehabilitation Project, Specification Number. 91511; and
2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids; and
3. Authorize the City Manager to award the construction contract including the Base Bid
and any Additive Alternatives if the lowest responsible bid is within the Publicly
Disclosed Funding Amount of $3,500,000.
7. 2015-16 CENTRAL SERVICE COST ALLOCATION PLANS AND COST OF
SERVICES FEE CALCULATION (BRADFORD / PARDO)
Recommendation
1. Approve the 2015-16 Central Service Cost Allocation Plans dated March 2017; and
2. Approve the Cost of Services Fee Calculation.
Packet Pg 4
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 18, 2017 Page 5
8. REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS - TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND
ENGINEERING ON-CALL SERVICES (GRIGSBY / WHEELER)
Recommendation
1. Approve the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to provide Transportation Planning &
Engineering On-Call Services, Specification No. 100.50500.7227; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute agreements with selected consulting firms; and
3. Authorize the Finance Director or their designee to execute and amend Purchase Orders
for individual consultant services contracts in an amount not-to-exceed the authorized
project budget; and
4. Authorize the City Manager, or her designee, to amend or extend the agreement for
services in accordance with its terms and within the available annual budget.
PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS
9. REPORT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE SECTION 9212 ON
THE PROPOSED INITIATIVE MEASURE TO REPEAL CHAPTER 15.10 OF THE
SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED “RENTAL HOUSING
INSPECTION” AND TO ADOPT NEW CHAPTER 15.10 ENTITLED “NON-
DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING.” (CODRON / DIETRICK – 90 MINUTES)
Recommendation
Receive a report on the potential impacts of the proposed Initiative Measure Repealing
Chapter 15.10 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code entitled “Rental Housing Inspection”
(RHIP) and adopting New Chapter 15.10 Entitled “Non-Discrimination in Housing.”
10. INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE REGARDING RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION
AND NON-DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING OR PROVIDE DIRECTION TO
RETURN WITH DOCUMENTS TO ORDER A SPECIAL ELECTION (JOHNSON /
GALLAGHER – 20 MINUTES)
Recommendation
1. Introduce an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo, California, abolishing Chapter 15.10 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code entitled “Rental Housing Inspection” and adopting a new chapter 15.10 entitled
“Non-Discrimination in Housing”; or
2. Direct the City Clerk to prepare the necessary documents to call for an All Mail Ballot
Special Election pursuant to Elections Code § 1405(a).
Packet Pg 5
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 18, 2017 Page 6
CONTINUED BUSINESS ITEM 2 FROM THE 4:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING
2. STRATEGIC BUDGET DIRECTION AND MAJOR CITY GOAL WORK
PROGRAMS FOR THE 2017-19 FINANCIAL PLAN (LICHTIG/BRADFORD/STECK
– 60 MINUTES)
Recommendation
1. Review updated General Fund Five-Year Fiscal Forecast and Enterprise Funds
forecasts; and
2. Review and provide guidance to the City Manager regarding proposed Major City
Goals and Other Important Objective work programs; and
3. Review and provide guidance to the City Manager regarding the recommended use and
allocation of one-time and ongoing budget resources to fund proposed Significant
Operating Program Changes (SOPCs), the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Fleet
Replacement Fund, Information Technology (IT) Replacement Fund, and Major
Facility Replacement Fund; and provide direction whether Parks Element Update
should be funded; and
4. Approve a policy for the Insurance Benefit Fund, establishing funding and fund balance
requirements for newly formed Excess Liability Insurance program; and
5. Receive an update on key informational items regarding future financial uncertainties
and challenges.
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 6
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 18, 2017 Page 7
ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 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 7
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 8
Meeting Date: 4/18/2017
FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager
Xenia Bradford, Interim Finance Director
Prepared By: Marcus Carloni, Special Projects Manager
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE COST OF SERVICE FEE STUDY PREPARED TO
INFORM A PROPOSED UPDATE OF CITYWIDE USER AND
REGULATORY FEES.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the draft Resolution (Attachment A) updating the master fee schedule’s user and
regulatory fees as shown in the draft fee schedule (Exhibit 1 within Attachment A) including the
recommendation regarding revised appeal fees. The resolution also includes adjustments to Parks
and Recreation cost recovery policies (Exhibit 2 within Attachment A) and an increase to 100%
cost recovery for state-mandated multi-dwelling inspections for the Fire Department.
DISCUSSION
Background
In September 2016, the City contracted with NBS Government Finance Group (NBS) and
initiated the process to review and update the City’s user and regulatory fees (Planning,
Development Review Engineering, Public Works, Fire, Police, Utilities, Parks & Recreation, and
General administrative services like business license processing).
Summary of Fee Study Findings and Recommendations
The fee study prepared by NBS is provided in Attachment D. NBS’s study methodology is
discussed in detail in section 1 and department by department discussions are provided in
sections 2 through 9. A draft fee schedule showing existing fees compared to fees at staff
recommended fee levels is provided as Exhibit 1 within Attachment A to this report. The
following is a summary table from the report of results for each service area studied:
Department / Division
Estimated
Annual
Current Fee
Revenue
Estimated
Annual Full
Cost Recovery
Fee Revenue
Current
Cost
Recovery
%1
Estimated
Annual
Recommended
Fee Revenue
Recommended
Cost Recovery
%
Finance $ 442,998 $ 440,289 101% $ 439,240 100%
Development Review (Planning) $ 1,243,660 $ 1,234,476 101% $ 1,170,708 95%
Development Review (Engineering) $ 585,979 $ 957,380 61% $ 942,263 98%
Public Works $ 747,631 $ 655,905 114% $ 654,365 100%
Utilities $ 316,722 $ 773,277 41% $ 769,215 99%
Fire Prevention $ 828,777 $ 971,760 85% $ 861,641 89%
Police $ 90,825 $ 135,311 67% $ 110,037 81%
Total $ 4,256,592 $ 5,168,397 82% $ 4,947,470 96%
1. Recovery at greater than 100% generally indicates a change in time spent on a project in previous years vs. time spent on
the same type of project currently; less time spent on a given task reduces the cost of providing that service. Example:
process improvements or computer system enhancements make certain tasks faster.
Packet Pg 9
1
Note: The Parks & Recreation Departments’ fee review estimates $1,810,000 in annual revenues at recommended fee
levels. An additional $170,000 is costs could be recovered, bringing the total estimated revenues at recommended fee to
$5,117,470.
As shown, the City is recovering approximately 82% of costs associated with providing user and
regulatory fee related services. At the February 21, 2017 study session, the City Council
indicated support for the recommended fee levels. If the City Council elects to adopt these fee
levels (Exhibit 1 within Attachment A), $691,000 in additional revenue could be recovered, for a
total of $4,947,470 which is a 96% cost recovery outcome for services provided. Additionally,
$170,000 in estimated revenues could be recovered when including Parks and Recreation
projections; totaling $861,000 in additional revenues. Furthermore, an additional $167,165 in
costs could be recovered with inclusion of the Information Technology Surcharge discussed
below, totaling $1,028,165 in additional revenues; bringing the total estimated yearly fee revenue
to $5,284,635.
City Council Direction (February 21, 2017 Study Session)
On February 21, 2017, the City Council held a study session (for detailed background
information and discussion see Attachment C, Study Session Staff Report) and ultimately
supported the recommended cost recovery levels/fee amounts with some adjustments (see
discussion in “Response to City Council Direction” below). The City Council also indicated
support for the cost recovery policy changes proposed by Parks and Recreation and the change to
100% cost recovery for annual state-mandated multi-dwelling fire and life safety inspections
proposed by the Fire Department. Council also indicated support for the continued use of the
“split fee” calculation for planning entitlements. Discussion focused on appeal fees with Council
directing staff to explore alternatives (see appeal fee discussion below).
Response to City Council Direction
1. Mills Act Participation Fee (current fee: $3,984)
Direction: Look at raising the cost recovery amount for the subject fee since participation
in the Mills Act program results in savings to the applicant via property tax reductions for
preservation of historic resources (previous recommendation was 25% recovery with a
fee of $693, Council expressed interest in closer to 50% recovery).
Response: 50% cost recovery for the Mills Act Participation fee would result in a fee of
$1,385 which is within the range of sampled communities.1
2. Appeal Fee (current fee: $281)
Direction: Explore alternatives to the 25% recovery amount for the appeal fee, especially
at Tier 1. Goals: an appeal fee amount 1) should not overly encourage nor discourage
appeals, 2) should not unnecessarily distribute costs to the City, and 3) should not
discourage housing or other important City goals.
Response: Based on Council discussion, staff moved forward with a higher fee for
1 Staff sampled 20 communities resulting in an average fee of $1,193. The highe st application fees were around
$3600 (Berkeley and Riverside) and the lowest application fees ranged from “no fee” to $100 (Napa).
Packet Pg 10
1
applicant appeals (shown in green) and a lowered fee for non-applicant appeals (shown in
blue) as illustrated in the below table (cost recovery range shown in yellow).
Staff included the above table in outreach efforts. The amounts shown above in the non-
applicant and applicant fee columns represent staff’s current recommendation to Council.
In general, feedback from the resident group included general support for the
applicant/non-applicant fee structure illustrated above, with a specific request to further
lower the fee for non-applicants to the 10-15% range. Residents, in public testimony and
during subsequent meetings continue to perceive the higher appeal fee as a deterrent to
filing an appeal.
Feedback from the development group indicated frustration with the appeal process in
general, and concern about the recommended applicant/non-applicant appeal fee
structure. While the development group understands the proposed cost recovery structure,
and is not specifically opposed to the recommended fee amount for applicant appeals
(50% of the cost of service), they did express concern about the lower fee that would be
assessed for non-applicant appeals. The development group wanted staff and City
decision makers to understand that when an appeal is filed, it results in significant costs
to the developer both in terms of the time delay and uncertainty associated with the
appeal process, as well as the direct costs for consultants and additional materials needed
for another public hearing. For these reasons, the development group was opposed to the
lower cost recovery structure for non-applicant appeals.
It appears the highlighted fee amounts in the table are at a point that do not overly
encourage nor discourage appeals, as detrimental concerns were not provided during
outreach efforts. Currently, the suggested appeal fee amounts are included in the draft fee
schedule.
Other Key Changes
1. Information Technology Surcharge (Energov)
Situation: Further staff evaluation found that City costs (program purchase, maintenance,
Non-
Applicant
Fee
Applicant
Fee 10%15%20%25%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
Cost of
Service
(100%)
Tier 1 623$ 1,557$ 311$ 467$ 623$ 779$ 934$ 1,246$ 1,557$ 1,868$ 2,180$ 2,491$ 2,803$ 3,114$
Tier 2 346$ 865$ 173$ 260$ 346$ 433$ 519$ 692$ 865$ 1,038$ 1,211$ 1,384$ 1,557$ 1,730$
Tier 3 303$ 303$ 121$ 182$ 242$ 303$ 363$ 484$ 606$ 727$ 848$ 969$ 1,090$ 1,211$
Tier 4 130$ 130$ 52$ 78$ 104$ 130$ 156$ 208$ 260$ 311$ 363$ 415$ 467$ 519$
Tier 1
Appeals to the City Council
Architectural Review (ARC)
Subdivision (>5 lots)
Planning Commission Use
Permits
Tier 2
Administrative Use Permit
Minor Architectural
Review
Subdivision (<5 lots)
Lot Line Adjustment
Tier 3
Fence Height
Exception
Administrative
Approval
Tier 4
Home Occupation Permit
Non-Profit Special Events
Sidewalk Sales Permit
Packet Pg 11
1
and staff costs) associated with the Energov Land Use Management Computer System2
were not included in the consultant’s fee model.
Recommendation: Apply Information Technology Surcharge of 2.65% to recover costs
associated with the Energov Computer System. The Energov Computer System has a
useful life of 15 years and staff analysis indicates the yearly costs associated with the
system total $167,165.18. Estimated revenues associated with fees/work being performed
in the system total $6,300,012 per year which yields a surcharge amount of 2.65%. The
surcharge will be applied to fees associated with work being performed in the Energov
Computer System and the surcharge will be applied prior to the addition of impact fees.
The calculation and collection methodology is illustrated in Attachment B (Breakdown
Fee Schedule) and the final application and permit fees are included in Exhibit 1 within
Attachment A.
2. Split Fee Collection Timing
Situation: As discussed at the study session, approximately 20-25% of planning projects
that would require a building permit3 do not materialize (i.e. stop moving forward after
planning approvals). As a result the City does not recover actual costs to process a
planning application (55% of planning’s costs & 75% of other departments costs. Staff
estimates that approximately $122,000 is not be recovered per year (see more detailed
discussion in the study session staff report, Attachment C, “cost recovery for planning
entitlements”). There are three options for planning fee collection:
1) collect 100% of costs at time of planning application submittal,
2) collect a portion of costs at application submittal and collect the remaining
costs upon final decision on the entitlement (with a six-month window to pay), or
3) collect a portion of costs at application submittal and collect the remaining
costs with the building permit (status quo). The percentage to be collected at
application submission could be increased to improve cost recovery by the City.
Recommendation: Option 2. Collect a portion of costs at planning application submittal
and collect the remaining costs within six months of the final decision on a planning
entitlement. An invoice will be attached to the final decision letter and pertinent
documentation that staff provides to the applicant. The remaining amount to be collected
is noted on the draft fee schedule (Exhibit 1 within Attachment A).
The six-month timeframe affords an applicant some additional time to continue moving
forward with securing financing and preparing the project for a building permit. Members
of the development community indicated a preference in having collection of this
2 Hardware and software used by the City to manage planning projects, engineering projects, building permits,
inspections, records and property research.
3 For certain planning entitlements (Administrative Use Permit, Planning Commission Use Permit, Variance,
Affordable Housing Incentive Request, ALUC Review, Architectural Reviews), fee collection is a two -step process
with a portion of staff time spent during the planning phase of the project recovered at time of planning application
submittal and the other portion collected at time of building permit issuance.
Packet Pg 12
1
remaining fee placed as close to building permit submittal as possible, staff recommends
six months as a reasonable amount of time.
Note: revisions and corrections to the draft fee schedule, not specifically highlighted in this
report, were performed.
CONCURRENCES
All appropriate City departments have been extensively involved in providing information
including budget information, staffing information, and time estimates to the consultant. All
requisite departments have also performed extensive review of draft fee models provided by the
consultant and have reviewed and commented upon the final report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The act of updating cost of service fees is not subject to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project as defined in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15378 (Definitions – Project).
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Public engagement efforts were conducted consistent with the City’s Public Engagement and
Noticing Manual. The below graphic highlights outreach efforts. The Open City Hall web page
(http://www.slocity.org/opencityhall) is still “live” and feedback received through the web page
will be distributed to the City Council via agenda correspondence before the hearing.
FISCAL IMPACT
At recommended fee levels, an additional $1,028,165 in costs would be recovered yearly;
totaling $5,284,635 in estimated fee revenue per year across all departments included in the
study.
Packet Pg 13
1
Attachments:
a - Draft Resolution
a - Exhibit 1 Draft Fee Schedule
a - Exhibit 2 Amended Cost Recovery Goals (Recreation)
b - Breakdown Fee Schedule
c - City Council Study Session Staff Report February 21, 2017
d - NBS Fee Study (appendices in council reading file)
e - Council Reading File - Master Fee Schedule with Percent Change Column
f - Council Reading File - NBS Fee Study with Appendices
Packet Pg 14
1
R ______
Attachment A RESOLUTION NO. _______ (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE CITY’S MASTER FEE
SCHEDULE WITH UPDATED USER AND REGULATORY FEES BASED
ON THE FEE STUDY PREPARED BY NBS GOVERNMENT FINANCE
GROUP, AS REPRESENTED IN THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AND ATTACHMENTS DATED APRIL 18, 2017
WHEREAS, it is the City’s policy (User Fee Recovery Goals - Financial Plan Section H)
to review and update service charges approximately every five years to adjust to changes in the
cost-of-living and changes in methods/levels of service delivery; and
WHEREAS, on June 16, 2009 the City Council last amended the master fee schedule with
updated cost of services fees; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2015 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10640 (2015
Series) authorizing the City Manager to update the City’s Master Fee Schedule to reflect increases
based on the annual change in the Consumer Price Index; and
WHEREAS, a User and Regulatory Fee Study was prepared by NBS Government Finance
Group dated March 30, 2017; and
WHEREAS, on February 8, 2017 the Jack House Committee recommended updated
facility use charges associated with the Jack House; and
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2017, the City Council held a study session to review and
discuss the results of the Fee Study, receive public input, and provide guidance to staff regarding
recommended fees and any changes to current policies or practices; and
WHEREAS, on April 6, 2017 the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended the
Parks and Recreation fees, including the Jack House fees, be adopted as provided in Exhibit A;
and
WHEREAS, public outreach was conducted throughout the months of February, March,
and April pursuant to the City’s Public Engagement and Noticing Manual, which consisted of ten
engagement meetings including an Open City Hall web page; and
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2017, the City Council held a public hearing to review the Fee
Study and response to City Council direction provided at the City Council Study Session.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council makes the following findings:
Packet Pg 15
1
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
Attachment A
1. That the above recitals are true and correct.
2. That the updated user and regulatory fees are consistent with the City’s user fee
recovery goals (Financial Plan Section H) and that the established fees, including an
increase to 100% cost recovery for multi-dwelling fire and life safety inspections, do
not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service or performing the
activity for which the fee is imposed.
3. That the cost recovery adjustments associated with certain Parks and Recreation
programs (e.g. Triathlon, Golf, Summer and Spring Break Camps, Parks and
Recreation Sponsored Events) are consistent with the factors used for setting cost
recovery levels (Financial Plan Section H – Subsection B), such as subsection B.1
“Community-Wide vs. Special Benefit” which indicates that the use of general-purpose
revenues is appropriate for community-wide services.
SECTION 2. Action. The City Council takes the following actions:
1. The City’s Master Fee Schedule is hereby amended to include updated user and
regulatory fees as provided in Exhibit 1 attached hereto. All prior resolutions
inconsistent herewith are hereby superseded. The updated fees shall take effect on July
1, 2017.
2. A 2.65% Information Technology Surcharge is hereby authorized and imposed on all
User and Regulatory Fees as provided in Exhibit 1 attached hereto. A 2.65%
Information Technology Surcharge is also hereby imposed on all Building and Safety
Divisions User and Regulatory Fees as set forth in Resolution No. 10313 (2011 Series)
and later amended for Consumer Price Index by Resolution No. 10640 (2015 Series).
3. The City’s User Fee Recovery Goals for Recreation Programs (Financial Plan Section
H – Subsection G) are hereby amended as provided in Exhibit 2 attached hereto.
4. Unless suspended by the City Manager, the Master Fee Schedule is to be automatically
updated to reflect annual changes in the Consumer Price Index.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2016.
Packet Pg 16
1
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3
R ______
Attachment A
____________________________________
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 17
1
Fee No.Fee Description
Planning Application
Fee/Deposit
(45% planning + 25% Other Depts +
*IT Surcharge)
Remaining Planning
Application Fee to be
Collected*
(55% Planning +75% Other
Depts)
PLANNING APPLICATION FEES
Zoning Services
1 Sidewalk Sales Permit $274.69 *
2 Home Occupation Permit [1]$159.95 *
Home Occupation Permit (Reduced version)$159.95 *
3 Administrative Use Permit $1,092.05 *$2,023.54
4 Planning Commission Use Permit $2,498.24 *$3,979.96
6 Variance $1,146.51 *$1,824.16
7 Planned Development [2]
Rezoning $15,773.24 *
Plan Amendment $4,379.41 *
8 Rezoning [2]
Map Amendment $11,812.38 *
Text Amendment $8,384.69 *
10 Time Extension 25% of current filing fee
11 Non-profit Special Event Fee $211.43 *
12 Affordable Housing Incentive Request $471.10 *$763.57
13 Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Plan Review Fee
Reviews Requiring ALUC Hearing $825.01 *$952.20
14 Subdivision Services
Lot Line Adjustment $3,021.91 *
Tentative Subdivision Map
1-4 Lots $6,377.71 *
5-10 Lots $11,058.95 *
11-20 lots $14,805.05 *
21+ lots (deposit of $20,000)$24,785.55 *
15 Certificate of Compliance $2,313.07 *
Other Planning Services
18 Environmental Impact Determination [4]$6,146.00 *
19 Environmental Impact Report [2,
4]
Consultant Contract plus 30%
for administrative & review
services (No Change)*
20 Environmental Impact Report Monitoring Program, Deposit [2,
4]
$0.00
21 Architectural Review
Signs $2,174.18 *$2,811.86
Conceptual Review $2,295.17 *$3,654.15
Development Projects $4,680.03 *$7,551.55
Development Projects - Major
(e.g. 25 residential units, or 35,000 s.f., or 60 hotel units)
$6,344.50 *$10,000.95
Minor-Incidental $1,688.29 *$2,522.34
Plan Revision $1,978.83 *$2,796.19
Time Extension 25% of current filing fee
22 Christmas Tree/Pumpkin Lot Permit $357.61 *
23 Fence Height Exception $569.35 *
24 Voluntary Merger $776.13 *
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 18
1
25 Agreements $850.75 *
26 Bonds/Guarantees (voluntary) $850.75 *
27 Change of Address $247.65 *
28 Street Name Change $4,711.30 *
29 Street Abandonment $13,259.47 *
30 Condominium Conversion $14,886.38 *
31 Appeals [7]
Tier 1: e.g. Appeals to the City Council Applicant Appeal: $1,557
Non-Applicant Appeal:$623 *
Tier 2: e.g. Minor/Incidental Arch Review, Administrative Use
Permit, Variance, Subdivisions <5 lots
Applicant Appeal: $865
Non-Applicant Appeal:$346 *
Tier 3: e.g. Fence Height Exception, Administrative Approval
Application
Applicant Appeal: $303
Non-Applicant Appeal:$303 *
Tier 4: e.g. Home Occupation permit, Non-Profit Special Event Applicant Appeal: $130
Non-Applicant Appeal:$130 *
32 Mills Act Participation Application $1,421.75 *
33 Administrative Approval Applications $836.28 *
34 Land Use Documentation Request $425.37 *
36 General Plan Amendment [2]
Map (includes rezoning), Deposit $16,706.95 *
Text $16,223.77 *
37 Specific Plan Amendment, Deposit [2]$16,017.69 *
38 Annexation, Deposit [2]$22,994.18 *
39 Sidewalk Cafes
Sidewalk Café User Permit $819.66 *
Sidewalk Café Use Fee per square foot per month [3]$1.00
40 Pre-Application $896.96 *
With site visit $1,128.05 *
41 Blue Card Inspection [6]$266.58 *
42 Development Agreement Application Fee [2]$15,010.52 *
43 Reimbursement Agreement [2]$15,010.52 *
BULIDING PLAN REVIEW SUPPORT
Residential
Minor $177.72 *
Moderate $355.44 *
Major [2]$2,843.52 *
Commercial
Minor $266.58 *
Moderate $444.30 *
Major [2]$2,843.52 *
[Notes]
[1]A location change for a Home Occupation Permit is 25% of the
regular fee.
*The remaining planning fee is
to be paid within 6 months of
final decision on the entitlement
[2]Fees will be set on a Deposit basis and debited by the amount
of staff time and other materials required to provide services or
Consultant Fee plus 30% Admin Fee .
[3]Sidewalk rental charge not included in fee analysis.
Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule
[4]Separate Fish and Game fees may apply, as set by the State
of California
[5]Modifications to applications are charged at 25% of the original
fee amount, per Department policy
[6]See Final Inspection Approval/Bluecard Signoff (item 16)
[7]Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions.
Note: A 2.65% Information Technology Surcharge is included in fees
associated with work in the Energov Computer System
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 19
1
Fee #Fee Description Fee/Deposit
(*with IT Surcharge)
ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL FEES
1 Improvement Plan Check
Plan check fees are based on Estimated Construction Cost (ECC)
$10,000 flat fee up to $10,000 $1,559.04 *
each add'l $10,000 $1,145.07 *
$100,001 base fee @ $100,001 $11,864.70 *
each add'l $10,000 $118.02 *
$500,001 base fee @ $500,001 $16,585.36 *
each add'l $10,000 $143.25 *
$1,000,001 base fee @ $1,000,001 $23,747.95 *
each add'l $10,000 $62.56 *
$3,000,001 base fee @ $3,000,001 $36,643.31 *
each add'l $10,000 $122.14 *
2 Construction Inspection
Inspection fees are based on Estimated Construction Cost (ECC)
$10,000 flat fee up to $10,000 $539.61
each add'l $10,000 $914.34
$100,001 base fee @ $100,001 $8,768.74
each add'l $10,000 $640.79
$500,001 base fee @ $500,001 $34,400.45
each add'l $10,000 $283.30
$1,000,001 base fee @ $1,000,001 $48,565.34
each add'l $10,000 $269.81
$3,000,001 base fee @ $3,000,001 $102,526.82
each add'l $10,000 $342.00
3 Final Maps
Parcel Map - Residential Zone (4 lots or Less)$6,444.86 *
Parcel Map - Commercial Zone (4 lots or less)$9,242.23 *
Plus per lot or common interest unit $48.82 *
Tract Map (base fee)$14,251.57 *
Plus per lot or common interest unit $153.72 *
4 Certificate of Compliance or Final Lot Line Adjustment Agreement
Lot Line Adjustments $2,797.37 *
Certificates of Compliance $699.34 *
Additional Document Review/Certificates of Correction $279.74 *
5 Encroachment Permits
Curb and Gutter (base fee)$674.49 *
plus per linear foot $9.72 *
Sidewalk (base fee)$605.24 *
plus per linear foot $5.57 *
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 20
1
Driveway Approach/Curb Ramp (base fee)$882.21 *
plus per linear foot $9.72 *
Trenched or Bored Excavation (base fee)
Water Service/Recycled Service(base fee)$695.19 *
plus per linear foot $19.42 *
Sewer (base fee)$556.70 *
plus per linear foot (Bore)$5.57 *
plus per linear foot (Trench)$9.72 *
Fire Lateral/Hydrant/Water and Recycled Main Extension (base fee)$1,526.09 *
plus per linear foot $23.57 *
Other (base fee)$625.95 *
plus per linear foot (Bore)$5.57 *
plus per linear foot (Trench)$9.72 *
Monitoring Well $208.42 *
Other Minor Encroachment Permits not Listed $208.42 *
Time Extension for Encroachment Permit $139.87 *
Unpermitted Encroachments $697.96 *
Encroachment Permit - Plan Review fee (if required)$279.74 *
Annual Encroachment Permit for Utility Companies $19,015.29 *
6 Transportation Permit
Single Trip Permit $139.87 *
Annual Permit $139.87 *
Maximum fee amount established by Department of Transportation and is not subject to CPI increases
7 Fiber Infrastructure Protection Fee (per Call) $268.16 *
8 Traffic Control Plan Review
Minor $183.75 *
Moderate $297.69 *
Major [2]$525.59 *
9 Traffic Control Plan Inspection
Minor - first day $69.29 *
each additional day $69.29 *
Moderate - first day $138.58 *
each additional day $69.29 *
Major - first day $277.16 *
each additional day $69.29 *
10 4th and subsequent plan review (per submittal)
Public Improvement Plans $1,465.19 *
Building Plans $348.98 *
Maps / Additional Documents $400.98 *
11 Design Exception $279.74 *
BUILDING SUPPORT
1
Site Improvements - This includes substantial development of
private parking lots which are processed separate of the structure
and include any combination of the following: Underground utilities,
parking lot lighting, accessible path of travel analysis, grading,
drainage and compliance with the City's parking and driveway
standards.
Square Footage of Site Disturbance:
Non-Single Family Residential
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 21
1
0-2499 $279.74 *
2500-4999 $419.61 *
5000-14999 $699.34 *
15000-21999 $1,118.95 *
22000-43559 $1,398.68 *
43560+$1,678.42 *
Single Family Residential
0-2500 $279.74 *
2501+$839.21 *
2 Final Inspection Approval / Bluecard Signoff
Square Footage of Site Disturbance:
Non-Single Family Residential
0-2499 $139.87 *
2500-4999 $139.87 *
5000-14999 $139.87 *
15000-21999 $279.74 *
22000-43559 $419.61 *
43560+$559.47 *
Single Family Residential
0-2500 $139.87 *
2501+$279.74 *
3 Flood Zone Analysis
Minor - Verificatoin only $139.87 *
Major - New/Substantial Remodel Analysis/Documentation $559.47 *
4 Post Construction Requirements / Stormwater / Inspection
Impervious Square Footage:
Non-Single Family Residential
0-2499 $139.87 *
2500-4999 $279.74 *
5000-14999 $559.47 *
15000-21999 $559.47 *
22000-43559 $839.21 *
43560+$1,118.95 *
Single Family Residential
0-2500 $139.87 *
2501+$559.47 *
5 Drainage Report/Flood Study - Breadth of Study
Minor $279.74 *
Major $699.34 *
[Notes]
[1]A location change for a Home Occupation Permit is 25% of the
regular fee.
[2]Fees will be set on a Deposit basis and debited by the amount of
staff time and other materials required to provide services or
Consultant Fee plus 30% Admin Fee .
[3]Sidewalk rental charge not included in fee analysis. Placeholder for
Master Fee Schedule
Note: A 2.65% Information Technology Surcharge is included in fees
associated with work in the Energov Computer System
[4] Separate Fish and Game
fees may apply, as set by the
State of California
[5] Modifications to
applications are charged at
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 22
1
PUBLIC WORKS SUBMITTAL FEES
TREE MAINTENANCE
2 Tree/Shrub Hazardous Abatement Actual Cost
3 Commemorative Tree Planting [2]$283.72
4 Tree Removal Permit $153.68
BUILDING PLAN REVIEW $0.00
1
Site Improvements - This includes substantial development of
private parking lots which are processed separate of the structure
and include any combination of the following: Underground utilities,
parking lot lighting, accessible path of travel analysis, grading,
drainage and compliance with the City's parking and driveway
standards.
Square Footage of Site Disturbance:
Non-Single Family Residential
0-2499 $0.00
2500-4999 $0.00
5000-14999 $0.00
15000-21999 $0.00
22000-43559 $0.00
43560+$0.00
Single Family Residential
0-2500 $0.00
2501+$0.00
2 Final Inspection Approval / Bluecard Signoff
Square Footage of Site Disturbance:
Non-Single Family Residential
0-2499 $235.57 *
2500-4999 $235.57 *
5000-14999 $235.57 *
15000-21999 $374.05 *
22000-43559 $512.53 *
43560+$651.02 *
Single Family Residential
0-2500 $235.57 *
2501+$235.57 *
3 Flood Zone Analysis
Minor - Verificatoin only $0.00
Major - New/Substantial Remodel Analysis/Documentation $0.00
4 Post Construction Requirements / Stormwater / Inspection
Impervious Square Footage:
Non-Single Family Residential
0-2499 $0.00
2500-4999 $0.00
5000-14999 $0.00
15000-21999 $0.00Fee #Fee Description Fee/Deposit
(*with IT Surcharge)
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 23
1
22000-43559 $0.00
43560+$0.00
Single Family Residential
0-2500 $97.08 *
2501+$97.08 *
5 Drainage Report/Flood Study - Breadth of Study
Minor $0.00
Major $0.00
6 Review of Mitigation Measures, Conditions, and TIFs $228.38 *
[Notes]
[1] Amounts are set by 2010 Ordinance, NBS did not review
[2] Cost of tree and plaque are separate fees in addition to this fee, at $50 and $20 respectively
[3] Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions.
Note: A 2.65% Information Technology Surcharge is included in fees
associated with work in the Energov Computer System
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 24
1
UTILITIES SERVICES FEE SCHEDULE [1]
[2]
1 Meter Services [3]
Install Water Meter (3/4" - 1") [4]$128.29 *
Install Water Meter (1.5" - 2")[4]$256.59 *
Install Water Meter (larger than 2")[4]Time & Materials
Remove Water Meter (5/8" - 1")$124.98
Remove Water Meter (1.5" - 2")$249.95
Remove Water Meter (larger than 2")Time & Materials
Retirement of Service $749.86
Retirement of Service (larger than 2")$749.86
Account Set-up $83.32
Account Set-up After Hours/Weekends
Minimum 2 hours service fee $291.20
Each Additional Hour [7]$145.75
Property Management (first 25 set-ups)$1,126.49
Each Additional 25 set-ups $1,126.49
Disconnect Service for Non-Payment $110.40
2 Lateral Installation $513.17 *
3 Lateral Abandonment $513.17 *
BUILDING PLAN REVIEW / INSPECTION SUPPORT
1 Per Plan Review Submittal
New Meter, trash enclosures, landscape plans $513.17 *
RH20 $513.17 *
C&D Recycling $64.15 *
[Notes]
[1] Water And Sewer Service Rates Are Adopted By Council
[2] 1 Unit = 748 Gallons
[3] Fees for hardware Charged at Actual Cost
[4] Plus Meter Cost
[5] Set by City Ordinance. NBS did not evaluate
[6] Fees will be set on a Deposit basis and debited by the amount of
staff time and other materials required to provide services
[7] Calculated at OT rate for each additonal hour of service required
ft lb i h b d2h
[8] Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions.
Note: A 2.65% Information Technology Surcharge is included in fees
associated with work in the Energov Computer System
Percent Change
Fee/Deposit
(*with IT Surcharge)Fee Description
Fee #Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 25
1
FIRE DEPARTMENT
HAZARDOUS OCCUPANCY PERMITS [1]
1 Aircraft Refueling Vehicles $144.92 *
2 Aircraft Repair Hangar $289.85 *
3 Automobile Wrecking Yard $362.31 *
4 Bonfire or Rubbish Fires $144.92 *
5 Burning in Public Place $144.92 *
6 Candles or Open-Flames in Assembly Areas $144.92 *
7 Combustible Fiber Storage (handle/store over 100 cu ft)$362.31 *
8 Compressed Gases $144.92 *
9 Cryogens $289.85 *
10 Dry Cleaning Plant $289.85 *
11 Dust Producing Operation $289.85 *
12 Explosives or Blasting Agents $579.70 *
13 Fireworks $579.70 *
14 Flammable or Combustible Liquids (Unless in the CUPA Program)$289.85 *
15 Fruit Ripening - Ethylene Gas Fogging $289.85 *
16 Garages - Repair $289.85 *
17 Hazardous Chemicals (Unless in the CUPA Program):$362.31 *
18 High-Piled Combustible Stock - exceeding 2500 sq ft $362.31 *
19 Junk Yards $362.31 *
20 Liquefied Petroleum Gas $217.39 *
21 Lumberyard - Storage in excess of 100,000 board feet $362.31 *
22 Magnesium Working - Process more than 10 lbs daily $289.85 *
23 Mall (covered)$362.31 *
24 Organic Coatings - manufacture over 1 gallon a day $362.31 *
25 Ovens - Industrial, Baking and Drying $144.92 *
26 Places of Assembly $289.85 *
27 Refrigeration Equipment - Mechanical refrigeration (see UFC for
most common refrigerants)
$434.77 *
28 Spraying or Dipping $289.85 *
29 Tents and Air-supported Structures - excess of 200 sq ft $289.85 *
30 Tire Re-capping $289.85 *
31 Waste Material Plant $362.31 *
32 Welding and Cutting Operations - Any Occupancy $217.39 *
33 Additional Permitted Use (per permit)[1]$72.46 *
NON-MANDATED / REQUIRED INSPECTIONS
34 Commercial Business Inspections (Up to 3 stories)
0 – 5,000 sq. ft.
5,001 – 40,000 sq. ft.
40,001 – 120,000 sq. ft.
120,001 – 150,000 sq. ft.
150,001 – or more sq. ft.
35 Mid Rise Inspections (4 -6 stories)
Percent Change
Fee #Fee/Deposit
(*with IT Surcharge)Fee Description
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 26
1
36 New Business Inspection [9]
FIRE FALSE ALARM FEES
37 Initial Permit and Renewal Registrations - see Police
38 False fire alarms shall be considered excessive when they meet or
exceed the following number:
Two false alarms in any thirty-day period
Three false alarms in any three-hundred-sixty day period
39 False alarms exceeding these numbers
CERTIFIED UNIFIED PARTICIPATING AGENCY FEES [3]
40 Hazardous Materials Handlers
Remote utility (1-time fee)$542.31
1 - 4 Materials handled $312.20
5 - 10 Materials handled $356.17
11+ Materials handled $426.52
41 Waste Generators
1 Waste stream (professional or medical)$209.60
1 - 5 Waste streams (all others)$312.20
6+ Waste streams $420.66
Waste Stream (DeMinimus)$101.13
42 Tiered Permitting
CE $662.50
CA $1,043.59
PBR $2,465.33
43 Underground Storage Tanks (general model)
First tank $1,801.36
Each additional tank
Tank installation $5,878.99
Tank removal $4,551.05
Minor Modification $1,706.09
Major Modification $5,308.82
44 Above Ground Storage Tanks
One Tank $197.87
Two Tanks $395.74
Three Tanks $473.43
45 CALARP
New Stationary Source Facility $2,597.25
Existing Annual Facility Inspection $404.54
46 Site Remediation Oversight $202.27
Soil Remediation $202.27
Temporary Closure Permit $1,689.97
47 Closures
Temporary Closure $1,801.36
Closure in Place $2,276.26
48 Late Fee [4]
Annual permit fees received 31-60 days after original invoice day 25% Penalty
Annual permit fees received 61 + days after original invoice day an additional 25% penalty
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 27
1
FIRE EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL STAND-BY FEES
49 Fire Engine/Ladder Truck [5]$419.00
50 Squad or Light Rescue Equipment [5]$261.00
51 Third & Subsequent Fire Inspection Fee $168.56
52 Additional Site Inspection Fee (one hour min.)Determined by Finance
Director
53 Fire Investigation/Fire Preventions Determined by Finance
Director
54 Firefighter Standby Determined by Finance
Director
55 Administrative/Clerical Determined by Finance
Director
6] [7]
56 Administrative Fee [8]
Processing per facility $86.51 *
Each Additional Owner $10.27
*
57 Apartment Houses
Fees are waived for units that are built, owned and managed by the
San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, other government agencies or
not-for-profit housing organizations
Up to 10 units $346.06 *
11 - 20 Units $519.09 *
21 - 50 Units $692.12 *
51 - 100 Units $865.15 *
101 - 200 Units $1,384.24 *
Every additional 100 Units over 200 $346.06 *
58 Hotels, Motels, Lodging Houses, Bed & Breakfast Facilities,
Youth Hostel Facilities, Senior Facilities, Sororities, Fraternities
and Other Congregate Residences
Hotel, Motel, Bed & Breakfast
1 - 20 Units $346.06 *
21 - 50 Units $519.09 *
51 - 100 Units $865.15 *
101 - 200 Units $1,384.24 *
Sorority and Fraternity $692.12 *
Condominiums
Up to 10 Units $346.06 *
11 - 20 Units $519.09 *
21 - 50 Units $692.12 *
51 - 500 Units $1,038.18 *
OTHER FIRE FEES
59 Hydrant Flow Test (First Hydrant) $173.03 *
60 Hydrant Flow Test (Each Additional Hydrant) $86.51 *
61 Reinspection Fee (construction) $173.03 *
62 Board of Appeals $173.03 *
63 Emergency Call-Out (Non-Scheduled) $674.49 *
64 After Hours Call-Out (Scheduled) $168.62 *
[Notes]
[1] For Locations with multiple required permits, fee is calculated at
highest permit fee, plus 1/2 hour of inspection per additional
permitted use.
MULTI-DWELLING FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY INSPECTION FEE
SCHEDULE
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 28
1
[2] Penalty for excessive false alarms set by City Ordinance - not
required for review in this study
[3] A discount of $79.00 will be provided for two or more programs
reviewed simultaneously.
[4] Fees are punitive in nature and do not require a cost of service
analysis.
[5] Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule, NBS did not study
[6] Fees are waived for units that are built, owned and managed by the
San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, other government agencies or
not-for-profit housing organizations.
[7] These fees are applicable to all multi-dwelling units in the City based
on the definitions set forth in the 2007 California Building Code
[8] Administrative fee applies to both Apt Houses and Hotels, Motels,
etc. Total processing fee calculated will be divided equally amongst
all owners.
Note: A 2.65% Information Technology Surcharge is included in fees
associated with work in the Energov Computer System
Fire - Development Services
NEW CONSTRUCTION, ADDITIONS, AND MAJOR REMODELS
1
Commercial Uses - Structural (All newly constructed, added, or
structurally remodeled space for non-residential occupancies
classified as CBC Group A, B, E, F, H, I, M, or other commercial
occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee
Schedule)
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $942.00 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.27 *
5,000 (base cost) $2,173.86 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.26 *
10,000 (base cost) $3,478.17 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.07 *
50,000 (base cost) $6,304.19 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.05 *
100,000 (base cost) $8,985.28 *
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.09 *
2
Commercial Residential and Multifamily Residential Uses - (All
newly constructed, added, or structurally remodeled space for
residential occupancies classified as CBC Group R (except R-3), or
other residential occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere
in this Fee Schedule)
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $942.00 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.27 *
5,000 (base cost) $2,173.86 *
Fee/Deposit
(*with IT Surcharge)
Percent Change
Fee #Fee Description
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 29
1
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.26 *
10,000 (base cost) $3,478.17 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.07 *
50,000 (base cost)
$6,304.19
*
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.05 *
100,000 (base cost) $8,985.28 *
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.09 *
3 Duplicate Floor Plan Review - Commercial Residential and
Multifamily Residential Uses
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.08 *
5,000 (base cost) $724.62 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.12 *
10,000 (base cost) $1,304.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.03 *
50,000 (base cost)
$2,536.17
*
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.04 *
100,000 (base cost) $4,347.71 *
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.04 *
4
Low and Moderate Hazard Storage - (All newly constructed,
added, or structurally remodeled space for storage occupancies
classified as CBC Group S, or other storage occupancies not
specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule)
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $797.08 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.24 *
5,000 (base cost) $1,884.01 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.09 *
10,000 (base cost) $2,318.78 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.03 *
50,000 (base cost)
$3,405.71
*
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.03 *
100,000 (base cost) $4,927.41 *
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.05 *
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 30
1
5
Attached Accessory and Utility Uses - (All newly constructed,
added, or structurally remodeled space for utility and accessory
occupancies classified as CBC Group U, or other utility and
accessory occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in
this Fee Schedule)
Square Footage:
200 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
400 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
600 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
1,000 (base cost)
$362.31
*
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
3,000 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.12 *
6
Detached Accessory and Utility Uses - (All newly constructed,
added, or structurally remodeled space for utility and accessory
occupancies classified as CBC Group U, or other utility and
accessory occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in
this Fee Schedule)
Square Footage:
200 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
400 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
600 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
1,000 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
3,000 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.12 *
7
Shell Buildings for all Commercial Uses - (The enclosure for all
newly constructed, added, or structurally remodeled space for non-
residential occupancies classified as CBC Group A, B, E, F, H, I, M,
or other commercial occupancies not specifically addressed
elsewhere in this Fee Schedule where the interior is not completed
or occupiable)
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $942.00 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.27 *
5,000 (base cost) $2,173.86 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.12 *
10,000 (base cost) $2,753.55 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.03 *
50,000 (base cost) $3,985.40 *
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 31
1
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.02 *
100,000 (base cost) $4,927.41 *
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.05 *
8
Commercial Tenant Improvement - Non Structural - (Non-
structurally remodeled space for non-residential occupancies
classified as CBC Group A, B, E, F, H, I, M, or other commercial
occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee
Schedule where the structure is not altered)
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $507.23 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.31 *
5,000 (base cost) $1,884.01 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.20 *
10,000 (base cost) $2,898.48 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.03 *
50,000 (base cost) $4,275.25 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.05 *
100,000 (base cost) $6,956.34 *
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.07 *
9
Commercial Residential and Multifamily Residential Remodels -
Non Structural - (Non-Structurally remodeled space for residential
occupancies classified as CBC Group R (except R-3), or other
residential occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this
Fee Schedule)
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $507.23 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.31 *
5,000 (base cost) $1,884.01 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.20 *
10,000 (base cost) $2,898.48 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.03 *
50,000 (base cost) $4,275.25 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.05 *
100,000 (base cost) $6,956.34 *
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.07 *
10
Single Family Dwellings and Duplexes - (All newly constructed
space for residential occupancies classified as CBC Group R-3,
including custom builds and model homes for tract master plans, or
other similar residential occupancies not specifically addressed
elsewhere in this Fee Schedule)
Square Footage:
1,000 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
2,500 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
4,000 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
6,000 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
8,000 (base cost) $362.31 *
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 32
1
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.05 *
11 Duplicate Floor Plan Review - Single Family Dwellings and
Duplexes
Square Footage:
1,000 (base cost) $289.85 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
2,500 (base cost) $289.85 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
4,000 (base cost) $289.85 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
6,000 (base cost) $289.85 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
8,000 (base cost) $289.85 *
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.04 *
12 Duplicate Floor Plan Review - Attached or Detached Accessory
and Utility Uses
Square Footage:
200 (base cost) $289.85 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
400 (base cost) $289.85 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
600 (base cost) $289.85 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.18 *
1,000 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
3,000 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.12 *
15
Site Improvements - This includes substantial development of
private parking lots which are processed separate of the structure
and include any combination of the following: Underground utilities,
parking lot lighting, accessible path of travel analysis, grading,
drainage and compliance with the City's parking and driveway
standards.
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
5,000 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.06 *
10,000 (base cost) $652.16 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.01 *
50,000 (base cost) $942.00 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.01 *
100,000 (base cost) $1,521.70 *
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.02 *
FIRE SPRINKLER AND SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS
(Issued by Building and Safety)
16 Fire Sprinkler Systems (New Installation)
1-25 Heads $942.00 *
26-50 Heads $1,304.31 *
51-100 Heads $1,449.24 *
101-200 Heads $1,956.47 *
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 33
1
Every 200 Heads above 200 $579.70 *
17 Fire Alarm System (New Installation)
1-50 Devices $942.00 *
51-100 Devices $1,594.16 *
Every 50 Devices above 100 $579.70 *
Sprinkler Monitoring System $362.31 *
18 Fire Sprinkler Systems (Tenant Improvement)
1-25 Heads $507.23 *
26-50 Heads $652.16 *
51-100 Heads $1,014.47 *
101-200 Heads $1,304.31 *
Every 200 Heads above 200 $579.70 *
19 Fire Alarm System (Tenant Improvement)
1-50 Devices $942.00 *
51-100 Devices $1,594.16 *
Every 50 Devices above 100 $652.16 *
Sprinkler Monitoring System $362.31 *
20 Other Suppression Systems
Insert Gas Systems $1,014.47 *
Dry Chemical Systems $579.70 *
Wet Chemical/Kitchen Hood
$434.77
*
Foam Systems $1,811.55 *
Paint Spray Booth $652.16 *
OTHER MISCELLANEOUS FEES
37 Alternative Method and Material Review $579.70 *
38 Expedited Plan Review Fee [7]
[Notes]
[1]1/2 hour of inspection per additional permitted use.
[2]A discount of $79.00 will be provided for two or more programs
reviewed simultaneously.
[3]
Fees are waived for units that are built, owned and managed by the
San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, other government agencies or
not-for-profit housing organizations.
[4]
These fees are applicable to all multi-dwelling units in the City based
on the definitions set forth in the 2007 California Building Code
[5]Penalty for excessive false alarms set by City Ordinance - not
required for review in this study
[6]Includes average cost for vehicle staffing. Equipment rates will be
added separately by department
[7]Expedited fees set on a City policy basis at overtime rate for City
staff or outsourced consultant costs as needed
[8]Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions.
Note: A 2.65% Information Technology Surcharge is included in fees
associated with work in the Energov Computer System
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 34
1
POLICE DEPARTMENT
1 Processing charge for return of property taken for safekeeping
Processing & maintenance fee $11.00
2 Clearance Letters [1]$25.00
3 Civil SDT [2]$15.00
4 Criminal SDT [3]$0.00
5 Civil Subpoena [4]$275.00
6 Concealed Weapons Permit (set by penal code 26190)
Investigative costs and permit processing $100.00
Renewal $25.00
7 Massage Facility Permit $294.08
8 Massage Technician Initial Permit $203.56
9 Massage Technician Permit Renewal $178.92
10 Local Record Information [5]$26.00
11 Impound Vehicle Release (30-day impound)$138.21
12 Vehicle Tow Release Fee $78.47
13 Record sealing fee set by penal code (851.8)Determined by Finance
Director
14 Property Damage-Only Collisions Investigations
per party per non-injury traffic collision investigation report $113.15
15 Administrative Investigations Determined by Finance
Director
17 Administrative Citations [6]
Noise Violation, Urination in Public and/or Open Alcohol Container
First citation for each such violation (except open container)$350.00
First citation (open container)$100.00
Second citation for each such violation $700.00
Third citation for each such violation $1,000.00
Cost Recovery Programs
18 DUI Cost recovery Determined by Finance
Director
19 Nuisance abatement Determined by Finance
Director
20 Alarm Permits (City processing cost, net of contractor
payment)
[8]
Permit $37.73
Renewal $37.73
Excessive alarms [6]
Third $82.00
Fourth $137.00
Fifth $226.00
Sixth $406.00
Seventh & More $619.00
21 Second Response Cost Recovery Determined by Finance
Director
22 Taxi Permit
Recommended
Fee/DepositFee #Fee Description
Percent Change
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 35
1
Permit fee $223.27
Permit Renewal fee $228.20
23 Electronic Game Center Permit $411.36
24 Public Dance Permit $98.40
25 Tobacco License Fee - per location $693.90
27 Mobile Food Vendor License $154.28
PLANNING SUPPORT
28 Administrative Use Permit (bars/nightclubs)$271.56
[Notes]
[1]Fee set by penal code (13322), Dept did not wish to undergo time or
cost of service analysis
[2]Fee set by CA evidence code 1563, Dept did not wish to undergo
time or cost of service analysis
[3]Access through the Discovery Order process, Dept did not wish to
undergo time or cost of service analysis
[4]Fee set by statute (GC 68097.2). Statute increased fee in 2013-14,
Dept did not wish to undergo time or cost of service analysis
[5]Fee limited b penal code (13322), Dept did not wish to undergo time
or cost of service analysis
Fee #Fee Description Fee/Deposit
2017-18
Fee/Deposit
2018-19
Youth Services
Sun-N-Fun
Registration Fee $60.00 $60.00
School Year - hourly option $4.50 $5.00
Teacher Work Day
Teacher Work Day $50.00 $55.00
Late Reg TWD
Weekly Rate + $10 Weekly Rate + $10
Spring Break Camp
Weekly Option $180.00 $185.00
Late Reg Spring Break Weekly
Weekly Rate + $10 Weekly Rate + $10
Daily Option $50.00 $55.00
Late Reg Spring Break Daily Weekly Rate + $10 Weekly Rate + $10
Summer Camp
Registration Fee $5.00 $5.00
Full week Care Option $175.00 $175.00
Summer School Option TBD*TBD*
Day Rate Option $44.00 $45.00
Field Trip Sign Ups $5.00 - $20.00 $5.00 - $20.00
SLO Teens Annual Fee
School Year Teen Program $15.00 $20.00
Late Registration Fee $10.00 $10.00
Youth Services Special Events $0.00 - $20.00 $0.00 - $20.00
Aquatics
PARKS AND RECREATION
[6] Set by
Municipal Code,
punitive in nature
and excluded
from cost
analysis.
[7] City fee only.
DOJ fee charged
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 36
1
Lap Swim
Adult per use $3.00 $3.00
Adult Monthly $45.00 $45.00
Youth/Senior per $2.50 $2.50
Youth/Senior monthly $35.00 $35.00
Recreational Swim
Adult per use $3.50 $4.00
Youth/Senior per $3.00 $3.50
Swim Script
Adult per use $27.00 $27.00
Youth/Senior per $22.50 $22.50
Recreational Swim Script
Adult per use $31.50 $37.00
Youth/Senior per $27.00 $31.50
Lessons
Lessons $75.00 $100.00
Private Lessons $145.00 $172.00
Special Classes
Lifeguard $200.00 $200.00
Warm Water Exercise $100.00 $100.00
$50/day + $19.40/LG $50/day +
$20.40/LG
$200.00 $200.00
Recreational Sports
Adult Softball
Teams (15 per team)$500.00 $550.00
Instructional Classes
Instructional Classes
$8.00 - $142.00 $8.00 - $142.00
$4.00 - $393.00 $4.00 - $393.00
Spectial Events
Triathlon
Individual $80.00 $80.00
Team $145.00 $145.00
P&R Events
Parks and Recreation Sponsored Events $0 - $60.00 $0- $60.00
Special Application Fees
Special Event Application
$100 park only/$160
encroachment
$100 park only/$160
encroachment
Banner Permit Application/Installation $200.00 $200.00
Film Application Fee
Still Photography $95.00 $100.00
Commercial $126.00 $131.00
Non-Profit $37.00 $40.00
Destination Marketing $0.00 $0.00
Permit Fee
Permit Processing Fee $15.00 $15.00
Junior Lifeguard Program
Adult/Senior
Youth
Facility Use
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 37
1
Full Park Use $460.00 $460.00
Half Park Use $230.00 $230.00
Mission Plaza
Full Plaza $560.00 $560.00
Full Plaza (Non-Profit/Communtiy Event)$460.00 $460.00
Indoor Facilities
Ludwick Community Center
Assembly Room (Non-Profit)$28.00 $30.00
Assembly Room (For-Profit)$60.00 $63.00
Gymnasium (Non-Profit)$36.00 $38.00
Gymnasium (For-Profit)$64.00 $67.00
Kitchen (Non-Profit)$12.00 $13.00
Kitchen (For-Profit)$17.00 $18.00
Floor Covers $75.00 $80.00
Full Facility Use (14 Hours)$1,480.50 $1,554.00
Senior Center
Main Room (Non-Profit)$28.00 $30.00
Main Room (For-Profit)$60.00 $63.00
Conference Room (Non-Profit)$15.00 $16.00
Conference Room (For-Profit)$20.00 $21.00
Meadow Park Building
Non-Profit $15.00 $16.00
For-Profit $20.00 $21.00
City/County Library
Community Room (Non-Profit)$28.00 $30.00
Community Room (For-Profit)$60.00 $63.00
Conference Room (Non-Profit)$15.00 $16.00
Conference Room (For-Profit)$20.00 $21.00
Outdoor Facilities
$65.00 $68.00
Wedding and Reception N/A N/A
Full Day WEEKEND (Resident)$2,000.00 $3,000.00
Full Day WEEKEND (non-resident)$2,400.00 $3,400.00
Full Day WEEKDAY (Resident)$1,800.00 $2,800.00
Full Day WEEKDAY (non-resident)$2,000.00 $3,000.00
Party (1-50) Attendance (4 hour)N/A N/A
Under 50 Per Hour $100.00 $100.00
Under 50 Per Hour (Non-Profit)$45.00 $45.00
50-100 Per Hour $200.00 $200.00
50-100 Per Hour (Non-Profit)$90.00 $90.00
100+ Per Hour $300.00 $300.00
100+ Per Hour (Non-Profit)$135.00 $135.00
Security Deposit $500.00 $500.00
Table/Chair Rental Included Included
Softball Fields
Hourly Field Use $24.00 $24.00
Light Fee $22.00 $22.00
BBQ/Picnic Areas
Jack House Gardens
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 38
1
Multi-Use Courts
Hourly Use $5.50 $6.00
Light Fee $11.00 $11.00
Tennis & Volleyball Courts
Full Use Facility (Day)$8.50 $9.00
Damon-Garcia
Full Use Facility (Day)$444.00 $444.00
Full Use Facility (Hour)$72.00 $72.00
Full Use Light Fee (Hour)$43.00 $43.00
Maintenance Fee $24.00 $24.00
Concession Stand Rental $120.00 $120.00
Lower Fields Facility Use (Day)$295.00 $295.00
Lower Fields Facility Use (Hour)$48.00 $48.00
Lower Fields Light Fee $22.00 $22.00
Single Field Facility Use (Day)$151.00 $151.00
Single Field Facility Use (Hour)$24.00 $24.00
Single Field Light Fee $22.00 $22.00
Baseball Stadium
Hourly Field Use $24.00 $24.00
Lights $22.00 $22.00
Press box Rental $16.00 $16.00
Field prep $41.00 $41.00
Concession Stand Rental $23.00 $23.00
Mission Plaza
Full Plaza $560.00 $560.00
Full Plaza (Non-Profit/Communtiy Event)$460.00 $460.00
Film Application Fee
Still Photography $95.00 $100.00
Commercial $126.00 $131.00
Non-Profit $37.00 $40.00
Destination Marketing $0.00 $0.00
Permit Fee
Permit Processing Fee $15.00 $15.00
Full Park Use $460.00 $460.00
Half Park Use $230.00 $230.00
Other
$32.50 $34.00
$32.00 $34.00
Community Gardens
Community Gardens
$28/yr + $0.03 per sq ft $30/yr + $0.03 per
sq ft
Ranger Service
Junior Ranger Camp
Junior Ranger Camp $131.00 $137.00
Golf Course
Laguna Lake Golf Course
$8.00/person $8.00/person
$3.00/cart $3.00/cart
Cart Rental
Pull Carts
Bounce House
Portable BBQ
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 39
1
Rounds
Monday-Thursday (Regular)$13.00 $13.00
Monday-Thursday (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil)$10.00 $10.00
Friday-Sunday (Regular)$14.00 $14.00
Friday-Sunday (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil)$11.00 $11.00
Replay $7.00 $7.00
Off Peak (M-Th 12-3 PM) (Regular)$11.00 $11.00
Off Peak (M-Th 12-3 PM) (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil)$10.00 $10.00
Twilight (after 3 PM)$8.50 $8.50
Family Rate $25.00 $25.00
Super Twilight $5.00 $5.00
10-Play Cards (Regular)$115.00 $115.00
10-Play Cards (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil)$87.50 $87.50
* Dependent Upon School District Offering a Summer School Program and
Needed Childcare Hours (partial day). Hourly Rates Would Apply.
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 40
1
Fee #Fee Description Fee/Deposit
FEES
1 New Business License Processing Fee
Application $54.41
Zoning Fee
Planning Department Sign Off [4]
Building Department Sign Off [4]
Subtotal Zoning Fee $103.88
2 Annual Business License Renewal Processing Fee
$45.70
3 Home Occupancy Business
Renewal or New Application [7]
$32.64
4 Business License & Tax Certificate Replacement Fee $10.88
5 Change of Location Only [4]
Application $10.88
Zoning Fee
Planning Department Sign Off
Building Department Sign Off
Subtotal Zoning Fee $103.88
6 Special Requests for GIS services [6]$105.51
7 Returned Check Fee [1]
Initial returned check $25.00
Each subsequent returned check $35.00
TAXES [8]
8 Annual Business Minimum Tax Fee
$0.00
or 0.5%, whichever is greater
9 Annual Downtown Assessment -for locations within Downtown
$0.00
or 0.5%, whichever is greater
10 SB1186 State Fee - Disability Access [5]$0.00
[Notes]
[1]Set by Section 1719 of the Civil Code
[4]Businesses within the City of San Luis Obispo
[5]Added to new licenses and renewals - does not increase
[6]New fee item
[7]Consult Planning Fee table for additional Home Occupation Permit
fee
[8]NBS did not evaluate taxes as part of Study
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 41
1
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
G. Recreation Programs
The following cost recovery policies apply to the City's recreation programs:
1.Cost recovery for activities directed to adults should be relatively high.
2.Cost recovery for activities directed to youth and seniors should be relative ly low. In those
circumstances where services are similar to those provided in the private sector, cost recovery levels
should be higher.
Although ability to pay may not be a concern for all youth and senior participants, these are desired
program activities, and the cost of determining need may be greater than the cost of providing a uniform
service fee structure to all participants. Further, there is a community-wide benefit in encouraging high-
levels of participation in youth and senior recreation act ivities regardless of financial status.
3.Cost recovery goals for recreation activities are set as follows:
High-Range Cost Recovery Activities - (60% to 100%)
a.Adult athletics
b.Banner permit applications
c.Child care services (except Youth STAR)
d.Facility rentals (indoor and outdoor; excludes use of facilities for internal City uses)
e.Triathlon
f.Golf
Mid-Range Cost Recovery Activities - (30% to 60%)
e.Triathlon
f.Golf
g.Summer and Spring Break Camps
g.h. Classes
h.Holiday in the Plaza
i.Major commercial film permit applications
Low-Range Cost Recovery Activities- (0 to 30%)
j.Aquatics
Batting cages
k.Community gardens
l.Junior Ranger camp
m.Minor commercial film permit applications
n.Skate park
o.Parks and Recreation sponsored events Special events (except for Triathlon) and Holiday in the
Plaza)
p.Youth sports
Youth STAR
q.Teen services
r.Senior/boomer services
2-11
Attachment A - Exhibit 2
Packet Pg 42
1
0.026534105
Fee No.Fee Description Current Fee/
Deposit Fee/Deposit IT Surcharge
(2.65%)
Planning Application
Fee/Deposit
(45% planning + 25% Other Depts +
IT Surcharge)
Remaining Planning
Application Fee to be
Collected*
(55% Planning +75% Other
Depts)
Total Fee
Collected (with
IT Surcharge)
PLANNING APPLICATION FEES
Zoning Services
1 Sidewalk Sales Permit $123 $267.59 $7.10 $274.69 $274.69
2 Home Occupation Permit [1]$141 $155.81 $4.13 $159.95 $159.95
Home Occupation Permit (Reduced version)$35 $155.81 $4.13 $159.95 $159.95
3 Administrative Use Permit $879 $3,035.06 $80.53 $1,092.05 $2,023.54 $3,115.59
4 Planning Commission Use Permit $3,348 $6,310.74 $167.45 $2,498.24 $3,979.96 $6,478.19
6 Variance $959 $2,893.88 $76.79 $1,146.51 $1,824.16 $2,970.66
7 Planned Development [2]
Rezoning $9,075 $15,365.53 $407.71 $15,773.24 $15,773.24
Plan Amendment $1,878 $4,266.21 $113.20 $4,379.41 $4,379.41
8 Rezoning [2]
Map Amendment $6,808 $11,507.05 $305.33 $11,812.38 $11,812.38
Text Amendment $9,518 $8,167.96 $216.73 $8,384.69 $8,384.69
9 Secondary Dwelling Units $1,138 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
10 Time Extension 25% of current
filing fee
$0.00 $0.00 25% of current filing fee
11 Non-profit Special Event Fee $64 $205.96 $5.47 $211.43 $211.43
12 Affordable Housing Incentive Request $261 $1,202.76 $31.91 $471.10 $763.57 $1,234.67
13 Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Plan Review Fee
Reviews Requiring ALUC Hearing $495 $1,731.26 $45.94 $825.01 $952.20 $1,777.20
14 Subdivision Services
Lot Line Adjustment $1,525 $2,943.80 $78.11 $3,021.91 $3,021.91
Tentative Subdivision Map
1-4 Lots $7,119 $6,212.86 $164.85 $6,377.71 $6,377.71
5-10 Lots $10,638 $10,773.09 $285.85 $11,058.95 $11,058.95
11-20 lots $12,753 $14,422.37 $382.68 $14,805.05 $14,805.05
21+ lots (deposit of $20,000) $0 $24,144.88 $640.66 $24,785.55 $24,785.55
15 Certificate of Compliance $1,659 $2,253.28 $59.79 $2,313.07 $2,313.07
Other Planning Services
17 Environmental Impact Study for Historic Resources [4]$546 $0.00
18 Environmental Impact Determination [4] $2,633 $5,987.14 $158.86 $6,146.00 $6,146.00
19 Environmental Impact Report [2,
4]
Consultant
Contract plus
30% for
administrative &
review services
(No Change)
Consultant
Contract plus 30%
for administrative
& review services
(No Change)
Consultant
Contract plus 30%
for administrative
& review services
(No Change)
Consultant Contract plus 30%
for administrative & review
services (No Change)
20 Environmental Impact Report Monitoring Program,
Deposit
[2,
4]
$0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
XX Transportation Impact Study [2]$0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
21 Architectural Review
Signs $1,497 $4,857.16 $128.88 $2,174.18 $2,811.86 $4,986.04
Conceptual Review $1,463 $5,795.54 $153.78 $2,295.17 $3,654.15 $5,949.32
Development Projects $2,924 $11,915.41 $316.16 $4,680.03 $7,551.55 $12,231.58
Development Projects - Major
(e.g. 25 residential units, or 35,000 s.f., or 60 hotel units)
$0 $15,922.95 $422.50 $6,344.50 $10,000.95 $16,345.46
Minor-Incidental $1,138 $4,101.80 $108.84 $1,688.29 $2,522.34 $4,210.64
with Cultural Heritage Commission Hearing $1,138 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Plan Revision $1,587 $4,651.59 $123.43 $1,978.83 $2,796.19 $4,775.02
Time Extension 25% of current
filing fee
25% of current filing fee 25% of current
filing fee
22 Christmas Tree/Pumpkin Lot Permit $316 $348.37 $9.24 $357.61 $357.61
23 Fence Height Exception $515 $554.63 $14.72 $569.35 $569.35
24 Voluntary Merger $521 $756.07 $20.06 $776.13 $776.13
25 Agreements $412 $828.76 $21.99 $850.75 $850.75
26 Bonds/Guarantees (voluntary)$665 $828.76 $21.99 $850.75 $850.75
27 Change of Address $117 $241.25 $6.40 $247.65 $247.65
28 Street Name Change $5,677 $4,589.53 $121.78 $4,711.30 $4,711.30
29 Street Abandonment $11,065 $12,916.74 $342.73 $13,259.47 $13,259.47
30 Condominium Conversion $9,846 $14,501.59 $384.79 $14,886.38 $14,886.38
31 Appeals [7]
Tier 1: e.g. Appeals to the City Council $281 n/a Applicant Appeal: $1,557
Non-Applicant Appeal:$623
Tier 2: e.g. Minor/Incidental Arch Review, Administrative Use
Permit, Variance, Subdivisions <5 lots
$281 n/a Applicant Appeal: $865
Non-Applicant Appeal:$346
Tier 3: e.g. Fence Height Exception, Administrative Approval
Application
$281 n/a Applicant Appeal: $303
Non-Applicant Appeal:$303
Tier 4: e.g. Home Occupation permit, Non-Profit Special
Event
$281 n/a Applicant Appeal: $130
Non-Applicant Appeal:$130
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 43
1
Fee No.Fee Description Current Fee/
Deposit Fee/Deposit IT Surcharge
(2.65%)
Planning Application
Fee/Deposit
(45% planning + 25% Other Depts +
IT Surcharge)
Remaining Planning
Application Fee to be
Collected*
(55% Planning +75% Other
Depts)
Total Fee
Collected (with
IT Surcharge)
32 Mills Act Participation Application $3,984 $1,385.00 $36.75 $1,421.75 $1,421.75
33 Administrative Approval Applications $314 $814.67 $21.62 $836.28 $836.28
34 Land Use Documentation Request $187 $414.38 $11.00 $425.37 $425.37
36 General Plan Amendment [2]
Map (includes rezoning), Deposit $16,576 $16,275.11 $431.85 $16,706.95 $16,706.95
Text $17,325 $15,804.41 $419.36 $16,223.77 $16,223.77
37 Specific Plan Amendment, Deposit [2] $15,170 $15,603.66 $414.03 $16,017.69 $16,017.69
38 Annexation, Deposit [2] $22,094 $22,399.82 $594.36 $22,994.18 $22,994.18
39 Sidewalk Cafes
Sidewalk Café User Permit $314 $798.47 $21.19 $819.66 $819.66
Sidewalk Café Use Fee per square foot per month [3]$1 $1.00 $1.00
40 Pre-Application $563 $873.77 $23.18 $896.96 $896.96
With site visit $1,125 $1,098.89 $29.16 $1,128.05 $1,128.05
41 Blue Card Inspection [6]$279 $259.69 $6.89 $266.58 $266.58
42 Development Agreement Application Fee [2] Time & Materials $14,622.53 $388.00 $15,010.52 $15,010.52
43 Reimbursement Agreement [2] Time & Materials $14,622.53 $388.00 $15,010.52 $15,010.52
BULIDING PLAN REVIEW SUPPORT
Residential
Minor $0 $173.13 $4.59 $177.72 $177.72
Moderate $0 $346.25 $9.19 $355.44 $355.44
Major [2]$0 $2,770.02 $73.50 $2,843.52 $2,843.52
Commercial
Minor $0 $259.69 $6.89 $266.58 $266.58
Moderate $0 $432.82 $11.48 $444.30 $444.30
Major [2]$0 $2,770.02 $73.50 $2,843.52 $2,843.52
[Notes]
[1]A location change for a Home Occupation Permit is 25% of
the regular fee.
*The remaining planning fee is
to be paid within 6 months of
final decision on the
entitlement
[2]Fees will be set on a Deposit basis and debited by the
amount of staff time and other materials required to provide
services or Consultant Fee plus 30% Admin Fee .
[3]Sidewalk rental charge not included in fee analysis.
Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule
[4]Separate Fish and Game fees may apply, as set by the State
of California
[5]Modifications to applications are charged at 25% of the
original fee amount, per Department policy
[6]See Final Inspection Approval/Bluecard Signoff (item 16)
[7]Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions.
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 44
1
0.026534105
Fee #Fee Description Current Fee/
Deposit Fee/Deposit IT Surcharge
(2.65%)
Recommended
Fee/Deposit (with IT
Surcharge)
ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL FEES
1 Improvement Plan Check
Plan check fees are based on Estimated Construction Cost (ECC)
$10,000 flat fee up to $10,000 $2,215 $1,518.75 $40.30 $1,559.04
each add'l $10,000 $180 $1,115.47 $29.60 $1,145.07
$100,001 base fee @ $100,001 $4,015 $11,558.02 $306.68 $11,864.70
each add'l $10,000 $180 $114.97 $3.05 $118.02
$500,001 base fee @ $500,001 $11,200 $16,156.66 $428.70 $16,585.36
each add'l $10,000 $180 $139.55 $3.70 $143.25
$1,000,001 base fee @ $1,000,001 $20,200 $23,134.11 $613.84 $23,747.95
each add'l $10,000 $180 $60.94 $1.62 $62.56
$3,000,001 base fee @ $3,000,001 $56,200 $35,696.14 $947.17 $36,643.31
each add'l $10,000 $180 $118.98 $3.16 $122.14
2 Construction Inspection
Inspection fees are based on Estimated Construction Cost (ECC)
$10,000 flat fee up to $10,000 $4,205 $539.61 $539.61
each add'l $10,000 $1,290 $914.34 $914.34
$100,001 base fee @ $100,001 $17,105 $8,768.74 $8,768.74
each add'l $10,000 $1,290 $640.79 $640.79
$500,001 base fee @ $500,001 $68,705 $34,400.45 $34,400.45
each add'l $10,000 $1,290 $283.30 $283.30
$1,000,001 base fee @ $1,000,001 $133,205 $48,565.34 $48,565.34
each add'l $10,000 $1,290 $269.81 $269.81
$3,000,001 base fee @ $3,000,001 $391,205 $102,526.82 $102,526.82
each add'l $10,000 $1,290 $342.00 $342.00
3 Final Maps
Parcel Map - Residential Zone (4 lots or Less)$8,135 $6,278.27 $166.59 $6,444.86
Parcel Map - Commercial Zone (4 lots or less)$8,135 $9,003.33 $238.90 $9,242.23
Plus per lot or common interest unit $102 $47.55 $1.26 $48.82
Tract Map (base fee)$12,226 $13,883.19 $368.38 $14,251.57
Plus per lot or common interest unit $102 $149.74 $3.97 $153.72
4 Certificate of Compliance or Final Lot Line Adjustment Agreement
Lot Line Adjustments $2,876 $2,725.06 $72.31 $2,797.37
Certificates of Compliance $2,876 $681.27 $18.08 $699.34
Additional Document Review/Certificates of Correction $0 $272.51 $7.23 $279.74
5 Encroachment Permits
Curb and Gutter (base fee)$594 $657.05 $17.43 $674.49
plus per linear foot $5 $9.47 $0.25 $9.72
Sidewalk (base fee)$592 $589.60 $15.64 $605.24
plus per linear foot $5 $5.42 $0.14 $5.57
Driveway Approach/Curb Ramp (base fee)$594 $859.41 $22.80 $882.21
plus per linear foot $5 $9.47 $0.25 $9.72
Trenched or Bored Excavation (base fee)
Water Service/Recycled Service(base fee)$592 $677.22 $17.97 $695.19
plus per linear foot $2 $18.91 $0.50 $19.42
Sewer (base fee)$592 $542.31 $14.39 $556.70
plus per linear foot (Bore)$2 $5.42 $0.14 $5.57
plus per linear foot (Trench)$2 $9.47 $0.25 $9.72
Fire Lateral/Hydrant/Water and Recycled Main Extension (base fee)$592 $1,486.64 $39.45 $1,526.09
plus per linear foot $2 $22.96 $0.61 $23.57
Other (base fee)$592 $609.77 $16.18 $625.95
plus per linear foot (Bore)$2 $5.42 $0.14 $5.57
plus per linear foot (Trench)$2 $9.47 $0.25 $9.72
Monitoring Well $981 $203.03 $5.39 $208.42
Other Minor Encroachment Permits not Listed $113 $203.03 $5.39 $208.42
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 45
1
Time Extension for Encroachment Permit $113 $136.25 $3.62 $139.87
Unpermitted Encroachments $113 $679.92 $18.04 $697.96
Encroachment Permit - Plan Review fee (if required)$0 $272.51 $7.23 $279.74
Annual Encroachment Permit for Utility Companies $8,541 $18,523.78 $491.51 $19,015.29
6 Transportation Permit
Single Trip Permit $84 $136.25 $3.62 $139.87
Annual Permit $84 $136.25 $3.62 $139.87
Maximum fee amount established by Department of Transportation and is not subject to CPI increases
7 Fiber Infrastructure Protection Fee (per Call)$145 $261.23 $6.93 $268.16
8 Traffic Control Plan Review
Minor $28 $179.00 $4.75 $183.75
Moderate $290.00 $7.69 $297.69
Major [2]$113 $512.00 $13.59 $525.59
9 Traffic Control Plan Inspection
Minor - first day $0 $67.50 $1.79 $69.29
each additional day $0 $67.50 $1.79 $69.29
Moderate - first day $0 $135.00 $3.58 $138.58
each additional day $0 $67.50 $1.79 $69.29
Major - first day $0 $270.00 $7.16 $277.16
each additional day $0 $67.50 $1.79 $69.29
10 4th and subsequent plan review (per submittal)
Public Improvement Plans $0 $1,427.31 $37.87 $1,465.19
Building Plans $0 $339.96 $9.02 $348.98
Maps / Additional Documents $0 $390.61 $10.36 $400.98
11 Design Exception $0 $272.51 $7.23 $279.74
BUILDING SUPPORT
1
Site Improvements - This includes substantial development of
private parking lots which are processed separate of the structure
and include any combination of the following: Underground utilities,
parking lot lighting, accessible path of travel analysis, grading,
drainage and compliance with the City's parking and driveway
standards.
Square Footage of Site Disturbance:
Non-Single Family Residential
0-2499 -$ $272.51 $7.23 $279.74
2500-4999 -$ $408.76 $10.85 $419.61
5000-14999 -$ $681.27 $18.08 $699.34
15000-21999 -$ $1,090.02 $28.92 $1,118.95
22000-43559 -$ $1,362.53 $36.15 $1,398.68
43560+-$ $1,635.04 $43.38 $1,678.42
Single Family Residential
0-2500 -$ $272.51 $7.23 $279.74
2501+-$ $817.52 $21.69 $839.21
2 Final Inspection Approval / Bluecard Signoff
Square Footage of Site Disturbance:
Non-Single Family Residential
0-2499 -$ $136.25 $3.62 $139.87
2500-4999 -$ $136.25 $3.62 $139.87
5000-14999 -$ $136.25 $3.62 $139.87
15000-21999 -$ $272.51 $7.23 $279.74
22000-43559 -$ $408.76 $10.85 $419.61
43560+-$ $545.01 $14.46 $559.47
Single Family Residential
0-2500 -$ $136.25 $3.62 $139.87
2501+-$ $272.51 $7.23 $279.74
3 Flood Zone Analysis
Minor - Verificatoin only -$ $136.25 $3.62 $139.87
Major - New/Substantial Remodel Analysis/Documentation
-$ $545.01 $14.46 $559.47
4 Post Construction Requirements / Stormwater / Inspection
Impervious Square Footage:
Non-Single Family Residential
0-2499 -$ $136.25 $3.62 $139.87
2500-4999 -$ $272.51 $7.23 $279.74
5000-14999 -$ $545.01 $14.46 $559.47
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 46
1
15000-21999 -$ $545.01 $14.46 $559.47
22000-43559 -$ $817.52 $21.69 $839.21
43560+-$ $1,090.02 $28.92 $1,118.95
Single Family Residential
0-2500 -$ $136.25 $3.62 $139.87
2501+-$ $545.01 $14.46 $559.47
5 Drainage Report/Flood Study - Breadth of Study
Minor -$ $272.51 $7.23 $279.74
Major -$ $681.27 $18.08 $699.34
[Notes]
[1]A location change for a Home Occupation Permit is 25% of the
regular fee.
[2]Fees will be set on a Deposit basis and debited by the amount of
staff time and other materials required to provide services or
Consultant Fee plus 30% Admin Fee .
[3]Sidewalk rental charge not included in fee analysis. Placeholder
for Master Fee Schedule
PUBLIC WORKS SUBMITTAL FEES
TREE MAINTENANCE
2 Tree/Shrub Hazardous Abatement $271 Actual Cost Actual Cost
3 Commemorative Tree Planting [2] $460 $283.72 $283.72
4 Tree Removal Permit $91 $153.68 $153.68
BUILDING PLAN REVIEW $0.00
1
Site Improvements - This includes substantial development of
private parking lots which are processed separate of the structure
and include any combination of the following: Underground utilities,
parking lot lighting, accessible path of travel analysis, grading,
drainage and compliance with the City's parking and driveway
standards.
Square Footage of Site Disturbance:
Non-Single Family Residential
0-2499 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2500-4999 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
5000-14999 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
15000-21999 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
22000-43559 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
43560+$0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Single Family Residential
0-2500 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2501+$0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2 Final Inspection Approval / Bluecard Signoff
Square Footage of Site Disturbance:
Non-Single Family Residential
0-2499 $0 $229.48 $6.09 $235.57
2500-4999 $0 $229.48 $6.09 $235.57
5000-14999 $0 $229.48 $6.09 $235.57
15000-21999 $0 $364.38 $9.67 $374.05
22000-43559 $0 $499.28 $13.25 $512.53
43560+$0 $634.19 $16.83 $651.02
Single Family Residential
0-2500 $0 $229.48 $6.09 $235.57
2501+$0 $229.48 $6.09 $235.57
3 Flood Zone Analysis
Minor - Verificatoin only $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Major - New/Substantial Remodel Analysis/Documentation $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
4 Post Construction Requirements / Stormwater / Inspection
Impervious Square Footage:
Non-Single Family Residential
Fee/Deposit IT Surcharge
(2.65%)
Recommended
Fee/Deposit (with IT
Surcharge)Fee #Fee Description Current Fee/
Deposit
[4] Separate Fish and Game fees may apply, as set by the State of California
[5] Modifications to applications are charged at 25% of the original fee amount, per
Department policy
[6] See Final Inspection Approval/Bluecard Signoff (item 16)
[7] Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions.
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 47
1
0-2499 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2500-4999 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
5000-14999 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
15000-21999 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
22000-43559 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
43560+$0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Single Family Residential
0-2500 $0 $94.57 $2.51 $97.08
2501+$0 $94.57 $2.51 $97.08
5 Drainage Report/Flood Study - Breadth of Study
Minor $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Major $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
6 Review of Mitigation Measures, Conditions, and TIFs $0 $222.48 $5.90 $228.38
[Notes]
[1] Amounts are set by 2010 Ordinance, NBS did not review
[2] Cost of tree and plaque are separate fees in addition to this fee, at $50 and $20 respectively
[3] Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions.
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 48
1
UTILITIES SERVICES FEE SCHEDULE [1]
[2]
1 Meter Services [3]
Install Water Meter (3/4" - 1")[4]$85 $124.98 $3.32 $128.29
Install Water Meter (1.5" - 2")[4]$171 $249.95 $6.63 $256.59
Install Water Meter (larger than 2")[4] Time & Materials n/a Time & Materials
Remove Water Meter (5/8" - 1")$85 $124.98 $124.98
Remove Water Meter (1.5" - 2")$171 $249.95 $249.95
Remove Water Meter (larger than 2")Time & Materials n/a Time & Materials
Retirement of Service $509 $749.86 $749.86
Retirement of Service (larger than 2")Time & Materials $749.86 $749.86
Account Set-up $61 $83.32 $83.32
Account Set-up Same Day $184 n/a
Account Set-up After Hours/Weekends
Minimum 2 hours service fee $263 $291.20 $291.20
Each Additional Hour [7]$0 $145.75 $145.75
Property Management (first 25 set-ups)$1,048 $1,126.49 $1,126.49
Each Additional 25 set-ups $0 $1,126.49 $1,126.49
Disconnect Service for Non-Payment $100 $110.40 $110.40
2 Lateral Installation $384 $499.91 $13.26 $513.17
3 Lateral Abandonment $353 $499.91 $13.26 $513.17
BUILDING PLAN REVIEW / INSPECTION SUPPORT
1 Per Plan Review Submittal
New Meter, trash enclosures, landscape plans $0 $499.91 $13.26 $513.17
RH20 $0 $499.91 $13.26 $513.17
C&D Recycling $0 $62.49 $1.66 $64.15
[Notes]
[1] Water And Sewer Service Rates Are Adopted By Council
[2] 1 Unit = 748 Gallons
[3] Fees for hardware Charged at Actual Cost
[4] Plus Meter Cost
[5] Set by City Ordinance. NBS did not evaluate
[6] Fees will be set on a Deposit basis and debited by the amount of
staff time and other materials required to provide services
[7] Calculated at OT rate for each additonal hour of service required
ft lb i h b d2h[8] Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions.
Fee/Deposit IT Surcharge
(2.65%)
Recommended
Fee/Deposit (with IT
Surcharge)Fee #Fee Description Current Fee/
Deposit
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 49
1
FIRE DEPARTMENT
HAZARDOUS OCCUPANCY PERMITS [1]
1 Aircraft Refueling Vehicles $343 $141.18 $3.75 $144.92
2 Aircraft Repair Hangar $343 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
3 Automobile Wrecking Yard $343 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
4 Bonfire or Rubbish Fires $343 $141.18 $3.75 $144.92
5 Burning in Public Place $343 $141.18 $3.75 $144.92
6 Candles or Open-Flames in Assembly Areas $343 $141.18 $3.75 $144.92
7 Combustible Fiber Storage (handle/store over 100 cu ft)$343 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
8 Compressed Gases $343 $141.18 $3.75 $144.92
9 Cryogens $343 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
10 Dry Cleaning Plant $343 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
11 Dust Producing Operation $343 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
12 Explosives or Blasting Agents $343 $564.71 $14.98 $579.70
13 Fireworks $343 $564.71 $14.98 $579.70
14 Flammable or Combustible Liquids (Unless in the CUPA Program)$343 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
15 Fruit Ripening - Ethylene Gas Fogging $343 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
16 Garages - Repair $343 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
17 Hazardous Chemicals (Unless in the CUPA Program):$343 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
18 High-Piled Combustible Stock - exceeding 2500 sq ft $343 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
19 Junk Yards $343 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
20 Liquefied Petroleum Gas $343 $211.77 $5.62 $217.39
21 Lumberyard - Storage in excess of 100,000 board feet $343 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
22 Magnesium Working - Process more than 10 lbs daily $343 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
23 Mall (covered)$343 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
24 Organic Coatings - manufacture over 1 gallon a day $343 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
25 Ovens - Industrial, Baking and Drying $343 $141.18 $3.75 $144.92
26 Places of Assembly $343 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
27 Refrigeration Equipment - Mechanical refrigeration (see UFC for
most common refrigerants)
$343 $423.53 $11.24 $434.77
28 Spraying or Dipping $343 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
29 Tents and Air-supported Structures - excess of 200 sq ft $343 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
30 Tire Re-capping $343 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
31 Waste Material Plant $343 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
32 Welding and Cutting Operations - Any Occupancy $343 $211.77 $5.62 $217.39
33 Additional Permitted Use (per permit)[1]$343 $70.59 $1.87 $72.46
NON-MANDATED / REQUIRED INSPECTIONS
34 Commercial Business Inspections (Up to 3 stories)
0 – 5,000 sq. ft. $0 $0.00
5,001 – 40,000 sq. ft.$0 $0.00
40,001 – 120,000 sq. ft.$0 $0.00
120,001 – 150,000 sq. ft.$0 $0.00
150,001 – or more sq. ft.$0 $0.00
35 Mid Rise Inspections (4 -6 stories)$0 $0.00
36 New Business Inspection [9]$0 $0.00
FIRE FALSE ALARM FEES
37 Initial Permit and Renewal Registrations - see Police
38 False fire alarms shall be considered excessive when they meet or
exceed the following number:
Two false alarms in any thirty-day period no charge no charge
Three false alarms in any three-hundred-sixty day period no charge no charge
39 False alarms exceeding these numbers $548 $548.00
CERTIFIED UNIFIED PARTICIPATING AGENCY FEES [3]
40 Hazardous Materials Handlers
Remote utility (1-time fee) $370 $542.31 $542.31
1 - 4 Materials handled $213 $312.20 $312.20
5 - 10 Materials handled $243 $356.17 $356.17
Fee/Deposit IT Surcharge
(2.65%)
Recommended
Fee/Deposit (with IT
Surcharge)Fee #Fee Description Current Fee/
Deposit
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 50
1
11+ Materials handled $291 $426.52 $426.52
41 Waste Generators
1 Waste stream (professional or medical)$143 $209.60 $209.60
1 - 5 Waste streams (all others)$213 $312.20 $312.20
6+ Waste streams $287 $420.66 $420.66
Waste Stream (DeMinimus)$69 $101.13 $101.13
42 Tiered Permitting
CE $452 $662.50 $662.50
CA $712 $1,043.59 $1,043.59
PBR $1,682 $2,465.33 $2,465.33
43 Underground Storage Tanks (general model)
First tank $1,229 $1,801.36 $1,801.36
Each additional tank
Tank installation $4,011 $5,878.99 $5,878.99
Tank removal $3,105 $4,551.05 $4,551.05
Minor Modification $1,164 $1,706.09 $1,706.09
Major Modification $3,622 $5,308.82 $5,308.82
44 Above Ground Storage Tanks
One Tank $135 $197.87 $197.87
Two Tanks $270 $395.74 $395.74
Three Tanks $323 $473.43 $473.43
45 CALARP
New Stationary Source Facility $1,772 $2,597.25 $2,597.25
Existing Annual Facility Inspection $276 $404.54 $404.54
46 Site Remediation Oversight $138 $202.27 $202.27
Soil Remediation $138 $202.27 $202.27
Temporary Closure Permit $1,153 $1,689.97 $1,689.97
47 Closures
Temporary Closure $1,229 $1,801.36 $1,801.36
Closure in Place $1,553 $2,276.26 $2,276.26
48 Late Fee [4]
Annual permit fees received 31-60 days after original invoice day 25% Penalty n/a 25% Penalty
Annual permit fees received 61 + days after original invoice day an additional 25%
penalty
n/a an additional 25% penalty
FIRE EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL STAND-BY FEES
49 Fire Engine/Ladder Truck [5] $419 $0.00 $419.00
50 Squad or Light Rescue Equipment [5] $261 $0.00 $261.00
51 Third & Subsequent Fire Inspection Fee $127 $168.56 $168.56
52 Additional Site Inspection Fee (one hour min.) Determined by
Finance Director
$0.00 Determined by Finance
Director
53 Fire Investigation/Fire Preventions Determined by
Finance Director
$0.00 Determined by Finance
Director
54 Firefighter Standby Determined by
Finance Director
$0.00 Determined by Finance
Director
55 Administrative/Clerical Determined by
Finance Director
$0.00 Determined by Finance
Director
6] [7]
56 Administrative Fee [8]
Processing per facility $65 $84.28 $2.24 $86.51
Each Additional Owner $0 $10.00 $0.27 $10.27
57 Apartment Houses
Fees are waived for units that are built, owned and managed by the
San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, other government agencies or
not-for-profit housing organizations
Up to 10 units $140 $337.11 $8.95 $346.06
11 - 20 Units $420 $505.67 $13.42 $519.09
21 - 50 Units $980 $674.23 $17.89 $692.12
51 - 100 Units $2,100 $842.79 $22.36 $865.15
101 - 200 Units $4,200 $1,348.46 $35.78 $1,384.24
Every additional 100 Units over 200 $2,800 $337.11 $8.95 $346.06
58 Hotels, Motels, Lodging Houses, Bed & Breakfast Facilities,
Youth Hostel Facilities, Senior Facilities, Sororities, Fraternities
and Other Congregate Residences
Hotel, Motel, Bed & Breakfast
MULTI-DWELLING FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY INSPECTION FEE
SCHEDULE
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 51
1
1 - 20 Units $200 $337.11 $8.95 $346.06
21 - 50 Units $200 $505.67 $13.42 $519.09
51 - 100 Units $300 $842.79 $22.36 $865.15
101 - 200 Units $400 $1,348.46 $35.78 $1,384.24
Sorority and Fraternity $400 $674.23 $17.89 $692.12
Condominiums
Up to 10 Units $200 $337.11 $8.95 $346.06
11 - 20 Units $200 $505.67 $13.42 $519.09
21 - 50 Units $300 $674.23 $17.89 $692.12
51 - 500 Units $400 $1,011.34 $26.84 $1,038.18
OTHER FIRE FEES
59 Hydrant Flow Test (First Hydrant)$356 $168.56 $4.47 $173.03
60 Hydrant Flow Test (Each Additional Hydrant)$138 $84.28 $2.24 $86.51
61 Reinspection Fee (construction)$149 $168.56 $4.47 $173.03
62 Board of Appeals $138 $168.56 $4.47 $173.03
63 Emergency Call-Out (Non-Scheduled)$553 $657.06 $17.43 $674.49
64 After Hours Call-Out (Scheduled)$138 $164.27 $4.36 $168.62
[Notes]
[1] For Locations with multiple required permits, fee is calculated at
highest permit fee, plus 1/2 hour of inspection per additional
permitted use.
[2] Penalty for excessive false alarms set by City Ordinance - not
required for review in this study
[3] A discount of $79.00 will be provided for two or more programs
reviewed simultaneously.
[4] Fees are punitive in nature and do not require a cost of service
analysis.
[5] Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule, NBS did not study
[6] Fees are waived for units that are built, owned and managed by the
San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, other government agencies or
not-for-profit housing organizations
[7] These fees are applicable to all multi-dwelling units in the City based
on the definitions set forth in the 2007 California Building Code
[8] Administrative fee applies to both Apt Houses and Hotels, Motels,
etc. Total processing fee calculated will be divided equally amongst
all owners.
Fire - Development Services
NEW CONSTRUCTION, ADDITIONS, AND MAJOR REMODELS
1
Commercial Uses - Structural (All newly constructed, added, or
structurally remodeled space for non-residential occupancies
classified as CBC Group A, B, E, F, H, I, M, or other commercial
occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee
Schedule)
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $682 $917.66 $24.35 $942.00
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.45 $0.27 $0.01 $0.27
5,000 (base cost) $2,726 $2,117.67 $56.19 $2,173.86
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.26 $0.25 $0.01 $0.26
10,000 (base cost) $4,016 $3,388.27 $89.90 $3,478.17
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.05 $0.07 $0.00 $0.07
50,000 (base cost) $6,061 $6,141.23 $162.95 $6,304.19
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.04 $0.05 $0.00 $0.05
100,000 (base cost) $8,032 $8,753.02 $232.25 $8,985.28
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.08 $0.09 $0.00 $0.09
2
Commercial Residential and Multifamily Residential Uses - (All
newly constructed, added, or structurally remodeled space for
residential occupancies classified as CBC Group R (except R-3), or
other residential occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere
in this Fee Schedule)
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $871 $917.66 $24.35 $942.00
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.58 $0.27 $0.01 $0.27
5,000 (base cost) $3,485 $2,117.67 $56.19 $2,173.86Fee #Fee Description Current Fee/
Deposit
Recommended
Fee/Deposit (with IT
Surcharge)
IT Surcharge
(2.65%)Fee/Deposit
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 52
1
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.36 $0.25 $0.01 $0.26
10,000 (base cost) $5,269 $3,388.27 $89.90 $3,478.17
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.07 $0.07 $0.00 $0.07
50,000 (base cost)
$7,883 $6,141.23 $162.95 $6,304.19
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.05 $0.05 $0.00 $0.05
100,000 (base cost) $10,537 $8,753.02 $232.25 $8,985.28
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.11 $0.09 $0.00 $0.09
3 Duplicate Floor Plan Review - Commercial Residential and
Multifamily Residential Uses
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $548 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.12 $0.08 $0.00 $0.08
5,000 (base cost) $1,097 $705.89 $18.73 $724.62
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.04 $0.11 $0.00 $0.12
10,000 (base cost) $1,316 $1,270.60 $33.71 $1,304.31
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.01 $0.03 $0.00 $0.03
50,000 (base cost)
$1,645 $2,470.61 $65.56 $2,536.17
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.01 $0.04 $0.00 $0.04
100,000 (base cost) $2,193 $4,235.33 $112.38 $4,347.71
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.02 $0.04 $0.00 $0.04
4
Low and Moderate Hazard Storage - (All newly constructed,
added, or structurally remodeled space for storage occupancies
classified as CBC Group S, or other storage occupancies not
specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule)
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $408 $776.48 $20.60 $797.08
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.52 $0.24 $0.01 $0.24
5,000 (base cost) $2,726 $1,835.31 $48.70 $1,884.01
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.26 $0.08 $0.00 $0.09
10,000 (base cost) $4,016 $2,258.84 $59.94 $2,318.78
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.05 $0.03 $0.00 $0.03
50,000 (base cost)
$6,061 $3,317.68 $88.03 $3,405.71
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.04 $0.03 $0.00 $0.03
100,000 (base cost) $8,032 $4,800.04 $127.36 $4,927.41
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.08 $0.05 $0.00 $0.05
5
Attached Accessory and Utility Uses - (All newly constructed,
added, or structurally remodeled space for utility and accessory
occupancies classified as CBC Group U, or other utility and
accessory occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in
this Fee Schedule)
Square Footage:
200 (base cost) $333 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment) 0.34$ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
400 (base cost) $401 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment) 0.84$ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
600 (base cost) $568 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment) 0.24$ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 53
1
1,000 (base cost)
$663 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment) 0.19$ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
3,000 (base cost) $1,044 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment) 0.35$ $0.12 $0.00 $0.12
6
Detached Accessory and Utility Uses - (All newly constructed,
added, or structurally remodeled space for utility and accessory
occupancies classified as CBC Group U, or other utility and
accessory occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in
this Fee Schedule)
Square Footage:
200 (base cost) $314 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.31 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
400 (base cost) $376 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.80 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
600 (base cost) $536 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.22 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
1,000 (base cost) $625 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.18 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
3,000 (base cost) $981 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.33 $0.12 $0.00 $0.12
7
Shell Buildings for all Commercial Uses - (The enclosure for all
newly constructed, added, or structurally remodeled space for non-
residential occupancies classified as CBC Group A, B, E, F, H, I, M,
or other commercial occupancies not specifically addressed
elsewhere in this Fee Schedule where the interior is not completed
or occupiable)
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $421 $917.66 $24.35 $942.00
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.27 $0.27 $0.01 $0.27
5,000 (base cost) $1,636 $2,117.67 $56.19 $2,173.86
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.15 $0.11 $0.00 $0.12
10,000 (base cost) $2,410 $2,682.38 $71.17 $2,753.55
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.03 $0.03 $0.00 $0.03
50,000 (base cost) $3,636 $3,882.39 $103.02 $3,985.40
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.02 $0.02 $0.00 $0.02
100,000 (base cost) $4,819 $4,800.04 $127.36 $4,927.41
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.05 $0.05 $0.00 $0.05
8
Commercial Tenant Improvement - Non Structural - (Non-
structurally remodeled space for non-residential occupancies
classified as CBC Group A, B, E, F, H, I, M, or other commercial
occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee
Schedule where the structure is not altered)
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $333 $494.12 $13.11 $507.23
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.23 $0.30 $0.01 $0.31
5,000 (base cost) $1,363 $1,835.31 $48.70 $1,884.01
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.13 $0.20 $0.01 $0.20
10,000 (base cost) $2,008 $2,823.56 $74.92 $2,898.48
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.03 $0.03 $0.00 $0.03
50,000 (base cost) $3,030 $4,164.74 $110.51 $4,275.25
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.02 $0.05 $0.00 $0.05
100,000 (base cost) $4,016 $6,776.53 $179.81 $6,956.34
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.04 $0.07 $0.00 $0.07
9
Commercial Residential and Multifamily Residential Remodels -
Non Structural - (Non-Structurally remodeled space for residential
occupancies classified as CBC Group R (except R-3), or other
residential occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this
Fee Schedule)
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $342 $494.12 $13.11 $507.23
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 54
1
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.23 $0.30 $0.01 $0.31
5,000 (base cost) $1,370 $1,835.31 $48.70 $1,884.01
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.13 $0.20 $0.01 $0.20
10,000 (base cost) $2,004 $2,823.56 $74.92 $2,898.48
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.03 $0.03 $0.00 $0.03
50,000 (base cost) $3,031 $4,164.74 $110.51 $4,275.25
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.02 $0.05 $0.00 $0.05
100,000 (base cost) $4,008 $6,776.53 $179.81 $6,956.34
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.04 $0.07 $0.00 $0.07
10
Single Family Dwellings and Duplexes - (All newly constructed
space for residential occupancies classified as CBC Group R-3,
including custom builds and model homes for tract master plans, or
other similar residential occupancies not specifically addressed
elsewhere in this Fee Schedule)
Square Footage:
1,000 (base cost) $906 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.60 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2,500 (base cost) $1,812 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.21 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
4,000 (base cost) $2,130 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.41 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
6,000 (base cost) $2,949 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.57 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
8,000 (base cost) $4,086 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.51 $0.04 $0.00 $0.05
11 Duplicate Floor Plan Review - Single Family Dwellings and
Duplexes
Square Footage:
1,000 (base cost) $601 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.40 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2,500 (base cost) $1,203 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.17 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
4,000 (base cost) $1,460 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.36 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
6,000 (base cost) $2,187 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.49 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
8,000 (base cost) $3,171 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.40 $0.04 $0.00 $0.04
12 Duplicate Floor Plan Review - Attached or Detached Accessory
and Utility Uses
Square Footage:
200 (base cost) $246 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.16 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
400 (base cost) $278 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.66 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
600 (base cost) $409 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.19 $0.18 $0.00 $0.18
1,000 (base cost) $486 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.15 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
3,000 (base cost) $791 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.26 $0.12 $0.00 $0.12
15
Site Improvements - This includes substantial development of
private parking lots which are processed separate of the structure
and include any combination of the following: Underground utilities,
parking lot lighting, accessible path of travel analysis, grading,
drainage and compliance with the City's parking and driveway
standards.
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $228 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.15 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
5,000 (base cost) $912 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.09 $0.06 $0.00 $0.06
10,000 (base cost) $1,341 $635.30 $16.86 $652.16
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.02 $0.01 $0.00 $0.01
50,000 (base cost) $2,026 $917.66 $24.35 $942.00
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 55
1
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.01 $0.01 $0.00 $0.01
100,000 (base cost) $2,683 $1,482.37 $39.33 $1,521.70
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.03 $0.01 $0.00 $0.02
FIRE SPRINKLER AND SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS
(Issued by Building and Safety)
16 Fire Sprinkler Systems (New Installation)
1-25 Heads $576 $917.66 $24.35 $942.00
26-50 Heads $506 $1,270.60 $33.71 $1,304.31
51-100 Heads $576 $1,411.78 $37.46 $1,449.24
101-200 Heads $715 $1,905.90 $50.57 $1,956.47
Every 200 Heads above 200 $138 $564.71 $14.98 $579.70
17 Fire Alarm System (New Installation)
1-50 Devices $300 $917.66 $24.35 $942.00
51-100 Devices $369 $1,552.96 $41.21 $1,594.16
Every 50 Devices above 100 $162 $564.71 $14.98 $579.70
Sprinkler Monitoring System $231 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
18 Fire Sprinkler Systems (Tenant Improvement)
1-25 Heads $576 $494.12 $13.11 $507.23
26-50 Heads $506 $635.30 $16.86 $652.16
51-100 Heads $576 $988.24 $26.22 $1,014.47
101-200 Heads $715 $1,270.60 $33.71 $1,304.31
Every 200 Heads above 200 $138 $564.71 $14.98 $579.70
19 Fire Alarm System (Tenant Improvement)
1-50 Devices $300 $917.66 $24.35 $942.00
51-100 Devices $369 $1,552.96 $41.21 $1,594.16
Every 50 Devices above 100 $162 $635.30 $16.86 $652.16
Sprinkler Monitoring System $231 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
20 Other Suppression Systems
Insert Gas Systems $369 $988.24 $26.22 $1,014.47
Dry Chemical Systems $231 $564.71 $14.98 $579.70
Wet Chemical/Kitchen Hood
$300 $423.53 $11.24 $434.77
Foam Systems $369 $1,764.72 $46.83 $1,811.55
Paint Spray Booth $300 $635.30 $16.86 $652.16
OTHER MISCELLANEOUS FEES
37 Alternative Method and Material Review $0 $564.71 $14.98 $579.70
38 Expedited Plan Review Fee [7]
[Notes]
[1]1/2 hour of inspection per additional permitted use.
[2]A discount of $79.00 will be provided for two or more programs
reviewed simultaneously.
[3]
Fees are waived for units that are built, owned and managed by the
San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, other government agencies or
not-for-profit housing organizations
[4]
These fees are applicable to all multi-dwelling units in the City based
on the definitions set forth in the 2007 California Building Code
[5]Penalty for excessive false alarms set by City Ordinance - not
required for review in this study
[6]Includes average cost for vehicle staffing. Equipment rates will be
added separately by department
[7]Expedited fees set on a City policy basis at overtime rate for City
staff or outsourced consultant costs as needed
[8]Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions.
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 56
1
POLICE DEPARTMENT
1 Processing charge for return of property taken for safekeeping
Processing & maintenance fee $11 $11.00
2 Clearance Letters [1] $25 $25.00
3 Civil SDT [2] $15 $15.00
4 Criminal SDT [3] $0 $0.00
5 Civil Subpoena [4] $275 $275.00
6 Concealed Weapons Permit (set by penal code 26190)
Investigative costs and permit processing $100 $100.00
Renewal $25 $25.00
7 Massage Facility Permit $402 $294.08
8 Massage Technician Initial Permit $126 $203.56
9 Massage Technician Permit Renewal $115 $178.92
10 Local Record Information [5] $26 $26.00
11 Impound Vehicle Release (30-day impound)$137 $138.21
12 Vehicle Tow Release Fee $79 $78.47
13 Record sealing fee set by penal code (851.8) Determined by
Finance Director
Determined by
Finance Director
14 Property Damage-Only Collisions Investigations
per party per non-injury traffic collision investigation report $61 $113.15
15 Administrative Investigations Determined by
Finance Director
Determined by
Finance Director
16 Solicitor Permits
Initial Investigations $187 $139.80
Follow-up required Determined by
Finance Director
$0.00
17 Administrative Citations [6]
Noise Violation, Urination in Public and/or Open Alcohol Container
First citation for each such violation (except open container) $350 $350.00
First citation (open container)$100 $100.00
Second citation for each such violation $700 $700.00
Third citation for each such violation $1,000 $1,000.00
Cost Recovery Programs
18 DUI Cost recovery Determined by
Finance Director
Determined by
Finance Director
19 Nuisance abatement Determined by
Finance Director
Determined by
Finance Director
20 Alarm Permits (City processing cost, net of contractor payment)[8]
Permit $37 $37.73
Renewal $37 $37.73
Excessive alarms [6]
Third $82 $82.00
Fourth $137 $137.00
Fifth $226 $226.00
Sixth $406 $406.00
Seventh & More $619 $619.00
21 Second Response Cost Recovery Determined by
Finance Director
Determined by
Finance Director
22 Taxi Permit
Permit fee $119 $223.27
Permit Renewal fee $93 $228.20
23 Electronic Game Center Permit $385 $411.36
24 Public Dance Permit $89 $98.40
25 Tobacco License Fee - per location $540 $693.90
26 Livescan [7]$0.00
City Processed $0 $0.00
Volunteer Processed $0 $8.18Fee #Fee Description Current Fee/
Deposit
Recommended
Fee/Deposit
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 57
1
27 Mobile Food Vendor License $187 $154.28
PLANNING SUPPORT
28 Administrative Use Permit (bars/nightclubs)$271.56
[Notes]
[1]Fee set by penal code (13322), Dept did not wish to undergo time or
cost of service analysis
[2]Fee set by CA evidence code 1563, Dept did not wish to undergo
time or cost of service analysis
[3]Access through the Discovery Order process, Dept did not wish to
undergo time or cost of service analysis
[4]Fee set by statute (GC 68097.2). Statute increased fee in 2013-14,
Dept did not wish to undergo time or cost of service analysis
[5]Fee limited b penal code (13322), Dept did not wish to undergo time
or cost of service analysis
Fee #Fee Description Current Fee/
Deposit
Fee/Deposit
2017-18
Fee/Deposit
2018-19
Youth Services
Sun-N-Fun
Registration Fee $60 $60.00 $60.00
School Year - hourly option $4 $4.50 $5.00
Teacher Work Day
Teacher Work Day $40 $50.00 $55.00
Late Reg TWD
$50 Weekly Rate + $10 Weekly Rate + $10
Spring Break Camp
Weekly Option $175 $180.00 $185.00
Late Reg Spring Break Weekly
$185 Weekly Rate + $10 Weekly Rate + $10
Daily Option $41 $50.00 $55.00
Late Reg Spring Break Daily
$43 Weekly Rate + $10 Weekly Rate + $10
Summer Camp
Registration Fee $5.00/week $5.00 $5.00
Full week Care Option $160 $175.00 $175.00
Summer School Option $115 TBD*TBD*
Day Rate Option $40 $44.00 $45.00
Field Trip Sign Ups $5 - $20 $5.00 - $20.00 $5.00 - $20.00
SLO Teens Annual Fee
School Year Teen Program $10 $15.00 $20.00
Late Registration Fee $10 $10.00 $10.00
Youth Services Special Events $0 - $20 $0.00 - $20.00 $0.00 - $20.00
Aquatics
Lap Swim
Adult per use $3 $3.00 $3.00
Adult Monthly $45 $45.00 $45.00
Youth/Senior per $2.50 $2.50 $2.50
Youth/Senior monthly $35 $35.00 $35.00
Recreational Swim
Adult per use $3 $3.50 $4.00
Youth/Senior per $2.50 $3.00 $3.50
Swim Script
Adult per use $27 $27.00 $27.00
Youth/Senior per $22.50 $22.50 $22.50
Recreational Swim Script
Adult per use $27 $31.50 $37.00
PARKS AND RECREATION
[6] Set by Municipal Code, punitive in nature and excluded from cost analysis.
[7] City fee only. DOJ fee charged separately.
[8] City's current fee is $36. Amount reduced to evaluate City cost of providing
services. Per contract agreement, additional 15% should be added to City fee
as a pass through to the contractor.
[*] Unless set by Statue or Penal Codes, fees are increased annually by CPI
(done by Finance dept.)
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 58
1
Youth/Senior per $22.50 $27.00 $31.50
Lessons
Lessons $53 $75.00 $100.00
Private Lessons $108 $145.00 $172.00
Special Classes
Lifeguard $200 $200.00 $200.00
Warm Water Exercise $75 $100.00 $100.00
$30/day +
$16.40/LG
$50/day +
$19.40/LG
$50/day +
$20.40/LG
$200 $200.00 $200.00
Recreational Sports
Adult Softball
Teams (15 per team)
$465 $500.00 $550.00
Instructional Classes
Instructional Classes
$8 - $142 $8.00 - $142.00 $8.00 - $142.00
$4 - $393 $4.00 - $393.00 $4.00 - $393.00
Spectial Events
Triathlon
Individual $75 $80.00 $80.00
Team $135 $145.00 $145.00
P&R Events
Parks and Recreation Sponsored Events $15 $0 - $60.00 $0- $60.00
Special Application Fees
Special Event Application
$70 $100 park
only/$160
encroachment
$100 park
only/$160
encroachment
Banner Permit Application/Installation $181 $200.00 $200.00
Film Application Fee
Still Photography $90 $95.00 $100.00
Commercial $120 $126.00 $131.00
Non-Profit $35 $37.00 $40.00
Destination Marketing $0 $0.00 $0.00
Permit Fee
Permit Processing Fee $10 $15.00 $15.00
Full Park Use $460 $460.00 $460.00
Half Park Use $230 $230.00 $230.00
Mission Plaza
Full Plaza $460 $560.00 $560.00
Full Plaza (Non-Profit/Communtiy Event)$460 $460.00 $460.00
Indoor Facilities
Ludwick Community Center
Assembly Room (Non-Profit)$26 $28.00 $30.00
Assembly Room (For-Profit)$57 $60.00 $63.00
Gymnasium (Non-Profit)$34 $36.00 $38.00
Gymnasium (For-Profit)$61 $64.00 $67.00
Kitchen (Non-Profit)$11 $12.00 $13.00
Kitchen (For-Profit)$16 $17.00 $18.00
Floor Covers $70 $75.00 $80.00
Full Facility Use (14 Hours)$1400 $1,480.50 $1,554.00
Senior Center
Main Room (Non-Profit)$26 $28.00 $30.00
Main Room (For-Profit)$57 $60.00 $63.00
Conference Room (Non-Profit)$14 $15.00 $16.00
Conference Room (For-Profit)$19 $20.00 $21.00
Meadow Park Building
Non-Profit $14 $15.00 $16.00
For-Profit $19 $20.00 $21.00
City/County Library
Community Room (Non-Profit)$26 $28.00 $30.00
Junior Lifeguard Program
Adult/Senior
Youth
Facility Use
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 59
1
Community Room (For-Profit)$57 $60.00 $63.00
Conference Room (Non-Profit)$14 $15.00 $16.00
Conference Room (For-Profit)$19 $20.00 $21.00
Outdoor Facilities
$62 $65.00 $68.00
Wedding and Reception $757 N/A N/A
Full Day WEEKEND (Resident)NA $2,000.00 $3,000.00
Full Day WEEKEND (non-resident)N/A $2,400.00 $3,400.00
Full Day WEEKDAY (Resident)N/A $1,800.00 $2,800.00
Full Day WEEKDAY (non-resident)N/A $2,000.00 $3,000.00
Party (1-50) Attendance (4 hour)$186 N/A N/A
Under 50 Per Hour N/A $100.00 $100.00
Under 50 Per Hour (Non-Profit)N/A $45.00 $45.00
50-100 Per Hour N/A $200.00 $200.00
50-100 Per Hour (Non-Profit)N/A $90.00 $90.00
100+ Per Hour N/A $300.00 $300.00
100+ Per Hour (Non-Profit)N/A $135.00 $135.00
Security Deposit N/A $500.00 $500.00
Table/Chair Rental $180 Included Included
Softball Fields
Hourly Field Use $24 $24.00 $24.00
Light Fee $22 $22.00 $22.00
Multi-Use Courts
Hourly Use
$5 $5.50 $6.00
Light Fee N/A $11.00 $11.00
Tennis & Volleyball Courts
Full Use Facility (Day)$8 $8.50 $9.00
Damon-Garcia
Full Use Facility (Day)$444 $444.00 $444.00
Full Use Facility (Hour)$72 $72.00 $72.00
Full Use Light Fee (Hour)$43 $43.00 $43.00
Maintenance Fee $24 $24.00 $24.00
Concession Stand Rental $120 $120.00 $120.00
Lower Fields Facility Use (Day)$295 $295.00 $295.00
Lower Fields Facility Use (Hour)$48 $48.00 $48.00
Lower Fields Light Fee $22 $22.00 $22.00
Single Field Facility Use (Day)$151 $151.00 $151.00
Single Field Facility Use (Hour)$24 $24.00 $24.00
Single Field Light Fee $22 $22.00 $22.00
Baseball Stadium
Hourly Field Use $24 $24.00 $24.00
Lights $22 $22.00 $22.00
Press box Rental $16 $16.00 $16.00
Field prep $41 $41.00 $41.00
Concession Stand Rental $23 $23.00 $23.00
Mission Plaza
Full Plaza $460 $560.00 $560.00
Full Plaza (Non-Profit/Communtiy Event)$460 $460.00 $460.00
Film Application Fee
Still Photography $90 $95.00 $100.00
Commercial $120 $126.00 $131.00
Non-Profit $35 $37.00 $40.00
Destination Marketing $0 $0.00 $0.00
Permit Fee
Permit Processing Fee $10 $15.00 $15.00
Full Park Use $460 $460.00 $460.00
Half Park Use $230 $230.00 $230.00
Other
$31 $32.50 $34.00Bounce House
BBQ/Picnic Areas
Jack House Gardens
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 60
1
$31 $32.00 $34.00
Community Gardens
Community Gardens
$25/yr + $0.03 per
sq ft
$28/yr + $0.03 per
sq ft
$30/yr + $0.03 per
sq ft
Ranger Service
Junior Ranger Camp
Junior Ranger Camp $125 $131.00 $137.00
Golf Course
Laguna Lake Golf Course
$7.00/person $8.00/person $8.00/person
$3.00/cart $3.00/cart $3.00/cart
Rounds
Monday-Thursday (Regular)$11 $13.00 $13.00
Monday-Thursday (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil)$9 $10.00 $10.00
Friday-Sunday (Regular)$12 $14.00 $14.00
Friday-Sunday (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil)$10 $11.00 $11.00
Replay $6.75 $7.00 $7.00
Off Peak (M-Th 12-3 PM) (Regular)$10 $11.00 $11.00
Off Peak (M-Th 12-3 PM) (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil)$9 $10.00 $10.00
Twilight (after 3 PM)$8.25 $8.50 $8.50
Family Rate $20 $25.00 $25.00
Super Twilight $5 $5.00 $5.00
10-Play Cards (Regular)$97.50 $115.00 $115.00
10-Play Cards (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil)$82.50 $87.50 $87.50
* Dependent Upon School District Offering a Summer School Program and Needed Childcare Hours (partial day). Hourly Rates Would
Apply.
Cart Rental
Pull Carts
Portable BBQ
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 61
1
Fee #Fee Description Current Fee/
Deposit
Recommended
Fee/Deposit
FEES
1 New Business License Processing Fee
Application $47.00 $54.41
Zoning Fee
Planning Department Sign Off [4]
Building Department Sign Off [4]
Subtotal Zoning Fee $97.00 $103.88
2 Annual Business License Renewal Processing Fee
$47.00 $45.70
3 Home Occupancy Business
Renewal or New Application [7]
$47.00 $32.64
4 Business License & Tax Certificate Replacement Fee $43.00 $10.88
5 Change of Location Only [4]
Application $47.00 $10.88
Zoning Fee
Planning Department Sign Off
Building Department Sign Off
Subtotal Zoning Fee $97.00 $103.88
6 Special Requests for GIS services [6]$0.00 $105.51
7 Returned Check Fee [1]
Initial returned check $25.00 $25.00
Each subsequent returned check $35.00 $35.00
TAXES [8]
8 Annual Business Minimum Tax Fee
$25.00 $0.00
or 0.5%, whichever is greater
9 Annual Downtown Assessment -for locations within Downtown
$150.00 $0.00
or 0.5%, whichever is greater
10 SB1186 State Fee - Disability Access [5]$1.00 $0.00
[Notes]
[1]Set by Section 1719 of the Civil Code
[4]Businesses within the City of San Luis Obispo
[5]Added to new licenses and renewals - does not increase
[6]New fee item
[7]Consult Planning Fee table for additional Home Occupation Permit
fee
[8]NBS did not evaluate taxes as part of Study
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 62
1
Meeting Date: 2/21/2017
FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Marcus Carloni, Special Projects Manager
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW A COST OF SERVICE FEE STUDY
PREPARED TO INFORM A PROPOSED UPDATE OF CITYWIDE USER
AND REGULATORY FEES.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Hold a study session and receive a presentation on the draft results of the user and
regulatory fee study prepared by NBS Government Finance Group; and
2. Receive public input and provide guidance to staff regarding recommended fees and any
changes to current policies or practices; and
3. Direct staff to perform outreach to interested parties consistent with the Public
Engagement and Noticing Manual; and
4. Return on April 18, 2017, with a resolution to implement new cost of service fees as
directed by the City Council.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The Fiscal Responsibility and Responsibility Goal adopted in the 2015-2017 Financial Plan
include an action to update the City’s user and regulatory fees 1. Additionally, the City’s user fee
recovery goals (Financial Plan Section H) call for the City to review and update service charges
approximately every five years to adjust to changes in the cost -of-living and changes in
methods/levels of service delivery (Attachment A, Cost Recovery Goals). As such, the City
contracted with NBS Government Finance Group to review and update the City’s user and
regulatory fees (commonly known as cost of service fees) which include development review,
inspection and approval fees as well as fees charged for recreational classes, sport programs, and
public safety services. The study does not include review of development impact fees (AB 1600
Fees) which are under review in a separate effort.
The City’s user and regulatory fee recovery goals indicate cost recovery amounts dependent
upon types of projects/programs. Based on the current policy, Development Review related
programs (e.g service fees in planning, building and safety, engineering, fire departments) should
generally have very high cost recovery (100% in most instances) and programs in Parks and
Recreation are divided into tiers (low, mid, high) dependent on the activities and users (see
discussion in “cost recovery goals” below). All fees are recommended to recover up to 100% of
costs, per current cost recovery goals, with the exception of Parks and Recreation fees, fees
established by statute or applicable administrative code, and some of the planning fees associated
with entitlements that are commonly requested by homeowners as well as those with potential
community-wide benefit (see “key changes” below). The draft fee schedule with staff
recommended cost recovery levels is provided in Attachment B.
1 Adjust existing fees per Council policy and in accordance with User Cost Recovery Goals
Attachment C
Packet Pg 63
1
The draft results of the user and regulatory fee study are provided in Attachment C, NBS Fee
Study. The study indicates that, currently, the City is recovering approximately 82% of costs
associated with providing user and regulatory fee related services and that if the City Council
adopts all fees at 100% cost recovery, $912,000 in additional revenue could be recovered for a
total of $5,168,397. Staff is not recommending 100% cost recovery. If the City Council adopts
fee levels at staff’s recommended cost recovery rates, $691,000 in additional revenue could be
recovered for a total of $4,947,470; a 96% cost recovery outcome for services provided. This
total increases to $5,117,470 when including the Parks and Recreation Departments estimated
recovery of $170,000 in costs if the City Council adopts fees at staff recommended fee levels
(see Attachment D, Parks and Recreation Agenda Report). The “cost recovery and recommended
fee changes” section of this report provides further detail about why 96% and not 100% of cost
recovery is recommended. Attachment B includes a draft fee schedule showing existing fees
compared to fees at staff recommended fee levels. At recommended levels, approximately 205
fees are shown to increase (147 increasing by less than 50%), 64 fees are shown to decrease, and
47 fees are shown to remain the same.
This report includes questions to facilitate City Council discussion and direction regarding the
recommended fees and changes to current policies or practices (fee recovery percentage and
timing of collection of Planning application fees are two examples). The direction provided by
the City Council and ultimate adoption of a revise d fee schedule will inform budget development
for the 2017-19 Financial Plan.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City’s user fee recovery goals (2015-17 Financial Plan Section H), call for the City to
review and update service charges on an ongoing basis to ensure that they keep pace with
changes in the cost-of-living and changes in methods or levels of service delivery2. State law
generally provides that fees for services cannot exceed the reasonable actual costs for providing
services. In implementing this provision, the City has adopted the goal of comprehensively
analyzing service costs at least every five years, with interim adjustments annually based on
changes in the consumer price index. Building Department cost of service fees were last updated
in 2011 and will be updated as part of a separate study in the future. The last comprehensive cost
of services study was performed in 2006 and implemented in 2008.
In September 2016, the City contracted with NBS Government Finance Group and initiated the
process to review and update the City’s user and regulatory fees (Planning, Development Review
Engineering, Public Works, Fire, Police, Utilities, Parks & Recreation, and General
administrative services like business license processing).
User and Regulatory Fee Study - Overview
The focus of the study is on fees charged for service (User and Regulatory fees) and does not
include review of development impact fees (AB 1600 Fees) which are also under review in a
separate effort. User fees are charges collected for a service provided or required due to the
request or voluntary action of an individual/entity, while regulatory fees are imposed to recover
2 Implementation of a specific Other Important Objective of the 2015/17 Financial Plan which indicates to complete
a comprehensive analysis of city costs and fees every five years.
Attachment C
Packet Pg 64
1
costs associated with a local government agency’s power to govern certain activities. Examples
of common types of regulatory fees charged include: development review; inspection, and
approval (planning, engineering, fire, and building). User fees are recreational classes and
community sports programs; and public safety services, such as fingerprinting or a California
Fire Code or hazardous materials permit. User and regulatory fees may not exceed the estimated
and reasonable costs incurred to provide the service for which the fee is charged with the
exceptions as provided in the attached NBS report.
Project Scope
The following is a summarized list of fees for each City department or program studied:
1. General administrative services, including:
a. Business License processing and renewal
b. Returned check processing
c. Special requests for GIS services.
2. Community Development services, including:
a. Planning & Zoning - entitlement and permit approvals,
b. Engineering plan review and encroachment permit processing
c. Support to Building plan review
3. Public Works Department services, including
a. Tree maintenance and removal
b. Support to Planning entitlement review
c. Support to Engineering plan review and encroachment permit processing
d. Construction field inspection for improvements projects
4. Utilities services, including:
a. Meter installation and removal, account set up and disconnect
b. Lateral installation and abandonment
c. Support to Planning entitlement review
d. Support to Engineering plan review and construction inspection
e. Support to Building plan review
5. Fire Prevention services, including:
a. Hazardous occupancy permits
b. Non-mandated and required inspections
c. Certified Unified Participating Agency fees (CUPA)
d. Multi-dwelling fire and life safety inspection
e. Support to Planning entitlement review
f. Support to Engineering plan review
g. Support to Building plan review and field inspection
h. Fire sprinkler and suppression systems
6. Police services, including:
a. Various administrative processing fees such as vehicle impound and
release, alarm permits, taxi permits, etc.
b. Support to Planning Entitlement Review
7. Recreational facilities, services, classes, programs and permits
Attachment C
Packet Pg 65
1
Cost Recovery Goals (Attachment A, Cost Recovery Goals)
The City’s user fee cost recovery goals (2015-17 Financial Plan Section H) provide cost recovery
levels for Parks & Recreation Activities as well as Development Review Programs. Adopted
Council cost recovery goals for recreation activities (Subsection G) indicate that cost recovery
for activities directed to adults should be relatively high, and those directed to youth/seniors
should be relatively low (except that cost recovery should be higher where services are similar to
those provided in the private sector). Cost recovery goals for Parks & Recreation activities are
provided below.
Currently Adopted Parks and Recreation Cost Recovery Goals
Low Range
0 to 30%
Mid-Range
30-60%
High-Range
60-100%
Aquatics
Community Gardens
Junior Ranger Camp
Minor Film Permits
Skate Park
Special Events
Youth Sports
STAR
Teens
Senior/Boomer Services
Contract Classes
Major Film Permits
Adult Sports
Banners
Child Care
Facility Rentals
Triathlon
Golf
Development Review Programs include review from planning, building and safety, engineering,
and fire and the policy indicates cost recovery for development review programs should
generally be very high; 100% cost recovery in most instances.
Additionally, adopted cost recovery policy goals include factors to be considered in setting user
fees and cost recovery levels which include 1) community-wide versus special benefit, 2) service
recipient (e.g. the community) versus service driver (e.g. the applicant), 3) effect of prici ng on
the demand for services, 4) feasibility of collection and recovery (more detail provided in
subsection B of Attachment A, Cost Recovery Goals).
The goals also include circumstances favoring high cost recovery and low cost recovery levels,
and indicates the importance of considering the fees charged by other agencies to aid in assessing
the reasonableness of fees.
Summary of Findings and Recommendations
To determine the maximum estimated/reasonable cost eligible for recovery as a fee, the study
identifies the full cost of service eligible for recovery and those costs are translated into a fee
structure for various programs and services. Determination of the full cost of service uses
expenditure and organizational information with time-tracking data, time estimates, and
workload information. The full cost of service is derived for each service or activity, and
includes labor, services or supplies, and various types of operational overhead costs.
The user and regulatory fee study prepared by NBS is provided in Attachment C. NBS’s study
methodology is discussed in detail in section 1 and department by department discussions are
provided in sections 2 through 9. A draft fee schedule showing existing fees compared to fees at
staff recommended fee levels is provided in attachment B. At recommended levels,
Attachment C
Packet Pg 66
1
approximately 205 fees are shown to increase (147 increasing by less than 50%), 64 fees are
shown to decrease, and 47 fees are shown to remain the same. The following is a summary table
from the report of results for each service area studied:
Department / Division
Estimated
Annual
Current Fee
Revenue
Estimated
Annual Full
Cost Recovery
Fee Revenue
Current
Cost
Recovery
%1
Estimated
Annual
Recommended
Fee Revenue
Recommended
Cost Recovery
%
Finance $ 442,998 $ 440,289 101% $ 439,240 100%
Development Review (Planning) $ 1,243,660 $ 1,234,476 101% $ 1,170,708 95%
Development Review (Engineering) $ 585,979 $ 957,380 61% $ 942,263 98%
Public Works $ 747,631 $ 655,905 114% $ 654,365 100%
Utilities $ 316,722 $ 773,277 41% $ 769,215 99%
Fire Prevention $ 828,777 $ 971,760 85% $ 861,641 89%
Police $ 90,825 $ 135,311 67% $ 110,037 81%
Total $ 4,256,592 $ 5,168,397 82% $ 4,947,470 96%
1. Recovery at greater than 100% generally indicates a change in time spent on a project in previous years vs. time spent on the
same type of project currently; less time spent on a given task reduces the cost of providing that service. Example: process
improvements or computer system enhancements make certain tasks faster.
Note: The Parks & Recreation Departments’ fee review estimates $1,810,000 in annual
revenues at recommended fee levels. An additional $170,000 is costs could be recovered,
bringing the total estimated revenues at recommended fee to $5,117,470.
As shown, the City is recovering approximately 82% of costs associated with providing user and
regulatory fee related services. Should the Council elect to adopt fee levels at 100% of the full
cost recovery amounts determined by this study, an additional $912,000 in costs could be
recovered for a total of $5,168,397.
As discussed above, the City has cost recovery goals, which guide decisions about the ultimate
fee amounts adopted. All fees are recommended to recover at 100% per cost recovery goals with
the exception of Parks and Recreation, fees established by statute or applicable administrative
code, and some of the Planning fees as discussed in the next section. As such, staff has provided
initial recommended fee amounts for consideration. If Council elects to adopt fee levels at staff’s
initial recommendations, $691,000 in additional revenue, above current recovery levels, could be
recovered, for a total of $4,947,470; a 96% cost recovery outcome for services provided. The
total increases to $5,117,470 when including the Parks and Recreation Departments estimated
recovery of $170,000 in costs at recommended fee levels.
Attachment C
Packet Pg 67
1
Key Changes
Approximate Number of Fee Increases/Decreases by Range
1. Cost Recovery and Recommended Fee Changes
The proposed fee schedule is provided in Attachment B and shows for each fee the total cost
of service, the current fee, and the staff recommended fee. All fees are recommended to
recover at 100% per cost recovery goals with the exception of Parks and Recreation
(discussed below), fees established by statute or applicable administrative code (mainly the
Police Department), and some of the Planning fees. Staff is recommending less than 100%
cost recovery for planning entitlements commonly requested by homeowners (e.g. fence
height exceptions, administrative approvals) as well as those with potential community-wide
benefit (e.g. historic preservation projects). The rationale is that this fee level will promote
objectives such as historic preservation and general compliance with applicable development
standards.
Cost Recovery for Parks and Recreation
As noted above, Parks & Recreation user fees are guided by adopted policy, actual costs,
and market comparisons. Section 9 of the fee study report discusses NBS’s methodology
for reviewing Parks & Recreation department fees based on Proposition 26. For
Recreation fees, NBS performs a high-level cost analysis to assist in understanding cost
recovery performance and in developing cost recovery policy, rather than an analysis at
+
Each bubble represents the approximate number of proposed fee changes within each
department by range; bubble size corresponds to number of fee changes (i.e. for Planning, 13
fees are proposed to increase within the 0 to 20% range and 14 fees are proposed to increase
within the 75-100%+ range. In Parks and Recreation, 32 fees are proposed to remain the same).
Finance
Planning
Engineering
Utilities
Fire
Police
Parks & Rec
+
Attachment C
Packet Pg 68
1
the individual fee level. As such, Recreation Supervisor, Devin Hyfield, lead an analytic
exercise in developing detailed costs for Parks and Recreation activities based on the
number of users, number of hours of use, and other details to derive specific costs
associated with Parks & Recreation activities.
In reviewing the City’s rates of cost recovery for parks and recreation fees, most were
found to be in or near the adopted policy range (discussed in “cost recovery goals”
above). Overall, the proposed adjustments to these fees are reflective of multiple inputs
including anticipated increased costs associated with California’s upcoming increases to
minimum wage, consistency with existing policy, and market tolerances. The results of
these efforts are discussed in detail in the attached Parks and Recreation Commission
Agenda Report (Attachment D). The Parks and Recreation Department estimates
$1,810,000 in annual revenues at recommended fee levels; recovering an additional
$170,000 in costs.
On February 1, 2017 the Parks & Recreation Commission held a study session on this
topic. The Commission reviewed the costs of services for Parks & Recreation user fees.
The Commission supported, as presented, the proposed adjustments to the Parks &
Recreation user fees and cost recovery policies. Last, the Commission supported staff
returning at a future meeting date with a project plan regarding how to analyze costs
associated with club sports using City facilities for youth activities. A few policy
adjustments were supported by the Commission as well and they are reflected in
bold/orange below.
On February 8, 2017 the Jack House Committee reviewed in a study session the facility
use charges associated with the Jack House. The Committee is recommending a change
to the Jack House Gardens wedding and reception fee to make it comparable with the
Dalidet Adobe (current fee: $757, proposed fee: up to $3,400). The Jack House
Committee’s discussion is summarized in Attachment F.
Cost Recovery for Planning Entitlements and “Split Fee” calculation (also see
“removal of development review surcharge” below)
Implementation of the City’s 100% cost recovery objective for planning entitlements is
currently a two-step process. A 100% cost recovery fee is calculated, with 45% collect ed
at time of planning application submittal and the other 55% expected to be collected at
Attachment C
Packet Pg 69
1
the time of building permit issuance. This “split fee” collection process has been used for
many years and has helped projects defer costs until the building permit stage when there
is a more tangible, financeable project. This methodology is recommended to remain in
place and is illustrated in the below tables.
The “removal of development review surcharge” section below discusses NBS’s
recommendation to remove an Engineering, Fire, and Planning surcharge that is currently
placed on construction permits to recover costs associated with each departments’ time
spent reviewing planning projects and engineering/building permits. These costs are now
recommended to be more directly accounted for/recovered in the specific application fee
in which the cost was incurred (e.g. Engineering’s service cost associated with an
architectural review planning application is added to the total cost of the architectural
review application fee). The proposed collection methodology is to recover 25% of each
departments’ service costs during the planning entitlement phase of the project and to
recover the remaining 75% when the project is submitted for a construction permit; a cost
recovery of 100% of the cost of service as shown below.
Cost Recovery for Fire Department
In 2005 the City Council passed an ordinance that authorized the City to collect fees to
cover the costs of the State mandated inspections of multi-family dwelling units
(apartments, hotels, fraternity/sorority). At that time the Council recommended less than
Architectural Review (Minor)
Planning (100%) $ 2,770
Other Depts. (100%) $ 1,333
Engineering $ 273
Building $ 281
Fire $ 212
Utilities $ 250
Transportation $ 222
Arborist $ 95
Total Cost of Service $ 4,103
Note: The table at left indicates the total cost of
service for a Minor Architectural Review Project:
$4,103.
Planning Entitlement Phase
Planning (45%) $ 1,247
Other Depts. (25%) $ 333
Engineering $ 68
Building $ 70
Fire $ 53
Utilities $ 63
Transportation $ 56
Arborist $ 24
Arch Review (Minor) Fee $ 1,580
Note: The above table indicates the
recommended total planning application fee
for a Minor Architectural Review Project:
1,580 (45% of Planning’s cost of service and
25% of the Other Departments’ cost of
service)
Building Permit Phase
Planning (55%) $ 1,524
Other Depts. (75%) $ 1,000
Engineering $ 205
Building $ 210
Fire $ 159
Utilities $ 188
Transportation $ 167
Arborist $ 71
Collected with Building Permit $ 2,523
Note: The above table indicates the remaining
planning application fee recommended to be
collected when the example project is submitted for a
building permit: $2,523 (remaining 55% of Planning’s
cost of service and 75% of the Other Departments’
cost of service)
Attachment C
Packet Pg 70
1
full cost recovery for hotels/motels, fraternity/sorority, and no fees for public or
subsidized housing units. This resulted in an approximate 75% cost recovery of about
$300,000 in 2006. In 2007, after input from apartment owners, the Council further
reduced the recovery rate, dropping the per unit fee from $50/unit to the current $28/per
unit fee, while letting stand the $65/property administrative fee (see Attachment G,
Resolution No. 9889 (2007 Series)). There were no provisions made for annual cost
increases. The Fire Department currently recovers approximately $194,000 from this
program. Had there been an annual cost adjustment, as there are with other fees, the fee
recovery would be close to what the proposed Fee Study recommends.
As such, the Fire Department recommends that the fee be adjusted consistent with City
policies to provide for full cost recovery. The rationale that hotels, motels, fraternity and
sorority house don’t take as long because, in most instances, they have maintenance staff
on duty has shown over the last 10 years not to be the case. The fees established in this
proposed study is based on the actual time it takes to complete an inspection and assure
that all violations are corrected.
2. Removal of Development Review Surcharge
The current fee schedule includes a surcharge on building permits to recover costs associated
with services provided by certain departments during the planning entitlement and
construction permitting phases of a project (e.g. Engineering reviews and conditions projects
during Planning entitlement review and also reviews plans during the construction permit
phase; the surcharge recovers the costs associated with Engineering’s time spent during these
phases). These surcharges, collected by the Building Department, are added to all
construction permit and plan check fees that require Engineering Division, Planning
Division, and Fire Department review and inspection (surcharges are 15%, 44%, and 21.5%
respectively).
NBS has advised staff that this surcharge methodology does not directly associate costs
collected with a building permit to the same project that received a planning entitlement.
NBS recommended this methodology be replaced by direct cost accounting associated with
all departments that provide support to Planning during the entitlement phase and
Engineering/Building during the permitting phases of the project. Staff provided time
estimates by entitlement and permit type and the consultant calculated fees based on each
divisions hourly rate.
3. Appeal Fees
Appeals of planning entitlements such as architectural review, use permits, and subdivision
applications are set at a flat fee of $281. The cost recovery goals do not specifically address
cost recovery levels associated with appeals except that development appeals are associated
with development review projects which are generally cost recovered at 100% in most
instances. Additionally, it appears the appeal fee was established in 2009 with the previous
user and regulatory fee study. The Council Agenda Report at that time indicated an intention
to establish an appeal fee such that potentially meritorious appeals were not discouraged.
Attachment C
Packet Pg 71
1
Staff worked with NBS to revise the flat fee methodology and create a tiered approach to
better associate an appeal fee with the labor time spent per project. As such, appealable
projects were divided into four tiers by project type and staff labor time estimates were
assigned to each tier, yielding a cost of service per tier as shown below. The Planning
Division recommends a 25% cost recovery rate which is within the range of appeal fees
charged by compared agencies (Davis, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, Paso Robles, and the
County of San Luis Obispo appeal range from $200 to $850). Staff seeks Council guidance
on this new fee structure for appeals.
Current
Appeal
Fee
TOTAL Cost
of Service
Recommended
Appeal Fee
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Tier 1 e.g. Tentative Tract Map/Arch Review $ 281 $ 3,114 $ 779 25%
Tier 2 e.g. Variance/Use Permits $ 281 $ 1,730 $ 433 25%
Tier 3 e.g. Fence Height Exception $ 281 $ 1,211 $ 303 25%
Tier 4 e.g. Home Occupation Permit $ 281 $ 519 $ 130 25%
4. Comparative Fee Survey
The City’s user fee cost recovery goals (2015-17 Financial Plan Section H) indicate the need
to consider fees charged by other agencies (subsection I). Subsection I.1 indicates that these
comparisons provide useful background information in setting fees because they reflect the
“market” to assist in assessing reasonableness of fees and can serve as a benchmark for how
cost-effectively San Luis Obispo provides its services. Additionally, subsection I.2 goes on to
note that comparative fee surveys should never be the sole/primary criteria in setting City
fees due to factors such as dissimilar levels of service/performance standards, differing costs
considered in computing fees, and different cost recovery goals.
Appendix B of NBS’s fee study report provides a comparative review of the City’s
recommended fees compared to current fees in five other communities (Davis, Santa
Barbara, Santa Maria, Paso Robles, and the County of San Luis Obispo). Review of the
comparative study indicates that recommended fees are generally within the average of fees
charged for similar services in the other communities, as summarized in the below table.
San Luis Obispo
Davis, Santa Barbara, Santa
Maria, Paso Robles, SLO County
Current Fee Recommended Fee High Range Low Range
Administrative Use Permit $ 879.00 $ 1,012.00 $ 1,936.00 $1035 +$550 per
exception
Tentative Tract Map
(Subdivision) $9,228 +$235/lot 5-10 lots: $10,773
11-20 lots: $14,422 $ 18,405.00 $ 4,242.00
Architectural Review (ARC) $ 2,924.00 $ 4,364.00 $ 9,220.00 $ 3,050.00
Final Map (Tract Map) base
fee $ 12,226.00 $ 13,883.00 Time &
Materials $ 1,372.00
Construction Inspection
($100k - $500k value) base
fee
$ 17,105.00 $ 8,769.00 $ 9,800.00 $ 2,514.00
Attachment C
Packet Pg 72
1
CONCURRENCES
All appropriate City departments have been extensively involved in providing information
including budget information, staffing information, and time estimates to the consultant. All
requisite departments have also performed extensive review of draft fee models provided by the
consultant and have reviewed and commented upon the final report.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
The Parks and Recreation Fees were reviewed at a public Parks and Recreation Commission
hearing on February 1, 2016. As part of public engagement for that meeting public notice posters
were emailed, placed on the City’s website and social media pages, and hard copies were posted
in public locations.
On February 16, 2017, staff will be presenting the fee study to the Developers Round Table to
discuss proposed fee changes and obtain feedback.
As indicated in “next steps” below, staff will perform additional outreach at the end of February
and through March in order to review and discuss the proposed fee changes and obtain additional
feedback from interested parties including but not limited to Residents, Neighborhood Groups,
Chamber of Commerce, Economic Vitality Corporation, Homebuilders Association, and other
interested public parties. Outreach will be in the form of in-person meetings and an Open City
Hall page on the City’s website.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no direct fiscal impacts associated with this review of the study findings. As discussed
in the summary section above, the City is currently recovering 82% of costs associated with
providing user and regulatory fee related services. If the City Council elects to adopt initial
recommended fee amounts by staff an additional $691,000 in costs could be recovered (96% cost
recovery); totaling $4,947,470 and increasing to $5,117,470 when including the Parks and
Recreation Departments estimated recovery of $170,000 in costs at recommended fee levels. If
the City Council elects to adopt fee levels at 100% of the full cost recovery amounts determined
by the study, $912,000 in costs could be recovered; totaling; $5,168,397.
NEXT STEPS
Upon receiving direction from the City Council, staff will perform additional outreach to
interested parties in order to review and discuss the proposed fee changes and obtain additional
public feedback, consistent with the Public Engagement and Noticing Manual. Outreach will
include in-person meetings as well as an Open City Hall page including a narrated PowerPoint
presentation and opportunity for written feedback.
On March 2, 2017, the Parks and Recreation staff will return to the Parks and Recreation
Commission to review a project plan regarding how to analyze recreational costs associated with
club sports using City facilities for youth.
Attachment C
Packet Pg 73
1
On April 18, 2017 staff will return to the City Council in response to direction provided on
February 21, 2017 with a resolution to adopt an updated fee schedule.
FOCUS QUESTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION
Staff has provided the following focused questions to facilitate City Council direction to help
guide the City Council in their deliberations:
Questions for City Council direction
Yes No
Are cost recovery levels appropriate? Are recommended fees
reasonable?
1. Are proposed cost recovery policy changes (Parks and Recreation)
supported?
2. Are applications (other than Parks and Recreation) that collect at less
than 100% supported? (e.g. “homeowner fees” or community benefit
fees: administrative approvals, fence height exceptions, non-profit events,
historic preservation projects)
3. Is the Fire Departments recommended 100% cost recovery for multi-
family dwelling unit inspections supported?
Is split fee calculation supported?
1. Continued “split fee” calculation for Planning entitlements (45% collected
with planning entitlement + 55% collected with building permit submittal)
2. Use of modified “split fee” calculation for departments providing support
on Planning entitlements (25% collected with planning entitlement + 75%
collected with building permit submittal)
Is appeal fee methodology supported?
3. Tiered methodology with 25% cost recovery
Attachment C
Packet Pg 74
1
Attachments:
a - City Cost Recovery Goals (2015-17 Financial Plan Section H)
b - Draft Fee Schedule
c - NBS Draft Fee Study (appendices in council reading file)
d - Parks and Recreation Agenda Report – February 1, 2017
e - DRAFT Minutes – Parks and Recreation Hearing – February 1, 2017
f - Jack House Committee Summary Recommendation
g - Resolution No. 9889 (2007 Series)
h - Council Reading File - NBS Fee Study with Appendices
Attachment C
Packet Pg 75
1
%8'*(75()(5(1&(0$7(5,$/6
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
C.Current Revenues for Current Uses.The City will make all current expenditures with current revenues,
avoiding procedures that balance current budgets by postponing needed expenditures, accruing future
revenues, or rolling over short-term debt.
D.Interfund Transfers and Loans.In order to achieve important public policy goals, the City has established
various special revenue, capital project, debt service and enterprise funds to account for revenues whose use
should be restricted to certain activities. Accordingly, each fund exists as a separate financing entity from
other funds, with its own revenue sources, expenditures and fund equity.
Any transfers between funds for operating purposes are clearly set forth in the Financial Plan, and can only
be made by the Director of Finance & Information Technology in accordance with the adopted budget.
These operating transfers, under which financial resources are transferred from one fund to another, are
distinctly different from interfund borrowings, which are usually made for temporary cash flow reasons, and
are not intended to result in a transfer of financial resources by the end of the fiscal year.
In summary, interfund transfers result in a change in fund equity; interfund borrowings do not, as the intent is
to repay the loan in the near term.
From time-to-time, interfund borrowings may be appropriate; however, these are subject to the following
criteria in ensuring that the fiduciary purpose of the fund is met:
1. The Director of Finance & Information Technology is authorized to approve temporary interfund
borrowings for cash flow purposes whenever the cash shortfall is expected to be resolved within 45 days.
The most common use of interfund borrowing under this circumstance is for grant programs like the
Community Development Block Grant, where costs are incurred before drawdowns are initiated and
received. However, receipt of funds typically occurs shortly after the request for funds has been made.
2. Any other interfund borrowings for cash flow or other purposes require case-by-case approval by the
Council.
3. Any transfers between funds where reimbursement is not expected within one fiscal year shall not be
recorded as interfund borrowings; they shall be recorded as interfund operating transfers that affect
equity by moving financial resources from one fund to another.
E.Revenue Enhancement Oversight.The Essential Services Transactions and Use Tax ordinance includes
specific citizen oversight and fiscal accountability provisions. They include creation of a Revenue
Enhancement Oversight Committee, accounting and tracking expenditures, an independent annual financial
audit, integration of the use of funds in the City’s budget and goal setting processes, an annual community
report, and an annual citizen oversight meeting.
USER FEE COST RECOVERY GOALS
A.Ongoing Review.Fees will be reviewed and updated on an ongoing basis to ensure that they keep pace with
changes in the cost-of-living as well as changes in methods or levels of service delivery.
In implementing this goal, a comprehensive analysis of City costs and fees should be made at least every five
years. In the interim, fees will be adjusted by annual changes in the Consumer Price Index. Fees may be
H-6
Attachment C
Packet Pg 76
1
%8'*(75()(5(1&(0$7(5,$/6
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
adjusted during this interim period based on supplemental analysis whenever there have been significant
changes in the method, level or cost of service delivery.
B.User Fee Cost Recovery Levels.In setting user fees and cost recovery levels, the following factors will be
considered:
1.Community-Wide Versus Special Benefit. The level of user fee cost recovery should consider the
community-wide versus special service nature of the program or activity. The use of general-purpose
revenues is appropriate for community-wide services, while user fees are appropriate for services that are
of special benefit to easily identified individuals or groups.
2.Service Recipient Versus Service Driver. After considering community-wide versus special benefit of
the service, the concept of service recipient versus service driver should also be considered. For
example, it could be argued that the applicant is not the beneficiary of the City's development review
efforts: the community is the primary beneficiary. However, the applicant is the driver of development
review costs, and as such, cost recovery from the applicant is appropriate.
3.Effect of Pricing on the Demand for Services. The level of cost recovery and related pricing of services
can significantly affect the demand and subsequent level of services provided. At full cost recovery, this
has the specific advantage of ensuring that the City is providing services for which there is genuinely a
market that is not overly-stimulated by artificially low prices.
Conversely, high levels of cost recovery will negatively impact the delivery of services to lower income
groups. This negative feature is especially pronounced, and works against public policy, if the services
are specifically targeted to low income groups.
4.Feasibility of Collection and Recovery. Although it may be determined that a high level of cost recovery
may be appropriate for specific services, it may be impractical or too costly to establish a system to
identify and charge the user. Accordingly, the feasibility of assessing and collecting charges should also
be considered in developing user fees, especially if significant program costs are intended to be financed
from that source.
C.Factors Favoring Low Cost Recovery Levels. Low cost recovery levels are appropriate under the
following circumstances:
1. There is no intended relationship between the amount paid and the benefit received. Almost all "social
service" programs fall into this category as it is expected that one group will subsidize another.
2. Collecting fees is not cost-effective or will significantly impact the efficient delivery of the service.
3. There is no intent to limit the use of (or entitlement to) the service. Again, most "social service"
programs fit into this category as well as many public safety (police and fire) emergency response
services. Historically, access to neighborhood and community parks would also fit into this category.
4. The service is non-recurring, generally delivered on a "peak demand" or emergency basis, cannot
reasonably be planned for on an individual basis, and is not readily available from a private sector source.
Many public safety services also fall into this category.
H-7
Attachment C
Packet Pg 77
1
%8'*(75()(5(1&(0$7(5,$/6
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
5. Collecting fees would discourage compliance with regulatory requirements and adherence is primarily
self-identified, and as such, failure to comply would not be readily detected by the City. Many small-
scale licenses and permits might fall into this category.
D.Factors Favoring High Cost Recovery Levels. The use of service charges as a major source of funding
service levels is especially appropriate under the following circumstances:
1. The service is similar to services provided through the private sector.
2. Other private or public sector alternatives could or do exist for the delivery of the service.
3. For equity or demand management purposes, it is intended that there be a direct relationship between the
amount paid and the level and cost of the service received.
4. The use of the service is specifically discouraged. Police responses to disturbances or false alarms might
fall into this category.
5. The service is regulatory in nature and voluntary compliance is not expected to be the primary method of
detecting failure to meet regulatory requirements. Building permit, plan checks, and subdivision review
fees for large projects would fall into this category.
E.General Concepts Regarding the Use of Service Charges.The following general concepts will be used in
developing and implementing service charges:
1. Revenues should not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service.
2. Cost recovery goals should be based on the total cost of delivering the service, including direct costs,
departmental administration costs and organization-wide support costs such as accounting, personnel,
information technology, legal services, fleet maintenance and insurance.
3. The method of assessing and collecting fees should be as simple as possible in order to reduce the
administrative cost of collection.
4. Rate structures should be sensitive to the "market" for similar services as well as to smaller, infrequent
users of the service.
5. A unified approach should be used in determining cost recovery levels for various programs based on the
factors discussed above.
F.Low Cost-Recovery Services.Based on the criteria discussed above, the following types of services should
have low cost recovery goals. In selected circumstances, there may be specific activities within the broad
scope of services provided that should have user charges associated with them. However, the primary source
of funding for the operation as a whole should be general-purpose revenues, not user fees.
1. Delivering public safety emergency response services such as police patrol services and fire suppression.
2. Maintaining and developing public facilities that are provided on a uniform, community-wide basis such
as streets, parks and general-purpose buildings.
H-8
Attachment C
Packet Pg 78
1
%8'*(75()(5(1&(0$7(5,$/6
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
3. Providing social service programs and economic development activities.
G.Recreation Programs.The following cost recovery policies apply to the City's recreation programs:
1. Cost recovery for activities directed to adults should be relatively high.
2. Cost recovery for activities directed to youth and seniors should be relatively low. In those
circumstances where services are similar to those provided in the private sector, cost recovery levels
should be higher.
Although ability to pay may not be a concern for all youth and senior participants, these are desired
program activities, and the cost of determining need may be greater than the cost of providing a uniform
service fee structure to all participants. Further, there is a community-wide benefit in encouraging high-
levels of participation in youth and senior recreation activities regardless of financial status.
3. Cost recovery goals for recreation activities are set as follows:
High-Range Cost Recovery Activities - (60% to 100%)
a. Adult athletics
b. Banner permit applications
c. Child care services (except Youth STAR)
d. Facility rentals (indoor and outdoor; excludes use of facilities for internal City uses)
e. Triathlon
f. Golf
Mid-Range Cost Recovery Activities - (30% to 60%)
g. Classes
h. Holiday in the Plaza
i. Major commercial film permit applications
Low-Range Cost Recovery Activities- (0 to 30%)
j. Aquatics
k. Batting cages
l. Community gardens
m. Junior Ranger camp
n. Minor commercial film permit applications
o. Skate park
p. Special events (except for Triathlon and Holiday in the Plaza)
q. Youth sports
r. Youth STAR
s. Teen services
t. Senior/boomer services
4. For cost recovery activities of less than 100%, there should be a differential in rates between residents
and non-residents. However, the Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to reduce or eliminate
non-resident fee differentials when it can be demonstrated that:
H-9
Attachment C
Packet Pg 79
1
%8'*(75()(5(1&(0$7(5,$/6
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
a. The fee is reducing attendance.
b. And there are no appreciable expenditure savings from the reduced attendance.
5. Charges will be assessed for use of rooms, pools, gymnasiums, ball fields, special-use areas, and
recreation equipment for activities not sponsored or co-sponsored by the City. Such charges will
generally conform to the fee guidelines described above. However, the Director of Parks and Recreation
is authorized to charge fees that are closer to full cost recovery for facilities that are heavily used at peak
times and include a majority of non-resident users.
6. A vendor charge of at least 10 percent of gross income will be assessed from individuals or organizations
using City facilities for moneymaking activities.
7. Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to offer reduced fees such as introductory rates, family
discounts and coupon discounts on a pilot basis (not to exceed 18 months) to promote new recreation
programs or resurrect existing ones.
8. The Parks and Recreation Department will consider waiving fees only when the City Manager
determines in writing that an undue hardship exists.
H.Development Review Programs.The following cost recovery policies apply to the development review
programs:
1. Services provided under this category include:
a. Planning (planned development permits, tentative tract and parcel maps, rezonings, general plan
amendments, variances, use permits).
b. Building and safety (building permits, structural plan checks, inspections).
c. Engineering (public improvement plan checks, inspections, subdivision requirements,
encroachments).
d. Fire plan check.
2. Cost recovery for these services should generally be very high. In most instances, the City's cost
recovery goal should be 100%.
3. However, in charging high cost recovery levels, the City needs to clearly establish and articulate
standards for its performance in reviewing developer applications to ensure that there is “value for cost.”
I.Comparability With Other Communities.In setting user fees, the City will consider fees charged by other
agencies in accordance with the following criteria:
1. Surveying the comparability of the City's fees to other communities provides useful background
information in setting fees for several reasons:
a. They reflect the "market" for these fees and can assist in assessing the reasonableness of San Luis
Obispo’s fees.
H-10
Attachment C
Packet Pg 80
1
%8'*(75()(5(1&(0$7(5,$/6
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
b. If prudently analyzed, they can serve as a benchmark for how cost-effectively San Luis Obispo
provides its services.
2. However, fee surveys should never be the sole or primary criteria in setting City fees as there are many
factors that affect how and why other communities have set their fees at their levels. For example:
a. What level of cost recovery is their fee intended to achieve compared with our cost recovery
objectives?
b. What costs have been considered in computing the fees?
c. When was the last time that their fees were comprehensively evaluated?
d. What level of service do they provide compared with our service or performance standards?
e. Is their rate structure significantly different than ours and what is it intended to achieve?
3. These can be very difficult questions to address in fairly evaluating fees among different communities.
As such, the comparability of our fees to other communities should be one factor among many that is
considered in setting City fees.
ENTERPRISE FUND FEES AND RATES
A.Water, Sewer and Parking. The City will set fees and rates at levels which fully cover the total direct and
indirect costs—including operations, capital outlay, and debt service—of the following enterprise programs:
water, sewer and parking.
B.Transit. Based on targets set under the Transportation Development Act, the City will strive to cover at least
twenty percent of transit operating costs with fare revenues.
C.Ongoing Rate Review.The City will review and adjust enterprise fees and rate structures as required to
ensure that they remain appropriate and equitable.
D.Cost of Service Fees.The City will treat the water and sewer funds in the same manner as if they were
privately owned and operated. This means assessing reasonable cost of service fees in fully recovering
service costs.
The purpose of the cost of service fee is reasonable cost recovery for the use of the City’s services such as
street rights-of-way and public safety. The appropriateness of charging the water and sewer funds a
reasonable cost of service fee for the use of City streets is further supported by the results of studies in
Arizona, California, Ohio and Vermont which concluded that the leading cause for street resurfacing and
reconstruction is street cuts and trenching for utilities.
H-11
Attachment C
Packet Pg 81
1
)HH1R)HH'HVFULSWLRQ &XUUHQW)HH
'HSRVLW
5HFRPPHQGHG
3ODQQLQJ
$SSOLFDWLRQ
)HH'HSRVLW
;ϰϱйƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐͬϮϱй
KƚŚĞƌĞƉƚƐͿ
3/$11,1*$33/,&$7,21)((6
=RQLQJ6HUYLFHV
6LGHZDON6DOHV3HUPLW
+RPH2FFXSDWLRQ3HUPLW >@
+RPH2FFXSDWLRQ3HUPLW 5HGXFHGYHUVLRQ
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH8VH3HUPLW
3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ8VH3HUPLW
9DULDQFH
3ODQQHG'HYHORSPHQW >@
5H]RQLQJ
3ODQ$PHQGPHQW
5H]RQLQJ >@
0DS$PHQGPHQW
7H[W$PHQGPHQW
6HFRQGDU\'ZHOOLQJ8QLWV
7LPH([WHQVLRQ RIFXUUHQW
ILOLQJIHH
1RQSURILW6SHFLDO(YHQW)HH
$IIRUGDEOH+RXVLQJ,QFHQWLYH5HTXHVW
$LUSRUW/DQG8VH&RPPLVVLRQ $/8& 3ODQ5HYLHZ)HH
5HYLHZV5HTXLULQJ$/8&+HDULQJ
6XEGLYLVLRQ6HUYLFHV
/RW/LQH$GMXVWPHQW
7HQWDWLYH6XEGLYLVLRQ0DS
/RWV
/RWV
ORWV
ORWV GHSRVLWRI
&HUWLILFDWHRI&RPSOLDQFH
3HUFHQW&KDQJH
Attachment C
Packet Pg 82
1
2WKHU3ODQQLQJ6HUYLFHV
(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW6WXG\IRU+LVWRULF5HVRXUFHV >@
(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW'HWHUPLQDWLRQ >@
(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW5HSRUW >
@
&RQVXOWDQW
&RQWUDFWSOXV
IRUDGPLQLVWUDWLYH
UHYLHZVHUYLFHV
1R&KDQJH
&RQVXOWDQW&RQWUDFW
SOXVIRU
DGPLQLVWUDWLYH
UHYLHZVHUYLFHV 1R
&KDQJH
(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW5HSRUW0RQLWRULQJ3URJUDP'HSRVLW >
@
;;7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ,PSDFW6WXG\>@
$UFKLWHFWXUDO5HYLHZ
6LJQV
&RQFHSWXDO5HYLHZ
'HYHORSPHQW3URMHFWV
'HYHORSPHQW3URMHFWV0DMRU
UHVLGHQWLDOXQLWVRUNVIRUKRWHOXQLWV
0LQRU,QFLGHQWDO
ZLWK&XOWXUDO+HULWDJH&RPPLVVLRQ+HDULQJ
3ODQ5HYLVLRQ
7LPH([WHQVLRQ RIFXUUHQW
ILOLQJIHH
&KULVWPDV7UHH3XPSNLQ/RW3HUPLW
)HQFH+HLJKW([FHSWLRQ
9ROXQWDU\0HUJHU
$JUHHPHQWV
%RQGV*XDUDQWHHV YROXQWDU\
&KDQJHRI$GGUHVV
6WUHHW1DPH&KDQJH
6WUHHW$EDQGRQPHQW
&RQGRPLQLXP&RQYHUVLRQ
$SSHDOV >@
7LHU
7LHU
7LHU
7LHU
0LOOV$FW3DUWLFLSDWLRQ$SSOLFDWLRQ
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH$SSURYDO$SSOLFDWLRQV
/DQG8VH'RFXPHQWDWLRQ5HTXHVW
*HQHUDO3ODQ$PHQGPHQW >@
0DS LQFOXGHVUH]RQLQJ 'HSRVLW
7H[W
6SHFLILF3ODQ$PHQGPHQW'HSRVLW >@
$QQH[DWLRQ'HSRVLW >@
6LGHZDON&DIHV
6LGHZDON&DIp8VHU3HUPLW
6LGHZDON&DIp8VH)HHSHUVTXDUHIRRWSHUPRQWK >@
3UH$SSOLFDWLRQ
:LWKVLWHYLVLW
%OXH&DUG,QVSHFWLRQ >@
'HYHORSPHQW$JUHHPHQW$SSOLFDWLRQ)HH >@ 7LPH 0DWHULDOV
Attachment C
Packet Pg 83
1
5HLPEXUVHPHQW$JUHHPHQW >@ 7LPH 0DWHULDOV
%8/,',1*3/$15(9,(:6833257
5HVLGHQWLDO
0LQRU
0RGHUDWH
0DMRU >@
&RPPHUFLDO
0LQRU
0RGHUDWH
0DMRU >@
[Notes]
>@ A location change for a Home Occupation Permit is 25% of the regular fee.
>@ Fees will be set on a Deposit basis and debited by the amount of staff time and
other materials required to provide services or Consultant Fee plus 30% Admin Fee
.
>@ Sidewalk rental charge not included in fee analysis. Placeholder for Master Fee
Schedule
>@ Separate Fish and Game fees may apply, as set by the State of California
>@ Modifications to applications are charged at 25% of the original fee amount, per
Department policy
>@ See Final Inspection Approval/Bluecard Signoff (item 16)
>@ Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions.
Attachment C
Packet Pg 84
1
(1*,1((5,1*68%0,77$/)((6
,PSURYHPHQW3ODQ&KHFN
Plan check fees are based on Estimated Construction Cost (ECC)
IODWIHHXSWR
each add'l $10,000
EDVHIHH#
each add'l $10,000
EDVHIHH#
each add'l $10,000
EDVHIHH#
each add'l $10,000
EDVHIHH#
each add'l $10,000
&RQVWUXFWLRQ,QVSHFWLRQ
Inspection fees are based on Estimated Construction Cost (ECC)
IODWIHHXSWR
each add'l $10,000
EDVHIHH#
each add'l $10,000
EDVHIHH#
each add'l $10,000
EDVHIHH#
each add'l $10,000
EDVHIHH#
each add'l $10,000
)LQDO0DSV
3DUFHO0DS5HVLGHQWLDO=RQH ORWVRU/HVV
3DUFHO0DS&RPPHUFLDO=RQH ORWVRUOHVV
3OXVSHUORWRUFRPPRQLQWHUHVWXQLW
7UDFW0DS EDVHIHH
3OXVSHUORWRUFRPPRQLQWHUHVWXQLW
&HUWLILFDWHRI&RPSOLDQFHRU)LQDO/RW/LQH$GMXVWPHQW$JUHHPHQW
/RW/LQH$GMXVWPHQWV
&HUWLILFDWHVRI&RPSOLDQFH
3HUFHQW&KDQJH&XUUHQW)HH
'HSRVLW)HH5HFRPPHQGHG)HH)HH'HVFULSWLRQ
Attachment C
Packet Pg 85
1
$GGLWLRQDO'RFXPHQW5HYLHZ&HUWLILFDWHVRI&RUUHFWLRQ
(QFURDFKPHQW3HUPLWV
&XUEDQG*XWWHU EDVHIHH
SOXVSHUOLQHDUIRRW
6LGHZDON EDVHIHH
SOXVSHUOLQHDUIRRW
'ULYHZD\$SSURDFK&XUE5DPS EDVHIHH
SOXVSHUOLQHDUIRRW
7UHQFKHGRU%RUHG([FDYDWLRQ EDVHIHH
:DWHU6HUYLFH5HF\FOHG6HUYLFH EDVHIHH
SOXVSHUOLQHDUIRRW
6HZHU EDVHIHH
SOXVSHUOLQHDUIRRW %RUH
SOXVSHUOLQHDUIRRW 7UHQFK
)LUH/DWHUDO+\GUDQW:DWHUDQG5HF\FOHG0DLQ([WHQVLRQ EDVHIHH
SOXVSHUOLQHDUIRRW
2WKHU EDVHIHH
SOXVSHUOLQHDUIRRW %RUH
SOXVSHUOLQHDUIRRW 7UHQFK
0RQLWRULQJ:HOO
2WKHU0LQRU(QFURDFKPHQW3HUPLWVQRW/LVWHG
7LPH([WHQVLRQIRU(QFURDFKPHQW3HUPLW
8QSHUPLWWHG(QFURDFKPHQWV
(QFURDFKPHQW3HUPLW3ODQ5HYLHZIHH LIUHTXLUHG
$QQXDO(QFURDFKPHQW3HUPLWIRU8WLOLW\&RPSDQLHV
7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ3HUPLW
6LQJOH7ULS3HUPLW
$QQXDO3HUPLW
Maximum fee amount established by Department of Transportation and is not subject to CPI increases
)LEHU,QIUDVWUXFWXUH3URWHFWLRQ)HH SHU&DOO
7UDIILF&RQWURO3ODQ5HYLHZ
5HJXODU
&RPSOH[>@
7UDIILF&RQWURO3ODQ,QVSHFWLRQ
0LQRUILUVWGD\
HDFKDGGLWLRQDOGD\
0DMRUILUVWGD\
HDFKDGGLWLRQDOGD\
WKDQGVXEVHTXHQWSODQUHYLHZ SHUVXEPLWWDO
3XEOLF,PSURYHPHQW3ODQV
%XLOGLQJ3ODQV
0DSV$GGLWLRQDO'RFXPHQWV
%8,/',1*6833257
6LWH,PSURYHPHQWV7KLVLQFOXGHVVXEVWDQWLDOGHYHORSPHQWRISULYDWH
SDUNLQJORWVZKLFKDUHSURFHVVHGVHSDUDWHRIWKHVWUXFWXUHDQGLQFOXGHDQ\
FRPELQDWLRQRIWKHIROORZLQJ 8QGHUJURXQGXWLOLWLHVSDUNLQJORWOLJKWLQJ
DFFHVVLEOHSDWKRIWUDYHODQDO\VLVJUDGLQJGUDLQDJHDQGFRPSOLDQFHZLWK
WKH&LW\
VSDUNLQJDQGGULYHZD\VWDQGDUGV
6TXDUH)RRWDJHRI6LWH'LVWXUEDQFH
Attachment C
Packet Pg 86
1
1RQ6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
)LQDO,QVSHFWLRQ$SSURYDO%OXHFDUG6LJQRII
6TXDUH)RRWDJHRI6LWH'LVWXUEDQFH
1RQ6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
)ORRG=RQH$QDO\VLV
0LQRU9HULILFDWRLQRQO\
0DMRU1HZ6XEVWDQWLDO5HPRGHO$QDO\VLV'RFXPHQWDWLRQ
3RVW&RQVWUXFWLRQ5HTXLUHPHQWV6WRUPZDWHU,QVSHFWLRQ
,PSHUYLRXV6TXDUH)RRWDJH
1RQ6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
'UDLQDJH5HSRUW)ORRG6WXG\%UHDGWKRI6WXG\
0LQRU
0DMRU
[Notes]
>@ A location change for a Home Occupation Permit is 25% of the regular fee.
>@ Fees will be set on a Deposit basis and debited by the amount of staff time and
other materials required to provide services or Consultant Fee plus 30% Admin Fee
.
>@ Sidewalk rental charge not included in fee analysis. Placeholder for Master Fee
Schedule
[4] Separate Fish and Game fees may apply, as set by the State of
California
[5] Modifications to applications are charged at 25% of the original
fee amount, per Department policy
[6] See Final Inspection Approval/Bluecard Signoff (item 16)
[7] Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions.
Attachment C
Packet Pg 87
1
38%/,&:25.668%0,77$/)((6
75((0$,17(1$1&(
7UHH6KUXE+D]DUGRXV$EDWHPHQW ĐƚƵĂůŽƐƚ
&RPPHPRUDWLYH7UHH3ODQWLQJ >@
7UHH5HPRYDO3HUPLW
%8,/',1*3/$15(9,(:
6LWH,PSURYHPHQWV7KLVLQFOXGHVVXEVWDQWLDOGHYHORSPHQWRISULYDWH
SDUNLQJORWVZKLFKDUHSURFHVVHGVHSDUDWHRIWKHVWUXFWXUHDQGLQFOXGHDQ\
FRPELQDWLRQRIWKHIROORZLQJ 8QGHUJURXQGXWLOLWLHVSDUNLQJORWOLJKWLQJ
DFFHVVLEOHSDWKRIWUDYHODQDO\VLVJUDGLQJGUDLQDJHDQGFRPSOLDQFHZLWK
WKH&LW\
VSDUNLQJDQGGULYHZD\VWDQGDUGV
6TXDUH)RRWDJHRI6LWH'LVWXUEDQFH
1RQ6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
)LQDO,QVSHFWLRQ$SSURYDO%OXHFDUG6LJQRII
6TXDUH)RRWDJHRI6LWH'LVWXUEDQFH
1RQ6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
)ORRG=RQH$QDO\VLV
0LQRU9HULILFDWRLQRQO\
0DMRU1HZ6XEVWDQWLDO5HPRGHO$QDO\VLV'RFXPHQWDWLRQ
3RVW&RQVWUXFWLRQ5HTXLUHPHQWV6WRUPZDWHU,QVSHFWLRQ
,PSHUYLRXV6TXDUH)RRWDJH
1RQ6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
)HH&XUUHQW)HH
'HSRVLW 5HFRPPHQGHG)HH 3HUFHQW&KDQJH)HH'HVFULSWLRQ
Attachment C
Packet Pg 88
1
6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
'UDLQDJH5HSRUW)ORRG6WXG\%UHDGWKRI6WXG\
0LQRU
0DMRU
5HYLHZRI0LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUHV&RQGLWLRQVDQG7,)V
[Notes]
[1] Amounts are set by 2010 Ordinance, NBS did not review
[2] Cost of tree and plaque are separate fees in addition to this fee, at $50 and $20 respectively
[3] Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions.
Attachment C
Packet Pg 89
1
87,/,7,(66(59,&(6)((6&+('8/(>@
>@
0HWHU6HUYLFHV >@
,QVWDOO:DWHU0HWHU >@
,QVWDOO:DWHU0HWHU >@
,QVWDOO:DWHU0HWHU ODUJHUWKDQ >@ 7LPH 0DWHULDOV QD
5HPRYH:DWHU0HWHU
5HPRYH:DWHU0HWHU
5HPRYH:DWHU0HWHU ODUJHUWKDQ 7LPH 0DWHULDOV QD
5HWLUHPHQWRI6HUYLFH
5HWLUHPHQWRI6HUYLFH ODUJHUWKDQ 7LPH 0DWHULDOV
$FFRXQW6HWXS
$FFRXQW6HWXS6DPH'D\QD
$FFRXQW6HWXS$IWHU+RXUV:HHNHQGV
0LQLPXPKRXUVVHUYLFHIHH
(DFK$GGLWLRQDO+RXU >@
3URSHUW\0DQDJHPHQW ILUVWVHWXSV
(DFK$GGLWLRQDOVHWXSV
'LVFRQQHFW6HUYLFHIRU1RQ3D\PHQW
/DWHUDO,QVWDOODWLRQ
/DWHUDO$EDQGRQPHQW
%8,/',1*3/$15(9,(:,163(&7,216833257
3HU3ODQ5HYLHZ6XEPLWWDO
1HZ0HWHUWUDVKHQFORVXUHVODQGVFDSHSODQV
5+
& '5HF\FOLQJ
[Notes]
[1] Water And Sewer Service Rates Are Adopted By Council
[2] 1 Unit = 748 Gallons
[3] Fees for hardware Charged at Actual Cost
[4] Plus Meter Cost
[5] Set by City Ordinance. NBS did not evaluate
[6] Fees will be set on a Deposit basis and debited by the amount of staff time and
other materials required to provide services
[7] Calculated at OT rate for each additonal hour of service required after normal
business hours beyond 2 hours
[8] Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions.
),5('(3$570(17
+$=$5'2862&&83$1&<3(50,76 >@
$LUFUDIW5HIXHOLQJ9HKLFOHV
$LUFUDIW5HSDLU+DQJDU
)HH&XUUHQW)HH
'HSRVLW 5HFRPPHQGHG)HH 3HUFHQW&KDQJH)HH'HVFULSWLRQ)HH&XUUHQW)HH
'HSRVLW 5HFRPPHQGHG)HH 3HUFHQW&KDQJH)HH'HVFULSWLRQ
Attachment C
Packet Pg 90
1
$XWRPRELOH:UHFNLQJ<DUG
%RQILUHRU5XEELVK)LUHV
%XUQLQJLQ3XEOLF3ODFH
&DQGOHVRU2SHQ)ODPHVLQ$VVHPEO\$UHDV
&RPEXVWLEOH)LEHU6WRUDJH KDQGOHVWRUHRYHUFXIW
&RPSUHVVHG*DVHV
&U\RJHQV
'U\&OHDQLQJ3ODQW
'XVW3URGXFLQJ2SHUDWLRQ
([SORVLYHVRU%ODVWLQJ$JHQWV
)LUHZRUNV
)ODPPDEOHRU&RPEXVWLEOH/LTXLGV 8QOHVVLQWKH&83$3URJUDP
)UXLW5LSHQLQJ(WK\OHQH*DV)RJJLQJ
*DUDJHV5HSDLU
+D]DUGRXV&KHPLFDOV 8QOHVVLQWKH&83$3URJUDP
+LJK3LOHG&RPEXVWLEOH6WRFNH[FHHGLQJVTIW
-XQN<DUGV
/LTXHILHG3HWUROHXP*DV
/XPEHU\DUG6WRUDJHLQH[FHVVRIERDUGIHHW
0DJQHVLXP:RUNLQJ3URFHVVPRUHWKDQOEVGDLO\
0DOO FRYHUHG
2UJDQLF&RDWLQJVPDQXIDFWXUHRYHUJDOORQDGD\
2YHQV,QGXVWULDO%DNLQJDQG'U\LQJ
3ODFHVRI$VVHPEO\
5HIULJHUDWLRQ(TXLSPHQW0HFKDQLFDOUHIULJHUDWLRQ VHH8)&IRU
PRVWFRPPRQUHIULJHUDQWV
6SUD\LQJRU'LSSLQJ
7HQWVDQG$LUVXSSRUWHG6WUXFWXUHVH[FHVVRIVTIW
7LUH5HFDSSLQJ
:DVWH0DWHULDO3ODQW
:HOGLQJDQG&XWWLQJ2SHUDWLRQV$Q\2FFXSDQF\
$GGLWLRQDO3HUPLWWHG8VH SHUSHUPLW
>@
&(57,),('81,),('3$57,&,3$7,1*$*(1&<)((6 >@
+D]DUGRXV0DWHULDOV+DQGOHUV
5HPRWHXWLOLW\ WLPHIHH
0DWHULDOVKDQGOHG
0DWHULDOVKDQGOHG
0DWHULDOVKDQGOHG
:DVWH*HQHUDWRUV
:DVWHVWUHDP SURIHVVLRQDORUPHGLFDO
:DVWHVWUHDPV DOORWKHUV
:DVWHVWUHDPV
:DVWH6WUHDP 'H0LQLPXV
7LHUHG3HUPLWWLQJ
&(
&$
3%5
8QGHUJURXQG6WRUDJH7DQNV JHQHUDOPRGHO
Attachment C
Packet Pg 91
1
)LUVWWDQN
(DFKDGGLWLRQDOWDQN
7DQNLQVWDOODWLRQ
7DQNUHPRYDO
0LQRU0RGLILFDWLRQ
0DMRU0RGLILFDWLRQ
$ERYH*URXQG6WRUDJH7DQNV
2QH7DQN
7ZR7DQNV
7KUHH7DQNV
&$/$53
1HZ6WDWLRQDU\6RXUFH)DFLOLW\
([LVWLQJ$QQXDO)DFLOLW\,QVSHFWLRQ
6LWH5HPHGLDWLRQ2YHUVLJKW
6RLO5HPHGLDWLRQ
7HPSRUDU\&ORVXUH3HUPLW
&ORVXUHV
7HPSRUDU\&ORVXUH
&ORVXUHLQ3ODFH
/DWH)HH >@
$QQXDOSHUPLWIHHVUHFHLYHGGD\VDIWHURULJLQDOLQYRLFHGD\3HQDOW\QD
$QQXDOSHUPLWIHHVUHFHLYHGGD\VDIWHURULJLQDOLQYRLFHGD\DQDGGLWLRQDO
SHQDOW\
QD
),5((48,30(17$1'3(56211(/67$1'%<)((6
)LUH(QJLQH/DGGHU7UXFN
>@
6TXDGRU/LJKW5HVFXH(TXLSPHQW
>@
7KLUG 6XEVHTXHQW)LUH,QVSHFWLRQ)HH
$GGLWLRQDO6LWH,QVSHFWLRQ)HH RQHKRXUPLQ
'HWHUPLQHGE\
)LQDQFH'LUHFWRU
)LUH,QYHVWLJDWLRQ)LUH3UHYHQWLRQV
'HWHUPLQHGE\
)LQDQFH'LUHFWRU
)LUHILJKWHU6WDQGE\
'HWHUPLQHGE\
)LQDQFH'LUHFWRU
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH&OHULFDO
'HWHUPLQHGE\
)LQDQFH'LUHFWRU
08/7,':(//,1*),5($1'/,)(6$)(7<,163(&7,21)((6&+('>@>@
7KHVHIHHVDUHVHWE\0XQLFLSDO&RGH
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH)HH>@
3URFHVVLQJSHUIDFLOLW\
(DFK$GGLWLRQDO2ZQHU
$SDUWPHQW+RXVHV
8SWRXQLWV
8QLWV
8QLWV
8QLWV
8QLWV
(YHU\DGGLWLRQDO8QLWVRYHU
+RWHOV0RWHOV/RGJLQJ+RXVHV%HG %UHDNIDVW)DFLOLWLHV
<RXWK+RVWHO)DFLOLWLHV6HQLRU)DFLOLWLHV6RURULWLHV
)UDWHUQLWLHVDQG2WKHU&RQJUHJDWH5HVLGHQFHV
,ŽƚĞů͕DŽƚĞů͕ĞĚΘƌĞĂŬĨĂƐƚ
Attachment C
Packet Pg 92
1
8QLWV
8QLWV
8QLWV
8QLWV
^ŽƌŽƌŝƚLJĂŶĚ&ƌĂƚĞƌŶŝƚLJ
ŽŶĚŽŵŝŶŝƵŵƐ
8SWR8QLWV
8QLWV
8QLWV
8QLWV
27+(5),5()((6
+\GUDQW)ORZ7HVW )LUVW+\GUDQW
+\GUDQW)ORZ7HVW (DFK$GGLWLRQDO+\GUDQW
5HLQVSHFWLRQ)HH FRQVWUXFWLRQ
%RDUGRI$SSHDOV
(PHUJHQF\&DOO2XW 1RQ6FKHGXOHG
$IWHU+RXUV&DOO2XW 6FKHGXOHG
[Notes]
[1] For Locations with multiple required permits, fee is calculated at highest permit fee,
plus 1/2 hour of inspection per additional permitted use.
[2] Penalty for excessive false alarms set by City Ordinance - not required for review in
this study
[3] A discount of $79.00 will be provided for two or more programs reviewed
ilt l[4] Fees are punitive in nature and do not require a cost of service analysis.
[5] Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule, NBS did not study
[6] Fees are waived for units that are built, owned and managed by the San Luis
Obispo Housing Authority, other government agencies or not-for-profit housing
organizations.
[7] These fees are applicable to all multi-dwelling units in the City based on the
definitions set forth in the 2007 California Building Code[8] Administrative fee applies to both Apt Houses and Hotels, Motels, etc. Total
processing fee calculated will be divided equally amongst all owners.
)LUH'HYHORSPHQW6HUYLFHV
1(:&216758&7,21$'',7,216$1'0$-255(02'(/6
&RPPHUFLDO8VHV6WUXFWXUDO $OOQHZO\FRQVWUXFWHGDGGHGRU
VWUXFWXUDOO\UHPRGHOHGVSDFHIRUQRQUHVLGHQWLDORFFXSDQFLHV
FODVVLILHGDV&%&*URXS$%()+,0RURWKHUFRPPHUFLDO
RFFXSDQFLHVQRWVSHFLILFDOO\DGGUHVVHGHOVHZKHUHLQWKLV)HH
6FKHGXOH
6TXDUH)RRWDJH
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
Attachment C
Packet Pg 93
1
SHUVI!VI LQFUHPHQW
&RPPHUFLDO5HVLGHQWLDODQG0XOWLIDPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO8VHV $OO
QHZO\FRQVWUXFWHGDGGHGRUVWUXFWXUDOO\UHPRGHOHGVSDFHIRU
UHVLGHQWLDORFFXSDQFLHVFODVVLILHGDV&%&*URXS5 H[FHSW5 RU
RWKHUUHVLGHQWLDORFFXSDQFLHVQRWVSHFLILFDOO\DGGUHVVHGHOVHZKHUH
LQWKLV)HH6FKHGXOH
6TXDUH)RRWDJH
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVI!VI LQFUHPHQW
'XSOLFDWH)ORRU3ODQ5HYLHZ&RPPHUFLDO5HVLGHQWLDODQG
0XOWLIDPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO8VHV
6TXDUH)RRWDJH
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVI!VI LQFUHPHQW
/RZDQG0RGHUDWH+D]DUG6WRUDJH $OOQHZO\FRQVWUXFWHG
DGGHGRUVWUXFWXUDOO\UHPRGHOHGVSDFHIRUVWRUDJHRFFXSDQFLHV
FODVVLILHGDV&%&*URXS6RURWKHUVWRUDJHRFFXSDQFLHVQRW
VSHFLILFDOO\DGGUHVVHGHOVHZKHUHLQWKLV)HH6FKHGXOH
6TXDUH)RRWDJH
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVI!VI LQFUHPHQW
Attachment C
Packet Pg 94
1
$WWDFKHG$FFHVVRU\DQG8WLOLW\8VHV $OOQHZO\FRQVWUXFWHG
DGGHGRUVWUXFWXUDOO\UHPRGHOHGVSDFHIRUXWLOLW\DQG
DFFHVVRU\RFFXSDQFLHVFODVVLILHGDV&%&*URXS8RURWKHU
XWLOLW\DQGDFFHVVRU\RFFXSDQFLHVQRWVSHFLILFDOO\DGGUHVVHG
HOVHZKHUHLQWKLV)HH6FKHGXOH
6TXDUH)RRWDJH
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVI!VI LQFUHPHQW
'HWDFKHG$FFHVVRU\DQG8WLOLW\8VHV $OOQHZO\FRQVWUXFWHG
DGGHGRUVWUXFWXUDOO\UHPRGHOHGVSDFHIRUXWLOLW\DQG
DFFHVVRU\RFFXSDQFLHVFODVVLILHGDV&%&*URXS8RURWKHU
XWLOLW\DQGDFFHVVRU\RFFXSDQFLHVQRWVSHFLILFDOO\DGGUHVVHG
HOVHZKHUHLQWKLV)HH6FKHGXOH
6TXDUH)RRWDJH
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVI!VI LQFUHPHQW
6KHOO%XLOGLQJVIRUDOO&RPPHUFLDO8VHV 7KHHQFORVXUHIRUDOO
QHZO\FRQVWUXFWHGDGGHGRUVWUXFWXUDOO\UHPRGHOHGVSDFHIRUQRQ
UHVLGHQWLDORFFXSDQFLHVFODVVLILHGDV&%&*URXS$%()+,0
RURWKHUFRPPHUFLDORFFXSDQFLHVQRWVSHFLILFDOO\DGGUHVVHG
HOVHZKHUHLQWKLV)HH6FKHGXOHZKHUHWKHLQWHULRULVQRWFRPSOHWHG
RURFFXSLDEOH
6TXDUH)RRWDJH
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVI!VI LQFUHPHQW
Attachment C
Packet Pg 95
1
&RPPHUFLDO7HQDQW,PSURYHPHQW1RQ6WUXFWXUDO 1RQ
VWUXFWXUDOO\UHPRGHOHGVSDFHIRUQRQUHVLGHQWLDORFFXSDQFLHV
FODVVLILHGDV&%&*URXS$%()+,0RURWKHUFRPPHUFLDO
RFFXSDQFLHVQRWVSHFLILFDOO\DGGUHVVHGHOVHZKHUHLQWKLV)HH
6FKHGXOHZKHUHWKHVWUXFWXUHLVQRWDOWHUHG
6TXDUH)RRWDJH
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVI!VI LQFUHPHQW
&RPPHUFLDO5HVLGHQWLDODQG0XOWLIDPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO5HPRGHOV
1RQ6WUXFWXUDO 1RQ6WUXFWXUDOO\UHPRGHOHGVSDFHIRUUHVLGHQWLDO
RFFXSDQFLHVFODVVLILHGDV&%&*URXS5 H[FHSW5 RURWKHU
UHVLGHQWLDORFFXSDQFLHVQRWVSHFLILFDOO\DGGUHVVHGHOVHZKHUHLQWKLV
)HH6FKHGXOH
6TXDUH)RRWDJH
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVI!VI LQFUHPHQW
6LQJOH)DPLO\'ZHOOLQJVDQG'XSOH[HV $OOQHZO\FRQVWUXFWHG
VSDFHIRUUHVLGHQWLDORFFXSDQFLHVFODVVLILHGDV&%&*URXS5
LQFOXGLQJFXVWRPEXLOGVDQGPRGHOKRPHVIRUWUDFWPDVWHUSODQVRU
RWKHUVLPLODUUHVLGHQWLDORFFXSDQFLHVQRWVSHFLILFDOO\DGGUHVVHG
HOVHZKHUHLQWKLV)HH6FKHGXOH
6TXDUH)RRWDJH
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVI!VI LQFUHPHQW
Attachment C
Packet Pg 96
1
'XSOLFDWH)ORRU3ODQ5HYLHZ6LQJOH)DPLO\'ZHOOLQJVDQG
'XSOH[HV
6TXDUH)RRWDJH
EDVH FRVW SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVI!VI LQFUHPHQW
'XSOLFDWH)ORRU3ODQ5HYLHZ$WWDFKHGRU'HWDFKHG$FFHVVRU\
DQG8WLOLW\8VHV
6TXDUH)RRWDJH
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVI!VI LQFUHPHQW
6LWH,PSURYHPHQWV7KLVLQFOXGHVVXEVWDQWLDOGHYHORSPHQWRI
SULYDWHSDUNLQJORWVZKLFKDUHSURFHVVHGVHSDUDWHRIWKHVWUXFWXUH
DQGLQFOXGHDQ\FRPELQDWLRQRIWKHIROORZLQJ 8QGHUJURXQGXWLOLWLHV
SDUNLQJORWOLJKWLQJDFFHVVLEOHSDWKRIWUDYHODQDO\VLVJUDGLQJ
GUDLQDJHDQGFRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKH&LW\
VSDUNLQJDQGGULYHZD\
VWDQGDUGV
6TXDUH)RRWDJH
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVI!VI LQFUHPHQW
),5(635,1./(5$1'68335(66,216<67(06
,VVXHGE\%XLOGLQJDQG6DIHW\
)LUH6SULQNOHU6\VWHPV 1HZ,QVWDOODWLRQ
+HDGV
+HDGV
Attachment C
Packet Pg 97
1
+HDGV
+HDGV
(YHU\+HDGVDERYH
)LUH$ODUP6\VWHP 1HZ,QVWDOODWLRQ
'HYLFHV
'HYLFHV
(YHU\'HYLFHVDERYH
6SULQNOHU0RQLWRULQJ6\VWHP
)LUH6SULQNOHU6\VWHPV 7HQDQW,PSURYHPHQW
+HDGV
+HDGV
+HDGV
+HDGV
(YHU\+HDGVDERYH
)LUH$ODUP6\VWHP 7HQDQW,PSURYHPHQW
'HYLFHV
'HYLFHV
(YHU\'HYLFHVDERYH
6SULQNOHU0RQLWRULQJ6\VWHP
2WKHU6XSSUHVVLRQ6\VWHPV
,QVHUW*DV6\VWHPV
'U\&KHPLFDO6\VWHPV
:HW&KHPLFDO.LWFKHQ+RRG
)RDP6\VWHPV
3DLQW6SUD\%RRWK
27+(50,6&(//$1(286)((6
$OWHUQDWLYH0HWKRGDQG0DWHULDO5HYLHZ
([SHGLWHG3ODQ5HYLHZ)HH >@
[Notes]
>@ 1/2 hour of inspection per additional permitted use.
>@ A discount of $79.00 will be provided for two or more programs reviewed
simultaneously.
>@
Fees are waived for units that are built, owned and managed by the San Luis
Obispo Housing Authority, other government agencies or not-for-profit housing
organizations.
>@ These fees are applicable to all multi-dwelling units in the City based on the
definitions set forth in the 2007 California Building Code
>@ Penalty for excessive false alarms set by City Ordinance - not required for review in
this study
>@ Includes average cost for vehicle staffing. Equipment rates will be added separately
by department
>@ Expedited fees set on a City policy basis at overtime rate for City staff or
outsourced consultant costs as needed
[8]Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions.
Attachment C
Packet Pg 98
1
32/,&('(3$570(17
3URFHVVLQJFKDUJHIRUUHWXUQRISURSHUW\WDNHQIRUVDIHNHHSLQJ
3URFHVVLQJ PDLQWHQDQFHIHH Ϭй
&OHDUDQFH/HWWHUV >@ Ϭй
&LYLO6'7 >@ Ϭй
&ULPLQDO6'7 >@
&LYLO6XESRHQD >@ Ϭй
&RQFHDOHG:HDSRQV3HUPLW VHWE\SHQDOFRGH
,QYHVWLJDWLYHFRVWVDQGSHUPLWSURFHVVLQJ Ϭй
5HQHZDO Ϭй
0DVVDJH)DFLOLW\3HUPLW ͲϮϳй
0DVVDJH7HFKQLFLDQ,QLWLDO3HUPLW ϲϮй
0DVVDJH7HFKQLFLDQ3HUPLW5HQHZDO ϱϲй
/RFDO5HFRUG,QIRUPDWLRQ >@ Ϭй
,PSRXQG9HKLFOH5HOHDVH GD\LPSRXQG ϭй
9HKLFOH7RZ5HOHDVH)HH Ͳϭй
5HFRUGVHDOLQJIHHVHWE\SHQDOFRGH 'HWHUPLQHGE\
)LQDQFH'LUHFWRU
'HWHUPLQHGE\)LQDQFH
'LUHFWRU
3URSHUW\'DPDJH2QO\&ROOLVLRQV,QYHVWLJDWLRQV
SHUSDUW\SHUQRQLQMXU\WUDIILFFROOLVLRQLQYHVWLJDWLRQUHSRUW ϴϱй
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH,QYHVWLJDWLRQV 'HWHUPLQHGE\
)LQDQFH'LUHFWRU
'HWHUPLQHGE\)LQDQFH
'LUHFWRU
6ROLFLWRU3HUPLWV
,QLWLDO,QYHVWLJDWLRQV ͲϮϱй
)ROORZXSUHTXLUHG 'HWHUPLQHGE\
)LQDQFH'LUHFWRU
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH&LWDWLRQV >@
Noise Violation, Urination in Public and/or Open Alcohol Container
)LUVWFLWDWLRQIRUHDFKVXFKYLRODWLRQ H[FHSWRSHQFRQWDLQHU Ϭй
)LUVWFLWDWLRQ RSHQFRQWDLQHU Ϭй
6HFRQGFLWDWLRQIRUHDFKVXFKYLRODWLRQ Ϭй
7KLUGFLWDWLRQIRUHDFKVXFKYLRODWLRQ Ϭй
&RVW5HFRYHU\3URJUDPV
'8,&RVWUHFRYHU\'HWHUPLQHGE\
)LQDQFH'LUHFWRU
'HWHUPLQHGE\)LQDQFH
'LUHFWRU
1XLVDQFHDEDWHPHQW 'HWHUPLQHGE\
)LQDQFH'LUHFWRU
'HWHUPLQHGE\)LQDQFH
'LUHFWRU
$ODUP3HUPLWV &LW\SURFHVVLQJFRVWQHWRIFRQWUDFWRU
SD\PHQW
>@
3HUPLW Ϯй
5HQHZDO Ϯй
([FHVVLYHDODUPV >@
7KLUG Ϭй
)RXUWK Ϭй)HH&XUUHQW)HH
'HSRVLW 5HFRPPHQGHG)HH 3HUFHQW&KDQJH)HH'HVFULSWLRQ
Attachment C
Packet Pg 99
1
)LIWK Ϭй
6L[WK Ϭй
6HYHQWK 0RUH Ϭй
6HFRQG5HVSRQVH&RVW5HFRYHU\'HWHUPLQHGE\
)LQDQFH'LUHFWRU
'HWHUPLQHGE\)LQDQFH
'LUHFWRU
7D[L3HUPLW
3HUPLWIHH ϴϴй
3HUPLW5HQHZDOIHH ϭϰϱй
(OHFWURQLF*DPH&HQWHU3HUPLW ϳй
3XEOLF'DQFH3HUPLW ϭϭй
7REDFFR/LFHQVH)HHSHUORFDWLRQ Ϯϴй
/LYHVFDQ >@
&LW\3URFHVVHG
9ROXQWHHU3URFHVVHG
0RELOH)RRG9HQGRU/LFHQVH Ͳϭϳй
3/$11,1*6833257
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH8VH3HUPLW EDUVQLJKWFOXEV
[Notes]
>@ Fee set by penal code (13322), Dept did not wish to undergo time or cost of service
analysis
>@ Fee set by CA evidence code 1563, Dept did not wish to undergo time or cost of
service analysis
>@ Access through the Discovery Order process, Dept did not wish to undergo time or
cost of service analysis
>@ Fee set by statute (GC 68097.2). Statute increased fee in 2013-14, Dept did not
wish to undergo time or cost of service analysis
>@ Fee limited b penal code (13322), Dept did not wish to undergo time or cost of
service analysis
>@ Set by Municipal Code, punitive in nature and excluded from cost analysis.
>@ City fee only. DOJ fee charged separately.
>@ City's current fee is $36. Amount reduced to evaluate City cost of providing
services. Per contract agreement, additional 15% should be added to City fee as a
pass through to the contractor.
Unless set by Statue or Penal Codes, fees are increased annually by CPI (done by
Finance dept.)
Attachment C
Packet Pg 100
1
<RXWK6HUYLFHV
6XQ1)XQ5HJLVWUDWLRQ)HH 7%'
6FKRRO<HDUKRXUO\RSWLRQϭϯй
7HDFKHU:RUN'D\Ϯϱй
/DWH5HJ7:' :HHNO\5DWH
6SULQJ%UHDN&DPS:HHNO\2SWLRQ ϯй
/DWH5HJ6SULQJ%UHDN:HHNO\ :HHNO\5DWH
'DLO\2SWLRQ ϮϮй
/DWH5HJ6SULQJ%UHDN'DLO\ :HHNO\5DWH
6XPPHU&DPS5HJLVWUDWLRQ
)HH
ZHHN
)XOOZHHN&DUH2SWLRQ ϵй
6XPPHU6FKRRO2SWLRQ7%'
'D\5DWH2SWLRQ ϭϬй
)LHOG7ULS6LJQ8SV
/DWH5HJLVWUDWLRQ)HH Ϭй
6/27HHQV$QQXDO)HH ϱϬй
6SHFLDO(YHQWV
$TXDWLFV
/DS6ZLP$GXOWSHUXVH Ϭй
$GXOW0RQWKO\Ϭй
<RXWK6HQLRUSHU Ϭй
<RXWK6HQLRUPRQWKO\Ϭй
5HFUHDWLRQDO6ZLP$GXOWSHUXVH ϭϳй
<RXWK6HQLRUSHU ϮϬй
6ZLP6FULSW$GXOW
SHUXVH
Ϭй
<RXWK6HQLRUSHU Ϭй
5HFUHDWLRQDO6ZLP6FULSW$GXOWSHUXVH ϭϳй
<RXWK6HQLRUSHU ϮϬй
/HVVRQV ϰϮй
3ULYDWH/HVVRQV ϯϰй
6SHFLDO&ODVVHV/LIHJXDUG Ϭй
:DUP:DWHU([HUFLVH ϯϯй
)DFLOLW\8VH GD\/* GD\ /*
-XQLRU/LIHJXDUG3URJUDP Ϭй
5HFUHDWLRQDO6SRUWV
$GXOW6RIWEDOO
7HDPV
ϴй
,QVWUXFWLRQDO&ODVVHV
3HUFHQW&KDQJH5HFRPPHQGHG)HH
)HH&XUUHQW)HH
'HSRVLW
3DUNVDQG5HFUHDWLRQ
)HH'HVFULSWLRQ
Attachment C
Packet Pg 101
1
$GXOW6HQLRU
<RXWK
6SHFLDO(YHQWV
7ULDWKORQ
,QGLYLGXDO
ϳй
7HDP ϳй
3DUNVDQG5HFUHDWLRQ6SRQVRUHG(YHQWV
6SHFLDO(YHQW$SSOLFDWLRQ SDUNRQO\
HQFURDFKPHQW
%DQQHU3HUPLW$SSOLFDWLRQ,QVWDOODWLRQ ϭϬй
)LOP$SSOLFDWLRQ)HH6WLOO3KRWRJUDSK\ ϲй
&RPPHUFLDO ϱй
1RQ3URILW ϲй
'HVWLQDWLRQ0DUNHWLQJ
3HUPLW)HH ϱϬй
0LVVLRQ3OD]D)XOO
3OD]D
ϮϮй
)XOO3DUN8VH Ϭй
+DOI3DUN8VH Ϭй
,QGRRU)DFLOLWHV
/XGZLFK&RPPXQLW\&HQWHU$VVHPEO\5RRP 1RQ3URILW ϴй
$VVHPEO\5RRP )RU3URILW ϱй
*\PQDVLXP 1RQ3URILW ϲй
*\PQDVLXP )RU3URILW ϱй
.LWFKHQ 1RQ3URILW ϵй
.LWFKHQ )RU3URILW ϲй
)ORRU&RYHUV ϳй
)XOO)DFLOLW\8VH +RXUV ϲй
6HQLRU&HQWHU0DLQ5RRP QRQSURILW ϴй
0DLQ5RRP )RU3URILW ϱй
&RQIHUHQFH5RRP 1RQ3URILW ϳй
&RQIHUHQFH5RRP )RU3URILW ϱй
0HDGRZ3DUN%XLOGLQJ1RQ3URILW ϳй
)RU3URILW ϱй
&LW\&RXQW\/LEUDU\&RPPXQLW\5RRP 1RQ3URILW ϴй
&RPPXQLW\5RRP )RU3URILW ϱй
&RQIHUHQFH5RRP 1RQ3URILW ϳй
&RQIHUHQFH5RRP )RU3URILW ϱй
2XWGRRU)DFLOLWLHV
%%43LFQLF$UHDVϱй
-DFN+RXVH*DUGHQV:HGGLQJDQG5HFHSWLRQ ϯϰϵй
3DUW\ $WWHQGDQFH KRXU 1$
8QGHU3HU+RXU 1$
3HU+RXU 1$
3HU+RXU 1$
7DEOH&KDLU5HQWDO ,QFOXGHG
6RIWEDOO)LHOGV+RXUO\)LHOG8VH Ϭй
Attachment C
Packet Pg 102
1
/LJKW)HH Ϭй
0XOWL8VH&RXUWV+RXUO\8VH ϭϬй
/LJKW)HH 1$
7HQQLV 9ROOH\EDOO&RXUWV)XOO8VH)DFLOLW\ 'D\ ϲй
'DPRQ*DUFLD)XOO8VH)DFLOLW\ 'D\ Ϭй
)XOO8VH)DFLOLW\ +RXU Ϭй
)XOO8VH/LJKW)HH +RXU Ϭй
0DLQWHQDQFH)HH Ϭй
&RQFHVVLRQ6WDQG5HQWDO Ϭй
/RZHU)LHOGV)DFLOLW\8VH 'D\ Ϭй
/RZHU)LHOGV)DFLOLW\8VH +RXU Ϭй
/RZHU)LHOGV/LJKW)HH Ϭй
6LQJOH)LHOG)DFLOLW\8VH 'D\ Ϭй
6LQJOH)LHOG)DFLOLW\8VH +RXU Ϭй
6LQJOH)LHOG/LJKW)HH Ϭй
%DVHEDOO6WDGLXP+RXUO\)LHOG8VH Ϭй
/LJKWV Ϭй
3UHVVER[5HQWDO Ϭй
)LHOGSUHS Ϭй
&RQFHVVLRQ6WDQG5HQWDO Ϭй
)DFLOLW\3HUPLW3URFHVVLQJ)HH ϱϬй
%RXQFH+RXVH ϱй
3RUWDEOH%%4 ϯй
&RPPXQLW\*DUGHQV \U
SHUVTIW
\USHUVT
IW
5DQJHUV
-XQLRU5DQJHU&DPS ϱй
*ROI
&DUW5HQWDO SHUVRQ SHUVRQ
3XOO&DUWV FDUW FDUW
5RXQGV0RQGD\7KXUVGD\ 5HJXODU ϭϴй
0RQGD\7KXUVGD\ 6QU<WK6WX0LO ϭϭй
)ULGD\6XQGD\ 5HJXODU ϭϳй
)ULGD\6XQGD\ 6QU<WK6WX0LO ϭϬй
5HSOD\ϰй
2II3HDN 07K30 5HJXODU ϭϬй
2II3HDN 07K30 6QU<WK6WX0LO ϭϭй
7ZOLJKW DIWHU30 ϯй
)DPLO\5DWH Ϯϱй
6XSHU7ZOLJKW Ϭй
3OD\&DUGV 5HJXODU ϭϴй
3OD\&DUGV 6QU<WK6WX0LO ϲй
Attachment C
Packet Pg 103
1
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
Parks and Recreation Commission
Agenda Report
SUBJECT: PARKS AND RECREATION FEE STUDY SESSION
Prepared by: Devin Hyfield, Recreation Supervisor
Marcus Carloni, Special Projects Manager
RECOMMENDATION
1. Review the costs of Parks and Recreation user fees that is based on the draft citywide user
fee analysis by consulting firm NBS.
2. Provide feedback on proposed adjustments to Parks and Recreation user fees to be
considered by Council for the 2017-2019 Financial Plan.
3. Identify any areas of further study and discussion.
DISCUSSION
Background
Best practices and City fiscal policy calls for a comprehensive review of service costs every five
years. Further, the ongoing review and updates to City service charges is completed on a regular
basis to ensure that they keep pace with changes in the cost-of-living as well as changes in service
delivery. State law provides that fees for services need to be roughly proportional to the actual
costs for providing said services. Due to the Great Recession and other internal operational factors
the City’s most recent comprehensive cost of services study was performed in 2006 and
implemented in 2008. NBS Government Finance Group (NBS) has been retained by the City to
conduct a cost of services study.
Parks and Recreation user fees are guided by adopted policy, actual costs, and market comparisons.
The City’s adopted Budget and Fiscal Policies (Section H of the 2015-17 Financial Plan,
Attachment 1) provide specific policies about cost recovery goals. Recreation Programs are
specifically discussed in subsection G. Subsection I is also applicable to Parks and Recreation
services as it discusses comparability with other communities.
Highlights of the City’s Adopted Parks and Recreation Service Cost Recovery Goals
1.Adults. Cost recovery should be relatively high.
Meeting Date: February 1, 2017
Item Number:_________
2-1
Attachment C
Packet Pg 104
1
Parks and Recreation Fee Study Session Page 2
2.Youth and Seniors. Cost recovery should be relatively low.
3.Specific Activities have articulated cost recovery goals.
Low Range
0 to 30%
Mid-Range
30-60%
High-Range
60-100%
Aquatics
Community Gardens
Junior Ranger Camp
Minor Film Permits
Skate Park
Special Events
Youth Sports
STAR
Teens
Senior/Boomer Services
Contract Classes
Major Film Permits
Adult Sports
Banners
Child Care
Facility Rentals
Triathlon
Golf
NBS Draft Cost of Services Study
User fees are charges collected for a service provided or required due to the request or voluntary
action of an individual/entity. Common types of fees charged by municipalities include
development review; inspection, and approval (planning, engineering, and building); recreational
classes and community sports programs; and public safety services. User fees may not exceed the
estimated and reasonable costs incurred to provide the service for which the fee is charged. NBS,
and Parks and Recreation have worked together to determine the costs of parks and recreation
services that are eligible to be user fees. NBS, using time and workload information has provided
the department with costs for service associated with staffing, operational and maintenance costs,
and administrative and overhead costs.
Parks and Recreation fees may be more discretionary in nature (since users are choosing to
participate in these activities) than other City fees. NBS in evaluating the costs of services for the
City’s Parks and Recreation activities has not delved in the detailed costs associated with each
departmental fee. In order to arrive at those conclusions, Recreation Supervisor, Devin Hyfield,
has lead a further analytic exercise in using NBS’s costs for Parks and Recreation activities along
with the number of users, number of hours of use, and other details to derive more specific costs
associated with Parks and Recreation Activities.
Parks and Recreation Cost of Services Analysis
In reviewing the City’s rates of cost recovery for parks and recreation fees most were found to be
in or near their adopted policy range. Staff discusses several fees more specifically following this
table. Overall many of the proposed adjustments reflect a multitude of inputs including anticipated
operational cost increases along with State of California increases to minimum wage as many
employees in this department work at our near this rate. On January 1, 2017 minimum wage was
increased to $10.50 per hour. On January 1, 2018, it will go to $11.00 and it will continue to
increase in the future until it reaches $15.00 in 2022.
2-2
Attachment C
Packet Pg 105
1
Parks and Recreation Fee Study Session Page 3
2-3
Attachment C
Packet Pg 106
1
Parks and Recreation Fee Study Session Page 4
Youth Services – High Range Cost Recovery Range for Child Care
Youth services provides after school enrichment at five school sites as well as all day activities
during teacher work days, spring break, and summer. Cost recovery for youth services should be
high which it currently is at the 90% range. Staff suggests considering increasing this fee to
directly correlate to minimum wage increases that have been approved during the next two year
financial plan given that most employees in this division work at our near that rate. The hourly
base has been applied to fees for teacher workdays, spring break and summer camps. Those
activities costs significantly more than after school activities due to the length of time, number of
attendees, number of staff required. However, significant increases to these activities are
anticipated to not be sustainable by the customers.
Teens – Low Range Cost Recovery.
At this time Teen is at extremely low (1%) cost recovery for after school enrichment and noon
activities offered at Laguna Middle School which is consistent with policy. This is a challenging
group to create interest with and the activities that are provided reach youth who benefit the most
and are often diverted from activities that are not positive in nature. Consistent with the adopted
Strategic Plan for the Department which suggests exploring the recasting of the Ludwick
Community Center staff recommends further study of the teen program to determine its long-term
sustainability and possible repurposing toward the LCC. At this time, a fee increase to $15 in 2017
and $20 in 2018 is proposed.
Aquatics - Low Range Cost Recovery for All Ages
2-4
Attachment C
Packet Pg 107
1
Parks and Recreation Fee Study Session Page 5
By policy, Aquatics is low cost recovery for all ages. The primary activities at the SLO Swim
Center include lap swimming, recreational swimming, lessons (group and private) and aqua
aerobics and warm water exercise.
1.Lap Swim. At this time, no change is recommended for lap swim because the cost
recovery is currently in the medium range, which is greater than the adopted policy level.
However, during the two year financial plan if it stays the same it will quickly return to the
low cost recovery range due to anticipated increased costs in minimum wage, utilities, and
other operational costs.
2.Rec Swim. Recreational swim is a very specialized program during the summer time and
the costs are significantly higher than lap swim (many more lifeguards must be on deck).
A slight increase to this fee is suggested to keep pace with the known minimum wage
increases and continue this as a low cost recovery activity.
3.Lessons, Group and Private. Group swim lessons currently are at an extremely low cost
recovery amount of about 10%. They are recommended to increase each year to increase
cost recovery to 13% and 18% to reflect a higher rate of cost recovery and to be more
competitive with other jurisdictions. Private lessons are at a higher rate to reflect the
increased costs of one on one lessons and are low cost recovery even with the proposed
increase.
4.Exercise Class. Warm water exercise is extremely low cost recovery. The increase
proposed takes it from a rate of 5% cost recovery to 7% cost recovery. This was selected
for a modest increase to keep this activity affordable for the predominately-senior based
attendees.
5.Lifeguard Training. Lastly, the lifeguard certification program is low cost recovery. It
is at market rate and recommended to stay there so that the City’ workforce can continue
be developed.
Recreational Sports - High Range Cost Recovery
Softball is a three season five day a week program, that sees 215 teams play. This is a high cost
recovery program. The current cost of $465 per team per season represents 53% cost recovery just
shy of the minimum policy level of 60% cost recovery for this program. Over the two-year period,
cost increases are proposed to increase the cost recovery to 60%. Those rates per season would be
$500 in 2017 at a 55% cost recovery and $550 in 2017 at a 60% cost recovery.
Special Events – Cost Recovery Varied by Event Type
1. SLO Triathlon - High Range Cost Recovery is an adult activity with a policy cost
recovery level of high. At this time the current cost recovery level is 32% and is
therefore in the lower end of the mid cost recovery range. Staff recommends changing
the policy for this cost recovery because it is a family oriented beginner triathlon, which
2-5
Attachment C
Packet Pg 108
1
Parks and Recreation Fee Study Session Page 6
competes with many other events. The proposed increase in fee represents continued
mid-range cost recovery.
2. Special Events Produced by the Department – Low Range Cost Recovery. These
include events such as the Gobble Wobble fun run at the golf course, which are geared
toward intergenerational participation. It is recommended that these events be at the
mid level of cost recovery. This would be an addition to this category of cost recovery
and staff will calculate fees for these events based on the costs that now know from the
NBS and fee study.
3. Banners - High Range Cost Recovery. Banners are currently at mid-range cost
recovery. An increase is recommended to put it in high cost recovery.
4. Minor Commercial Film Permits - Low Range Cost Recovery. Presently very few
occur. They are currently in the low range cost recovery. A 5% increase in 2017 and
again in 2018 is recommended to keep them low range cost recovery.
Indoor Facility Rentals - High Range Cost Recovery
At this time, excluding the costs of city uses, the cost recovery is in the High Range at 62%. Aside
from City programs, the primary users of these facilities are for profit businesses, individuals, and
non-profits. The City’s indoor facilities offer an affordable solution for family events and for
businesses who require a regular meeting space. To cover projected increases to staffing and
operational costs and increase to these fees approximately 5% in 2017 and 2018 to retain the rate
of high range cost recovery.
Outdoor Facility Rentals Should Be High Range Cost Recovery
By policy, outdoor facility rentals should be high range cost recovery. Unfortunately, at this time,
in the totality they are at low range of cost recovery of 21%. However, this number is lowered
because 59% of outdoor facility rentals (predominately diamond fields and Damon-Garcia) do not
have high range cost recovery because they are either youth based or have longstanding past
practices of not charging because of “old agreements”. Case in point diamond fields in recognition
of the groups’ former contributions to the City (building the SLO Stadium) or their status as a
nonprofit youth organization. AYSO and Club Soccer are similarly situated. Staff is seeking
guidance from the PRC regarding how it would like this past practice to be further analyzed and
potentially revised. More specifically, it is recommended that the field and Damon Garcia fee be
further analyzed following PRC direction.
SLO Stadium is cost recovering at 83% for the majority of the users since they are adult oriented.
No change is recommended at this time as the aging facility presents unique rental by tolerant
users (the Blues often do repair works themselves).
With the exception of the Jack House and Mission Plaza, for all other outdoor facilities staff
recommends an approximately 5% increase in 2017 and again in 2018 to reflect increased costs in
staffing, operations, and maintenance.
2-6
Attachment C
Packet Pg 109
1
Parks and Recreation Fee Study Session Page 7
1. Jack House is an Outdoor Facility and should be High Cost Recovery Range. The Jack
House rental fee will be considered by the Jack House Committee at its February 8th
meeting. The Committee has been desirous of setting the rental fee to be at the market rate
and directly competitive with the Dallidet Adobe. The Jack House Committee is trying to
balance the use with the historic nature and fragility of the house and gardens. The fee for
2017 and 2018 is proposed to be $3,400 for a full day wedding. For an event of less than
50 people at $50 an hour; for 50-100 people at $200 per hour; and for an event of up to 200
people at $300 per hour. This is an unprecedented increase and the public may be stunned.
Staff is suggesting these changes in anticipation of direction from the Jack House
Committee based on prior discussions.
2.Mission Plaza is an Outdoor Facility and should be High Cost Recovery Range.
Mission Plaza is costing more and more to maintain due to its extensive use for community
events and aging nature of its infrastructure. A $100 increase to its use is recommended to
account for the wide range of unexpected maintenance costs (which often run in the
thousands of dollars – i.e. replacing electrical outlets after an event that damages them)
arising from its use that are not accounted for in the operational costs study.
Community Gardens are Low Range Cost Recovery. The current cost recovery is in the low
range at 5% cost recovery. Staff proposes keeping this a low range cost recovery because of the
community building and food orientation of this activity. It is recommended that the base rate be
increased by about 5% in each of the next two years which will result in closer to 10% cost recovery
in the end.
Laguna Lake Golf Course - High Range Cost Recovery
The Golf Course is currently recovering at the mid range cost recovery, below policy level. It is
an activity that is subject to market influences and multiple competitors. The change in cost
recovery reflects a full understanding of all costs associated with this activity combined with the
change in supervisorial structure and the now known added costs associated with overhead and
management shown in the NBS study. Notably, the users are predominately youth and seniors;
two groups that traditionally are in the low cost recovery range. Price sensitivity by users has been
a concern in the past. The following fees are proposed as this time to keep these activities within
the mid cost recovery range and staff recommends considering a policy change to this cost
recovery range.
Special Event Permits.
This is a fee for service. It should recover 100%. Those events with encroachments onto streets,
sidewalks and right of ways are more costly than those for parks only. So a fee of $100 for park
only special event permits is recommended and one of $160 for events which also have
encroachments. Separate charges will be applied for the actual park use and/or encroachment
related activities.
Study Session Discussion
At the February 1, 2017 PRC meeting, staff suggests a review of the current user fee costs
associated with parks and recreation activities followed by feedback on this Agenda Report and
2-7
Attachment C
Packet Pg 110
1
Parks and Recreation Fee Study Session Page 8
Presentation. Staff has provided notification of this meeting to all users identified as having a
potential impact as a result in a change in fees. Following staff’s power point presentation, will be
public input on this information. Discussion and consensus feedback by the Commission will
conclude the study session.
Next Steps
Following the PRC meeting of February 1, 2017, the Jack House Committee will discuss the Jack
House Use fees at its meeting of February 8th. Council will hold a Study Session on all City User
Fees at its Meeting of February 21st. The PRC meeting of March 1, 2017 will include consideration
of the proposed Parks and Recreation Fees for recommendation to Council for adoption in April.
The March meeting will also address items identified by the PRC at the February 1, 2017 meeting
for further review and discussion.
ATTACHMENTS
1. BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES – SECTION H USER COST RECOVERY GOALS
2. PROPOSED CHANGES TO BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES SECTION H
2-8
Attachment C
Packet Pg 111
1
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
G. Recreation Programs
The following cost recovery policies apply to the City's recreation programs:
1.Cost recovery for activities directed to adults should be relatively high.
2.Cost recovery for activities directed to youth and seniors should be relatively low. In those
circumstances where services are similar to those provided in the private sector, cost recovery levels
should be higher.
Although ability to pay may not be a concern for all youth and senior participants, these are desired
program activities, and the cost of determining need may be greater than the cost of providing a uniform
service fee structure to all par ticipants. Further, there is a community-wide benefit in encouraging high-
levels of participation in youth and senior recreation activities regardless of financial status.
3.Cost recovery goals for recreation activities are set as follows:
High-Range Cost Recovery Activities - (60% to 100%)
a.Adult athletics
b.Banner permit applications
c.Child care services (except Youth STAR)
d.Facility rentals (indoor and outdoor; excludes use of facilities for internal City uses)
e.Triathlon
f.Golf
Mid-Range Cost Recovery Activities - (30% to 60%)
g.Classes
h.Holiday in the Plaza
i.Major commercial film permit applications
Low-Range Cost Recovery Activities- (0 to 30%)
j.Aquatics
k.Batting cages
l.Community gardens
m.Junior Ranger camp
n.Minor commercial film permit applications
o.Skate park
p.Special events (except for Triathlon and Holiday in the Plaza)
q.Youth sports
r.Youth STAR
s.Teen services
t.Senior/boomer services
4.For cost recovery activities of less than 100%, there should be a differential in rates between residents
and non-residents. However, the Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to reduce or eliminate
non-resident fee differentials when it can be demonstrated that:
2-9
Attachment C
Packet Pg 112
1
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
a.The fee is reducing attendance.
b.And there are no appreciable expenditure savings from the reduced attendance.
5.Charges will be assessed for use of rooms, pools, gymnasiums, ball fields, special -use areas, and
recreation equipment for activities not sponsored or co-sponsored by the City. Such charges will
generally conform to the fee guidelines described above. However, the Director of Parks and Recreation
is authorized to charge fees that are closer to full cost recovery for facilities that are heavily used at peak
times and include a majority of non-resident users.
6.A vendor charge of at least 10 percent of gross income will be assessed from individuals or organizations
using City facilities for moneymaking activities.
7.Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to offer reduced fees such as introductory rates, family
discounts and coupon discounts on a pilot basis (not to exceed 18 months) to promote new recreation
programs or resurrect existing ones.
8.The Parks and Recreation Department will consider waiving fees only when the City Manager
determines in writing that an undue hardship exists.
2-10
Attachment C
Packet Pg 113
1
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
G. Recreation Programs
The following cost recovery policies apply to the City's recreation programs:
1.Cost recovery for activities directed to adults should be relatively high.
2.Cost recovery for activities directed to youth and seniors should be relative ly low. In those
circumstances where services are similar to those provided in the private sector, cost recovery levels
should be higher.
Although ability to pay may not be a concern for all youth and senior participants, these are desired
program activities, and the cost of determining need may be greater than the cost of providing a uniform
service fee structure to all participants. Further, there is a community-wide benefit in encouraging high-
levels of participation in youth and senior recreation act ivities regardless of financial status.
3.Cost recovery goals for recreation activities are set as follows:
High-Range Cost Recovery Activities - (60% to 100%)
a.Adult athletics
b.Banner permit applications
c.Child care services (except Youth STAR)
d.Facility rentals (indoor and outdoor; excludes use of facilities for internal City uses)
e.Triathlon
f.Golf
Mid-Range Cost Recovery Activities - (30% to 60%)
e.Triathlon
f.Golf
g.Summer and Spring Break Camps
g.h. Classes
h.Holiday in the Plaza
i.Major commercial film permit applications
Low-Range Cost Recovery Activities- (0 to 30%)
j.Aquatics
Batting cages
k.Community gardens
l.Junior Ranger camp
m.Minor commercial film permit applications
n.Skate park
o.Parks and Recreation sponsored events Special events (except for Triathlon) and Holiday in the
Plaza)
p.Youth sports
Youth STAR
q.Teen services
r.Senior/boomer services
2-11
Attachment C
Packet Pg 114
1
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
4.For cost recovery activities of less than 100%, there should be a differential in rates between residents
and non-residents. However, the Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to reduce or eliminate
non-resident fee differentials when it can be demonstrated that:
a.The fee is reducing attendance.
b.And there are no appreciable expenditure savings from the reduced attendance.
5.Charges will be assessed for use of rooms, pools, gymnasiums, ball fields, special-use areas, and
recreation equipment for activities not sponsored or co-sponsored by the City. Such charges will
generally conform to the fee guidelines described above. However, the Dire ctor of Parks and Recreation
is authorized to charge fees that are closer to full cost recovery for facilities that are heavily used at peak
times and include a majority of non-resident users.
6.A vendor charge of at least 10 percent of gross income will be assessed from individuals or organizations
using City facilities for moneymaking activities.
7.Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to offer reduced fees such as introductory rates, family
discounts and coupon discounts on a pilot basis (not to exceed 18 months) to promote new recreation
programs or resurrect existing ones.
8.The Parks and Recreation Department will consider waiving fees only when the City Manager
determines in writing that an undue hardship exists.
2-12
Attachment C
Packet Pg 115
1
TOGETHER
WE CAN
PLAN OUR
FUTURE
Visit slocity.org for more
information
(Government>Advisory Bodies:
Agendas>Parks and Recreation
Commission)
Questions? Contact Melissa
Mudgett at (805) 781-7296
WEDNESDAY
February 1, 2017
5:30 p.m.
City Hall
Council Chambers
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo
Parks and Recreation Commission Study Session:
Review of Fees
Join the Parks and Recreation Department at our next Parks
and Recreation Commission Meeting. The Commission will
be reviewing the results of the cost of service fee study which
includes recommendations on the amount charged for Parks
and Recreation Programs. We are inviting you to provide
input on the results of the study.
2-13
Attachment C
Packet Pg 116
1
Minutes - DRAFT
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
1 February 2017
Regular Meeting of the Advisory Body Committee Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission was called to order on the 1st day of
February 2017 at 5:31 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, by Chair Whitener.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Greg Avakian, Susan Olson, Keri Schwab, Douglas Single, Rodney Thurman,
Vice Chair Susan Updegrove and Chair Jeff Whitener
Absent: None
Staff: Parks and Recreation Director Shelly Stanwyck, Recreation Manager Melissa Mudgett, Special
Projects Manager Marcus Carloni, Recreation Supervisor Facilities Devin Hyfield, Recreation
Supervisor Youth Services Meghan Burger, Recreation Supervisor Community Services Dave
Setterlund, Recreation Supervisor Sports Rich Ogden, Recreation Supervisor Ranger Doug
Carscaden, Administrative Analyst Lindsey Stephenson, Recreation Coordinator Golf Chris
Woods
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
ACTION: APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 4, 2017 AS
AMENDED, MOTION BY THURMAN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLSON.
1. Consideration of Minutes
CARRIED 7:0:0:0 to approve the minutes of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Body for the
meetings of 1/4/2017.
AYES: AVAKIAN, OLSON, SCHWAB, SINGLE, THURMAN, UPDEGROVE, WHITENER
NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND BUSINESS ITEMS
2. Study Session of the Parks and Recreation Fees:
Attachment C
Packet Pg 117
1
DRAFTDRAFT Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of Feburary 1, 2017 Page 2
Director Shelly Stanwyck opened the public study session by explaining that best
practices and City fiscal policy calls for a comprehensive review of service costs every
five years. The last citywide fee study occurred in 2006. She added that Parks and
Recreation user fees are guided by adopted fiscal policy, actual costs, and market
comparisons. Director Stanwyck reiterated that tonight’s Study Session is the first step
in reviewing the proposed fees and receiving public input. The City’s Special Projects
Manager, Marcus Carloni, and Recreation Supervisor, Devin Hyfield, provided a
presentation for the Commission of the Parks and Recreation Fee Analysis and
proposed fee and policy changes. Staff Hyfield reminded the Commission that adopted
fiscal policies specify the current cost recovery levels for adults, youth/seniors and
specific recreational activities. Staff Carloni provided a summary of the citywide fee
study process and the overall analysis provided by the consultant. Parks and Recreation
staff was available in the audience to answer any questions. Staff Carloni shared the
next steps in the process would be for the Jack House Committee review on February
8th, City Council Study Session on February 21st, returning to the Parks and Recreation
Commission on March 1st for recommendation and final adoption of the proposed fees
by the City Council at its April 18, 2016 meeting.
Public Comment
None
Commission Comments followed.
Commission Avakian asked if Childcare Services was considered as a low range cost recovery
activity. Director Stanwyck said that even in the high cost recovery range, the City childcare
fees are below market rate with conservative increases proposed. Commission Avakian asked
about resident versus non-resident rates and suggested that contractual facility rentals could be
analyzed for potential non-resident fees.
Commissioner Olson about non-profit discounts. Staff Hyfield responded that the impact on the
parks/facilities/and other City Departments remain the same level regardless of profit/non-profit
status, but that there are reductions for indoor facilities.
Vice Chair Updegrove asked about Community Gardens. Staff indicated that this community
activity reflects a proposed moderate cost recovery increase to 10%. Vice Chair Updegrove
spoke about housing prices increasing and families having less discretionary income and
expressed support for lower, to no, cost recovery for youth sports.
Commissioner Schwab asked about Damon Garcia Sports Field rates. Director Stanwyck said
that staff is seeking the Commission’s guidance in further analysis of rates for this facility use
by recreational and club organizations.
Commissioner Single asked about the return on investment (ROI) for Parks and Recreation
services and facilities. Director Stanwyck responded that the adopted fiscal policies allow for
cost recovery based upon a variety of factors which vary by activity and user group.
Commissioner Thurman asked for clarification of fiscal policies and where Parks and
Recreation revenues are deposited. Director Stanwyck said all Parks and Recreation fees
collected are a part of the City’s General Fund.
Attachment C
Packet Pg 118
1
DRAFTDRAFT Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of Feburary 1, 2017 Page 3
Chair Whitener expressed support for not charging fees for recreational youth sport groups for
use of fields. He supported exploring fees associated with sports clubs.
By consensus the Parks and Recreation Commission provided feedback and guidance to staff.
1. The costs of services for Parks and Recreation user fees was reviewed.
2. The proposed adjustments to Parks and Recreation user fees and cost recovery policies
were supported by the Commission as presented and no further changes were proposed
3. The Commission supported staff returning at a future meeting date with a project plan
regarding how to analyze recreational costs associated with club sports using City
facilities for youth.
3. Presentation of Open Space Annual Report
Recreation Supervisor Ranger Service, Doug Carscaden, presented the City of San Luis Obispo
2016 Annual Report for Open Space detailing progress in trail maintenance activities, trailhead
amenities, volunteer hours, fuel reduction, trash removal activities, new trail constriction, staff
training, public education and enforcement occurring in this past year. Staff Carscaden said
that there was a total of 1,461.5 volunteer hours recorded in 2016, which equated to a value of
$33,716. A new trail at Reservoir Canyon was completed in 2016 creating a loop and the “M”
Trail loop has begun construction and is anticipated to be open for public use by summer. Staff
Carscaden provided a summary of annual enforcement activities designed to curb poor
behaviors in the open space. He added that ongoing creek maintenance and clean-up days
resulted in the removal of approximately 21.87 tons of trash from the creeks.
Public Comment
None
Commission Comments followed.
Commissioner Thurman asked about garbage cans. Staff Carscaden said there are garbage cans
located at all trailheads.
Commissioner Single asked about the Police Department’s patrol of City Parks. Director
Stanwyck responded that Police has a Neighborhood Policing program and provide regular
patrols of City parks.
Chair Whitener expressed his support of the fuel reduction project. He added that the Open
Space Maintenance Plan was a result of a Major City Goal and asked for staff to comment
about the future for this work effort. Director Stanwyck said that funds from the City’s revenue
enhancement measure were allocated by the Council for added ranger resources and anticipates
this allocation will continue in the next budget cycle. Chair Whitener asked about the average
costs of the five annual contracted creek clean-up services and added he would like to see more
creek clean-ups added. Staff Carscaden responded $1,000 - $1,800 and resulted in 26,360 of
trash removal.
The Parks and Recreation Commission thanked staff for their commitment in expanding and
maintaining the trails.
Attachment C
Packet Pg 119
1
DRAFTDRAFT Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of Feburary 1, 2017 Page 4
ACTION: RECEIVE AND FILE OPEN SPACE ANNUAL REPORT.
COMMITTEE COMMUNICATIONS
4. Director’s Report
Director Stanwyck provided a brief update of current Parks and Recreation programming and City
updates:
The Wadell Property in the Irish Hills open space is now owned by the City – kudos to
Bob Hill.
There is a dramatic uptick in free speech/right to assemble events. Currently City staff
are discussing the balancing of protecting the right to assemble and engage in free
speech with operations of the City.
#RockAroundSLO kicked-off on February 1st. #RockAroundSLO is a social media
campaign to paint and place painted rocks in City parks. The community is encouraged
to post pics on Instagram and share with the hashtag.
LIAISON REPORTS
5. Subcommittee Liaison Reports
Adult and Senior Programming: Commissioner Single said adult softball registration
opens February 6th. The Senior Center will have a Magic Show in March. The Senior
Center is in need of volunteers to manage office records. The Senior Center Membership
Appreciation luncheon is in a few weeks.
Bicycle Advisory Committee: Commissioner Olson said she was unable to attend the last
meeting. No Report.
City Facilities (Damon Garcia, Golf, Pool & Joint Use Facilities): Commissioner
Avakian reported that the rain has helped the Course. There were 13 rain-out days this
last month. The Golf Course “Groupon” promotion is underway. Night Golf will be held
on February 9th. The SLO Swim Center locker-room heaters were repaired.
Tree Committee: Commissioner Thurman said that recently the Committee was asked by
the City to provide input on commercial development projects. Commissioner Thurman
will continue to provide the Commission with updates as this topic of discussion
progresses.
Jack House Committee: Vice Chair Updegrove added that the Jack House Committee
has been pushing for a facility rate increase for events at the Jack House for a long time.
There is a Special Meeting tomorrow night to develop a Mission Statement that will be in
alignment with the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan and City policies. Art After Dark
is the first Friday of the month and this event has helped to double attendance/visitors to
the Jack House.
Youth Sports: Commissioner Schwab said YSA talked about the update to the Parks and
Recreation Element and scholarship requests for youth baseball as a way to retain
players.
Commission Communications
Chair Whitener asked about the Sinsheimer Park Sign kiosk that may be in need of some repairs.
Director Stanwyck responded that she would reach out to Parks Maintenance, as they are responsible for
maintenance of parks facilities and amenities.
Attachment C
Packet Pg 120
1
DRAFTDRAFT Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of Feburary 1, 2017 Page 5
Chair Whitener said at a recently Mayor’s Meeting, Matt Ritter, spoke about Damon Garcia Sports Field
as in the most geographical challenged area in the state (serpentine rock).
He said he attended the Council Goal Setting meeting on January 26, 2017 and was initially encouraged
about the Commission’s goal for the update of the Parks and Recreation Element being a Major City
Goal. As it was not adopted as a Major City Goal Chair Whitener wanted to continue to advocate as an
advisory body support for the funding of this work effort. Chair Whitener asked if the Commissioners
would like to consider a letter to this effect at its March meeting. Chair Whitener also discussed including
in the letter a recommendation to Council that it use funds from the Park Land Fund that were placed
there during the 2016-17 budget adoption for potential park acquisition in the area North of Broad Street
as updating the element and having a master plan makes sense to come first. Given the unanimous
support for this, a letter will be presented to the Commission for consideration at its March 1 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m. to the regular Parks and Recreation Commission scheduled for
01, March 2017 at 5:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California.
APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION: 03/01/2017
Attachment C
Packet Pg 121
1
Jack House Committee Fees
February 8, 2017 Discussion
On February 8, 2017 the Jack House Committee held a study session to review the facility
use charges associated with the Jack House. The Committee recommended the following
changes:
1) General rentals by week-end and week-day (not by wedding non-wedding)
2) Institute a resident and non-resident fee
3) Keep the hourly rates but specify a 4-hour maximum limit and for non-wedding
events only (they wanted to encourage smaller corporate event rentals)
4) Add Security Deposit of $500.
The below table is an excerpt from the table attached to the February 1, 2017 Parks and
Recreation Commission meeting. Items in red are suggested modifications by the Jack
House Committee
Attachment C
Packet Pg 122
1
u
RESOLUTION NO. 9889 (2007 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE CITY'S MASTER FEE SCHEDULE AND MODIFYING THOSE
FEES FOR THE RECOVERY OF COSTS RELATED TO FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY
INSPECTIONS OF ALL MULTI- DWELLING PROPERTIES
CONTAINING THREE OR MORE DWELLING UNITS
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo is required by California Health & Safety Code
Section 17921 to annually inspect multi - dwelling rental properties containing three or more
dwelling units, including apartments, hotels, motels, lodging houses and congregate residence;
and
WHEREAS, a typical fire and life safety inspection at these facilities would include, but
not be limited to, checking fire alarm systems, fire sprinkler systems, fire extinguishers, common
areas for fire hazards, exiting and fire access issues; and
WHEREAS, California Health & Safety Code Section 13146 authorizes cities to charge
property owners in recovering the reasonable costs of providing these annual inspections; and
WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City of San Luis Obispo to review service charges on
an ongoing basis and to adjust them as required to ensure that they remain adequate to achieve
adopted cost recovery goals; and
WHEREAS, such service charges and fees are set forth in the master fee schedule,
adopted and amended by the City Council from time to time; and
WHEREAS, the Council considered amendments to the master fee schedule at a public
hearing on May 17, 2005, based on a detailed analysis of costs and funding requirements to meet
adopted cost recovery goals, and adopted Resolution No. 9684 (2005 Series) setting fees
providing for 94% cost recovery for state - mandated fire and life- safety inspections; and
WHEREAS, on July 5, 2005, the Council held a public hearing and subsequently by its
Resolution No. 9706 (2005 Series) modified fees applicable to sororities and fraternities and very
low and low income households; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on April 3, 2007, to consider amending the
fee schedule to reduce certain multi - dwelling property fire and life safety inspection fees and
increase fees for the third and additional inspections in the event of non - compliance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City's master fee schedule is hereby amended as follows:
A. The Multi- Dwelling Property Fire and Life Safety Inspection Fee Schedule shall
include the following new fees in place of the existing ones, and all other provisions
of that fee schedule shall remain in effect:
Attachment C
Packet Pg 123
1
O
Resolution No. 9889 (2007 Series)
Page 2
Apartments
28.00 per unit per year
Administrative Fee of $65.00 /year per facility (County billing fee not included)
10,000 maximum per property
Fees are waived for units that are built, owned; and managed by the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority,
other governmental agencies, or not - for - profit housing organizations.
Hotels, Motels, Lodging House, Bed & Breakfast Facilities, Youth Hostel Facilities and Senior
Facilities, Sororities, Fraternities and Other Congregate Residences
1 to 30 units $200 /year per facility (County billing fee not included)
31 to 80 units $300 /year per facility (County billing fee not included)
More than 80 units $400 /year per facility (County billing fee not included)
B. The "Third & Subsequent Fire Safety Inspections" fee as provided in portion of the Master
Fee Schedule entitled "Fire Equipment and Personnel Stand -by Fees Effective July 1, 2006"
is changed from $62.00 to $112.50.
SECTION 2. These fees shall be effective immediately.
On motion of Council Member Settle, seconded by Vice Mayor Mulholland, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Member Settle, Vice Mayor Mulholland and Mayor Romero
NOES: Council Members Brown and Carter
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was adopted this
3rd day of April 2007.
elm
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hoo¢kr
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jo
2e'
P. Lowell
City Attorney
Attachment C
Packet Pg 124
1
32605 Temecula Parkway, Suite 100
Temecula, CA 92592
Toll free: 800.434.8349 Fax: 951.296.1998
City of San Luis Obispo
Citywide User Fee and Rate Study
Final Report
March 30, 2017
Attachment D
Packet Pg 125
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo
Prepared by NBS
TOC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 1
Purpose .................................................................................................................................................... 1
Outcomes ................................................................................................................................................ 1
Report Format ......................................................................................................................................... 2
Section 1 – Introduction and Fundamentals .......................................................................................... 3
Scope of Study ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Methods of Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 4
Cost of Service Analysis.................................................................................................................... 4
Fee Establishment ............................................................................................................................. 6
Cost Recovery Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 7
Comparative Fee Survey ...................................................................................................................... 8
Data Sources .......................................................................................................................................... 8
Section 2 – Finance Administrative Fees ............................................................................................. 10
Cost of Service Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 10
Fee Establishment................................................................................................................................ 10
Cost Recovery Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 10
Section 3 – Community Development – Planning Division Fees ...................................................... 12
Cost of Service Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 12
Fee Establishment................................................................................................................................ 13
Cost Recovery Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 14
Section 4 – Community Development – Engineering Development Review Fees ........................ 15
Cost of Service Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 15
Fee Establishment................................................................................................................................ 16
Cost Recovery Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 16
Section 5 – Public Works Fees .............................................................................................................. 18
Cost of Service Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 18
Fee Establishment................................................................................................................................ 19
Cost Recovery Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 19
Section 6 – Utilities Fees ......................................................................................................................... 21
Cost of Service Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 21
Fee Establishment................................................................................................................................ 21
Cost Recovery Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 22
Attachment D
Packet Pg 126
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo
Prepared by NBS
TOC
Section 7 – Fire Department – Fire Prevention Fees ......................................................................... 23
Cost of Service Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 23
Fee Establishment................................................................................................................................ 24
Cost Recovery Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 24
Section 8 – Police Fees ........................................................................................................................... 26
Cost of Service Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 26
Fee Establishment................................................................................................................................ 26
Cost Recovery Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 26
Section 9 – Parks & Recreation Department ....................................................................................... 28
Impacts of Proposition 26 on Recreation Fees Analysis ................................................................ 28
Fee Establishment................................................................................................................................ 29
Section 10 – Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 30
Appendices
Cost of Service Analysis (Fee Tables)
Finance Appendix A.1
Community Development - Planning Appendix A.2
Community Development - Engineering Appendix A.3
Public Works Appendix A.4
Utilities Appendix A.5
Fire – Hazardous Occupancy Permits and Annual Inspections Appendix A.6
Fire – Development Review Appendix A.7
Police Appendix A.8
Development Review – Comprehensive Cost and Recommended Fee Chart Appendix A.9
Comparative Fee Survey
Finance Appendix B.1
Development Review - Planning Appendix B.2
Development Review - Engineering Appendix B.3
Public Works Appendix B.4
Utilities Appendix B.5
Fire – Hazardous Occupancy Permits and Annual Inspections Appendix B.6
Fire – Development Review Appendix B.7
Police Appendix B.8
Attachment D
Packet Pg 127
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 1
Prepared by NBS
Executive Summary
Purpose
NBS performed a User Fees and Charges Study (Study) for the City of San Luis Obispo (City). The purpose
of this report is to describe the Study’s findings and recommendations, which intend to defensibly update
and establish user and regulatory fees for service for the City of San Luis Obispo, California.
California cities impose user fees and regulatory fees for services and activities they provide through
provisions of the State Constitution. First, cities may perform broad activities related to their local policing
power and other service authority as defined in Article XI, Sections 7 and 9. Second, cities may establish
fees for service through the framework defined in Article XIIIC, Section 1. Under this latter framework, a
fee may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service or performing the activity. For
a fee to qualify as such, it must relate to a service or activity under the control of the indivi dual/entity on
which the fee is imposed. For example, the individual/entity requests service of the municipality or his or
her actions specifically cause the municipality to perform additional activities. In this manner, the service
or the underlying action causing the municipality to perform service is either discretionary and/or is subject
to regulation. As a discretionary service or regulatory activity, the user fees and regulatory fees considered
in this Study fall outside requirements for imposition of taxes, special taxes, or fees imposed as incidences
of property ownership.
The City’s chief purposes in conducting this Study were to ensure that existing fees do not exceed the costs
of service and to provide an opportunity for the City Council to re-align fee amounts with the adopted cost
recovery policies.
Outcomes
This Study ex amined user and regulatory f ees m anaged by the following City departm ents and program s:
Finance, Development Services, Public Works, Utilities, Fire Prevention, and Police. The Study
identified approxim ately $4.3 million currently collected per year from f ees f or service, versus $5.2 million
of eligible costs f or recov ery f rom f ees f or serv ice. The following table provides a summ ary of results for
each service area studied:
As shown, the City is recovering approximately 82% of costs associated with providing user and regulatory
fee related services. Should the Council elect to adopt fee levels at 100% of the full cost recovery amounts
determined by this Study, an additional $912,000 in costs could be recovered. However, as discussed in
Section 1 of this report, there are reasons for adopting a fee at less than the calculated full cost recovery
Department / Division
Estimated
Annual Current
Fee Revenue
Estimated Annual
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Revenue
Current Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Annual
Recommended
Fee Revenue
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Finance $ 442,998 $ 440,289 101% $ 439,240 100%
Development Review (Planning) $ 1,243,660 $ 1,234,476 101% $ 1,170,708 95%
Development Review (Engineering) $ 585,979 $ 957,380 61% $ 942,263 98%
Public Works $ 747,631 $ 655,905 114% $ 654,365 100%
Utilities $ 316,722 $ 773,277 41% $ 769,215 99%
Fire Prevention $ 828,777 $ 971,760 85% $ 861,641 89%
Police $ 90,825 $ 135,311 67% $ 110,037 81%
Total $ 4,256,592 $ 5,168,397 82% $ 4,947,470 96%
Attachment D
Packet Pg 128
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 2
Prepared by NBS
amount. In addition, the City has an adopted Cost Recovery Policy, which guides decisions about the
ultimate fee amounts adopted. As such, City staff provided initial recommended fee amounts for
consideration. If Council elects to adopt fee levels at staff’s initial rec ommendations, an additional $691,000
in costs could be recovered, or a 96% cost recovery outcome for services provided.
Based on the project’s timeline and information available, the NBS analysis for the Parks and Recreation
Department established the total annual cost of the Department combined, rather than an analysis at the
individual recreational program or fee level. The Department performed their own analysis of costs at the
program level and individual fee level, and recently reviewed their recommendations for changes to various
fee amounts with the Parks and Recreation Commission. Refer to the Parks and Recreation Agenda
Report, February 1, 2017.
Report Format
This report documents analytical methods and data sources used throughout the Study, presents findings
regarding current levels of cost recovery achieve d from user and regulatory fees, discusses recommended
fee amounts, and provides a comparative survey of fees imposed by neighboring agencies for similar
services.
Section 1 of the report outlines the foundation of the Study and general approach.
Sections 2 through 9 discuss the results of the cost of service analysis performed, segmented by
category of fee and/or department. The analysis applied to each category/department falls into
studies of: the fully burdened hourly rate(s), the calculation of the costs of providing service, the
cost recovery policies of each fee category, and the recommended fees for providing services.
Section 10 provides the grand scope conclusions of the analysis provided in the preceding sections.
Appendices to this report include additional analytical details for each department or division
studied, and a comparison of fees imposed by neighboring agencies for similar services.
Attachment D
Packet Pg 129
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 3
Prepared by NBS
Section 1 – Introduction and Fundamentals
Scope of Study
The following is a summarized list of fees for each City department or program studied:
General administrative services, including:
o Business License processing and renewal
o Returned check processing
o Special requests for GIS services.
Community Development services, including:
o Planning & Zoning - entitlement and permit approvals,
o Engineering plan review and encroachment permit processing
o Support to Building plan review
Public Works Department services, including
o Tree maintenance and removal
o Support to Planning entitlement review
o Support to Engineering plan review and encroachment permit processing
o Transportation Planning and Engineering
o Construction field inspection for improvements projects
Utilities services, including:
o Meter installation and removal, account set up and disconnect
o Lateral installation and abandonment
o Support to Planning entitlement review
o Support to Engineering plan review and construction inspection
o Support to Building plan review
Fire Prevention services, including:
o Hazardous occupancy permits
o Non-mandated and required inspections
o Certified Unified Participating Agency fees (CUPA)
o Multi-dwelling fire and life safety inspection
o Support to Planning entitlement review
o Support to Engineering plan review
o Support to Building plan review and field inspection
o Fire sprinkler and suppression systems
Police services, including:
o Various administrative processing fees such as vehicle impound and release, alarm
permits, taxi permits, etc.
Attachment D
Packet Pg 130
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 4
Prepared by NBS
o Support to Planning Entitlement Review
Recreational services, classes, programs and permits
The fees examined in this Study specifically excluded utility rates, development impact fees, and special
assessments, all of which fall under distinct analytical and procedural requirements different from the body
of user/regulatory fees analyzed in this effort. Additionally, this Study and the resultant master fee schedule
excluded facility and equipment rental rates, as well as most of the fines and penalties that may be imposed
by the City for violations to its requirements or code. (The City is not limited to the costs of service when
charging for entrance to or use of government property, or when imposing fines and penalties.)
Methods of Analysis
There are three phases of analysis completed for each City department or program studied:
1) Cost of service analysis
2) Fee establishment
3) Cost recovery evaluation
Cost of Service Analysis
A cost of service analysis is a quantitative effort that compiles the full cost of providing governmental
services and activities. There are two primary types of costs considered: direct and indirect co sts. Direct
costs are those that specifically relate to the activity in question, including the real-time provision of the
service. Indirect costs are those that support provision of services in general, but cannot be directly
assigned to the fee for service in question.
Components of the full cost of service include direct labor costs, indirect labor costs, specific direct non -
labor costs where applicable, allocated non-labor costs, and allocated City-wide overhead. Definitions of
these cost components are as follows:
Labor costs – Salary, wages and benefits expenses for City personnel specifically involved in the
provision of services and activities to the public.
Indirect labor costs – Personnel expenses supporting the provision of services and activities. This
can include line supervision and departmental management, administrative support within a
department, and staff involved in technical activities related to the direct services provided to the public.
Specific direct non-labor costs – Discrete expenses incurred by the City due to a specific service or
activity performed, such as contractor costs, third-party charges, and very specific materials used in
the service or activity. (In most fee types, this component is not used, as it is very difficult to directly
assign most non-labor costs at the activity level.)
Allocated indirect non-labor costs – Expenses other than labor for the departments involved in the
provision of services. In most cases, these costs are allocated across all services provided by a
department, rather than directly assigned to fee categories.
Allocated indirect organization-wide overhead – These are expenses, both labor and non-labor,
related to agency-wide support services. Support services include general administrative services such
Attachment D
Packet Pg 131
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 5
Prepared by NBS
as City Council, City Manager, City Clerk, City Attorney, Human Resources, Finance, and Information
Services, as well as cost burdens for building and equipment use and maintenance. An agency’s
support services departments assist the direct providers of public service. The amount of costs
attributable to each department or program included in this Study were sourced from a separate Cost
Allocation Plan, prepared by the City’s Finance Department.
All cost components in this Study use annual (or annualized) figures, representing a twelve-month cycle of
expenses incurred by the City in the provision of all services and activities agency-wide.
Nearly all of the fees under review in this Study require specific actions on the part of City staff to provide
the service or conduct the activity. Because labor is the primary underlying factor in these activities, the
Study expresses the full cost of service as a fully burdened cost per labor ho ur. NBS calculates a
composite, fully burdened, hourly rate for each department, division, program, or activity, as applicable to
the specific organization and needs of each area studied. The rate serves as the basis for further quantifying
the average full cost of providing individual services and activities.
Deriving the fully burdened labor rate for each department, and various functional divisions within a
department, requires two figures: the full costs of service and the number of hours available to perform
those services. The full costs of service are quantified through the earlier steps described in this analysis.
NBS derives the hours available from a complete listing of all personnel employed by the City.
A full-time employee equates to 2,080 hours per year of regular time. Using this as an initial benchmark of
labor time, the Study removes the average employee’s eligible annual leave from the total number of regular
paid hours to generate the total number of available labor hours for each City department or program .
These available hours represent the amount of productive time available for providing both fee-recoverable
and non-fee recoverable services and activities. The productive labor hours divided into the annual full
costs of service equals the composite fully burdened labor rate. Some agencies also use the resulting rates
for other purposes than setting fees, such as when the need arises to calculate the full cost of general
services, or structure a cost recovery agreement with another agency or third party.
Fully burdened labor rates applied at the individual fee level estimate an average full cost of providing each
service or activity. This step required the development of staff time estimates for the services and activities
listed in the City’s fee schedule. In some fee programs, the City’s time tracking records were useful in
identifying time spent providing general categories of service (e.g. plan review, inspec tion, public
assistance, etc.). However, the City does not systematically track activity service time for all departments
or all fee services provided. Consequently, interviews and questionnaires were used to develop the
necessary data sets describing estimated labor time. In most cases, City staff estimated the average
amount of time (in minutes and hours) it would take to complete a typical occurrence of each service or
activity considered. Every attempt was made to ensure that each department having a direct rol e in the
provision of each service or activity provided a time estimate.
It should be noted that the development of these time estimates was not a one -step process: estimates
received were carefully reviewed by both consultant and departmental management to assess the
reasonableness of such estimates. Based on this review, the City reconsidered its time estimates until both
parties were comfortable that the fee models reasonably reflected the average service level provided by
the City. Then, staff’s time estimates were applied to the appropriate fully burdened labor rate to yield an
average full cost of the service or activity.
Attachment D
Packet Pg 132
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 6
Prepared by NBS
The average full cost of service is just that: an average cost at the individual fee level. The City does not
currently have the systems in place to impose fees for every service or activity based on the actual amount
of time it takes to serve each individual. Moreover, such an approach is almost universally infeasible without
significant – if not unreasonable – investments in costly technology. Much of the City’s fee schedule is
composed of flat fees, which by definition, are linked to an average cost of service; thus, use of this average
cost method is the predominant approach in proceeding toward a schedule of revised fees. Flat fee
structures based on average costs of service are widely applied among other California municipalities, and
it is a generally accepted approach. (Refer to the subsection below regarding “Fee Establishment” for
further discussion.)
Subsequent chapters and the appendices of this report discuss the completed cost of service analysis
developed for each department or division.
Fee Establishment
Because most of the City’s fees are flat fees, they correspond directly to the average full cost of service
result. For the few activities where estimating an average was impossible – due to the highly variable
nature of the service – use of fully burdened hourly rates coupled with time tracking is the preferred fee
structure. (In other words, the City would impose a fee per hour of staff time, requiring some degree of time
estimation or outright time-tracking at the case level.)
Establishing fees also includes a range of considerations, as described below:
Addition to and deletion of fees – The Study’s process provided each department the opportunity
to propose additions and deletions to their fee schedules, as well as rename, reorganize, and clarify
fees imposed. Many such revisions better conform fees to current practices, as well as improve the
calculation of fees owed by an individual, the application of said fees, and the collection of revenues.
In other words, as staff is more knowledgeable and comfortable working with the fee schedule, the
accuracy achieved in both imposing fees on users and collecting revenues for the City is greater.
Beyond this, some additions to the fee schedule were simply identification of existing services or
activities performed by City staff for which no fee is currently charged.
Revision to the structure of fees – In most cases, the current structure of fees did not change; the
focus is to recalibrate the fee amount to match the costs of service. In several cases, however, fee
categories and fee names were simplified or re-structured to increase the likelihood of full cost
recovery, or to enhance the fairness of how the fee applies to various types of fee payers.
Documentation of tools to calculate special cost recovery – The City’s fee schedule should
include the list of fully burdened rates developed by the Study. Documenting these rates in the fee
schedule provides an opportunity for the City Council to approve rates for cost recovery under a “time
and materials” approach. It also provides clear publication of those rates, so fee payers of any
uniquely determined fee can reference the amounts. The fee schedule should provide language that
supports special forms of cost recovery for activities and services not contemplated by the adopted
master fee schedule. These rare instances use the published rates to estimate a flat fee, or bill on an
hourly basis, at the discretion of the director of each department.
Attachment D
Packet Pg 133
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 7
Prepared by NBS
Cost Recovery Evaluation
The NBS fee model compares the existing fee for each service or activity to the average full cost of service
quantified through this analysis. A cost recovery rate of 0% identifies no current recovery of costs from fee
revenues (or insufficient information available for evaluation). A rate of 100% means that the fee currently
recovers the full cost of service. A rate between 0% and 100% indicates partial recovery of the full cost of
service through fees. A rate greater than 100% means that the fee exceeded the full cost of servic e.
User fees and regulatory fees examined in this Study should not exceed the full cost of service. In other
words, the cost recovery rate achieved by a fee should not be greater than 100%. In most cases, imposing
a fee above this threshold could require the consensus of the voters.
NBS also assists with modeling the “recommended” or “targeted” level of cost recovery for each fee, always
established at 100%, or less, than the calculated full cost of service. Targets and recommendations always
reflect agency-specific judgments linked to a variety of factors, such as existing City policies, agency -wide
or departmental revenue objectives, economic goals, community values, market conditions, level of
demand, and others.
A general means of selecting an appropriate cost recovery target is to consider the public and private
benefits of the service or activity in question.
To what degree does the public at large benefit from the service?
To what degree does the individual or entity requesting, requiring, or causing the service benefit?
When a service or activity completely benefits the public at large, there is generally little to no recommended
fee amount (i.e., 0% cost recovery), reflecting that a truly public-benefit service is best funded by the general
resources of the City, such as General Fund revenues (e.g., taxes). Conversely, when a service or activity
completely benefits an individual or entity, there is generally closer to or equal to 100% of cost recovery
from fees, collected from the individual or entity. An example of a completely private benefit service may
be a request for exemption from a City regulation or process.
In some cases, a strict public-versus-private benefit judgment may not be sufficient to finalize a cost
recovery target. Any of the following other factors and considerations may influence or supplement the
public/private benefit perception of a service or activity:
If optimizing revenue potential is an overriding goal, is it feasible to recover the full cost of service?
Will increasing fees result in non-compliance or public safety problems?
Are there desired behaviors or modifications to behaviors of the service population helped or
hindered through the degree of pricing for the activities?
Does current demand for services support a fee increase without adverse impact to the citizenry
served or current revenue levels? (In other words, would fee increases have the unintended
consequence of driving away the population served?)
Is there a good policy basis for differentiating between type of users (e.g., residents and non-
residents, residential and commercial, non-profit entities and business entities)?
Attachment D
Packet Pg 134
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 8
Prepared by NBS
Are there broader City objectives that inform a less than full cost recovery target from fees, such
as economic development goals and local social values?
Because this elem ent of the Study is subjective, NBS provides the full cost of service calculation information
and the framework for considering fees, while those closest to the fee -paying population – the City
departments and programs – have considered appropriate cost recovery levels at or below that full cost for
the Council’s review.
Comparative Fee Survey
Often policy makers request a comparison of their jurisdiction’s fees to surrounding or similar communities.
The purpose of a comparison is to provide a sense of the local market pricing for services, and to use that
information to gauge the impact of recommendations for fee adjustments.
Appendix B presents the results of the Comparative Fee Survey for the City of San Luis Obispo. NBS
worked with the City to choose five comparative agencies: Cities of Davis, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria,
Paso Robles, and the County of San Luis Obispo.
NBS notes the following about the approach to, and use of, comparative survey data:
Comparative surveys do not provide information about the cost recovery policies or procedures inherent
in each comparison agency.
A “market based” decision to price services below the full cost of service calculation, is the same as
making a decision to subsidize that service.
Comparative agencies may or may not base their fee amounts on the estimated and reasonable cost
of providing services. NBS did not perform the same level of analysis provided for this Study on the
comparative agencies’ fees.
Comparative fee survey efforts are often non-conclusive for many fee categories. Comparison agencies
typically use varied terminology for provision of similar services.
In general, NBS reasonably attempts to source each comparison agency’s fee schedule from the Internet,
and compile a comparison of fee categories and amounts for the most readily comparable fee items that
match the client’s existing fee structure.
Data Sources
The following City-published data sources were used to support the cost of service analysis and fee
establishment phases of this Study:
The City of San Luis Obispo’s Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2016-17.
A complete listing of all City personnel, salary/wage rates, regular hours, paid benefits, and paid leave
amounts – provided by the Finance Department.
Attachment D
Packet Pg 135
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 9
Prepared by NBS
Various correspondences with the City staff supporting the adopted budgets and current fees, including
budget notes and expenditure detail not shown in the published document.
Prevailing fee schedules provided by each involved department.
Annual workload data from the prior fiscal year provided by each involved department.
The City’s adopted budget is the most significant source of information affecting cost of service results .
NBS did not audit or validate the City’s financial management and budget practices, nor was cost
information adjusted to reflect different levels of service or any specific, targeted performance benchmarks.
This Study has accepted the City’s budget as a legislatively adopted directive describing the most
appropriate and reasonable level of City spending. Consultants accept the City Council’s deliberative
process and ultimate acceptance of the budget plan and further assert that through that legislative process,
the City has yielded a reasonable expenditure plan, valid for use in setting cost -based fees.
Original data sets also support the work of this Study: primarily, estimated staff time at various levels of
detail. To develop these data sets, consultants prepared questionnaires and conducted interviews with
individual departments. In the fee establishment phase of the analysis, departmental staff provided
estimates of average time spent providing a service or activity corresponding with an existing or new fee.
Consultants and departmental management reviewed and questioned responses to ensure the best
possible set of estimates.
Attachment D
Packet Pg 136
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 10
Prepared by NBS
Section 2 – Finance Administrative Fees
The Finance Department processes City Business Licenses. The City may charge a fee to recover for the
cost of issuing a license as well as renewing that license on an annual basis.
Cost of Service Analysis
At the time of Study, the Finance Department included both general finance and accounting duties, as well
as the City’s internal information technology support staff. As such, NBS developed one composite fully-
burdened blended hourly rate for Finance Services, and one for IT services. The details of this rate
calculation are presented below:
*Citywide Overhead for IT services is included in the Division Administration line
Section 1, Cost of Service Analysis, of this report describes the types of expenditures and allocated costs
considered in the development of these rates. All subsequent fee calculations will incorporate the fully
burdened hourly rate of $131 for Finance Services and $106 for IT Services.
Fee Establishment
The list fees shown in Appendix A.1 to this report did not incur many significant changes, deletions, or
additions from the City’s prior fee schedule. Processing fees for Business License activities are inclusive of
support from the Planning and Building departments, and Returned Check fees are regulated (capped) by
the State at $25 for the first check, and $35 for each subsequent check.
Cost Recovery Evaluation
Appendix A.1 presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis for the City’s general administrative
fees. The “Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the
corresponding service identified in the “Fee Description” list.
Cost Element Finance
Services IT Services
Labor 1,132,178$ 1,055,849$
Recurring Non-Labor 451,759 146,300
Citywide Overhead 251,607 -
Division Administration 740,147 484,743
Department Total 2,575,691$ 1,686,893$
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 131 $ 106
19,726 15,987 Reference: Direct Hours Only
Attachment D
Packet Pg 137
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 11
Prepared by NBS
The City’s general administrative fees currently recover approximately 101% of the cost of providing
services. As shown in the following table, the City collects approximately $443,000 per year in revenues at
current fee amounts. At full cost recovery, the same demand for these services would generate
approximately $440,000.
NBS provided the full cost of service information and the framework for considering fees, while those closest
to the fee-paying population, the City departments, considered appropriate cost recovery levels at or below
that full cost. The “Recommended Fee” column in Appendix A.1 displays the City staff’s initially
recommended fee amounts. These recommended fee amounts adjust several fees downward from current
fee amounts to equal the calculated full cost of service, while two fees for business license processing
activities propose to increase. Returned Check fees, which are regulated (capped) by the State,
recommend no change because existing fees are already at the State’s maximum allowed amount.
These initial recommendations for adjusted fee amounts decrease revenue by approximately $3,700. Fees
would continue to recover approximately 100% of the total costs of providing fee related services.
Department /
Division
Estimated
Annual Current
Fee Revenue
Estimated Annual
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Revenue
Current Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Annual
Recommended
Fee Revenue
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Finance $ 442,998 $ 440,289 101% $ 439,240 100%
Attachment D
Packet Pg 138
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 12
Prepared by NBS
Section 3 – Community Development – Planning Division Fees
The City has adopted laws that regulate the use of land and the design of most commerc ial and housing
projects. The purpose of these laws is to protect the health, safety and welfare of community residents and
visitors. Laws, such as the Zoning Regulations, architectural review requirements, and Subdivision
Regulations, require that people submit applications for project approval to the Community Development
Department. The Development Review Division evaluates development proposals for consistency with the
City's General Plan and all other applicable plans and regulations. Staff from this Division also prepare and
oversee reports that study the environmental effects of development projects and identify ways of avoiding
environmental damage. This work is required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Planning actions are those taken by the City Council, Planning Commission, Architectural Review
Commission, or the Administrative Hearing Officer. Actions cover a wide range of activities from the City
Council's approval of a housing subdivision to the Hearing Officer's appro val of a permit for a six-foot fence
in the front yard of a house. The Development Review Division serves the residents, property owners, and
businesses of the City of San Luis Obispo by administering a variety of City regulations relating to physical
development of the community. Additionally, the department manages the development of City-wide and
neighborhood plans and programs including adoption and maintenance of the General Plan.
Cost of Service Analysis
The following categorizes the Planning Division’s costs across both fee related and non-fee related
services, as well as the resulting fully-burdened hourly rate applicable toward establishing the full cost of
providing fee related services.
All subsequent cost of service calculations at the indiv idual fee level assume a fully burdened hourly rate
of $191, with approximate recovery of $1.6 million in costs from fees for service.
The cost category columns shown in the table above were adapted and summarized from Division staff
interviews. To assist the reader in understanding the underlying costs and assumptions used to calculate
the fully burdened hourly rate, the following provides summary descriptions of each cost category:
Cost Element Public
Information
CIP Review
and Support
Direct (Fee-
Related)
Services
Total
Labor 164,057$ 1,965$ 494,799$ 660,822$
Recurring Non-Labor - - - -
Citywide Overhead 141,154 1,691 425,722 568,567
Allocated Common Activities 142,667 1,709 430,286 574,662
Department Total 447,879$ 5,365$ 1,350,808$ 1,804,051$
Cost Recovery Targeted from Fees 60%0%100%90%
Amount Targeted for Consideration in Billings/Fees 268,727 - 1,350,808 1,619,535
Amount Requiring Another Funding Source 179,151 5,365 - 184,516
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 32 $ - $ 159 $ 191
Reference: Direct
Hours Only 8,494
Attachment D
Packet Pg 139
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 13
Prepared by NBS
Public Information – Activities associated with responding to phone calls and supporting both active
permits and the development review process in general. Typically, some portion of costs for provision
of general public information and assistance do not apply toward recovery from fees. Planning staff
estimated that approximately 60% of these costs support land use application review activities, while
the remaining costs should be not be considered in the calculation of fees for services. The remaining
40% of the costs of providing public information services requires funding from sources other than fees.
CIP Review and Support – Development Review Division staff support the review and implementation
of various City capital improvement projects. These costs do not apply toward recovery from Planning
and Zoning review fees.
Direct (Fee-Related) Services – Development review and approval comprises the majority of this
Division’s work efforts. 100% of these costs apply toward recovery from Planning and Zoning fees for
service.
Significant analytical and policy decisions revolve around inclusion of categorized activity costs in the fully
burdened hourly rate. The decision of whether to apply or exclude certain costs toward recovery in fees
for service stems from the basic fee setting parameters offered by the California State Constitution and
Statutes, which requires that any new fee levied or existing fee increased should not exceed the estimated
amount required to provide the service for which the charge is levied.
Fee Establishment
This Study addressed several key fee-setting issues for the Development Services Division.
First, the Division wanted to change the method of cost recovery for complex application review services
from flat fees to a deposit based system. NBS worked with the Division’s manager to identify the fee
categories that best suited for a deposit based fee structure. Selected fee categories include Planned
Development, Rezoning, Appeals, General Plan Amendments, Specific Plan Amendments, Annexation,
Development Agreement Application, and Reimbursement Agreement.
Second, the City wanted to update its Development Review Surcharge, and evaluate whether there was a
better way of accomplishing the surcharge’s objective. The City’s policy for recovery of development review
costs is 100%. To achieve this objective, the City implemented a policy and collection procedure of
recovering 45% of selected planning and zoning development application fees at the time of submittal to
the Planning Division, with the remaining 55% of the fee collected through a 44% general surcharge
established on all building permits. After much review and discussion about the strengths and opportunities
for improvement regarding this method of collection, NBS recommended that the City proceed with a project
specific collection method; meaning, any particular fee selected for phased collection between the planning
and building phases of a project be charged specific to that project. The City has made significant
technological advancements since the initial surcharge was implemented, and is now able to track and
charge on a project-by-project basis.
The City also wanted to quantify the total estimated costs of development review incurred not only by the
Planning Division, but also by departments outside of the Division. E ngineering, Public Works, Building,
Fire, Police, and Utilities may all receive routed copies of planning applications for review and comment.
As such, NBS structured the City’s fee model to quantify support costs for each of these departments,
where applicable.
Attachment D
Packet Pg 140
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 14
Prepared by NBS
Finally, the City wanted to quantify the total estimated costs of support provided by the Planning Division
to Engineering project review and Building plan check. NBS structured the City’s fee model to quantify
these support costs for Engineering, and also recommended separate fee categories for Building Plan
Review Support based on the type of project.
Cost Recovery Evaluation
Appendix A.2 presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis for the City’s Planning and Zoning
fees. The “Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the
corresponding service identified in the “Fee Description” list.
The City’s Planning and Zoning fees currently recover approximately 94% of the Planning Division’s cost
of providing services. As shown in the following table, the City collects approximately $1.2 million per year
in revenues at current fee amounts. At full cost recovery, the same demand for these services would also
generate approximately $1.2 million.
NBS provided the full cost of service information and the framework for considering fees, while those closes t
to the fee-paying population, the City departments, considered appropriate cost recovery levels at or below
that full cost. The “Recommended Fee” column in Appendix A.2 displays the City staff’s initially
recommended fee amounts. These initial recommendations for adjusted fee amounts would decrease the
Planning Division’s revenues by approximately $73,000. Recommended fees are projected to recover
approximately 95% of the total costs of providing fee related services.
The cost recovery evaluation described above evaluates only the costs of the Development Review
Division’s services as compared to the City’s current fees for Planning and Zoning r eview. For many fees
in the table, the amounts shown in the “Current Fee / Deposit” column of the Appendix reflect approximately
45% of the full fee amount actually charged by the City. The additional Development Review Surcharge
currently attempts to recover the remaining 55% of the City’s full cost recovery fee amount on top of building
permits. The estimated annual surcharge revenue amount displays in the Appendix under the “Annual
Estimated Revenues at Current Fee” column (see Development Review Surcharge category near the
bottom of the table). However, it was not possible to translate this lump sum revenue reasonably to the
individual fee categories in order to provide a better sense of the Existing Cost Recovery percentage for
each fee item. Also, a comparison of the City’s existing fee amount to the total cost of providing services,
inclusive of supporting departments such as Engineering, Public Works, Fire, etc. is a vailable as Appendix
A.9.
Department /
Division
Estimated
Annual Current
Fee Revenue
Estimated Annual
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Revenue
Current Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Annual
Recommended
Fee Revenue
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Development Review
(Planning) $ 1,243,660 $ 1,234,476 101% $ 1,170,708 95%
Attachment D
Packet Pg 141
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 15
Prepared by NBS
Section 4 – Community Development – Engineering Development Review Fees
The Engineering Development Review Division provides reviews for planning entitlements and building
permit plans for grading, drainage, floodplain management, Stormwater regulations, compliance with City
Engineering Standards, and the Parking and Driveway Standards. The Division is the lead for processing
parcel and final maps to recordation along with the approval of any requisite subdivision improvement plans.
The Division issues encroachment and transportation permits.
Cost of Service Analysis
The following table categorizes the Engineering Development Review Division’s costs across both fee
related and non-fee related services, as well as the resulting fully-burdened hourly rate applicable toward
establishing the full cost of providing fee related services.
All subsequent cost of service calculations at the individual fee level assume a fully burdened hourly rate
of $136, with approximate recovery of $1 million in costs from fees for service.
The cost category columns shown in the table above were adapted and summarized from Division staff
interviews. To assist the reader in understanding the underlying costs and assumptions used to calcul ate
the fully burdened hourly rate, the following provides summary descriptions of each cost category:
Public Information – Activities associated with responding to phone calls and supporting both active
permits and the development review process in general. Typically, some portion of costs for provision
of general public information and assistance do not apply toward recovery from fees. Engineering staff
estimated that approximately 60% of these costs support permits and plan submittal activities, while
the remaining costs should be not be considered in the calculation of fees for services. The remaining
40% of the costs of providing public information services requires funding from sources other than fees.
Floodplain Management, Engineering Inspection Support (CIP), and Stormwater Management –
Staff from the Engineering Department participate in other City projects and programs that are not part
of development review approval and regulation. None of these apply toward recovery in fee related
services.
Direct Services – Development review and approval comprises the majority of this Division’s work
efforts. 100% of these costs apply toward recovery from Engineering development review fees for
service.
Cost Element Public
Information
Floodplain
Management
Engineering
Inspection
Support (CIP)
Stormwater
Management
Direct
Services Total
Labor 19,818$ 6,864$ 13,729$ 13,729$ 487,368$ 541,508$
Recurring Non-Labor 319 111 221 221 7,849 8,721
Citywide & Department Overhead 11,776 4,079 8,158 8,158 289,605 321,776
Allocated Common Activities 8,707 3,016 6,032 6,032 214,118 237,904
Department Total 40,621$ 14,070$ 28,139$ 28,139$ 998,940$ 1,109,909$
Cost Recovery Targeted from Fees 60%0%0%0%100%92%
Amount Targeted for Consideration in Billings/Fees 24,372 - - - 998,940 1,023,313
Amount Requiring Another Funding Source 16,248 14,070 28,139 28,139 - 86,596
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 3 $ - $ - $ - $ 133 $ 136
Reference: Direct
Hours Only 7,510
Attachment D
Packet Pg 142
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 16
Prepared by NBS
Significant analytical and policy decisions revolve around inclusion of categorized activity costs in the fully
burdened hourly rate. The decision of whether to apply or exclude certain costs toward recovery in fees
for service stems from the basic fee setting parameters offered by the California State Constitution and
Statutes, which requires that any new fee levied or existing fee increased should not exceed the estimated
amount required to provide the service for which the charge is levied.
Fee Establishment
This Study addressed several key fee-setting issues for the Engineering Development Review Division.
NBS recommended restructuring of the City’s fees for Improvement Plan check to include additional tiers
for various project sizes, and a method of scaling the fee amount in between tiers. The City’s current fee
structure includes a base fee amount plus a flat 1.8% applied to the construction value of the project.
Migrating to tiered fee structure reflects a better economy of sc ale in the effort (and therefore cost or fee
amount) for smaller versus larger projects.
The City also wanted to quantify the total estimated costs of providing services to engineering development
review fees by departments outside of the Division. Planning, Building, Fire, Utilities, and Public Works may
all receive routed copies of improvement plans and final map submittals for review and comment. In
addition, the Public Works Department participates in issuance and inspection of various encroachme nt
permits. As such, NBS structured the City’s fee model to quantify support costs for each of these
departments, where applicable.
Finally, the City wanted to quantify the total estimated costs of support provided by the Engineering
Development Review Division to Planning project review. NBS structured the City’s fee model to quantify
these support costs. NBS also recommended changing the method of cost recovery for this Division’s
support to the Building plan review process. Currently the City charges a 15% surcharge on building plans
to recover for the costs of Engineering review. The Division created an itemized fee schedule in response
to NBS’ recommendation, and will have the ability to charge fees based on the type and size of the project
reviewed, as well as for consideration of the scope of review involved.
Cost Recovery Evaluation
Appendix A.3 presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis for the City’s Engineering
Development Review fees. The “Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum adoptable
fee amount for the corresponding service identified in the “Fee Description” list.
The City’s Engineering fees currently recover approximately 61% of the Division’s cost of providing
services. As shown in the following table, the City collects approximately $586,000 per year in revenues at
current fee amounts. At full cost recovery, the same demand for these services would generate
approximately $957,000.
Attachment D
Packet Pg 143
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 17
Prepared by NBS
NBS provided the full cost of service information and the fram ework for considering fees, while those closest
to the fee-paying population, the City departments, considered appropriate cost recovery levels at or below
that full cost. The “Recommended Fee” column in Appendix A.3 displays the City staff’s initially
recommended fee amounts. These initial recommendations for adjusted fee amounts recover an additional
$356,000 of the Engineering Development Review Division’s costs annually. Fees at recommended
amounts would recover approximately 98% of the total costs of providing fee related services.
The cost recovery evaluation described above evaluates only the costs of the Engineering Development
Review Division’s services. A comparison of the City’s existing fee amount to the total cost of providing
services, inclusive of supporting departments such as Planning, Public Works, Fire, etc. is available as
Appendix A.9.
Department /
Division
Estimated
Annual Current
Fee Revenue
Estimated Annual
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Revenue
Current Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Annual
Recommended
Fee Revenue
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Development Review
(Engineering) $ 585,979 $ 957,380 61% $ 942,263 98%
Attachment D
Packet Pg 144
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 18
Prepared by NBS
Section 5 – Public Works Fees
The Public Works Department performs a wide variety of tasks from planting and trimming City trees,
inspecting development, maintaining City parks, designing our utilities infrastructure, repairing sidewalks
and streets, building bike trails, improving traffic safety, maintaining bridges, swimming pools and stadium s,
managing downtown and neighborhood parking, and providing transit service, to repairing City vehicles and
maintaining City buildings.
Cost of Service Analysis
The Public Works Department’s divisions of Capital Improvement / Development inspection,
Transportation, and Tree Maintenance, either charge fees for their discipline -specific services, or support
the review and implementation of fee for service activities in the City’s Community Development
department. As such, NBS calculated one composite fully burdened blended hourly rate for each division.
Public Works – Capital Improvement / Development Inspection
Public Works – Transportation Engineering
Cost Element
Development
Review /
Permitting
CIP / Other
Duties Total
Labor 280,770$ 1,285,624$ 1,566,394$
Recurring Non-Labor 13,791 63,146 76,937$
Department and Citywide Overhead 128,163 586,850 715,013$
Allocated Common Activities 114,080 522,362 636,442$
Department Total 536,803$ 2,457,982$ 2,994,785$
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 135 n/a n/a
Reference: Direct Hours Only 3,979 n/a n/a
Cost Element
Development
Review /
Permitting
CIP / Other
Duties Total
Labor 68,991$ 564,200$ 633,190$
Recurring Non-Labor 4,384 35,852 40,236$
Department and Citywide Overhead 9,657 78,971 88,627$
Allocated Common Activities 19,005 155,420 174,425$
Department Total 102,036$ 834,442$ 936,478$
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 111 n/a n/a
Reference: Direct Hours Only 917 n/a n/a
Attachment D
Packet Pg 145
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 19
Prepared by NBS
Public Works – Tree Maintenance
Section 1, Cost of Service Analysis, of this report describes the types of expenditures and allocated costs
considered in the development of these rates. The total estimated cost of Public Works’ fee related activities
(Development Review and Permitting), is approximately $679,000 annually. All subsequent fee calculations
will incorporate the fully burdened hourly rate of $135 for Construction Inspection services, $111 for
Transportation and $95 for Tree Maintenance.
Fee Establishment
Public Works has a few Tree maintenance fees charged for Tree/Shrub Abatement, Commemorative Tree
Planting, and Tree Removal permits. NBS assisted the Department with clarifying the purpose and structure
of these fees. The bulk of fees charged by this department are for inspection of improvement projects and
encroachment permits, which initiate in the Engineering Development Review Division. In addition, NBS
quantified the costs of the Public Works Department’s support to Planning applic ation review.
NBS also recommended restructuring of the City’s fees for Construction Inspection to include additional
tiers for various project sizes, and a method of scaling the fee amount in between tiers. The City’s current
fee structure includes a base fee amount plus a flat 12.9% applied to the construction value of the project.
Migrating to tiered fee structure reflects a better economy of scale in the effort (and therefore cost or fee
amount) for smaller versus larger projects.
Cost Recovery Evaluation
Appendix A.4 presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis for the City’s Public Works fees.
The “Total Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the
corresponding service identified in the “Fee Description” list.
The City’s Public Works fees currently recover approximately 114% of the Department’s cost of providing
services. As shown in the following table, the City collects approximately $748,000 per year in revenues at
current fee amounts. At full cost recovery, the same demand for these services would generate
approximately $656,000.
Cost Element
Development
Review /
Permitting
Other
Programs and
Activities
Total
Labor 29,455$ 353,076$ 382,531$
Recurring Non-Labor (5,638) 16,321 10,682$
Department and Citywide Overhead 11,983 143,644 155,627$
Allocated Common Activities 4,240 60,757 64,996$
Department Total 40,039$ 573,798$ 613,836$
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 95 n/a n/a
423 n/a n/a Reference: Direct Hours Only
Attachment D
Packet Pg 146
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 20
Prepared by NBS
NBS provided the full cost of service information and the framework for considering fees, while those closes t
to the fee-paying population, the City departments, considered appropriate cost recovery levels at or below
that full cost. The “Recommended Fee” column in Appendix A.4 displays the City staff’s initially
recommended fee amounts. These initial recommendations for adjusted fee amounts would decrease
annual fee revenue for this Department by approximately $93,000. Fees at recommended amounts would
recover approximately 100% of the total costs of providing fee related services.
The cost recovery evaluation described above evaluates only the cos ts of the Public Works Department
services. A comparison of the City’s existing fee amount to the total cost of providing services, inclusive of
supporting departments is available as Appendix A.9.
Department /
Division
Estimated
Annual Current
Fee Revenue
Estimated Annual
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Revenue
Current Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Annual
Recommended
Fee Revenue
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Public Works $ 747,631 $ 655,905 114% $ 654,365 100%
Attachment D
Packet Pg 147
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 21
Prepared by NBS
Section 6 – Utilities Fees
The Utilities Department serves the residents, property owners, and businesses of the City of San Luis
Obispo by providing both water and sewer services.
Cost of Service Analysis
NBS developed one composite fully burdened blended hourly rate for the Utilities Department.
Section 1, Cost of Service Analysis, of this report describes the types of expenditures and allocated costs
considered in the development of this rate. All subsequent fee calculations will incorporate the fully
burdened hourly rate of $125.
Fee Establishment
SLO’s Utilities Department recovers the majority of its costs through water and wastewater rates, which are
not subject to the parameters and scope of this Study. Utility rates are subject to Proposition 218 stipulation
and proceedings and require a separate type of analysis and adoption procedure. However, the Department
does provide several services, which should be recovered by user fees or regulatory, namely meter
services, account set up fees, lateral installation and abandonment, etc. The Departme nt actively charges
for these services. Pre-treatment Inspection Services, which are set separately by City Ordinance, were
excluded from the Study.
A primary goal for the Utilities Department’s involvement in the Study was to quantify the costs of the
Department’s support to development review approval and inspection activities. NBS worked closely with
the Department to quantify the costs of support to the Planning and Zoning application review process, as
well as review of Engineering’s improvement plan submittals. For Construction Inspection of improvements,
as well as support to Building plan review, NBS assisted the Department in establishing a customized list
of fees that reflected the Department’s service level.
Cost Element W / WW Ops Fee for Service
Activities
Labor 5,253,142$ 445,691$
Recurring Non-Labor 3,696,066 26,745
Citywide Overhead 1,904,063 168,386
Dept/Division Administration/Dispatch 3,991,856 235,696
Department Total 14,845,126$ 876,517$
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate n/a $ 125
n/a 7,013 Reference: Direct Hours Only
Attachment D
Packet Pg 148
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 22
Prepared by NBS
Cost Recovery Evaluation
Appendix A.5 presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis for the Utilities Department’s fees.
The “Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the
corresponding service identified in the “Fee Description” list.
Fees currently recover approximately 41% of the cost of providing services. As shown in the following table,
the City collects approximately $317,000 per year in revenues at current fee amounts. At full cost recovery,
the same demand for these services would generate approximately $773,000.
NBS provided the full cost of service information and the framework for considering fees, while those closes t
to the fee-paying population, the City departments, considered appropriate cost recovery levels at or below
that full cost. The “Recommended Fee” column in Appendix A.5 displays the City staff’s initially
recommended fee amounts. The Department recommended fees at 100% cost recovery, with the exception
of support to Community Development applications for Administrative Approval Applications. For these
applications, the City’s Community Development Director recommended no fee. These initial
recommendations for adjusted fee amounts increase cost recovery by approximately $452,000 annually.
Department /
Division
Estimated
Annual Current
Fee Revenue
Estimated Annual
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Revenue
Current Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Annual
Recommended
Fee Revenue
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Utilities $ 316,722 $ 773,277 41% $ 769,215 99%
Attachment D
Packet Pg 149
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 23
Prepared by NBS
Section 7 – Fire Department – Fire Prevention Fees
The scope of this Study for the Fire Department focused predominantly on fire prevention services
provided by the Fire Prevention and Education Division. This Division has a staff of five professionals who
perform plan review, fire inspections, fire investigations, and public education coordination.
Cost of Service Analysis
The following table categorizes the Fire Prevention Division’s costs across both fee related and non-fee
related services, as well as the resulting fully-burdened hourly rate applicable toward establishing the full
cost of providing fee related services.
All subsequent cost of service calculations at the individual fee level assume a fully burdened hourly rate
of $141, with approximate recovery of $1 million in costs from fees for service.
The cost category columns shown in the table above were adapted and summarized from Division staff
interviews. To assist the reader in understanding the underlying costs and assumptions used to calculate
the fully burdened hourly rate, the following provides summary descriptions of each cost category:
Public Education, Community Outreach, Code Enforcement, Weed Abatement, Fire
Investigations, Fuel Management, and Hydrant Maintenance – Staff from the Prevention Division
participate in a variety of regulatory programs and services that do not apply toward recovery from fee
revenues. These services are funded through a variety of sources, including the General Fund,
penalties, hourly billings, or enterprise fund revenues.
Direct Permitting Services – Inspection and permitting services comprise the majority of this
Divison’s work efforts. 100% of these costs apply toward recovery from Fire Prevention fees for
service.
Significant analytical and policy decisions revolve around inclusion of categorized activity costs in the fully
burdened hourly rate. The decision of whether to apply or exclude certain costs toward recovery in fees
for service stems from the basic fee setting parameters offered by the California State Constitution and
Statutes, which requires that any new fee levied or existing fee increased should no t exceed the estimated
amount required to provide the service for which the charge is levied.
Cost Element
Public
Education /
Community
Outreach
Code
Enforcement
/ Complaint
Response
Weed
Abatement
Fire
Investigations
Fuel
Management
Program
Utility Fund -
Hydrant
Maintenance
Direct
Permitting
Services
Total
Labor 25,853$ 12,010$ 4,522$ 19,568$ 15,710$ 8,609$ 484,379$ 570,651$
Recurring Non-Labor 618 6,487 1,608 468 375 206 43,678 53,440
Citywide Overhead 11,305 5,252 1,977 8,556 6,869 3,765 211,809 249,533
Allocated Common Activities 14,498 9,115 3,112 10,973 8,810 4,828 283,960 335,296
Department Total 52,274$ 32,864$ 11,219$ 39,565$ 31,764$ 17,408$ 1,023,826$ 1,208,920$
Cost Recovery Targeted from Fees 0%0%0%0%0%0%100%85%
- - - - - - 1,023,826 1,023,826
52,274 32,864 11,219 39,565 31,764 17,408 - 185,094
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 141 $ 141
Reference: Direct
Hours Only 7,252
Amount Targeted for Consideration
in Billings/Fees
Amount Requiring Another Funding
Source
Cost Allocation to Each Function / Activity
Attachment D
Packet Pg 150
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 24
Prepared by NBS
Fee Establishment
The Fire Prevention Division’s fee program is generally comprised of two types of regulatory activities:
1. Permits that are required by the Fire Code for one-time events or annual activities, and inspections
of existing businesses which are either mandated by the State, or required by the City’s oridnances
and policies:
Hazardous occupancy permits
Non-mandated and required inspections
Certified Unified Participating Agency fees (CUPA)
Multi-dwelling fire and life safety inspection
2. Development review services
Support to Planning entitlement review
Support to Engineering plan review
Support to Building plan review and field inspection
Fire sprinkler and suppression systems plan review and inspection
NBS assisted the Division in restructuring many of the City’s existing fees. The City also wanted to quantify
the total estimated costs of providing services to development review application approval. As such, NBS
structured the Fire Prevention fee model to quantify support costs for Planning and Zoning application
review and Engineering Improvement Plan Review. NBS also assisted the Fire department in updating its
customized fee structure associated with cost recovery for plan review and inspection services initiated
through the Building Division.
Cost Recovery Evaluation
Appendix A.6 presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis for the Division’s non-development
related permitting and inspection activities (Category 1 above). Appendix A.7 presents the results for the
Division’s development related costs and fees. The “Cost of Service per Activity” column in each appendix
establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the corresponding service identified in the “Fee
Description” list.
The City’s Fire Prevention fees currently recover approximately 85% of the cost of providing services. As
shown in the following table, the City collects approximately $829,000 per year in revenues at current fee
amounts. At full cost recovery, the same demand for these services would generate approximately
$972,000.
Department /
Division
Estimated
Annual Current
Fee Revenue
Estimated Annual
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Revenue
Current Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Annual
Recommended
Fee Revenue
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Fire Prevention $ 828,777 $ 971,760 85% $ 861,641 89%
Attachment D
Packet Pg 151
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 25
Prepared by NBS
NBS provided the full cost of service information and the framework for considering fees, while those
closest to the fee-paying population, the City departments, considered appropriate cost recovery levels at
or below that full cost. The “Recommended Fee” column in appendices A.6 and A.7 display the City staff’s
initially recommended fee amounts. These initial recommendations for adjusted fee amounts recover an
additional $33,000 in costs annually. Fees at recommended amounts would recover approximately 89%
of the total costs of providing fee related services.
Attachment D
Packet Pg 152
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 26
Prepared by NBS
Section 8 – Police Fees
The scope of this user and regulatory fee analysis for Police focused almost exclusively on various
administrative processing fees such as records copies, business regulatory fees, and vehicle impound or
release.
Cost of Service Analysis
The majority of services provided by the Police Department are not recoverable in user/regulatory fees for
service. For the Police Department, the NBS fee model derived fully burdened labor rates for several
specific categories of personnel. The table below illustrates the fully burdened hourly rate for Sworn versus
Non-Sworn personnel classifications in the Police Department.
*Citywide Overhead costs are included in the Division Administration line for the non-sworn rate
All subsequent cost of service calculations at the individual fee level assume the applicable fully burdened
hourly rates as shown above.
Fee Establishment
The list fees shown in Appendix A.8 to this report did not incur many significant changes, deletions, or
additions from the City’s prior fee schedule. In addition, because many fees available for police
departments to charge are set by various sections of the State’s governmental codes, NBS did not
evaluate many of the Department’s existing fees.
Cost Recovery Evaluation
Appendix A.8 presents the results of the cost recovery analysis for the City’s Police Department. The
“Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the
corresponding service identified in the “Fee Description” list.
Cost Element Sworn Direct
Services
Non-sworn
Direct Services
Labor 8,927,006$ 344,076$
Recurring Non-Labor 180,143 725
Citywide Overhead 1,860,618 -
Dept/Division Administration/Dispatch 5,478,962 115,915
Department Total 16,446,729$ 460,715$
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 181 $ 99
90,846 4,675 Reference: Direct Hours Only
Attachment D
Packet Pg 153
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 27
Prepared by NBS
Police Department fees currently recover approximately 67% of the cost of providing services. As shown
in the following table, the City collects approximately $91,000 per year in revenues at current fee amounts.
At full cost recovery, the same demand for these services would generate approximately $110,000.
NBS provided the full cost of service information and the framework for considering fees, while those
closest to the fee-paying population, the City departments, considered appropriate cost recovery levels at
or below that full cost. The “Recommended Fee” column in Appendix A.8 displays the City staff’s initially
recommended fee amounts. These initial recommendations for adjusted fee amounts increase cost
recovery by approximately $19,000 annually. Fees would adjust to recover approximately 81% of the total
costs of providing fee related services.
Department /
Division
Estimated
Annual Current
Fee Revenue
Estimated Annual
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Revenue
Current Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Annual
Recommended
Fee Revenue
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Police $ 90,825 $ 135,311 67% $ 110,037 81%
Attachment D
Packet Pg 154
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 28
Prepared by NBS
Section 9 – Parks & Recreation Department
The Parks & Recreation Department offers a wide variety of recreation services and programs serving
San Luis Obispo’s youth, seniors and adults. The expenses of administering, operating, and maintaining
the City’s parks and recreation programs and facilities are funded in part by fees collected from various
users, as well as resources from the General Fund.
Impacts of Proposition 26 on Recreation Fees Analysis
In November 2010, nearly 53% of the electorate affirmed Proposition 26 (P26), which essentially cr eated
new law. P26 mandates a 2/3 approval by registered voters before a public agency may impose any
“regulatory fee.” Regulatory fees are fees imposed on an individual or entity through a public agency’s
regulatory or police power. Examples of regulatory fees could include land development approval,
building inspection, water quality inspections, business registrations, health/safety monitoring, etc. In all
but a few cases, the regulatory action is “imposed” and the local agency expends effort due to the specific
action or request of an individual or entity.
It is generally accepted that the intention of P26 was to cover regulatory actions of broad public
benefit. Example of this are: a “fee” on a can of paint to pay for air quality mitigation; a “fee” on a bottle
of wine to pay for substance abuse programs; or a “fee” on sugary beverages to pay for public health
programs. Notice in all of these examples, the “fee” applies to every user, regardless of whether that user
individually mitigated their effect on the environment or avoided burdening the public health system. P26
labels these types of fees as “taxes,” which are subject to the pre -existing approval threshold of 2/3 of
the electorate.
Most of the regulatory fees NBS studies fall under one or more of seven noted exceptions within P26,
and are therefore not subject to P26’s definition of a tax. This means existing law and approval
thresholds apply. The local legislative body may approve the fees based on a majority vote of the body
alone, so long as the fee does not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for
which the fee is charged. As the new law is tested inevitably in court, this position may change, but we
believe the text of P26 is clear in most cases. In summary:
Regulatory fees linked to a specific individual are not affected
User fees are also not affected
Any fee or charge already covered by Proposition 218 is not affected (utility rates and property
related fees, which are not within the scope of a typical user fee study).
However, recreation fees and facility rental fees do fall into an area of concern. Under the guidance of
P26, recreation fees fall under one of these two P26 exceptions:
Exception No. 2: Section 1 (e)(2) Exception for Fees for Services a nd Products Provided – this
category includes fees imposed for a service, like lessons, transportation, child care, etc. The fee for
services exception requires that such fees be limited to “the estimated costs to the local government of
providing the service.”
Exception No. 4: Section 1 (e)(4) exception for fees for use of government property – this category
includes fees imposed for services such as admission to parks, rental of government property
(recreational equipment) and for rental of fields and m eeting rooms. The language of this exception does
not include the “reasonable costs” limitation. However, a general law city is subject to the constraint on
the amount of a fee charged under either category imposed by Government Code SS 50402.
Additionally, based on the League of California Cities Implementation Guide (April 2011), there is
reasonable agreement that a charge for a lesson, class, program and other participation is not “imposed”
within the meaning of P26 if:
a) Participants have meaningful private market options, and
Attachment D
Packet Pg 155
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 29
Prepared by NBS
b) Participation is meaningfully voluntary
We have changed our approach to recreation program fees and facility rental fees analysis since P26
passed. NBS performs a high-level cost analysis by program area to assist local communities in
understanding cost recovery performance and in developing cost recovery policy, rather than an analysis
at the individual fee level.
We also recommend that a local government document the private or public -private market options
available to consumers. We include this information in the final report to demonstra te that participation
in the recreational program or facility rental is meaningfully voluntary and to support determination that
charges for recreational, cultural and educational programs are not “imposed.” Therefore, they are not
subject to P26’s requirement to limit these fees for recreational program participation or facility rentals to
the cost of providing service.
NBS’ provides this professional opinion on Proposition 26 for informational purposes, and as background
to support this Study’s results. NBS does not intend their interpretation of the law as a definitive legal
opinion, and recommends each agency consult with their legal counsel for additional support in this area.
Fee Establishment
The expenses of administering, operating, and maintaining the City’s parks and recreation programs and
facilities are funded by a mixture of fees collected from various recreation programs and facility rentals, as
well as resources from the General Fund. Based on the project’s timeline and information available for
analysis, the NBS analysis for the Parks and Recreation Department established the total annual cost of
the Department combined, rather than an analysis at the individual recreational program or fee level. The
Department performed their own analysis of costs at the program level and individual fee level, and
recently reviewed their recommendations for changes to various fee amounts with the P arks and
Recreation Commission. Refer to the Parks and Recreation Agenda Report, February 1, 2017
Attachment D
Packet Pg 156
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 30
Prepared by NBS
Section 10 – Conclusion
Based on the Cost of Service Analysis, Cost Recovery Evaluation, and Proposed Fee phases of analysis
in this Study, the proposed master schedule of fees formatted for implementation has been prepared and
included in the City’s accompanying staff report.
As discussed throughout this report, the proposed fee schedule includes fee increases intended to greatly
improve the City’s recovery of costs incurred to provide individual services, as well as to adjust fees
downward where fees charge exceed the average costs incurred.
Predicting the amount to which any adopted fee increases will affect Department revenues is difficult to
quantify. For the near-term, the City should not count on increased revenues to meet any specific
expenditure plan. Experience with these fee increases should be gained first before revenue projections
are revised. However, unless there is some significant, long -term change in activity levels at the City,
proposed fee amendments should – over time – enhance the City’s revenue capabilities, providing it the
ability to stretch other resources further for the benefit of the public at large.
The City’s Master Fee Schedule should become a living document but handled with care:
A fundamental purpose of the fee schedule is to provide clarity and transparency to the public and
to staff regarding fees imposed by the City. Once adopted by the Council, the fee schedule is the
final word on the amount and manner in which fees should be imposed by the departments. O ld
fee schedules should be superseded by the new master document. If the master document is
found to be missing fees, those fees need eventually to be added to the master schedule and
should not continue to exist outside the consolidated, master framework .
The City should consider adjusting these user fees and regulatory fees on an annual basis to keep
pace at least with cost inflation. For all fees and charges, the City could use either a Consumer
Price Index adjustment or a percentage of Labor Cost increase, and that practice would be well
applied to the new fee schedule. Conducting a comprehensive user fee Study is not an annual
requirement; it becomes worthwhile only over time as significant shifts in organization, local
practices, legislative values, or legal requirements change. In NBS’ experience, a comprehensive
analysis such as this should be performed every three to five years. It should be noted that when
an automatic adjustment is applied annually, the City is free to use its discretion in ap plying the
adjustment; not all fees need to be adjusted, especially when there are good policy reasons for
an alternate course. The full cost of service is the City’s only limit in setting its fees.
As a final note in this Study, it is worth acknowledging the path that fees in general have taken in California.
The public demands ever more precise and equitable accounting of the basis for governmental fees and
a greater say in when and how they are imposed. It is inevitable in the not too distant future that user fees
and regulatory fees will demand an even greater level of analysis and supporting data to meet the public’s
evolving expectations. Technology systems will play an increased and significant role in an agency’s
ability to accomplish this. Continuous improvement and refinement of time tracking abilities will greatly
enhance the City’s ability to set fees for service and identify unfunded activities in years to come.
In preparing this report and the opinions and recommendations included herein, NBS has relied on a
number of principal assumptions and considerations with regard to financial matters, conditions and events
that may occur in the future. This information and assumptions, including the City’s budgets, time estimate
Attachment D
Packet Pg 157
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 31
Prepared by NBS
data, and workload information from City staff, were provided by sources we believe to be reliable;
however, NBS has not independently verified such information and assumptions.
While we believe NBS’ use of such information and assumptions is reasonable for the purpose of t his
report, some assumptions will invariably not materialize as stated herein and may vary significantly due to
unanticipated events and circumstances. Therefore, the actual results can be expected to vary from those
projected to the extent that actual future conditions differ from those assumed by us or provided to us by
others.
Attachment D
Packet Pg 158
1
Meeting Date: 4/18/2017
FROM: Katie Lichtig, City Manager
Prepared By: Xenia Bradford, Interim Finance Director
Courtney Steck, Contract Budget Manager
SUBJECT: STRATEGIC BUDGET DIRECTION AND MAJOR CITY GOAL WORK
PROGRAMS FOR THE 2017-19 FINANCIAL PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
1. Review updated General Fund Five-Year Fiscal Forecast and Enterprise Funds forecasts;
and
2. Review and provide guidance to the City Manager regarding proposed Major City Goals
and Other Important Objective work programs; and
3. Review and provide guidance to the City Manager regarding the recommended use and
allocation of one-time and ongoing budget resources to fund proposed Significant Operating
Program Changes (SOPCs), the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Fleet Replacement Fund,
Information Technology (IT) Replacement Fund, and Major Facility Replacement Fund;
and provide direction whether Parks Element Update should be funded; and
4. Approve a policy for the Insurance Benefit Fund, establishing funding and fund balance
requirements for newly formed Excess Liability Insurance program; and
5. Receive an update on key informational items regarding future financial uncertainties and
challenges.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The City of San Luis Obispo has received national recognition for its two-year budget process
that involves the community in Goal-Setting, emphasizes long-range financial planning, and
supports effective program management. Strategic Budget Direction is a critical next step in the
development of the two-year Financial Plan for all funds (General, Water, Sewer, Parking and
Transit Funds) based on the highest priorities determined through the Council Goal-Setting
process. This critical point in the process, affords the City Council an early opportunity to review
the draft work programs and associated financial resources proposed to accomplish Major City
Goals and Other Important Objective established by the City Council in January. At this stage of
the process, the City Council should provide direction on any changes, which refine these work
programs and resource allocations to better achieve the desired outcomes.
This report presents:
1. An updated General Fund Five-Year Fiscal Forecast
2. Five-Year Forecasts for the Enterprise Funds
3. Proposed work plans for Major City Goals and other Important Objectives
Packet Pg 159
2
4. Proposed Significant Operating Program Changes and Five-Year Capital
Improvement Projects for all funds.
The recommendations presented in this report were developed in accordance with City fiscal
policies adopted and re-affirmed by Council in December 2016. In addition, in January of 2017
the highest priorities to achieve over the course of the 2017-19 Financial Plan were determined
by Council with their adoption of Major City Goals and Other Important Objective. In February,
the Council received an update on the General Fund Five-Year. That forecast included the
retirement contribution increases stemming from the recent California Public Employees
Retirement System (CalPERS) Board of Director’s decision to lower the discount rate (rate of
return) assumption to 7% from 7.5%. These additional annual required retirement contributions
will start in the 2018-19 fiscal year. Based on the General Fund forecast showing Expenditures
Outpacing Revenue Growth, the Council concurred with the City Manager’s recommendation to
activate the Fiscal Health Contingency Plan (Attachment F). This Plan puts in place immediate
measures to evaluate expenditures and limit spending (specifically activates hiring and travel
chills). It also provides steps to evaluate the magnitude of the City’s budget gap in the short and
long-term and provides guidance for structural re-alignment to achieve a long-term balanced
fiscal forecast.
The General Fund Capital Improvement Program (CIP) five-year outlook proposes to match
expenditures with available revenue however, even taking advantage of the supplemental
Measure G revenue, infrastructure needs continue to exceed available funding across the board.
Placing a priority on maintaining existing infrastructure is necessary to prevent existing assets to
deteriorate further and potentially impede Major City Goals and overall community wellness.
This includes continued investment in our funds for Major Facility Replacement, Fleet,
Information Technology, as well as in the more conventional, higher profile capital im provement
areas such as streets and roads, sidewalks, parks, and open space, etc. There is limited funding
for new initiatives but some projects are recommended that address Major Council Goals and
high community requests. Additionally, there are recommendations to continue the planning
efforts for new infrastructure that is necessary for forecasted new services. One example is
public safety that will require funding for an additional Fire Station to serve the southern areas of
the city and continued investigation of replacement of the Police Station.
The Enterprise funds (Water, Sewer, Parking and Transit) capital improvement expenditures are
higher in proportion to operating costs. The increase in required contributions for pensions also
affects Enterprise funds operating expenditures; however, due to the lower ratio of operating
expenditures to capital expenditures in the Enterprise funds, the impact is not as significant. Yet,
Enterprise funds are also facing fiscal challenges. Managing water utilities presents complex
challenges due to volatility related to regulations, climate change, water rights, groundwater
management, aging infrastructure, environmental protection, regionalization, funding and costs
of doing business. While the condition of the water and sewer enterprise funds is currently sound
and remains so over the next three to five years, the long-range forecast paints a different picture.
Reduced revenue due to the drought along with significant capital infrastructure needs (including
up to $140 million Water Resource Recovery Facility), require re-evaluation of doing business in
the long-term and reviewing the fee structure.
Packet Pg 160
2
The Parking Fund long-term outlook shows the working capital balance decreasing each year
with a projection of falling to less than one-third the current level in the outmost year (2022-23).
Due to growth in development, funding of the $23 million Palm-Nipomo parking structure is
scheduled in Fiscal Year 2019-20. Even without this significant infrastructure investment,
expenditures are outpacing projected revenue and will require reinstatement of multi-year rate
adjustments to structurally align the fund to meet its operations and infrastructure needs. The
Transit Fund is 38% funded by federal allocations and shows uncertainties due to changes in
federal policies as well as historical trends in state funding. Final estimates for Fiscal Year 2017-
18 funding are still being compiled.
There are currently several variables involving the Transit Fund. The Federal budget for transit is
currently under discussion in Washington. In addition, this past week the State legislature
approved The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. This Act includes some funding for
local agencies such as SLO Transit. The exact fiscal impacts h ave yet to be determined.
Regarding fare box revenues, on April 4th the City Council approved new Transit Fares to go into
effect later this year. In addition, staff is negotiating with Cal Poly on the terms of the agreement
relative to their contribution to the system in exchange for services provided to faculty and staff.
There will be additional detailed information provided to Council during the June budget
hearings. Once all the variables are settled, staff will have recommendations regarding services
levels, potential uses of working capital, and other alternatives to insure the long-term health
Transit Fund and its ability to provide service to the public
The largest long-term capital expense for the Transit fund is bus replacement. These
replacements have traditionally been dependent upon Federal and state grant programs. In June
we should have additional information regarding transit capital grants for future bus
replacements.
With the outlook for General and Enterprise funds continuing to indicate expenditures outpacing
revenues, we will spend significant efforts in early Fiscal Year 2017 -18 to fully evaluate long-
term strategies for fiscal sustainability. This includes engaging community members and
employees, studying options to address long-term fiscal health, and then returning in winter 2017
and spring 2018 with further long-term recommendations to address the budget gap, unfunded
liabilities and critical infrastructure funding options. These recommendations will help shape the
supplemental budget for the 2018-2019 Fiscal Year and are intended to the lay the groundwork
and pathway for a structurally balanced forecast into the future.
The City Manager is seeking direction from Council in order to provide staff guidance on any
refinements or changes necessary for the Preliminary Financial Plan to meet the needs and
expectations of the community and City Council.
The following focused questions are suggested for discussion:
1. Do the proposed Major City Goals (Housing, Multi-Modal Transportation, Climate
Action, and Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility) and Other Important Objective
(Downtown Vitality) work programs reflect the Council’s intent from the Goal-Setting
Workshop on January 28, 2017?
Packet Pg 161
2
2. Are the proposed Significant Operating Program Changes and base budget allocation
methodology aligned with the City fiscal policies and Fiscal Health Contingency Plan?
3. Does the Council concur with staff recommendation to return in June 2017 with a
recommendation for multi-yare rate increases for Parking Fund?
4. Are the projects proposed for funding within the Capital Improvement Program aligned
with the Council Major City Goals and Other Important Objective and with the City
fiscal policies and Fiscal Health Contingency Plan?
5. Should the Park’s Element Update be funded within the 2017-19 Financial Plan? If so,
should it be funded with Parkland Development Fund or with General Fund resources?
DISCUSSION
Use of this report. Below staff has summarized findings and recommendations for Council to
review in contemplating its 2017-19 Strategic Budget Direction. The various attachments to this
Report are intended to provide even further detail on each topic. The Major Sections covered are:
I. General and Enterprise Funds Five-Year Fiscal Forecasts
II. Proposed Major City Goal and Other Important Objectives Work Programs
III. Proposed use of one-time and ongoing budget
IV. Policy Revision for Insurance Benefit Fund
Update on Key Information Regarding Future Fiscal Uncertainty and Challenges
GENERAL FUND AND ENTERPRISE FUNDS FIVE-YEAR FORECASTS
1. General Fund Five-Year Fiscal Forecast
The updated General Fund Five-Year Forecast continues to show Expenditures Outpacing
Revenue Growth. This trend shows a budget gap starting in fiscal year 2018-19 and continuing
to grow through the fiscal forecast primarily due to rising required contributions toward the
City’s pension plans.
In February, the Council received an update on the General Fund Five-Year Forecast. This report
included the impacts of recent CalPERS decision to lower the discount rate (rate of return on
investments) expectation to 7% from 7.5%. The forecast has been updated with the latest revenue
and expenditure trends as well as revised estimates of retirement cost estimates based on further
guidance provided by CalPERS.
The City’s required contributions both for normal cost and unfunded liability payments will
continue to increase through fiscal year 2024 -25. The additional guidelines presented by
CalPERS have been analyzed by the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers and
included in the most recent fiscal forecast. The original circular letter provided by CalPERS was
unclear as to whether the bottom or top of the ranges would be applicable to a particular pension
plan. The newly released guidance from CalPERS states that plans with an unfunded liability
Packet Pg 162
2
ratio1 of 70% or less, should use the middle of the range to estimate the impact to normal cost
contributions and bottom of the range for unfunded liability contributions.
The City of San Luis Obispo unfunded liability ratio for all funds combined is 68%; therefore,
the City of San Luis Obispo falls into the lower range category based on this guidance from
CalPERS. The required payment for retirement is currently $10.7 million a year for General
Fund. Based on the most recent estimates this cost will rise to $18 million per year by 2021 -22.
One cautionary note -- the increase in required contributions will fully take effect over the next
eight-year period and the City’s forecast only represents the costs over five years. The growth
over five years is significant and are necessary to ensure the financial sustainability of the
retirement system and reduce the volatility of the annual payments by the City for issues such as
low market returns of the fund.
A defined retirement system is a key benefit allowing the City (and many other public agencies)
to attract and retain dedicated and talented employees who provide necessary and expected
services to our community. In other words, this will be a topic of keen interest in our future
planning. Developing a strategy to address pension costs is one of the proposed work program
tasks as part of the larger Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility Major City Goal. Staff will
continue to monitor actuary valuation results. Actuary annual valuation reports are expected to
be released by CalPERS this summer and should provide full analysis of the discount rate change
impacts to the pension plans required contributions and funding status. The City has also
engaged Bartell & Associates (a private actuary consulting firm) to provide an intermediary
actuary analysis based on the specifics of the current and former city employees covered by our
plan.
In February 2017, the City Manager with City Council concurrence activated the Fiscal Health
Contingency Plan. This action initiates work to address the projected budget gap due to
expenditures exceeding revenues over the five-year horizon. Consistent with the Plan, the
expenditure allocation included in the five-year forecast assume the 2017-19 Financial Plan is
kept at 2016-17 budget allocation level with the exception of increases due to contractual
obligations or factors outside of the City’s control such as electricity price increases. The
proposed 2017-19 recommendations are aligned, based on best professional judgement of staff,
with the Major City Goals and Other Important Objective Council priorities.
The proposed Major City Goal or Other Important Objective work programs are recommended
to be funded as follows: $15 million of existing program resources, $75,000 from reallocations,
and $19 million is proposed to be funded above the current expenditure level, primarily toward
Capital Improvement Projects (the funding includes both General Fund contributions and grant
funding). Detailed summary of funding for each Major City Goal and Other Important Objective
is included in Attachment C.
1 Unfunded ratio is the ratio between Normal Accrued Liability and Market Value of Assets for a plan. An
unfunded liability exists when the actuarial lability exceeds the actuarial value of fund assets.
Packet Pg 163
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS/
OTHER IMPORTANT
OBJECTIVES
Operating Capital
Ongoing $ 15,230,084 $ -
Reallocation $ 75,000 $ -
New Programs/Projects $ 277,500 19,026,955$
Total 15,582,584$ 19,026,955$
2017/19 Financial Plan
The General Fund Five-Year Forecast shows a balanced budget for 2017-18 fiscal year revenues
(sources) for the fund over expenditures (uses) of $100,000. This is a narrow margin for a $71.6
million budget. The forecast shows a structural budget gap (meaning the expenditures exceed
revenues over time) of $1.45 million in fiscal year 2018-19 and growing to $3.6 million by fiscal
year 2021-22.
Without a change of course, the budget gap is estimated to increase through fiscal year 2024 -25,
when the full impact of the change in discount rate for CalPERS valuations takes effect. This
analysis is based on the historical approach to building the City budget and assumptions about
growth in revenue and expenditures. The two-year financial plan, as proposed, will maintain a
General Fund balance above 20% of operating expenditures policy reserve. However, due to the
continual budget gap from 2018-19 to 2021-22 fiscal year, the fund balance is estimated to drop
below the 20% policy reserve by approximately $3.6 million by fiscal year 2021 -22 if no
corrective action is taken.
Current forecast estimates approximately $3 million General Fund balance above policy level
entering the 2017-19 Financial Plan. Staff recommends maintaining these one-time funds until
further recommendations are developed through the work programs of Fiscal Sustainability and
Responsibility Major City Goal. Allocating these one-time funds at this time would drop the
General Fund balance reserve below 20% by the end of 2018-19 Fiscal Year. It is recommended
that staff will return in winter and spring of 2017-18 fiscal year with further recommendations.
Through Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility Major City Goal, staff will study options to
address long-term fiscal health based on a balanced budget and will return with
recommendations to address paying down unfunded liabilities and funding options for
infrastructure needs.
2. Utilities Enterprise Funds: Water & Sewer Funds Five-Year Fiscal Forecast
Managing water utilities has been complex in current times. The volatility related to regulations,
climate, water rights, groundwater management, aging infrastructure, environmental protection,
regionalization, funding and costs is unprecedented. In light of the experience through the most
recent drought, the way the City administers water and sewer services must be critically assessed
and debated to develop appropriate funding stability for these essential services.
The community has done an outstanding job securing its water future. While remaining ever -
Packet Pg 164
2
vigilant on that front, the fresh knowledge obtained from the complete master planning of the
City’s water, wastewater, and recycled water infrastructure underscores the criticality of further
investments to address existing and future infrastructure needs.
While the fiscal condition of the water and sewer enterprise funds are currently sound, and
remain so over the next three to five years, the long-range forecast paints a different picture.
Reduced revenues due to conservation and reduced consumption related to the drought (and the
resultant compounding impacts) along with significant capital infrastructure needs, require the
City to re-evaluate how to structure revenues in light of long-term uncertainty. Additionally,
despite the long-range fiscal trend, the water situation for the City has changed and eliminating
the drought surcharge on the water bill aligns with this fact. Prudent and cautious use of this
precious resource must become a way of life.
While the fiscal challenges for the sewer fund exist beyond the next five years presented in the
forecast, the five-year fund analysis for the water fund demonstrates the need to act. With the
elimination of the drought surcharge and conservative assumptions on increased water sales, the
fifth year shows a minimal working capital balance (Attachment A). However, it is important to
see this as a snapshot in time that signals the need to do things differently in the coming years.
As shown in the table below, the water and sewer fund analyses show the following fee
recommendations:
1. Increase to the water base fee (approved by Council during its rate structure study
in 2015)
2. Five percent increase on the volumetric portion of water
3. The drought surcharge is eliminated (surcharge was eliminated from base fee
March 2017)
4. No increase in sewer rates
Rate Comparison Water Current July 1,
2017
Variance
Base Fee $9.98 $12.33 23.5%
Drought Surcharge (eliminated March 2017) $0.00 $0.00
Volume Charge
0 – 8 units $6.92 $7.27 5%
Tier 1 Drought Surcharge $1.10 $0.00
9+ units $8.65 $9.08 5%
Tier 2 Drought Surcharge $1.37 $0.00
Sewer Current July 1,
2017
Variance
Base Fee $8.57 $8.57 0%
Volumetric Rate $9.44 $9.44 0%
Packet Pg 165
2
Combined Water & Sewer Bill Comparison
Consumption 3 units 6 units 12 units* 20 units*
Current $ 70.93 $ 123.31 $ 198.31 $ 278.47
As of July 1,2017 $ 71.03 $ 121.16 $ 190.90 $ 263.54
1 unit = 748 gallons of water
* assumes an 8 unit sewer cap
In compliance with Proposition 218, notification of the proposed one-year increase to water rates
was sent out April 17, 2017. This is a departure from past practice when a two-year rate increase
with the Financial Plan was proposed. The intent is for City Council to go through a series of rate
structure study sessions in late fall/early winter and conclude the best structure for revenue
collection for the utilities. Based on the outcome from those studies, the proposed rate structures
for sewer and water will be sent to the community in a Proposition 218-compliant process in
preparation for the 2018-19 Financial Plan Supplement.
Major Capital Projects and Programs in progress for Water and Sewer Funds
Addressing capital needs remains a high priority for the water and wastewater utilities. A robust
capital program based on master plan prioritization is proposed. Additionally, the following
major work efforts remain in progress or will be completed during the 2017-19 Financial Plan
period:
1. Water Resource Recovery Facility Project design and funding will be finalized; the
selection of a construction manager and contractor to bring the project to life will be
done.
2. Inflow and Infiltration Reduction Programs and projects will be implemented to
reduce the amount of ground or rain water entering the wastewater collection system.
3. Groundwater Sustainability Agency Compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act (SGMA) requires the formation of a Groundwater Sustainability
Agency, followed by the creation of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan.
4. Safe Annual Yield for Whale Rock and Salinas reservoirs Following the above
normal rainfall amounts in February 2017, the surface water reservoirs recovered to the
point at which we can examine the effect of the drought on the amount of water that we
can safely draw conjunctively from both reservoirs.
5. Implementation of One Water Delivery of recycled water to new development and
existing users inside the City as well as negotiations with entities outside the City limits.
Packet Pg 166
2
3. Parking Fund Five Year Fiscal Forecast
Working capital at the end of Fiscal Year 2015-16 was over $11.9 million. The fiscal outlook
for the next five years shows the Working capital balance decreasing each year with a projection
of falling to less than one-third the current level in the outmost year (2022-23). The forecast
includes the funding (through partial debt financing) of the Palm Nipomo structure in 2019-20,
but even without this major project, the annual working capital balance would continue to
decrease due to expenditures exceeding annual revenue.
The Parking Services Division is proposing a multi-year plan to modify the rate structures for
fines, forfeitures, as well as the parking rates for meters, structures and most permit types.
Historically, the Parking Fund had Council approve, multi-year rate increases that raised rates
approximately every three years to adjust for costs and other factors. These included new
structures, other CIP expenses and adjusting for annual contract increases. The recession caused
that practice to be suspended. The most recent comprehensive parking rate changes occurred in
2011, including meter rate changes. Due to the recession, many of those adopted increases were
actually postponed from 2008. The Palm Street Structure monthly permit rate was raised to
match the other structures in 2015. These deferred rate increases is a factor in the upcoming
proposed parking rate changes.
Based on the forecasted expenditures, current level of rates and projected revenues and working
capital balances, the multi-year rate increases will likely need to be higher than those
implemented in the past. This will reestablish the relationship between certain types of rates
(permit v. hourly), bring current rates to the level commensurate with comparable cities and
build a working capital balance necessary for the long-term sustainability of the Parking
Enterprise Fund.
The Parking Enterprise Fund expenditures includes funding for the Palm Nipomo Structure, the
parking structure assessment program, the Marsh Street Structure Maintenance and the
replacement of the Parking Access Revenue Control System (PARCS).
Staff is seeking concurrence form Council to return with Fund Review in June, 2017 with a
proposal for a multi-year parking rate changes.
4. Transit Fund Five-Year Fiscal Forecast
Working Capital at the end of fiscal year 2015-16 was $3 million. The fiscal outlook for the next
five years’ shows some uncertainties given today’s political climate and historical trends. The
Fund is projecting highly conservative revenue numbers. Operations can be sustained despite
CalPERs changes. Capital projects, such as new bus purchases, are highly dependent upon future
grants.
Transit funding grants are projected to be the same or less than current levels. Although the
Federal Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act’s (FASTACT) Transit budget showed
modest continual support of transit, the new administration could modify that level of funding
significantly. The Administration has already proposed a 13% reduction in the Department of
Packet Pg 167
2
Transportation’s (DOT) budget and it is yet unknown the actual impact that may be felt for
transit funding. Regarding state revenue, low fuel prices have also reduced State support of
transit. The recent uptick in fuel prices should translate into an eventual increase in support of
transit but this is still uncertain. Local revenues (fares) will increase as the first rate increase, in
over seven years will be implemented this summer. For example, the current cash fare rate of
$1.25 is increasing to $1.50. Cal Poly negotiations are continuing, and at this point the
conclusion of those discussions are not certain. Depending on the outcome of those discussions,
there could be level of service changes provided to the University. These changes could be
necessary to meet our obligatory 20% farebox requirement. Farebox revenue requirements are
set by the DOT and represent a fraction of the operational expenses paid by passengers.
Expenditures will continue to be mitigated to reflect revenue levels. Transit’s obligation to
recover 20% of its total operating costs will ultimately determine service levels. While staff had
previously anticipated service expansion as recommended by the Short-Range Transit Plan,
given the current financial constraints, new services will not be as robust as first anticipated. It
should be noted, however, that the Plan calls for more efficient route alignments, so there will be
some service increase which is offset by system efficiencies that are not dependent on additional
funding. While some CIP’s have identified grants as their source of funding, (e.g. AVL
replacement project with Prop 1B Funds) other CIP projects (e.g. the replacement of six buses)
will depend on the successful award of grants. Some fund balance use will be needed to fill
shortfalls. Based upon the conservative revenue projections, available working capital and
forecasted expenditures the Transit Fund remains positive over the 5-Year Forecast however
annual deficiencies exist that will need to be addressed. During the June Transit Fund review,
staff will present the City Council a balanced revenue and expenditure plan.
III. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Through the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the City systematically plans, schedules, and
finances capital projects to ensure cost-effectiveness and conformance with established policies.
With each two-year Financial Plan, the City prepares five-year CIP program recommendations
for Council approval. Even though only the first two years are funded within the Financial Plan,
five-year planning is recommended to achieve objectives of the Capital Improvement Program.
Comprehensive policies governing the development and management of the CIP are set forth in
the fiscal policies. All of the City’s construction projects and equipment purchases costing
$25,000 or more are included in the Capital Improvement Plan.
To assist the City Manager in developing the recommended CIP for the 2017 -19 Financial Plan,
a designated CIP Review Committee evaluated all departmental requests. In preparing the CIP
recommendations, the review team considered the following evaluation factors in setting
priorities:
1) Is the project mandated by the state or federal government?
2) Is there significant outside funding for the project?
3) Is it necessary to address an immediate public health or safety concern that cannot be
deferred?
4) Is it necessary to adequately maintain existing facilities, infrastructure or equipment?
Packet Pg 168
2
5) Does it implement a high priority Council goal for the 2017-19 Financial Plan period?
6) Will it result in significant operating savings in the future that makes a compelling case
for making this investment solely on a financial basis?
The following table highlights preliminary recommendations for the 2017-22 Capital
Improvement Program. The Preliminary 2017-19 Financial Plan, will include recommended
appropriations for the first two fiscal years only (i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19 fiscal years).
FUNDING SOURCE 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22
General Fund $ 3,552,000 $ 3,852,300 $ 3,836,800 $ 3,550,000 $ 3,728,000
Debt Service Expenditures -
General Fund $ 3,212,000 $ 3,122,000 $ 2,795,000 $ 2,391,000 $ 2,391,000
Information Technology Fund $ 725,755 $ 1,261,000 $ 525,000 $ 550,968 $ 579,000
Fleet Replacement Fund $ 1,373,000 $ 1,207,000 $ 784,000 $ 929,000 $ 522,000
Proceeds from Debt Financing -
Fleet Replacement Fund $ (595,000) $ (624,000) $ - $ (410,000) $ -
Major Facility Replacement Fund $ 513,900 $ 593,700 $ 806,900 $ 273,000 $ 147,200
Water Fund $ 3,303,762 $ 9,448,925 $ 17,165,287 $ 2,785,848 $ 2,178,419
Proceeds from Debt Financing -
Water Fund $ - $ (8,500,000) $ (16,300,000) $ - $ -
Debt Service Expenditures -
Water Fund $ 2,194,005 $ 2,955,652 $ 2,955,561 $ 3,718,787 $ 3,766,571
Sewer Fund $ 22,061,023 $ 58,255,380 $ 37,447,876 $ 30,910,260 $ 4,090,873
Proceeds from Debt Financing - Sewer
Fund $ (19,500,000) $ (56,500,000) $ (35,000,000) $ (29,000,000) $ -
Debt Service Expenditures -
Sewer Fund $ 1,433,709 $ 1,431,006 $ 4,468,004 $ 4,470,107 $ 7,548,013
Parking Fund $ 831,633 $ 668,854 $ 6,004,069 $ 70,633 $ 9,749
Proceeds from Debt Financing - Parking
Fund $ - $ - $ (17,600,000) $ - $ -
Debt Service Expenditures -
Parking Fund $ 967,400 $ 967,500 $ 2,047,500 $ 2,412,500 $ 2,409,300
Transit Fund $ 338,317 $ 1,141,570 $ 1,617,035 $ 1,615,982 $ 277,248
Whale Rock Fund $ 500,000 $ 57,292 $ 1,356 $ 409 $ 60,417
In-Lieu Fees $ 515,500 $ 2,125,547 $ 780,000 $ 90,000 $ 30,000
Grants $ 931,000 $ 17,687,453 $ 435,000 $ 640,500 $16,630,600
2017/19 PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECTS
The General Fund resources, including Local Revenue Measure sales tax revenue, fund CIP
projects within General Capital Outlay, Information Technology Fund, Fleet Replacement, and
Major Facility Replacement Funds. Staff also seeks out grant funding supporting the CIP
program, reported in the table above.
Detailed descriptions of individual CIP projects can be found in Attachment B. The following is
a summary of General Capital Outlay projects proposed for funding by General Fund with the
2017-19 Financial Plan. The recommendations are aligned with criteria outlined in preceding
paragraphs and fall into three main categories summarized in the table below: part of Major City
Goal/Other Important Objective proposed work program, maintenance of existing infrastructure,
public safety, and other.
Packet Pg 169
2
2017-18 2018-19
Major City Goal/Other Important Objective $ 2,489,000 $ 2,140,000
Maintenance of Existing Infrastructure $ 342,000 $ 787,500
Public Safety $ 171,000 $ 537,800
Other $ 595,000 $ 387,000
Projects proposed for funding as part of Major City Goals work programs (primarily Multi-
Modal transportation or Downtown), are 1) Bob Jones Trail, Design and Construction of railroad
safety trail from Taft Street to Pepper Street 2) Active Transportation Plan, 3) Mission Plaza
Restroom Replacements and Enhancements & Railing Upgrade, 4) Transportation Safety &
Operations, 5) Pedestrian and Bicycle Pathway maintenance, 6) Bicycle Facility Improvements
and Downtown Renewal, 7) Sidewalk Replacement and Installation, 8) Street Reconstruction
and Resurfacing, 9) Traffic Signs and Striping Maintenance, and the 2015 Traffic Safety Report
Implementation, 10) New Street Lights.
The maintenance category includes ongoing maintenance for 1) open spaces, 2) playground
equipment and parks major maintenance, 3) bridge replacements, and 4) silt removal.
Storm drain system replacement is recommended to address flooding concerns and issues of
safety.
Projects proposed within other category are $100,000 per year funding commitment toward open
space acquisition, improvements to existing facilities in the amount of $495,000 in the first fiscal
year and $287,000 in the second fiscal year.
Over $1.5 million in Fiscal Year 2017-18 and approximately $5.5 million in Fiscal Year 2018-19
of General Capital Outlay projects detailed in Attachment B are not proposed for funding in this
Financial Plan. In addition, Information Technology prudent recommendations identify a need
for an additional approximately $800,000 in Fiscal Year 2017-18 and $500,000 in Fiscal Year
2018-19 that are not recommended for funding with the Financial Plan. Information technology
is part of essential infrastructure and continuous underfunding may lead to decreased efficiency,
effectiveness and transparency. It is important to note that the unfunded projects list included
with this report is limited to projects submitted by departments for proposed funding for the
2017-19 Financial Plan and is not indicative of long-term capital improvement needs.
Over the five-year outlook, all General Fund Capital Improvement Program funds show
projected recommended capital improvement needs higher than funding available from the
General Fund including the Local Revenue Measure sales tax revenue. By Revenue
Enhancement Oversight Committee (REOC) guidance, almost 70% of Measure G should be
allocated specificall y toward Capital Improvement Program.
CIP projects funded by the Enterprise funds are projects supporting operations of each Enterprise
fund. Enterprise funds revenues are the source of funding for these projects. There are two
significant CIP debt financed projects planned as part of the proposed 2017-22 CIP, which will
be repaid by respective Enterprise fund revenues.
Packet Pg 170
2
The projects proposed for debt financing are:
1) Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) Project with a total cost of approximately
$140,000,000. The City’s WRRF must be upgraded to comply with stricter discharge
limits required by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, to increase
capacity to serve the City’s population at General Plan build out, and to replace existing
aged facilities that have reached the end of their service life. The City is applying for
State Revolving Loan fund to finance this project.
2) Palm Nipomo Parking Structure with a total construction cost of approximately
$23,000,000 of which approximately $17,000,000 is planned for debt financing. The
City’s fourth parking structure needs to be constructed to adequately handle the
downtown parking demand generated by developments occurring over the next 5 to 10
years.
MAJOR CITY GOAL AND OTHER IMPORTANT OBJECTIVE WORK PROGRAMS
As a result of community input and informed by the Fiscal Outlook, on January 28 th, 2017, the
Council adopted four Major City Goals and one Other Important Objective.
Major City Goals are defined as the highest priority Council Goals for the two-year Financial
Plan and the detailed work programs, schedule and budget augmentations recommended to
achieve each goal are included in Attachment C.
The four Major City Goals for the 2017-19 Financial Plan are:
1. Housing: Facilitate increased production of all housing types designed to be
economically accessible to the area workforce and low and very low-income residents,
through increased density and proximity to transportation corridors in alignment with the
Climate Action Plan.
2. Multi-Modal Transportation: Prioritize implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan,
pedestrian safety, and the Short-Range Transit Plan.
3. Climate Action: Cost-effective measures, including implementation of a Sustainability
Coordinator and formation of a Green Team.
4. Fiscal Sustainability & Responsibility: Continue to implement the City’s Fiscal
Responsibility Philosophy with a focus on economic development and responsiveness,
structurally balanced fiscal outlook, unfunded liabilities, and infrastructure financing.
Other Important Objective is defined as an important goal to accomplish and resources should
be made available in the 2017-19 Financial Plan if possible.
The Other Important Objective for the 2017-19 Financial Plan is:
1. Downtown Vitality: Continue to improve safety, infrastructure investment, and
maintenance in the Downtown and support the Downtown Association’s proposal to
consider a Downtown Improvement District.
The table below summarizes proposed allocations (ongoing funds, reallocation from existing
programs, or new funding requested) for the 2017-19 Financial Plan to accomplish proposed
work programs for the Major City Goals and Other Important Objective.
Packet Pg 171
2
The following are summaries of the work programs for the Major City Goals and Other
Important Objectives. Full descriptions are outlined in Attachment C.
MAJOR CITY GOALS/OTHER IMPORTANT OBJECTIVE FUNDING SUMMARY
MAJOR CITY GOALS/
OTHER IMPORTANT OJECTIVE GOAL STATEMENT EXPENDITURE
TYPE 2017/18 2018/19 2017/18 2018/19
Ongoing -$ -$ -$ -$
Reallocation -$ -$ -$ -$
New Programs/Projects 115,500$ 87,000$ 30,000$ 75,000$
Ongoing 1,371,585$ 821,080$ -$ -$
Reallocation -$ -$ -$ -$
New Programs/Projects 75,000$ -$ -$ -$
Ongoing 177,484$ 184,637$ -$ -$
Reallocation -$ -$ -$ -$
New Programs/Projects -$ -$ -$ -$
Ongoing 5,296,480$ 5,431,858$ -$ -$
Reallocation -$ -$ -$ -$
New Programs/Projects -$ -$ 3,690,500$ 14,691,455$
Ongoing 969,703$ 977,257$ -$ -$
Reallocation 75,000$ -$ -$ -$
New Programs/Projects -$ -$ 465,000$ 75,000$
TOTAL WORK PROGRAMS 8,080,752$ 7,501,832$ 4,185,500$ 14,841,455$
*Other Important Objective
Operating Capital Improvement Plan
Climate Action
Implement Climate Action Plan, assess
requirements to achieve a “net-zero carbon
City” target, and implement cost-effective
measures, including implementation of a
Sustainability Coordinator and formation of
a Green Team.
Fiscal Sustainability and
Responsibility
Continue to implement the City’s Fiscal
Responsibility Philosophy with a focus on
economic development and responsiveness,
unfunded liabilities, and infrastructure
financing.
Housing
Facilitate increased production of all
housing types designed to be economically
accessible to the area workforce and low
and very low-income residents, through
increased density and proximity to
transportation corridors in alignment with
the Climate Action Plan.
Multi-Modal Transportation
Prioritize implementation of the Bicycle
Master Plan, pedestrian safety, and the Short-
Range Transit Plan.
Downtown Vitality*
Continue to improve safety, infrastructure
investment, and maintenance in the
Downtown and support Downtown
Association’s proposal to consider a
Downtown improvement district.
Housing
1. Implement key Housing Element programs to increase production of housing affordable
to a range of income levels (workforce to extremely low income), in alignment with the
City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP).
2. Create and define a new “workforce” affordability level (carryover goal started in 2016 -
17).
3. Produce a new Affordable Housing Nexus Study to ensure that the Affordable Housing
Program has the appropriate resources available to address demand for affordable
housing created by new commercial and residential development.
4. Update the City zoning regulations and any other applicable regulations to increase
density and facilitate opportunities for new housing to accommodate diverse housing
types, particularly along transportation corridors (carryover goal started in 2016-17).
5. Continue to promote streamlined residential development review, particularly for
developments located within Special Focus Areas, in support of increased housing
production.
Multi-Modal Transportation
1. Implement the Bicycle Master Plan
Consistent with the Bicycle Master Plan, construction of new bikeway facilities will
Packet Pg 172
2
occur with new residential development projects such as Avila Ranch, Righetti Ranch
and San Luis Ranch. The expansion of the Rail Road Safety Trail from Taft to Pepper is
planned for construction during spring 2019. Planning and design of the Rail Road Safety
trail from Pepper to the Railroad Station is scheduled for summer 2019. If grant funding
is successfully secured, the construction of Bob Jones Prefumo Creek Bike Path will
occur in the spring of 2019.
2. Develop an Active Transportation Plan that focuses on pedestrian safety, bicycles,
facilities, and programs.
The City does not presently have a pedestrian plan. To increase pedestrian safety a
comprehensive planning effort to include pedestrian facilities and policies in the update
of the Bicycle Master Plan. To reflect both pedestrian and bike travel, the plan will be
renamed the Active Transportation Plan. The Active Transportation Plan will focus on
pedestrian issues, including pedestrian specific goals and objectives, as well as
improvements to sidewalks and pathways.
3. Implement the Short-Range Transit Plan
The adopted Short Range Transit Plan objectives will continue to be implemented. The
City’s Transit system will continue to promote its use to new and existing users, make
system improvements, and maintain a ridership goal of one million passengers per year.
A capital investment in the Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) system will provide
ongoing system monitoring and enhancements in performance.
Climate Action Update:
The Climate Action Major City Goal will further the community’s effort to achieve
environmental goals that address climate change adaptation and the reduction of greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions.
1. Reprioritizing and assigning Sustainability Coordinator responsibilities to the Special
Projects Manager to oversee the implementation of the City’s strategies to address
climate change adaptation and the reduction of GHG emissions.
2. Create a City “Green Team” to assist the Sustainability Coordinator with the
implementation of the City’s CAP strategies. The Green Team will be comprised of
representatives from each department with expertise in environmental policy,
transportation/mobility, energy efficiency, water conservation, recycled water,
consumption and solid waste reduction, food and agriculture, open space
conservation/wildland protection, flood control and hazard mitigation, urban forestry,
housing, land uses planning and building construction, government operations, climate
change adaptation and resiliency, advocacy and public outreach/education.
3. Assess and report the requirements to achieve the “net-zero carbon City” target.
Including feasibility analysis and implementation of Community Choice Energy program.
4. Re-evaluate the feasibility or relevance of the GHG emissions reduction implementation
measures in the CAP, and identify implementation funding sources.
5. Support the establishment of a “Community Climate Action Coalition” by engaging other
jurisdictions, professionals, elected officials, and residents to enhance community
Packet Pg 173
2
education, participation, and advocacy in all City and regional climate action adaptation
and GHG emission reduction efforts.
6. Update the City’s GHG emissions inventory.
7. Update the Climate Action Plan to reflect changes in State and Regional legislative
policies, technologies and resilience due to changes in the natural environment.
8. Ensure accountability and monitoring of the effectiveness and progress for all CAP
implementation strategies and measures.
9. Develop enhanced incentive programs to encourage energy efficiency and reduction of
GHG emissions in the community.
10. Perform energy assessments/audits on all City-owned facilities.
11. Implement energy and cost saving measures and projects identified in the energy
assessments.
12. Monitor and measure City-owned facility and infrastructure performance on a biennial
basis.
13. Prepare an Energy Baseline Report and Rate Analysis for City-owned facilities and
infrastructure on an annual basis.
14. Report on the effectiveness of individual climate action adaptation and GHG emission
reduction strategies and measures to provide City Council with an indication of the
overall achievement towards the defined objectives and targets annually.
15. The creation of a Net-Zero Carbon Community Task Force to advise the City on
strategies and potential actions to meet the zero GHG emissions goal.
Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility:
The outcome associated with this Major City Goal is soundly articulated in the City’s Fiscal
Responsibility Philosophy that states in part “Fiscal Responsibility is the balanced approach to
providing the infrastructure maintenance and services that preserve and enhance the quality o f
life in our community as identified and prioritized through community input.”
Specific outcomes of this Major City Goal include activities in the following areas:
1. Economic Development and Responsiveness
The planned closure of Diablo Canyon Power Plant will drive a study of the economic
and fiscal impacts on the region and the City, an updated Economic Development
Strategic Plan with identified strategies to address impacts of the closure, and a
comprehensive plan of how to invest closure settlement funds in economic development
activities. Key revenue sources (property, sales, and Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
will receive continued focus.
2. Fiscal Responsibility Including Actions to Ensure Structurally Balanced Fiscal Outlook
The significant financial impacts beginning in Fiscal Year 2018 -19 of the reduced
discount rate by the CalPERS Board of Administration. Combined with an anticipated
slowing of economic growth drives continued focus on fiscal responsibility addressing
both short and long-term financial challenges. The City’s well-established foundation in
strong fiscal health policies and practices sets the stage for many items in this work plan
to be continuation of efforts already in place. Reviewing and updating those sound
practices along with engaging employees and community members, in light of changed
Packet Pg 174
2
circumstances, will be the basis for recommendations to Council. This specific action
includes the formation of a citizen’s budget committee to assess the situation and
providing recommendations to align revenues and expenditures to achieve a structurally
balanced fiscal outlook and budget.
3. Addressing Unfunded Liabilities
As CalPERS evaluates and makes changes to ensure the long-term financial sustainability
of the pension fund, the City’s focus is not only on reducing unfunded liabilities
consistent with existing financial policies but also on developing contingency plans
anticipating further changes by CalPERS. Staff anticipates continued review and analysis
of Other Post-Employment Benefits (such as retiree medical insurance) liabilities with an
eye towards addressing unfunded liabilities associated with this benefits. This is another
area for consideration of the citizen task force.
4. Pursue Infrastructure Financing Opportunities and Sources
Investing in infrastructure maintenance and development is an essential part of fiscal
responsibility. This work plan will provide a comprehensive strategy to finance
transportation and other critical infrastructure along with a financing plan to construct the
replacement and development of essential public safety facilities (i.e. Police Station and
Fire Stations).
Downtown Vitality:
1. Maintain and Improve Downtown Infrastructure
Maintenance and improvements to Downtown Infrastructure will continue to occur with
the implementation of the Council’s adopted Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for 2017-
19. Three examples of CIPs proposed for funding that benefit the Downtown include the
construction of the Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure, the continued Downtown Renewal
Project, and the construction of the Regional Transit Center in Downtown. Additionally,
various City Program operating budgets will support ongoing infrastructure replacements
and maintenance in Downtown, such as sidewalk repair and ongoing cleaning.
2. Continued Focus on Downtown Safety
The San Luis Obispo Police Department continues to provide a significant and
multifaceted police presence in Downtown both day and night. During daytime hours,
two bicycle officers are deployed with the specific focus of safety in the downtown area.
These officers have enhanced connectivity with the Downtown merchants, citizens, and
tourists and serve as vital educational and enforcement resources. There are also two
bicycle officers and a Sergeant that are deployed at night to respond to calls for service in
the downtown core. The Police Department’s CAT (Community Action Team) Program
adds another dimension of education and enforcement with particular focus on frequent
offenders. CAT team members partner with mental health professionals, social service
providers, and the courts to provide focused case management and alternatives to
enforcement.
In addition to staffing resources deployed to the Downtown, the Police Department has
Packet Pg 175
2
collaborated with the Downtown Association in developing safety training. The City’s
“Make Change Count” program provides residents with an opportunity to donate funds
toward local social service efforts while discouraging the giving of funds to those
engaged in adverse behaviors. With a great deal of the calls for service in the downtown
being nuisance type crimes the Police Department will be focusing new efforts and
resources on crimes such as disorderly conduct, trespassing, and loitering. To supplement
officers, the Police Department will continue to utilize mounted video cameras in many
areas of the Downtown.
3. Implementation of Adopted Downtown and Mission Plaza Concept Plans
Two major work efforts are in progress downtown: the update of the City’s Downtown
Concept Plan and the development of a Mission Plaza Concept Plan. The consideration
of each by Council is anticipated in 2017. Work will begin on plan implementation
following adoption.
4. Develop the Policy Framework to Ensure the continued success of the Downtown
The current success of the Downtown relies on a policy framework started more than 40
years ago. In order to ensure continued progress in line with the long term goals of the
City, key policies related to zoning, retail, commercial and residential expansion,
transportation planning and management in the Downtown will be evaluated and brought
to Council for direction. Future long-term community vision for the Downtown will be
addressed by the continued work on the Mission Plaza Concept Plan, Upper Monterey
Plan and the Downtown Concept Plan.
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGES
Significant Operating Program Changes:
The term Significant Operating Program Change (SOPC) refers to requests to make significant
changes to operating programs and/or service levels provided to the community. Significant
changes typically drive allocation or re-allocation of dollars and the changes in funding and
reasoning are provided for Council and community consideration in the SOPCs found in
Attachment D.
The City Manager is seeking direction from the City Council regarding expenditures for SOPCs
not associated with Major City Goals or Other Important Objective (Attachment D). There are
eleven SOPCs totaling $1,210,000 net cost increases in 2017-18 and $549,000 in 2018-19. Of
this amount, $268,000 is for ongoing costs to the General Fund. $725,000 of one-time allocation
request is funded with Development Services projected over-realized revenues in 2016-17 fiscal
year, which will be adjusted downward if the additional revenues and workload to service the
projects are not actually realized. $131,000 of one-time SOPS costs in 2017-18 Fiscal Year are
within Water Enterprise Fund.
Packet Pg 176
2
In February 2017, the City Manager with concurrence of the City Council activated the Fiscal
Health Contingency Plan based on the results of the General Fund Five-Year Forecast. The
SOPCs recommended are aligned with the Fiscal Health Contingency Plan that calls to: 1)
maintain minimum fund balance at policy levels; 2) follow key budget and fiscal policies; 3)
monitor the City’s fiscal health on ongoing basis; 4) assess the challenges: short or long-term; 5)
identify options; 6) prepare and implement an action plan.
In alignment with the Fiscal Health Contingency Plan, base operating budgets for the 2017-19
Financial Plan were initially limited to 2016-17 budget. Exceptions such as contractual
obligations, factors outside of the City’s control such as electricity prices, health and safety
requirements, critical efficiency measures, and uneven costs across the two-year financial
planning cycle were considered with appropriate justification provided. SOPC requests followed
the same methodology.
This methodology focuses on short-term expenditure reductions and creates the time needed to
prepare and implement reasonable long-term plans tailored to problem definition. It further
allows time to prepare revenue increase proposals, expenditure reduction options, funding
options and action plans to address fiscal challenges in order provide the service level expected
by the community.
Significant Operating Program Changes are highlighted below in summary and full detail is
outlined in Attachment D.
1. Development Services Staffing and Contract Services: 2017-18 $862,219/ 2018-19
$206,349
The Community Development Department, Fire Department, Information Technology
Department and Public Works Department are requesting to continue the use of eight full
time contract employees and four part-time temporary employees to serve the present
high workload associated with development review and support the Housing Major City
Goal. In addition, consultant and contract services totaling $213,000 are needed to assist
the departments by providing technical support and timely response to applications. This
will be a one-time cost of approximately $862,220 in fiscal year 2017 -18 and $206,350 in
2018-19. Fiscal year 2017-18 costs will be partially offset in the amount of $725,000 with
anticipated over-realized revenues from Development Services Fees for service.
2. Code Enforcement Priorities: 2017-18 $60,388
On March 7, 2017, the City Council introduced an ordinance to repeal Chapter 15.10 of
the Municipal Code, effectively repealing the Rental Housing Inspection Program. The
program was the City’s major pro-active inspection initiative for safe housing. In the
absence of an inspection program to address safe housing in the community, Council
Packet Pg 177
2
directed staff to consider a variety of alternatives to educate property owners and tenants,
and incentivize compliance with minimum health and safety code standards. This request
is for one-time funding of approximately $60,000 to support staffing costs for the purpose
of managing the project to engage with the public and develop revised priorities for code
enforcement.
3. SLO County Animal Shelter Replacement: 2017-18 $130,000/ 2018-19 $130,000
(ongoing)
This request is to appropriate $130,000 per year for the next 25 years (through fiscal year
2044) to jointly finance and construct the replacement of an animal services shelter
consistent with a Memorandum of Agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo and
the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Pismo Beach and
Paso Robles.
4. Police Patrol Reorganization: $0 (net zero)
This request is to reorganize the Police Support Services Program due to the retirement of
the current Communications and Records Manager. The position will be filled at a lower
salary and savings will be re-allocated to fill a temporary part-time Crime Analyst
position at a net-zero cost.
5. Cellular Services Funding: 2017-18 $12,500/ 2018-19 $12,500 (ongoing)
The City uses cellular data technology to more efficiently perform daily functions, such
as increased connectivity, functionality, and responsiveness. This request is for an
increase in the cellular services budget of $12,500 to reflect increases in data/voice
services due to the increased use of technology.
6. Office 365 Funding: 2017-18 $26,500, 2018-19 $0 (the cost in the financial plan are
offset by reductions in the Capital Improvement Program)
Office 365 is the City’s primary platform for Microsoft Office Productivity and
Collaboration Software - Outlook, Word, Excel, Access, PowerPoint, OneNote, Skype
and SharePoint. This request is for the one-time increase of $26,500 in operating
expenditures in licensing subscription costs and the movement of capital outlay funds to
the Information Technology operating budget 2018-19 in order to permanently classify
these expenditures as operating, instead of capital. This request includes adding $125,000
to the Information Technology operating budget to cover ongoing licensing subscription
costs beginning in 2019-20, which were previously budgeted for in the capital
improvement plan. The remaining Office 365 licensing costs will be cost-allocated to
other Department operating budgets.
7. Water Treatment Temporary Staffing: 2017-18 $130,870
The request is to continue the funding for two temporary employees in order to augment
the Water Treatment Plant operating budget to allow for treatment plant operational
flexibility and maximum water deliveries from the Nacimiento Project.
8. Motion Project Business Analyst: $0 (net zero)
This request is to transfer funds from the approved Organizational Efficiency,
Packet Pg 178
2
Effectiveness & Transparency initiative to hire a Business Systems Analyst with
technical and business skills and knowledge to join the Motion project during the
Implementation Phase starting around July 2017. As the Motion project proceeds into the
implementation phase, the project team will be ramped up with the resources required for
the design, configuration and implementation of the new software.
9. Motion Project User Licenses: 2017-18 $0, 2018-19 $200,000 (ongoing)
This request is for $200,000 in ongoing licensing costs for the Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) system, beginning in fiscal year 2018-19. This is a movement from
original estimated costs based on project timeline where we were estimating the licensing
ongoing costs to begin in 2018-19. This is due to the fact that we now have a developed
project plan and the estimated time to start using the system has moved up to beginning
of the 2018-19 fiscal year.
10. Finance Program Restructuring: $0 (net zero)
This request is to restructure Finance Department Programs in alignment with
Government Fiscal Officers Association recommendations made with the 2015-16
Finance and Information Technology functions assessment. Create a new Purchasing
Program and a Budget Program by moving existing budget resources from Financial
Administration, Revenue Management, and Accounting.
11. Day of Welcome: $0 (net zero)
This request is for ongoing funding for the City of San Luis Obispo’s Day of Welcome
and welcome guides portion of the City’s on-boarding program and is offset by
reductions in other non-staffing expenditures.
Parks Element Update
For several budget cycles the need and desire by the community for an update to the Parks and
Recreation Element has been expressed to Council. The Parks and Recreation Commission
(PRC) included it as a proposed major goal for the Council’s consideration for the 2017-19
Financial Plan. Although not a current Major City Goal, the PRC feels strongly that this effort
should be funded in the 2017-19 Financial Plan (March 1, 2017 Letter from the PRC,
Attachment G).
An update of the Parks and Recreation Element would include the following:
a. Needs Assessment. The best practice Parks and Recreation Element updates is to
perform first a foundational community needs assessment. This should be a statistically
significant survey with extensive community engagement (designed to reach as many
residents as possible) to identify what the current and future recreational needs are of the
residents of San Luis Obispo. Consultant services are needed to complete this task.
b. Element Review and Policy Update. Following the needs assessment, analysis of data
and a review of plans and policies occurs. This is followed by possible modification of
the policies in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. This effort would
Packet Pg 179
2
be done predominately by staff and would also involve significant community
engagement.
c. Prioritized Master Plan. A prioritized master plan for future parks and recreation
facilities in the City including a map and priority list of the same is an end product of this
work effort that would prove invaluable for the future.
To complete this work effort consultant services would augment existing City staff. The lead
department would be the Parks and Recreation Department in partnership with staff in the Long
Range Planning division of Community Development. Fortuitously, the Community
Development Department has an experienced planner on staff who has completed Parks and
Recreation Element updates as well as companion community needs assessments and parks and
recreation master plans. The estimated budget for this two-year work effort is $160,000; this
would support consultants in the area of conducting the year-long needs assessment effort and
graphics and mapping production as well as staff community outreach and facility review. Staff
would be engaged daily in this work effort and would lead analysis of the needs assessment,
review of all policies and any suggestions for change, coordination of all public meetings, and
other related tasks.
The City Manager seeks direction from Council whether the Parks and Recreation Element
should be funded. If not, this work effort will not be included in the Preliminary 2017-19
Financial Plan. If yes, then staff needs Council direction as to what fun ding source should be
allocated? Possible sources of funding include:
a) Reprioritize and reallocate funding from other proposed CIP projects in either 2017 -18 or
2018-19.
b) Allocation of one-time General Fund balance above the 20% reserve
c) Re-appropriation of $160,000 from $900,000 in the Parkland Fund that was set aside for
a future park acquisition in the north Broad Street area with the 2016-17 Supplemental
Budget.
PROPOSED FISCAL POLICY
In 2016, the City also moved from the Primary Insurance Program with the California Joint
Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) to the Liability Excess Insurance Program (EIP). Given the
City’s good claim, experience there is the potential to benefit from this program over time. For
fiscal year 2016-17, rather than paying a $2 million primary deposit under the Primary Insurance
Program for first dollar coverage, the City paid a discounted rate of $984,500 with the EIP. The
City’s deductible under this program is $500,000 and requires funds set aside as the City pays
claims up to that amount for a single claim in exchange for the reduced annual premium.
The following fiscal policy change is proposed to be added to the City fiscal policies in order to
fund the Liability EIP. The recommendation is to fund the program at a 75% confidence level,
which is consistent with CJPIA’s funding model for the Primary Insurance Program. This means
that the probability that the City may be required to pay-in additional funds to meet annual claim
obligations above the annual contributions is 25%. The annual contribution at 75% confidence
level is currently estimated at $713,000. A ninety-five confidence level would require $915,000
Packet Pg 180
2
annual contribution. Staff’s recommendation with concurrence from CJPIA is to annually review
the past five years claims experience, calculate the 75% confidence level, and fund accordingly.
The following policy language is proposed to be adopted as a fiscal policy.
Insurance Benefit Fund. The City will establish an Insurance Benefit Fund for the purpose
of setting funds aside to manage the fluctuations in liability and worker’s compensation
insurance programs. A reserve within the Insurance Benefit Fund for the Liability Excess
Insurance Program will be maintained at approximately 75% funded confidence level based
on the prior five-year average claims experience.
FISCAL CHALLENGES AND UNCERTAINTIES
The City enters the 2017-19 financial planning with a proven record of exceptionally strong
financial performance, as recently re-affirmed by Fitch Ratings (an independent credit rating
agency); however, there are significant financial challenges ahead. The closure of the Diablo
Canyon Power plant announced in the fall of 2016 will require the community to address the
impact of this major employer for the region. The City is working with regional partners to
assess the fiscal and economic impacts and will be developing a plan to take action to re-craft the
local economy to mitigate these impacts. Additionally, based on latest trends, the City’s revenues
are expected to grow at a slower rate than was anticipated earlier this year. Infrastructure
maintenance needs to continue to be prioritized; however, the fact is that the need for
maintenance of infrastructure outstripped available resources by more than double for almost
every year, meaning that in many scenarios, the City has half of the funding needed to timely
maintain infrastructure. Many projects that are needed will not be recommended for funding
given the current funding climate.
In February of 2015, Council adopted a guiding principle, which was incorporated into the City’s
fiscal policies in December of 2016, to prioritize allocation of one-time funds to pay down
unfunded liabilities and invest in infrastructure. With the 2013-15 and 2015-17 Financial Plans,
the City has allocated $3.2 million toward prepayment of unfunded liabilities above required
contributions. The City has also increased Capital Improvement Program investments including
an increase of the total Capital Improvement Program by $5.1 million in 2016-17 above the prior
year. This increased investment was funded by 70% of Local Revenue Measure and the use of
one-time General Fund balance available for allocation. Through the Council Goal -Setting
process, the Council also adopted a Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility major City goal to
address short and long-term fiscal challenges faced by the City.
On December 21, 2016, the California Public Employee’s Retirement System (CalPERS)
announced that the CalPERS Board voted to “lower discount rate to seven percent over the next
three years.” The CalPERS Board has taken several actions to address the impacts due to
significant stock market losses in 2008 and demographic study in 2010, which concluded that
employees were living longer and retiring earlier. Most recent policy changes made by CalPERS
were to establish a fixed timeline of thirty years to pay down unfunded liability and in 2015 the
Board implemented a Funding Risk Mitigation policy, which was expected to gradually lower
the long-term discount rate over 21 years. This latest action taken by the CalPERS Board leads to
Packet Pg 181
2
significant impacts to participating agencies. The lowering of the discount rate or expected rate
of return, directly translates into higher required contribution rates for n ormal cost and higher
payments toward the unfunded liability. The increase in payments will first impact the City’s
budget in 2018-19 and will grow over the following 8 years. According to CalPERS, this action
is driven by most recent market performance yielding zero percent return in 2015-16 and
growing pension payments. The action strengthens long-term sustainability of the fund. Further
changes to CalPERS actuarial assumptions and actual return on investment continue to be
volatile factors. However, there are still uncertainties about other changes that CalPERS may
contemplate in the future, including whether changes are required due to fiscal challenges faced
by other CalPERS agencies.
Infrastructure maintenance needs continue to be prioritized; however, the fact is that the need for
maintenance of infrastructure outstripped available resources by more than double for almost
every year, meaning that in many scenarios, the City has half of the funding needed to timely
maintain infrastructure. Many projects that are needed will not be recommended for funding
given the current funding climate. An analysis of infrastructure needs will be addressed through
the Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility work programs. Furthermore, continuous community
development activity in the city, will require that associated funding models are adhered to in
accordance with the City fiscal policies in order to address growing infrastructure needs to
maintain the level of service expected by the community.
In December 2016, the City entered into an agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)
related to the Diablo Power Plant Closure Joint Proposal. The agreement includes a payment by
PG&E of $10 million to the Economic Development Fund to ease the local economic impacts of
the plant’s closure. Of this amount, the City will receive $1.82 million. In addition, the
agreement includes $75 million to the Essential Services Mitigation Fund to offset the potential
negative impacts to essential public services, which will be paid out through the County in nine
equal installments through 2025. The County will redistribute the funds to 71 local agencies
whose budgets are impacted by the inevitable decrease in unitary tax funding from the power
plant. Finally, the agreement includes continued funding of offsite community and local
emergency planning efforts over the course of 15 to 25 years.
The agreement is pending approval by the California Public Utilities Commission and the City’s
work plan to study the economic impacts of the Diablo Canyon closure is dependent upon this
funding. The County of San Luis Obispo is proceeding with the study and if funds are not
received the city will need to decide whether to allocate General Funds proportional to City share
of the study (still to be determined). The study will inform City staff as they plan for economic
development actions to address the loss of this major employer and impacts on the local
economy. Other regional municipalities such as the County and School Districts are experiencing
even greater direct fiscal impacts due to the closure, which will continue to translate into these
jurisdiction’s budgets. For example, the school resource officer is no longer being funded by the
School District, which contributed $84,000 toward the position in 2016-17. The position is now
proposed to be funded by the general fund contribution to maintain the service level.
Packet Pg 182
2
Finally, there are uncertainties at the Federal level. Federal policy and recent submission of
proposed federal budget outline uncertainties for the City. The City receives approximately $3.8
million in ongoing Federal funds. Approximately $3.0 million of this funding is attributed
toward Transit Operations, followed by over $400,000 in Community Development Block Grant.
The City also applies for competitive and non-competitive federal grants and currently has
several substantial federal grants approved to fund capital expenditures such as $1.1 million to
fund replacement of three buses, $3.2 million for bike/pedestrian projects and $7.4 million for
the Marsh Street Bridge Replacement project.
NEXT STEPS
The purpose of this agenda item is for staff to receive Strategic Budget Direction on the proposed
Major City Goals and Other Important Objective work programs, proposed capital investment
and use of one-time funding, and proposed significant operating program changes. This
direction is valuable in further assuring that the 2017-19 Financial Plan under development
meets City Council’s expectations when it is received in May.
Upcoming 2017-19 Financial Plan Development Steps
Date Item Council Action
April 18 Strategic Budget
Direction
Provide Direction on:
-Major City Goals Work Programs
-Other Important Objective Work Programs
-Capital Improvement Program
-Significant Operating Program Changes
-Allocation of fund balance above policy reserve
May 15 Preliminary Financial
Plan
City Council receives Preliminary 2017-19
Financial Plan
June 1 Budget Workshop Review and discuss General Fund operating
programs and Capital Improvement Program.
June 6 Budget Workshop Review and discuss Enterprise Funds programs.
June 20 Budget Adoption Final review and adoption of Fiscal Year 2017-19
Financial Plan
June 30
(if required)
Budget Adoption Final review and adoption of Fiscal Year 2017-19
Financial Plan
Attachments:
a - Five-Year Forecasts
b - 2017-22 Capital Improvement Program
c - Major City Goals & Other Important Objective
f - Fiscal Health Contingency Plan
d – Significant Operating Program Change Requests
e - Local Revenue Measure
g - Parks and Recreation Commission Letter
Packet Pg 183
2
Attachment A
Packet Pg 184
2
ATTACHMENT A:FIVE-YEAR FORECASTS
FIVE-YEAR FORECASTSGeneral Fund•Includes the reduction of approximately $90,000 in State grant funds for a School Resource Officer (safety)•Includes one-time and ongoing expenditures related to Significant Operating Program Changes and Major City Goals/Other Important Objectives•Includes CalPERS policy change to lower discount rate used for the actuary valuations from 7.5% to 7%•Fiscal Outlook: The General Fund Five Year Forecast continues to show Expenditures outpacing Revenue Growth. This trend shows a budget gap starting in fiscal year 2018-19 and continuing to grow through the fiscal forecast due to rising required contributions toward the City’s pension plans.
Parking Fund•Revenues – No parking rate changes included in analysis (modifications to fines, forfeitures, and rates will be addressed in the June 2017 Fund Review)•Utility Expenditures - Annual Growth Rates: 3% Water & Sewer; 2% Trash, and 5% for Electric •Other Expenditures: The forecast includes funding for the Palm Nipomo Structure, the parking structure assessment program, the Marsh Street Structure Maintenance, and the replacement of the Parking Access Revenue Control System (PARCS).•Fiscal Outlook: Working capital decreases each year with a negative balance projection in 2022-23. The forecast includes the funding of the Palm Nipomo structure in 2019-20, but even without this major project, the annual working capital balance would continue to decrease due to expenditures exceeding annual revenue.
Transit Fund•Federal Grant revenue is anticipated to remain flat over the 5-year forecast, while State Grants are anticipated to decline by 1% over the same period•9% Transit Fare Increase in 2017-18 and 1% annual increase thereafter •Bus replacement grant revenue is assumed for each bus•3% annual increase for contract services per agreement with First Transit •3% annual increase for operational Short-Range Transit Plan implementation•Fiscal Outlook: Based upon the conservative revenue projections and expenditures for full implementation of the Short-Range Transit Plan, the Transit Fund is showing a deficit in 2021-22. Staff will present Council with revenue and expenditure options, including service levels, as part of the 2017-19 Transit Fund Review in June.
Sewer Fund•Fiscal Outlook: The fiscal condition of the Sewer Fund remains sound over the five-year forecast. A sewer rate structure study and revenue assessment is being recommended to ensure the long-term health of the Sewer Fund.
Water Fund•Fiscal Outlook: The fiscal condition of the Water Fund remains sound over the five-year forecast. However, reduced revenues due to the drought (and the resultant compounding impacts) along with significant capital infrastructure needs, requires a re-evaluation long-term business. With the elimination of the drought surcharge and conservative assumptions on increased water sales, the fifth year of the forecast shows a minimal working capital balance. Addressing capital needs remains a high priority for the water and wastewater utilities. A robust capital program based on master plan prioritization and increased fee recommendations are included in this forecast.
Fund Highlights:
Packet Pg 185
2
ATTACHMENT A:FIVE-YEAR FORECASTS
FIVE-YEAR FORECASTSGeneral Fund•Revenues – top five key revenue sources assumptions as shown in the assumptions table are based on assumption of slow steady economic growth with a moderate recession in 2019-20 and a recovery in 2020-21. The forecast projects a more aggressive growth for Transient Occupancy Tax and Property Tax due to three major hotel developments currently under construction.•Expenditures – Include increase in required contributions due to California Public Employee’s Retirement System (CalPERS) policy change to lower discount rate used for the actuary valuations from 7.5% to 7%•Include one-time and ongoing expenditures related to Significant Operating Program Changes and Major City Goals/Other Important Objectives•Include the reduction of approximately $90,000 from school district for a School Resource Officer (safety)•Fiscal Outlook: The General Fund Five Year Forecast continues to show Expenditures outpacing Revenue Growth. This trend shows a budget gap starting in fiscal year 2018-19 and continuing to grow through the fiscal forecast primarily due to projected CalPERS costs outpacing revenue growth.Parking Fund•Revenues – No parking rate changes included in analysis (modifications to fines, forfeitures, and rates will be addressed in the June 2017 Fund Review)•Utility Expenditures - Annual Growth Rates: 3% Water & Sewer; 2% Trash, and 5% for Electric •Other Expenditures: The forecast includes funding for the Palm Nipomo Structure, the parking structure assessment program, the Marsh Street Structure Maintenance, and the replacement of the Parking Access Revenue Control System (PARCS).•Fiscal Outlook: Working capital decreases each year with a negative balance projection of fallings to less than one-third the current level in the outmost year (2022-23). The forecast includes the funding of the Palm Nipomo structure in 2019-20, but even without this major project, the annual working capital balance would continue to decrease due to expenditures exceeding annual revenue. Transit Fund•Federal Grant revenue is anticipated to remain flat over the 5-year forecast, while State Grants are anticipated to decline by 1% over the same period•9% Transit Fare Increase in 2017-18 and 1% annual increase thereafter •Bus replacement grant revenue is assumed for each bus•3% annual increase for contract services per agreement with First Transit •3% annual increase for operational Short-Range Transit Plan implementation•Fiscal Outlook: Based upon the conservative revenue projections and expenditures, working capital decreases each year though Fund is projecting to have a modest balance in 2021-22. Staff will present Council with revenue and expenditure options, including service levels, as part of the 2017-19 Transit Fund Review in June. Sewer Fund•Revenues – there is no increase recommended for 2017-18 rates, forecast assumes a 3% sewer rate increase•Expenditures – includes debt financing assumptions through State Revolving Loan fund for Water Resource Recovery project.•Fiscal Outlook: The fiscal condition of the Sewer Fund remains sound over the five-year forecast. A sewer rate structure study and revenue assessment is being recommended to ensure the long-term health of the Sewer Fund. Water Fund•Revenues – 2017-18 rates are based on Council approved rate increases; the drought surcharge is eliminated; future forecast assumes a 3% water rate increase•Fiscal Outlook: The fiscal condition of the Water Fund remains sound over the five-year forecast. However, reduced revenues due to the drought (and the resultant compounding impacts) along with significant capital infrastructure needs, requires a re-evaluation long-term business. With the elimination of the drought surcharge and conservative assumptions on increased water sales, the fifth year of the forecast shows a minimal working capital balance. Addressing capital needs remains a high priority for the water and wastewater utilities. A robust capital program based on master plan prioritization and increased fee recommendations are included in this forecast.
Fund Highlights:
Packet Pg 186
2
ATTACHMENT A:FIVE-YEAR FORECASTS
FIVE-YEAR FORECASTSCity of San Luis Obispo - Fund Forecast Assumptions1
2017-19 Financial Plan
2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
EXPENDITURES4,5
Staffing & Operating Expenses (excluding PERS)2 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%PERS Normal Costs Rates3 Misc. Tier 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4%Safety Tier 1 21.4% 21.4% 21.4% 21.4% 21.4%Safety Tier 2 (Police)16.5% 16.5% 16.5% 16.5% 16.5%Safety Tier 2 (Fire)18.5% 18.5% 18.5% 18.5% 18.5%PEPRA 12.7% 12.7% 12.7% 12.7% 12.7%PERS Unfunded Liability Payments3(all tiers, $ in thousands)8,134$ 9,331$ 10,593$ 11,420$ 12,268$
PERS Discount Rate Adjustment - Normal Cost3 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 2.0% 2.0%PERS Discount Rate Adjustment - Unfunded Liability3 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 10.0% 15.0%Retirement Incentives 1.0% 1.0%
FORECAST ASSUMPTIONS
2) Staffing & Operating Expenses - Assumes 2% annual growth with seasonal fluctuations within 2-year Financial Plan cycles.
1) Forecast Assumptions may vary for each Fund.
5) Capital Improvement Plan Projects excluded from Assumptions table since expenditure forecasts are based on a Five-Year Capital Improvement Program.
3) PERS Costs are based on Actuarial Valuation Report Rates and Amortization schedules.
Assumption Descriptions
4) 2016-17 base budget levels used to develop 2017-18 and 2018-19 expenditure budgets. Increases to operating and capital budgets from 2016-17 levels fall within the following variance criteria:• Executed contract that cannot be renegotiated,• Known increase outside of City's control (Example: Utilities),• Health and safety requirements,• Critical efficiency or effectiveness measure, and/or• Biennial or "lumpy" costs which do not occur each fiscal year.
Packet Pg 187
2
City of San Luis Obispo - General Fund Five Year Fiscal Forecast Assumptions2017-19 Financial Plan
$ in 000's 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22KEY REVENUESSales Tax 14.6% -5.2% 2.1% 2.0% -0.5% 2.8% 2.9%Measure Y/G Sales Tax 0.6% 3.0% 2.9% 0.9% -0.6% 2.0% 2.2%Property Taxes 5.8% 5.7% 1.7% 6.0% 5.5% 5.0% 5.0%Transient Occupancy Tax 4.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 3.0% 4.5% 4.5%Utility Users Tax 3.9% 1.7% 1.1% 0.9% 1.3% 1.6% 1.6%Development Review Fees 20.4% -79.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%EXPENDITURESOperating Expenses (excl PERS)1 3.7% 7.2% 2.3% 3.8% 1.0% 2.3% 2.4%PERS Total Costs 17.6% 16.2% 4.2% 13.7% 13.7% 13.8% 9.6%Debt Service -4.4% 0.4% -0.1% -0.1% -0.5% -0.6% 0.0%CIP - Fleet Replacement 0.0% 0.0% 67.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%CIP - IT Replacement -70.2% 521.7% 0.0% 88.6% -156.2% 5.4% 5.5%CIP - Major Facility Replacement -40.9% 58.2% 8.0% -17.3% 21.0% 11.8% 8.2%CIP - All Other & Local Measure Funded projects)205.3% 2180.4% -585.1% 34.3% -50.0% 5.6% 19.4%1Assumes 2% growth with seasonal fluctuations within 2-year Financial Plan cycles.
FORECAST ASSUMPTIONSHistorical Trends(Annual Growth)
Packet Pg 188
2
PARKING FUND FIVE-YEAR FORECAST
ACTUAL Mid Year Budget Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22RevenuesService ChargesParking Meter CollectionsLots 304,345 166,200 140,400 141,900 122,900 124,200 125,500 Streets 1,526,182 1,539,100 1,648,100 1,664,700 1,681,400 1,698,300 1,715,200 Parking Structure Collections 1,162,982 1,054,700 1,489,500 1,504,400 1,519,500 1,596,700 1,801,100 Long-Term Parking Revenues 642,483 434,900 795,000 802,900 810,900 819,100 827,300 Lease Revenues 403,630 500,500 502,900 509,800 512,300 514,800 521,800 Parking In-Lieu Fees (1)2,641,296 20,200 20,400 20,600 20,800 21,000 21,200 Other Service Charges (15,096) 100 (94,400) (95,400) (96,400) (97,400) (98,400) Total Service Charges 6,665,822 3,715,700 4,501,900 4,548,900 4,571,400 4,676,700 4,913,700 Investment and Property Revenues 172,523 48,200 48,000 52,000 54,400 24,700 22,800 Fines and Forfeitures 579,823 669,900 587,300 593,200 599,100 605,100 611,100 Other Revenues 161,164 - 100 100 100 100 100 Total Revenues 7,579,332 4,433,800 5,137,300 5,194,200 5,225,000 5,306,600 5,547,700 ExpendituresOperating ProgramsOperating Expenses 1,835,753 2,385,106 1,999,600 2,039,500 2,100,700 2,210,400 2,421,000 Retirement Contribution 61,300 62,600 64,400 66,100 67,700 Unfunded Liabilities 157,700 171,800 193,300 207,500 222,300 CalPERS Discount Rate Cost - 6,200 12,500 28,500 36,700 General Government 711,587 684,603 601,200 601,200 601,200 601,200 601,200 Motion Project -one time - - 151,000 151,000 - - - Motion Project - on going - - - 42,000 47,200 48,600 50,100 Total Operating Programs 2,547,340 3,069,709 2,970,800 3,074,300 3,019,300 3,162,300 3,399,000 Capital Improvement Plan Projects 20,547 2,231,404 831,633 668,854 23,688,069 120,633 59,749 Debt Service 953,751 969,400 967,400 967,500 2,047,500 2,412,500 2,409,300 Total Expenditures 3,521,638 6,270,513 4,769,833 4,710,654 28,754,869 5,695,433 5,868,049 Other Sources (Uses)Cashflow adj. for working capitalOperating Transfers In - - - - - - Operating Transfers Out (473,368) Proceeds from Debt Financing - 17,600,000 Other (82,653) (11,198) GST Loan per Council Approval (500,000) Total Other Sources (Uses)(556,021) (511,198) - - 17,600,000 - -
Revenues Over/(Under) Expenses 3,501,673 (2,347,911) 367,467 483,546 (5,929,869) (388,833) (320,349)
Working Capital, Beginning of Year 8,436,557 11,938,230 10,024,311 10,391,778 10,875,324 4,945,455 4,556,622
Working Capital, End of Year 11,938,230 9,590,319 10,391,778 10,875,324 4,945,455 4,556,622 4,236,273 Reserve 509,468 613,942 594,160 614,860 603,860 632,460 679,800 Unreserved Working Capital 11,428,762 8,976,377 9,797,618 10,260,464 4,341,595 3,924,162 3,556,473
2017-19 Financial Plan
Revenue Assumptions: Currently, there are no rate changes that have been adopted by the City Council, though staff is projecting a modest 1% annual increase in revenues because of general parking volume demand. Modifications to fines, forfeitures and rates will be forthcoming as part of the Fund review in June 2017.Expenditure Assumptions: 2% annual staffing cost increase, 2% annual contract services cost increase, 3% annual increase for water & sewer rates, 2% annual increase for trash service and 5% annual increase for electric utility service
Out-Year Fund Projections
Packet Pg 189
2
PARKING FUND FORECAST ASSUMPTIONS
Mid Year Budget Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22RevenuesService ChargesParking Meter CollectionsLots -45% -16%1% -13%1%1%Streets 1%7%1%1%1%1%Parking Structure Collections -9% 41%1%1%5% 13%Long-Term Parking Revenues -32% 83%1%1%1%1%Lease Revenues 24%0%1%0%0%1%Parking In-Lieu Fees -99%1%1%1%1%1%Other Service Charges -101% -94500%1%1%1%1%Investment and Property Revenues -72%0%8%5% -55% -8%Fines and Forfeitures 16% -12%1%1%1%1%Other Revenues -100% #DIV/0!0%0%0%0%ExpendituresOperating ProgramsOperating Expenses 30% -16%2%3%5% 10%Retirement Contribution 2%3%3%2%Unfunded Liabilities 9% 13%7%7%CalPERS Discount Rate Cost 102% 128% 29%Capital Improvement Plan Projects 10760% -63% -20% 3442% -99% -50%
2017-19 Financial Plan Out-Year Fund Projections
Packet Pg 190
2
TRANSIT FUND FIVE-YEAR FORECAST
Actual 2015-16
Mid-Year Budget 2016-17 Projected 2017-18 Projected 2018-19 Projected 2019-20 Projected 2020-21 Projected 2021-22RevenuesInvestment and Property Revenues 11,203 5,800 5,800 5,800 5,800 5,800 5,800From Other GovernmentsTDA Revenues (LTF)1,312,716 1,286,625 1,299,676 1,299,676 1,299,676 1,299,676 1,299,676TDA Revenues (STA)162,418 159,890 154,027 152,748 151,482 150,228 148,987Other Grants*39,738 1,300,200 174,600 1,060,000 1,590,000 1,590,000 250,000FTA Grants 1,373,948 1,424,555 1,426,251 1,426,251 1,426,251 1,426,251 1,426,252Service Charges 658,601 690,381 721,757 723,778 739,384 755,414 755,414Other Revenues 868 4,600 6,600 6,600 6,600 6,600 6,600TOTAL REVENUES:3,559,492 4,872,051 3,788,712 4,674,853 5,219,193 5,233,969 3,892,729ExpendituresOperating ProgramsOperating Expenses 2,819,992 3,448,368 3,436,064 3,545,042 3,623,935 3,630,255 3,636,700Retirement Contribution 22,956 23,276 23,858 24,545 25,066Unfunded Liability 38,229 41,634 46,828 50,263 53,858Discount Rate Adjustment 1,884 3,823 8,526 10,555General Government 277,329 288,995 312,332 312,332 312,332 312,332 312,332Total Operating Programs 3,097,321 3,737,363 3,809,581 3,924,168 4,010,776 4,025,920 4,038,511Capital Improvement Plan Projects*131,999 1,657,388 338,317 1,141,570 1,700,523 1,615,982 276,001TOTAL EXPENDITURES:3,229,320 5,394,751 4,147,898 5,065,738 5,711,299 5,641,902 4,314,512Other Sources (Uses)Cashflow adjustment for working capitalOperating Transfers OutOther Sources (21,225)(4,200)(58,081)(79,101)(23,579)(23,579)(23,579)TOTAL OTHER SOURCES:(21,225)(4,200)(58,081)(79,101)(23,579)(23,579)(23,579)Revenues and Other Sources (Over/Under) 308,948 (526,900) (417,267) (469,985) (515,686) (431,513) (445,362)
Working Capital, Beginning of Year 2,825,195 3,134,143 2,607,243 2,189,976 1,719,990 1,204,305 772,792
Working Capital, End of Year Fund 3,134,143 2,607,243 2,189,976 1,719,990 1,204,305 772,792 327,431* Bus Replacements costs are equal to the Other Grant revenues. Should grant funding for bus replacements not become available, staff will explore other options, such as bus refurbishment, to extend the life of the buses.Revenue Assumptions: 0% increase in Federal Grants and 1% decrease in annual State Grants. An annual increase in Cal Poly Service Agreement. 9% increase in Fare Increase in 2017-18 and a 1% annual increase thereafter. Bus replacement grant revenue is assumed for each bus replacement.Expenditure Assumptions: 2% annual increase in staffing costs, 3% annual increase for contract services per agreement with First Transit, 3% annual increase for operational short range plan implementation
2017-19 Finacial Plan Out-Year Fund Projections
Packet Pg 191
2
TRANSIT FUND ASSUMPTIONS
Mid-Year Budget 2016-17 Projected 2017-18 Projected 2018-19 Projected 2019-20 Projected 2020-21 Projected 2021-22
RevenuesInvestment and Property Revenues -48.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%TDA Revenues (LTF)-2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%TDA Revenues (STA)-1.6% -3.7% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8%Other Grants*3171.9% -86.6% 507.1% 50.0% 0.0% -84.3%FTA Grants 3.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Service Charges 4.8% 4.5% 0.3% 2.2% 2.2% 0.0%Other Revenues 430.0% 43.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%ExpendituresOperating ProgramsOperating Expenses 22.3%-0.4%3.2%2.2%0.2%0.2%Retirement Contribution 1.4% 2.5% 2.9% 2.1%Unfunded Liability 8.9% 12.5% 7.3% 7.2%Discount Rate Adjustment 103.0% 123.0% 23.8%General Government 4.2%8.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Total Operating Programs 20.7%1.9%3.0%2.2%0.4%0.3%Capital Improvement Plan Projects 1155.6%-79.6%237.4%49.0%-5.0%-82.9%
2017-19 Finacial Plan Out-Year Fund Projections
Packet Pg 192
2
SEWER FUND FIVE-YEAR FORECAST2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22ActualBudgetBudgetBudgetBudgetBudgetBudget
REVENUES BY TYPESewer Service Charges 13,062,863$ 12,800,000$ 12,800,000$ 13,184,000$ 13,579,520$ 13,986,906$ 14,406,513$ Base Fee Revenue 1,447,669$ 1,491,100$ 1,501,464$ 1,557,100$ 1,614,724$ 1,674,403$ 1,736,210$ Cal Poly Sales 888,437$ 875,000$ 875,000$ 901,250$ 928,288$ 956,136$ 984,820$ Development Impact Fees 675,489$ 400,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$ Industrial User Charges 79,822$ 81,600$ 85,000$ 85,000$ 85,000$ 85,000$ 85,000$ Investment & Property Revenue 355,802$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ Proceeds from Debt Financing -$ -$ 19,500,000$ 56,500,000$ 35,000,000$ 29,000,000$ Miscellaneous 307,026$ 247,500$ 373,000$ 383,071$ 390,732$ 398,547$ 406,518$ TOTAL 16,817,108$ 15,945,200$ 35,484,464$ 72,960,421$ 51,948,264$ 46,450,992$ 17,969,061$
EXPENDITURE BY CATEGORYSalaries & Benefits 3,088,509$ 3,557,866$ 3,541,728$ 3,636,768$ 3,703,632$ 3,771,803$ 3,841,308$ PERS Normal Cost 1 541,531$ 821,024$ 291,128$ 280,832$ 317,000$ 354,503$ 361,593$ PERS Unfunded Liability 1,2 -$ -$ 486,836$ 528,916$ 603,550$ 675,398$ 744,864$ Operating Expenditures 2,388,767$ 3,527,565$ 3,000,534$ 3,068,754$ 3,114,785$ 3,161,507$ 3,208,930$ Capital Outlay 5,178,482$ 21,366,383$ 22,061,023$ 58,255,380$ 37,447,876$ 30,910,260$ 4,090,873$ Debt Service 1,437,543$ 1,435,589$ 1,433,709$ 1,431,006$ 4,468,004$ 4,470,107$ 7,548,013$ Transfers Out 2,069,099$ 2,081,360$ 2,373,206$ 2,494,751$ 2,215,578$ 2,257,950$ 2,301,169$ TOTAL 14,703,931$ 32,789,787$ 33,188,164$ 69,696,407$ 51,870,425$ 45,601,529$ 22,096,750$
EXPENDITURE BY FUNCTIONGeneral Government 2,143,573$ 2,155,530$ 2,447,392$ 2,568,373$ 2,247,786$ 2,290,002$ 2,333,422$ Wastewater Collection 2,927,473$ 12,233,582$ 4,410,586$ 3,480,835$ 3,985,403$ 3,676,599$ 5,996,288$ Environmental Compliance 236,987$ 260,393$ 265,608$ 279,856$ 324,621$ 299,385$ 307,590$ Water Resource Recovery 7,611,910$ 14,989,339$ 23,930,619$ 61,064,474$ 42,968,626$ 36,978,413$ 11,019,566$ Utilities Revenue -$ -$ 511,901$ 526,681$ 538,977$ 551,349$ 562,431$ Water Quality Lab 588,348$ 889,545$ 780,277$ 798,855$ 824,701$ 850,573$ 872,621$ Sewer Customer Service 350,279$ 503,636$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Wastewater Administration 845,361$ 1,757,762$ 841,781$ 977,333$ 980,311$ 955,208$ 1,004,831$ TOTAL 14,703,931$ 32,789,787$ 33,188,164$ 69,696,407$ 51,870,425$ 45,601,529$ 22,096,750$
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITIONWorking Capital - Beginning 27,071,809$ 28,917,309$ 12,072,722$ 14,101,344$ 17,097,682$ 16,907,843$ 17,489,629$ Revenues over (under) Expenditures 1,845,500$ (16,844,587)$ 2,028,623$ 2,996,338$ (189,839)$ 581,786$ (4,395,366)$ Working Capital - year End 28,917,309$ 12,072,722$ 14,101,344$ 17,097,682$ 16,907,843$ 17,489,629$ 13,094,263$
Operating Reserve 1,617,581$ 1,997,563$ 1,938,686$ 2,002,004$ 1,990,909$ 2,044,232$ 2,091,573$ Rate Stabilization 697,565$ 683,750$ 683,750$ 704,263$ 725,390$ 747,152$ 769,567$ Unreserved Working Capital - Year End 26,602,163$ 9,391,409$ 11,478,908$ 14,391,415$ 14,191,544$ 14,698,245$ 10,233,124$
1PERS Normal and Unfunded Liability costs include PERS Discount Rate Adjustments
2Prior to 2017/18, PERS Unfunded Liability costs were calculated as a percentage of total salaries. Beginning in 2017/18, Unfunded Liability costs are lump sum payments based on PERS Actuarial Valuation reports.
Packet Pg 193
2
SEWER FUND - FORECAST ASSUMPTIONS2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2019-20 2021-22BudgetBudgetBudgetBudgetBudgetBudgetREVENUES BY TYPESewer Service Charges -2.0%0.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%Base Fee Revenue 3.0%0.7%3.7%3.7%3.7%3.7%Cal Poly Sales -1.5%0.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%Development Impact Fees -40.8%-25.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Industrial User Charges 2.2%4.2%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Investment & Property Revenue -85.9%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%EXPENDITURE BY CATEGORYSalaries & Benefits 17.1%-0.7%3.9%1.8%1.8%1.8%PERS Normal Cost(including Discount Rate Adjust)53.3% -64.9% 6.8% 4.9% 13.5% 2.0%PERS Unfunded Liability(including Discount Rate Adjust)8.6% 16.2% 11.8% 10.2%Operating Expenditures 46.4%-14.1%2.3%1.5%1.5%1.5%Capital Outlay 312.2%-3.2%188.9%-36.9%-16.3%-89.0%EXPENDITURE BY FUNCTIONGeneral Government 0.6%13.5%4.9%-12.5%1.9%1.9%Wastewater Collection 318.5%-63.9%-20.6%17.2%-7.5%6.3%Environmental Compliance 10.7%2.5%6.4%15.5%-7.5%2.7%Water Resource Recovery 96.7%50.3%178.2%-31.3%-14.0%-67.7%Utilities Revenue 3.1%2.2%2.3%2.0%Water Quality Lab 52.2%-12.1%3.8%3.1%3.2%2.6%Wastewater Administration 108.4%-48.2%5.5%12.9%35.8%2.3%Other Inflators 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22Cost InflatorsMunicipal Code Index (MCI)2.7%2%2%2%2%2%Construction Cost Index (CCI)(U.S. Department of Commerce)3.9%Consumer Price Index (CPI)3.1%Producer Price Index (PPI)(Wholesale Price Index for Industrial Commodities)1.3%Salary Increases 2%2%2%2%
Sewer Rate IncreasesBase Fee $8.57$ 8.57$ 8.83$ 9.09$ 9.36$ 9.65$ Base Fee %3.0%0.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%Volumetric 3.0%0.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%Estimated # of meters 14,500 14,600 14,700 14,800 14,900 15,000
1MCI cost inflator used throughout the 5-Year Forecast since it is a more realistic depiction of anticipated expenditure growth in the Sewer Fund
Packet Pg 194
2
WATER FUND FIVE-YEAR FORECAST2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22CategoryBudgetBudgetBudgetBudgetBudget
REVENUES BY TYPEWater Services Charges 14,989,116$ 15,438,789$ 15,901,953$ 16,379,011$ 16,870,382$ Drought Surcharge Volumetric -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Base Fee Revenue 2,234,196$ 2,316,462$ 2,401,653$ 2,489,870$ 2,581,219$ Drought Surcharge - Base Fee -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cal Poly Sales 866,250$ 892,238$ 919,005$ 946,575$ 974,972$ Recycled Water 400,000$ 412,000$ 424,360$ 437,091$ 450,204$ Development Impact Fees 800,000$ 800,000$ 800,000$ 800,000$ 800,000$ AB 939 Reimbursement 145,000$ 147,900$ 150,858$ 153,875$ 156,953$ Investment & Property Revenue 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ Proceeds from Debt 8,500,000$ 16,300,000$ Miscellaneous 523,000$ 523,000$ 523,000$ 523,000$ 523,000$ TOTAL 20,007,562$ 29,080,388$ 37,470,828$ 21,779,422$ 22,406,729$
EXPENDITURE BY CATEGORYSalaries & Benefits 3,519,809$ 3,633,034$ 3,699,888$ 3,768,051$ 3,837,548$ PERS Normal Cost 1 294,796$ 302,479$ 324,056$ 362,213$ 369,457$ PERS Unfunded Liability 1,2 488,747$ 534,807$ 610,211$ 610,211$ 752,723$ Operating Expenditures 10,927,642$ 11,113,746$ 11,168,472$ 11,267,996$ 11,363,188$ Capital Outlay 3,303,762$ 9,448,925$ 17,165,287$ 2,785,848$ 2,178,419$ Debt Service 2,194,005$ 2,955,652$ 2,955,561$ 3,718,787$ 3,766,571$ Transfers Out 2,279,354$ 2,399,022$ 2,117,934$ 2,158,353$ 2,199,581$ TOTAL 23,008,114$ 30,387,664$ 38,041,410$ 24,671,459$ 24,467,488$
EXPENDITURE BY FUNCTIONGeneral Government 2,344,754$ 2,463,925$ 2,146,328$ 2,186,610$ 2,228,015$ Water Source of Supply 9,907,029$ 10,059,517$ 10,137,433$ 10,213,773$ 10,332,671$ Water Treatment 5,245,125$ 14,154,674$ 22,077,678$ 6,383,609$ 6,491,601$ Water Distribution 4,263,300$ 2,346,557$ 2,301,923$ 4,538,284$ 3,982,292$ Utilities Services 515,893$ 531,548$ 548,484$ 560,008$ 582,120$ Water Administration 728,413$ 831,443$ 829,564$ 789,175$ 850,789$ TOTAL 23,004,514$ 30,387,664$ 38,041,410$ 24,671,459$ 24,467,488$
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
Working Capital - Beginning 14,315,677$ 11,315,124$ 10,007,849$ 9,437,267$ 6,545,231$ Revenues over (under) Expenditure (3,000,553)$ (1,307,275)$ (570,582)$ (2,892,037)$ (2,060,759)$ Working Capital - Year End 11,315,124$ 10,007,849$ 9,437,267$ 6,545,231$ 4,484,472$
Operating Reserve 3,502,070$ 3,596,617$ 3,584,112$ 3,633,365$ 3,704,500$ Rate Stabilization 1,585,537$ 1,633,103$ 1,682,096$ 1,000,000$ Unreserved Working Capital - Year End 6,227,518$ 4,778,129$ 4,171,059$ 1,911,866$ 779,972$
1PERS Normal and Unfunded Liability costs include PERS Discount Rate Adjustments2Prior to 2017/18, PERS Unfunded Liability costs were calculated as a percetange of total salaries. Beginning in 2017/18, Unfunded Liability costs are lump sum payments
Packet Pg 195
2
WATER FUND ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22CategoryBudgetBudgetBudgetBudgetBudgetBudgetREVENUES BY TYPEWater Services Charges 0.0%15.3%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%Drought Surcharge Volumetric 12.0%-100.0%Base Fee Revenue 28.4%26.0%3.7%3.7%3.7%3.7%Drought Surcharge - Base Fee 94.9%-100.0%Cal Poly Sales -4.4%5.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%Recycled Water -2.4%-38.5%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%Development Impact Fees -41.6%-11.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%AB 939 Reimbursement 0.0%2.1%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%Investment & Property Revenue -83.6%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%Miscellaneous 0.6%98.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%EXPENDITURE BY CATEGORYSalaries & Benefits 26.0%2.0%3.2%1.8%1.8%1.8%PERS Normal Cost(including Discount Rate Adjust)56.3% -63.8% 8.1% 5.0% 13.8% 2.0%PERS Unfunded Liability(including Discount Rate Adjust)11.4% 14.1% 11.8% 10.2%Operating Expenditures 26.3%-10.5%1.7%0.5%0.9%0.8%Capital Outlay 217.5%-55.5%181.2%85.9%-85.1%2.0%Debt Service 0.1%0.0%34.7%0.0%25.8%1.3%Transfers Out 13.4%11.8%5.3%-11.7%1.9%1.9%EXPENDITURE BY FUNCTIONGeneral Government 12.9%11.4%5.1%-12.9%1.9%1.9%Water Source of Supply 31.5%-16.2%1.5%0.8%0.8%1.1%Water Treatment 40.3%-2.7%170.4%56.0%-71.0%1.2%Water Distribution 97.4%-33.3%-44.8%5.7%76.5%-9.1%Utilities Services 48.4%-44.5%3.5%13.8%-6.3%2.7%Water Administration 117.9%-50.3%2.3%15.8%-12.2%66.0%
Other Inflators 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22Cost InflatorsMunicipal Code Index1 2.7% 2%2% 2%2% 2%Construction Cost Index (U.S. Department of Commerce)3.9%Consumer Price Index 3.1%Producer Price Index (Wholesale Price Index for Industrial Commodities)1.3%Salary Increases 2%2%2%2%Water Rate IncreasesBase Fee $9.98 12.33 12.70 13.08 13.47 13.88Base Fee %30.8%23.5%3%3%3%3%Volumetric 0%5%3%3%3%3%Drought SurchargesBase Fee 8%3%3%3%3%Estimated # of meters 15,000 15,100 15,200 15,300 15,400 15,500
1MCI cost inflator used throughout the 5-Year Forecast since it is a more realistic depiction of anticipated expenditure growth in the Water Fund.
Packet Pg 196
2
Attachment B
Packet Pg 197
2
ATTACHMENT B:CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANThrough the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), the City systematically plans, schedules, and finances capital projects to ensure cost-effectiveness and conformance with established polices. Comprehensive policies governing the development and management of the CIP are set forth in the Policies and Objectives section of the Financial Plan (capital improvement management; capital financing and debt management) and in Section 1 of the CIP itself. All of the City's construction projects and equipment purchases costing $25,000 or more are included in the Capital Improvement Plan.
Introduction:
To assist the City Manager in developing the recommended CIP for the 2017-19 Financial Plan, a designated CIP Review Committee evaluated all departmental requests. In preparing the CIP recommendations, the review team considered the following evaluation factors in setting priorities:
1) Is the project mandated by the state or federal government? 2) Is there significant outside funding for the project? 3) Is it necessary to address an immediate public health or safety concern that cannot be deferred? 4) Is it necessary to adequately maintain existing facilities, infrastructure or equipment? 5) Does it implement a high priority Council goal for the 2017-19 Financial Plan period? 6) Will it result in significant operating savings in the future that makes a compelling case for making this investment solely on a financial basis?
Project Evaluation and Selection:
Table of Contents:
SECTION CONTENTS
Attachment B-1Governmental Funds - Summary of Proposed CIPs- CIP Write-UpsAttachment B-2Enterprise Funds - Summary of Proposed CIPs- CIP Write-UpsAttachment B-3Unfunded Projects
- List of Projects not Proposed for funding in 17/19 Financial Plan
Packet Pg 198
2
ATTACHMENT B:CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANThe CIP information provided under this section includes summary and detail for each project recommended, plus financial impacts and project year(s). The projects contained in the proposed plan for the next two fiscal years (2017-18 and 2018-19) are proposed for adoption with the budget.
2017/19 Financial Plan CIP Projects:
FUNDING SOURCE 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22General Fund $ 3,552,000 $ 3,852,300 $ 3,836,800 $ 3,550,000 $ 3,728,000 Debt Service Expenditures - General Fund $ 3,212,000 $ 3,122,000 $ 2,795,000 $ 2,391,000 $ 2,391,000 Information Technology Fund $ 725,755 $ 1,261,000 $ 525,000 $ 550,968 $ 579,000 Fleet Replacement Fund $ 1,373,000 $ 1,207,000 $ 784,000 $ 929,000 $ 522,000 Proceeds from Debt Financing - Fleet Replacement Fund $ (595,000) $ (624,000) $ - $ (410,000) $ - Major Facility Replacement Fund $ 513,900 $ 593,700 $ 806,900 $ 273,000 $ 147,200 Water Fund $ 3,303,762 $ 9,448,925 $ 17,165,287 $ 2,785,848 $ 2,178,419 Proceeds from Debt Financing - Water Fund $ - $ (8,500,000) $ (16,300,000) $ - $ -
Debt Service Expenditures - Water Fund $ 2,194,005 $ 2,955,652 $ 2,955,561 $ 3,718,787 $ 3,766,571 Sewer Fund $ 22,061,023 $ 58,255,380 $ 37,447,876 $ 30,910,260 $ 4,090,873 Proceeds from Debt Financing - Sewer Fund $ (19,500,000) $ (56,500,000) $ (35,000,000) $ (29,000,000) $ -
Debt Service Expenditures - Sewer Fund $ 1,433,709 $ 1,431,006 $ 4,468,004 $ 4,470,107 $ 7,548,013 Parking Fund $ 831,633 $ 668,854 $ 6,004,069 $ 70,633 $ 9,749 Proceeds from Debt Financing - Parking Fund $ - $ - $ (17,600,000) $ - $ -
Debt Service Expenditures - Parking Fund $ 967,400 $ 967,500 $ 2,047,500 $ 2,412,500 $ 2,409,300 Transit Fund $ 338,317 $ 1,141,570 $ 1,617,035 $ 1,615,982 $ 277,248 Whale Rock Fund $ 500,000 $ 57,292 $ 1,356 $ 409 $ 60,417 In-Lieu Fees $ 515,500 $ 2,125,547 $ 780,000 $ 90,000 $ 30,000 Grants $ 931,000 $ 17,687,453 $ 435,000 $ 640,500 $16,630,600
2017/19 PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECTS
Packet Pg 199
2
ATTACHMENT B-1:CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANGOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
Summary of Proposed 2017/19 Capital Improvement Plan Projects
Capital Improvement Plan Write-Ups:- By Department- By Fund
FUNDS INCLUDED:- General Fund- Information Technology Replacement Fund- Fleet Replacement Fund- Major Facility Replacement Fund
Packet Pg 200
2
Project Title Major City Goal / Other Important Objective (MCG/OIO) 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Small Bore Association Lead Abatement - Portion of the lead abadement of the gun range demolition as part of the Water Recovery Reclamation Facility Fiscal Sustainability & Responsibility $ 209,000
City/County Library Major Maint. & ADA Compliance: Replace the elevator, carpet and roof at the City/County Library as well as other various maintenance projects.405,300$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Public Art Fund: 1% of total CIP Budget 34,700$ 36,700$ 35,020$ 35,500$ 37,300$ Bob Jones Trail - Prefumo Creek Connection to Oceanaire: This project will construct the Bob Jones Trail from Calle Joaquin to Oceanaire Avenue past the Target shopping center. Multi-Modal Transportation -$ 216,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$
Design and Construct RRST Pepper Street to the Train Station: This project will complete a gap in the Railroad Safety Trail (RRST) from Pepper Street to the Train Station. In the FY 15-17 budget, a project was initiated to construct a segment of the RRST from California to Pepper Street. The new project will complete an on-street segment to extend the trail to the Train Station and connecting to the existing RRST segment beginning at the Jennifer Street Bridge.
Multi-Modal Transportation -$ 30,000$ 150,000$ -$ -$
Active Transportation Plan: This project will update and expand the Bicycle Transportation Plan scope to include pedestrians, creating an Active Transportation Plan that address both Bicycle and Pedestrian transportation. Multi-Modal Transportation 40,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Ongoing Open Space Maintenance: Continued implementation of the City’s adopted Open Space Maintenance Plan. Open space protection was a 2015-17 Major City Goal, is an important community objective, and acknowledged as a community funding priority in the adoption of Measure G. 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$
Fire Station 4 Emergency Backup Generator: The project includes replacing the existing emergency back-up generator at Fire Station 4 and constructing an aesthetic, soundproof concrete block wall enclosure away from the main building. 7,000$ 72,500$ -$ -$
Playground Equipment Replacement: Replacing playground equipment in the City’s parks limits the City’s liability exposure and keeps the City in compliance with State regulations. -$ 80,000$ 400,000$ 25,000$ 150,000$
Park Major Maintenance and Repairs: Parks require ongoing maintenance in order to continue to provide users a safe and quality experience. This master account provides ongoing funding for the maintenance and replacement of a wide variety of parks equipment and facilities 155,000$ 275,000$ 250,000$ 300,000$ -$
Bridge Maintenance: The City of San Luis Obispo has 38 vehicular brides and 11 pedestrian bridges ranging in age from one to 100+ years old. Bridges provide essential access and circulation for pedestrians, cyclists, vehicles, and even utilities over obstacles such as waterways, railroads, freeways, valleys and other obstructions.-$ 50,000$ 150,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$
Bridge Replacement - Madonna Road: The Madonna Road Bridge, east of Oceanaire Drive, was built in 1958. During an inspection by Caltrans in 2015, the bridge was classified as functionally obsolete because of non-standard bridge railing and non-standard approaches. -$ -$ -$ -$ 51,700$
Bridge Replacement - Chorro Street: The Chorro Street Bridge, near the intersection of Chorro and Lincoln streets, was built in 1935. During an inspection by Caltrans in 2015, the bridge was classified as functionally obsolete because of the bridges non-standard railing and non-standard approaches. -$ -$ -$ -$ 41,700$
Broad Street Corridor Access Improvements: This project will continue the work of the Broad Street Corridor Plan (BSCP) with a focus on identifying connectivity and safety improvements along Broad Street from South Street to Orcutt Road.Multi-Modal Transportation -$ -$ 45,000$ -$
City Facility Parking Lot Maintenance: The total area of City maintained parking lots is approximately 360,000 square feet or 8.3 acres. During a recent inspection only 50% of the lots surfaces were in good condition. In order to increase the percent of lot surfaces in good condition, regular maintenance needs to be completed. Preventive maintenance will provide the best long term solution in providing smooth pavement surfaces at the lowest overall cost. Parking lots have been assessed as to their current condition, and priority ranked considering conditions, along with use levels and safety concerns.
20,000$ 100,000$ -$ 100,000$ 200,000$
Mission Plaza Railing Upgrade: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Building Codes have changed since the time the railings in the Mission Plaza were installed. The vertical railing pickets of guard railing in public places are now required to be spaced apart such that a 4” diameter sphere cannot pass through the pickets. The majority of guard railing within the Mission Plaza area is non-compliant. While the guard railing is in place where needed, the vertical picket spacing ranges from 5” to almost 9”. This current spacing would not prevent a small child from going through the guard railing or getting stuck between the pickets.
Downtown Vitality -$ 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ 30,000$
Mission Plaza Restroom Replacements and Enhancements: Access to government facilities by people with disabilities is a fundamental goal of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). To ensure that this goal is met, Title II of the ADA requires State and local governments to make their programs and services accessible to persons with disabilities. In 2004 the City and the Department of Justice (DOJ) entered into an agreement to upgrade several restroom facilities to meet ADA requirements.
Downtown Vitality 25,000$ 125,000$ 1,100,000$
2017/19 PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECTSSUMMARY OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS
General Fund Capital Outlay
Packet Pg 201
2
Project Title Major City Goal / Other Important Objective (MCG/OIO) 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Transportation Safety & Operations: Analyzes high collision rate locations, ranks and prioritizes those locations, develops mitigation measures, and constructs them. Analyzes multimodal travel patterns and congestion levels, ranks and prioritizes those locations, develops mitigation measures, and constructs them. Conducts bi-annual traffic volume counts citywide to identify and monitor levels-of-service (LOS) on streets resulting from development and travel changes.
Multi-Modal Transportation 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$
Pedestrian and Bicycle Pathway Maintenance: There are approximately 6.5 miles of asphalt concrete pathways and bike paths within the City. Examples of these paths are the Railroad Safety Trail, the Bob Jones Trail, and various pathways located within City parks. These pathways are used by bicycles and pedestrians, along with occasional service vehicles. To maintain accessibility to the City’s facilities and reduce the risk of accidents, regular maintenance of pathways is important.
Multi-Modal Transportation 60,000$ 60,000$ 40,000$ 80,000$ 60,000$
Bicycle Facility Improvements: This funding allows the City to complete small-scale bicycle facility improvements in a cost efficient manner by incorporating them into larger projects such as the City’s annual pavement maintenance project. Multi-Modal Transportation 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$
Downtown Renewal: This work continues to improve the aesthetic of the downtown core. With each project, the addition of pedestrian lighting and conduits to support tree lighting and other Downtown Association activities is incorporated. Downtown Vitality 190,000$ 60,000$ -$
Sidewalk Replacement and Installation: The City has an established system of streets with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. The City’s sidewalk system is comprised of 202 miles of sidewalk and 2436 points at intersections where pedestrians cross the street. Repairs to the sidewalk system are often needed to mitigate displaced, broken, or settled sidewalk panels. New installations of sidewalk and curb ramps are required to continue the City’s program to provide a complete and assessable pedestrian path of travel.
Multi-Modal Transportation 25,000$ 50,000$ 25,000$ 150,000$ 100,000$
Street Reconstruction & Resurfacing: Pavement maintenance is an on-going need and provides increased roadway life and a smooth pavement surfaces. Deferring pavement maintenance results in pavement deterioration and higher pavement maintenance costs in the future.Multi-Modal Transportation 1,685,000$ 1,454,000$ 1,160,980$ 1,477,500$ 1,809,700$
Traffic Signs & Striping Maintenance: The City is responsible for maintenance of approximately 15,000 traffic signs. In January of 2008 the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) adopted a mandate requiring public agencies to maintain minimum retro-reflectivity level (how well light reflects off a sign). This budget is the City’s primary mechanism for implementing this federal mandate.
Multi-Modal Transportation 25,000$ 25,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$
New Street Lights: Currently the City does not have a funding source or program for responding to requests for new street lights. Straff is proposing to establish a new street light request program and master account to fill this need.
20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$
2015 Traffic Safety Report Implementation: As part of the 2015 Traffic Safety Report, the following three safety projects were identified 1) Marsh & Broad Traffic Signal ($175,000), 2. Laurel Lane Road Diet ($180,000), 3. Speed Feedback Signs ($60,000): The California Street approaches to Monterey have been identified as a top ranking collision location for vehicles and bicycles. This collision pattern is attributed to excessive speeding. Installing speed feedback devices to improve speed limit compliance is recommended as part of this project.
Multi-Modal Transportation - Primarily funded by State Grant 60,000$ -$ -$
Corporation Yard TI: The Corporation Yard, with most of the structures built over 30 years ago, is outdated in efficiency and in need of tenant improvements, especially to the Operation Center. With the expansion of the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF), certain Utility divisions and staff will be relocating from the Corporation Yard to the new WRRF facilities. This move lends itself to an opportune time to make improvements to the existing Corporation Yard facilities before they are occupied by other work groups.
-$ 50,000$ -$ -$
Open Space Acquisition: The City of San Luis Obispo continues to actively pursue land purchases and conservation easement acquisition opportunities to enhance the Greenbelt surrounding the City, protect watershed values and habitat connectivity opportunities, and provide passive recreation opportunities where appropriate and feasible in accordance with adopted policies pertinent to Open Space (i.e. Conservation and Open Space Element, Open Space ordinance).
100,000$ 100,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$
Silt Removal: Silt carried by storm water settles at points in the creek where the storm water’s velocity decreases. This reduction in velocity allows solids suspended in the water to settle out. As these deposits build up, the capacity of the creek decreases and risk of flooding of the surrounding areas increases. The regular removal of built up silt increases channel capacity and removes the conditions conducive for blocking flow.
75,000$ 150,000$ -$ -$ -$
Storm Drain System Replacement: This master CIP addresses capital maintenance of pipes, culvert and constructed drainage channels and is planned to replace or reconstruct failed facilities. Maintenance of the City’s storm drain system provides for increased flood protection and reduces the likelihood of loose of property. Storm Drain Systems are vital components to the City’s overall stormwater drainage system. These systems vary in age up to one hundred years and many are in need of maintenance or replacement. Without periodic maintenance and repair, these structures will eventually fail and result in unplanned street closures and impacts to the City’s stormwater drainage network.
171,000$ 537,800$ 636,000$ 636,600$
Packet Pg 202
2
Project Title Major City Goal / Other Important Objective (MCG/OIO) 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Police Station Replacement: The Department desperately needs a unified, accessible facility, which addresses needs for public service, security, vehicle parking and storage, as well as adequate space needs for staff members and safe vehicular entry/egress. Additionally, the facility must meet the California Building Code requirements for an Essential Services Building, the purpose of which is that such a facility be able to continue providing public service operations in the event of a natural disaster.
15,000$
Parks and Recreation Interior Office Rehabilitation: The rehabilitation of the interior of the Parks and Recreation office building is proposed and would include: new laminate flooring, appropriate furniture, and an IT infrastructure upgrade. The new office furniture would include a configuration to complement the department and increase communication and collaboration between the Parks and Recreation divisions. The IT department is recommending that the building’s outdated Ethernet cabling be upgraded to Category 6 cabling to meet future needs of the department and bring it to the current standard used in all other City facilities. Costs noted by Phase reflect Construction $40,000 (painting and flooring); Equipment Acquisition $50,000 (cubicle furniture); Computer Acquisition $21,000 (upgraded computer cabling). The project is recommended for construction in year 3 (2019-20) as the “wear and tear” simply cannot wait until year 5 (2021-22).
5,000$ 111,000$ -$ -$
Police Department Space Improvements - This project is to reallocate space in the Police Department lobby to effectively utilize available space and create additional work areas and offices which are greatly needed. In addition to the space improvements, the carpet within certain areas of the building needs replacement. 35,000$ 89,300$ 334,800$ -$ -$
$ 3,552,000 $ 3,852,300 $ 3,836,800 $ 3,550,000 $ 3,728,000
Project Title MCG/OIO 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 South Hills Radio Site Upgrade and Radio Enhancements (2 year project)254,255$ 183,582$ -$ -$ -$ SQL Server Cluster 100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Police Department SAN Controllers 80,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Radio Handhelds & Mobiles (Total Project Cost $508,045 GF)*180,000$ -$ 143,123$ 14,100$ 149,706$ Storage Capacity Replacement 85,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Public Surveillance Cameras (located at City Hall, Sinsheimer Pool, Golf Course)26,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Microsoft Office 365 125,350$ UPS Battery Backup System -$ 42,706$ -$ -$ -$ ECC Blade Computers (Total Project Cost $50,000 GF)-$ 4,317$ -$ -$ -$ ECC Equipment Replacement -$ 35,000$ -$ -$ -$ Tait Radio System Backend Upgrade -$ 508,045$ -$ -$ -$ Irrigation (Rainmaster/Rainbird) (Total Project Cost $35,000)-$ 12,000$ -$ -$ -$ Motion Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)350,000$ Firewall Replacement (Total Project $186,500)-$ -$ 154,863$ -$ -$ Network Security Upgrade -$ -$ 125,000$ -$ -$ Virtual Private Network Replace (VPN (Total cost $130,000)-$ -$ 102,014$ -$ -$ Dispatch Radio Consoles -$ -$ -$ 375,000$ -$ Audio Recording System Replacement (VoicePrint-Radio & 911)-$ -$ -$ 120,000$ -$ Server Operating System Software (Total Project $50,000)-$ -$ -$ 41,868$ -$ VoIP Telephone System (Total project $256,371 GF) moved from 2017-18 -$ -$ -$ 256,371$ Wireless System Citywide -$ -$ -$ -$ 50,217$ UPS Battery Backup System (Total Project $51,000)-$ -$ -$ -$ 42,706$ Police Department SAN Controllers (Storage Area Network)-$ -$ -$ -$ 80,000$ $ 725,755 $ 1,261,000 $ 525,000 $ 550,968 $ 579,000
Project Title MCG/OIO 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Fleet Replacement Projects 638,000$ 303,000$ 784,000$ 519,000$ 522,000$ Fleet Replacement Projects Debt Financed 595,000$ 829,000$ 410,000$ Green Fleet Vehicle Charging Stations 30,000$ 75,000$ Fleet Software 110,000$ $ 1,373,000 $ 1,207,000 $ 784,000 $ 929,000 $ 522,000
Project Title MCG/OIO 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Facility Replacement Projects 513,900$ 593,700$ 806,900$ 273,000$ 147,200$ $ 513,900 $ 593,700 $ 806,900 $ 273,000 $ 147,200 2,612,655$ 3,061,700$ 2,115,900$ 1,752,968$ 1,248,200$ Total Governmental Capital Improvement Funds
IT Replacement Fund (GF)
Fleet Replacement Fund (GF)
Major Facility Replacement Fund (GF)
Total Proposed Major Facility Replacement Fund
Total Proposed Fleet Replacement Fund
Total Proposed Information Technology Fund
Total Proposed General Fund Capital Outlay
Packet Pg 203
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – CULTURE & RECREATION CITY/COUNTY LIBRARY MAJOR MAINTENANCE – FY 2017-18 Project Description Community Priority ☒ New Project ☐ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☒ Measure G Priority: Parks and Recreation/Senior Programs and Facilities Purpose and Need This CIP requests the allocation of $405,326 (exact costs still being determined) to replace the elevator, carpet and roof at the City/County Library as well as other various maintenance projects. On June 5th, 2015 the County of San Luis Obispo contacted the City to provide notification that the hydraulic elevator had reached the end of its useful life and required replacement in the 2015-16 fiscal year. The letter stated: “The County of San Luis Obispo contracted with Van Deusen & Associates (VDA) to conduct a county wide survey of all existing County public elevators and to evaluate each based on applicable industry and Code standards. While the elevator at the Library is in satisfactory shape it is technologically obsolete using older controls, incandescent bulbs for lighting, not compliant with newer Elevator Safety Orders, Firefighters’ Service enhancement, requires the installation of seismic protection and has additional issues with disabled access.” The City was later notified that the elevator replacement cost constituted a “trigger event” that required the building to come into compliance with current ADA standards. In addition, it was determined by the County that the elevator replacement project would be completed at the same time as a broader remodel of the library to achieve operational efficiencies. The remodel would include replacement of carpeting due to the age of carpet and need to be replaced as a part of the ADA compliance projects. On February 3, 2017, the County of San Luis Obispo contacted the City to provide notification that the roof would need to be replaced in 2016-17 based on their facility condition assessment and leaks from the recent storms. The City and County have a JPA regarding the City/County Library that has specific provisions for joint funding on major maintenance. Major maintenance is considered any one-time repair that exceeds $36,000. Major maintenance requires joint approval before proceeding and is to be funded equally from the City and the County. Staff feels the elevator replacement, carpet replacement, roof replacement and ADA compliance projects meet the standards for cost-shared major maintenance. The City will not be sharing in the costs for any expenses related to the remodel. Construction began in October 2016 for the elevator, carpet and remodel and will be complete in February 2017. Total elevator replacement costs: $235,367 Total flooring replacement costs: $133,707 Packet Pg 2042
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – CULTURE & RECREATION Anticipated roofing costs (including other related maintenance): $264,512 Overhead (project management and contingency): $176,905 Total: $810,491 City Share: $405,246 Building maintenance has included $55,000 to replace all the HVAC equipment in the City’s areas of responsibility in a current CIP request. Some of this funding could be used to cover the City/County Library project costs. Status This is a new project not included in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. Project Team Lead Department: Administration and Public Works Operating Program Number & Title: 11100 Cultural Activities Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours City Liaison Administration – Greg Hermann 40 Technical Expert Public Works – Andrew Collins 40 Site List – For multi-year projects Location Estimated Year of Construction Pavement Area (for projects in right-of-way) 995 Palm Street 1989 Packet Pg 2052
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – CULTURE & RECREATION Anticipated Facility Life Span: A previous assessment stated the City/County Library has a current life span of at least 50 years. Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalConstruction (953)$405,300$405,300Total$0 $405,300$0$0$0$0 $405,300Ongoing Costs by TypeBudget to Date2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalUtilities$0Maintenance Materials$0Staff$0Contract Services$0Total$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalGeneral Capital Outlay$405,300$405,300Total$0 $405,300$0$0$0$0 $405,300 Packet Pg 2062
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION – FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19 Project Description Community Priority ☒ Real Property Acquisition - Ongoing ☐ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☐ Measure G Priority: Open Space Acquisition Purpose and Need The City of San Luis Obispo continues to actively pursue land purchases and conservation easement acquisition opportunities to enhance the Greenbelt surrounding the City, protect watershed values and habitat connectivity opportunities, and provide passive recreation opportunities where appropriate and feasible in accordance with adopted policies pertinent to Open Space (i.e. Conservation and Open Space Element, Open Space ordinance). The Council has consistently supported funding for such efforts, particularly when City funds are leveraged with the outside grant funding that is necessary to achieve project success. The City has the opportunity to pursue voluntary land conservation opportunities in the Cuesta Canyon area of the City’s Greenbelt by working cooperatively with the property owners to acquire and protect portions of the Ahearn Family Ranch, as well as pursue possible additions to other existing open space properties through partnered efforts to protect larger landscapes including headwaters to several perennial streams and valuable habitat areas. Open space acquisition was an important community benefit acknowledged in the successful campaign for Measure G in 2014, and according to the LUCE Survey remains a top priority for residents. Status This is an existing project shown in the 2015-17 Financial Plan as the Major City Goal: Open Space Protection: Acquisition – Specification No. 99837. Funding was approved in the amount of $250,000 per year in the 2015-17 Financial Plan period. Project Team Lead Department: City Administration Operating Program Number & Title: 11250 Natural Resources Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Manager Natural Resources 500 per year Project Support Natural Resources 100 per year Project Support Ranger Services 100 per year Technical Studies Natural Resources 100 per year Contract Management Natural Resources 100 per year Environmental Community Development 20 per year Packet Pg 2072
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION – FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19 Anticipated Facility Life Span: Real property interests acquired for conservation and open space purposes are typically expected to be managed and held in perpetuity. Ongoing Costs following Open Space Acquisition are handled under Natural Resources and Ranger Service Operating Budgets, as well as the Open Space Maintenance CIP. An additional CIP has been proposed and would be necessary following a successful acquisition of the Ahearn Family Ranch, but prior to opening the property to the public, in order to implement measures designed to protect and steward conservation values identified through the Conservation Plan process. Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalLand Acquisition (950)$500,000 $75,000 $2,600,000$250,000 $225,000$3,650,000Study (951)$25,000$25,000$50,000Total$500,000 $100,000 $2,600,000$0 $250,000 $250,000 $3,700,000Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalGeneral Capital Outlay$500,000 $100,000 $100,000$0 $250,000 $250,000$1,200,000Grant$2,500,000$2,500,000Total$500,000 $100,000 $2,600,000$0 $250,000 $250,000 $3,700,000 The Open Space Acquisition CIP functions somewhat differently than others. Historically, CIP funds have been budgeted and appropriated annually to accrue in the Open Space Acquisition Fund No. 430 until such time as an important acquisition project opportunity can be consummated. The Natural Resources Program anticipates a major open space acquisition project to be completed in 2018-19 using a combination of City Open Space Acquisition funds and state grants funds, most likely a combination of grant facilities awarded through the State Coastal Conservancy, the California Wildlife Conservation Board, and the California Natural Resources Agency. If grant funding is not immediately successful, program staff would continue to diligently pursue grant funding, or potentially pursue a phased or smaller project within available financial resources. Packet Pg 2082
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – COMMUNITY SAFETY FIRE STATION 4 EMERGENCY BACKUP GENERATOR, FY 2017-18 Project Description Community Priority ☒ New Fleet/Equipment Request ☐ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☐ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need The project includes replacing the existing emergency back-up generator at Fire Station 4 and constructing an aesthetic, soundproof concrete block wall enclosure away from the main building. The expected cost for this work is $7,000 for design in FY 2017-18, and $72,500 for construction (including purchase of the generator and associated equipment) and construction management in FY 2018-2019. The new 50 kW generator will provide reliable emergency back-up electrical power for all electrical circuits at Fire Station 4, since this is a critical facility requiring a higher degree of reliability during an outage or major emergency. In 1978 Fire Department personnel installed an extremely small capacity (4 kW) gasoline-powered recreational vehicle-grade emergency generator to provide back-up power in the case of power failure. This generator is extremely old and is only capable of providing power to a handful of electrical circuits at the fire station. The existing generator can only power minimal lighting and the emergency radio system, not enough to permit continuous operations during an outage. Since the original installation, several other electrical demands have been added to that generator. The current generator is over 38 years old and doesn’t meet current emission standards. Additionally, replacement parts are no longer available for this generator. This is the last back-up generator in the four fire station system needing replacement to meet modern demands. The Fire Department has been requesting replacement of this generator for 12 years. The need to replace this generator persists and is now exacerbated by the difficulty in repairing this generator. Status This is a new project not included in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. Project Team Lead Department: Fire Operating Program Number & Title: 85600 Disaster Preparedness Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Management Public Works- Engineering 80 Environmental Clearance Community Development- Planning 16 Project Inspection Public Works- Inspection 120 Project Inspection Community Development- Building 16 Project Administration Public Works- Administration 80 Packet Pg 2092
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – COMMUNITY SAFETY FIRE STATION 4 EMERGENCY BACKUP GENERATOR FY 2017-18 Anticipated Facility Life Span: 50 years Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalDesign (952)$7,000$7,000Construction (953)$70,000$70,000Const. Management (954)$2,500$2,500Total$0 $7,000 $72,500$0$0$0 $79,500Ongoing Costs by TypeBudget to Date2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalUtilities$0Maintenance Materials$0Staff$0Contract Services$0Total$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalGeneral Capital Outlay$7,000 $72,500$79,500Total$0 $7,000 $72,500$0$0$0 $79,500 Packet Pg 2102
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – CULTURE & RECREATION MISSION PLAZA EXTENSION SECURITY LIGHTING – FY 2017-18 Project Description Community Priority ☒ Rehabilitation or Replacement ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☒ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need The Mission Plaza Extension Park (Park) is located just south of Broad Street along the San Luis Creek corridor. The Park pathway starts at Broad Street and connects with a pedestrian bridge to Higuera Street and outlets on Nipomo Street. The Park contains pathways and minor amounts lighting. The Police Department has received complaints from citizens, tourists, and businesses that occupy the neighboring area about the loitering and general safety concerns. The Police and Public Works departments have worked in tandem to perform regular visual inspections and maintenance work to increase visibility. However, the majority of the quality of life and criminal issues are occurring in the dusk to night time hours. From August 2015 to August 2016, there have been 115 citations, drug, alcohol and lodging issues. Additionally, there have been 40 arrests for public intoxication, drugs offenses, thefts and disorderly conduct. Input from community forums indicates that the poor lighting is a concern for many nighttime users. The Park is avoided at night because the current lighting does not provide a level of comfort for users. The poor lighting levels provide many shadow areas, which attracts antisocial behavior and gives a general sense of uneasiness to park users. Therefore, this project consists of the replacement and rehabilitation of the existing Mission Plaza Extension lighting. The current lighting consists of both pathway and pole mounted lights. The pathway lights consist of fixtures that light the pathway. The overhead lighting is mounted on poles, are limited in brightness and have wide spacing. This project will look at replacement of the existing fixtures with new lighted bollards, pole mounted luminaires, or other appropriate fixtures to increase security lighting. The lighting is planned to be energy efficient, designed to be sensitive to the creek habitat, and provide enhanced lighting for safety and security. Status This is a new project not included in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. Project Team Lead Department: Public Works Operating Program Number & Title: 50200 – Landscaping and Parks Maintenance Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Proponent Police Sargent 10 Project Management CIP Engineering - Design 100 Construction Management CIP Engineering – Construction 80 Project Administration CIP Engineering - Admin 40 Packet Pg 2112
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – CULTURE & RECREATION MISSION PLAZA EXTENSION SECURITY LIGHTING 2017-19 Anticipated Facility Life Span: 15 years Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalDesign (952)$0 $30,000 $0$0 $0$0$30,000Construction (953)$0$120,000$0 $0$0$120,000Const. Management (954)$0$10,000$0 $0$0$10,000Total$0 $30,000 $130,000$0 $0$0 $160,000Ongoing Costs by TypeBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalUtilities$0Maintenance Materials$0Staff$0Contract Services$0$0Total$0 $0 $0$0 $0$0$0Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalGeneral Capital Outlay$0 $30,000 $130,000$0 $0$0$160,000Total$0 $30,000 $130,000$0 $0$0 $160,000 Packet Pg 2122
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – CULTURAL & RECREATION MISSION PLAZA RAILING UPGRADE – FY 2017-18 THROUGH FY 2021-22 Project Description Community Priority ☒ Rehabilitation or Replacement ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☒ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Building Codes have changed since the time the railings in the Mission Plaza were installed. The vertical railing pickets of guard railing in public places are now required to be spaced apart such that a 4” diameter sphere cannot pass through the pickets. The majority of guard railing within the Mission Plaza area is non-compliant. While the guard railing is in place where needed, the vertical picket spacing ranges from 5” to almost 9”. This current spacing would not prevent a small child from going through the guard railing or getting stuck between the pickets. This project will modify or replace approximately 160 lineal feet of Mission Style railing annually for code compliance. In some areas, the pickets are spaced wide enough such that an intermediate picket can be welded in between the existing pickets without having to replace the entire metal panel. Other areas will require complete panel replacement as the pickets are too close for insertion of an intermediate picket. There are a couple of locations where complete replacement of railing and posts is necessary since they are made entirely of wood railing that is deteriorated and in non-compliance with ADA. Status This is an existing project shown in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. Project Team Lead Department: Public Works Operating Program Number & Title: 50200 Landscape and Park Maintenance Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Proponent Administration8 per projectProject Management CIP Engineering - Design80 per projectConstruction Management CIP Engineering - Inspection80 per projectContract Administration CIP Engineering - Administration40 per projectProject Maintenance Parks Maintenance16 per project Anticipated Facility Life Span: 25 years Packet Pg 2132
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – CULTURAL & RECREATION Anticipated Facility Life Span: 25 years Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalConstruction (953)$120,000$30,000$30,000 $30,000$210,000Total$120,000 $0 $30,000$0 $30,000 $30,000 $210,000Ongoing Costs by TypeBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalUtilities$0Maintenance Materials$0Staff$0Contract Services$0Total$0 $0 $0$0 $0$0$0Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalGeneral Capital Outlay$120,000$30,000$30,000 $30,000$210,000Total$120,000 $0 $30,000$0 $30,000 $30,000 $210,000 Packet Pg 2142
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY MISSION PLAZA RESTROOM REPLACEMENT AND ENHANCMENTS - FY 2017-18 THROUGH FY 2021-22 Project Description Community Priority ☒ Rehabilitation or Replacement ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☒ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need The Mission Plaza is a unique focal point and vibrant area in the downtown. The Mission Plaza hosts numerous daytime visitors, evening activities, and special events. The Mission Plaza restroom was built in 1969 and remodeled in 1995. The existing facility does not meet the needs of Mission Plaza users. The toilets commonly backup and the number of fixtures is inadequate for the events that take place at the Mission Plaza. Numerous complaints are received on a regular basis about restroom odor even immediately after they have been cleaned. Currently the Mission Plaza Concept Plan is in draft form. The draft concept plan identifies the location for the restroom but it is not part of that plan. The concept plan provides general guidance that a new structure should be constructed that include a restroom, equipment storage and a café. This project will complete a conceptual design, environmental review, design and construction of a building for these purposes. Status This is an existing project shown in the 2015-17 Financial Plan and enhanced to include a café. Project Team Lead Department: Public Works Operating Program Number & Title: 50200 – Landscape and Park Maintenance Packet Pg 2152
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY MISSION PLAZA RESTROOM REPLACEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT - FY’s 2017-18 THROUGH FY 2021-22 Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Management CIP Engineering – Design 250 hours/year Permits and Environmental Review Community Development 40 hours/year Construction Management CIP Engineering – Construction 150 hours/year Maintenance – Plan Review Building Maintenance 10 hours/year Project Proponent – Project Scoping Parks and Recreation, Administration 40 hours/year Project Administration CIP Engineering - Administration 40 hours/year Anticipated Facility Life Span: 50 years Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalStudy (951)$25,000$25,000Design (952)$80,000$20,000$100,000Construction (953)$1,000,000$1,000,000Const. Management (954)$100,000$100,000Environmental Review (957)$25,000$25,000Total$80,000 $25,000 $45,000 $1,100,000 $0$0 $1,250,000Ongoing Costs by TypeBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalTotal$0 $0 $0$0 $0$0$0Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalGeneral Capital Outlay$80,000 $25,000 $125,000 $1,100,000$1,330,000Total$80,000 $25,000 $125,000 $1,100,000 $0$0 $1,330,000 Existing design funding in the amount of $80,000, budgeted in 2016-17, is available in the Mission Plaza Restroom Replacement project account and is proposed to be augmented with $20,000 in year 2018-19. Packet Pg 2162
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION DOWNTOWN RENEWAL – FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19, FY 2019-20 Project Description Community Priority ☒ Rehabilitation or Replacement ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☒ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need This work continues to improve the aesthetic of the downtown core. With each project, the addition of pedestrian lighting and conduits to support tree lighting and other Downtown Association activities is incorporated. Higuera – Morro to Chorro The sidewalk in front of 858 Higuera; which, doubles as the roof of the basement for this building, is deteriorating and needs to be replaced. Sections of concrete have spalled exposing the rebar underneath, this condition will eventually result in failure of the sidewalk/basement-roof and require sidewalk closure if no action is taken. This portion of work was left unfinished during the 2012 sidewalk replacement work in the downtown core, due to insufficient funds and incomplete design work. The construction phase for this work is anticipated to cost $160,000. Higuera – Osos to Morro A significant portion of this block of Higuera Street between Osos and Morro has Mission Style Sidewalks. This projects work can leverage existing sidewalk that is in place to finish another block of renewed infrastructure in the downtown. The construction phase for this work is anticipated to cost $370,000. Future Projects Future projects include continuing to place and/or replace damaged sections of Mission Style sidewalks in the downtown core including Monterey Street from Osos to Morro, Monterey Street from Morro to Chorro (not including China Town sidewalk), and Chorro Street from Palm to Monterey (west sidewalk only). These streets were identified in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. These project costs for design, construction, and construction management are not included within this request, but identify for future consideration. Status This is an existing project shown in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. The design work for 858 Higuera Street is complete, with the exception of minor updates due to new building codes. Project Team Lead Department: Public Works Operating Program Number & Title: 50300 Street and Sidewalk Maintenance Packet Pg 2172
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION Construction Management CIP Engineering - Inspection 200 hours Contract Administration CIP Engineering - Administration 40 hours Site List – For multi-year projects Location Estimated Year of Construction Project Costs Higuera – Morro to Chorro 2017-18 $190,00 Higuera – Osos to Morro 2019-20 $440,000 Monterey – Osos to Morro Future $220,000 Monterey – Morro to Chorro (Not including the China Town sidewalk) Future $220,000 Chorro – Palm to Monterey (West sidewalk only) Future $200,000 Anticipated Facility Life Span: 50 years Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalDesign (952)$6,000$60,000$66,000Construction (953)$160,000$160,000Const. Management (954)$30,000$30,000Total$6,000 $190,000 $0$0 $60,000$0 $256,000Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalGeneral Capital Outlay$6,000 $190,000$60,000$256,000Total$6,000 $190,000 $0$0 $60,000$0 $256,000 Packet Pg 2182
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
CALIFORNIA TAFT ROUNDABOUT - FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19
Project Description Community Priority
☒ New Project ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives
☒ Measure G Priority
Purpose and Need
As part of the City’s General Plan Update & Cal Poly Housing South Environmental Impact Reports the
intersection of California & Taft has been identified as operating with excessive congestion, level of service F,
during peak hours. This level of congestion exceeds the City’s general plan thresholds. In addition to operational
deficiencies this intersection also experiences a high rate and severity of collisions. In the last five years there
have been approximately 30 traffic collisions, approximately 20 resulted in injuries and of those 8 involved
pedestrians or cyclists. Roundabout control is projected to reduce congestion , operate at a level of service A,
and mitigate the rate and severity of traffic collisions. Roundabout control at this location will also provide key
bicycle and pedestrian connection to the Railroad Safety Trail furthering the City’s modal split objectives and
improving the aesthetics of the area providing opportunities for enhanced landscaping and public ar t.
The intersection of California & Taft has been a top ranking priority for traffic congestion and traffic safety improvements for several years. When presented to the
Council as part of the City Annual Traffic Safety Program there was interest from the Council in accelerating the project, therefore staff is presenting this request at
this time.
Status
This is an existing project shown in the 2016-17 Budget Supplement.
Project Team
Lead Department: Public Works
Operating Program Number & Title: 50500-Transportation Planning and Engineering
Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours
Project Proponent Transportation Planning & Eng. 10
Project Manager Transportation Planning & Eng. 200
Environmental Clearance Community Development 1
Contract Management Transportation Planning & Eng. 100
Construction Management CIP Engineering – Construction 50
Packet Pg 219
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
CALIFORNIA TAFT ROUNDABOUT - FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19
Anticipated Facility Life Span:
Initial Projects Costs by Phase
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Land Acquisition (950)$60,000 $60,000
Design (952)$200,000 $200,000
Construction (953)$1,000,000 $1,000,000
Total $200,000 $60,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,260,000
Ongoing Costs by Type
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Contract Services $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $3,000
Total $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $3,000
Project Funding by Source
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
General Capital Outlay $200,000 $200,000
Impact/In-Lieu Fees $97,547 $97,547
Grant $60,000 $902,453 $962,453
Total $200,000 $60,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,260,000
Packet Pg 220
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
HIGUERA STREET WIDENING: BRIDGE TO ELKS & FONTANA TO CHUMASH - FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19
Project Description Community Priority
☒ Rehabilitation or Replacement ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives
☒ Measure G Priority
Purpose and Need
Higuera Street from Bridge Street to Elks Lane and Fontana to Chumash is currently four lanes with a center
turn lane with the exception of a 200’ roadway section in front of 2995 Higuera Street (Kokkonen Apartments)
and 2963 Higuera Street (San Luis Veterinary Clinic), which narrows to a single northbound lane. Current
northbound Higuera Street traffic must merge into one lane for this short section then return to the two lane
section. Over the course of the last ten years this section of road has experienced 12 traffic collisions. Widening
Higuera Street will correct existing collision pattern and complete this small remaining section of narrow
roadway.
The sidewalk is discontinuous and requires pedestrians to either walk in the dirt area or along the street shoulder. In rainy weather, this area becomes muddy and is
difficult to walk through. Finally, the sidewalk is narrow south of this location and the existing bus shelter is very narrow and not ADA compliant. Widening of the
sidewalk area will provide adequate width for through pedestrian movements around the shelter.
The project is eligible for partial use of transportation impact fees being collected from development however, TIF cannot be used to fund the entire project. This
CIP proposed an approximate 80/20 split between TIF and General Funds. This is due to the substantial benefit to Multimodal improvements with the completion of
the sidewalk, permanent placement of the transit shelter along with ADA compliance, and the widening of the bicycle lane across this segment.
Status
This is a new project not included in the 2015-17 Financial Plan.
Project Team
Lead Department: Public Works
Operating Program Number & Title: 50500 – Transportation Planning & Engineering
Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours
Project Manager Transportation – Design 200
Environmental Clearance Community Development 10
Contract Management Transportation – Administration 40
Construction Management CIP Engineering – Construction 60
Packet Pg 221
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
HIGUERA STREET WIDENING: BRIDGE TO ELKS & FONTANA TO CHUMASH, FY 2017-18 and 2018-19
Anticipated Facility Life Span: Roadway sections are designed for a 20 year lifespan. Concrete improvements can last up to 100 years depending upon use and
adjacent improvements.
Initial Projects Costs by Phase
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Design (952)$35,000 $35,000
Construction (953)$300,000 $300,000
Const. Management (954)$30,000 $30,000
Total $0 $35,000 $330,000 $0 $0 $0 $365,000
Ongoing Costs by Type
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Utilities $0
Maintenance Materials $0
Staff $0
Contract Services $0
Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Project Funding by Source
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Impact/In-Lieu Fees $35,500 $330,000 $365,500
Total $0 $35,500 $330,000 $0 $0 $0 $365,500
Packet Pg 222
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
ORCUTT & TANK FARM ROUNDABOUT - FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19
Project Description Community Priority
☒ New Project ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives
☒ Measure G Priority
Purpose and Need
As part of the City’s General Plan Update & Orcutt Area specific plan the intersection of Orcutt and Tank Farm
has been identified for control upgrades. In recent years’ traffic congestion at this intersection has significantly
increased and with residential development underway this will be a need to provide improved access to Islay
park. Therefore, staff is proposing to move forward with installing roundabout control at this intersection.
This project is included in the Orcutt Area specific plan impact fee program and is proposed to be funded with
development impact fees however, the General Fund of TIF needs to advance the design funding for the project
and be reimbursed by OASP fees as they are collected. If design can be completed by 2018, construction can
occur as part of development of the latter phased of the Righetti subdivision.
Status
This is a new project proposed for FY 2017-19
Project Team
Lead Department: Public Works
Operating Program Number & Title: 50500-Transportation Planning and Engineering
Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours
Project Proponent Transportation Planning & Eng. 10
Project Manager Transportation Planning & Eng. 200
Environmental Clearance Community Development 1
Contract Management Transportation Planning & Eng. 100
Construction Management CIP Engineering – Construction 50
Packet Pg 223
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
ORCUTT & TANK FARM ROUNDABOUT - FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19
Anticipated Facility Life Span:
Initial Projects Costs by Phase
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Design (952)$100,000 $100,000
Construction (953)$0
Const. Management (954)$0
Site Preparation (955)$0
Equipment Acquisition (956)$0
Environmental Review (957)$0
Computer Acquisition (963)$0
Public Art (965)$0
Total $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000
Ongoing Costs by Type
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Utilities $0
Maintenance Materials $0
Staff $0
Contract Services $0
Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Project Funding by Source
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
General Capital Outlay $0
Impact/In-Lieu Fees $100,000 $100,000
Total $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000
Packet Pg 224
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
Note: This project is eligible to be funded by Orcutt Area Specific Plan Fees however, fee collection will not occur in time to complete design of the
project. In order to complete the project design in time to have development include the work in its patter phases, t he City may need to advance design
funding in FY 2017-18 and reimburse that amount from OASP fees as they are collected.
Packet Pg 225
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS - PENNY LANE BRIDGE AT UPRR – FY 2018-19
Project Description Community Priority
☒ New Project ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives
☒ Measure G Priority
Purpose and Need
This project will conduct a project study report into the feasibility of installing a bridge at the Penny Street
crossing of the Union Pacific Railroad as part of bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The project is currently
in the adopted Bicycle Plan as well as identified in the Railroad Safety Trail Plan.
Currently pedestrians and bicyclists traveling between the Johnson Avenue residential areas and Downtown
cross the railroad at two locations. First is the narrow Johnson Road undercrossing where the grades of the street
can make it difficult to ride bicycles up and down the street. A second location is the illegal crossing at Penny
Lane where the old Penny Lane bridge used to exist. This bridge was previously removed in exchange for getting
the Johnson Street underpass built by the railroad.
Due to higher traffic volumes along Johnson Avenue, pedestrians often use the bridge at Johnson as well as the slopes at Penny Lane to cross the tracks and then
access Johnson Avenue at the traffic Signal at Lizzie.
French hospital has recently completed a new medical office building on their properties. As part of that project a new class I bike path was built from their parking
lot to Fairview. This access sets the stage for the final completion of a class I facility from Johnson Avenue down to Fairview, across a new Penny Lane Bridge and
then into Downtown.
The project study report will analyze the issues associated with pursuing completion of the Penny Lane Bridge including: permitting requirements from UPRR as
well as the PUC, an engineering study of the bridge design and structural needs, any easement requirements, adjacent property issues and construc tion cost estimates.
The project is TIF eligible but may ultimately compete well for construction grant funding at the regional and state level.
Status
This is an existing project shown in the 2015-17 Financial Plan.
Project Team
Lead Department: Public Works
Operating Program Number & Title: 50500 Transportation Planning & Engineering
Assignment Program Estimated Hours
Project Proponent Traffic Engineering 40
Packet Pg 226
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
Assignment Program Estimated Hours
Project Manager CIP Engineering – Design 40
Environmental Clearance Community Development 3
BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS - PENNY LANE BRIDGE AT UPRR
Anticipated Facility Life Span:
Initial Projects Costs by Phase
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Study (951)$50,000 $50,000
Total $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $50,000
Ongoing Costs by Type
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Utilities $0
Maintenance Materials $0
Staff $0
Contract Services $0
Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Project Funding by Source
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Impact/In-Lieu Fees $50,000 $50,000
Total $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $50,000
Packet Pg 227
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
PRADO ROAD BRIDGE & ROAD WIDENING - FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19
Project Description Community Priority
☒ New Project ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives
☒ Measure G Priority
Purpose and Need
Prado Road between Higuera & Highway 101 is currently widened to accommodate four lanes with the
exception of the San Luis Creek Bridge and a 500’ section along the frontage of the water treatment facility
which limits Prado to two lanes along this segment. This section of Prado is identified for widening to four
lanes as part of the City’s Circulation Element and incorporated into the Transportation Impact Fee Program.
Also this widening is assumed as a funded and completed project in Environmental Impacts Reports (EIR) for
projects within the vicinity, in particular recent developments within the Margarita Area, Airport Area, and the
Chevron remediation and development project. Widening of this bridge is a prerequisite for t he mitigation
measures and traffic improvements associated with those projects to actually achieve the intended mitigation
outcome. One example of the situation is that EIR’s in the vicinity call for the installation of a dual northbound left turn lane at Prado & Higuera, without the bridge
being widened the second left turn lane would have no place go and therefore could not be provided to actually achieve the mitigation. If this project is differed and
not completed before projects in these areas are ready to begin occupying, the mitigation conditions of those projects will not be achievable and may result in delays
in approving occupancy. Also if this project is not completed it is expected that traffic operations and safety at the intersection of Prado and Higuera will degrade to
beyond acceptable levels as established in the City’s Circulation Element as well as congestion impacts at the Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna Road, Highway
101 interchanges.
Status
This is an existing project shown in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. The City will pursue grants and/or debt financing to cover the future construction costs which are
estimated to be $9.0 million in 2018-19. Funding to begin this project was originally requested as part of the 2001-03 Financial Plan but because of limited
development activity in the Margarita and Airport Areas at that time the project was differed.
Project Team
Lead Department: Public Works
Operating Program Number & Title: 50500-Transportation Planning and Engineering
Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours
Project Manager Transportation – Design 200 per year
Environmental Clearance Community Development 40 per year
Technical Studies Natural Resources 100 per year
Contract Management CIP Engineering – Construction 500 per year while in construction
Packet Pg 228
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
Anticipated Facility Life Span: Anticipated service life of the new bridge is 30+ years, depending on the approved construction alternative.
Initial Projects Costs by Phase
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Land Acquisition (950)$25,000 $25,000
Study (951)$40,000 $40,000
Design (952)$690,000 $450,000 $1,140,000
Construction (953)$9,750,000 $9,750,000
Environmental Review (957)$120,000 $120,000
Total $730,000 $595,000 $9,750,000 $0 $0 $0 $11,075,000
Ongoing Costs by Type
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Project Funding by Source
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Impact/In-Lieu Fees $730,000 $0 $0 $730,000
Grant $540,000 $9,000,000 $9,540,000
Impact/In-Lieu Fees $55,000 $750,000 $805,000
Total $730,000 $595,000 $9,750,000 $0 $0 $0 $11,075,000
Impact Fees are proposed to come from Airport Area Specific Plan Fees (AASP) collected to date.
Packet Pg 229
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE- FY 2017-18 THROUGH FY FY 2021-22 Project Description Community Priority ☒ New Project ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☐ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need Housing was established as a major Council Goal as part of the FY 2015-17 Financial Plan. Major projects such as the Avila Ranch, Righetti Ranch and the San Luis Ranch are processing projects that will deliver significant numbers of housing units in the next ten years. San Luis Ranch, a major residential specific plan area established in the 2014 LUCE is processing its specific plan, environmental review and tract maps. The City recently completed the Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange project which took approximately ten (10) years to go from initiation to construction completion. The Prado Road interchange is a major infrastructure need in the southern section of the City and is necessary to provide the connectivity and accessibility for new housing and commercial development in the City. Programming advance development work and studies to coordinate permits and project completion thought Caltrans needs to begin for project delivery. The San Luis Ranch has advanced funding and begun the very early coordination of the Caltrans related work to begin identifying a preferred project alternative. Environmental review currently underway will determine when the Interchange will be necessary. This CIP requests anticipates the City acting as lead to complete the project through the Caltrans process. The TIF includes partial funding for the interchange and the project may be eligible for grant funding through SLOCOG or the state transportation improvement program. Additional funding for the project will need to be acquired either through direct developer contributions, an assessment district formation or some other funding source. Status This is a new project not included in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. Impact Fees will be used to fund early work on the interchange project and a financial plan for the project will need to be developed. This CIP assumes a financial plan similar to the LOVR interchange that ultimately resulted in an approximate share of 50/50 between City and regional/state funding. Project Team Lead Department: Public Works Operating Program Number & Title: 50500 Transportation Planning and Engineering Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Management CIP & Transportation Engineering 400 hours per year Environmental Community Development 100 hours per year Technical Studies Natural Resources 100 hours per year Contract Administration CIP Engineering - Administration 90 hours per year Construction Management CIP Engineering - Construction 1000 hours per year Packet Pg 2302
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION Anticipated Facility Life Span: 75 Years Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalStudy (951)$25,000 $150,000 $200,000$375,000Design (952)$1,500,000$1,500,000Construction (953)$25,000,000$25,000,000Const. Management (954)$3,000,000$3,000,000Environmental Review (957)$250,000$250,000Total$25,000 $150,000 $450,000 $1,500,000 $0 $28,000,000 $30,125,000Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalImpact/In-Lieu Fees$25,000 $150,000 $450,000 $750,000$1,375,000Grant$15,500,000$15,500,000Debt Financing$12,500,000$12,500,000Impact/In-Lieu Fees$750,000$750,000Total$25,000 $150,000 $450,000 $1,500,000 $0 $28,000,000 $30,125,000 Note: $750,000 of Impact/In-Lieu Fees in 2019-20 reflects potential developer assistance on the project subject to discussions currently occurring with SLO Ranch Packet Pg 2312
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY PARK MAJOR MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS (ANNUAL) Project Description Community Priority ☒ Annual Maintenance ☐ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☐ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need Parks require ongoing maintenance in order to continue to provide users a safe and quality experience. This master account provides ongoing funding for the maintenance and replacement of a wide variety of parks equipment and facilities, as described below. 1. Pedestrian Bridges There is one pedestrian bridge in Meadow Park linking the parking lot to the community building and playground, and a second bridge in the connected Exposition Park crossing the creek at about the mid-point of the joined park. Both bridges are in need of replacement. The bridge in the middle of the park near King Street has deteriorated to the point where it can no longer be repaired and will need to be closed or removed in the near future. The 2016-17 Budget Supplement advanced funding for the bridge in Exposition Park, replacing the previous funding in the 2015-17 CIP. The previous funding for the Meadow Park bridge is rolled forward. Both bridges are scheduled for construction in 2017. The pedestrian bridge in Mission Plaza between the Art Center and Novo Restaurant has severely worn surface planking. The decking is uneven and the spaces between the planks are increasing as the decking wears, making it more challenging to traverse, and less accessible for anyone with mobility issues. It is likely that the bridge would be required to be replaced in order to modify the grades and provide ADA access to the facility. 2. Sports Courts A. Hardscape The concrete pad in front of the Tennis Courts at Sinsheimer Park has been damaged by tree roots presenting an uneven surface for users entering the courts. The area receives temporary patching, but the surface will remain uneven until it is replaced. 3. Sports Fields A. Bleachers The bleachers located at the Meadow Park and Santa Rosa Park ball fields do not comply with current Consumer Product Safety (CPSC) Guidelines for bleachers. Older bleachers tend to have minimal rails to keep users from falling from or through the bleachers on to the surface below. Falls can occur when guardrails are missing from the backs or open sides of the bleachers or when openings between the seats or guardrails are large enough for a person to pass through. According to the CPSC, most injuries/falls occur to children under the age of 15. Per California Building Code, when spectator seating for viewing of events is provided for the general public, such as bleachers provided at a community ball field, they must provide equivalent spaces for wheelchair bound spectators. In addition, an accessible path of travel must also be provided to the spectator seating. Currently, neither ball field provides wheelchair spaces. At the Meadow Park ball field there is no solid path (only turf) that connects the bleachers to the nearby walkway. At Packet Pg 2322
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY Santa Rosa Park ball field, the existing asphalt surfacing provided around the bleachers and backstop is too steep and bumpy from roots to be considered a compliant path of travel. A significant portion of the project cost is based on the need to provide accessible seating integrated with, or adjacent to, the new bleachers and correct path of travel issues to the new bleachers at both ball fields. Depending on use, a non-compliant drinking fountain at Meadow Park ball field will either be replaced with an ADA compliant drinking fountain or will be removed. B. Lighting The large sport lighting fixtures at the Damon Garcia Sports Fields are due for relamping. The fixtures were installed with the park, and are now 12 years old. Lighting allows night time play, extending the available hours of facility use. This is particularly important to adult players, many of whom work during daylight hours. The lights need regular replacement and due to the height of the fixtures, is most cost effectively performed by the manufacturer. As part of the relamping, the manufacturer also cleans the lenses and reflectors, and disposes of the old fixtures. C. Equipment Storage and Workshop The storage area for Sinsheimer Park houses materials and equipment for the regular maintenance of the Stadium, and provides a work area for maintenance staff. The storage/workshop is a Seatrain container on railroad ties, which leaks through the roof and walls, and has rotting floors. The unit houses the equipment, small tools, and materials dedicated to Stadium maintenance. Without this storage area, all equipment and material needed for maintenance would need to be hauled to the site each day, resulting in lost productivity of approximately 2 hours per day, or about $20,000 per year. The proposal is for construction of a small concrete block maintenance building suitable for equipment and material storage, and repair work performed on site. The alternative would be to replace the existing Seatrain with another Seatrain at a cost of approximately $6,000. D. Drainage The Stadium field at Sinsheimer Park has an underground drainage system to pull excess water from the field. At this time only about 50% of the drainage system is working. The result is that play must be delayed, as right field remains flooded for several days after rainy weather. Some revenue is lost to refunds for unusable conditions. This work will replace the sub-surface drainage system and should be coordinated with the irrigation system replacement as the field will have to be dug up for both projects to complete the work. E. Irrigation Systems The irrigation systems in the parks are generally the same age as the parks, which are of various ages. Of the larger parks, Santa Rosa Park dates from the mid-1950s, Laguna Lake Park from the mid-1960s, Meadow Park, Mission Plaza and Sinsheimer Park from the 1970s to early 1980s. Even more recent additions, such as French Park, are over 25 years old. The irrigation Central Control system was replaced as part of the 2013-15 Financial Plan and provides for sophisticated operation of the system to minimize irrigation and make sure watering is occurring when the plant material needs it, not on fixed schedules. The irrigation distribution infrastructure is now the weak link in the delivery system. In the long term, the parks will benefit from complete irrigation system replacements to improve coverage and efficiency, and reduce repairs. Of all the systems currently in place, the system at Sinsheimer Stadium is in the most pressing need for replacement. The original design provided for 360 degree spray, resulting in the dugouts, backstop, fencing, and infield all being watered, in addition to the turf. The backstop is rusting and needs to be replaced, and portions of the fence are replaced every year at a cost of about $3,000 annually. The wetting of the infield delays infield preparation and the turf cannot be efficiently watered as a balance as to be struck between getting the turf adequately wetted, and not over-wetting non-turf areas. A new irrigation system can be designed to efficiently distribute water onto the turf with minimal overspray, which in addition to reducing damage to the facility, will save water. Packet Pg 2332
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY Two additional valve replacement projects are proposed to address high levels of valve failures at Meadow Park and Mission Plaza. Conversion of an above ground system installed along Calle Joaquin Parkway to underground is proposed for a future year to address high levels of damage and deterioration of the parkway irrigation. Full irrigation system replacements at all major parks are contemplated for future years of the plan to systematically remove outdated and deteriorated systems. 4. Specialty Items A. Fencing The fencing along the Railroad Safety Trail between Orcutt Road and Jennifer Street is a multi-wire fence installed with the trail in 1998. Some of the posts have rotted at the ground and failed. The wire has been cut so many times, that the fence has no integrity. The fence not only needs to be replaced because of the rotting posts but also to improve the integrity by installing something other than wire between the posts, to prevent it from being cut. The alternative would be to install the high iron fence, such as that installed along the California Blvd section of the Trail. This option provides better control of access onto Railroad right-of-way, and based on past bidding, such a large quantity may not be significantly more expensive than post and rail type fencing. Several years ago San Luis Creek undermined the bank at Elsford Park located on San Luis Drive, northeast of California Blvd. The location is popular with students and neighbors from the area, for sitting under shade trees. The undermining created a steeper than 1:1 slope, meaning the top of bank is unsupported, about 20’ above the creek. Although, some safety fencing was installed in 2015, additional fencing is still needed, and the benches at the park need to be relocated closer to the street on new concrete pads to further discourage use of the area near the top of bank. B. Arbor The arbor at Mission Plaza near the flag court is rotted in several places. The structure is original to the plaza construction and provides some shading and architectural detailing to this portion of the plaza. The members are of significant size, so repair is not suited to an in-house repair effort. The work will include replacement of rotted members and refinishing of salvageable members. The exact scope of this work will be based on the updated Mission Plaza Master Plan, scheduled to be completed in 2017. C. Lake Shore & Docks The shoreline of Laguna Lake is regularly acted upon by the wave action in the lake resulting in bank erosion. While much of the shoreline has vegetation growth which assists in protecting the bank, there are areas that are not shielded in this way and have noticeable erosion. In Laguna Lake Park, one such area exists at the end of the main drive aisle down to the lake where it meets the road along the edge of the lake. This area has continued to erode to the point where additional erosion will require closure of the lake road to vehicle traffic. Stabilizing the bank to restore the lake edge will prevent this closure and improve the safety at this intersection. This stabilization is also part of the stormwater management program as it will prevent the introduction of asphalt paving into the lake as the roadway is undermined. This road is the only access road to the boat dock, gazebo picnic area, and other lakeside amenities. There are two docks for Laguna Lake, a large one existing at the north end of the active park which is suitable for larger boats, including the City’s pontoon maintenance boat, and a smaller dock, suitable for small vessels or wind surfers. The bank erosion around the lake has undermined the boat ramp and the approach slab at the smaller docks. The smaller dock approach is now supported on only a small portion of the footprint. This approach and dock are recommended to be permanently removed to reduce long term maintenance. The main dock can serve for all activities. The boat ramp needs repair due to undermining, but appears to be salvageable. Some repairs are needed for the dock to replace panels that have deteriorated in the sun. Packet Pg 2342
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY D. Fitness Equipment The parcourse at Meadow Park has significantly deteriorated and some of the pieces have been removed. The course provides specific exercise elements along a walking or running route to improve overall fitness of the users. The fitness equipment at Emerson Park was donated several years ago and parts are no longer available to fix it. Equipment will be removed as it fails. Status This is an existing project shown in the 2015-17 Financial Plan… Project Team Lead Department: Public Works Operating Program Number & Title: 50200 Landscape and Parks Maintenance Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Per Year Project Proponent Parks Maintenance Supervisor 50 Project Manager CIP Engineering – Design 200 Technical Studies Natural Resources 20 Environmental Clearance Community Development 40 Contract Management CIP Engineering Administration 60 Construction Management CIP Engineering Construction 200 Site List – For multi-year projects Estimated Cost Implementation Years Location Design Construction Design Construction Priority Meadow Park Building Access Bridge $75,000 2017-18 1 Sinsheimer Court Entrance Hardscape $60,000 2017-18 2 Sinsheimer Irrigation $10,000 $60,000 2017-18 2018-19 3 Sinsheimer Stadium Drainage $10,000 $60,000 2017-18 2018-19 4 Elsford Park Fencing $15,000 2018-19 5 Damon Garcia Sport Lights $30,000 2018-19 6 Meadow Park Irrigation Valves $90,000 2018-19 7 Mission Plaza Irrigation Valves $30,000 2019-20 8 Railroad Bike path fencing - Partial $80,000 2019-20 9 Laguna Lake Docks & Ramp $30,000 2019-20 10 Sinsheimer Equipment Storage $20,000 $90,000 2018-19 2019-20 11 Packet Pg 2352
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY Location Design Construction Design Construction Priority Railroad Bike path fencing - Partial $245,000 2020-21 12 Calle Joaquin Irrigation $10,000 $25,000 2019-20 2020-21 13 Meadow Park Par Course $10,000 $30,000 2019-20 2020-21 14 Laguna Lake Shoreline $20,000 $150,000 future future 15 Emerson Park Fitness Equipment $10,000 $50,000 future future 16 Mission Plaza Arbor $10,000 $60,000 future future 17 Mission Plaza Bridge $200,000 future future 18 Meadow & Santa Rosa Park Bleachers $25,000 $300,000 future future 19 Anticipated Facility Life Span: Varies by Project Initial Projects Costs by Phase Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalDesign (952) $85,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000$0$0$210,000Construction (953) $401,000 $135,000 $255,000 $230,000 $300,000$0$2,086,000Const. Management (954) $40,000$40,000Total $526,000 $155,000 $275,000 $250,000 $300,000$0 $2,336,000 Ongoing Costs by Type Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalTotal $0$0$0$0$0$0$0 Project Funding by Source Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalGeneral Capital Outlay $526,000 $155,000 $415,000 $400,000 $540,000$0$2,336,000Total $526,000 $155,000 $275,000 $250,000 $300,000$0 $2,336,000 Packet Pg 2362
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT – FY 2017-18 THROUGH 2021-22 Project Description Community Priority ☒ Rehabilitation or Replacement ☐ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☐ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need Replacing playground equipment in the City’s parks limits the City’s liability exposure and keeps the City in compliance with State regulations. In 1999, staff developed a plan to identify replacement of the City’s park playground equipment, which anticipates the useful life of the equipment to be 15 years. In 2008, the State passed AB 1144 which mandates that all play equipment constructed between 1994 and 1999 be replaced or upgraded within 15 years of installation. Justification for funding in Years 1 through 3: Several projects are already out of compliance with the State mandate. In order to minimize the City’s exposure to liability, funding is recommended to be budgeted annually, starting in 2017-18. This project was not funded in the 2015-17 Financial Plan, and as such, annual spending on this program has decreased in recent years. The most recently completed playground replacement was the Santa Rosa Park playground at a cost of $264,000. More recently, construction costs have seen a dramatic increase, and staff estimates that a typical playground replacement project would cost about $400,000. Status This is a new project not included in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. Project Team Lead Department: Public Works Operating Program Number & Title: 50200 Landscape and Parks Maintenance Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Management CIP Engineering – Design 360 hours per project Environmental/Architectural Community Development 40 hours per project Permitting Community Development 4 hours per project Plan Review Park Maintenance 20 hours per project Neighborhood Meetings Parks and Recreation 60 hours per project Contract Administration CIP Engineering - Administration 60 hours per project Construction Management CIP Engineering - Inspection 125 hours per project Packet Pg 2372
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT – FY 2017-18 THROUGH 2021-22 Site List – For multi-year projects Location (with previous construction year) Estimated Year of Construction Islay Hill Park Playground (1997) 2019 Vista Lago Mini Park Playground (2001) 2021 DeVaul Ranch Playground (2002) 2023 Mitchell Park Playground (2003) 2025 Laguna Hills Playground (2004) 2027 Anticipated Facility Life Span: 15 Years Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalDesign (952)$80,000$25,000$105,000Construction (953)$400,000$0 $150,000$550,000Total$0$0 $80,000 $400,000 $25,000 $150,000 $655,000Ongoing Costs by TypeBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalTotal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalGeneral Capital Outlay$80,000 $400,000 $25,000 $150,000$655,000Total$0$0 $80,000 $400,000 $25,000 $150,000 $655,000 Packet Pg 2382
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION CITY FACILITY PARKING LOT MAINTENANCE – FY 2017-18 THROUGH FY 2021-22 Project Description Community Priority ☒ Rehabilitation or Replacement ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☒ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need The total area of City maintained parking lots is approximately 360,000 square feet or 8.3 acres. During a recent inspection only 50% of the lots surfaces were in good condition. In order to increase the percent of lot surfaces in good condition, regular maintenance needs to be completed. Preventive maintenance will provide the best long term solution in providing smooth pavement surfaces at the lowest overall cost. Parking lots have been assessed as to their current condition, and priority ranked considering conditions, along with use levels and safety concerns. Currently, the City receives several inquiries from the community regarding the poor surface conditions of City lots and also about the non-compliance for ADA accessible parking. Status This project was part of the 2013-15 Financial Plan Specification No. 91310. Project Team Lead Department: Public Works Operating Program Number & Title: 50230 Building Maintenance Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Management CIP Engineering - Design 225 hours per year Environmental Community Development 5 hours per year Contract Administration CIP Engineering - Administration 40 hours per year Construction Management CIP Engineering – Construction 120 hours per year Packet Pg 2392
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION CITY FACILITY PARKING LOT MAINTENANCE – FY 2017-18 THROUGH FY 2021-22 Site List – For multi-year projects Location Estimated Year of Construction Pavement Area (for projects in right-of-way) 1042 Walnut Parking Lot 2018 4 1016 Walnut Parking Lot 2020 4 Laguna Lake Park 2021 5 Santa Rosa Park 2022 1 Meadow Park 2023 4 Ludwick Community Ctr Parking Lot 2024 1 Fire Station 2 2025 7 Emerson Park 2025 4 French Park 2026 3 Islay Park 2026 3 Anticipated Facility Life Span: Where full reconstruction is completed, the parking lot will have an expected 20-year life. For sealing work, the life is an estimated 5 to 8 years. Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalDesign (952)$20,000 $100,000$0 $20,000 $20,000$160,000Construction (953)$0 $80,000 $180,000$260,000Total$0 $20,000 $100,000$0 $100,000 $200,000 $420,000Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalGeneral Capital Outlay$20,000 $100,000$0 $100,000 $200,000$420,000Total$0 $20,000 $100,000$0 $100,000 $200,000 $420,000 Packet Pg 2402
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION YARD TENANT IMPROVEMENT - FY 2018-19 Project Description Community Priority ☒ New Project ☐ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☐ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need The Corporation Yard, with most of the structures built over 30 years ago, is outdated in efficiency and in need of tenant improvements, especially to the Operation Center. With the expansion of the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF), certain Utility divisions and staff will be relocating from the Corporation Yard to the new WRRF facilities. This move lends itself to an opportune time to make improvements to the existing Corporation Yard facilities before they are occupied by other work groups. It has been verified that the vinyl tile flooring, which covers most of the Operations Center and a substantial portion of the Fleet Maintenance building, contains asbestos in the flooring mastic. Located in some high-foot traffic areas, the tile has deteriorated and exposed the mastic underneath. Spot repairs of the flooring have proven to be costly, as the mastic and tile have been required to be abated and properly disposed. A majority of the partition walls that comprise offices and work areas in the Operation Center are a modular wall panel system. These wall panels are of flimsy construction and are deteriorating. A clip-in system to secure the wall panels to the ceiling provides no privacy for the individual offices and are not stable against seismic activity. These panels are no longer manufactured and are obsolete; therefore, replacement of the wall panels is not a viable option. In addition, the locker room/restroom areas for male and female staff are aesthetically unpleasing, inefficient and outdated. The individual lockers are of insufficient size and the layout of the rooms themselves for the users are highly inefficient. Restroom and shower areas are deteriorating and are not ADA-compliant. This project would comprise removal and abatement of all vinyl tile flooring, and replacement with new flooring, that will eliminate staff exposure to hazardous materials. The modular wall panel system would be removed and solid partition walls would be installed and reconfigured to provide more efficient office spaces for existing and future staff. Also, the locker rooms and restroom areas would be remodeled to be more efficient and ADA-compliant. The project would be designed prior to Utilities staff relocating to the WRRF, scheduled for 2019, and tenant improvement work would begin prior to any new staff relocating to the Corporation Yard. Status This is a new project not included in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. Project Team Lead Department: Public Works Operating Program Number & Title: 50230 – Building Maintenance Packet Pg 2412
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Management CIP Engineering - Design 100 Project Inspection CIP Engineering - Construction 160 Project Administration CIP Engineering - Administration 100 Project Proponent Public Works Administration 40 Environmental Review Planning 8 CORPORATION YARD TENANT IMPROVEMENT - FY 2018-19 Anticipated Facility Life Span: 20 Years Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalDesign (952)$50,000$50,000Construction (953)$0Const. Management (954)$0Total$0$0 $50,000$0$0$0 $50,000Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalGeneral Capital Outlay$50,000$50,000Total$0$0 $50,000$0$0$0 $50,000 Packet Pg 2422
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – COMMUNITY SAFETY SILT REMOVAL – FY 2017-2018, FY 2018-19, FY 2019-20, FY 2021-22 Project Description Community Priority ☒ Annual Maintenance ☐ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☒ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need Silt carried by storm water settles at points in the creek where the storm water’s velocity decreases. This reduction in velocity allows solids suspended in the water to settle out. As these deposits build up, the capacity of the creek decreases and risk of flooding of the surrounding areas increases. The regular removal of built up silt increases channel capacity and removes the conditions conducive for blocking flow. Status This is an existing project shown in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. Project Team Lead Department: Public Works Operating Program Number & Title: 50320 Flood Control Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Management CIP Engineering - Design450 hoursTechnical Studies Natural Resources200 hoursContract Administration CIP Engineering - Administration80 hoursConstruction Management CIP Engineering - Inspection200 hoursSite List – For multi-year projects Location Estimated Year of Construction San Luis Obispo Creek at Marsh Street Bridge / 101 freeway 2018 & 2021 San Luis Obispo Creek Bypass Channel - Near Water Reclamation Facility northwest side of creek 2017 & 2019 San Luis Obispo Creek Bypass Channel - East side of Prefumo Creek confluence 2018 San Luis Obispo Creek at LOVR - Bridge Barrel Sediment Removal 2018 2018 Prefumo Creek downstream of Madonna Road 2017 & 2021 Prefumo Creek Arm - Between LOVR and Laguna Lake 2018 & 2019 Tank Farm Road at Hollyhock Culvert 2018 & 2021 San Luis Obispo Creek – downstream from LOVR 2018 Sydney Creek at Railroad Safety Trail - East side of bike path2018 & 2021Packet Pg 2432
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – COMMUNITY SAFETY Location Estimated Year of Construction Culvert – Larkspur at Goldenrod 2018 & 2021 Murray Culverts at Broad – Old Garden Creek2018 Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalDesign (952)$25,000$25,000Construction (953)$110,000 $50,000 $150,000$310,000Environmental Review (957)$0Total$110,000 $75,000 $150,000$0 $0$0 $335,000Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalGrant$110,000$110,000General Capital Outlay$75,000 $150,000$225,000Total$110,000 $75,000 $150,000$0 $0$0 $335,000 Packet Pg 2442
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – COMMUNITY SAFETY STORM DRAIN SYSTEM REPLACEMENT Project Description Community Priority ☒ Rehabilitation or Replacement ☐ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☒ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need This master CIP addresses capital maintenance of pipes, culvert and constructed drainage channels and is planned to replace or reconstruct failed facilities. Maintenance of the City’s storm drain system provides for increased flood protection and reduces the likelihood of loose of property. Storm Drain Systems are vital components to the City’s overall stormwater drainage system. These systems vary in age up to one hundred years and many are in need of maintenance or replacement. Without periodic maintenance and repair, these structures will eventually fail and result in unplanned street closures and impacts to the City’s stormwater drainage network. Status This is an existing project shown in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. Specification No. 90742 Storm Drain Replacement Master Account 1. Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) Replacement: The entire storm drain system (manholes, inlets, and pipes) was inspected and evaluated to establish overall condition in 2001. About 22 percent of the pipes surveyed were Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP), a material that no longer conforms to City standards and should be replaced based on known corrosion failure problems (picture at right). As CMP deterioration progresses and becomes more severe, the pipe deforms and often collapses taking the surrounding improvements with it. When Public Works presented the Storm Sewer Management Plan to the Council in 2005, addressing CMP exclusively was one of the options for system maintenance. A second option was to replace all substandard pipes, regardless of material, including non-CMP pipe with inadequate capacity. Because of the prohibitive costs associated with this second option, CMP replacement has consistently been requested and funded in subsequent budgets to address the most fragile portion of the infrastructure as the priority. This effort has been consistently funded by the ½ cent sales tax measure and approximately 5,290 feet of pipe have been installed to replace failed drain systems since funding became available, equating to about 34% of the CMP that needs to be replaced. Capacity and flow efficiencies are gained through improved pipe materials and updated inlets. 2. Old Garden Creek Wall Failure: Old Garden Creek is located in the northwestern area of the City, and is a tributary to Stenner Creek. Portions of Old Garden Creek are constructed of a concrete floor with masonry walls (i.e. retaining walls) forming a fully hardscaped creek channel. A portion of Old Garden Creek immediately upstream and west of Cuesta Drive contains a retaining wall which is failing. The wall contains several trees growing immediately adjacent to and behind the wall, and a residence (152 Cuesta Drive) is located behind the wall. As the trees have increased in size, they have pushed against the retaining wall causing it to lean outward at an angle of about 20 degrees. If left unrepaired, the trees will continue to increase in size and will cause the wall to lean further and eventually fall into the creek channel. The project is located within the 100-year flood plain, and Old Garden Creek is a vital drainage course for flood prevention. If the retaining wall were to fail, the flood potential in the immediate area would increase. Although the creek channel is located within a City drainage easement, it has not yet been determined that the necessary repairs are the responsibility of the City. The first order of work on this project will be to determine the responsibility. Packet Pg 2452
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – COMMUNITY SAFETY 3. Broad and Leff Culvert: The existing culvert was constructed in the early 1900’s and the concrete around the reinforcing steel has worn away over the years. The reinforcing steel is exposed and corroding. It is only a matter of time before this culvert fails. The design of this project was completed in 2013, and is ready to go to construction with only minimal design updating required. Work Plan Estimated Cost Work Type Design Construction Construction Management Fiscal Year CMP Replacement $11,000 $125,000 $15,000 2017-18 CMP Replacement $10,000 $100,000 $12,800 2018-19 CMP Replacement $35,000 $541,545 $75,000 2019-20 CMP Replacement $35,000 $525,000 $76,000 2020-21 CMP Replacement $35,000 $525,000 $76,600 2021-22 Old Garden Creek $20,000 - - 2018-19 Old Garden Creek - $150,000 $25,000 2019-20 Broad / Leff Culvert $20,000 2017-18 Broad / Leff Culvert - $370,000 $25,000 2018-19 Project Team Lead Department: Public Works Operating Program Number & Title: 50320 Stormwater Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Management CIP Engineering - Design 370 hours per year Environmental Community Development 40 hours per year Technical Studies Natural Resources 100 hours per year Contract Administration CIP Engineering - Administration 40 hours per year Construction Management CIP Engineering - Construction 350 hours per year Anticipated Facility Life Span: Anticipated Facility Life Span: Lifespan of improvements is estimated at 50 to 100 years depending on type of installation. Packet Pg 2462
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – COMMUNITY SAFETY Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalDesign (952)$28,700 $31,000 $30,000$35,000 $35,000$159,700Construction (953)$475,000 $125,000 $470,000$525,000 $525,000$2,120,000Const. Management (954)$70,600 $15,000 $37,800$76,000 $76,600$276,000Total$574,300 $171,000 $537,800$0 $636,000 $636,600 $2,555,700Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalGeneral Capital Outlay$574,300 $171,000 $537,800$0 $636,000 $636,600$2,555,700Total$574,300 $171,000 $537,800$0 $636,000 $636,600 $2,555,700 Packet Pg 2472
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION BRIDGE MAINTENANCE – FY 2017-18 THROUGH FY 2021-22 Project Description Community Priority ☒ Annual Maintenance ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☒ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need The City of San Luis Obispo has 38 vehicular brides and 11 pedestrian bridges ranging in age from one to 100+ years old. Bridges provide essential access and circulation for pedestrians, cyclists, vehicles, and even utilities over obstacles such as waterways, railroads, freeways, valleys and other obstructions. In accordance with Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations (Federal Highway Act) and the National Bridge Inspection Standards, CalTrans provides bridge inspections on vehicular bridges over 20’ in length every 2 to 4 years. The inspection report rates the bridges on their deficiencies, structural adequacy, safe load carrying capacity and overall general condition. The bridges are given a sufficiency rating and a list of suggested maintenance repairs to prolong their life. Bridges are eligible for federal funding assistance for rehabilitation if they have sufficiency ratings of less than 80, or for complete replacement for ratings less than 50. If the service life has been exceeded or maintenance is not sufficient to correct the deficiencies, then bridges are recommended for rehabilitation or replacement under a separate CIP request. This request proposes to provide preventative maintenance to the bridges with sufficiency ratings between 80 and 100 in an effort to keep their rating from dropping below 80. There are 9 vehicular bridges in this category. Seven projects are proposed that include preventative maintenance work such as deck sealing of the top surface and crack sealing to prevent moisture from migrating into the slab and cause eventual damage to the steel reinforcement. The City is in need of a bridge preventive maintenance program to maintain and preserve these important assets on an on-going basis. Routine preventative maintenance will prolong the life of a bridge and postpone its replacement, or allow for a less costly rehabilitation rather than an expensive and disruptive replacement project. Funding for recommended maintenance will come from general capital outlay to address the existing maintenance backlog and new maintenance recommendations as they occur. Grant funding may be available to supplement this work through the Federal Highway Bridge Program. Status This is a new project not included in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. Project Team Lead Department: Public Works Operating Program Number & Title: 50320 Flood Control Packet Pg 2482
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Management CIP Engineering - Design 120 hours per year Environmental Community Development 40 hours per year Contract Administration CIP Engineering - Administration 40 hours per year Construction Management CIP Engineering - Construction 160 hours per year Site List – For multi-year projects Location Rating Work Type Estimated Year of Construction Pavement Area (for projects in right-of-way) Broad St. Bridge near El Capitan (49C-445) 84 Deck Seal 2019 3 Nipomo St. Bridge near Monterey (49C-369) 96.6 Deck Seal 2019 4 Fuller Road Bridge near Broad (49C-463) 93.2 Deck Seal 2019 3 Murray St. near Santa Rosa (49C-397) 96.9 Crack Sealing/Concrete Repairs 2020 8 Chorro St. near Monterey/Higuera (49C-405) 80.3 Crack Sealing/Concrete Repairs 2020 9 Broad St. Culvert near Capitolio Way (49C-446) 88.6 Crack Sealing/Concrete Repairs 2020 3 Marsh St. @ Hwy 101 on/off ramp (49C-415) 89.1 Crack Sealing/Concrete Repairs 2020 4 Anticipated Facility Life Span: Bridges have a design life of 100 years. Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalConstruction (953)$0 $50,000 $150,000 $75,000 $75,000$350,000Total$0$0 $50,000 $150,000 $75,000 $75,000 $350,000Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalGeneral Capital Outlay$0 $50,000 $150,000 $75,000 $75,000$350,000Total$0$0 $50,000 $150,000 $75,000 $75,000 $350,000 Packet Pg 2492
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION BRIDGE REPLACEMENT – CHORRO STREET (FY 2017-18 THROUGH FY 2021-22) Project Description Community Priority ☒ Rehabilitation or Replacement ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☐ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need The City of San Luis Obispo has 38 vehicular bridges and 11 pedestrian bridges ranging in age from one to 100+ years old. Bridges provide essential access and circulation for pedestrians, cyclists, vehicles, and even utilities over obstacles such as waterways, railroads, freeways, valleys and other obstructions. The Chorro Street Bridge, near the intersection of Chorro and Lincoln streets, was built in 1935. During an inspection by Caltrans in 2015, the bridge was classified as functionally obsolete because of the bridges non-standard railing and non-standard approaches. The obsolete classification made the Chorro Bridge eligible for Highway Bridge Program funds. The City submitted an application before the criteria change was made and the Chorro Bridge is eligible for funding as it becomes available. Substantial savings to the City are expected by using federal funds for up to 90% with a 10% City match. Status This is a new project not included in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. Project Team Lead Department: Public Works Operating Program Number & Title: 50500 – Transportation Planning and Engineering Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Management CIP Engineering – Design 110 hours per year Technical Studies Natural Resources 15 Contract Administration CIP Engineering - Administration 80 Construction Management CIP Engineering – Construction 400 Packet Pg 2502
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION BRIDGE REPLACEMENT – CHORRO STREET – FY 2017-18 THROUGH FY 2021-22 Anticipated Facility Life Span: Bridges have a design life of 100 years. Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalLand Acquisition (950) $0Design (952)$363,000$363,000Construction (953) $0Total$0$0$0$0$0 $363,000 $363,000Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalGrant$321,300$321,300General Capital Outlay$41,700$41,700Total$0$0$0$0$0 $363,000 $363,000 Packet Pg 2512
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION BRIDGE REPLACEMENT – MADONNA ROAD - FY 2017-18 THROUGH FY 2021-22 Project Description Community Priority ☒ Rehabilitation or Replacement ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☐ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need The City of San Luis Obispo has 38 vehicular bridges and 11 pedestrian bridges ranging in age from one to 100+ years old. Bridges provide essential access and circulation for pedestrians, cyclists, vehicles, and even utilities over obstacles such as waterways, railroads, freeways, valleys and other obstructions. The Madonna Road Bridge, east of Oceanaire Drive, was built in 1958. During an inspection by Caltrans in 2015, the bridge was classified as functionally obsolete because of non-standard bridge railing and non-standard approaches. The obsolete classification made the Madonna Road Bridge eligible for Highway Bridge Program funds. The City submitted an application before the criteria change was made and the Madonna Road Bridge is eligible for funding as it becomes available. Substantial savings to the City are expected by using federal funds for up to 90% with a 10% City match. Status This is a new project not included in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. Project Team Lead Department: Public Works Operating Program Number & Title: 50500 – Transportation Engineering and Planning Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Management CIP Engineering – Design 110 hours per year Technical Studies Natural Resources 15 Contract Administration CIP Engineering - Administration 80 Construction Management CIP Engineering – Construction 400 Packet Pg 2522
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION BRIDGE REPLACEMENT – MADONNA ROAD -FY 2017-18 THROUGH FY 2021-22 Anticipated Facility Life Span: Bridges have a design life of 100 years. Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalLand Acquisition (950) $0Design (952) $451,000$451,000Construction (953) $0Total$0$0$0$0$0 $451,000 $451,000Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalGrant $399,300$399,300General Capital Outlay $51,700$51,700Total$0$0$0$0$0 $451,000 $451,000 [ Packet Pg 2532
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION BRIDGE REPLACEMENT – NIPOMO STREET – FY 2017-18 THROUGH FY 2021-22 Project Description Community Priority ☒ Rehabilitation or Replacement ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☐ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need The City of San Luis Obispo has 38 vehicular bridges and 11 pedestrian bridges ranging in age from one to 100+ years old. Bridges provide essential access and circulation for pedestrians, cyclists, vehicles, and even utilities over obstacles such as waterways, railroads, freeways, valleys and other obstructions. The Nipomo Street Bridge, west of the Nipomo at Peach intersection, was built in 1922. During an inspection by Caltrans in 2015, the bridge was classified as functionally obsolete because of the decks nonstandard geometry and nonstandard railing. The obsolete classification made the Nipomo Bridge eligible for Highway Bridge Program funds. The City submitted an application before the criteria change was made and the Nipomo Bridge is eligible for funding as it becomes available. Substantial savings to the City are expected by using federal funds for up to 100% with a 0% City match. Status This is a new project not included in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. Project Team Lead Department: Public Works Operating Program Number & Title: 50500 – Transportation Engineering and Planning Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Management CIP Engineering – Design 110 per year Technical Studies Natural Resources 15 Contract Administration CIP Engineering - Administration 80 Construction Management CIP Engineering – Construction 400 Packet Pg 2542
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION BRIDGE REPLACEMENT – NIPOMO STREET – FY 2017-18 THROUGH FY 2021-22 Anticipated Facility Life Span: Bridges have a design life of 100 years. Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalLand Acquisition (950) $160,000$160,000Design (952) $390,500$390,500Construction (953)$0Total$0$0$0$0 $390,500 $160,000 $550,500Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalGrant $390,500 $160,000$550,500Total$0$0$0$0 $390,500 $160,000 $550,500 Packet Pg 2552
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & OPEN SPACE GREEN FLEET VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS – FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19 Project Description Community Priority ☒ New Project ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☐ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need Recently, the City has begun efforts to replace fossil fuel dependent vehicles with vehicles that operate on alternative energy sources. Over the past two years, the City has purchased five plug-in hybrid vehicles that utilize electricity and gasoline, however, the City currently does not have the capability to charge these new vehicles at the 919 Palm Street parking structure. The City plans on purchasing an additional five plug-in hybrids over the next two years and would like to consider full electric vehicle options for the City’s fleet. In order to support the current and additional “green-fleet” vehicles, the installation of the electric charging stations is needed. Status This is a new project not included in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. Based upon a review of the current 919 Palm Street Parking Structure infrastructure, additional electric circuits and sub-panel would be required to support the charging stations. Project Team Lead Department: Public Works Operating Program Number & Title: Vehicles and Equipment 50340 Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Management Fleet Manager 40 hours Construction Management CIP Engineering – Design 40 hours Construction Management CIP Engineering – Inspection 40 hours Packet Pg 2562
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & OPEN SPACE GREEN FLEET VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS – FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19 Anticipated Facility Life Span: Estimated at 20 years Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalDesign (952)$30,000$30,000Construction (953)$75,000$75,000Total$0 $30,000 $75,000$0$0$0 $105,000Ongoing Costs by TypeBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalContract Services$0$0$0$0$0Total$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalFleet Replacement$30,000 $75,000$105,000Total$0 $30,000 $75,000$0$0$0 $105,000 Note: There is an estimated $5,000 annual service cost for the charging stations that will be offset by the savings in fuel costs. Packet Pg 2572
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PATHWAY MAINTENANCE – FY 2017-18 THROUGH FY 2021-22
Project Description Community Priority
☒ Annual Maintenance ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives
☒ Measure G Priority
Purpose and Need
There are approximately 6.5 miles of asphalt concrete pathways and bike paths within the City. Examples of
these paths are the Railroad Safety Trail, the Bob Jones Trail, and various pathways located within City parks.
These pathways are used by bicycles and pedestrians, along with occasional service vehicles. To maintain
accessibility to the City’s facilities and reduce the risk of accidents, regular maintenance of pathways is
important.
The City has not established a policy for maintenance of these facilities to date. Staff looked to the City’s
Pavement Management Plan (PMP) for guidance. The current PMP, as revised by the Council in 2009, includes
the objective of maintaining at least 70% of Local Streets in good condition and less than 7% in bad condition. (A pavement surface with a Pavement Condition
Index (PCI) of greater than 70 is considered to be in good condition and a one with a PCI less than 30 is considered to be in bad condition.) These criteria have been
applied to City-maintained pathways, to develop a basis for a funding request. Approximately 75% of these pathways are in good condition. The recommended
funding level is sufficient to maintain this level of condition for pathways in good condition, and to provide repair and replacement of damaged pathways.
The scope of this ongoing project generally consists of spot repairs to the pavement surface, the app lication of a seal coat, and removal of vegetation.
Status
This is an existing project shown in the 2015-17 Financial Plan.
Project Team
Lead Department: Public Works
Operating Program Number & Title: 50200 Landscape and Parks Maintenance
Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Per Year
Project Management CIP Engineering - Design 100 hours per project
Contract Administration CIP Engineering - Administration 40 hours per project
Construction Management CIP Engineering – Construction 80 hours per project
Packet Pg 258
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PATHWAY MAINTENANCE – FY 2017-18 THROUGH FY 2021-22
Site List – For multi-year projects
Location Estimated Year of
Construction
Meadow Park Pathways 2018 & 2019
Poinsettia Creek Walk 2020
Bob Jones City to Sea Trail at WRRF 2021
Railroad Safety Trail from Cal Poly to Taft Street 2022
Anticipated Facility Life Span: Pathway Maintenance extends service life approx. 5 to 10 years.
Initial Projects Costs by Phase
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Construction (953)ongoing $60,000 $60,000 $40,000 $80,000 $60,000 $300,000
Total $0 $60,000 $60,000 $40,000 $80,000 $60,000 $300,000
Ongoing Costs by Type
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Project Funding by Source
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
General Capital Outlay ongoing $60,000 $60,000 $40,000 $80,000 $60,000 $300,000
Total $0 $60,000 $60,000 $40,000 $80,000 $60,000 $300,000
Packet Pg 259
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT AND INSTALLATION – FY 2017-18 THROUGH FY 2021-22
Project Description Community Priority
☒ Rehabilitation or Replacement ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives
☒ Measure G Priority
Purpose and Need
The City has an established system of streets with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. The City’s sidewalk system is
comprised of 202 miles of sidewalk and 2436 points at intersections where pedestrians cross the street. Repairs
to the sidewalk system are often needed to mitigate displaced, broken, or settled sidewalk panels. New
installations of sidewalk and curb ramps are required to continue the City’s program to provide a complete and
assessable pedestrian path of travel.
Status
This is an existing project shown in the 2015-17 Financial Plan.
1. Sidewalk Installation and Replacement (Specification No. 90849): Approximately 15,000 locations
exist where sidewalk repairs are needed in the City’s right of way. The City make temporary repairs to
the majority of damaged area locations, with a combination of City Maintenance crews and contract
services completing reconstruction. Damaged areas of curb, gutter , and sidewalk are repaired in
advance of pavement maintenance work to prevent cutting into new pavement during construction.
2. Sidewalk Ramp Installation (Specification No. 99868): Pedestrians street crossing require curb ramps.
Of the 2436 points at intersections where pedestrians cross the street, 700 Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) compliant curb ramps are provided, 1207 non-ADA compliant curb ramps are provided,
and 526 with no curb ramps between the street and sidewalk are provided. These crossing work well
for most people but can be challenging to negotiate for those with physical disabilities. The ADA
requires that any alteration to a street include construction of an accessible ramp where none exist, and
to make compliant any ramps that existed previously.
3. Railroad District Sidewalk (Specification No. 90849): This work will include the replacement of the
boardwalk sidewalk in the Railroad District with pavers. Currently 11,300 square feet of sidewalk have
pressure treated wood boards for sidewalk which over the years have become a tripping hazard and
maintenance intensive. Using 25% of the yearly sidewalk funds will allow these boardwalks to be
replaced in approximately four years.
4. North Chorro Sidewalk (Specification No. 90849): Additionally, this request also includes funding in the third year for the installation of sidewalk along
North Chorro Street. This location is on City-owned property outside of the City limits and within SLO County jurisdiction. This site is also the lo cation
Packet Pg 260
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
of the future Gateway Monument Sign. As a condition of approval for the monument sign, the County is requiring the sidewalk to be installed, connecting
the two separate sidewalks, within five years of completion of the monument sign.
Project Team
Lead Department: Public Works
Operating Program Number & Title: 50300 Streets and Sidewalk Maintenance
Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours
Project Management CIP Engineering - Design 160 hours per year
Environmental Community Development 8 hours per year
Contract Administration CIP Engineering - Administration 60 hours per year
Construction Management CIP Engineering - Construction 250 hours per year
Work Plan
Estimated Costs
Work Type Design Construction Fiscal Year
Sidewalk Installation and Replacement (Pavement Area 2, 4 & 9) $150,000 2017-18
Sidewalk Installation and Replacement (Pavement Area 3, 4 & 9) $150,000 2018-19
Sidewalk Installation and Replacement (Pavement Area 4 & 9) $150,000 2019-20
Sidewalk Installation and Replacement (Pavement Area 4, 5 & 9) $150,000 2020-21
Sidewalk Installation and Replacement (Pavement Area 6 & 9) $200,000 2021-22
Sidewalk Curb Ramp Installation and Replacement (Pavement Area 2, 4 & 9) $5,000 $105,000 2017-18
Sidewalk Curb Ramp Installation and Replacement (Pavement Area 3, 4 & 9) $5,000 $20,000 2018-19
Sidewalk Curb Ramp Installation and Replacement (Pavement Area 4 & 9) $10,000 $240,000 2019-20
Sidewalk Curb Ramp Installation and Replacement (Pavement Area 4, 5 & 9) $10,000 $240,000 2020-21
Sidewalk Curb Ramp Installation and Replacement (Pavement Area 6 & 9) $10,000 $240,000 2021-22
Railroad District Sidewalk $50,000 2017-18
Railroad District Sidewalk $50,000 2018-19
Railroad District Sidewalk $50,000 2019-20
Railroad District Sidewalk $50,000 2020-21
North Chorro Sidewalk $70,000 2019-20
Packet Pg 261
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT AND INSTALLATION (ANNUAL)
Anticipated Facility Life Span: Sidewalks can last indefinitely: however, sidewalk areas around trees have a shorter life span and may need to be repaired within
10 to 30 years depending upon the age and variety of the tree.
Initial Projects Costs by Phase
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Design (952)$5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $40,000
Construction (953)$220,000 $305,000 $510,000 $440,000 $440,000 $1,915,000
Total $0 $225,000 $310,000 $520,000 $450,000 $450,000 $1,955,000
Project Funding by Source
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
General Capital Outlay $225,000 $205,000 $270,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,100,000
Grant $105,000 $0 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $855,000
Total $0 $330,000 $205,000 $520,000 $450,000 $450,000 $1,955,000
Packet Pg 262
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
STREET RECONSTRUCTION AND RESURFACING (ANNUAL)
Project Description Community Priority
☒ Annual Maintenance ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives
☒ Measure G Priority
Purpose and Need
Pavement maintenance is an on-going need and provides increased roadway life and a smooth
pavement surfaces. Deferring pavement maintenance results in pavement deterioration and higher
pavement maintenance costs in the future.
The City’s Pavement Management Plan (PMP), adopted in 1998, established nine pavement
maintenance zones within the City, and a plan in which each of these areas receives maintenance on
an eight-year rotation. The PMP also sets forth recommended funding for pavement maintenance
projects to be included in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan. In 2009, the City Council approved
a modified PMP that provided greater priority for arterial streets while maintaining the eight -year
rotation for maintenance work on local streets.
Status
This is an existing project shown in the 2015-17 Financial Plan - Specification No. 90346 Street
Reconstruction & Resurfacing Master Account
Project Team
Lead Department: (Public Works, CIP Engineering)
Operating Program Number & Title: 50300 Streets and Sidewalk Maintenance
Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours
Pavement Management Program CIP Engineering – Design 60 hours per year
Project Management CIP Engineering – Design 500 hours per year
Environmental Community Development 8 hours per year
Contract Administration CIP Engineering – Admin 60 hours per year
Construction Management CIP Engineering – Construction 400 hours per year
Site List – For multi-year projects
Packet Pg 263
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
Location Estimated Year of
Construction
Pavement Area
(for projects in right-of-way)
Area 8 and 1 Local and Collector Streets 2016 8 and 1
Arterial Streets 2017 Citywide
Area 2 and 3 Local and Collector Streets 2018 2 and 3
Arterial Streets 2019 Citywide
Area 4 and 5 Local and Collector Streets 2020 4 and 5
Arterial Streets 2021 Citywide
Anticipated Facility Life Span: Reconstruction and Resurfacing projects are designed for a service life of 20 years. Preventative Maintenance (i.e. slurry se al)
provides an extended service life of approximately 6 years.
Initial Projects Costs by Phase
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Study (951)$50,000 $60,000 $50,000 $60,000 $50,000 $60,000 $330,000
Design (952)$0 $0
Construction (953)$1,510,700 $1,555,000 $1,334,000 $1,100,980 $1,352,500 $1,669,700 $8,522,880
Const. Management (954)$70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $75,000 $80,000 $365,000
Total $1,630,700 $1,685,000 $1,454,000 $1,160,980 $1,477,500 $1,809,700 $9,217,880
Ongoing Costs by Type
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Utilities $0
Maintenance Materials $0
Staff $0
Contract Services $0
Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Project Funding by Source
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
General Capital Outlay $1,630,700 $1,685,000 $1,454,000 $1,160,980 $1,477,500 $1,809,700 $9,217,880
Total $1,630,700 $1,685,000 $1,454,000 $1,160,980 $1,477,500 $1,809,700 $9,217,880
Packet Pg 264
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
TRAFFIC SIGNS & STRIPING MAINTENANCE - FY 2017-18 & 2018-19
Project Description Community Priority
☒ Rehabilitation or Replacement ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives
☒ Measure G Priority
Purpose and Need
Traffic Signs
The City is responsible for maintenance of approximately 15,000 traffic signs. In January of 2008 the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) adopted a mandate requiring public
agencies to maintain minimum retro-reflectivity level (how well light reflects off a sign). This budget is the
City’s primary mechanism for implementing this federal mandate.
Traffic Striping
The City is responsible for maintaining 133 miles of streets, 2400 sidewalk ramp crossings, 70 signalized
intersections, 241 miles of sidewalks and 60 miles of bike lanes and paths. Legible legends and markings are
essential to enabling safe travel by the public. Specifically, lane lines, stop bars, marked crosswalks and other
visible indicators enable motorists, cyclists and pedestrians to safely navigate the City’s transportation network.
Thermoplastic markings last longer than the old method of painting, and should be replaced approximately
every eight (8) years.
Status
This is an existing project shown in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. Specification No. 90943 (91319) Master Account
Project Team
Lead Department: (Public Works)
Operating Program Number & Title: 50300 Streets and Sidewalk Maintenance
Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours
Project Management Transportation 160 per year
Contract Administration Transportation 80 per year
Construction Management CIP Engineering - Construction 60 per year
Packet Pg 265
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
Anticipated Facility Life Span: Signs have an anticipated life span of 5 to 10 years depending on the orientation of the sign and specific sign conditions. These
signs already exist and are being replaced, so no additional costs are anticipated as a result of this work.
Initial Projects Costs by Phase
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Construction (953)$25,000 $25,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $275,000
Total $0 $25,000 $25,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $275,000
Ongoing Costs by Type
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Utilities $0
Maintenance Materials $0
Staff $0
Contract Services $0
Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Project Funding by Source
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
General Capital Outlay $25,000 $25,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $275,000
Total $0 $25,000 $25,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $275,000
Packet Pg 266
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
NEW STREET LIGHTS – FY 2017-18 THROUGH FY 2021-22
Project Description Community Priority
☒ New Project ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives
☒ Measure G Priority
Purpose and Need
Currently the City does not have a funding source or program for responding to requests for new street lights.
Staff is proposing to establish a new street light request program and master account to fill this need.
Status
This is a new ongoing project requested to commence in FY 2017-18
Project Team
Lead Department: Public Works
Operating Program Number & Title: 50500-Transportation Planning and Engineering
Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours
Project Proponent Transportation Planning & Engineering 50
Project Management Transportation Planning & Engineering 100
Contract Administration CIP Engineering - Administration 10
Packet Pg 267
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
NEW STREET LIGHTS – FY 2017-18 THROUGH 2021-22
Initial Projects Costs by Phase
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Construction (953)$20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $80,000
Total $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $80,000
Ongoing Costs by Type
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Utilities $0
Maintenance Materials $0
Staff $0
Contract Services $0
Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Project Funding by Source
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
General Capital Outlay $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $80,000
Total $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $80,000
Packet Pg 268
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
2015 TRAFFIC SAFETY REPORT IMPLEMENTATION - FY 2017-18
Project Description Community Priority
☒ New Project ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives
☒ Measure G Priority: Traffic Congestion Relief/Safety
Improvements
Purpose and Need
As part of the 2015 Traffic Safety Report, the following three safety projects were identified that exceeded the
budget capacity of the Transportation Safety & Operations program. As directed as part of the Traffic Safety
Report to Council these projects are now being recommended as part of the 2017-19 Budget.
1. Marsh & Broad Traffic Signal ($175,000): The intersection of Marsh and Broad Streets has been
identified as a top ranking collision location. This collision pattern is attributed to the number of signal
indications for each approach and overall intersection visibility. Modifications to the traffic signal to
improve visibility is recommended as part of this request.
2. Laurel Lane Road Diet ($180,000): The Laurel Ln. corridor between Johnson & Orcutt has been
identified as a top ranking collision location for pedestrians. This collision pattern is attributed to the
unnecessary width of the roadway which creates longer pedestrian crossings and a higher propensity for
speeding. Reducing Laurel ln. to one lane in each direction with a center turn lane and buffered bike lanes
is recommended as part of this project.
3. Speed Feedback Signs ($60,000): The California Street approaches to Monterey have been identified as a top ranking collision location for vehicles and
bicycles. This collision pattern is attributed to excessive speeding. Installing speed feedback devices to improve speed limi t compliance is recommended as
part of this project.
Status
This is a new project not included in the 2015-17 Financial Plan.
Project Team
Lead Department: Public Works
Operating Program Number & Title: 50500-Transportation Planning and Engineering
Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours
Project Manager Transportation – Design 260 per year
Environmental Clearance Community Development 1 per year
Contract Management CIP Engineering – Construction 100 per year
Packet Pg 269
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
2015 TRAFFIC SAFETY REPORT IMPLEMENTATION - FY 2017-18
Anticipated Facility Life Span: Improvements are expected to provide adequate capacity for at least 30 years.
Initial Projects Costs by Phase
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Construction (953)$60,000 $175,000 $180,000 $415,000
Total $0 $60,000 $175,000 $180,000 $0 $0 $415,000
Ongoing Costs by Type
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Utilities $0
Maintenance Materials $0
Staff $0
Contract Services $0
Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Project Funding by Source
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
General Capital Outlay $60,000 $0 $60,000
Grant $175,000 $175,000
Total $0 $60,000 $175,000 $0 $0 $0 $235,000
Packet Pg 270
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, FY 17-19
Project Description Community Priority
☒ New Project ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives
☒ Measure G Priority
Purpose and Need
This project will update and expand the Bicycle Transportation Plan scope to include pedestrians, creating an
Active Transportation Plan that address both Bicycle and Pedestrian transportation. This effort will include
study of the City’s pedestrian transportation system and development of pedestrian policies and plans consistent
with the scope and scale of the City’s bicycle polices and plans in collaboration with working with partner
community groups, stakeholders. This project will also include updates to bicycle policies and plans reflecting
planned networks in the City’s new development areas (Avila Ranch, San Luis Ranch, & Froom Ranch) as well
as modernizing the bicycle policy and plan to include such things as new infrastructure types such as
buffered/protected lanes and class IV facilities.
Status
This is a new project proposed for 2017-19
Project Team
Lead Department: Public Works
Operating Program Number & Title: 50500 Transportation Planning & Engineering
Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours
Packet Pg 271
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, FY 17-19
Anticipated Facility Life Span:
Initial Projects Costs by Phase
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Study (951)$40,000 $40,000
Total $0 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,000
Ongoing Costs by Type
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Utilities $0
Maintenance Materials $0
Staff $0
Contract Services $0
Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Project Funding by Source
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
General Capital Outlay $40,000 $40,000
Total $0 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,000
Packet Pg 272
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
BICYCLE FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS - FY 2017-18 THROUGH FY 2021-22
Project Description Community Priority
☒ Rehabilitation or Replacement ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives
☒ Measure G Priority
Purpose and Need
Relief of traffic congestion and the development of bikeways are high priority needs as identified in the 2011-
13, 2013-15, and 2015-17 Financial Plan Goal setting process. This funding allows the City to complete small-
scale bicycle facility improvements in a cost efficient manner by incorporating them into larger projects such
as the City’s annual pavement maintenance project. Past projects include removal of storm drai n grates that
impact bike lanes, bike lane signing and striping, and shared lane markings in conjunction with City paving
projects. Improving bikeways encourages bicycle riding as an alternative travel mode, supporting congestion
relief and greenhouse gas emission reduction.
Status
This is an existing project shown in the 2015-17 Financial Plan.
Project Team
Lead Department: Public Works
Operating Program Number & Title: 50500 Transportation Planning and Engineering
Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours
Project Management CIP Engineering - Design 40
Construction Management CIP Engineering - Construction 50
Project Administration CIP Engineering 16
Project Proponent Transportation Planning & Eng 10
Site List – For multi-year projects
Location Estimated Year of
Construction
Pavement Area
(for projects in right-of-way)
Various Locations 2017 Citywide Arterials
Various Locations 2018 Area 2 and 3
Various Locations 2019 Citywide Arterials
Various Locations 2020 Area 4 and 5
Various Locations 2021 Citywide Arterials
Packet Pg 273
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
Initial Projects Costs by Phase
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Construction (953)$100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $110,000 $110,000 $520,000
Total $0 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $110,000 $110,000 $520,000
Project Funding by Source
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
General Capital Outlay $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $110,000 $110,000 $520,000
Total $0 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $110,000 $110,000 $520,000
Packet Pg 274
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
BOB JONES TRAIL – PREFUMO CREEK CONNECTION TO OCEANAIRE, FY 2017-19
Project Description Community Priority
☒ New Project ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives
☒ Measure G Priority
Purpose and Need
Constructing a class I bicycle connection from Calle Joaquin to Oceanaire will cost $1,060,000 for
construction and $1,000 for maintenance, both in FY 2018-19.
This project will construct the Bob Jones Trail from Calle Joaquin to Oceanaire Avenue past the Target
shopping center. As part of the development of the Target Center (Prefumo Creek Commons) the developer
contributed $249,507 in air quality mitigation fees to the City for use in constructing the path. This money
was received in 2010 and needs to be used. The City was unsuccessful in using this sum as a source for local
match in a past Statewide Active Transportation Grant application. In FY 2015-17, funds were activated to
complete design and environmental work in hopes to have a better state of “readiness” in upcoming grant
cycles.
The City is hoping to use a previously acquired bridge to reduce costs for the project, which is identified in
the Bicycle Transportation Plan. In addition, the path was included in the environmental determination for the
Calle Joaquin Agricultural Master Plan but will likely need additional environmental review as part of project development.
It is anticipated that the project will compete favorably for outside grant funding however, the remaining part of developer contribution, Measure G, TIF or general
fund will be needed as local match if a grant is not realized. Funding may need to be moved forward depending upon successful competition and award of grant
funding.
Status
This is an existing project shown in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. The planning was included under the Bicycle Transportation Plan Implementation. Planning for this
project is well underway and expected to be completed Spring 2017.
Project Team
Lead Department: Public Works
Operating Program Number & Title: 50500-Transportation Planning and Engineering
Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours
Construction
Management
CIP Engineering - Construction 480
Packet Pg 275
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
BOB JONES TRAIL PREFUMO CREEK CONNECTION TO OCEANAIRE, FY 2017-19
Initial Projects Costs by Phase
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Study (951)$35,000 $35,000
Design (952)$121,000 $121,000
Construction (953)$1,000,000 $1,000,000
Const. Management (954)$60,000 $60,000
Total $156,000 $0 $1,060,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,216,000
Ongoing Costs by Type
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Utilities $0
Maintenance Materials $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $3,000
Staff $0
Contract Services $0
Total $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $3,000
Project Funding by Source
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
General Capital Outlay $156,000 $216,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $375,000
Grant $750,000 $750,000
Impact/In-Lieu Fees $94,000 $94,000
Total $156,000 $0 $1,060,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,219,000
Packet Pg 276
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION BROAD STREET CORRIDOR ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19, FY 2019-20 Project Description Community Priority ☒ New Project ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☒ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need The Broad Street transportation corridor is a major spine of the City’s transportation and transit network. It serves multiple transportation needs as a regional arterial street and as a local street serving businesses, residences, shopping, and important community facilities. The street design allows for high traffic volumes, relatively high speeds, and continuous, uncontrolled left turns into streets and driveways, making it difficult for residents to access businesses, adjacent neighborhoods, schools, parks, and public transit. Traffic volumes on Broad Street, up to 29,100 vehicles per day in 2010, discourage all but the most determined pedestrians and bicyclists from crossing Broad Street. The Broad Street Corridor Plan was adopted as part of the LUCE approval in 2014. The plan recommends street changes along Broad Street, between South Street and Orcutt, to improve connectivity and public safety. The City was successful in working with Caltrans to relinquish this segment of Broad Street from the state highway system and is now in full control of the street design and standards. A recurring theme voiced at public hearings and workshops for both the Broad Street Corridor Plan and the FY 2017-19 Goal setting process was the need for safe pedestrian and bicycle crossings and paths. For example, public transit users traveling southbound on Broad Street face a significant challenge if they want to disembark mid-block and cross to a business on the east side of the street. The Area Plan proposes context sensitive design solutions that improve mobility, calm traffic, and enhance the aesthetic character for the Broad Street corridor and adjacent neighborhoods. Better connections between the planning area and surrounding facilities like Hawthorne Elementary School, Sinsheimer Elementary School, and Sinsheimer Park are needed. Additionally, redevelopment on the east side of Broad Street along Victoria avenue is creating new residents that will need to connect to these areas as new housing comes on line. This project will continue the work of the Broad Street Corridor Plan (BSCP) with a focus on identifying connectivity and safety improvements along Broad Street from South Street to Orcutt Road. Although the BSCP identifies significant changes to Broad Street (street realignments, signalization, medians, etc) funding available for these improvement sis limited. This request proposes to begin study of potential changes along Broad Street that could be implemented at lower costs than the full plan and advance improvements at one or more locations in the corridor. Funds for additional study of the corridor along with public engagement in FY 2017-18; design in FY 2018-19 and construction in FY 2019-20. Improvements to be considered may include: revising striping between South and Orcutt to reduce travel lane widths, increase bicycle separation and pedestrian refuge, signalization or additional traffic control options at Woodbridge or Lawrence, micro median island placement or hawk signals at strategic locations to improve pedestrian connectivity. Packet Pg 2772
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION Status This is a new project not included in the 2011-19 Financial Plan and is part of the Major Council Goal for Multimodal Transportation. Project Team Lead Department: Public Works - Transportation Operating Program Number & Title: 50500 Transportation Planning and Engineering Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Manager Transportation – Design 260 per year Environmental Clearance Community Development 1 per year Contract Management CIP Engineering – Construction 100 per year Anticipated Facility Life Span: Improvements are expected to provide adequate capacity for at least 30 years. Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalStudy (951)$25,000$25,000Design (952)$45,000$45,000Total$0 $0 $0 $25,000 $45,000$0 $70,000Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalGeneral Capital Outlay$45,000$45,000Impact/In-Lieu Fees$25,000$25,000Total$0 $0 $0 $25,000 $45,000$0 $70,000 Note: Although this project is not predicated on development, the City has collected approximately $25,000 to date from area development mitigation fees to assist in improvements along Broad Street. Packet Pg 2782
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
RRST PEPPER STREET TO THE TRAIN STATION, FY 17-19
Project Description Community Priority
☒ New Project ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives
☒ Measure G Priority
Purpose and Need
This project will complete a gap in the Railroad Safety Trail (RRST) from Pepper Street to th e Train Station.
In the FY 15-17 budget, a project was initiated to construct a segment of the RRST from California to Pepper
Street. The new project will complete an on-street segment to extend the trail to the Train Station and connecting
to the existing RRST segment beginning at the Jennifer Street Bridge.
Status
This is a new project not included in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. The planning was included under the Bicycle
Transportation Plan Implementation. Given the constraints of providing a Class I connection on UPRR property,
the Bicycle Transportation Plan provides this on-street alternative.
Project Team
Lead Department: Public Works
Operating Program Number & Title: 50500-Transportation Planning and Engineering
Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours
Construction
Management
CIP Engineering - Construction 150
RRST PEPPER STREET TO THE TRAIN STATION, FY 17-19
Anticipated Facility Life Span:
Packet Pg 279
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
Initial Projects Costs by Phase
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Design (952)$30,000 $30,000
Construction (953)$200,000 $200,000
Total $0 $0 $30,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $230,000
Ongoing Costs by Type
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Utilities $0
Maintenance Materials $0
Staff $0
Contract Services $0
Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Project Funding by Source
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
General Capital Outlay $30,000 $200,000 $230,000
Total $0 $0 $30,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $230,000
Packet Pg 280
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY & OPERATIONS – FY 2017-18 THROUGH FY 2021-22
Project Description Community Priority
☒ Annual Maintenance ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives
☒ Measure G Priority
Purpose and Need
Traffic Safety Program ($30,000 annually)
Each year the City analyzes high collision rate locations, ranks and prioritizes those locations, develops
mitigation measures, and constructs them. This program is the City’s primary mechanism for effectively
addressing traffic safety issues.
Transportation Monitoring ($60,000 every other year)
As required under the General Plan Circulation Element policy 7.7 the City conducts bi-annual traffic volume counts citywide to identify and monitor levels-of-
service (LOS) on streets resulting from development and travel changes. Traffic counts are a prerequisite for the traffic studies necessary to respond to citizen
requests, program traffic signal timing, identify and implement roadway improvements, forecast future traffic demands and fac ilitate the City’s Traffic Safety,
Operations, and Neighborhood Traffic Management Programs.
Status
This is a combination of existing projects shown in the 2015-17 Financial Plan.
Project Team
Lead Department: Public Works
Operating Program Number & Title: 50500-Transportation Planning and Engineering
Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours
Project Proponent Transportation Planning & Engineering 400
Project Management Transportation Planning & Engineering 280
Contract Administration CIP Engineering - Administration 320
Packet Pg 281
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY & OPERATIONS – FY 2017-18 THROUGH 2021-22
Initial Projects Costs by Phase
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Study (951)ongoing $0 $60,000 $0 $60,000 $0 $120,000
Design (952)ongoing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction (953)ongoing $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $150,000
Total $0 $30,000 $90,000 $30,000 $90,000 $30,000 $270,000
Project Funding by Source
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
General Capital Outlay ongoing $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $150,000
Impact/In-Lieu Fees ongoing $60,000 $60,000 $120,000
Total $0 $30,000 $90,000 $30,000 $90,000 $30,000 $270,000
Packet Pg 282
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – CULTURE & RECREATION
PARKS AND RECREATION INTERIOR OFFICE REHABILITATION - FY 2017-18
Project Description Community Priority
☒ Rehabilitation or Replacement ☐ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives
☐ Measure G Priority
Purpose and Need The Parks and Recreation office building was completed and occupied in 1997. In over 20 years, there have been no improvements to the interior of the building (paint or flooring) since its original construction. This office space has the designation of being the “poorest” maintained in the City at this time. Due to the nature of the work performed by staff based out of this building (in the field, parks, facilities during all weather conditions), and the passage of twenty years, the interior of the building needs rehabilitation. The flooring is inappropriate and can no longer be sufficiently cleaned. Further, some of the office furniture in the building is made from fabric, is almost impossible to clean, collects dusts, and creates respiratory problems for some. The shared space where most staff work is poorly designed and does not reflect the collaborative and highly communicative nature of this department. It is part of the Department’s adopted Strategic Plan to provide a healthy and smart workplace for employees. The rehabilitation of the interior of the Parks and Recreation office building is proposed and would include: minor furniture reconfiguration design, new flooring, painting the interior, making some furniture modifications, and an IT infrastructure upgrade. The IT department is recommending that with the buildings interior rehabilitation that its outdated Ethernet cabling be upgraded to Category 6 cabling to meet future needs of the department and bring it to the current standard used in all other City facilities. Costs noted by Phase reflect Design 5, 0000; Construction $40,000 (painting and flooring); Equipment Acquisition $50,000 (cubicle furniture); Computer Acquisition $21,000 (upgraded computer cabling). The project is recommended for design and construction in year one (2017-18). Status This is a new project not included in the 2015-17 Financial Plan.
Project Team Lead Department: Parks and Recreation Operating Program Number & Title: 60100 Recreation Administration
Packet Pg 283
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – CULTURE & RECREATION
Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Proponent Parks and Recreation 40 Project Manager PW Engineering 20 IT Network IT 40 Contract Management PW Engineering 10 Construction Management PW Engineering 40
Anticipated Facility Life Span: Thirty years
Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalDesign (952)$5,000 $5,000Construction (953)$40,000 $40,000Const. Management (954)$0Equipment Acquisition (956)$50,000 $50,000Computer Acquisition (963)$21,000 $21,000Total$0 $116,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $116,000
Ongoing Costs by TypeBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalTotal$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalGeneral Capital Outlay $0 $116,000 $116,000Total$0 $116,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $116,000
Packet Pg 284
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & OPEN SPACE ONGOING OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE (ANNUAL) Project Description Community Priority ☒ Annual Maintenance ☐ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☒ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need Continued implementation of the City’s adopted Open Space Maintenance Plan. Open space protection was a 2015-17 Major City Goal, is an important community objective, and acknowledged as a community funding priority in the adoption of Measure G. According to the various resident surveys Open Space is a top priority and community value for residents. The ongoing maintenance of all City Open Space is premised on the protection of natural resources, including plants, animals, geologic and historic features and the natural areas themselves. Maintenance will continue to be done in accordance with the Conservation and Land Use Element, Conservation Guidelines, adopted Conservation and Open Space Plans for specific open space areas, all City Ordinances and in accordance with the adopted Open Space Maintenance Plan. Maintenance includes the following activity areas: enhancement to existing trailheads, maintenance and construction of approved and sustainable trails and open space facilities for passive recreation purposes only, removal of illicit materials and trails, improved user and natural resource safety, land restoration and stewardship projects, invasive species treatment and control, erosion control and stabilization, education of users via patrols and community outreach, and management of the wildland-urban interface areas. At the completion of the Major City Goal, there is an ongoing need of annual maintenance to preserve the current and future needs of open space. This project is recommending annual funding of $60.000; $5,000 in Permits & Planning (Design), $50,000 in Contract Labor with California Conservation Corps and Convict Crews and contracted specialty work for infrastructure (Construction), and $5,000 for miscellaneous tools and accessories replacement (Equipment Acquisition). Status This is an existing project shown in the 2015-17 Financial Plan as the Major City Goal: Open Space Preservation. Project Team Lead Department: Parks and Recreation Operating Program Number & Title: 60290 Ranger Service Packet Pg 2852
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & OPEN SPACE Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Annual Hours Project Manager Ranger Supervisor 2,000 Project Support Natural Resources 1,000 Technical Studies Natural Resources 100 Environmental Clearance Community Development 100 Contract Management Ranger Supervisor 400 Construction Ranger Service Division 4,000 Analyst Parks & Recreation 500 ONGOING OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalDesign (952)$5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000$25,000Construction (953)$50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000$250,000Equipment Acquisition (956)$5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000$25,000Total$0 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $300,000Ongoing Costs by TypeBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalTotal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalGeneral Capital Outlay$0 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000$300,000Total$0 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $300,000 Packet Pg 2862
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – COMMUNITY SAFETY POLICE DEPARTMENT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS & CARPET REPLACEMENT - FY 2017-18 Project Description Community Priority ☒ Rehabilitation or Replacement ☐ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☐ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need This project is to reallocate space in the Police Department lobby to effectively utilize available space and create additional work areas and offices which are greatly needed. Due to the age of the Police building, there have been numerous building assessments conducted and in each case, there was a conclusion that the department lacked work space. The Police Department building was evaluated in 1988 and in 2003, it was concluded that the building was insufficiently sized to meet present needs, with some interior areas being inefficiently utilized. In addition to the already insufficient office space, new work areas need to be constructed to accommodate the traffic team currently located at 1016 Walnut. The traffic team will need to be relocated into the police station until a new Police Facility is constructed since their building is unsuitable to conduct business. Furthermore, the police department is hiring a crime analyst, and after the workload and staffing study in progress by City Gate Associates, is likely to add additional civilian staff. The additional office spaces will be critical in meeting the temporary space need to accommodate the traffic team and the additional volunteers and personnel scheduled to be hired in the next years. Currently, the traffic team is housed at 1013 Walnut. That building has several health and safety issues, including exterior lead based paint that has deteriorated and is over capacity for that type of building. With this tentative improvement project, the Police lobby would gain an additional 208 SQFT of office space, allowing for three offices. The cost estimate for the tentative improvements is $35,000 in design and $89,300 for construction and computer equipment acquisition. In addition to the space improvements, the carpet within certain areas of the building needs replacement. The current carpet was installed in approximately 2000; and although the carpets are on regular cleaning schedules (deep cleaning annually and bonnet cleaning every six months) high traffic areas in the hallways and the lobby are well worn and stains cannot be removed. The lobby and hallway carpet would be replaced as part of the space improvement project. The department is proposing the use of laminate floor materials in place of the carpets, laminate is easier to disinfect and keep clean. The cost estimate for replacing the building’s high traffic area (1,700 SQFT), with laminate flooring and interior painting is $334,800. Status This is a new project not included in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. Project Team Lead Department: Police Department Operating Program Number & Title: 80100 Police Administration Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Packet Pg 2872
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – COMMUNITY SAFETY Project Proponent Police 10 Project Manager CIP Engineering – Design 80 Contract Management CIP Engineering - Admin 40 Construction Management CIP Engineering - Inspection 100 Project Maintenance Building Maintenance 20 Anticipated Facility Life Span: 15 years Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalDesign (952)$35,000$35,000Construction (953)$70,500 $334,800$405,300Computer Acquisition (963)$18,800$18,800Total$0 $35,000 $89,300 $334,800$0$0 $459,100Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalGeneral Capital Outlay$35,000 $89,300 $334,800$459,100Total$0 $35,000 $89,300 $334,800$0$0 $459,100 Packet Pg 2882
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – COMMUNITY SAFETY POLICE STATION REPLACEMENT – FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19, FY 2020-21, FY 2021-22 Project Description Community Priority ☒ Rehabilitation or Replacement ☐ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☒ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need The original Police Department was built in 1969 and consisted of approximately 9,000 square feet. In 1981 the square footage was increased with a second story building addition at the south end of the existing facility. In 1999 the property adjacent to the Police Department at 1016 Walnut (778 square feet) was purchased; this building was built in 1906 and is currently being occupied by the Traffic Enforcement Team. This building currently is in disrepair with a faulty foundation and lead paint issues. The Police Department building was assessed in 1988 as having limited flexibility, poor acoustical privacy, an undersized employee lounge, inadequate locker rooms, inadequate parking, and inefficient clerical space. The site was evaluated again in 2003 by Daniel Smith and Associates as insufficiently sized to meet present needs; employee and public parking is completely inadequate, with some interior areas inefficiently utilized. The main electrical panel was evaluated in 2004 and found to have limited availability of replacement breakers for a panel that age. Combined with the multiple modifications and proximity to existing water pipes, the breaker was a candidate for replacement. Today, the Police facility is 18,084 square feet. The 2003 Police Facility Master Plan identified industry standard gross square footage needs for staffing at that time to be 38,675 square feet with predicted needs in 2027 to be over 42,000 square feet of office space. With the over 20,000 square foot shortfall of industry standard space, the current facility does not meet the needs of the department. In addition to the lack of space and parking, the building does not provide appropriate public or employee access for persons with disabilities, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Building Code (CBC). The existing facility is antiquated in design, layout, construction and does not promote efficiency. Policing needs in San Luis Obispo have seen a moderately steady growth in service since the 1970’s and the existing building is currently insufficient in size to accommodate all the required staff to fulfill and provide all services and functions. The deficient conditions will only continue to worsen as police staff size increases to meet the needs of the growing City of San Luis Obispo. It is estimated that the resident population will grow to over 57,000 people in 2027. To properly support a police force that serves this size community would require a facility over twice as large as the current facility with a two story parking structure to accommodate employee, public and police fleet parking. The Department desperately needs a unified, accessible facility, which addresses needs for public service, security, vehicle parking and storage, as well as adequate space needs for staff members and safe vehicular entry/egress. Additionally, the facility must meet the California Building Code requirements for an Essential Services Building, the purpose of which is that such a facility be able to continue providing public service operations in the event of a natural disaster. Packet Pg 2892
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – COMMUNITY SAFETY Status Department staff is working closely with Public Works on the Police Department’s 2015-16 CIP for a Police Facility concept plan. The funding outlined in this CIP Request will move this project forward to create a concept plan or schematic design for a new building. This concept design is a necessary component of the project design process to better define the project scope, anticipated project cost, anticipated environmental impacts, as well as a visual tool to help inform the community of the project. A future CIP request will be generated in the next appropriate budget cycle that will use the results of this work to better define project timelines, scope, and costs if community support is achieved. Project Team Lead Department: Police Operating Program Number & Title: 80100 Police Administration Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Proponent Police 80 per year Project Manager CIP Engineering – Design 200 per year Contract Management CIP Engineering - Admin 20 per year Construction Management CIP Engineering - Inspection 30 per year Project Maintenance Building Maintenance 40 per year Anticipated Facility Life Span: 50 yearsInitial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalLand Acquisition (950)$0Study (951)$65,000$0$65,000Design (952)$15,000$0$15,000Site Preparation (955)$0Environmental Review (957)$0Total$65,000 $15,000$0$0$0$0 $80,000Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalGeneral Capital Outlay$65,000 $15,000$0$80,000Total$65,000 $15,000$0$0$0$0 $80,000 Packet Pg 2902
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – GENERAL FUND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENTS
Project Description
Adhering to an appropriate replacement schedule for the city’s information technology assets will require the following annual investments shown below:
1) 2017-18 Total $885,500* from ($835,755 General Fund* and $49,745 Enterprise Fund)
2) 2018-19 Total $1,476,317 from ($1,261,000 General Fund and $215,317 Enterprise Fund)
3) 2019-20 $929,623 from ($525,000 General Fund and $339,623 Enterprise Fund and $65,000 from Grant Funds)
4) 2020-21 $559,100 from ($550,968 General Fund and $8,132 Enterprise Fund)
5) 2021-22 $646,706 from ($579,000 and $67,706 Enterprise Fund)
*Includes $110,000 from Fleet Replacement Fund
Maintenance/Replacement New project IT Replacement New Fleet Request Council Goal / Measure G Priority
Need and Urgency
Staff is requesting replacement the replacement of various pieces of hardware and software that serve all of the city’s departments.
The decision to replace these items is based on:
1) Projected reliable service life of the asset or software and the actual age of the item compared to its projected service life.
2) The current performance trends indicating the item’s reliability and cost of repairs
3) The availability of warranty service and replacement parts in the event of a failure.
4) Manufacturer’s scheduled end of life/end of support for the item.
5) The expectation that the network will be capable of meeting the uptime standard of 99.9% by continuing to utilize the item.
Operating Program Number, Title and Project Phasing:
Staff’s process for evaluating items for replacement during this 5-year period included determining which items projects could be phased for implementation,
which were the most critically in need of replacement and which were the most critical to the organization. The a vailability of grant funds was also considered in
reaching conclusions about the scheduled replacements.
As each replacement is programmed into the financial system, it will be provided with as unique identifier establishing the appropriation and will be assigned to
the appropriate department in order to assure that future reports reflect the costs in accorda nce with the function that they serve.
Packet Pg 291
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – GENERAL FUND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENTS
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE FUND GRANT FUND
TOTALS:$835,755 $1,261,000 $525,000 $550,968 $579,000 $49,745 $215,317 $339,623 $8,132 $67,706 $0 $0 $65,000 $0 $0
Title
Projected
Replacement
Cost
2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY $12,000 $0 $12,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
16. Irrigation (Rainmaster/Rainbird)$12,000 $0 $12,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
COMMUNITY SAFETY $2,301,246 $460,755 $730,944 $143,123 $509,100 $229,706 $49,745 $177,873 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
07. Radio Handhelds & Mobiles $486,929 $180,000 $0 $143,123 $14,100 $149,706 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
38. Dispatch Radio Consoles $375,000 $0 $0 $0 $375,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
01. South Hills Radio Site Upgrade and Radio Enhancements $523,500 $254,255 $183,582 $0 $0 $0 $49,745 $35,918 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
12. ECC Blade Computers $4,317 $0 $4,317 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
13. ECC Equipment Replacement $35,000 $0 $35,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
15. Tait Radio System Backend Upgrade $650,000 $0 $508,045 $0 $0 $0 $0 $141,955 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
39. Audio Recording System Replacement (VoicePrint-Radio & 911)$120,000 $0 $0 $0 $120,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
52. PD SAN Controllers (Storage Area Network)$80,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
53. Public Surveillance Cameras (located at City Hall, Sinsheimer Pool, Golf Course)$26,500 $26,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
FISCAL HEALTH & GOVERNANCE $350,000 $0 $350,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Motion Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)$350,000 $0 $350,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION $1,934,000 $375,000 $168,056 $381,877 $41,868 $349,294 $0 $37,444 $339,623 $8,132 $67,706 $0 $0 $65,000 $0 $0
03. SQL Server Cluster $100,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
04. PD SAN Controllers $80,000 $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
06. VoIP Telephone System $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $256,371 $0 $0 $0 $0 $43,629 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
08. Storage Capacity Replacment $85,000 $85,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
10. UPS Battery Backup System $51,000 $0 $42,706 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,294 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
23. Microsoft Office (Total Project $225,000)$154,500 $0 $125,350 $0 $0 $0 $0 $29,150 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
26. Firewall Replacement (Total Project $186,500)$186,500 $0 $0 $154,863 $0 $0 $0 $0 $31,637 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
27. Network Security Upgrade $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
28. Virtual Private Network Replace (VPN (Total cost $130,000)$130,000 $0 $0 $102,014 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,986 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
42. Server Operating System Software (Total Project $50,000)$50,000 $0 $0 $0 $41,868 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,132 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
44. Wireless System Citywide $66,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,217 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,783 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
51. UPS Battery Backup System (Total Project $51,000)$51,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $42,706 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,294 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
20. Fleet Management Software $110,000 $110,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
22. Signs Management (Cartegraph)$65,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $65,000 $0 $0
34. iFix SCADA System - Controls wastewater alarms $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
35. Hach Wims (Prev. OPS32)$30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
57. Water Telemetry HMIs $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Packet Pg 292
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – GENERAL FUND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENTS
Reduced / Enhanced Project Alternatives
Alternate project is feasible or advantageous – Cost of alternative project: NA
Project can be phased – Number of years for phasing: Staff has incorporated the spreading of replacement dates for these items in an attempt to smooth
replacement costs and alleviate financial burden on the IT Replacement Fund.
Leasing Alternative: Staff evaluated the use of lease purchase financing throughout the 5 year period shown. It was found that the cost of carrying the debt became
too great as the cost of leased assets grew over time so this alternative was removed from consideration except for the last year in the five year period. Here, the
number and value of replacement items is twice that of any prior period and some form of financing must be considered if all assets listed are to be replaced. While
the current information reflects that leasing these assets may be necessary, staff will continue to evaluate t he situation to determine whether one or more of these
items’ scheduled replacement period can be deferred to a later time.
Project Team
These purchases will be will be managed by the IT Manager with assistance from the IT Supervisor and the affected department supervisors to ensure coordinated
and timely purchases and implementations.
Packet Pg 293
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – GENERAL GOVERNMENT
SOUTH HILLS RADIO SITE UPGRADE AND RADIO ENHANCEMENTS AT FIRE STATIONS 2 AND 3
Project Description Community Priority
☒ Rehabilitation or Replacement ☐ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives
☐ Measure G Priority: Public Safety
Purpose and Need
The City’s primary radio transmit and receive site is located in a City leased space at the top of South Hill. This
site was constructed in the early 1980’s and has served the City well over the past 30 plus years but is now
structurally failing. The existing fiberglass shelter houses well over $500,000 worth of critical radio and network
equipment to maintain day to day Public Safety radio and operations. The South Hill site as well as the additional
transmit and receive radio sites at Fire Stations 2 & 3, and the receive site on top of 919 Palm make up the City’s
public safety and non-public safety simulcast radio system.
The City sites were upgraded in Spring of 2010, as part of the Citywide Radio System upgrade project. At that
time a radio signal strength survey was performed and the system met or exceeded all requirements and the
system was accepted and commissioned. Since that time, receive signal strength has greatly degraded due to
new building construction and tree growth. The City radio system transmits a 100-watt signal which easily
penetrates all obstacles throughout the City and is not the problem.
The problem lies with the receive signal from the Police Officer and Firefighter mobiles and handheld radios.
Handheld radios only transmit a 5-watt signal which from many areas in the City and in buildings make it
impossible for the ECC dispatchers to receive the radio transmissions. The result of the reduced signal coverage
translates to not only critical Police Officer and Firefighter safety concerns, but also reduced mission critical
Police and Fire services to our citizens as well as potential liability concerns. Information Technology staff has
been notified by the Police and Fire personnel of their growing concerns with the radio system and the effect it’s
having on their ability to perform their jobs as well as their personnel safety.
The South Hill site is in critical need of repair as water damage has rotted the wood supporting the floor and has
resulted in the floor caving in. Building Maintenance personnel have sealed and patched the floor with a metal
grate, however the floor has broken around it, leaving a new hole and other sections of the floor are starting to
show problems that are beyond repair.
A major investment is needed to rectify this problem at the South Hill site . Fire Stations 2 & 3 are also having
problems with receiving radio signals from public safety personnel. This is due to the antennas at these two
radio sites being mounted on the building rooftops giving them a height of about 25-30 feet, which does not
provide the needed antenna separation that would be provided by the requested radio tower.
Packet Pg 294
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Staff is recommending that this be a phased project with phase 1 consisting of the upgrade of the primary South Hill radio site. After the completion of phase 1,
staff will conduct a radio signal strength survey to assess the need to continue with second phase of the project, which is the placement of new radio towers at Fire
Stations 2 & 3. The survey will provide the information required to validate the need to continue with phase 2. Should phase 2 not be required, the funding will be
available for other projects.
Phase 1 - South Hill Radio Site
As stated above, in addition to the critical radio coverage problem at the South Hill site, staff (and Radio Consultants) are recommending a complete upgrade of the
site which will include:
A new concrete radio shelter (similar to those at Fire Stations 2 & 3) to replace the existing rotting fiberglass shelter. Attached pictures show the rotting
floor (which one of our technicians fell through).
A new correctly sized emergency generator. The existing generator is undersized for the current power draw that has increased over the years and has
recently been very unreliable.
A new 100’ radio tower that will replace the existing undersized street light poles that are currently being utilized. The new radio tower will provide the
vertical antenna separation required to resolve the critical receive signal problem. The existing Street light poles were adequate and saved costs back in
2010, but now need to be upgraded to a real radio tower similar to the tower at Fire Station 1. Attached photos show the street light pole and the make-shift
structure placed on the roof to try and improve coverage.
Phase 2 - Fire Stations 2 & 3 Radio Sites
The City’s Public Safety radio system is a simulcast system with 3 transmit and receive sites and one receive only site. Being a simulcast system means that
all sites need to be performing at the same signal levels to be effective. To resolve the receive signal degradation issue throughout the City, staff is
recommending that the antennas at Fire Stations 2 & 3 be upgraded with new 100’ radio towers. The existing antennas at these stations are roof mounted
which does not provide the vertical separation needed to correct the receive signal problem.
Bottom Line –The result of the reduced signal coverage translates to not only critical Police Officer and Firefighter safety concerns, but also reduced mission critical
Police and Fire services to our citizens as well as potential liability concerns. IT staff has been notified by the Police, Fire and ECC personnel voicing their growing
concerns with the radio system and the adverse effect it’s having on their ability to perform their jobs. Both employee unions have also been notified of the radio
issue.
This critical CIP request needs to be a high priority project. Additional time will only compound the receive signal problem due to increased growth in the City,
both from construction and tree growth as well as the continued deterioration of the existing fiberglass radio shelter and generator at the South Hill site as well as
the employee and citizen safety concerns and potential liability as stated above.
Status - The planning and design work has been completed for this project and it is “shovel ready”. This is a new project not included in the 2015-17 Financial Plan
Packet Pg 295
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – GENERAL GOVERNMENT
South Hills Radio Site Upgrade and Radio Enhancements at Fire Stations 2 and 3 2017-18
Lead Department: City Administration
Operating Program Number & Title: 25300 Network Services
Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours
Project Management Network Services 200
Project Support CIP Engineering - Design 40
Construction Management CIP Engineering - Inspection 200
Site List – For multi-year projects
Location Estimated Year of Construction
South Hills Radio Site 2017
Fire Station 2 and 3 2018
SOUTH HILLS RADIO SITE UPGRADE AND RADIO ENHANCEMENTS
Anticipated Facility Life Span: 25 years
Packet Pg 296
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Initial Projects Costs by Phase
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Construction (953)$53,200 $58,800 $112,000
Const. Management (954)$25,000 $25,000 $50,000
Equipment Acquisition (956)$223,800 $133,700 $357,500
Total $0 $302,000 $217,500 $0 $0 $0 $519,500
Ongoing Costs by Type
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Staff $2,000 $2,000 $4,000
Total $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,000
Project Funding by Source
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
General Capital Outlay $254,255 $254,255
Information Technology Replacement $183,582 $183,582
Sewer Fund $14,923 $10,775 $25,698
Parking Fund $6,633 $4,789 $11,422
Transit Fund $3,317 $2,395 $5,712
Water Fund $24,872 $17,959 $42,831
Total $0 $304,000 $219,500 $0 $0 $0 $523,500
Packet Pg 297
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – GENERAL GOVERNMENT
ENTERPRISE SQL SERVER 2016 CLUSTER - FY 2017-18
Project Description Community Priority
☒ New IT Request ☐ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives
☐ Measure G Priority
Purpose and Need
Databases for the City’s enterprise applications are currently on a Microsoft SQL Server 2012 cluster. The hardware and software running this cluster are aging
and no longer suitable as a high-availability database platform. New hardware and software will provide the ability to maintain availability of the City’s enterprise
data during maintenance by IT or if a disaster compromises a City data center. Moreover, it ensures we have capacity to support the database needs—and data
storage needs—of the City’s enterprise applications—such as EnerGov and Cityworks— for the next three-to-five years.
Upgrading the hardware and software supports the Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility Action Plan by continuing to
Implement and track operational efficiencies including alternative service delivery, best management practices, and cost containment measures that
preserve the effectiveness of City services and operations (Task 5);
Invest in infrastructure maintenance (Task 12), and
Develop, implement, and report on operational efficiencies (Task 13).
Enterprise systems require enterprise databases, and the Enterprise version of Microsoft SQL Server 2016 is the heart of a modern Windows-based enterprise
environment. A high-availability database cluster provides ready-access to the data the organization needs, and a modern database toolset makes it possible to
leverage that data to deliver increasingly sophisticated service to the community. The newer technology enables both end-users and network and administrators to
become more capable—and more efficient, and is designed to help bridge between on-premises systems and those that are, increasingly, in the cloud.
End-users gain easier access to the data they need (e.g. Perspectives, DirectQuery Storage Mode, Report Subscriptions) and dramatically-improved tools
to work with it (e.g. PowerView, PowerBI On-Premises, PowerPivot for SharePoint);
City Database Administrators gain technologies to empower end users and dramatically improve their user experience (e.g. Online Indexing, In-Memory
Column Store & OLTP, Data Warehouses, NUMA); and
City Network Administrators gain tools that help maintain a high-availability database cluster in the modern enterprise environment (e.g. Resource
Governor, Fast Recovery, Mirrored Backups).
Failure to upgrade will
decrease the day-to-day uptime of the City’s enterprise applications,
increase the likelihood that urgent remedy will be required to resolve issues that arise—likely at an equal or greater cost,
reduce the availability of existing databases during a disaster scenario (major fire, flood, earthquake, etc.),
limit the technology options available to IT staff—and their customers—and ultimately, the information and analysis resources available to the
organization.
Status
Packet Pg 298
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – GENERAL GOVERNMENT
This is a new project not included in the 2015-17 Financial Plan
Lead Department: City Administration
25300 Network Services
Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours
Project Management Network Services 200
Anticipated Facility Life Span:
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Computer Acquisition (963)$100,000 $100,000
Total $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000
Ongoing Costs by Type
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Utilities $0
Maintenance Materials $0
Staff $0
Contract Services $0
Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Project Funding by Source
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Information Technology Replacement $100,000 $100,000
Total $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000
Packet Pg 299
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – PUBLIC SAFETY
FIRE RADIO RECEIVE SITE AT FIRE STATION #4 – FY 2018-19
Project Description Community Priority
☒ Rehabilitation or Replacement ☐ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives
☐ Measure G Priority: Public Safety
Purpose and Need
The City’s public safety and non-public safety simulcast radio system consists of the South Hill primary radio
site, the transmit and receive radio sites at Fire Stations 2 & 3, and the receive site on top of 919 Palm. Staff is
submitting this CIP as a placeholder for fiscal years 2018-19 in the event the South Hill CIP does not sufficiently
resolve the receive signal strength problem long-term. Should the radio upgrade CIP resolve the problem as
anticipated, any funding earmarked for this project will be available for other City projects.
The City’s radio system was last upgraded in Spring of 2010, as part of the Citywide Radio System Upgrade
project. A radio signal strength survey was performed at that time and the system met or exceeded all
requirements and the system was accepted and commissioned. Since that time, receive signal strength has greatly
degraded because of new building construction and tree growth. The City radio system transmits a 100-watt
signal, which easily penetrates all obstacles throughout the City and is not the problem. The problem lies with
the low power output of mobile and handheld radios. The portable radios transmit at 5 watts’ which is the
maximum output for a portable radio. Also, the radios are required to be intrinsically safe so that our public
safety personnel can safely communicate in harsh fire conditions. Intrinsically safe means that the radio cannot
produce a spark that could endanger the Firefighter in the presence of flammable gases. This is not the case with non-public safety radios.
A separate CIP has been submitted that will upgrade the South Hill Site as well as replacing the roof mounted antennas at Fire Stations 2 & 3 with new 100’ antennas.
Staff believes that the radio upgrade CIP will resolve all of the radio transmit issues that are now being experienced by City Police Office rs and Firefighters. As a
“Plan B” in case the problem still remains after the South Hill CIP is completed, staff has asked our radio consultants, Applied Technology to perform an additional
survey with an additional receive site located at either Fire Station 4 or at the City’s Laguna Golf course. The results of the survey indicate that radio coverage would
greatly improve in the fast growing area south of town with a new receive site at Fire Station 4. A new site is planned to be a part of the Fire Station 5 project, but
that project may be several years away.
Staff has cost estimates for the new radio receive site. The new site will include a new radio shelter, emergency generator, tower and all of the critical radio equipment
that will be required and housed in the new building.
Bottom Line –The result of the reduced signal coverage translates to not only critical Police Officer and Firefighter safety concerns, but also reduced mission critical
Police and Fire services to our citizens as well as potential liability concerns. This critical CIP request needs to be a high priority project in the event the initial radio
upgrade CIP does not resolve the problem. It is very difficult to achieve optimal citywide coverage due to topography, building expansion and tree canopy growth.
Status - The planning and design work has also been completed for this project and it is “shovel ready”.
Packet Pg 300
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – PUBLIC SAFETY
This is a new project not included in the 2015-17 Financial Plan
FIRE RADIO RECEIVE SITE AT FIRE STATION 4 2018-19
Lead Department: City Administration
Operating Program Number & Title: 25300 Network Services
Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours
Project Management Network Services 200
Initial Projects Costs by Phase
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Construction (953)$555,015 $555,015
Const. Management (954)$25,000 $25,000
Total $0 $0 $0 $580,015 $0 $0 $580,015
Ongoing Costs by Type
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Staff $2,000 $2,000
Total $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000
Project Funding by Source
Budget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total
Information Technology Replacement $486,777 $486,777
Water Fund $43,387 $43,387
Sewer Fund $28,570 $28,570
Parking Fund $12,698 $12,698
Transit Fund $6,350 $6,350
Whale Rock Fund $4,233 $4,233
Total $0 $0 $0 $582,015 $0 $0 $582,015
Packet Pg 301
2
FLEET REPLACEMENT FUND FIVE-YEAR FORECAST
Current 2017-19 ForecastActualMidYearProposedProposedProposed Proposed Proposed2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22RevenuesInvestment and Property Revenues 13,625 10,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000Service Charges 0 0Other Revenues 0 7,500Sale of Surplus Property 69,220 6,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000Total Revenues 82,845 23,500 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000
ExpendituresCIP Carry Over (Including Encumbrances) from FY 15-16 452,431Capital Improvement Plan Projects (Vehicle Replacements)686,387 1,701,900 1,233,000 1,132,000 784,000 929,000 522,000One Time Expense - Fleet Software Modernization 110,000
Green Vehicle Charging Stations 30,000 75,000
Total Expenditures 686,387 2,154,331 1,373,000 1,207,000 784,000 929,000 522,000
Other Sources (Uses)Proceeds from Debt Fund for Financing 0 1,166,600 595,000 624,000 0 410,000 0Operating Transfers OutOperating Transfers In 384,100 0 604,000 471,000 485,000 500,000 500,000Total Other Sources (Uses)384,100 1,166,600 1,199,000 1,095,000 485,000 910,000 500,000
Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under)Expenditures and Other Uses (219,442) (964,231) (138,000) (76,000) (263,000) 17,000 14,000
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 2,029,048 1,809,606 845,375 707,375 631,375 368,375 385,375
Fund Balance, End of Year 1,809,606$ 845,375$ 707,375$ 631,375$ 368,375$ 385,375$ 399,375$
Assumptions:1) Maintains City Policy to Debt Finance Vehicles over $200,000 to help "smooth" annual expenditures of the fund2) Fund maintains the recommended $500,000 in year end working capital for unforeseen occurrences and unknown fleet needs3) Fund drops slightly below the Fund recommendation of maintaining $500,000 in working capital for the three out years of the forecast. This issue will be further refined as final Fund recommendations are brought forth and again during Supplemental budget process.
Packet Pg 302
2
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FLEET REPLACEMENT - GENERAL FUND 5-YEAR FORECAST
Dept Program Asset #Year Make Model Description
Current Age/Mileage/Hours
Replacement Policy Year/Mileage
Projected Replacement Cost NOTESPublic Works Streets Maintenance 9713 1994 Freightliner Dump Truck, Heavy Duty 22/570,000 12/60,000 $290,000 Include asset # 1102 Transfer Trailer in this cost.
PUBLIC WORKS Streets Maint 1102 2007 Reliance Trailer, Transfer Dump 9 12/60,000 Cost included in 9713 budget. Truck bed/transfer trailer need to match.POLICE Patrol 1307 2013 Ford Explorer SUV, Utility Police Interceptor 3/77,000 80,000 $51,000POLICEPatrol13082013Ford Explorer SUV, Utility Police Interceptor 3/82,000 80,000 $51,000POLICETraffic Motorcycle 0705 2005 Honda ST1300 Motorcycle 11/28,000 35,000 $34,000PUBLIC WORKS Streets Maint STS-CRP 2001 Crafco SS125 Crack Sealant Machine, Portable 15 15 $53,000PUBLIC WORKS Streets Maint 0614 1989 Case 480FLL Loader & Attachments, Skip & Drag 27/5000hrs 12/5000hrs $133,000PUBLIC WORKS Streets Maint 0909 2009 International Durastar Heavy Duty Truck, w/Tymco 600 Sweeper Unit 7/50,000 8/60,000 $305,000PUBLIC WORKS Parks Maint 0309 2002 Dodge D2500 Pickup Truck, 3/4 Ton 14/75,000 12/100,000 $35,000PUBLIC WORKS Parks Maint 0131 2001 John Deere JD4500 Tractor, Utility 15/2,900 12/5000hrs $42,000FIRETraining Services 0301 2002 Ford F150 Pickup Truck, 1/2 Ton 14/55,000 12/100,000 $58,000PUBLIC WORKS Fleet 0305 1998 Mitsubishi FBS20-48A Forklift, Electric 18 15 $35,000PUBLIC WORKS Streets Maint 0234 2002 Ford F-550 Medium Duty Truck, w/Hooklift Bed 14/37,000 12/60,000 $120,000PUBLIC WORKS Parks Maint 0608 2005 Club Car Carry-All Cart, Utility w/Dump Bed 11/2,700hrs 6/5,000hrs $26,000TOTAL$1,233,000
Dept Program Asset #Year Make Model Description
Current Age/Mileage/Hours
Replacement Policy Year/Mileage
Projected Replacement Cost NOTESFIREEmergency Response 0331 2003 Pierce Lance Fire Truck, Pumper 13 16 $624,000 Takes a year to build/order. POLICE Patrol 1305 2013 Ford Taurus Sedan, Police Interceptor 3/70,000 80,000 $51,000POLICEPatrol13062013Ford Taurus Sedan, Police Interceptor 3/70,000 80,000 $51,000POLICEPatrol13092014Ford Explorer SUV, Utility Police Interceptor 2/56,000 80,000 $51,000
PUBLIC WORKS Streets Maint 1104 PB Loader Body, Slide In Patcher 5 15 $205,000 Unit does not meet the programs needs. Replace with patch body truck.PUBLIC WORKS Parks Maint PKS-1 1995 Toro Greens Aerator Aerator, Walk Behind 21 15 $11,000 Not on Fleet Master list.PUBLIC WORKS Parks Maint 0333 2002 NC Trailer, Portable Restroom 14 15 $15,000 Trailers are in good shape, refurbish restrooms only. PUBLIC WORKS Parks Maint 0334 2002 NC Trailer, Portable Restroom 14 15 $15,000 Trailers are in good shape, refurbish restrooms only. PARKS&REC Golf 0862 2008 Toro GM 1000 Mower, 22" Walk Behind 8 7/5000hrs $33,000 Replace 0862, 0863, and 9001 with one ride-on mower. PARKS&REC Golf 0863 2008 Toro GM 1000 Mower, 22" Walk Behind 8 7/5000hrs Fleet reduction, remove from fleet. PARKS&REC Golf 9001 2009 Toro GM 1000 Mower, 22" Walk Behind 7 7/5000hrs Fleet reduction, remove from fleet. PARKS&REC Golf 0624 2006 Cushman Turf Truckster Cart, Utility w/Dump Bed 10/1,700hrs 6/5000hrs $28,000PARKS&REC Golf 0844 2008 Cushman Turf Truckster Cart, Utility w/Dump Bed 8/1,300 6/5,000hrs $28,000PUBLIC WORKS Streets Maint 0125 2001 Terex ODLSE25LA Trailer, Portable Arrow Board 15 15 $20,000 Upgrade to a full message board. TOTAL $1,132,000
Dept Program Asset #Year Make Model Description
Current Age/Mileage/Hours
Replacement Policy Year/Mileage
Projected Replacement Cost NOTESPOLICEPatrol15062015Ford Explorer SUV, Utility Police Interceptor 2/31,000 80,000 $51,000POLICEPatrol15072015Ford Explorer SUV, Utility Police Interceptor 2/37,000 80,000 $51,000POLICEPatrol15112015Ford Explorer SUV, Utility Police Interceptor 2/52,000 80,000 $51,000POLICEPatrol15122015Ford Explorer SUV, Utility Police Interceptor 2/56,000 80,000 $51,000PUBLIC WORKS Streets Maint 0413 2003 Caterpillar 420 Backhoe 13/3,400hrs 12/5000hrs $138,000PUBLIC WORKS Parks Maint 1007 2010 Toro 4000D Mower 6/2,700 7/5000hrs $68,000PARKS&REC Admin 0802 2007 Dodge Caravan Minivan 9/66,000 11/90,000 $34,000PUBLIC WORKS Streets Maint 0329 2002 Caterpillar 924 Loader 14/3,000hrs 12/5000hrs $175,000PUBLIC WORKS Parks Maint 0218 2002 John Deere JD5320 Tractor, Utility 14/2,500hrs 12/5,000hrs $45,000PUBLIC WORKS Streets Maint 0223 2002 Dodge Dakota Pickup Truck, Compact 14/40,000 12/100,000 $45,000PARKS&REC Golf 1201 2011 John Deere 8800 Mower, All Terrain 5/2,122 7/5,000 $75,000TOTAL$784,000
FY 2017-18
FY 2018-19
FY 2019-20
PD = 26% of the total (784K)
Packet Pg 303
2
Dept Program Asset #Year Make Model Description
Current Age/Mileage/Hours
Replacement Policy Year/Mileage
Projected Replacement Cost NOTESPOLICEPatrol15362015Ford Explorer SUV, Utility Police Interceptor 1.5/40,000 80,000 $51,000POLICEPatrol15372015Ford Explorer SUV, Utility Police Interceptor 1.5/36,000 80,000 $51,000POLICEPatrol16092015Ford Explorer SUV, Utility Police Interceptor 1/12,000 80,000 $51,000POLICEPatrol16102015Ford Explorer SUV, Utility Police Interceptor 1/29,000 80,000 $51,000PUBLIC WORKS Parks Maint 0505 2005 John Deere 1200A ATV, Field Prep Machine 11/1,550 15 $15,000PUBLIC WORKS Building Maint 0829 2008 Ford F-250 Pickup Truck, 3/4 Ton 8/55,000 12/100,000 $50,000PUBLIC WORKS Building Maint 0831 2008 Ford F-250 Pickup Truck, 3/4 Ton 8/45,000 12/100,000 $50,000PUBLIC WORKS Storm Water 0859 2008 Sterling V312SHAE Heavy Duty Truck, w/Vac-Con Hydrocleaner 8/19,000 12/60,000 $410,000PUBLIC WORKS Streets Maint 0842 2008 Ford F550 Medium Duty Truck, w/Utility Bed & Crane 8/40,000 12/60,000 $120,000PUBLIC WORKS Building Maint 0612 2005 Dodge D-250 Light Truck, 3/4 Ton w/Utility Bed 11/51,000 12/100,000 $45,000ADMINISTRATIONCity Hall GEN-9712 2005 Kohler 20RZ82 Generator, Stationary 11 15 $35,000TOTAL$929,000
Dept Program Asset #Year Make Model Description
Current Age/Mileage/Hours
Replacement Policy Year/Mileage
Projected Replacement Cost NOTESPOLICEPatrol 1642 2016 Ford Explorer SUV, Utility Police Interceptor 1/1,000 80,000 $52,000POLICEPatrol 1705 2016 Ford Explorer SUV, Utility Police Interceptor 1/4,500 80,000 $52,000POLICEPolice Trailer 0115 2000 Pace American Trailer, Enclosed 16 19 $45,000PUBLIC WORKS CIP Engineering 0722 2007 Chevrolet Colorado Pickup Truck, Compact 9/34,858 12/100,000 $35,000FIREFire Administration 0607 2005 Ford Ranger Pickup Truck, Compact 11/27,000 12/100,000 $40,000COMM DEV Building & Safety 0129 2001 Toyota RAV4 SUV 15/40,000 12/100,000 $35,000COMM DEV Building & Safety 0130 2001 Toyota RAV4 SUV 15/39,000 12/100,000 $35,000PUBLIC WORKS Streets Maint 1001 2009 Bomag Paver, Asphalt 7/900 12/5,000 $100,000ADMINISTRATIONNatural Resources 0852 2008 Ford Ranger Pickup Truck, Compact 8/38,000 12/100,000 $35,000PUBLIC WORKS Fleet GEN-5034 2005 Kohler 100ROZP71 Generator, Stationary $50,000PUBLIC WORKS Parks Maint 0832 2008 Ford F250 Pickup Truck, 3/4 Ton 4x4 8/50,000 12/100,000 $35,000PUBLIC WORKS Parks Maint 0320 1990 HB Trailer, Single Axle 26 18 $8,000TOTAL$522,000
Note: Blue Highlights Indicate Debt Service Financing
FY 2021-22
PD - 29% of total (522K)
FY 2020-21
PD = 21% of the total (929K)
Packet Pg 304
2
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FLEET REPLACEMENT - WATER FUND 5-YEAR FORECAST
Dept Program Asset #Year Make Model Description Current Age/Mileage/Hours Replacement Policy Year/Mileage Projected Replacement Cost NOTES
UTILITIES WD 0703 2007 Chevrolet Colorado Pickup Truck, Compact 9/65,000 12/100,000 $35,000
This vehicle make and model has a common "no start" issue. This issue has plagued this vehicle. Accelerate replacement to FY 2017-18 to avoid further costly repairs.
UTILITIES WD 0704 2007 Chevrolet Colorado Pickup Truck, Compact 9/77,000 12/100,000 $35,000
This vehicle make and model has a common "no start" issue. This issue has plagued this vehicle. Accelerate replacement to FY 2017-18 to avoid further costly repairs. TOTAL $70,000
Dept Program Asset #Year Make Model Description Current Age/Mileage/Hours Replacement Policy Year/Mileage Projected Replacement Cost NOTESUTILITIESWD06212006Ford Ranger Pickup Truck, Compact 10/85,000 12/100,000 $35,000TOTAL$35,000
Dept Program Asset #Year Make Model Description Current Age/Mileage/Hours Replacement Policy Year/Mileage Projected Replacement Cost NOTESUTILITIESWater Admin 0805 2007 Toyota Prius Sedan 9/76,000 12/100,000 $35,000 Replace with green vehicle. TOTAL $35,000
Dept Program Asset #Year Make Model Description Current Age/Mileage/Hours Replacement Policy Year/Mileage Projected Replacement Cost NOTESUTILITIESWD08122008Ford Ranger Pickup Truck, Compact 4x4 8/42,000 12/100,000 $35,000TOTAL$35,000
Dept Program Asset #Year Make Model Description Current Age/Mileage/Hours Replacement Policy Year/Mileage Projected Replacement Cost NOTESUTILITIESWTP10042009Ford F-150 Pickup Truck, 1/2 Ton Crew Cab 4x4 7/30,000 12/100,000 $40,000TOTAL$40,000
FY 2017-18
FY 2018-19
FY 2019-20
FY 2020-21
FY 2021-22
Packet Pg 305
2
CITY SAN LUIS OBISPO FLEET REPLACEMENT - SEWER FUND 5-YEAR FORECAST
Dept Program Asset #Year Make Model Description
Current Age/Mileage/Hours Replacement Policy Year/Mileage Projected Replacement Cost NOTESUTILITIESWWCL09182002Cart Away Trailer, Portable Concrete Mixer 14 15 $25,000TOTAL$25,000
Dept Program Asset #Year Make Model Description
Current Age/Mileage/Hours Replacement Policy Year/Mileage Projected Replacement Cost NOTESUTILITIES WRRF 0855 2008 Club Car Cart, Utility 8 6/5,000hrs $20,000 Replace with electric if possible. UTILITIES WRRF 0856 2008 Club Car Cart, Utility 8 6/5,000hrs $20,000 Replace with electric if possible. UTILITIES WRRF 0857 2008 Club Car Cart, Utility 8 6/5,000hrs $20,000 Replace with electric if possible. TOTAL $60,000
Dept Program Asset #Year Make Model Description
Current Age/Mileage/Hours Replacement Policy Year/Mileage Projected Replacement Cost NOTESUTILITIES WWCL 0718 2007 Sterling Vac-Con Heavy Duty Truck, w/Vac-Con Hydrocleaner 9/22,000 12/60,000 $410,000UTILITIES Waste Water Admin 0804 2007 Toyota Prius Sedan 9/67,000 12/100,000 $35,000 Replace with green vehicle. UTILITIES WRRF 0806 2007 Toyota Prius Sedan 9/41,000 12/100,000 $35,000 Replace with green vehicle. TOTAL $480,000
Dept Program Asset #Year Make Model Description
Current Age/Mileage/Hours Replacement Policy Year/Mileage Projected Replacement Cost NOTESUTILITIES WRRF 0611 2006 Ford F-550 Medium Duty Truck, w/Flatbed & Crane 10/12,000 12/60,000 $150,000UTILITIESWRRF08162008Ford F-150 Pickup Truck, 1/2 Ton 8/28,000 12/100,000 $36,000TOTAL$186,000
Dept Program Asset #Year Make Model Description
Current Age/Mileage/Hours Replacement Policy Year/Mileage Projected Replacement Cost NOTESUTILITIES WRRF 0622 2001 Mitsubishi Forklift 15/3,000 15 $55,000 Replace with electric if possible. UTILITIES WWCL 0626 2006 Caterpillar 304C Excavator, Mini 10/460 12/5,000 $70,000 Low hours. Replace if it does not meet CARB requirements. TOTAL $125,000
FY 2017-18
FY 2018-19
FY 2019-20
FY 2020-21
FY 2021-22
Packet Pg 306
2
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FLEET REPLACEMENT - WHALE ROCK 5-YEAR FORECAST
Dept Program Asset # Year Make Model Description
Current Age/Mileage/Hours Replacement Policy Year/Mileage Projected Replacement Cost NOTESTOTAL
Dept Program Asset #Year Make Model Description
Current Age/Mileage/Hours Replacement Policy Year/Mileage Projected Replacement Cost NOTESUTILITIESWhale Rock 9166 1990 Boat Trailer Trailer, Boat 26 20 See notes Included in budget for asset # 9714.UTILITIES Whale Rock 9714 1997 Boston Whaler Boat, 17'21 21 $20,000 Budget includes purchase of replacement trailer for asset # 9166. TOTAL $20,000
Dept Program Asset # Year Make Model Description
Current Age/Mileage/Hours Replacement Policy Year/Mileage Projected Replacement Cost NOTESTOTAL
Dept Program Asset # Year Make Model Description
Current Age/Mileage/Hours Replacement Policy Year/Mileage Projected Replacement Cost NOTESTOTAL
Dept Program Asset #Year Make Model Description
Current Age/Mileage/Hours Replacement Policy Year/Mileage Projected Replacement Cost NOTESUTILITIESWhale Rock 0415 2003 John Deere 4710 Tractor, Utility 13/845 12/5,000 $60,000 Low hours. Push out further if it still meets CARB requirements.TOTAL $60,000
FY 2017-18
FY 2018-19
FY 2019-20
FY 2020-21
FY 2021-22
Packet Pg 307
2
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FLEET REPLACEMENT - TRANSIT FUND 5-YEAR FORECAST
Dept Program Asset # Year Make Model Description
Current Age/Mileage/Replacement Policy Year/Mileage Projected Replacement Cost NOTESTOTAL$0
Dept Program Asset # Year Make Model Description
Current Age/Mileage/Replacement Policy Year/Mileage Projected Replacement Cost NOTESTOTAL$0
Dept Program Asset #Year Make Model Description Current Age/Mileage/Replacement Policy Year/Mileage Projected Replacement Cost NOTESPUBLIC WORKS Transit 0824 2007 Gillig Bus $530,000PUBLIC WORKS Transit 0861 2007 Gillig Bus $530,000TOTAL$1,060,000
Dept Program Asset #Year Make Model Description Current Age/Mileage/Replacement Policy Year/Mileage Projected Replacement Cost NOTESPUBLIC WORKS Transit 0911 2008 Bus, Trolley $250,000PUBLIC WORKS Transit 0912 2008 Gillig Bus $530,000PUBLIC WORKS Transit 0913 2008 Gillig Bus $530,000PUBLIC WORKS Transit 0914 2008 Gillig Bus $530,000PUBLIC WORKS Transit 0915 2008 Gillig Bus $530,000PUBLIC WORKS Transit 0916 2008 Gillig Bus $530,000PUBLIC WORKS Transit 0917 2008 Gillig Bus $530,000TOTAL$3,430,000
Dept Program Asset # Year Make Model Description
Current Age/Mileage/Hours Replacement Policy Year/Mileage Projected Replacement Cost NOTESTOTAL$0
FY 2017-18
FY 2018-19
FY 2019-20
FY 2020-21
FY 2021-22
Packet Pg 308
2
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBSIPO FLEET REPLACEMENT - PARKING FUND
Dept Program Asset # Year Make Model Description
Current Age/Mileage/Hours Replacement Policy Year/Mileage Projected Replacement Cost NOTESTOTAL$0
Dept Program Asset # Year Make Model Description
Current Age/Mileage/Hours Replacement Policy Year/Mileage Projected Replacement Cost NOTESTOTAL$0
Dept Program Asset # Year Make Model Description
Current Age/Mileage/Hours Replacement Policy Year/Mileage Projected Replacement Cost NOTESTOTAL$0
Dept Program Asset #Year Make Model Description
Current Age/Mileage/Hours Replacement Policy Year/Mileage Projected Replacement Cost NOTESPUBLIC WORKS Parking 0813 2008 Ford F150 Pickup Truck, 1/2 Ton $35,000PUBLIC WORKS Parking 0854 2008 Ford Ranger Pickup Truck, Compact $35,000TOTAL$70,000
Dept Program Asset # Year Make Model Description
Current Age/Mileage/Hours Replacement Policy Year/Mileage Projected Replacement Cost NOTESTOTAL$0
FY 2017-18
FY 2018-19
FY 2019-20
FY 2020-21
FY 2021-22
Packet Pg 309
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION FACILITY MAINTENANCE - FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19 & FY 2019-20 Project Description Community Priority ☒ Annual Maintenance ☐ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☐ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need This master CIP addresses long-term additional resources for capital maintenance of facilities that will reduce unplanned repair costs and optimize energy use by providing planned equipment replacements and building shell sealing. The tax payers, as the owners of city properties, benefit from proper infrastructure maintenance, which reduces overall lifecycle cost by reducing the cost of major repairs and energy inefficiencies that result from deferred maintenance. Funding of these capital projects ensures that City services can continue to be offered to the public and that City facilities remain in operable condition. Status 1. Heating, Venting, Air-Conditioning: Each year the Building Maintenance division completes over 300 HVAC repair work orders averaging more than 700 hours of labor and $20,000 in parts.The City owns literally thousands of pieces of HVAC equipment, much of it far beyond its expected service life. This request continues funding to replace ageing equipment in a proactive lifecycle costing process. The standard industry approach is to replace equipment in a planned, funded, and organized fashion as it nears the end of its anticipated lifespan, to reduce maintenance costs and provide quality environments for building occupants. This funding allocation series will replace aging equipment to minimizedowntime and maintenance needs, while increasing staff time available to support other maintenance needs. 1. California Building Code has implemented significantly more stringent requirements for energy efficiency, seismic security, and personal safety standards. As a result, the approach used for years to replace HVAC equipment (over the counter permit to replace individual equipment pieces as they fail) is no longer applicable. To verify compliance with today’s standards and issue a permit a full design plan set (site, elevation, title 24, electrical, seismic, mechanical) is required. The side-effect is that creating a full plan set to replace individual components is no longer an efficient method. The new paradigm will be a full plan set detailing replacement of all major pieces of HVAC equipment per site at the same time through the CIP process, with the resultant increase to both design and construction costs. 2. The City Hall chiller is beginning to fail. This was known, and being addressed through repairs large and small, and being planned for complete replacement. The new factor is the manufacturer (McQuay/Daikin) announced the discontinuation of this model resulting in the unavailability of major components, one of which (the condensing coil) is beginning to leak freon into the atmosphere. Temporary repairs have been made, but if this unit fails completely, City Hall will have no cooling. Facilities strongly urges funding be allocated in year one for both design and construction to replace this unit. 3. The Emergency Dispatch Center Computer Room Cooling. In 2010 the Emergency Communications Center was completed. The center controls all aspects of Life & Safety dispatch for the City of San Luis Obispo. The site houses an approximately 1,000 square foot data center with cooling provided Packet Pg 3102
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION by a 28-ton capacity DataAire cooling unit. The unit has experienced several catastrophic failures and has cost $50,000 in repairs in the past 6 years, with three repeats of main compressor failure costing approximately $12,000 per failure. The device is an overly complex and highly electronic controlled unit that requires a great deal of maintenance and repair. Through the first four years of assessment and repair by: the designer, the manufacturer, the manufacturer’s rep, city staff, and an independent contractor, the system was found to be faulty in both design and manufacture of the unit, and an incorrect design application for the room. Due to the monumental failure of this model, it has been discontinued. A three component conceptual plan to correct the situation has been arrived at: i) Replacement of the single cooling unit to two standard “off the shelf” direct expansion cooling units to create ease of maintenance and redundancy. ii) Installation of an outside air intake to use cool outside air to cool the room with nothing more than a supply fan running (instead of 24/7 compressor run-time) to maximize efficiency and minimize electrical use. iii) An exhaust system to remove heat and fan generated positive pressure and to serve as another redundancy in cooling. The goals are to minimize failure rate, maximize efficiency, create a system with redundancy of operation to ensure the continued functioning of the large amount of information technology equipment that must be kept at a cool temperature, to ensure the Emergency Communications Center can continue operation. Replacement of the unit to standard cooling equipment was approved in the 15-17 Financial Plan, for design in 18-19 with construction in 19-20. Given the utter failure of this unit and the nature of the program it supports (Emergency Dispatch), Facilities strongly urges funding be allocated in year one for design and year two for construction to replace this unit. The Energy Management System (EMS). the current Energy Management software (Invensys, 20 years old and based on Java Script) is being replaced with a new networked version. The City has already vetted the software with IT and made the software purchase with a one-year extension of licensing of the old software to allow a small window of time to allocate funding for replacing the existing network controllers (one at each site: Police Administration, Dispatch Center, Fire Station #1, City Hall, 919 Palm, Parks and Rec Administration, the Ludwick Center and the Corporation Yard) and recreate the software interfaces on the browser-based networked software at an average of $12,000 per site. This request will phase in the changes for two sites ($24,000) per year over four years to convert the eight locations. 2. Specialty Needs: A. Replace Thermal Blankets. Thermal pool blankets minimize water evaporation which reduces water, gas, and electricity use and costs by as much as 75%. If employed regularly, the blankets also assist in keeping the pool temperature consistent for swimmers. Thermal blankets are deployed and recovered each day of operation at the S.L.O. Swim Center on both of the pools to achieve the goals listed. These blankets have a life-span of approximately 4 to 5-years. With training in use and regular repair, these units have been lasting as long as 5-6 years. The last set of thermal blankets were replaced in 2016, this request is anticipating the need to replace the blankets 2021-22. B. Replace Co-Generation Plant. The co-generation plant at the S.L.O. Swim Center was installed in 2005 and brought on-line in 2006. The unit burns natural gas in a micro-turbine to generate up to 60-kW of electricity. The waste heat from the gas burn is then diverted to a heat exchanger to supply an additional 500,000 BTUs of heat to the pool water. Due to the complexity and cost of repairs to this equipment, it must be kept under a comprehensive service warranty with all maintenance and repairs performed by a factory qualified micro-turbine service company. On March 5, 2014, the existing service warranty expired, and a new warranty was established. The manufacturer (Capstone), currently has agreed to provide another service warranty extension on the existing Packet Pg 3112
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION equipment of 5-years at a 5-10% cost increase over the current service agreement cost. This cost is funded by the swim center operating program. The next 5-year service agreement will cover the equipment from March 5, 2014 through March 5, 2019, after which the equipment will have reached the end of its projected lifespan. The manufacturer has informed staff that further warranty coverage of the equipment may not be an option, and that the equipment may have to be replaced. This request plans for the eventual replacement of the co-gen unit by addressing a time-line for design and construction of replacement if the manufacturer is unable to further extend warranty service of the existing equipment. C. Re-Plaster Therapy Pool. The warm water therapy pool at the S.L.O. Swim Center was built in 2006 and has never been re-plastered. While original plaster in a traditional pool can have a life expectancy of 20-years, several factors are influencing the life-span of the therapy pool plaster. The year-round high heat level (90-degrees), the level of chemicals needed to keep warm water, with a high level of bather use, sanitary, and the direct and extended contact with the plaster that in-water exercise creates, have all contributed to a degrading of the plaster in an accelerated manner. While deterioration is slowed by diligent and highly exact chemical analyses and adjustment, the plaster is becoming heavily pockmarked with a roughened surface that can compromise structural integrity, and create health and safety concerns in the forms of sharp edges and algae/mold growth. The re-plaster component will eliminate the potential for these hazards by rehabilitating the pool’s inner shell. D. Swim Center Filter Backwash Controls. The old rotary valve is failing and obsolete, this would replace with modern solenoid valve system to keep the filters in the clean and sanitary conditions called for by the County Health Department. E. City Hall replace failing stand-alone electronic locks. The computer components in the current locks are beginning to fail. This lock model has been obsoleted by the manufacturer, complete replacement of all current models is inevitable. F. Ludwick Center Gym Lights. This funding would be used to purchase L.E.D. retro-fit lighting fixtures for the gym. City staff will install the new fixtures to improve lighting quality, lower electrical use, minimize maintenance needs, reduce cost of renting a lift for maintenance, and reduce risk associated with elevated work platforms. G. Install Police Admin Building IT-Room Cooling. Information Technology has grown significantly in its role within the Life & Safety realm. Two major changes are driving this specialty request. At the Police Administration building (1042 Walnut), a former closet has become the de facto “IT-room.” Windows were removed, the ceiling redone, additional electrical wiring and IT equipment racks installed. No cooling equipment was installed. This created a heat load problem and the IT equipment started to fail. An interim solution was to install two stand-alone cooling units. These units are a temporary fix, not a permanent solution. This request seeks funding to install a commercial grade cooling system in this room. H. Fire Station #3 Sewer Lateral. Recent sewer back-ups at the site and the resulting root balls removed from the sewer lateral resulted in the hiring of a contractor to camera the line. The pipe sections of the line are still intact. Unfortunately, each seam down the length of the pipe showed signs of significant root intrusion. The request seeks funding to replace the sewer lateral, and, given the elevation of the building in relation to the sewer main on Augusta Street, install an anti-back water valve to prevent main sewer line blockage from backing up into the building. I. Jack House and Ludwick Center Facility Assessment. These two key recreation and/or historically significant sites are in need of professional assessment for needed repairs. In both cases, siding has begun to deteriorate and some structural issues are beginning to appear. The Jack House is a historical site and sees significant use as a tour and wedding/event site. Staff is requesting a building shell assessment to outline the growing maintenance needs for this Packet Pg 3122
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION structure of significant age. The Jack House, built in 1880, is a unique piece of California's elegant and colorful past which will transport visitors back to the Victorian era. The Jack Family holds history with some of the most prominent players in the drama of Central California development. Active in ranching, politics, travel, banking and land development, the Jacks were also friends and associates with the likes of railroad magnates Charles Crocker and C.P. Huntington, acclaimed statesman and pianist Ignace Paderewski, and humorist Will Rogers. The Ludwick Center is a pre WWII building that has undergone many renovations over the decades. The Ludwick Center is a key public meeting facility the fills many needs in the community including the public council goal setting meetings. The location is ideal for special occasions, meetings or get-togethers. Staff recommends a comprehensive physical assessment of the structures to efficiently address siding, hazardous materials and structural concerns. Rather than parsing out issues, a building assessment would be more efficient and in the best financial interest of the City. J. Corp Yard Fuel Island Siding Replacement. Protecting the fuel islands and the wash bay from the elements is a requirement of the City’s Hazardous Materials Business Plan and Stormwater Management Plan. The metal siding of the fuel island at the Corporation Yard has suffered from severe long-term corrosion. Several repairs have been made over the years, but due to constantly wet conditions, rust has progressed and begun to destroy the previously repaired areas. This structure has excessive exposure to moisture due to proximity to the wash rack and windy conditions inherent to the Los Osos Valley Road/Prado Road area. The current design allows moisture to collect, keeping the structural metal framing and siding constantly wet, causing rust. All elements of the structure are metal which allows unchecked rust to place the paneling and framing at risk of corrosion. Although this corrosion is a relatively slow process, left unattended this condition will eventually compromise the structural steel framing and supports. The building manufacturer is no longer in business and replacement components are not available. The design phase will determine how best to repair existing damage and mitigate the inherent wet conditions of the adjacent wash rack through a modified design. This project will repair the siding, and modify the corrosion situation to prolong the life of the structure. K. Pest Control at Fire Station #1 and Corporation Yard. Termites have been found in the structural members of Fire Station #1. Local treatment has been completed with recommended full tenting treatment pending. Bird droppings are an on-going liability at the Corp Yard, this request would fund completion of bird netting install per 8.08.080 Rubbish detrimental to health prohibited. No person shall have or permit upon any premises owned, occupied or controlled by him or her, any nuisance detrimental to health or any accumulation of rubbish, filth, garbage, decaying animal or vegetable matter or any animal or human excrement. 3. Exterior Painting: Of the sites overseen by Building Maintenance, five have been repainted on the exterior in the last 10 years: The Police Department Annex, the Utilities Administration Building, the Parks and Recreation Administration Building, the Jack House, and buildings at the Corp Yard. Best practices in the building maintenance industry recommend repainting building exteriors every 10 years. With over 30 different sites maintained by the Building Maintenance division, the entire inventory should have been repainted in the last 10 years. Regular painting seals buildings against damage to prolong building life and prevent costlier repairs created by water intrusion. Funding will be used yearly to repaint various sizes of buildings. Larger budget requests in a given year reflect painting of larger buildings such as City Hall, the Police Department, or the Ludwick Center. Smaller budget requests in a given year reflect painting of smaller size facilities (4,000 to 7,000 square feet). All painting projects will be completed through a painting contractor. Each year City buildings will be evaluated for need and painting of the highest priority sites completed. Packet Pg 3132
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION 4. Rollup Doors: Some of the current roll-up doors are approaching 30-years of service, becoming severely worn and are requiring multiple repairs using extraordinary measures to keep them working. Maintenance efforts and dollars spent on these doors have increased (2011 had 20 work orders, with 50 staff hours, $2,600 on parts, and $886 in contracted repairs. 2012 had 25 work orders, with 76 staff hours, $3,424 on parts, and $4,391 in contracted repairs. 2013 had 19 work orders, with 53 staff hours, and $2,030 in contracted repairs) with the corresponding staff time and financial impacts. The repair cost trending is clear. As these doors approach the end of their usable lifecycle, the resources needed to keep them working will increase until catastrophic failure occurs which will result in an unplanned and unbudgeted replacement project. This funding continues a regular equipment replacement program to enable a proactive equipment change-out type of approach to facility needs. 5. Roof Replacements: Along with exterior painting, an intact roof system is the frontline defense in stopping moisture-related damage to the building and maintaining healthy indoor air quality. The roofs on several City buildings are past their expected service life and are in need of replacement. Replacing failing roof systems is a best practice to avoid costlier interior repairs related to moisture damage and health concerns. In some cases, pending interior repairs of components such as ceilings, wall paint, and carpet replacement cannot be executed until the roof leaks are eliminated. This funding continues a regular equipment replacement program to enable a proactive equipment change-out type of approach to facility needs. 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Location Work Type Design Construction Design Construction Design Construction Design Construction Design Construction City Hall Chiller Replacement HVAC 22,400 205,000 - - - - - - - - Emergency Dispatch Center Replace DataAire HVAC 27,000 - - 145,000 - - - - - - City/County Library* HVAC 3,600 - 22,950 - - - - - - Rosa Butrone Adobe Exterior Paint 30,000 - - - - - - - Parks & Recreation HVAC 7,200 - - 43,200 - - - - - - Utilities Administration HVAC 7,200 - - 43,200 - - - - - - Police Admin Install IT-Room Cooling Specialized - - 15,000 - - 55,000 - - - - Swim Center Re-Plaster Therapy Pool Specialized - - 18,500 - - 75,100 - - - - Packet Pg 3142
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION Fire Station #1 HVAC - - 21,800 - - 132,000 - - - - Swim Center Bath House Roof - - 8,500 - - 62,000 - - - - Police Evidence Storage Bldg. Roof - - 5,000 - - 32,000 - - - - Corp Yard Fuel Island Siding Specialized - - 14,750 - - 158,000 - - - - Jack House Roof, widows, walk railing - - 16,500 - - 92,000 - - - - Ludwick and Senior Center Exterior Paint and shell rehab - - - - 29,800 - - 186,500 - - Fire Station #1 Admin Bldg. Roof - - - - - - 11,500 - - 44,500 Fire Station #1 Fleet Maint. Bldg. Roof - - - - - - 4,000 - - 16,000 Swim Center Therapy Pool Boiler Specialized - - - - - - 8,000 - - 28,000 Police Range Roof - - - - - - 4,500 - - 22,200 Multi-Site Energy Management System Software HVAC - 24,000 - 24,000 - 24,000 - 24,000 - - Swim Center Filter Controls Specialized - 18,500 - - - - - - - - City Hall Security Locks Specialized - 24,500 - - - - - - - - Ludwick Center Gym Lights Specialized - 15,500 - - - - - - - - Pest Control Specialized - 28,000 - - - - - - - - Packet Pg 3152
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION Jack House and Ludwick Center Facility Shell Assessment Specialized - - - 57,500 - - - - - - Fire Station 1 Masonry Seal Exterior Paint - 65,000 - - - - - - - - Fire Station 2 Exterior Paint - 33,700 - - - - - - - - Fire Station 3 Exterior Paint - - - 17,500 - - - - - - Fire Station 4 Exterior Paint - - - - - 27,500 - - - - Police Department Exterior Paint - - - 71,000 - - - - - - Olympic Pool Thermal Blankets Specialized - - - - - - - - - 27,000 Swim Center Co-Generation Plant Specialized - - - 85,000 - - - - - - Fire Station #3 Replace Sewer Lateral Specialized - - - 18,000 - - - - - - Corp Yard Bird netting Specialized - - - - - 25,000 - - - - Corp Yard and Fire Stations Rollup Door - 9,500 - 9,500 - 9,500 - 9,500 - 9,500 City Hall & Fire Department Connection Specialized - - - - - 58,000 - - - - Swim Center Bath House Ceiling Specialized - - - - - - - 25,000 - - Police Boiler HVAC - - - - - 27,000 - - - - Packet Pg 3162
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION Total 67,400 453,700 100,050 536,850 29,800 777,100 28,000 245,000 - 147,200 Annual Totals 521,100 636,900 806,900 273,000 147,200 *The total of the City/County Library HVAC system is $7,200 in 2017-18 and $45,900 in 2018-19. Due to the City and County of San Luis Obispo partnership of maintaining the Library, the City will be pursuing cost sharing opportunities with the County in 2017-18. Project Team Lead Department: Public Works - Facilities and Engineering Operating Program Number & Title: 50230 Buildings Maintenance & 50210 Swim Center Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Management CIP Engineering - Design 60 per project Project Inspection CIP Engineering - Construction 60 per project Project Administration CIP Engineering - Administration 15 per project Project Proponent Facilities Maintenance 40 per project Environmental Review Planning 4 per project Anticipated Facility Life Span: Varies based upon building element and described above. Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalDesign (952)$67,400 $100,050 $29,800 $28,000$225,250Construction (953)$453,700 $536,850 $777,100 $245,000 $147,200$2,159,850Total$0 $521,100 $636,900 $806,900 $273,000 $147,200 $2,385,100Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalMajor Facility Replacement$513,900 $593,700 $806,900 $273,000 $147,200$2,334,700Sewer Fund$3,600 $21,600$25,200Water Fund$3,600 $21,600$25,200Total$0 $521,100 $636,900 $806,900 $273,000 $147,200 $2,385,100 Packet Pg 3172
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION FACILITY MAINTENANCE - FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19 & FY 2019-20 Project Description Community Priority ☒ Annual Maintenance ☐ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☐ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need This master CIP addresses long-term additional resources for capital maintenance of facilities that will reduce unplanned repair costs and optimize energy use by providing planned equipment replacements and building shell sealing. The tax payers, as the owners of city properties, benefit from proper infrastructure maintenance, which reduces overall lifecycle cost by reducing the cost of major repairs and energy inefficiencies that result from deferred maintenance. Funding of these capital projects ensures that City services can continue to be offered to the public and that City facilities remain in operable condition. Status 1. Heating, Venting, Air-Conditioning: Each year the Building Maintenance division completes over 300 HVAC repair work orders averaging more than 700 hours of labor and $20,000 in parts.The City owns literally thousands of pieces of HVAC equipment, much of it far beyond its expected service life. This request continues funding to replace ageing equipment in a proactive lifecycle costing process. The standard industry approach is to replace equipment in a planned, funded, and organized fashion as it nears the end of its anticipated lifespan, to reduce maintenance costs and provide quality environments for building occupants. This funding allocation series will replace aging equipment to minimizedowntime and maintenance needs, while increasing staff time available to support other maintenance needs. 1. California Building Code has implemented significantly more stringent requirements for energy efficiency, seismic security, and personal safety standards. As a result, the approach used for years to replace HVAC equipment (over the counter permit to replace individual equipment pieces as they fail) is no longer applicable. To verify compliance with today’s standards and issue a permit a full design plan set (site, elevation, title 24, electrical, seismic, mechanical) is required. The side-effect is that creating a full plan set to replace individual components is no longer an efficient method. The new paradigm will be a full plan set detailing replacement of all major pieces of HVAC equipment per site at the same time through the CIP process, with the resultant increase to both design and construction costs. 2. The City Hall chiller is beginning to fail. This was known, and being addressed through repairs large and small, and being planned for complete replacement. The new factor is the manufacturer (McQuay/Daikin) announced the discontinuation of this model resulting in the unavailability of major components, one of which (the condensing coil) is beginning to leak freon into the atmosphere. Temporary repairs have been made, but if this unit fails completely, City Hall will have no cooling. Facilities strongly urges funding be allocated in year one for both design and construction to replace this unit. 3. The Emergency Dispatch Center Computer Room Cooling. In 2010 the Emergency Communications Center was completed. The center controls all aspects of Life & Safety dispatch for the City of San Luis Obispo. The site houses an approximately 1,000 square foot data center with cooling provided Packet Pg 3182
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION by a 28-ton capacity DataAire cooling unit. The unit has experienced several catastrophic failures and has cost $50,000 in repairs in the past 6 years, with three repeats of main compressor failure costing approximately $12,000 per failure. The device is an overly complex and highly electronic controlled unit that requires a great deal of maintenance and repair. Through the first four years of assessment and repair by: the designer, the manufacturer, the manufacturer’s rep, city staff, and an independent contractor, the system was found to be faulty in both design and manufacture of the unit, and an incorrect design application for the room. Due to the monumental failure of this model, it has been discontinued. A three component conceptual plan to correct the situation has been arrived at: i) Replacement of the single cooling unit to two standard “off the shelf” direct expansion cooling units to create ease of maintenance and redundancy. ii) Installation of an outside air intake to use cool outside air to cool the room with nothing more than a supply fan running (instead of 24/7 compressor run-time) to maximize efficiency and minimize electrical use. iii) An exhaust system to remove heat and fan generated positive pressure and to serve as another redundancy in cooling. The goals are to minimize failure rate, maximize efficiency, create a system with redundancy of operation to ensure the continued functioning of the large amount of information technology equipment that must be kept at a cool temperature, to ensure the Emergency Communications Center can continue operation. Replacement of the unit to standard cooling equipment was approved in the 15-17 Financial Plan, for design in 18-19 with construction in 19-20. Given the utter failure of this unit and the nature of the program it supports (Emergency Dispatch), Facilities strongly urges funding be allocated in year one for design and year two for construction to replace this unit. The Energy Management System (EMS). the current Energy Management software (Invensys, 20 years old and based on Java Script) is being replaced with a new networked version. The City has already vetted the software with IT and made the software purchase with a one-year extension of licensing of the old software to allow a small window of time to allocate funding for replacing the existing network controllers (one at each site: Police Administration, Dispatch Center, Fire Station #1, City Hall, 919 Palm, Parks and Rec Administration, the Ludwick Center and the Corporation Yard) and recreate the software interfaces on the browser-based networked software at an average of $12,000 per site. This request will phase in the changes for two sites ($24,000) per year over four years to convert the eight locations. 2. Specialty Needs: A. Replace Thermal Blankets. Thermal pool blankets minimize water evaporation which reduces water, gas, and electricity use and costs by as much as 75%. If employed regularly, the blankets also assist in keeping the pool temperature consistent for swimmers. Thermal blankets are deployed and recovered each day of operation at the S.L.O. Swim Center on both of the pools to achieve the goals listed. These blankets have a life-span of approximately 4 to 5-years. With training in use and regular repair, these units have been lasting as long as 5-6 years. The last set of thermal blankets were replaced in 2016, this request is anticipating the need to replace the blankets 2021-22. B. Replace Co-Generation Plant. The co-generation plant at the S.L.O. Swim Center was installed in 2005 and brought on-line in 2006. The unit burns natural gas in a micro-turbine to generate up to 60-kW of electricity. The waste heat from the gas burn is then diverted to a heat exchanger to supply an additional 500,000 BTUs of heat to the pool water. Due to the complexity and cost of repairs to this equipment, it must be kept under a comprehensive service warranty with all maintenance and repairs performed by a factory qualified micro-turbine service company. On March 5, 2014, the existing service warranty expired, and a new warranty was established. The manufacturer (Capstone), currently has agreed to provide another service warranty extension on the existing Packet Pg 3192
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION equipment of 5-years at a 5-10% cost increase over the current service agreement cost. This cost is funded by the swim center operating program. The next 5-year service agreement will cover the equipment from March 5, 2014 through March 5, 2019, after which the equipment will have reached the end of its projected lifespan. The manufacturer has informed staff that further warranty coverage of the equipment may not be an option, and that the equipment may have to be replaced. This request plans for the eventual replacement of the co-gen unit by addressing a time-line for design and construction of replacement if the manufacturer is unable to further extend warranty service of the existing equipment. C. Re-Plaster Therapy Pool. The warm water therapy pool at the S.L.O. Swim Center was built in 2006 and has never been re-plastered. While original plaster in a traditional pool can have a life expectancy of 20-years, several factors are influencing the life-span of the therapy pool plaster. The year-round high heat level (90-degrees), the level of chemicals needed to keep warm water, with a high level of bather use, sanitary, and the direct and extended contact with the plaster that in-water exercise creates, have all contributed to a degrading of the plaster in an accelerated manner. While deterioration is slowed by diligent and highly exact chemical analyses and adjustment, the plaster is becoming heavily pockmarked with a roughened surface that can compromise structural integrity, and create health and safety concerns in the forms of sharp edges and algae/mold growth. The re-plaster component will eliminate the potential for these hazards by rehabilitating the pool’s inner shell. D. Swim Center Filter Backwash Controls. The old rotary valve is failing and obsolete, this would replace with modern solenoid valve system to keep the filters in the clean and sanitary conditions called for by the County Health Department. E. City Hall replace failing stand-alone electronic locks. The computer components in the current locks are beginning to fail. This lock model has been obsoleted by the manufacturer, complete replacement of all current models is inevitable. F. Ludwick Center Gym Lights. This funding would be used to purchase L.E.D. retro-fit lighting fixtures for the gym. City staff will install the new fixtures to improve lighting quality, lower electrical use, minimize maintenance needs, reduce cost of renting a lift for maintenance, and reduce risk associated with elevated work platforms. G. Install Police Admin Building IT-Room Cooling. Information Technology has grown significantly in its role within the Life & Safety realm. Two major changes are driving this specialty request. At the Police Administration building (1042 Walnut), a former closet has become the de facto “IT-room.” Windows were removed, the ceiling redone, additional electrical wiring and IT equipment racks installed. No cooling equipment was installed. This created a heat load problem and the IT equipment started to fail. An interim solution was to install two stand-alone cooling units. These units are a temporary fix, not a permanent solution. This request seeks funding to install a commercial grade cooling system in this room. H. Fire Station #3 Sewer Lateral. Recent sewer back-ups at the site and the resulting root balls removed from the sewer lateral resulted in the hiring of a contractor to camera the line. The pipe sections of the line are still intact. Unfortunately, each seam down the length of the pipe showed signs of significant root intrusion. The request seeks funding to replace the sewer lateral, and, given the elevation of the building in relation to the sewer main on Augusta Street, install an anti-back water valve to prevent main sewer line blockage from backing up into the building. I. Jack House and Ludwick Center Facility Assessment. These two key recreation and/or historically significant sites are in need of professional assessment for needed repairs. In both cases, siding has begun to deteriorate and some structural issues are beginning to appear. The Jack House is a historical site and sees significant use as a tour and wedding/event site. Staff is requesting a building shell assessment to outline the growing maintenance needs for this Packet Pg 3202
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION structure of significant age. The Jack House, built in 1880, is a unique piece of California's elegant and colorful past which will transport visitors back to the Victorian era. The Jack Family holds history with some of the most prominent players in the drama of Central California development. Active in ranching, politics, travel, banking and land development, the Jacks were also friends and associates with the likes of railroad magnates Charles Crocker and C.P. Huntington, acclaimed statesman and pianist Ignace Paderewski, and humorist Will Rogers. The Ludwick Center is a pre WWII building that has undergone many renovations over the decades. The Ludwick Center is a key public meeting facility the fills many needs in the community including the public council goal setting meetings. The location is ideal for special occasions, meetings or get-togethers. Staff recommends a comprehensive physical assessment of the structures to efficiently address siding, hazardous materials and structural concerns. Rather than parsing out issues, a building assessment would be more efficient and in the best financial interest of the City. J. Corp Yard Fuel Island Siding Replacement. Protecting the fuel islands and the wash bay from the elements is a requirement of the City’s Hazardous Materials Business Plan and Stormwater Management Plan. The metal siding of the fuel island at the Corporation Yard has suffered from severe long-term corrosion. Several repairs have been made over the years, but due to constantly wet conditions, rust has progressed and begun to destroy the previously repaired areas. This structure has excessive exposure to moisture due to proximity to the wash rack and windy conditions inherent to the Los Osos Valley Road/Prado Road area. The current design allows moisture to collect, keeping the structural metal framing and siding constantly wet, causing rust. All elements of the structure are metal which allows unchecked rust to place the paneling and framing at risk of corrosion. Although this corrosion is a relatively slow process, left unattended this condition will eventually compromise the structural steel framing and supports. The building manufacturer is no longer in business and replacement components are not available. The design phase will determine how best to repair existing damage and mitigate the inherent wet conditions of the adjacent wash rack through a modified design. This project will repair the siding, and modify the corrosion situation to prolong the life of the structure. K. Pest Control at Fire Station #1 and Corporation Yard. Termites have been found in the structural members of Fire Station #1. Local treatment has been completed with recommended full tenting treatment pending. Bird droppings are an on-going liability at the Corp Yard, this request would fund completion of bird netting install per 8.08.080 Rubbish detrimental to health prohibited. No person shall have or permit upon any premises owned, occupied or controlled by him or her, any nuisance detrimental to health or any accumulation of rubbish, filth, garbage, decaying animal or vegetable matter or any animal or human excrement. 3. Exterior Painting: Of the sites overseen by Building Maintenance, five have been repainted on the exterior in the last 10 years: The Police Department Annex, the Utilities Administration Building, the Parks and Recreation Administration Building, the Jack House, and buildings at the Corp Yard. Best practices in the building maintenance industry recommend repainting building exteriors every 10 years. With over 30 different sites maintained by the Building Maintenance division, the entire inventory should have been repainted in the last 10 years. Regular painting seals buildings against damage to prolong building life and prevent costlier repairs created by water intrusion. Funding will be used yearly to repaint various sizes of buildings. Larger budget requests in a given year reflect painting of larger buildings such as City Hall, the Police Department, or the Ludwick Center. Smaller budget requests in a given year reflect painting of smaller size facilities (4,000 to 7,000 square feet). All painting projects will be completed through a painting contractor. Each year City buildings will be evaluated for need and painting of the highest priority sites completed. Packet Pg 3212
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION 4. Rollup Doors: Some of the current roll-up doors are approaching 30-years of service, becoming severely worn and are requiring multiple repairs using extraordinary measures to keep them working. Maintenance efforts and dollars spent on these doors have increased (2011 had 20 work orders, with 50 staff hours, $2,600 on parts, and $886 in contracted repairs. 2012 had 25 work orders, with 76 staff hours, $3,424 on parts, and $4,391 in contracted repairs. 2013 had 19 work orders, with 53 staff hours, and $2,030 in contracted repairs) with the corresponding staff time and financial impacts. The repair cost trending is clear. As these doors approach the end of their usable lifecycle, the resources needed to keep them working will increase until catastrophic failure occurs which will result in an unplanned and unbudgeted replacement project. This funding continues a regular equipment replacement program to enable a proactive equipment change-out type of approach to facility needs. 5. Roof Replacements: Along with exterior painting, an intact roof system is the frontline defense in stopping moisture-related damage to the building and maintaining healthy indoor air quality. The roofs on several City buildings are past their expected service life and are in need of replacement. Replacing failing roof systems is a best practice to avoid costlier interior repairs related to moisture damage and health concerns. In some cases, pending interior repairs of components such as ceilings, wall paint, and carpet replacement cannot be executed until the roof leaks are eliminated. This funding continues a regular equipment replacement program to enable a proactive equipment change-out type of approach to facility needs. 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Location Work Type Design Construction Design Construction Design Construction Design Construction Design Construction City Hall Chiller Replacement HVAC 22,400 205,000 - - - - - - - - Emergency Dispatch Center Replace DataAire HVAC 27,000 - - 145,000 - - - - - - City/County Library* HVAC 3,600 - 22,950 - - - - - - Rosa Butrone Adobe Exterior Paint 30,000 - - - - - - - Parks & Recreation HVAC 7,200 - - 43,200 - - - - - - Utilities Administration HVAC 7,200 - - 43,200 - - - - - - Police Admin Install IT-Room Cooling Specialized - - 15,000 - - 55,000 - - - - Swim Center Re-Plaster Therapy Pool Specialized - - 18,500 - - 75,100 - - - - Packet Pg 3222
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION Fire Station #1 HVAC - - 21,800 - - 132,000 - - - - Swim Center Bath House Roof - - 8,500 - - 62,000 - - - - Police Evidence Storage Bldg. Roof - - 5,000 - - 32,000 - - - - Corp Yard Fuel Island Siding Specialized - - 14,750 - - 158,000 - - - - Jack House Roof, widows, walk railing - - 16,500 - - 92,000 - - - - Ludwick and Senior Center Exterior Paint and shell rehab - - - - 29,800 - - 186,500 - - Fire Station #1 Admin Bldg. Roof - - - - - - 11,500 - - 44,500 Fire Station #1 Fleet Maint. Bldg. Roof - - - - - - 4,000 - - 16,000 Swim Center Therapy Pool Boiler Specialized - - - - - - 8,000 - - 28,000 Police Range Roof - - - - - - 4,500 - - 22,200 Multi-Site Energy Management System Software HVAC - 24,000 - 24,000 - 24,000 - 24,000 - - Swim Center Filter Controls Specialized - 18,500 - - - - - - - - City Hall Security Locks Specialized - 24,500 - - - - - - - - Ludwick Center Gym Lights Specialized - 15,500 - - - - - - - - Pest Control Specialized - 28,000 - - - - - - - - Packet Pg 3232
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION Jack House and Ludwick Center Facility Shell Assessment Specialized - - - 57,500 - - - - - - Fire Station 1 Masonry Seal Exterior Paint - 65,000 - - - - - - - - Fire Station 2 Exterior Paint - 33,700 - - - - - - - - Fire Station 3 Exterior Paint - - - 17,500 - - - - - - Fire Station 4 Exterior Paint - - - - - 27,500 - - - - Police Department Exterior Paint - - - 71,000 - - - - - - Olympic Pool Thermal Blankets Specialized - - - - - - - - - 27,000 Swim Center Co-Generation Plant Specialized - - - 85,000 - - - - - - Fire Station #3 Replace Sewer Lateral Specialized - - - 18,000 - - - - - - Corp Yard Bird netting Specialized - - - - - 25,000 - - - - Corp Yard and Fire Stations Rollup Door - 9,500 - 9,500 - 9,500 - 9,500 - 9,500 City Hall & Fire Department Connection Specialized - - - - - 58,000 - - - - Swim Center Bath House Ceiling Specialized - - - - - - - 25,000 - - Police Boiler HVAC - - - - - 27,000 - - - - Packet Pg 3242
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION Total 67,400 453,700 100,050 536,850 29,800 777,100 28,000 245,000 - 147,200 Annual Totals 521,100 636,900 806,900 273,000 147,200 *The total of the City/County Library HVAC system is $7,200 in 2017-18 and $45,900 in 2018-19. Due to the City and County of San Luis Obispo partnership of maintaining the Library, the City will be pursuing cost sharing opportunities with the County in 2017-18. Project Team Lead Department: Public Works - Facilities and Engineering Operating Program Number & Title: 50230 Buildings Maintenance & 50210 Swim Center Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Management CIP Engineering - Design 60 per project Project Inspection CIP Engineering - Construction 60 per project Project Administration CIP Engineering - Administration 15 per project Project Proponent Facilities Maintenance 40 per project Environmental Review Planning 4 per project Anticipated Facility Life Span: Varies based upon building element and described above. Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalDesign (952)$67,400 $100,050 $29,800 $28,000$225,250Construction (953)$453,700 $536,850 $777,100 $245,000 $147,200$2,159,850Total$0 $521,100 $636,900 $806,900 $273,000 $147,200 $2,385,100Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalMajor Facility Replacement$513,900 $593,700 $806,900 $273,000 $147,200$2,334,700Sewer Fund$3,600 $21,600$25,200Water Fund$3,600 $21,600$25,200Total$0 $521,100 $636,900 $806,900 $273,000 $147,200 $2,385,100 Packet Pg 3252
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Summary of Proposed 2017/19 Capital Improvement Plan Projects
Capital Improvement Plan Write-Ups:- By Fund
FUNDS INCLUDED:- Water Fund- Sewer Fund- Whale Rock Fund- Parking Fund- Transit Fund
ATTACHMENT B-2:CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Packet Pg 326
2
Project Title 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
South Hills Radio Site Upgrade and Radio Enhancements 22,662$ 16,363$ -$ -$ -$ VoIP Telephone System -$ -$ -$ -$ 20,360$ UPS Battery Backup System -$ 1,885$ -$ -$ -$ Tait Radio System Backend Upgrade -$ 37,357$ -$ -$ -$ Microsoft Office (Total Project $225,000)-$ 9,620$ -$ -$ -$ Firewall Replacement (Total Project $186,500)-$ -$ 15,259$ -$ -$ Virtual Private Network Replace (VPN (Total cost $130,000)-$ -$ 9,028$ -$ -$
Server Operating System Software (Total Project $50,000)-$ -$ -$ 1,848$ -$ Wireless System Citywide -$ -$ -$ -$ 7,174$ UPS Battery Backup System (Total Project $51,000)-$ -$ -$ -$ 1,885$ Facilities Maintenance Master 3,600$ 21,600$ -$ -$ -$ LAN Tablet System -$ 34,100$ -$ -$ -$ Water Treatment Plant Tank Maintenance 40,000$ -$ 275,000$ 50,000$ -$ Water Treatment Plant Energy Efficiency Project 450,000$ 8,500,000$ 5,800,000$ -$ -$ Water Treatment Plan - Major Facility Maintenance 360,000$ 163,000$ 171,000$ 179,000$ 189,000$ Water Distribution Telemetry System Improvements 50,000$ 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ Water Distribution System Improvements 2,307,500$ 380,000$ 360,000$ 2,520,000$ 1,920,000$ Water Reservoir Replacement -$ 200,000$ 10,500,000$ -$ -$ Fleet Replacement - Water Fund 70,000$ 35,000$ 35,000$ 35,000$ 40,000$ Total Proposed Water Fund $ 3,303,762 $ 9,448,925 $ 17,165,287 $ 2,785,848 $ 2,178,419
Project Title 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
South Hills Radio Site Upgrade and Radio Enhancements 14,923$ 10,775$ -$ -$ -$ Fire Radio Receive Site at Fire Station #4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ VoIP Telephone System -$ -$ -$ -$ 15,789$ Radio Handhelds & Mobiles -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ UPS Battery Backup System -$ 4,345$ -$ -$ -$ Tait Radio System Backend Upgrade -$ 42,960$ -$ -$ -$ Microsoft Office (Total Project $225,000)-$ 13,700$ -$ -$ -$ VM Infastructure (Total Project $242,000)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Firewall Replacement (Total Project $186,500)-$ -$ 8,918$ -$ -$ Virtual Private Network Replace (VPN (Total cost $130,000)-$ -$ 18,958$ -$ -$ Network Switching Infrastructure Equipment (Total Project $550,000)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Finance System Replacement (Total Project $750,000)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ MP2 Maintenance Software System -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ iFix SCADA System - Controls wastewater alarms -$ -$ 250,000$ -$ -$ Hach Wims (Prev. OPS32)-$ -$ 30,000$ -$ -$
Server Operating System Software (Total Project $50,000)-$ -$ -$ 4,260$ -$ Wireless System Citywide -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,739$ UPS Battery Backup System (Total Project $51,000)-$ -$ -$ -$ 4,345$ Facilities Maintenance Master 3,600$ 21,600$ -$ -$ -$ Wastewater Lift Station Replacement 1,085,000$ -$ -$ -$ 1,980,000$ Wastewater Collection System Improvements 1,250,000$ 1,474,000$ 1,570,000$ 1,630,000$ 1,870,000$
Wastewater Collection Telemetry System Improvements 100,000$ 38,000$ -$ -$ -$ Water Resource Recovery Facility Project 19,500,000$ 56,500,000$ 35,000,000$ 29,000,000$ -$ Water Distribution System Improvements 82,500$ 90,000$ 90,000$ 90,000$ 90,000$ Fleet Replacement - Sewer Fund 25,000$ 60,000$ 480,000$ 186,000$ 125,000$ Total Proposed Sewer Fund $ 22,061,023 $ 58,255,380 $ 37,447,876 $ 30,910,260 $ 4,090,873
Project Title 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
South Hills Radio Site Upgrade and Radio Enhancements 6,633$ 4,789$ -$ -$ -$ VoIP Telephone System -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,233$ UPS Battery Backup System -$ 646$ -$ -$ -$
2017/19 PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECTSSUMMARY OF ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Water Fund Capital Outlay
Sewer Fund Capital Outlay
Parking Fund Capital Outlay
Packet Pg 327
2
Tait Radio System Backend Upgrade -$ 9,339$ -$ -$ -$ Microsoft Office (Total Project $225,000)-$ 4,080$ -$ -$ -$ Firewall Replacement (Total Project $186,500)-$ -$ 4,069$ -$ -$
Server Operating System Software (Total Project $50,000)-$ -$ -$ 633$ -$ Wireless System Citywide -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,870$ UPS Battery Backup System (Total Project $51,000)-$ -$ -$ -$ 646$ Palm - Nipomo Parking Structure 250,000$ -$ 6,000,000$ -$ -$ Marsh Street Parking Structure Maintenance 575,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fleet Replacement - Parking Fund -$ -$ -$ 70,000$ -$ Parking Access Revenue Control System -$ 650,000$ -$ -$ -$ Total Proposed Parking Fund $ 831,633 $ 668,854 $ 6,004,069 $ 70,633 $ 9,749
Project Title 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 01. South Hills Radio Site Upgrade and Radio Enhancements 3,317$ 2,395$ -$ -$ -$ 06. VoIP Telephone System -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,247$ 10. UPS Battery Backup System -$ 1,001$ -$ -$ -$ 15. Tait Radio System Backend Upgrade -$ 52,299$ -$ -$ -$ 23. Microsoft Office (Total Project $225,000)-$ 875$ -$ -$ -$ 26. Firewall Replacement (Total Project $186,500)-$ -$ 2,035$ -$ -$ 42. Server Operating System Software (Total Project $50,000)-$ -$ -$ 982$ -$
51. UPS Battery Backup System (Total Project $51,000)-$ -$ -$ -$ 1,001$ Transit - Bus Shelter Replacement 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ Transit - Bus Replacement -$ 1,060,000$ 1,590,000$ 1,590,000$ 250,000$ Transit - Automatic Vehicle Location System 310,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Proposed Transit Fund $ 338,317 $ 1,141,570 $ 1,617,035 $ 1,615,982 $ 277,248
Project Title 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 UPS Battery Backup System -$ 417$ -$ -$ -$ Microsoft Office (Total Project $225,000)-$ 875$ -$ -$ -$ Firewall Replacement (Total Project $186,500)-$ -$ 1,356$ -$ -$
Server Operating System Software (Total Project $50,000)-$ -$ -$ 409$ -$
51. UPS Battery Backup System (Total Project $51,000)-$ -$ -$ -$ 417$ Whale Rock Reservoir-Automatic Control Valve Replacement -$ 36,000$ -$ -$ -$ Whale Rock Reservoir Pipeline Reliability Assessment 500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fleet Replacement - Whale Rock -$ 20,000$ -$ -$ 60,000$ Total Proposed Whale Rock Fund $ 500,000 $ 57,292 $ 1,356 $ 409 $ 60,417 Total Enterprise Funds 27,034,735$ 69,572,021$ 62,235,623$ 35,383,132$ 6,616,706$
Whale Rock Fund Capital Outlay
Transit Fund Capital Outlay
Packet Pg 328
2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – PUBLIC UTILITIES LAN TABLET SYSTEM - FY 2018-19 Project Description Community Priority ☒ New IT Request ☐ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☐ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need The Utilities Department, Water Treatment Plant (WTP), and IT have identified areas for improved operational oversight and increased efficiency through the integration of a wireless Local Area Network (LAN) and tablet system to remotely access the WTP’s Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. Similar systems are already successfully in use at the Water Resource Recovery Facility, and with Wastewater Collection staff. Currently, WTP SCADA system access, monitoring, and control is limited to the SCADA terminals in the WTP Control Room. The WTP Maintenance staff is also looking to integrate remote access into its Computerized Maintenance Management database for similar increased efficiencies in the future. This LAN system will facilitate that integration. This project will cost $34,100.00 in FY2018/19 with an ongoing licensing cost of $3,100. Status This is a new project and was not included in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. Project Team Lead Department: Utilities Operating Program Number & Title: 55150 – Water Treatment Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Water Treatment 40 Information and Technology 120 Packet Pg 3292
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – PUBLIC UTILITIES Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalComputer Acquisition (963)$0$34,100$34,100Total$0$0 $34,100$0$0$0 $34,100Ongoing Costs by TypeBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalUtilities$0Maintenance Materials$0Staff$0Contract Services$3,100 $3,100 $3,100$9,300Total$0$0$0 $3,100 $3,100 $3,100 $9,300Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalWater Fund$0$34,100$34,100Total$0$0 $34,100$0$0$0 $34,100 Packet Pg 3302
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & OPEN SPACE WATER TREATMENT PLANT – MAJOR FACILITY MAINTENANCE - FY 2017-18 THROUGH FY 2021-22 Project Description Community Priority ☒ Annual Maintenance ☐ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☐ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need The City’s Water Treatment Plant was originally constructed in 1961. In 1995, a significant upgrade to the plant was completed to meet changing water quality requirements. In April of 2008, another major upgrade project was completed that replaced older equipment, added additional treated water storage, and enhanced treatment processes. The ongoing maintenance of the facilities and equipment at the Water Treatment Plant is necessary in order to prolong the useful life of the facilities and ensure staff’s ability to operate the plant and treat water to State and Federal standards. Performing routine maintenance of facilities at the City’s Water Treatment Plant, in order to ensure proper operation and prolong the useful life of equipment and other facilities, will cost $360,000 in 2017-18, $163,000 in 2018-19, and $539,000 in 2019-22 for the ongoing maintenance and upkeep of the plant’s equipment listed in this request. Status This is an existing project shown in the 2015-17 Financial Plan Specification No. 99653. Project Team Lead Department: Utilities Department Operating Program Number & Title: 55150 – Water Treatment Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Proponent Utilities, Water Treatment Plant 260 hours/yearSite List – For multi-year projects Location Estimated Year of Construction Pavement Area (for projects in right-of-way) Water Treatment Plant On going N/A INSERT LOCATION MAP/PHOTO HERE Packet Pg 3312
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & OPEN SPACE Projects List 2018-19 PROJECT LIST Cost Estimate Ozone System Maintenance $108,000 Chemical System Maintenance Air Compressor & Dryer Maintenance Total$29,000 $26,000 $163,000 2019-20 PROJECT LIST Cost Estimate Ozone System Maintenance* $113,000 Chemical System Maintenance Air Compressor & Dryer Maintenance Total $30,000 $28,000 $171,000 2020-21 PROJECT LIST Cost Estimate Ozone System Maintenance* $119,000 Chemical System Maintenance Air Compressor & Dryer Maintenance* Total $31,000 $29,000 $179,000 2021-22 PROJECT LIST Cost Estimate Ozone System Maintenance $125,000 Chemical System Maintenance Air Compressor & Dryer Maintenance* Total $33,000 $31,000 $189,000 *Note – There could be cost savings if Ozone and Air Prep Systems are replaced as part of the proposed Water Treatment Plant Energy Efficiency Project. Anticipated Facility Life Span: The recommended Water Treatment Plant Energy Efficiency project will identify ways to prolong the anticipated facility life span. 2017-18 PROJECT LIST Cost Estimate Replace Compressor* $130,000 Ozone System Maintenance $108,000 Chemical System Maintenance Air Compressor & Dryer Maintenance Water Meter Replacement $27,000 $25,000 $70,000 Total $360,000 Packet Pg 3322
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & OPEN SPACE Ongoing Costs by TypeBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalMaintenance Materials$360,000 $163,000 $171,000 $179,000 $189,000$1,062,000Total$0 $360,000 $163,000 $171,000 $179,000 $189,000 $1,062,000Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalWater Fund$360,000 $163,000 $171,000 $179,000 $189,000$1,062,000Total$0 $360,000 $163,000 $171,000 $179,000 $189,000 $1,062,000 Packet Pg 3332
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & OPEN SPACE WATER TREATMENT PLANT TANK MAINTENANCE - FY 2017-18 THROUGH FY 2021-22 Project Description Community Priority ☒ Annual Maintenance ☐ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☐ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need The City’s Water Treatment Plant was originally constructed in 1961. In 1995, a significant upgrade to the plant was completed to meet changing water quality requirements. In April of 2008, another major upgrade project was completed that replaced older equipment, added additional treated water storage, and enhanced treatment processes. The ongoing maintenance of the facilities and equipment at the Water Treatment Plant is necessary in order to prolong the useful life of the facilities and ensure staff’s ability to operate the plant and treat water to State and Federal standards. The ongoing maintenance includes recoating of the wash water tanks that provide water to clean treatment filters. In 2012, a consultant was hired to inspect the interior and exterior of the tanks and package thickener unit. A written assessment report was completed for each tank and thickener unit with observations, recommendations, and preliminary cost estimates. Following the inspection of the tanks, staff worked with the consultant to assign a priority ranking to each capital project. The conditions of the tanks that need to be addressed are: Wash Water Tank No. 1 is experiencing excessive corrosion on the inner roof area. In order to prevent the tank structure from deteriorating and prolong the tank lifespan, the report recommends new interior and exterior coatings, and safety improvements to the structural members of the roof. Package Thickener Unit is experiencing corrosion on the interior surfaces, and a new interior and exterior coating is recommended to prevent the corrosion from spreading into the structural members. In general, re-coating projects are intended to be a preventative maintenance to prolong the life span of the equipment, and avoid costly repairs to the structural components. Status This is an existing project shown in the 2015-17 Financial Plan Specification No. 91152. Packet Pg 3342
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & OPEN SPACE Project Team Utilities Department Operating Program Number & Title: 55150 – Water Treatment Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Management Utilities Staff 40 hours/year Project Support Utilities, Water Treatment Plant, Public Works 60 hours/year Environmental Review Community Development, Consultant 4 hours/year Construction Management Public Works, Inspection 100 hours/year Project Proponent Utilities, Water Treatment Plant 60 hours/year Anticipated Facility Life Span: 40 years Initial Projects Costs by PhaseDesign (952)$40,000$40,000Construction (953)$250,000 $50,000$300,000Const. Management (954)$25,000$25,000Total$0 $40,000$0 $275,000 $50,000$0 $365,000Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalWater Fund$40,000$275,000 $50,000$365,000Total$0 $40,000$0 $275,000 $50,000$0 $365,000 Packet Pg 3352
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION WATER DISTRIBUTION TELEMETRY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS – FY 2017-18 THROUGH 2018-19 Project Description Community Priority ☒ Annual Maintenance ☐ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☐ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need The proposed project is being proposed for two reasons. The first reason is to address the expansion of the current telemetry system area in order to serve the Orcutt Area Specific Plan identified in the approved 2015 Water Master Plan. The second reason is to update the water distribution system’s ancillary pieces of telemetry equipment. These few original components date back to the late 1990s, and operate on a different software system, which are now obsolete and need replacement. The core telemetry system is currently under construction, and is anticipated that the upgrades to the ancillary pieces of equipment will begin after completion of the core telemetry system. The recycled water transmission system will also be studied to document locations where additional controllers are required. Status This is an existing project shown in the 2015-17 Financial Plan Specification No. 91062. Project Team Lead Department: Utilities Department Operating Program Number & Title: 55160 – Water Distribution Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Management IT Department, Control System Technicians 60 hours/year Project Support Utilities, Water, Water Distribution Supervisor and Staff 40 hours/year Project Proponent Utilities, Deputy Director - Water 20 hours/year Packet Pg 3362
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION Location Estimated Year of Construction Pavement Area (for projects in right-of-way) Industrial Way/Tank Farm SCADA Station 2017-2018 N/A Tanglewood/ Johnson SCADA Station 2017-2018 N/A Water Distribution Shop HMI 2018-2019 N/A WATER DISTRIBUTION TELEMETRY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS – FY 2017-18 THROUGH 2018-19 Anticipated Facility Life Span: 50 years Ongoing Costs by TypeBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalMaintenance Materials$50,000 $50,000$100,000Total$0 $50,000 $50,000$0$0$0 $100,000Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalWater Fund$50,000 $50,000$100,000Total$0 $50,000 $50,000$0$0$0 $100,000 Packet Pg 3372
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS - FY 2017-18 THROUGH FY 2021-22 Project Description Community Priority ☒ Rehabilitation or Replacement ☐ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☐ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need The City operates a complex potable water distribution system that is comprised of 16 distribution zones, ten potable water storage tanks, two reservoirs, five hydro‐pneumatic tanks, eight pump stations, 21 pressure reducing valves (PRVs) and over 180 miles of pipe with diameters ranging in size from four inches to 30 inches. Some City water distribution lines are undersized to adequately serve the required amount of water needed for firefighting while other pipes were installed decades ago and are now deteriorating due to age. The expected useful life of a water pipeline is approximately 50 years, which corresponds with a replacement schedule of approximately two percent of the distribution system each year. Listed projects include those to improve distribution system operations, replace undersized mains in areas that require increased fire flows, and replacement of aging water mains that have experienced multiple failures - which in turn require expensive emergency repairs and leave people temporarily without water. Projects were selected and prioritized to have the greatest impact in reducing disruptions to water service and improving fire flows. Trench repairs and raising valve covers are routine activities associated with emergency water line repairs and street paving. These projects occur on an as-needed basis, routinely several times per year. Water meters and fire hydrants are a vital component of the City’s water distribution and fire safety system. Their upkeep is an ongoing effort with a portion of the inventory of almost 15,000 meters and 1,867 hydrants being replaced annually. Replacement of water distribution pipes, mainlines, water meters, fire hydrants, and related infrastructure is an ongoing program for reliable water distribution and fire protection. The program’s replacement schedule will address existing deficiencies, and the potential for near-term failure according to priority. Opportunities to consolidate water distribution zones will be evaluated in efforts to simplify operations, reduce pumping needs, and eliminate pump stations that would otherwise require replacement. Status This is an existing project shown in the 2015-17 Financial Plan Specification No. 90227. Project Team Lead Department: Utilities Department Operating Program Number & Title: 55160- Water Distribution Packet Pg 3382
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 Project Management Public Works, Engineering 800 700 700 800 800 Project Support Utilities, Water, Water Distribution Supervisor and Staff Public Works, Administration 100 80 80 100 100 Construction Management Public Works, Inspection 360 360 360 360 360 Environmental Review Community Development 8 8 8 8 8 Project Proponent Utilities, Water, Water Division Manager 80 70 70 80 80 Site List – For multi-year projects 2017-2018 Project List: Location Pavement Area Length (feet) Cost Water Distribution System Improvements Design (contract services) Casa - Murray to Deseret (increase to 12”) Stenner (Murray to end) Chorro (intersection of Chorro/Meinecke and Chorro/Murray) Murray - Santa Rosa to Hathway Pacific – Nipomo to Higuera (increase from 10” to 12”) Boysen - Santa Rosa Street to N. Chorro Street Chorro – Pacific to Pismo Street Sierra – Ella to Bishop 8 900 $1,700,000 8 580 8 100 8 1,350 4 2,100 7 1,200 4 400 2 1,400 Total: 8,030 Construction Management (contract services) $170,000 Trench Repair N/A N/A $200,000 Raise Valve Covers on Paving Projects N/A N/A $25,000 Water Meters and Water Meter Boxes N/A N/A $165,000 Fire Hydrants and Parts N/A N/A $40,000 Hydraulic Model Updates N/A N/A $20,000 Recycled Water System Meters and System Storage Pilot Study N/A N/A $70,000 Total$2,390,000 Packet Pg 3392
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION 2018-2019 Project List: Location Pavement Area Length (feet) Cost Water Distribution System Improvements* Trench Repair N/A N/A $200,000 Raise Valve Covers on Paving Projects N/A N/A $30,000 Water Meters and Water Meter Boxes N/A N/A $180,000 Hydraulic Model Updates N/A N/A $20,000 Fire Hydrants and Parts N/A N/A $40,000 Total$470,000 * Pipeline improvements are included in the Reservoir 2 Project. 2019-2020 Project List: Location Pavement Area Length (feet) Cost Water Distribution System Improvements* Trench Repair N/A N/A $200,000 Raise Valve Covers on Paving Projects N/A N/A $30,000 Water Meters and Water Meter Boxes N/A N/A $180,000 Fire Hydrants and Parts N/A N/A $40,000 Total$450,000 * Pipeline improvements are included in the Reservoir 2 Project. 2020-2021 Project List: Location Pavement Area Length (feet) Cost Water Distribution System Improvements Design (contract services) $180,000 Craig (increase from 6” to 12”) Craig – Patricia to Jeffrey (increase from 4” to 8”) Christina – Warren to Craig (increase from 4” to 8”) Jaycee (8”) Westmont – Jeffrey to Stanford La Canada – Tolosa to Cerro Romauldo (inc. from 4” and 6” to 8”) Cerro Romauldo – Patricia to Los Cerros 7 260 $1,800,000 7 750 7 600 7 1,350 8 500 7 850 7 1,080 Total: 5,390 Packet Pg 3402
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION Construction Management (contract services) $180,000 Trench Repair N/A N/A $200,000 Raise Valve Covers on Paving Projects N/A N/A $30,000 Water Meters and Water Meter Boxes N/A N/A $180,000 Fire Hydrants and Parts N/A N/A $40,000 Total$2,610,000 2021-2022 Project List: Location Pavement Area Length (feet) Cost Water Distribution System Improvements Design (contract services) $130,000 Chorro Street – Broad Street to Upham Street El Paseo – Flora to El Cerrito (increase from 8” to 10”) El Cerrito – El Paseo to end Wilding – Ella to south end Iris – Johnson to Fixlini Boulevard Del Campo – Bishop to San Carlos 4 1,000 $1,300,000 1 290 1 670 1 600 1 320 2 800 Total: 3,680 Construction Management (contract services) $130,000 Trench Repair N/A N/A $200,000 Raise Valve Covers on Paving Projects N/A N/A $30,000 Water Meters and Water Meter Boxes N/A N/A $180,000 Fire Hydrants and Parts N/A N/A $40,000 Total$2,010,000 Anticipated Facility Life Span: The anticipated life span for a new PVC waterline is 50 years and 100 for ductile iron. Packet Pg 3412
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalDesign (952)$180,000 $130,000$310,000Construction (953)$1,770,000$1,800,000 $1,300,000$4,870,000Const. Management (954)$170,000$180,000 $130,000$480,000Total$0 $1,940,000$0$0 $2,160,000 $1,560,000 $5,660,000Ongoing Costs by TypeBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalMaintenance Materials$450,000 $470,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000$2,270,000Total$0 $450,000 $470,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $2,270,000Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalWater Fund$2,307,500 $380,000 $360,000 $2,520,000 $1,920,000$7,487,500Sewer Fund$82,500 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000$442,500Total$0 $2,390,000 $470,000 $450,000 $2,610,000 $2,010,000 $7,930,000 Packet Pg 3422
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION WASTEWATER LIFT STATION REPLACEMENT – FY 2017-18, FY 2021-22 Project Description Community Priority ☒ Rehabilitation or Replacement ☐ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☐ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need Laguna. The interior of the Laguna Lift station wet well, constructed in 2014, is becoming discolored and blistered. The discoloration is an initial symptom of corrosive liquids and gases present within the lift station’s wet well, but the small blistering appears to suggest that the coatings may have been damaged. A study is required to evaluate the level of the damage to the protective coatings in order to perform the appropriate re-sealing of the wet well’s coating to prevent damage to structure’s concrete and steel reinforcement. Margarita. The Margarita Lift Station was put into service in 1971. In 1995, the floor of the sump pump was leaking and repairs were made. Cathodic protection was added in 1996 to extend the life of the lift station structure. In 2010, leaks were repaired on the floor and walls. An inspection report of the coatings confirmed signs of accelerated deterioration causing the dry well to be structurally unsound. The inspection report noted a high risk of failure at the station as both the wet and dry well walls were deteriorating, causing leaks and structural issues. Because of its age and condition, replacement of the lift station has been prioritized with the other necessary system components that include the wet well and force main. The force main is approximately 225 feet in length and is cast iron pipe. Based on a pipe condition assessment, the pipeline is operating beyond its useful life expectancy. These replacements will ensure that all components function effectively as a system. The replacement lift station will accommodate a portion of the future development anticipated in the Margarita Area Specific Plan. Foothill. The Foothill Lift Station is the oldest in the City’s wastewater collection system and is in a location with minimal access. This station is over 50 years old and is operating beyond its life expectancy. The equipment was originally installed in 1962 to serve the Broad Street and Orcutt area, but was removed and warehoused, then reconfigured and installed in its present location in 1986. Due to external corrosion the sump pump floor was repaired in 1995. Although cathodic protection was installed in 1996 to extend the life of the station, it is experiencing exterior corrosion and leaking ground water through internal welds in the structure. The existing force main is approximately 325 feet in length and is cast iron pipe. In 2013 the force main failed due to corrosion and pipe age. A pipeline condition assessment has shown it should be replaced. Because of its age and condition, replacement of the lift station has been prioritized with the other necessary system components. It is recommended that the station be relocated approximately 500 feet west of its current location to serve future development. Relocating the station would require an addition of 500 feet of gravity and force main and property and easement acquisition Status This is an existing project shown in the 2015-17 Financial Plan Specification No. 91214. INSERT LOCATION MAP/PHOTO HERE Packet Pg 3432
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION Project Team Lead Department: Utilities Department Operating Program Number & Title: 55310 Wastewater Collection Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Management Public Works, Engineering 400 hours/year Project Support Utilities, Wastewater, Public Works, Administration, Wastewater Collection Supervisor and Staff 300 hours/year Construction Management Public Works, Inspection 200 hours/year Environmental Review Community Development 8 hours/year Project Proponent Utilities, Wastewater Division Manager 75 hours/year Site List – For multi-year projects Location Estimated Year of Construction Pavement Area (for projects in right-of-way) Laguna Lift Station Wet Well Coating 2017 N/A Margarita Lift Station 2017 5 Foothill Lift Station 2021 7 Anticipated Facility Life Span: 50 yearsInitial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalDesign (952)$25,000$25,000Construction (953)$900,000$1,800,000$2,700,000Const. Management (954)$160,000$180,000$340,000Total$0 $1,085,000$0$0$0 $1,980,000 $3,065,000Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalSewer Fund$1,085,000$1,980,000$3,065,000Total$0 $1,085,000$0$0$0 $1,980,000 $3,065,000 Packet Pg 3442
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS -FY 2017-18 THROUGH FY 2021-22 Project Description Community Priority ☒ Rehabilitation or Replacement ☐ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☐ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need Replacement of the wastewater collection system’s manholes, sewer pipes, and related appurtenances is a program required to improve reliability and to reduce inflow and infiltration (I/I). The program’s replacement schedule will address existing structural deficiencies, and the potential for near-term failure according to priority. Addressing I/I into the wastewater collection system is a long-term effort involving investigation and correction. Flow studies and field investigations have been successful in identifying sources of I/I in both City and privately-owned sewer infrastructure. Funding will be required to monitor, correct and reduce I/I sources. The City’s wastewater collection system includes approximately 138 miles of sewer lines and related operational equipment. Some pipes are over 100 years old and are undersized. Maintenance requirements increase dramatically as pipeline and equipment approach the end of their useful life. Pipeline and operational equipment requires ongoing maintenance and condition assessment to prioritize periodic replacement, ensure proper function, and prolong service life. With an expected service life of 60 years, approximately two percent of the wastewater collection system is targeted for replacement or rehabilitation per year. Status This is an existing project shown in the 2015-17 Financial Plan Specification No. 90239. Project Team Utilities Department Operating Program Number & Title: 55310 – Wastewater Collection Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Management Public Works, Engineering 700 hours/year Project Support Utilities, Wastewater, Public Works, Administration, Wastewater Collection Supervisor and Staff 50 hours/year Construction Management Public Works, Inspection 500 hours/year Environmental Review Community Development 8 hours/year Project Proponent Utilities, Wastewater, Wastewater Division Manager 40 hours/year Site List – For multi-year projects Packet Pg 3452
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION 2017-2018 Project List: Location Pavement Area Length (feet) Cost Sewerline Replacement (Trench and Pipe Bursting) Design (contract services) $60,000Santa Barbara - Morro / Osos Osos - at 1819 Osos / Buchon Church - at 1054 Church / Osos Leff - Santa Rosa / Osos 4 656 $780,0004 1,194 4 341 4 380 Total: 2,571 Construction Management (contract services) $70,000Inflow/Infiltration Reduction N/A N/A $200,000Trench Repairs N/A N/A $25,000Raise manholes after paving N/A N/A $25,000Easement – East of Chorro at Meinecke to Murray Study N/A N/A $30,000Infrastructure Renewal Strategy – Foothill at Chorro to Lincoln Study N/A N/A $60,000Total$1,250,000 2018-2019 Project List: Location Pavement Area Length (feet) Cost Sewerline Replacement (Cured In Place Pipe) Design (contract services) $17,000Walnut - HWY 1 / Morro Morro - Mill / Peach Morro - Palm / Mill 4 717 $170,0004 246 4 361 Total: 1324 Construction Management (contract services) $17,000Sewerline Replacement (Cured In Place Pipe) $38,000Design (contract services) (Easement) Albert- Longview / McCollum Mill - Toro / Morro Santa Rosa - Palm / Monterey 4 1340 $380,0004,1 1368 9 288 Total: 2996 Construction Management (contract services) $38,000Packet Pg 3462
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION Sewerline Replacement (Pipe Bursting) $10,000Design (contract services) (Easement) - Foothill / Rougeot 7 335 $100,000 Construction Management (contract services) Total: 335 $10,000Sewerline Replacement (Open Trench) $37,000Design (contract services) (Easement) - Chorro- Meinecke / Murray (Easement) - Murray- Chorro / HWY 1 (Easement) - Murray / Murray 7 303 $370,0007 669 7 150 Total: 1122 Construction Management (contract services) $37,000Inflow/Infiltration Reduction N/A N/A $200,000Trench Repairs N/A N/A $25,000Raise manholes after paving N/A N/A $25,000Total$1,474,000 2019-2020 Project List: Location Pavement Area Length (feet) Cost Sewerline Replacement (Trench and Pipe Bursting) Design (contract services) $110,000(Easement) Off Westmont at 260 Westmont Westmont – at 260 Westmont / Jeffrey Jeffrey - Westmont / Cerro Romauldo Cerro Romauldo - Jeffrey / Tassajara 8 165 $1,100,0008 308 7,8 2265 7 833 Total: 3571 Construction Management (contract services) $110,000Inflow/Infiltration Reduction N/A N/A $200,000Trench Repairs N/A N/A $25,000Raise manholes after paving N/A N/A $25,000Total$1,570,000 2020-2021 Project List: Packet Pg 3472
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION Location Pavement Area Length (feet) Cost Sewerline Replacement (Trench and Pipe Bursting) Design (contract services) $110,000Luneta – Tassajara / Verde Verde – Luneta / Ramona Easement – Luneta / Verde Serrano – at 180 Serrano / Broad Penman – Penman / Serrano Easement – at 121 Penman / Penman Bressi – sewer main into Bressi Palomar – at 95 Palomar / Serrano 7 350 $1,160,0007 572 7 175 7 1851 7 476 7 159 7 166 7 89 Total: 3838 Construction Management (contract services) $110,000Inflow/Infiltration Reduction N/A N/A $200,000Trench Repairs N/A N/A $25,000Raise manholes after paving N/A N/A $25,000Total$1,630,000 2021-2022 Project List: Location Pavement Area Length (feet) Cost Sewerline Replacement (Trench and Pipe Bursting) Design (contract services) $135,000Johnson - San Luis Drive / Buchon Buchon - Johnson / Morro Santa Rosa - Islay / Buchon Santa Rosa - Pismo / Buchon Morro - Buchon / Pacific Pacific - Morro / Chorro Chorro - Pacific / Marsh 1 444 $1,350,0001,4 1911 4 290 4 294 4 728 9 423 9 326 Total: 4,416 Construction Management (contract services) $135,000Inflow/Infiltration Reduction N/A N/A $200,000Trench Repairs N/A N/A $25,000Raise manholes after paving N/A N/A $25,000Packet Pg 3482
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION Total$1,870,000 Anticipated Facility Life Span: 60 years Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalLand Acquisition (950)$30,000$30,000Study (951)$60,000$60,000Design (952)$60,000 $102,000 $110,000 $110,000 $135,000$517,000Construction (953)$780,000 $1,020,000 $1,100,000 $1,160,000 $1,350,000$5,410,000Const. Management (954)$70,000 $102,000 $110,000 $110,000 $135,000$527,000Total$0 $1,000,000 $1,224,000 $1,320,000 $1,380,000 $1,620,000 $6,544,000Ongoing Costs by TypeBudget to Date2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalMaintenance Materials$250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000$1,250,000Total$0 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $1,250,000Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalSewer Fund$1,250,000 $1,474,000 $1,570,000 $1,630,000 $1,870,000$7,794,000Total$0 $1,250,000 $1,474,000 $1,570,000 $1,630,000 $1,870,000 $7,794,000 Packet Pg 3492
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION WASTEWATER COLLECTION TELEMETRY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS - FY 2017-18, FY 2018-2019 Project Description Community Priority ☒ Annual Maintenance ☐ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☐ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need The wastewater collection system’s telemetry controllers and radios are unreliable and becoming obsolete. Proactively maintaining hardware and equipment is critical task of the wastewater operations to ensure year round functionality for the operations of sewer lift stations during normal operations, and emergency conditions. The upgrades to the telemetry system will provide new hardware, and software system that are easier to program and maintain. Status This is an existing project shown in the 2015-17 Financial Plan Specification No. 91370. Project Team Lead Department: Utilities Department Operating Program Number & Title: 55310 – Wastewater Collections Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Management IT Department, Control Systems Staff 80 hours/year Project Support Utilities, Wastewater, Wastewater Collection Supervisor and Staff 50 hours/year Project Proponent Utilities, Wastewater Division Manager 30 hours/year Site List – For multi-year projects Location Estimated Year of Construction Pavement Area (for projects in right-of-way) Margarita Lift Station 2017-2018 N/A Calle Joaquin Lift Station 2017-2018 N/A Foothill Lift Station 2017-2018 N/A Packet Pg 3502
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION Anticipated Facility Life Span: 50 years Ongoing Costs by TypeBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalUtilities$0Maintenance Materials$100,000 $38,000$138,000Staff$0Contract Services$0Total$0 $100,000 $38,000$0$0$0 $138,000Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalSewer Fund$100,000 $38,000$138,000Total$0 $100,000 $38,000$0$0$0 $138,000 Packet Pg 3512
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION WHALE ROCK RESERVOIR-AUTOMATIC CONTROL VALVE REPLACEMENT – FY 2018-2019 Project Description Community Priority ☒ Rehabilitation or Replacement ☐ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☐ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need Automatic control valves are an integral part of the Whale Rock Reservoir pump stations. Control valves are actively protecting the Whale Rock pipeline from damage due to pressure fluctuations. The current control valves were installed in 1960 and are at the end of their useful life. Replacing the control valves will help ensure water is delivered to the San Luis Obispo Water Treatment Plant, Cal Poly, and California Men’s Colony. Status This is an existing project shown in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. Project Team Lead Department: Utilities Operating Program Number & Title: 55500-Reservoir Operations Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Proponent Utilities/Water Division40 Project Management- Utilities /Water Division 100 WR Staff Utilities /Water Division 110 Site List – For multi-year projects Location Estimated Year of Construction Pavement Area (for projects in right-of-way) Whale Rock Pump Station A & B 2018-19 NA Packet Pg 3522
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION Anticipated Facility Life Span: New Automatic Control Valves will provide pipeline protection and help insure reliable water deliveries for 25-50 years. Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalEquipment Acquisition (956)$36,000$36,000Total$0$0 $36,000$0$0$0 $36,000Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalWhale Rock Fund$36,000$36,000Total$0$0 $36,000$0$0$0 $36,000 Packet Pg 3532
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION WHALE ROCK RESERVOIR-PIPELINE RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT – FY 2017-2018 Project Description Community Priority ☒ Annual Maintenance ☐ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☐ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need The 17.6 miles of pipeline conduit that transport water from the Whale Rock Reservoir (WRR) to the Cityof San Luis Obispo, Cal Poly, and California Mens Colony is 55 years old. Given the aging infrastructure, an assessment of the pipeline’s condition is needed to properly schedule repairs or replacement projects. Understanding the condition of the WRR pipeline will assist in planning for long term pipeline reliabilityand associated maintenance needs, minimizing pipeline failures and associated disruptions, cost, and water waste. Status This is an existing project shown in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. Project Team Lead Department: Utilities Operating Program Number & Title: 55500-Reservoir Operations Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Proponent Utilities/Water Division 100 Project Management Whale Rock Staff 120 Site List – For multi-year projects Location Estimated Year of Construction Pavement Area (for projects in right-of-way) Whale Rock pipeline alignment 2017-18 NA Packet Pg 3542
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION Anticipated Facility Life Span: With proper repairs the lifespan of the pipeline conduit could last an additional 25 years. Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalStudy (951)$500,000$500,000Total$0 $500,000$0$0$0$0 $500,000Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalWhale Rock Fund$500,000$500,000Total$0 $500,000$0$0$0$0 $500,000 Packet Pg 3552
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION WATER RESERVOIR REPLACEMENT – FY 2017-18 THROUGH FY 2021-22 Project Description Community Priority ☒ Rehabilitation or Replacement ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives: Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility ☐ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need The City currently operates two potable reservoirs (#1 and #2) that are estimated to be 60 years old. Reservoir #2 is a 7.44 million gallon (MG) reservoir equipped with floating covers that had previously been identified to be replaced in 2015. This reservoir supplies about half of the City’s potable water needs. Because the reservoir is one big basin, the entire storage volume must be taken out-of-service for reservoir maintenance. The recently completed water distribution system hydraulic modeling identified opportunities to consolidate water distribution zones to improve operations, reduce pumping needs, eliminate tanks and pump stations that would otherwise require replacement, improve fire flow, and improve available fire storage. Replacement of Reservoir #2 will include construction of two new 2.5 MG above-ground tanks at the existing reservoir site. This will provide critical redundancy and allow for tank maintenance without service interruption. It will also be designed to increase water mixing in the reservoir, which will in turn lessen the overall age of water. Older water age contributes to disinfection by-products, a regulated substance which may be harmful to human health. The study phase will research constructability and identify project components such as whether electrical upgrades are necessary to the transfer pump station to ensure system reliability during construction. Status This is an existing project shown in the 2015-17 Financial Plan Specification No. 91368. Project Team Lead Department: Utilities Department Operating Program Number & Title: 55150- Water Treatment Site List – For multi-year projects Location Estimated Year of Construction Pavement Area (for projects in right-of-way) 1900 Stenner Creek – Water Treatment Plant 2019-21 N/A INSERT LOCATION MAP/PHOTO HERE Packet Pg 3562
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION Assignment Program Estimated Hours 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 Project Management Public Works, Engineering, 50 50 100 100Project Support Utilities, Water Distribution Supervisor and Staff, Public Works, Administration, Water Treatment Plant 400 300 300Environmental Review Community Development 4 4 4Construction Management Public Works, Inspection 0 200 200Project Proponent Utilities, Water, Water Division Manager 40 2020Anticipated Facility Life Span: 70 years Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalDesign (952)$184,400$140,000$324,400Construction (953)$10,000,000$10,000,000Const. Management (954)$500,000$500,000Equipment Acquisition (956)$60,000$60,000Total$184,400$0 $200,000 $10,500,000$0$0 $10,884,400Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalWater Fund$184,400$200,000 $10,500,000$10,884,400Total$184,400$0 $200,000 $10,500,000$0$0 $10,884,400 Packet Pg 3572
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WATER TREATMENT PLANT ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECT (FY 2017-18 THROUGH FY 2021-22) Project Description Community Priority ☒ New Project ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives: Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility ☐ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need The City’s Water Treatment Plant receives surface water from three reservoirs. One of the reservoirs, Nacimiento Lake, delivers water into the treatment plant at such a high force that the water pressure needs to be lowered to a controllable level before it enters the plant. In effort to increase the efficiency of the Water Treatment Plant, this energy efficiency project would install a hydropower turbine that would convert the energy in the high pressure water line into electricity. The electricity generated on-site would offset the treatment plant’s overall power demand while utilizing a more environmentally sound electricity supply. Concurrently, the energy efficiency project will assess several projects already identified in the adopted 2015 Potable Water Master Plan such as: pump efficiencies within plant, the ozone disinfection system, water quality in storage tanks, distribution main inter-ties between service zones, and settings of related controls needed for SCADA integration. The assessment will be completed in the study phase of the energy efficiency project and will make recommendations to replace aging infrastructure in a holistic manner from the surface water source, to the treatment plant, and within the distribution system. The individual components of this energy efficiency project will be better defined after completion of the study phase. Staff will return to Council with a report of the project’s options and request direction to proceed with some or all of the study’s recommendations. Status This is a new project not included in the 2015-17 Financial Plan, though the majority of projects being considered for incorporation into the proposed energy efficiency project have been previously identified and budgeted for. Project Team Lead Department: Utilities Department Operating Program Number & Title: 55150 Water Treatment Packet Pg 3582
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours per FY 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 Project Management Utilities Staff 100 40 100 100 0 Project Support Utilities, Water Treatment Plant, Public Works 200 150 300 300 0 Environmental Review Community Development, Consultant 20 40 0 0 0 Construction Management Public Works, Inspection 0 0 200 200 0 Project Proponent Water Treatment Plant 100 40 100 100 0 Anticipated Facility Life Span: 35 yearsInitial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalStudy (951)$150,000$150,000Design (952)$300,000$300,000Construction (953)$8,000,000 $5,000,000$13,000,000Const. Management (954)$500,000 $800,000$1,300,000Total$0 $450,000 $8,500,000 $5,800,000$0$0 $14,750,000Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalWater Fund$450,000 $8,500,000 $5,800,000$14,750,000Total$0 $450,000 $8,500,000 $5,800,000$0$0 $14,750,000 Packet Pg 3592
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & OPEN SPACE WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY PROJECT – FY 2017-18 THROUGH FY 2021-22 Project Description Community Priority ☒ Rehabilitation or Replacement ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives: Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility ☐ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need The City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) must be upgraded to comply with stricter discharge limits required by the Central Coast Water Board (CCWB), to increase capacity to serve the City’s population at General Plan build out, and to replace existing aged facilities that have reached the end of their service life. The draft 2015 WRRF Facilities Plan identifies the related upgrades and associated costs. Study of these improvements began in 2014-15, with design and environmental permitting beginning in 2015-16 and 2016-17. Stricter discharge limits will require new treatment processes as well as changes to current processes at the WRRF to remove nutrients and disinfection by-products prior to releasing environmental water to San Luis Obispo Creek. These limits are required to meet the CCWB’s Basin Plan for inland waterbodies. Recently the Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted a revised National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit with stricter discharge requirements that went into effect December 1, 2014 and requires the City to meet these new standards by November 2019. The WRRF’s capacity will be increased from its current 5.1 million gallons per day (MGD) to approximately 5.4 MGD to meet the projected growth for the next 20 years while several aged or obsolete processes will require upgrades or removal. This project will also maximize recycled water production and include much needed upgrades to buildings and communication infrastructure to assist in the optimal operation and maintenance of the facility. All aspects of the upgrade will consider a triple bottom line approach to ensure the facility becomes a valuable community asset. Status This is an existing project shown in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. Project Team Utilities Department Operating Program Number & Title: 55330 – Water Resource Recovery Facility Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours per FY 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22Project Management Consultant Services 600 600 400 200 100 Environmental Review Utilities, Community Development 80 80 0 0 0 Packet Pg 3602
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & OPEN SPACE Construction Management Contract Services (with assistance from Public Works Engineering) 0 1,000 1,000 1,000 500 Project Support WRRF Supervisor, WRRF Staff, and Public Works Engineering 400 700 700 600 100 Project Proponent Utilities, Wastewater, Deputy Director 300 300 300 200 100 Location Estimated Year of Construction Pavement Area (for projects in right-of-way) 35 Prado Road 2018-2020 N/A Anticipated Facility Life Span: 40 years Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalDesign (952)$1,500,000$1,500,000Construction (953)$15,209,000 $50,000,000 $30,000,000 $24,000,000$119,209,000Const. Management (954)$3,000,000 $6,500,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000$19,500,000Total$0 $19,709,000 $56,500,000 $35,000,000 $29,000,000$0 $140,209,000Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalSewer Fund$19,500,000 $56,500,000 $35,000,000 $29,000,000$140,000,000General Capital Outlay$209,000$209,000Total$0 $19,709,000 $56,500,000 $35,000,000 $29,000,000$0 $140,209,000 Note: The Sewer Fund allocation will come from the State Revolving Loan Funds (SRF) and the General Capital Outlay is funding a portion of the weed abatement in preparation of the gun range demolition on the project site. Packet Pg 3612
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION MARSH STREET PARKING STRUCTURE MAINTENANCE - FY 2017-18 Project Description Community Priority ☒ Rehabilitation or Replacement ☐ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☐ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need Parking structures have an expected life span of up to 50 years if preventative maintenance is performed on a regular basis. Preventative maintenance including resealing decks, painting, light fixture replacement, and elevator upgrades and must occur every 10 to 15 years in order to extend the maximum life span of any structure. The original Marsh Street Parking Structure was completed in 1990 and the expansion of the Marsh Street Parking Structure was completed in 2002. Since completion, the bottom deck of the parking structure has never been resealed to protect the concrete from moisture and other corrosive elements. The elevator located at the corner of Marsh Street and Chorro Street is original from 1990; refurbishment or replacement of the elevator cart, doors, and thresholds have not occurred. The City receives and responds to calls of individuals stuck in the elevator on a weekly basis. Republic Elevator Company, the City’s current elevator contractor, provided a quote for door replacement, new car and hall fixtures, and cladding of elevator interior and floor for a total of $41,850. The upgrades to the elevator are programmed into the first year of the two-year budget cycle given the staff time from various departments spent addressing current elevator issues. The interior of the structure, both original and expansion, have never been repainted. The last paint project that occurred was in fiscal year 2013-14 when the exterior of the expansion was painted due to the failing of the stucco. Interior painting is another way to protect against corrosion, improve the look and appeal of the structure, and assist parkers in wayfinding while inside the structure. The existing lighting fixtures in the expansion section of the Marsh Street parking structure are original to construction in 2002. Currently, the lighting is being replaced as it fails, which increases the cost per fixture, and uses a large amount of staff time. LED fixtures will be more efficient, cost less for electricity, and require less maintenance. Status This is a new project not included in the 2015-17 Financial Plan Project Team Lead Department: Public Works Operating Program Number & Title: 50600 Parking Operations and Maintenance Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Management Parking Services 40 Contract Administration / Management Parking Services 50 Construction Management CIP Engineering - Construction 120 Packet Pg 3622
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION MARSH STREET PARKING STRUCTURE MAINTENANCE - FY 2017-18 Anticipated Facility Life Span: The proposed maintenance to the Marsh Street Parking Structure is expected to last 10-15 years based on use of the structure. Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalDesign (952)$25,000$25,000Construction (953)$500,000$500,000Const. Management (954)$50,000$50,000Total$0 $575,000$0$0$0$0 $575,000Ongoing Costs by TypeBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalUtilities$0Maintenance Materials$0Staff$0Contract Services$0Total$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalParking Fund$575,000$575,000Total$0 $575,000$0$0$0$0 $575,000 Packet Pg 3632
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION PALM-NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE - FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19 Project Description Community Priority ☒ New Project ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☐ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need The City’s fourth parking structure needs to be constructed to adequately handle the downtown parking demand generated by developments occurring in the next 5 to 10 years. If there is not enough available parking it could deter access and decrease commercial and cultural activities in the downtown. As the economy improves, smaller redevelopments like the Art Museum, Marsh Street Commons, and Monterey Place (Leitcher House property) will be completed and attract more people downtown. Larger projects like Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces, that are currently under construction, have eliminated approximately 204 metered surface parking lot spaces and will increase the demand for additional parking as the project phases are completed. Conservatively, the City will need to replace the lost parking spaces as well as build new parking spaces to accommodate the demand for future developments. Although some of the parking demand will be distributed throughout the existing parking supply, the City will have to construct additional parking. The Downtown Concept Plan calls for that parking to be in the form of a parking structure. A portion of the proposed site location for Palm-Nipomo is currently a surface parking lot which includes 77 metered spaces. This lot will be closed permanently once construction on Palm-Nipomo begins. The total number of parking spaces proposed for Palm-Nipomo is 410 which means that the structure will add 333 net new spaces to the City’s parking supply. For reference, below is a table outlining the changes in the City’s parking supply from 2014 to 2016 as well as an estimate of the parking supply once Palm-Nipomo is completed. No. of Parking Spaces by Type 2014 2015 2016 Completion of Palm-Nipomo Structures 1,127 1,127 1,127 1,537 Metered Surface Lot Spaces 390 270 186 109 On-Street Metered Spaces 1,149 1,151 1,147 1,147 TOTAL 2,666 2,548 2,460 2,793 Status This is an existing project shown in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. This project is a Parking Fund CIP with the need for Debt Financing support for implementation. It has received multiple Council reviews and direction for implementation to support Downtown activities. The City owns all the land needed for the project and a consultant has been hired to develop the design, conduct environmental review, and take the project through the public hearing process. Through this process, a potential significant impact to historic resources has been identified. In January 2016, the City Council directed staff to prepare a focused environmental impact report (EIR). A consultant team is currently working on the environmental review and processing a final project conceptual design. Large major capital projects like a parking structure will take approximately two years to construct. The cost estimate used for this request will need to be finalized once the final design and environmental review is completed. Packet Pg 3642
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION Project Team Lead Department: Public Works Operating Program Number & Title: 50600 – Parking Operations Maintenance Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Proponent Public Works – Parking Services 200 hours per year Project Manager CIP Engineering – Design 500 hours per year – During Construction Document PreparationContract Management CIP Engineering – Administration 40 hours per year Construction Management CIP Engineering – Construction 500 hours per year – During Construction Packet Pg 3652
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION Anticipated Facility Life Span: 50 Years for Building StructureInitial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalLand Acquisition (950)$2,328,200$2,328,200Design (952)$1,350,000 $250,000$1,600,000Construction (953)$0 $22,000,000$22,000,000Const. Management (954)$0 $1,600,000$1,600,000Environmental Review (957)$300,000$300,000Total$3,978,200 $250,000 $0 $23,600,000 $0$0 $27,828,200Ongoing Costs by TypeBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalUtilities$0$0 $52,779 $54,890$107,669Maintenance Materials$0$0 $14,800 $15,392$30,192Staff$0$0 $71,800 $74,672$146,472Contract Services$0$0 $60,250 $62,660$122,910Total$0 $0 $0$0 $199,629 $207,614 $407,243Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalParking Fund$3,978,200 $250,000 $0 $6,000,000$10,228,200Debt Financing$0 $17,600,000$17,600,000Total$3,978,200 $250,000 $0 $23,600,000 $0$0 $27,828,200 Packet Pg 3662
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION PARKING ACCESS REVENUE CONTROL SYSTEM – FY 2017-18 Project Description Community Priority ☒ Rehabilitation or Replacement ☐ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☐ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need The purpose of this project is to fully replace the outdated and no longer supported parking access and revenue control system (PARCS) for the three existing parking structures. Replacing the current PARCS equipment with new equipment will increase decrease staff time performing maintenance and repairs while increasing staff’s ability to accommodate and manage different parking demands placed on the system as well as improve overall efficiency of garage operations for patrons and staff. The new equipment will also be used in the Palm Nipomo Structure or other future structures build or managed by the City. As part of the 2009-11 Financial Plan, Council approved the allocation of $113,000 for parking structure equipment upgrade. At that time, some of the existing equipment at 842 Palm Street parking structure and 871 Marsh Street parking structure was already beyond the typical 10-year life span for structure equipment while other equipment components were close to reaching that 10-year life expectancy. The plan was to purchase equipment through the manufacturer of the existing equipment (Federal APD); however, in 2012 Federal APD was purchased by 3M which ultimately shut down production of Federal APD equipment in 2014. Around the time 3M was closing Federal APD, the City had the option to purchase Federal APD equipment at a significant discount but the lack of support and the discontinuation of manufacturing of replacement parts would have made the purchase imprudent. Staff has been researching different PARCS equipment manufacturers and gathering rough estimates for new equipment. Considering a full equipment replacement as opposed to an upgrade will cost well above the previously approved $113,000 but, at this point, it is essential if Parking Services is to continue to offer a high-level of customer service. Costs for all new equipment is estimated to be an additional $650,000 including contingencies which brings the total cost to $763,000. There will also be on-going annual costs associated with the support and maintenance of new equipment. These costs will depend on the equipment manufacturer as well as the level of support the City requires to meet the needs of the parking structure users. Status This is an existing project with initial funding approved in the 2009-11 Financial Plan. Project Team Lead Department: Public Works Operating Program Number & Title: 50600 Parking Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Management Parking Services 80 Contract Admin/Mgnt. Parking Services 80 Construction Management CIP Engineering-Construction 120 Packet Pg 3672
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION PARKING ACCESS REVENUE CONTROL SYSTEM – FY 2017-18 Anticipated Facility Life Span: Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalDesign (952)$0$0Construction (953)$0Equipment Acquisition (956)$113,000$650,000$763,000Computer Acquisition (963)$0Total$113,000 $0 $650,000$0 $0$0 $763,000Ongoing Costs by TypeBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalUtilities$0Maintenance Materials$0Staff$0Contract Services$50,000 $50,000 $50,000$150,000Total$0 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $150,000Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalParking Fund$113,000$650,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000$913,000Total$113,000 $0 $650,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $913,000 Packet Pg 3682
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION TRANSIT BUS REPLACEMENT – FY 2017-18 THROUGH FY 2021-22 Project Description Community Priority ☒ Rehabilitation or Replacement ☐ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☐ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need Replacement of Eight Transit fleet vehicles which have reached the end of their useful life. Status This is an existing project shown in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. All federally funded transit vehicle purchases come with useful life thresholds. These thresholds dictate that all 30’ heavy duty vehicles remain in service for 10 years or 400,000 miles and that all 40’ heavy duty bus either remain in service for 12 years or 500,000 miles; whichever comes first. There are eight buses and one trolley reaching the end of their 12 years’ useful life during this CIP cycle and which could be replaced as shown in Transit Vehicle Replacement Schedule shown below: Unit Make Length Model Year Manu.Age (yrs.) Remain Years Replacement Year (Best Case) 754 Gillig 30' Low Floor 2007 9 1 2018 755 Gillig 30' Low Floor 2007 9 1 2018 857 Gillig 40' Low Floor 2008 8 4 2021 858 Gillig 40' Low Floor 2008 8 4 2021 859 Gillig 40' Low Floor 2008 8 4 2021 860 Gillig 40' Low Floor 2008 8 4 2021 861 Gillig 35' Low Floor 2008 8 4 2021 862 Gillig 35' Low Floor 2008 8 4 2021 856 DOUBLE K 30' TROLLEY 2008 8 4 2022 Note: vehicle replacement is subject to the availability of grant and local matching funds and does not assume a change in powertrain (e.g. electric buses) Project Team Lead Department: Public Work - Transit Division Operating Program Number & Title: 50700 Transit Based on current SLO Transit bus specification prices, and with room for price escalation, it can be anticipated that it will cost approximately $530,000 per heavy duty vehicle and $250,000 for the Trolley. Packet Pg 3692
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Manager Transit Manager 40 Initial Project Project Admin Transit Coordinator 20 Initial Project Project Support Transit Assistant 20 Initial Project Anticipated Facility Life Span: N/A Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalEquipment Acquisition (956)$0 $1,060,000 $1,590,000 $1,590,000 $250,000$4,490,000Total$0 $0 $1,060,000 $1,590,000 $1,590,000 $250,000 $4,490,000Ongoing Costs by TypeBudget to Date2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalTotal$0 $0 $0$0 $0$0$0Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalTransit Fund$0 $1,060,000 $1,590,000 $1,590,000 $250,000$4,490,000Total$0 $0 $1,060,000 $1,590,000 $1,590,000 $250,000 $4,490,000 Packet Pg 3702
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION TRANSIT BUS SHELTER REPLACEMENT – FY 2017-18 THROUGH FY 2021-22 Project Description Community Priority ☒ Rehabilitation or Replacement ☐ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☐ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need Replacement of Transit Bus Shelters which have reached the end of their useful life. Status This project was identified in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. The SLO Transit system has exceeded over one million passengers in each of the last five fiscal years, reaching a system high of over 1.2 million passengers in FY 15/16. Under the performance guidelines of the 2009 & 2016 adopted Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP), shelters should be provided at bus stops that have a minimum twenty-five daily passenger boarding’s. The SLO Transit system has approximately forty-nine (49) bus shelters and over 235 bus stops and many of the existing shelters using a concrete pad are older models with glass panels that are past their useful life and are subject to graffiti and vandalism. With the older models glass replacement is an ongoing expense due to vandalism. This project will replace five old dilapidated shelters and benches as well as install five new shelters in high boarding locations. Project costs are expected to include replacement or expanded concrete pads if a larger replacement shelter is installed or the existing pad is damaged or worn. Project Team Lead Department: Public Work - Transit Division Operating Program Number & Title: 50700 Transit Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Manager Transit Manager 40 Initial Project Project Admin Transit Coordinator 20 Initial Project Project Support Transit Assistant 20 Initial Project Packet Pg 3712
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION TRANSIT BUS SHELTER REPLACEMENT – FY 2017-18 THROUGH FY 2021-22 Anticipated Facility Life Span: Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalEquipment Acquisition (956)$25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000$125,000Total$0 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $125,000Ongoing Costs by TypeBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalTotal$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22TotalTransit Fund$25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000$125,000Total$0 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $125,000 Packet Pg 3722
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION TRANSIT – AUTOMATIC VEHICLE LOCATION SYSTEM - FY 2018-19 Project Description Community Priority ☒ Rehabilitation or Replacement ☒ Major City Goal & Other Important Objectives ☐ Measure G Priority Purpose and Need Replacement Automatic Vehicle Location System for the City of San Luis Obispo’s Public Transit System, SLO Transit. Status This is a new project not included in the 2015-17 Financial Plan. In 2009, the City of San Luis Obispo procured an Automatic Vehicle Location system (AVL) for its transit fleet from a provider then known as Digital Recorders. This company has since been bought out by another company known as Clever Devices. Clever Devices has since put transit systems which still have the DR 600 AVL systems from Digital Records on notice that they will no longer be supporting this equipment sometime after 2017. AVL systems have become an indispensable tool for transit systems. AVL systems provide real-time information on the safety, location, driver/route (on-time) performance, and other statistical information for operational analysis which lead into system planning and improvements. Furthermore, AVL systems have become the preferred method by which transit systems comply with ADA requirements such as “next stop” audio announcements and visual route information displays. This project can be funded with a combination of City of SLO awarded 2015-16 and 2016-17 California Prop 1B grants totaling $310,000. Project Team Lead Department: Public Work - Transit Division Operating Program Number & Title: Transit 50700 Assignment Program/Work Group Estimated Hours Project Manager Transit Manager 40 Initial Project Project Admin Transit Coordinator 20 Initial Project Project Support Transit Assistant 20 Initial Project Project Support Information Sys Dept. 40 Annually Packet Pg 3732
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORTATION TRANSIT AUTOMATIC VEHICLE LOCATION SYSTEM FY 2016-17 Anticipated Facility Life Span: Initial Projects Costs by PhaseBudget to Date2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalEquipment Acquisition (956)$310,000$310,000Total$0 $310,000 $0$0 $0$0 $310,000Ongoing Costs by TypeBudget to Date2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalTotal$0 $0 $0$0 $0$0$0Project Funding by SourceBudget to Date2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 TotalTransit Fund$310,000$310,000Total$0 $310,000 $0$0 $0$0 $310,000 Packet Pg 3742
UNFUNDED CAPITAL PROJECTS
To assist the City Manager in developing the recommended Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects for the 2017-19 Financial Plan, a designated CIP Review Committee evaluated all departmental requests. Projects included in the attached summary were not recommended for funding in the 2017-19 Financial Plan, due to financial constraints. Projects on this list are usually reevaluated during the development of the next Financial Plan or brought forward if other funding sources can be acquired to complete them, such as grants.
ATTACHMENT B-3:CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Packet Pg 375
2
Project Title MCG/OIO 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Urban Forest Management Master OIO: Downtown Vitality 168,800$ 410,000$ 360,000$ 370,000$ 370,000$
Johnson Ranch Open Space Conservation Plan Implementation Climate Action 50,000$ 150,000$ -$ -$ -$ Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment Management Project Implementation 200,000$ 900,000$ 850,000$ 825,000$ 825,000$
Pacheco and Bishop Peak Safe Routes to School Construction MCG: Multi-Modal Transportation -$ 50,000$ 250,000$ -$
Broad Street Bike Boulevard Construction MCG: Multi-Modal Transportation -$ 150,000$ 300,000$ -$ -$ Electronic Submital and Review for Development Services -$ -$ -$ 142,160$ 27,160$ Special Events Tailer -$ -$ -$ 13,500$ -$ Neighborhood Traffic Improvements MCG: Multi-Modal Transportation 80,000$ 230,000$ 130,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$
California & Taft Roundabout MCG: Multi-Modal Transportation 60,000$ 902,453$ -$ -$ -$ Bishop Peak Emergency Access & Egress Project 150,000$ 75,000$ -$ -$ -$
ADA Transition Plan Implementation MCG: Fiscal Sustainability & Responsibility -$ 95,000$ 1,000,000$ 750,000$ 730,000$
Prado Road Interchange MCG: Multi-Modal Transportation -$ -$ 750,000$ -$ -$ Swim Center Safety and Program Enhancements -$ -$ -$ 76,000$ -$ Mission Plaza Extension Safety Lighting Maintenance 30,000$ 130,000$ -$ -$ -$ Stormwater Program Assessment and Funding 50,000$ 150,000$ -$ -$ -$ Fire Station 2 Exterior Driveway Concrete Ramp Replacement 33,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Senior Center Needs Assesment -$ 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ Jack House Arbor & Patio Seating Area 100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Orcutt Road at Tank Farm Roundabout MCG: Multi-Modal Transportation -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Ahearn Ranch Open Space Conservation Plan Implementation -$ -$ -$ 75,000$ 425,000$
Bob Jones Trail Octagon Barn Connection MCG: Multi-Modal Transportation 100,000$ 675,000$ -$ -$ -$ Fox Hollow Rainwater Harvesting Project -$ 100,000$ 2,500$ -$ 2,500$ Remodel of Fire Apparatus Repair Facility 50,000$ 315,000$ -$ -$ -$ Fire Station 4 Remodel -$ 12,000$ 102,000$ -$ -$ Aquatic Inflatable Obstacle Course -$ -$ -$ 15,000$ 1,000$ Speed Feedback Sign Replacements (Broad & Johnson) MCG: Multi-Modal Transportation 50,000$ 60,000$ -$ -$ -$
Wayfinding Kiosks MCG: Multi-Modal Transportation 10,000$ 25,000$ 50,000$ -$ -$ Downtown Farmer's Market Traffic Control Upgrade none 220,000$ 221,000$ 220,100$ 220,150$ 220,200$ Laguna Lake Golf Course Sustainability Initiatives -$ -$ -$ 105,000$ -$ Mid-Higuera Bypass 125,000$ 840,000$ -$ -$ -$ Green Fleet Expansion Transportation for Parks and Recreation Satellite Offices MCG: Climate Action -$ -$ 7,500$ -$ -$ Landscaping at Fire Station 4 74,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Not Proposed for Funding in 2017/19 CIP $ 1,551,300 $ 5,490,453 $ 3,822,100 $ 2,871,810 $ 2,630,860
Project Title MCG/OIO 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Radio Handhelds & Mobiles (Total Project Cost $508,045 GF)*328,445$ -$
Document Scanners (Total project cost $18,000)18,000$ -$ -$ -$ Timecard Program (Intellitime)112,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fleet Management Software 110,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ VoIP Telephone System (Total project $256,371 GF) moved to 2021-22 256,371$ -$ -$ -$
Irrigation (Rainmaster/Rainbird) (Total Project Cost $35,000)*-$ 23,000$ -$ -$ -$
SAN Controllers - City -$ 80,000$ -$ -$ -$ Police CAD/RMS Study -$ 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ AutoCAD - Engineering Software -$ 25,000$ -$ -$ -$ Police CAD Hardware Servers/storage (Current upgrade extends system to 22/23)-$ 350,000$ -$ -$ -$ Firewall Replacement (Total Project $186,500)*-$ -$ 31,637$ -$ -$ Virtual Private Network Replace (VPN (Total cost $130,000)*-$ -$ 27,986$ -$ -$ Fire Radio Receive Site at Fire Station #4 -$ -$ 486,777$ -$ -$ Public Safety MDC's (Total Project Cost $693000)-$ -$ 693,000$ -$ -$ ECC Audio Visual System -$ -$ 275,000$ -$ -$ Signal & Light Management (Cartegraph)-$ -$ 50,000$ -$ -$ Signs Management (Cartegraph)-$ -$ 65,000$ -$ -$
General Fund Capital Outlay
IT Replacement Fund (GF)
2017/19 UNFUNDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECTS
Packet Pg 376
2
Project Title MCG/OIO 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Microsoft Office (Total Project $225,000)-$ -$ 188,182$ -$ -$ Enterprise Storage Growth -$ -$ 50,000$ -$ -$ VM Infrastructure (Total Project $242,000)-$ -$ 202,644$ -$ -$ Network Switching Infrastructure Equipment (Total Project $550,000)-$ -$ 496,221$ -$ -$ Laserfiche -$ -$ 65,000$ -$ -$ Access Control (Automatic Gate Card System)-$ -$ 125,000$ -$ -$
Finance System Replacement (Total Project $750,000)-$ -$ 375,000$ -$ -$
Body Worn Cameras, Video Storage and Interview Rooms -$ -$ 376,300$ -$ -$ Server Operating System Software (Total Project $50,000)*-$ -$ -$ 8,132$ -$ Shoremicro (Radio System Redundant Bypass Link)-$ -$ -$ 50,000$ -$ Security Video System Replacement (Camera&Software:Milestone)-$ -$ -$ 55,500$ -$ 911 Phone System -$ -$ -$ 500,000$ -$ Fire Scheduling (Telestaff)-$ -$ -$ 38,000$ -$ Utility Billing System -$ -$ -$ -$ 150,000$ Asset Management -$ -$ -$ -$ 50,000$ Land Use System (Energov)-$ -$ -$ -$ 1,250,000$ Police CAD Hardware - Servers & Storage -$ -$ -$ -$ 350,000$ EPCR (Electronic Patient Care Reporting)-$ -$ -$ -$ 57,000$ Critical Community Connectivity Project -$ -$ -$ -$ 25,000$ EOC AV System (Equipment in Fire 1 Bay)-$ -$ -$ -$ 35,000$ Human Resources Information System -$ -$ -$ -$ 50,000$ Not Proposed for Funding in 2017/19 CIP $ 825,316 $ 528,000 $ 3,507,747 $ 651,632 $ 1,967,000
Packet Pg 377
2
Attachment C
Packet Pg 378
2
ATTACHMENT C:MAJOR CITY GOALS & OTHER IMPORTANT OBJECTIVES
MAJOR CITY GOALS & OTHER IMPORTANT OBJECTIVESThe fundamental purpose of the City’s Financial Plan is to link what the City wants to accomplish over the two-year period with the resources available to do so. The Financial Plan process used by the City Council accomplishes this through a public engagement process that helps the Council identify Major City Goals, establishing a timeframe and organizational responsibility for achieving them, and allocating the resources needed to do so. In order to identify the goals to drive the budget process, the City begins its Financial Plan process by asking its advisory bodies to submit goals, soliciting feedback from the public with a survey, and holding a community forum, in addition to other outreach efforts. This input helps the Council determine the major objectives it wants to accomplish over the next two years in addition to the ongoing services the City provides to the community. At the Goal-Setting Workshop in January 2017, Council established four Major City Goals and one Other Important Council Objective, listed below. The proposed work programs and funding to accomplish the Major City Goals and Other Important Objective are presented in this section.
Climate Action• Implement Climate Action Plan, assess requirements to achieve a “net-zero carbon City” target, and implement cost-effective measures, including implementation of a Sustainability Coordinator and formation of a Green Team.Fiscal Sustainability & Responsibility• Continue to implement the City’s Fiscal Responsibility Philosophy with a focus on economic development and responsiveness, unfunded liabilities, and infrastructure financing.Housing• Facilitate increased production of all housing types designed to be economically accessible to the area workforce and low and very low-income residents, through increased density and proximity to transportation corridors in alignment with the Climate Action PlanMulti-Modal Transportation• Prioritize implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan, pedestrian safety, and the Short-Range Transit PlanDowntown Vitality*• Continue to improve safety, infrastructure investment, and maintenance in the Downtown and support Downtown Association’s proposal to consider a Downtown improvement district.
*Other Important Objective
Packet Pg 379
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS/OTHER IMPORTANT OBJECTIVE FUNDING SUMMARY
MAJOR CITY GOALS/OTHER IMPORTANT OJECTIVE GOAL STATEMENT EXPENDITURE TYPE 2017/18 2018/19 2017/18 2018/19
Ongoing -$ -$ -$ -$
Reallocation -$ -$ -$ -$
New Programs/Projects 115,500$ 87,000$ 30,000$ 75,000$
Ongoing 1,371,585$ 821,080$ -$ -$
Reallocation -$ -$ -$ -$
New Programs/Projects 75,000$ -$ -$ -$
Ongoing 177,484$ 184,637$ -$ -$
Reallocation -$ -$ -$ -$
New Programs/Projects -$ -$ -$ -$ Ongoing 5,296,480$ 5,431,858$ -$ -$ Reallocation -$ -$ -$ -$ New Programs/Projects -$ -$ 3,690,500$ 14,691,455$
Ongoing 969,703$ 977,257$ -$ -$
Reallocation 75,000$ -$ -$ -$
New Programs/Projects -$ -$ 465,000$ 75,000$ TOTAL WORK PROGRAMS 8,080,752$ 7,501,832$ 4,185,500$ 14,841,455$ *Other Important Objective
Expenditure Type Summary Table Operating Capital
Ongoing $ 15,230,084 $ - Reallocation $ 75,000 $ - New Programs/Projects $ 277,500 19,026,955$ Total 15,582,584$ 19,026,955$
Housing
Facilitate increased production of all housing types designed to be economically accessible to the area workforce and low and very low-income residents, through increased density and proximity to transportation corridors in alignment with the Climate Action Plan.
Multi-Modal Transportation Prioritize implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan, pedestrian safety, and the Short-Range Transit Plan.
Downtown Vitality*
Continue to improve safety, infrastructure investment, and maintenance in the Downtown and support Downtown Association’s proposal to consider a Downtown improvement district.
Operating Capital Improvement Plan
Climate Action
Implement Climate Action Plan, assess requirements to achieve a “net-zero carbon City” target, and implement cost-effective measures, including implementation of a Sustainability Coordinator and formation of a Green Team.
Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility
Continue to implement the City’s Fiscal Responsibility Philosophy with a focus on economic development and responsiveness, unfunded liabilities, and infrastructure financing.
Packet Pg 380
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS CLIMATE ACTION GOAL STATEMENT Implement Climate Action Plan, assess requirements to achieve a “net-zero carbon City” target, and implement cost-effective measures, including implementation of a Sustainability Coordinator and formation of a Green Team. OUTCOME – FINAL WORK PRODUCT The Climate Action Major City Goal will further the community’s effort to achieve environmental goals that address climate change adaptation and the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. DISCUSSION The Climate Action Plan (CAP) was adopted by Resolution in 2012 and serves as the City’s policy document that sets forth objectives and strategies that the City and community can in turn use as a road map to achieve the City’s GHG reduction goals. The CAP is a dynamic strategic document that requires continual updates to address changes in State policies, technologies and the natural environment. One of the overarching reasons is that if the City is not meeting GHG reduction goals as measured and reported, then the City should adjust strategies and policies as necessary. In August 2016 two assessments, the 2016 Climate Action Plan Progress Report (Progress Report) and the City of San Luis Obispo Energy Baseline Report (Energy Baseline Report), were prepared to: 1. assess the progress of the near-term CAP implementation strategies to reduce GHG emissions, and, 2. assess the City’s energy use and cost for City-owned facilities between June 2013 and May 2016. Both assessments concluded that although the City was making progress towards achieving the objectives identified in the CAP, there were several action items that could be pursued in the near-term. The identified actions would position the City for continued success at achieving the 2020 GHG emissions reduction targets, and position the City to be a leader in the development, implementation and export of renewable energy and emissions reduction programs. These activities would create local economic opportunities, enhance community well-being and resilience, and inspire and enable our regional partners to participate in reducing carbon emissions and stabilizing the climate. Building upon the recommendations from the Progress Report and the Energy Baseline Report a cohesive climate change strategy, that includes existing and future work efforts, will be developed and implemented over the next two fiscal years. Proposed Scope of Work The proposed work program includes the following key actions: Reprioritizing and assigning Sustainability Coordinator responsibilities to the Special Projects Manager to oversee the implementation of the City’s strategies to address climate change adaptation and the reduction of GHG emissions. Create a City “Green Team” to assist the Sustainability Coordinator with the implementation of the City’s CAP strategies. The Green Team will be comprised of representatives from each department with expertise in environmental policy, transportation/mobility, energy efficiency, water conservation, recycled water, consumption and solid waste reduction, food and agriculture, open space conservation/wildland protection, flood control and hazard mitigation, urban forestry, housing, land uses planning and building construction, government operations, climate change adaptation and resiliency, advocacy and public outreach/education. Assess and report the requirements to achieve the “net-zero carbon City” target. Including feasibility analysis and implementation of Community Choice Energy program.
Packet Pg 381
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS CLIMATE ACTION Re-evaluate the feasibility or relevance of the GHG emissions reduction implementation measures in the CAP, and identify implementation funding sources. Support the establishment of a “Community Climate Action Coalition” by engaging other jurisdictions, professionals, elected officials, and residents to enhance community education, participation, and advocacy in all City and regional climate action adaptation and GHG emission reduction efforts. Update the City’s GHG emissions inventory. Update the Climate Action Plan to reflect changes in State and Regional legislative policies, technologies and resilience due to changes in the natural environment. Ensure accountability and monitoring of the effectiveness and progress for all CAP implementation strategies and measures. Develop enhanced incentive programs to encourage energy efficiency and reduction of GHG emissions in the community. Perform energy assessments/audits on all City-owned facilities. Implement energy and cost saving measures and projects identified in the energy assessments. Monitor and measure City-owned facility and infrastructure performance on a biennial basis. Prepare an Energy Baseline Report and Rate Analysis for City-owned facilities and infrastructure on an annual basis. Report on the effectiveness of individual climate action adaptation and GHG emission reduction strategies and measures to provide City Council with an indication of the overall achievement towards the defined objectives and targets annually. Work Underway or Ongoing The following is a list of work efforts being conducted by the City that are currently underway or are ongoing in nature. All the activities have some bearing on the City’s ability to achieve its climate action goals. With the Major City Goal of Climate Action, the Sustainability Coordinator and the Green Team will evaluate these work efforts to ensure consistency with the Climate Action Plan, and identify and recommend adjustments or modifications on a prioritized basis. Work Efforts Underway (Responsible Department) Subdivision Regulations Update (Community Development) Zoning Regulations Update (Community Development) Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Update (Community Development) Conversion of City Fleet to Electric/Alternative Fuel Vehicles (Public Works) Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) project (Utilities) Toilet Retrofit (Utilities) Green Waste Composting Facility (Utilities) Plastic Bottle Reduction (Administration) Community Choice Energy Assessment (Administration) Ongoing Work Efforts (Responsible Department) Green and Energy Conservation Building and Construction Code Updates (Community Development) Construction and Demolition Recycling Plan (Community Development) Housing Element Update and Implementation (Community Development) Land Use Element Update and Implementation (Community Development) Near-Term GHG Emission Reduction Implementation Measures (All Departments) Circulation Element Update and Implementation (Public Works) Short Range Transportation Plan Implementation (Public Works) Bicycle Transportation Plan Implementation (Public Works) Bicycle Path Maintenance Program (Public Works) Sustainable Solutions Turnkey (SST) project (Public Works) Building Maintenance and Improvement Program Implementation (Public Works)
Packet Pg 382
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS CLIMATE ACTION Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (Utilities) Water and Wastewater Element Update and Implementation (Utilities) Wastewater Collection Infrastructure Renewal Strategy (Utilities) Water Efficient Landscaping Standards (Utilities) Recycled Water Master Plan (Utilities) Historic Resource Protection, Preservation and Reuse of City Owned Facilities (Parks & Recreation) Open Space and Trails (Natural Resources and Parks and Recreation Ranger Service) Trees and Urban Forestry (Public Works) Creek and Flood Control Program Implementation (Public Works and Natural Resources) Wildlands Fire Protection (Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Ranger Service and Fire) Vegetation Management Program Implementation (Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Ranger Service, and Fire) Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Implementation (Fire) Natural Resource Protection Program Implementation (Natural Resources & Parks and Recreation Ranger Service) Greenbelt Protection Program Implementation (Natural Resources) SLO Stewards Program Implementation (Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Ranger Service and non-profit partners) Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan Implementation (Natural Resources and Public Works) Environmental Restoration and Invasive Species Management (Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Ranger Service, and non-profit partners) Trip Reduction Incentive Program (TRIP) for City Employees (Human Resources) Economic Development Strategic Plan Implementation (Administration) Support of Empower and other financing programs designed to specifically retrofit existing commercial and residential buildings. WORK PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS AND LIMITATIONS Greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to the warming of the atmosphere which is resulting in drastic changes to our climate. The current trajectory of global warming is alarming and requires significant and critical actions to prevent further escalation of the GHG emissions that have already caused changes in the climate, resulting in noticeable and significant impacts. The associated consequences of increased temperatures are extreme weather events, acceleration of polar ice melt, rising sea levels, increasing ocean acidity, accelerated species loss, increased risk of high intensity wildfires, and increasing numbers of “excessive heat days” (above 95 degrees Fahrenheit). Actions to address climate change require significant financial and resource investment. However, there are grants, state and federal funding, and public/private partnership opportunities available to help offset the cost associated with some climate action adaptation and GHG emission reduction implementation strategies and measures. When the CAP was adopted the estimated cost was $1.3 million dollars over a ten-year time frame to implement all the identified CAP strategies. The estimate to implement the proposed work plan over the 2017-2019 Financial Plan period is $307,500, this includes $105,000 in Capital Improvement Plan projects. Provided below is a line item break down of the estimated expenses: Implementation FY 17-18 (one-time/ongoing) FY 18-19 (one-time/ongoing) .75 FTE – Sustainability Coordinator $84,163 (one-time) $89,066 (one-time)
Offset by Department Budget: 0.75 FTE Special Projects Manager -$84,163 (one-time) -$89,066 (one-time)
.25 FTE – Green Team Support Efforts $28,054 (one-time) $29,688 (one-time)
Packet Pg 383
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS CLIMATE ACTION Offset by Department Budget: 0.25 FTE Deputy Director CDD – Long Range Planning
-$28,054 (one-time) -$29,688 (one-time)
Consultant Services: GHG Inventory Update $15,000 (one-time) $0
Training $10,000 (one-time) $5,000 (one-time) Offset by Department Budget: Training -$10,000 (one-time) -$5,000 (one-time)
Consultant Services: Energy Assessments/Audits of City-Owned Facilities and Infrastructure
$15,000 (one-time) $10,000 (one-time)
Potentially Offset by Matching Grant Funds: Energy Assessments/Audits of City-Owned Facilities and Infrastructure
-$7,500 (one-time) -$5,000 (one-time)
City facilities and infrastructures energy efficiency and cost saving projects
$55,000 (one-time) $40,000 (one-time)
Potentially Offset by Matching Grant Funds: City facilities and infrastructures energy efficiency and cost saving projects
-$27,500 (one-time) -$20,000 (one-time)
Green Fleet Charging Stations (CIP) $30,000 (one-time) $75,000 (one-time)
Enhanced Incentive Programs to encourage energy efficiency and GHG emissions reduction
$0 $50,000 (one-time)
CAP Update $35,000 (one-time) $0 Potentially Offset by Matching Grant Funds: CAP Update -$17,500 (one-time) $0
Assessment of Net-Zero Carbon City $10,000 (one-time) $0
Community Choice Energy -Engage in JPA Formation $25,000 $0
Community Choice Energy Initial Operations $0 $TBD
Community Climate Action Coalition Support $5,000 (one-time) $5,000 (one-time)
Public Education and Outreach $5,000 (one-time) $5,000 (one-time) Monitoring and Reporting of Progress $3,000 (one-time) $2,000 (one-time)
Subtotal $320,217 $310,754 Offsets -$174,717 -$148,754 Total $145,500 $162,000 There are several other constraints that might limit program implementation and success, beyond cost. Climate action adaptation requires commitment from residents, business owners, developers, other local jurisdictions, energy providers, etc. Collaboration and consolidation of resources will be necessary to achieve success on a large scale. Provided below are a list of some of the specific obstacles that can reasonably be expected during implementation of this goal.
Packet Pg 384
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS CLIMATE ACTION 1. Ongoing compliance with State and Federal regulations may require periodic amendment and or update of our climate action adaptation and GHG emission reduction policies and implementation strategies. 2. The availability of grant funding may be limited, uncertain, or highly competitive to secure. 3. Competing staff priorities which may delay implementation of the work program over a longer period than originally anticipated. 4. Significant public involvement or coordination with business, community or neighborhood groups will be required since more than 2/3 of the GHG emissions produced in the city come from the community. Therefore, it will require voluntary behavioral changes throughout the community to make significant progress toward achieving the GHG emission reductions targets. 5. Willingness to implement regulations that require shared costs between the public and private sectors to achieve GHG reduction goals. 6. Ongoing reliance on support from jurisdictional partners (e.g. County of San Luis Obispo Energy Watch and Energy Wise programs) However, by utilizing local and regional resources and collaborating with jurisdictional partners to consolidate scarce resources and efforts, the challenges listed above may be overcome. For example, the County of San Luis Obispo Energy Watch and Energy Wise programs have resources (funding and staffing) to assist with the technical preparation of the energy assessments/audits, GHG emissions inventory update, CAP update, grant writing, the development of annual monitoring and reporting tools and best practices. STAKEHOLDERS Due to the broad nature of this goal stakeholder involvement will need to be equally broad. City residents remain the primary stakeholders. Generally, outreach will also be targeted to other government agencies associated with projects and programs, in addition to interested parties, advocacy groups and neighborhoods near the vicinity of projects will be consulted. Other stakeholders include the County of San Luis Obispo, Air Pollution Control District (APCD), San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), Caltrans, Cal Poly University, Cuesta College, California Men’s Colony, SLO Regional Transit Authority (RTA), Chamber of Commerce, Home Builders Association, City sponsored advisory bodies (i.e. PC, ARC, BAC and MTC), bike advocacy groups, citizen groups, neighborhood groups, and environmental and business associations. The involvement of each stakeholder will vary by implementation measure. ACTION PLAN
Task Lead Department Target Date
1. Introduce Sustainability Coordinator to the City. 2. Creation of a City “Green Team” and establishment of roles and responsibilities. 3. Assessment of the requirements to achieve a “net-zero carbon City” target, including
ADMIN ADMIN ADMIN
July 2017 September 2017 June 2018
Packet Pg 385
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS CLIMATE ACTION a feasibility analysis and implementation of a Community Choice Energy Program. 4. Re-evaluation of the feasibility or relevance of some of the identified GHG emissions reduction implementation measures that are identified in the CAP, and identification of potential implementation funding sources. 5. Support for the establishment of a “Community Climate Action Coalition”. 6. Updating the City’s GHG emissions inventory. 7. Updating the Climate Action Plan. 8. Ongoing accountability and monitoring of the effectiveness and progress for all CAP implementation strategies and measures. 9. Development of enhanced incentive programs. 10. Performance of energy assessments/audits on all City-owned facilities. 11. Implementation of energy and cost saving measures and projects that were identified in the energy assessments/audits on all City-owned facilities. 12. Monitoring and measuring of City- owned facility and infrastructure performance. 13. Preparation of an Energy Baseline Report and Rate Analysis for City-owned facilities and infrastructure. 14. Biennial reporting on the effectiveness of individual climate action adaptation and GHG emission reduction strategies.
CDD ADMIN CDD CDD CDD ADMIN PW/UTILITIES PW/UTILITIES PW/UTILITIES PW/UTILITIES CDD
March 2018 November 2017 June 2018 December 2018 June 2019 June 2019 March 2018 August 2018 July 2018 March 2019 May 2019
KEY WORK PROGRAM ASSUMPTIONS 1. The City will commit the necessary staff and financial resources to implement this work program. 2. The City cannot solve Climate Action Adaptation and GHG emission reductions on its own or in a financial plan or two. Achieving the targets set forth in the CAP will require ongoing commitments and
Packet Pg 386
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS CLIMATE ACTION involvement/coordination with residents, local businesses, community/neighborhood groups, and local/regional government agencies. 3. The City will receive significant technical assistance from the County of San Luis Obispo Energy Watch and Energy Wise programs and staff. 4. The City will be awarded grant funding to offset the cost associated with the energy assessments/audits for City-owned facilities and infrastructure, GHG emissions inventory update, CAP update, grant submittals, and the development of monitoring and reporting tools and best practices. 5. Discontinuation of the availability of assistance from the County of San Luis Obispo or grant funding will result in significant changes to the operational budget. RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENTS The Administration Department will be the lead department responsible for coordination and implementation of the Climate Action Major City Goal. All City Departments will provide implementation support as needed for specific tasks. Each assigned City Department will be accountable for completing the identified action plan tasks by the target date. The primary role of the Sustainability Coordinator will be coordinate all of the existing and proposed work efforts that have bearing on the City’s ability to address climate change adaptation and reduction of GHG emissions by the 2020 target. Specifically, the Sustainability Coordinator will be directly responsible for securing grant funding; coordinating the efforts of the Green Team; providing assistance and support to community “Climate Action Coalition” group(s); overseeing the update and maintenance of the Climate Action Plan web page and resources; overseeing the update of the City’s GHG emissions inventory and CAP; development and monitoring of incentives programs; and supporting energy efficiency programs such as PACE and Community Choice Energy. Community Development will provide ongoing support and assistance to the Sustainability Coordinator. Community Development will be directly responsible for updating the City’s GHG emissions inventory and CAP documents, monitoring and reporting on implementation progress, and assessing the effectiveness of individual climate action adaptation and GHG emission reduction strategies. Public Works and Utilities will provide support work efforts associated with energy efficiency and cost saving improvements to City-owned facilities and infrastructure. All departments will designate at least one staff member to serve as the Green Team representative for their department/division. FINANCIAL AND STAFF RESOURCES REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL Accomplishing this goal will require leadership commitment and ensuring appropriate staff and financial resources are available to work on and fund these efforts. The Administration Department does not have the capacity or expertise to take on the efforts outlined in the work program without adding 1.0 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) staff in additional resources. This additional staff resource will consist of 1.0 total FTE (0.75 FTE Sustainability Coordinator and 0.25 FTE Green Team). The Sustainability Coordinator role will be provided by allocating 0.75 FTE of the Special Projects Manager position, and Green Team support efforts will be offset by 0.25 FTE of the Deputy Director CDD - Long Range Planning position to achieve the identified work efforts during the 2017-19 Financial Plan. The Green Team will consist of approximately 0.25 FTE in the form of various positions from each City department with expertise to assist the Sustainability Coordinator. All City Departments will contribute a portion of their departmental training budget to offset any necessary training that is requested for the Sustainability Coordinator and/or the Green Team representatives. It is anticipated that there will be a series of Minor Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) requests related to the work program because of the energy efficiency and cost saving projects that are identified via energy assessments and audits. One-time funds in the amount of $55,000 in fiscal year 2017-18 and $40,000 in 2018-19 have been budgeted, using one-time savings in the Community Development Department’s 2016-17 budget, for anticipated energy efficiency projects. In addition, a new Capital Improvement Project is proposed to install electric City vehicle
Packet Pg 387
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS CLIMATE ACTION charging stations in the 919 Parking Structure. The stations will support the City’s Fleet of five plug-in hybrid vehicles and proposed five additional plug-in hybrids over the next two years and allow the City to consider full electric vehicle options for the City’s fleet. The cost of the charging stations is estimated to be $30,000 for design in 2017-18 and $75,000 for construction in 2018-19. FISCAL IMPACT This program will be funded by the General Fund and Enterprise Funds (CIP); however there are opportunities for grant funding, which the Sustainability Coordinator will pursue to offset anticipated costs. Another long-term cost will be the enhanced incentive programs and the implementation of energy and cost saving measures and projects. These enhanced incentive programs may lead to additional expenses associated with services for implementation and program management. Climate action adaptation is a long-term goal that will require future requests for funding associated with maintaining the GHG emissions inventory and the CAP implementation strategies. Cost Summary and Funding Source (attached table)
Packet Pg 388
2
Cost Summary and Funding Source
2017-18 2018-19 2017-18 2018-19$FTE $FTE $$
Total -$ -$ -$ -$
2017-18 2018-19 2017-18 2018-19$FTE $FTE $$Sustainability Coordinator 84,163$ 1$ 89,066$ 1$ Special Projects Manager - Offset (84,163)$ (1)$ (89,066)$ (1)$ Green Team Representatives*28,054$ 0$ 29,688$ 0$ Deputy Director CDD - Long Range - Offset (28,054)$ (0)$ (29,688)$ (0)$ Total -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
2017-18 2018-19 2017-18 2018-19$FTE $FTE $$Training & Conferences 10,000$ 5,000$ Offset: Training & Conferences**(10,000)$ (5,000)$ GHG Inventory Update 15,000$ -$ Energy Assessments/Audits 15,000$ 10,000$ Offset: Energy Assessments/Audits***(7,500)$ (5,000)$ Energy Efficiency and Cost Saving Projects 55,000$ 40,000$ Offset: Energy Efficiency and Cost Saving Projects (27,500)$ (20,000)$ Green Fleet Charging Stations 30,000$ 75,000$ Energy Efficiency Incentive Programs -$ 50,000$ CAP Update 35,000$ -$ Offset: CAP Update***(17,500)$ -$ Net-zero Carbon City Assessment 10,000$ -$ Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study 25,000$ -$
Community Choice Energy Initial Operations -$ TBDClimate Action Coalition Support 5,000$ 5,000$ Education & Outreach 5,000$ 5,000$ Monitoring & Reporting 3,000$ 2,000$ Total 115,500$ 87,000$ 30,000$ 75,000$
*Each Department Head will designate a representative who has the technical expertise to assist the Sustainability Coordinator with the CAP implementation and update. Their staff time will be fully captured under their existing duties.
Function Program Task
EXISITNG ONGOING PROGRAMS/PROJECTS PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED AND FUNDEDOperating Capital Improvement Plan
Environmental ComplianceEnvironmental Health & Open Space
**Each Department will contribute funds for training from their existing operations training budgets***Assumes that 1:1 matching grant funds and/or regional funding resources will be awarded for the specified task
Environmental Health & Open Space
REALLOCATION OF RESOURCES (NET ZERO FISCAL IMPACT)Operating Capital Improvement Plan
NEW PROGRAMS/PROJECTSOperating Capital Improvement PlanFunctionProgramTask
Function Program Task
Environmental Compliance
Packet Pg 389
2
Special Projects Manager(Sustainability Coordinator)
Natural Resources Manager PW Facilities Supervisor
Fleet Manager Wastewater Supervisor
Water Supervisor LRP Deputy Director
Transit Manager Purchasing Analyst
GREEN TECHNICAL TEAM
Packet Pg 390
2
Special Projects Manager (Sustainability Coord)
Assistant City Manager CDD Director City Engineer Utilities Director
GREEN STEERING TEAM
Packet Pg 391
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY GOAL STATEMENT Continue to implement the City’s Fiscal Responsibility Philosophy with a focus on economic development and responsiveness, structurally balanced fiscal outlook, unfunded liabilities, and infrastructure financing. PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK The outcome associated with this Major City Goal is soundly articulated in the City’s Fiscal Responsibility Philosophy that states in part “Fiscal Responsibility is the balanced approach to providing the infrastructure maintenance and services that preserve and enhance the quality of life in our community as identified and prioritized through community input.” Specific outcomes of this Major City Goal include activities in the following areas: Economic Development and Responsiveness The planned closure of Diablo Canyon Power Plant will drive a study of the economic and fiscal impacts on the region and the City, an updated Economic Development Strategic Plan with identified strategies to address impacts of the closure, and a comprehensive plan of how to invest closure settlement funds in economic development activities. Key revenue sources (property, sales, and Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) will receive continued focus. Fiscal Responsibility Including Actions to Ensure Structurally Balanced Fiscal Outlook The significant financial impacts beginning in Fiscal Year 2018 -19 of the reduced discount rate by the CalPERS Board of Administration (discussed in more detail below) combined with an anticipated slowing of economic growth drives continued focus on fiscal responsibility addressing both short and long-term financial challenges. The City’s well-established foundation in strong fiscal health policies and practices sets the stage for many items in this work plan to be continuation of efforts already in place. Reviewing and updating those sound practices along with engaging employees and community members, in light of changed circumstances, will be the basis for recommendations to Council. Addressing Unfunded Liabilities As CalPERS evaluates and makes changes to ensure the long-term financial sustainability of the pension fund, the City’s focus is not only on reducing unfunded liabilities consistent with existing financial policies but also on developing contingency plans anticipating further changes by CalPERS. Staff anticipates continued review and analysis of Other Post-Employment Benefits (such as retiree medical insurance) liabilities with an eye towards addressing unfunded liabilities associated with this benefits. Pursue Infrastructure Financing Opportunities and Sources Investing in infrastructure maintenance and development is an essential part of fiscal responsibility. This work plan will provide a comprehensive strategy to finance transportation and other critical infrastructure along with a financing plan to construct the replacement and development of essential public safety facilities (i.e. Police Station and Fire Stations). DISCUSSION The adoption of Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility major city goal for the 2017-19 marks the third consecutive financial planning period that features financial sustainability as an organizational and community priority. The City has a history of being fiscally responsible and the activities described in this work plan build on the progress made as part of implementing the 2013-15 and 2015-2017 Major City Goals.
Packet Pg 392
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY In the 2013-15 Financial Plan, the City was able to: 1. Maintain resident satisfaction through the ongoing provision of essential services, as evidenced through the results of the Citizen Satisfaction Survey; 2. Secure a diverse revenue stream through the approval of an eight-year extension to the City’s half-cent local sales tax (Measure G) that generates over $7 million dollars per year; 3. Implement contingency planning if Measure G was not approved resulted in the availability of an additional $1.7 million in one-time funding following the approval of Measure G; 4. Move from a retrospective to prospective funding model with higher confidence levels for workers’ compensation and liability programs which required additional payment of $1.4 million; 5. Analyze opportunities to control pension costs and additional unfunded liabilities, including deferred maintenance and retrospective insurance costs; 6. Conduct a compensation study, consistent with the Compensation Philosophy, to inform negotiations with City labor groups; and 7. Adopt the Fiscal Responsibility Philosophy, establishing the framework for fiscal health through balanced and informed decision-making. In the 2015-2017 Financial Plan, the City was able to: 1. Launch new public informational dashboards online to provide the public with easy access to important information about the City’s performance and progress towards achieving stated goals; 2. Make additional payments of $750,000 in 2015-16 and another $750,000 in 2016-17 towards reducing the City’s unfunded pension liabilities with California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS); 3. Make additional payment of $250,000 in 2015-16 and another $250,000 n 2016-17 toward reducing the City’s unfunded Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB); 4. Moved liability coverage from general insurance pool to a self-insured retention of $500,000 with secondary or excess insurance due the City’s good claims history; 5. Negotiate successor labor agreements consistent with labor relations objectives that address fiscal responsibility, including shared responsibility between the City and employees for pension and health insurance costs. 6. Increase investments in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan to address deferred maintenance and aging infrastructure (approximately $9 million in 2015-16 and $15 million in 2016-17), including $2.8 million towards replacement of the City’s outdated financial system with an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system. 7. Focus on economic development to move towards more diversified revenue sources. Payrolls in the City of San Luis Obispo grew 2.0% from the fourth quarter of 2014 to the fourth quarter of 2015, trailing the 3.1% mark set in the rest of San Luis Obispo County. Wages in the City of San Luis Obispo have also increased over the last year, with the average annual wage across all sectors growing by 4.1%, compared to 2.1% in the rest of the county. The Professional, Scientific, Technical, and Management sector (10.5%), Other Services sector (5.3%), and Leisure and Hospitality sector (4.4%) led industry level job growth during this period. The following work program identifies the outcomes expected from implementation of the Fiscal Responsibility Philosophy over the next two-year period, and the action plan to achieve those outcomes. This work program is particularly pertinent given the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) Board of Administration’s decision in December 2016 to lower the discount rate from 7.5%
Packet Pg 393
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY to 7.0% over the next three fiscal year. The impact of this decision is significant for the City, resulting in an approximate $8 million increase in pension costs between 2017-18 and 2024-25 based on preliminary cost estimates. Additionally, revenue projections were less than budgeted in the 2016-17 budget and estimated revenues in the five-year forecast were reduced accordingly. Lastly, there is anticipated impacts from the closure of Diablo Canyon Power Plant and these impacts should be considered when considering the City’s future financial sustainability and responsibilities. With immediate action as well as long-term systemic adjustments necessary, this work program builds on the City’s long-standing sound financial management and Fiscal Health Contingency Plan activated immediately following the February 21, 2017 Council meeting. WORK PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS AND LIMITATIONS The following are potential constraints and limitations of the proposed work program that may limit staff’s ability to achieve the desired results or add unanticipated challenges. 1. Reliance on the PG&E monetary settlement to fund the update to the Economic Development Strategic Plan, especially given constrained financial resources. 2. Changing actuarial or other assumptions (i.e. changes in investment rate of return) by CalPERS may result in additional increases in CalPERS costs. 3. Some portion of workers’ compensation and liability insurance costs are beyond the City’s direct control (e.g. weather may cause falling tree limbs or flooding resulting in increased liability claims, other insurance pool members may have increased losses that impacts the City’s workers’ compensation costs). 4. Inherent risk of economic fluctuations. 5. Good faith negotiations with labor groups are required prior to changing employee compensation and benefits. Legal limitation on changes to the retirement options available to the City. STAKEHOLDERS Residents and visitors Chamber of Commerce All City departments Downtown Association County of San Luis Obispo Economic Vitality Corporation California Joint Powers Insurance Authority Cal Poly
ACTION PLAN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND RESPONSIVENESS Date
1. Update the Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) that considers and leverages regional strategies to address the planned closure of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.
Administration
Summer 2018
Packet Pg 394
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY 2. Develop the relevant policies and action plans to allocate the $1.82 million in funding restricted for Economic Development anticipated with the Diablo Canyon Power Plant closure settlement agreement, if approved. 3. Complete an update of the City’s Development Impact Fee Program (AB 1600). 4. Increase revenues from property, sales, and Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) by implementing strategies in the EDSP. 5. Continue partnership with Hothouse 1to create and expand economic activities.
Administration Community Development Administration Administration
Spring 2019 Winter 2018 Ongoing Ongoing FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY INCLUDING ACTIONS TO ENSURE STRUCTURALLY BALANCED FISCAL OUTLOOK 1. Continue to implement Fiscal Health Contingency Plan measures that address short and long-term financial challenges. 2. Engage employees in Fiscal Health Contingency measures such as categorizing programs and services, promoting cost savings through suggestion programs, and identifying budget balancing ideas. 3. Establish a Citizen Task Force to make recommendations to the City Council to address budget challenges. 4. Develop a budget balancing plan for City Council actions consistent with the
Administration Administration Administration Administration
Ongoing Summer 2017 Fall 2017 Spring 2018
1 The SLO Hothouse is a community space created through the efforts of Cal Poly, the city and county of San Luis Obispo, the business community, and the Cal Poly Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (CIE). The goal of the SLO Hothouse is to support students and community members as they work to create new innovations and start business ventures.
Packet Pg 395
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY Fiscal Health Contingency Plan based on Citizens Task Force input that identifies actions and operational changes needed to achieve fiscal responsibility. 5. Return with Strategic Budget Direction for 2018-2019.
Administration
Winter 2017/Spring 2018
6. Implement Fee Study changes and maintain fees consistent with Council policies on cost recovery.
Administration Ongoing
7. Continue to align Local Revenue Measures with voter priorities as determined by the Revenue Enhancement Oversight Committee. 8. Conduct a long-term fiscal study that incorporates the anticipated financial impacts related to the planned closure of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant 9. Conduct a comprehensive review of fiscal policies and fund balance requirements. 10. Provide a recommendation for strategic budget direction prior to submitting a 2018-19 Supplemental Budget that achieves long-term structurally balanced fiscal outlook. 11. Implement operating cost reductions consistent with adopted 2018-19 budget. 12. Continue to implement and track operational efficiencies including alternative service delivery, best management practices, and cost containment measures that preserve the effectiveness of City services and operations.
Administration Administration Finance Finance All Departments Administration
Ongoing Spring 2018 Winter 2017 Spring 2018 Spring 2018 Through Summer 2019 Ongoing
Packet Pg 396
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY 13. Monitor and report performance measures at Budget Supplement and Financial Plan adoption. 14. Work with the City Council to review Labor Relations Objectives and define negotiating parameters consistent with the Fiscal Responsibility Philosophy and the Compensation Philosophy. 15. Monitor liability self-insured/excess insurance program and explore options with CJPIA to control workers’ compensation costs. 16. Develop a policy to address the funding status of volatile insurance programs (liability, workers’ compensation). Evaluate the purpose and use of the Insurance Benefit Fund to lessen the financial impacts of the fluctuations in insurance costs. 17. Implement actions aimed at reducing workers’ compensation and liability claims by 30% in 3 years (by June 30, 2019). 18. Continue to monitor legislation that could impact City revenues and expenditures. 19. Analyze fleet replacement policies with the goal of minimizing replacement costs and maximizing fleet utilization.
Administration Human Resources Human Resources Finance/Human Resources Human Resources/All Departments All Departments Public Works
Ongoing Summer 2017 Ongoing Spring 2018 Ongoing Ongoing Spring 2018
LONG TERM UNFUNDED LIABILITIES Date
1. Develop a contingency plan to address potential additional changes to long-term unfunded CalPERS and OPEB liabilities. 2. Make recommendation for allocation of one-time funds.
Finance Finance
Spring 2018 Ongoing
Packet Pg 397
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING Date
1. Develop a creative financing plan to construct the replacement and development of critical public safety facilities (i.e. Police Station and Fire Stations). 2. Develop creative infrastructure financing options (grants, land based funding, local revenues) for Council consideration and implement as directed. 3. Explore expanding utility fees to include storm water activities.
Administration Public Works Utilities
Summer 2018 Spring 2018 Spring 2019
RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENTS The Administration Department is the lead department with support from Finance, Human Resources, Utilities, Public Works, Community Development Department, Police Department and the Fire Departments. FISCAL IMPACT This Major City Goal is foundational to the overall health of the community. The work program builds on the City’s long-standing history of demonstrated, sound financial management while proposing new and enhanced existing funding sources to address the long-term goals. The long-term impact is a balanced budget consistent with financial plan policies. FINANCIAL AND STAFF RESOURCES REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL The bulk of the tasks related to individual objectives and the overall goal can be accomplished with existing resources. Many existing programs and activities within the City align with this Major City Goal because it follows on the heels of two previous Major City Goals and the Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility Philosophy and the Compensation Philosophy. This request includes $100,000 in funding from the settlement with PG&E to update the EDSP. Should this settlement ultimately not be approved, substitute funding would be required to complete an update of the EDSP. Cost Summary and Funding Source (attached table)
Packet Pg 398
2
Cost Summary and Funding Source
2017-18 2018-19 2017-18 2018-19$FTE $FTE $$City Administration Continue Revenue Enhancement Oversight Committee Support 25,000$ 45,000$ City Administration Community Survey (2015-2016 Carryover)25,000$ H.R. Risk Management Safety Policy Implementation/Training (Encumbrance carry-forward) 20,000$ Community Development Long Range Planning AB 1600 Fee Update 125,000$
Diablo Regional Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis (PG&E Settlement Dependent)250,000$ Economic Strategic Plan (EDSP) Update (PG&E Settlement Dependent)100,000$ Economic Strategic Plan Update (Staff Resources)39,000$ 0.29 39,000$ 0.29Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant economic allocation fund policies 6,240$ 0.05 6,240$ 0.05Increases Revenues from Sales Tax, Property Tax, TOT by implementing EDSP 249,600$ 1.86 249,600$ 1.86Continue Hothouse Partnership to create and expand economic activities 28,120$ 0.02 28,120$ 0.02
City Administration Implement Fiscal Health Contingency Plan Measures 44,400$ 0.23 44,400$ 0.23City Admin./Finance Admin./H.R. Risk Mgmt. Engage Employees in Fiscal Health Contingency Plan measures 55,500$ 0.29 55,500$ 0.29City Administration Establish a Citizen Task Force to address budget challenges 17,760$ 0.09 -$ 0.09City Admin./Finance Admin.Develop and present Strategic Budget Direction for 2018-19 22,200$ 0.12 -$ 0.12City Admin./Finance Admin.Implement fee study changes and maintain updated fees consistent with Council policies 27,750$ 0.14 27,750$ 0.14City Administration Align and Report Local Revenue Measures with adopted priorities 33,300$ 0.17 33,300$ 0.17Finance Administration Conduct a comprehensive review of all fund balance requirements 7,215$ 0.04 -$ 0.04Finance Administration Review and update General Fund Five Year Forecast and make recommendations of long term fiscal sustainability and funding structure.18,700$ 0.16 18,700$ 0.16City Admin./Finance Admin.Implement operating cost reductions consistent with adopted 2018-19 budget.20,400$ 0.17 20,400$ 0.17City Administration Track and report operational efficiencies, including best management practices and cost containment measures.16,650$ 0.09 16,650$ 0.09City Admin./Finance Admin.Monitor and report performance measure at Budget Supplement and Financial Plan adoption.4,440$ 0.02 4,440$ 0.02H.R. Risk Management Develop labor relations objectives consistent with Fiscal Responsibility Philosophy and Compensation Philosophy.4,440$ 0.02 1,110$ 0.01
H.R. Risk Management Monitor liability self insured/excess insurance program and excess insurance options with CJPIA to control workers' compensation insurance.33,000$ 0.29 33,000$ 0.29
Function Program Task
Fiscal Health & Governance
Economic DevelopmentFiscal Health & Governance
Fiscal Health & Governance
EXISITNG ONGOING PROGRAMS/PROJECTS PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED AND FUNDEDOperating Capital Improvement Plan
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND RESPONSIVENESS
FISCAL RESPONSBILITY INCLUDING ACTIONS TO ENSURE STRUCTURALLY BALANCED FISCAL OUTLOOK
Packet Pg 399
2
Cost Summary and Funding Source
2017-18 2018-19 2017-18 2018-19$FTE $FTE $$Function Program Task
EXISITNG ONGOING PROGRAMS/PROJECTS PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED AND FUNDEDOperating Capital Improvement Plan
H.R. Risk Management Develop policy to address funding status of volatile insurance programs. Evaluate the purpose and use of the Insurance Benefit Fund to lessen the financial impacts of the fluctuations in insurance costs.13,200$ 0.12 13,200$ 0.12H.R. Risk Management Implement actions aimed at reducing workers' compensation and liability claims by 30% in 3 years (by June 30, 2019)88,500$ 0.87 88,500$ 0.87All Departments Continue to monitor legislation that could impact City revenues and expenditures.7,920$ 0.07 7,920$ 0.07Infrastructure & Transportation Vehicle Equipment Maintenance Analyze fleet replacement policies with the goal of minimizing replacement costs and maximizing fleet utilization.18,150$ 0.16 18,150$ 0.16
Develop a contingency plan to address potential additional changes to long -term unfunded CalPERS and OPEB liabilities.13,200$ 0.12 13,200$ 0.12Recommend allocation of available one-time funds consistent with Financial Policies to reduce unfunded liabilities.13,200$ 0.12 13,200$ 0.12
Community Safety/Fiscal Health & Governance
Police/Fire/Finance Administration Create a financing plan to construct the replacement and development of critical public safety facilities (i.e. Police Station and Fire Stations).11,200$ 0.06 11,200$ 0.06Infrastructure & Transportation Transportation Planning/Engineering Develop creative infrastructure financing options (grants, land based funding, local revenues) for Council consideration and implement as directed.13,000$ 0.12 13,000$ 0.12Fiscal Health & Governance Water Admin./Engineering Explore expanding utility fees to include storm water activities.19,500$ 0.17 19,500$ 0.17Total1,371,585$ 5.85 821,080$ 5.83 -$ -$
2017-18 2018-19 2017-18 2018-19$FTE $FTE $$Utilities Rate Study - Consultant 50,000$ Utilities Rate Study - Staff Resources 25,000$ Savings from Sewer & Water Funds (75,000)$ Total 75,000$ -$ -$
2017-18 2018-19 2017-18 2018-19$FTE $FTE $$
Total -$ -$ -$ -$
Fiscal Health & Governance Water & Wastewater Admin./Engineering
Fiscal Health & Governance Finance Administration
REALLOCATION OF RESOURCES (NET ZERO FISCAL IMPACT)Operating Capital Improvement Plan
NEW PROGRAMS/PROJECTS Operating Capital Improvement PlanFunctionProgramTask
Function Program Task
LONG TERM UNFUNDED LIABILITIES
INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING
Packet Pg 400
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS HOUSING GOAL STATEMENT Facilitate increased production of all housing types designed to be economically accessible to the area workforce and low and very low-income residents, through increased density and proximity to transportation corridors in alignment with the Climate Action Plan. SCOPE OF WORK 1. Implement key Housing Element programs to increase production of housing affordable to a range of income levels (workforce to extremely low income), in alignment with the City’s Climate Action Plan. 2. Create and define a new “workforce” affordability level (carryover goal started in 2016-17). 3. Produce a new Affordable Housing Nexus Study to ensure that the Affordable Housing Program has the appropriate resources available to address demand for affordable housing created by new commercial and residential development. 4. Update the City zoning regulations and any other applicable regulations to increase density and facilitate opportunities for new housing to accommodate diverse housing types, particularly along transportation corridors (carryover goal started in 2016-17). 5. Continue to promote streamlined residential development review, particularly for developments located within Special Focus Areas, in support of increased housing production. DISCUSSION As the Housing enters its second consecutive financial plan as a Major City Goal, this work program focuses on the increased production of housing affordable to a range of income levels including the creation of a “workforce” affordability level. In addition, this work program focuses on the creation of housing in conformance with the City’s Climate Action Plan objectives to create sustainable growth in the community. Important tasks associated with the work plan include: work with non-profit and for-profit development groups to facilitate production of affordable and ‘workforce’ housing; leverage the City’s affordable housing funds and proactively look for new ways to use these funds to increase affordable housing production; and, streamline and promote efficiency in the entitlement and building permit process for new housing projects. The City has several existing policies and programs including in the Housing Element (HE), the Land Use Element (LUE), the Climate Action Plan (CAP), and the Circulation Element (CE) that are demonstrative of the significant work already accomplished in the area of housing and consistent with the scope of the proposed work program. The statements below summarize the theme of the associated General Plan policies. 1. Create a Formal Workforce Housing Program (HE 2.16) 2. Increase residential density (HE 2.17, HE 6.28) 3. Encourage Downtown dwellings (HE 3.10, LUE 2.12, HE 6.12, 6.13 & 6.27 & LUE 4.0.28) 4. Increase affordable housing amenities (HE 4.6) 5. Focus on housing variety and tenure (HE 5.5, HE 6.14) 6. Rezone areas for high-density, infill housing (HE 6.15, HE 6.18) 7. Incentivize accessory dwelling units, and allow efficiency units, small lot subdivisions and small planned developments (HE 6.29, 6.30, HE 9.12 & LUE 3.5.7.1) 8. Scale impact fees to the size of units (HE 6.31) 9. Improve Jobs/Housing Balance (CAP TLU 8.1) 10. Support Infill Housing (CAP TLU 8.2)
EXISTING SITUATION Current Residential Units and Growth Rates in the City of San Luis Obispo
Packet Pg 401
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS HOUSING As of December 31, 2016, there are a total of 21,155 housing units in the City of San Luis Obispo. Based on the Community Development Department’s running total of residential construction permits, as shown in the General Plan Annual Report, the annual growth rate in 2016 was 0.65 percent, which includes new single-family and multi-family market-rate residential construction. This is well within the limit of the 1 percent annual residential growth rate identified in the Land Use Element. This limit excludes housing that meets the City’s affordable housing requirements. The five-year average growth rate also remains well below the 1 percent at 0.39 percent and the 10 year average growth rate was 0.34 percent. While the City’s housing growth continues to be within our annual growth rate, the development numbers are still well below the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) as outlined in the Housing Element. The table below shows the status towards the 2014-2019 Housing Element planning period RHNA. To fully accomplish the RHNA, 771 units would need to be developed during the 2017-19 Financial Plan equating to 385 new dwelling units per year. Income Category (% of County Median Income)
Regional Housing Need Allocation
SFH QO2 SFH Built1 MFH QO2 MFH Built1 Total QO Total Built1 Extremely Low (< 30%) 0 0 142 6 142 6 Very Low (30-50%) 0 0 143 30 143 30 Low (51-80%) 72 0 107 38 179 38 Moderate (81-120%) 81 2 121 12 202 14 Above Moderate (> 120%) 191 164 287 122 478 286 TOTAL UNITS 344 166 800 207 1,144 373 Source: 2015 Housing Element, City of San Luis Obispo, 2016 Community Development Department 1 Reflects net units constructed 01/01/14 thru 6/30/19. 2 Reflects Quantified Objectives for each category Affordable Housing Advocacy The City’s Housing Programs Manager (HPM) implements the Housing Element, which contains policies and programs that support housing and service agencies whose mission it is to develop and provide housing for the community. The HPM promotes collaborative efforts and opportunities to address housing needs of the community and is a Board member of the Workforce Housing Coalition and the SLO County Housing Trust Fund loan commission member. The City should continue to expand partnerships with the County, other cities, non-profit entities and developers to provide housing that meet the needs of the community as outlined in the Housing Element. The proposed work program includes continuing and increasing these efforts. WORK PERFORMED TO DATE Inclusionary Housing In addition to generating 250 deed restricted affordable dwelling units and approximately $10 Million in affordable housing funds, the Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) has provided approximately $8 Million in direct assistance and leveraged other grant and tax credit financing to various affordable housing projects throughout the City. City staff monitored each inclusionary unit in Winter 2016; very few units were out of compliance and those that were out of compliance are currently working to correct their issues. Affordable Housing Funding Sources Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) o The AHF has provided approximately $8 Million in direct assistance and leveraged other grant and tax credit financing to various affordable housing projects throughout the City.
Packet Pg 402
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS HOUSING Community Development Block Grant Program o Grant funding for the City’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is awarded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and provides annual funding for eligible affordable housing projects and support for the homeless shelter. Over the past five years the Program has provided over $1,250,000 towards affordable housing and approximately $500,000 towards homeless services. The proposed work program includes continuing to prioritize the use of CDBG funds towards development of affordable housing, however CDBG funding allocations continue to decrease rapidly and future CDBG funding should not be assumed. Grants-In-Aid Program o The City’s Grants-In-Aid (GIA) program provides financial support to non-profit organizations that promote the economic and social well-being of the City’s citizens. In fiscal year 2016-2017 the City allocated $138,500 to the GIA program, with funding requests typically two to three times as much. During the 2015-17 Financial Plan GIA funding levels increased incrementally based on Consumer Price Index (CPI). San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund o The San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund (HTF) is a Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI) that provides financing, technical assistance and advocacy to increase the supply of affordable housing in the City. Since 2005, the HTF has provided over $3 million for affordable housing projects in the City, contributing to the creation or preservation of 136 affordable dwelling units. The Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) has been used to help support the operating costs of the HTF over the past 12 years, for a total of $360,000. The proposed work program includes continued use of the AHF to support the HTF’s operating expenses to provide below-market financing and technical assistance to affordable housing developers. First Time Homebuyer Down Payment Assistance o During the 2015-17 Financial Plan, Housing Major City Goal, all $380,000 in down payment assistance was distributed to qualified households purchasing affordable housing. In the future as those homes sell, the funding will be reused for new down payment assistance loans. Infrastructure Investment Fund o During the 2015-17 Financial Plan, Housing Major City Goal, $250,000 was set aside for assistance with infrastructure development in the City. Housing projects that can deliver major infrastructure, such as the Prado Road overcrossing, would be likely candidates for strategic investment. While there is no additional funding budgeted for the 2017-19 Financial Plan, the money remains in the fund to be used for future projects once enough funding is available. Affordable Housing Existing Incentives The City uses a combination of regulatory and financial incentives to facilitate affordable housing development. These include development review fee waivers, AHF loans, density bonuses, permit streamlining, fee deferral loans, flexible property development standards and other incentives. Accessory Dwelling Unit Streamlining City staff is currently working to bring our existing Secondary Dwelling Unit ordinance into compliance with the new state law SB 1069. This legislation streamlines the production of now called Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and reduces barriers that may have previously hindered construction. The new process of permitting an ADU is now ministerial and limits the amount of City discretion on parking, size, setbacks, and certain connection and impact fees. While ADUs remain exempt from density calculations, the City can now count ADUS towards the RHNA.
Packet Pg 403
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS HOUSING Subdivision Regulations Community Development Staff is currently undertaking the update to the City’s Subdivision Regulations. This work effort includes the creation of small lot subdivisions to promote more ‘affordable by design’ type housing. Workforce Housing Definition The HPM and Community Development Staff have completed an initial research component to Housing Element Program 2.16 which focuses on “evaluating and considering including a workforce level of affordability to increase housing options for those making between 121-160% of the Area Median Income”. The research identifies key barriers and solutions towards the production of workforce housing and established development incentives which could be used by the City to create new workforce housing. This task will be rolled into the update of the Zoning Regulations with additional community outreach.
Timely Review and Permitting of Current Large Housing Developments As of Spring 2016, there are three large specific plans currently under planning review: San Luis Ranch (580 units), Avila Ranch (720 Units), and Froom Ranch (480 units). Construction of those specific plan areas is anticipated over the course of the next ten to fifteen years. 200 affordable units are anticipated within those specific plan areas. In addition, there are approximately 2,000 new units, primarily located within the Orcutt Area and Margarita Area specific plan boundaries, that are in planning or building permit review. The construction of those units is anticipated over the next ten years. The Housing Major City Goal will focus on timely review and permitting of these units, in addition to timely building inspections during the construction process. Of those projects currently under review, over 200 units will be deed restricted affordable housing with the majority being built by the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo or other local non-profit housing developers. WORK PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS AND LIMITATIONS 1. Declining federal and state funds for affordable housing and more competitive grants require the City to be creative in its efforts to find funding sources to assist housing developers. 2. Competing priorities for resources needed to address housing issues. 3. Reliance on non-profit and for profit developers to come forward with development proposals to increase the supply of housing since the City does not own, manage, or build affordable housing itself. 4. Minimal land, if any, of City owned property is suitable for housing development. 5. The City’s limited ability to control the decisions and funding of outside agencies and housing providers. The provision of housing and implementation of the Housing Element requires a variety of City Departments, outside agencies and housing providers to commit to, and accomplish, their related work programs. 6. Required land use entitlements for housing projects (use permit, architectural review, environmental review, etc.) and lengthy appeal process. 7. Significant public involvement is housing development projects. 8. Vast number and divergent objectives of stakeholders or decision makers including housing agencies, non-profit organizations, business and property owners, residents and neighborhood groups (see “Stakeholders” below). 9. Public infrastructure that can be funded with a combination of development impact fees and other funds to meet the growth needs of the City. What are the key assumptions? 1. The City will commit sufficient staff and resources to complete the work plan. 2. The City cannot solve all housing issues in the community, due to resource constraints and inability to control housing and financing market factors. STAKEHOLDERS
Packet Pg 404
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS HOUSING Residents Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO) Workforce Housing Coalition (WHC) Affordable housing and market rate developers People’s Self Help Housing Corporation San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund (HTF) Mid and Large Scale Employers Habitat for Humanity Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC) General Workforce Non-profit organizations Chamber of Commerce City Departments (Administration, City Attorney, Finance, Fire, Public Works)
ACTION PLAN
Task Lead Department Target Date
New 1. Update of City Zoning Regulations to comply with the Land Use Element. CDD 06/18
2. Affordable Housing Nexus Study CDD 12/18
3. HE 2.16: Evaluate and consider including a workforce level of affordability to increase housing options for those making between 121-160% of the Area Median Income. CDD 06/18
4. HE 4.6: Consider amending the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Affordable Housing Incentives to require that affordable units in a development be of similar number of bedrooms, character and basic quality as the non-restricted units in locations that avoid segregation of such units.
CDD 12/18
5. HE 6.12, 6.13 & 6.27 & LUE 4.0.28: Continue to develop incentives to encourage additional housing in the Downtown Core (C-D Zone), including alternatives to calculating residential density, to encourage the development of smaller efficiency units. CDD 06/19
6. HE 6.15: Consider General Plan amendments to rezone commercial, manufacturing or public facility zoned areas for higher-density, infill or mixed use housing where land development patterns are suitable and impact to Low-Density Residential areas is minimal. CDD 12/18
7. HE 6.28: Evaluate how lot patterns (i.e. size, shape, slope) in the City’s multi-family zones affect the City’s ability to meet housing production policies. If warranted, consider setting a minimum number of dwellings on each legal lot in the R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones, regardless of lot size, when other property development standards, such as parking, height limits and setbacks can be met
CDD 06/19
Packet Pg 405
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS HOUSING 8. HE 6.30: Eliminate the one-acre minimum lot area for PD overlay zoning, and identify incentives to conventional subdivision design. CDD 06/18
9. HE 6.31: Consider scaling development impact fees for residential development based on size, number of bedrooms, and room counts. CDD 06/19
10. HE 9.12 & LUE 3.5.7.1: Consider incentivizing dwelling units to a minimum size of 150 square feet, consistent with the California Building Code, by reduced impact fees and property development standards. CDD 06/19
Task Lead Department Target Date
Ongoing
11. Continue to prioritize streamlining and expediting projects that facilitate increased production of all housing types that are economically accessible to the area workforce, low, and very low-income residents. CDD Ongoing
12. Continue to implement Housing Element programs and housing production goals. CDD Ongoing
13. Provide timely building permit review and inspections for new housing developments. CDD Ongoing
14. Support employer/employee and employer/developer financing programs and partnerships to increase housing opportunities specifically targeted towards the local workforce. CDD Ongoing
15. Continue the City’s participation with the Workforce Housing Coalition, San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund to identify, evaluate, and implement strategies to increase the production of housing. CDD Ongoing
16. CAP TLU 8.1: Improve the City’s jobs-housing balance to reduce VMT from commuting. CDD Ongoing
17. HE 2.17: Continue to consider increasing residential densities above state density bonus allowances for projects that provide housing for low, very low and extremely low income households CDD Ongoing
18. HE 3.10: Continue to encourage the creation of dwellings in the Downtown Core (CD Zone) and the Downtown Planning Area by continuing the no net loss program. CDD Ongoing
19. HE 5.5: Review new developments for compliance with City regulations and revise projects or establish conditions of approval as needed to implement housing variety and tenure policies. CDD Ongoing
Packet Pg 406
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS HOUSING 20. HE 6.14: Specific plans for any new expansion area identified shall include R-3 and R-4 zoned land to ensure sufficient land is designated at appropriate densities to accommodate the development of extremely low, very-low and low income dwellings. CDD Ongoing
21. HE 6.18: Seek opportunities with other public agencies and public utilities to identify, surplus land for housing, to convert vacant or underutilized public, utility or institutional buildings to housing CDD Ongoing
22. CAP TLU 8.2: Support infill housing projects that implement General Plan policies, especially BMR housing close to job opportunities. CDD Ongoing
RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENTS The Community Development Department will take the lead on this Major City Goal with assistance from Administration, City Attorney, Finance, Fire, Public Works, and Utilities. All departments and Community Development Department divisions associated with development entitlements and building permitting will play a key role in the review of the increased levels in housing production. The City Attorney’s office will assist with consistency with State and Density Bonus law and review affordable housing loans, contracts and agreements. FISCAL IMPACT A portion of the Housing Programs cost will continue to be offset by CDBG and the AHF. Grant opportunities and partnerships will be pursued to offset General Fund work plan costs. As the number of residential permits and inspections increase due to the increase in production of housing the long-term financial stability will eventually increase as the amount impact fees, development review/building permit fees, and property taxes are paid by residents. FINANCIAL AND STAFF RESOURCES REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL Accomplishing this goal will require leadership commitment and ensuring appropriate staff and financial resources are available to work on and fund these efforts. The MCG will require an appropriate prioritization of service delivery in all departments that review and permit and inspect new residential development. As seen below, the City’s Housing Programs are fully subscribed and there is no more capacity to take on efforts outlined in the work plan without continuing the one Full Time Equivalent (FTE) contract Planning Technician, and 10% of the Supervising Administrative Assistant’s time for Housing Programs administration. In addition, with the limited resources available, various housing programs tasks must be reduced to accommodate the new tasks aligned with the Major City Goal. Should the Planning Technician position not be funded in the 2018-19 fiscal year, further reductions to the HPM task list will be required to continue progress on the Major City Goal. These staff resources are requested in the 2017-19 Financial Plan Development Services staffing and Contract Services SOPC approval. Staff Resource Analysis
HOUSING PROGRAMS FTE1 (Ongoing Work Load)
FTE1 (MCG Work Plan)2
FTE1 (FY 2017-19 Projected Work Load) Housing Programs Manager (1 FTE)
Packet Pg 407
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS HOUSING 1 CDBG program administration 0.05 0.05 2 Housing Element implementation 0.15 0.20 0.35 3 Inclusionary Housing program 0.15 -0.02 0.13 4 AHF management & award program 0.02 0.02 5 Grant research & applications 0.02 -0.01 0.01 6 Homebuyer & rental services 0.05 -0.03 0.02 7 Development Review project referrals 0.15 -0.05 0.10 8 Homeless Services & 10-Year Plan 0.10 -0.05 0.05 9 WHC, HTF, HSOC & FPDC meetings & Support 0.05 0.05 10 Advisory Body & Council meetings & support 0.08 0.08 11 Regional Coordination 0.02 -0.01 0.01 12 Department training & meetings 0.05 0.05 13 HRC liaison 0.10 -0.03 0.07 14 BEGIN First-Time Homebuyer program 0.01 0.01 Subtotal 1.00 0.00 1.00 Full Time Contract Planning Technician (1 FTE) 3 16 CDBG program administration 0.05 -0.02 0.03 17 Inclusionary Housing program 0.20 0.20 18 Housing Element implementation 0.50 0.05 0.55 19 AHF management & award program 0.05 0.03 0.08 20 BEGIN First-Time Homebuyer program 0.01 -0.01 0.00 21 Advisory Body & Council meetings & support 0.07 0.07 22 Grant research & applications 0.05 0.05 23 Homeless Services & 10-Year Plan 0.07 -0.05 0.02 Subtotal 1.00 0.00 1.00 Administration Support (.1 FTE) 3,4 25 Inclusionary, CDBG, AHF, GIA, BEGIN Support 0.10 0.10 Subtotal 0.10 0.10 Total Subscribed 2.00 0.10 2.10 Actual Staff Resources 1 0.10 1.10 Continued Contract Staff 1 0 1.00 Available for New Projects 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) = 1,703 productive staff hours annually. 2 Includes additional and expanded work tasks in the MCG work plan 3 Pending 2017-19 Financial Plan SOPC approval.
4 10% of Supervising Administrative Assistant and/or Analyst time allocated to Housing Programs administration
HOUSING PROGRAMS FTE1 (Ongoing Work Load)
FTE1 (MCG Work Plan)2
FTE1 (FY 2017-19 Projected Work Load)
Packet Pg 408
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS HOUSING Housing Programs Manager (1 FTE) 1 CDBG program administration 0.05 0.05 2 Housing Element implementation 0.15 0.20 0.35 3 Inclusionary Housing program 0.15 -0.02 0.13 4 AHF management & award program 0.02 0.02 5 Grant research & applications 0.02 -0.01 0.01 6 Homebuyer & rental services 0.05 -0.03 0.02 7 Development Review project referrals 0.15 -0.05 0.10 8 Homeless Services & 10-Year Plan 0.10 -0.05 0.05 9 WHC, HTF, HSOC & FPDC meetings & Support 0.05 0.05 10 Advisory Body & Council meetings & support 0.08 0.08 11 Regional Coordination 0.02 -0.01 0.01 12 Department training & meetings 0.05 0.05 13 HRC liaison 0.10 -0.03 0.07 14 BEGIN First-Time Homebuyer program 0.01 0.01 Subtotal 1.00 0.00 1.00 Full Time Contract Planning Technician (1 FTE) 3 16 CDBG program administration 0.05 -0.02 0.03 17 Inclusionary Housing program 0.20 0.20 18 Housing Element implementation 0.50 0.05 0.55 19 AHF management & award program 0.05 0.03 0.08 20 BEGIN First-Time Homebuyer program 0.01 -0.01 0.00 21 Advisory Body & Council meetings & support 0.07 0.07 22 Grant research & applications 0.05 0.05 23 Homeless Services & 10-Year Plan 0.07 -0.05 0.02 Subtotal 1.00 0.00 1.00 Administration Support (.1 FTE) 3,4 25 Inclusionary, CDBG, AHF, GIA, BEGIN Support 0.10 0.10 Subtotal 0.10 0.10 Total Subscribed 2.00 0.10 2.10 Actual Staff Resources 1 0.10 1.10 Continued Contract Staff 1 0 1.00
Packet Pg 409
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS HOUSING Available for New Projects 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) = 1,703 productive staff hours annually. 2 Includes additional and expanded work tasks in the MCG work plan 3 Pending 2017-19 Financial Plan SOPC approval.
4 10% of Supervising Administrative Assistant and/or Analyst time allocated to Housing Programs administration Cost Summary and Funding Source (attached) In addition to the staff resource allocations to complete the Major City Goal above, the following table identifies General Funds and Affordable Housing Funds used to support this goal.
Packet Pg 410
2
Cost Summary and Funding Source
2017-18 2018-19 2017-18 2018-19$FTE $FTE $$Housing Programs Manager *130,130$ 1.00 136,925$ 1.00 Administration Support**8,969$ 0.10 9,313$ 0.10 Grants in Aid**1,385$ 1,399$ SLO HTF Support*30,000$ 30,000$ 40 Prado**7,000$ 7,000$ Total 177,484$ 1.10 184,637$ 1.10 -$ -$ * The Affordable Housing Fund is the source of funding**The General Fund is the source of funding
2017-18 2018-19 2017-18 2018-19$FTE $FTE $$Contract Planning Technician 63,410$ 1.00 66,415$ 1.00
Contract Planning Technician***(63,410)$ (1.00) (66,415)$ (1.00) Total -$ -$ -$ -$
2017-18 2018-19 2017-18 2018-19$FTE $FTE $$
Total -$ - -$ - -$ -$ ***Cost to be offset with Over-Realized Development Services Revenue - Requested in Development Services Staffing SOPC.
Function Program
Community & Neighborhood Livability Housing Assistance
Task
EXISITNG ONGOING PROGRAMS/PROJECTS PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED AND FUNDEDOperating Capital Improvement Plan
REALLOCATION OF RESOURCES (NET ZERO FISCAL IMPACT)
Housing AssistanceCommunity & Neighborhood Livability
Operating Capital Improvement Plan
NEW PROGRAMS/PROJECTSOperating Capital Improvement PlanFunction Program Task
Function Program Task
Packet Pg 411
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION GOAL STATEMENT Prioritize implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan, pedestrian safety, and the Short-Range Transit Plan. SCOPE OF WORK 1. Implement the Bicycle Master Plan & Prioritize Pedestrian Safety. 2. Develop an Active Transportation Plan focusing on pedestrian and bicycle facilities and programs 3. Implement the Short-Range Transit Plan DISCUSSION Background Promoting Active Transportation, traversing a community powered by human energy (primarily walking and bicycling) has long been a priority with the City of San Luis Obispo. The City’s adopted Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan contains visionary mode split objectives and policies. This Major Council Goal continues the adopted 2015-17 Multimodal Transportation Goal with focus on pedestrian safety in addition to the implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan and Short-Range Transit Plan. Accomplishing this goal will require the development of an Active Transportation Plan to address comprehensively multimodal transportation. The Active Transportation plan will marry goals and objectives to benefit both bicycles and pedestrians. The construction of projects associated with this goal requires significant developer contribution (for newly constructed residential and commercial projects) as well as the City successfully obtaining outside funding (grants) for many Capital Improvement Projects. It will also include continued maintenance and enhancements to the City’s streets, sidewalks and paths as well as programs that improve safety through enhanced traffic management. Both developer and City built new infrastructure for streets, paths, and traffic management will benefit bicycles, pedestrians, and transit upon completion. The Circulation Element of the General Plan establishes Multimodal Transportation objectives and policies for the City which the objectives of this goal will endeavor to accomplish. 1. Development and maintenance of a circulation system that balances the needs of all circulation modes . 2. Protection of the environment by reducing dependence on single-occupant use of motor vehicles resulting in meeting health standards for air quality. 3. Reduced use of cars by supporting and promoting alternatives such as walking, riding buses and bicycles, and using car pools. 4. Provision of streets that are well maintained, appropriately sized, and safe for all forms of transportation. 5. Improved infrastructure in Downtown to increase functionality for pedestrians. 6. Coordination of transportation planning with other local agencies. Highlights of the Three Goal Objectives 1. Implement the Bicycle Master Plan Consistent with the Bicycle Master Plan, construction of new bikeway facilities will occur with new residential development projects such as Avila Ranch, Righetti Ranch and San Luis Ranch. The expansion of the Rail Road Safety Trail from Taft to Pepper is planned for construction during spring 2019. Planning and design of the Rail Road Safety trail from Pepper to the Railroad Station is scheduled for summer 2019. If grant funding is successfully secured, the construction of Bob Jones Prefumo Creek Bike Path will occur in Spring 2019. Packet Pg 412
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION 2. Develop an Active Transportation Plan that focuses on pedestrian safety, bicycles, facilities, and programs. The City does not presently have a pedestrian plan. To increase pedestrian safety a comprehensive planning effort to establish an integrated Active Transportation Plan will be pursued and will integrate the Bicycle Master Plan. The Active Plan will focus on pedestrian issues, including pedestrian specific goals and objectives, as well as improvements to sidewalks and pathways. 3. Implement the Short-Range Transit Plan The adopted Short Range Transit Plan’s objectives will continue to be implemented. The City’s Transit system will continue to promote its use to new and existing users, make system improvements, and maintain a ridership goal of one million passengers per year. A capital investment in the Automatic Vehicle Locator AVL) system will provide ongoing system monitoring and enhancements in performance. WORK PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS AND LIMITATIONS 1. Partially New Development Dependent. The City must rely on new development to implement plans for and construct new facilities and infrastructure to address this goal. Chevron, Avila Ranch, San Luis Ranch, Orcutt Area Specific Plan developments, and the Margarita Area Specific Plan all require infrastructure and facilities that will ultimately result in new bikeways, pedestrian, roadway, and transit improvements. The timing of this construction is dependent upon market forces, use of fee collections, developer agreements, and the City’s infrastructure financing program. 2. Limited Availability of Funding. There will be limited City Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) revenue available due to the City’s current reimbursement commitment to the Los Osos Valley Road Interchange. The available State and Federal Infrastructure funding to local agencies has fallen drastically in recent years. Additionally, the State of California estimates that the Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA) allocations will about 4.6% lower than the previous year. Regionally, the failure of Measure J in 2016 has made it doubtful that regional funding will be available during the next four years. Staff will continue to examine new methods of funding for projects to improve infrastructure benefiting bicycles, pedestrians, and transit. 3. Partnerships and Participation Required. Regional infrastructure projects within the City, such as the Prado Road Interchange, require participation and cooperation with other agencies in the region including the San Luis Obispo Council of Local Governments (SLOCOG), Caltrans, and San Luis Obispo County. This takes time and effort to succeed and a uniformed approach from multiple agencies on what is a priority project. Ongoing negotiations with Cal Poly State University regarding the funding in full of the Transit subsidy program (Cal Poly students riding buses for free) have not been concluded. Minimum farebox requirements of 20% must be met and addressed in summer 2017 and this could affect ridership. Relied upon Federal funds for Transit are also becoming more limited and with this comes a delay in the replacement of buses and other Transit capital improvement project. Lastly, many transportation projects require more time and resources to complete, as there are many inputs to mitigate. What are the key assumptions? Funding from sources other than the City’s General Fund have been assumed for many projects. Both grant funding assistance and/or developer contributions are assumed. If either or both these alternate funding sources do not become reality projects will need to be deferred, funded via other City sources or not implemented. Also, some projects will require approval and cooperation from other jurisdictions or agencies to implement (i.e. Union Pacific Rail Road, San Luis Obispo County, San Luis Obispo Council of Local Governments, and Caltrans) Lack of approval or time delays could result in project delays or implementation difficulties. Packet Pg 413
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION STAKEHOLDERS AND COMMUNITY PARTNERS Residents Cyclists Pedestrians Transit Riders Bicycle Coalition Bike Advisory Committee Mass Transit Committee New Housing Developers SLO Council of Local Governments CalTrans Union Pacific Rail Road San Luis Obispo County Environmental Organizations Neighborhood Groups Business Associations ACTION PLAN Task Lead Department Target Date
Implement the Bicycle Master Plan & Prioritize Pedestrian Safety.
1. Begin Construction of Railroad Safety Trail – Taft to Pepper Public Works 3/2019
2. Begin Construction of Bob Jones Trail - Prefumo Creek to Oceanaire (grant funding dependent) Public Works 3/2019
3. Begin Study of Penny Lane Bridge across the Union Pacific Railroad Public Works 8/2018
4. Implement Minor Bicycle Facility Improvements 5. Broad Street Corridor Access Improvements 6. Complete Pedestrian & Bikeway Maintenance 7. Complete Sidewalk Replacements & New Installations 8. Complete New Streetlight Installations
Public Works Public Works Public Works Public Works Public Works
Ongoing 6/2019 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing
Develop an Active Transportation Plan
9. Begin Bicycle Transportation Plan update to Active Transportation Plan Public Works 1/2018
10. Develop Parklet Application Guide Public Works 3/2018
11. Work with Senior Councils and Commissions to include senior citizen issues in the upcoming Active Transportation Public Works ongoing
12. Continue Deployment of Advance Pedestrian Signal Timing Public Works Ongoing
Implement the Short-Range Transit Plan
13. Implement revised routes and schedules for Short Range Transit Plan Public Works 7/2017
Packet Pg 414
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION 14. Upgrade and replace the SLO Transit Automatic Vehicle Locators (AVL) system Public Works 6/2018
15. Work with SLOCOG, RTA and the County of San Luis Obispo to advance the relocation of the Downtown Transit Center
Public Works ongoing
Infrastructure Projects to Benefit Multimodal Transportation and Transit
16. Begin construction of Higuera Street Widening – Elks to Chumash Village 17. Begin Construction of Prado Road Bridge Widening at SLO Creek 18. Complete Caltrans’ PAED (environmental) process for the Prado Road Interchange 19. Continue Traffic Safety & Operations Programs 20. Implement 2015 Traffic Safety Report Projects 21. Complete Design of California & Taft Roundabout 22. Complete Design of Tank Farm & Orcutt Roundabout 23. Complete Bridge Maintenance Projects 24. Complete Street Reconstruction & Resurfacing 25. Continue to support multimodal infrastructure installation and upgrade thru new development.
Public Works Public Works Public Works Public Works Public Works Public Works Public Works Public Works Public Works Public Works
9/2018 4/2019 6/2019 Ongoing 6/2019 10/2017 6/2018 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing
RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENTS Public Works FINANCIAL AND STAFF RESOURCES REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL No increase in staffing or operating resources is necessary to implement this goal, however any reduction in existing Transportation, Transit, or CIP Engineering operating resources would require an equivalent reduction in this Major Council Goal’s projects and program. Some projects identified in this goal are dependent on grant funding that has yet to be secured, if the funds are ultimately not secured these projects will not be able to proceed. If Council opts to include additional projects in this work effort additional staff resources and capital funding may need to be increased accordingly to complete them.
Packet Pg 415
2
MAJOR CITY GOALS MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FISCAL IMPACT The following table summarizes the funding identified for implementation the Capital Improvements identified above. Debt financing or alternative funding strategies may be required for various project proposed in this program, such as Palm & Nipomo Parking Structure, Prado Rd. Creek Bridge Widening, Prado Road Interchange. No increase in baseline operating costs are proposed. Funding Sources FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19General Fund 2,135,000$ 2,105,000$ Grant - CDBG 105,000$ -$ Grant - CMAQ 60,000$ 902,455$ Grant - USHA -$ 175,000$ Grant - Unspecified -$ 750,000$ Grant - HBR 540,000$ 9,000,000$ Parking Fund 250,000$ -$ City TIF 285,500$ 1,009,000$ AASP Fees 55,000$ 750,000$ Transit Fund 260,000$ -$ 3,690,500$ 14,691,455$ Cost Summary and Funding Source (attached table)
Packet Pg 416
2
Cost Summary and Funding Source
2017-18 2018-19 2017-18 2018-19$FTE $FTE $$Transportation Pln/Eng.50500 Approx. 80% of Operating Program 530,739$ 4 497,723$ 4Traffic Signals & Street Lights 50330 Approx. 40% of Operating Program 218,779$ 1 214,315$ 1Transit Operations 50700 Approx. 100% of Operating Program 3,448,368$ 3.0 3,561,925$ 3.0Streets & Sidewalk Maint 50300 Approx. 50% of Operating Program 681,231$ 733,932$ CIP Engineering 50410 Approx. 20% of Operating Program 417,363$ 423,963$ Total 5,296,480$ 5,431,858$ -$ -$
2017-18 2018-19 2017-18 2018-19$FTE $FTE $$
Total -$ -$ -$ -$
2017-18 2018-19 2017-18 2018-19$FTE $FTE $$Projects Existing in the 2015-17 Fianncial PlanInfrastructure and Transporation 50500 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PATHWAY MAINTENANCE 60,000$ Infrastructure and Transporation 50500 SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT AND INSTALLATION 130,000$ 50,000$ Infrastructure and Transporation 50500 STREET RECONSTRUCTION AND RESURFACING (ANNUAL)1,685,000$ 1,454,000$ Infrastructure and Transporation 50500 TRAFFIC SIGNS & STRIPING MAINTENANCE 25,000$ 25,000$ Infrastructure and Transporation 50500 2015 TRAFFIC SAFETY REPORT IMPLEMENTATION 60,000$ 175,000$ Infrastructure and Transporation 50500 BICYCLE FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS 100,000$ 100,000$ Infrastructure and Transporation 50500 BOB JONES TRAIL – PREFUMO CREEK CONNECTION TO OCEANAIRE 1,060,000$ Infrastructure and Transporation 50500 PRADO ROAD BRIDGE & ROAD WIDENING 595,000$ 9,750,000$ Infrastructure and Transporation 50500 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY & OPERATIONS 30,000$ 90,000$ Infrastructure and Transporation 50600 PALM-NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE 250,000$ Infrastructure and Transporation 50500 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PATHWAY MAINTENANCE 60,000$ 60,000$ Infrastructure and Transporation 50500 CALIFORNIA TAFT ROUNDABOUT 60,000$ 902,455$ New StartsInfrastructure and Transporation 50500 NEW STREET LIGHTS 20,000$ 20,000$ Infrastructure and Transporation 50500 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 40,000$ Infrastructure and Transporation 50500 HIGUERA STREET WIDENING: BRIDGE TO ELKS & FONTANA TO CHUMASH 35,500$ 330,000$ Infrastructure and Transporation 50500 ORCUTT & TANK FARM ROUNDABOUT 100,000$ -$ Infrastructure and Transporation 50500 PENNY LANE BRIDGE AT UPRR -$ 50,000$ Infrastructure and Transporation 50500 PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE 150,000$ 450,000$ Infrastructure and Transporation 50500 RRST PEPPER STREET TO THE TRAIN STATION 30,000$ 150,000$ Infrastructure and Transporation 50500 BROAD ST. CORRIDOR ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS -$ 25,000$ Infrastructure and Transporation 50700 TRANSIT – AUTOMATIC VEHICLE LOCATION SYSTEM 260,000$ Total -$ -$ 3,690,500$ 14,691,455$
Function Program Task
EXISITNG ONGOING PROGRAMS/PROJECTS PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED AND FUNDEDOperating Capital Improvement Plan
REALLOCATION OF RESOURCES (NET ZERO FISCAL IMPACT)Operating Capital Improvement Plan
NEW PROGRAMS/PROJECTS Operating Capital Improvement PlanFunctionProgramTask
Function Program Task
Funding Sources 2017-18 2018-19General Fund 2,135,000$ 2,105,000$ Grant - CDBG 105,000$ -$ Grant - CMAQ 60,000$ 902,455$ Grant - USHA -$ 175,000$ Grant - Unspecified -$ 750,000$ Grant - HBR 540,000$ 9,000,000$ Parking Fund 250,000$ -$ City TIF 285,500$ 1,009,000$ AASP Fees 55,000$ 750,000$ Transit Fund 260,000$ -$ 3,690,500$ 14,691,455$ Packet Pg 417
2
OTHER IMPORTANT OBJECTIVE DOWNTOWN VITALITY GOAL STATEMENT Continue to improve safety, infrastructure investment, and maintenance in the Downtown and support the Downtown Association’s proposal to consider a Downtown Improvement District. SCOPE OF WORK 1. Maintain and improve Downtown infrastructure. 2. Maintain and improve public safety in the Downtown. 3. Develop implementation plan for adopted Downtown Concept and Mission Plaza Master Plans. 4. Develop a policy framework to ensure the continued vitality and success of Downtown which includes consideration of Downtown Improvement District. DISCUSSION Background Downtown San Luis Obispo is the community’s core. It serves as a vibrant social and commercial center. Downtown is home to numerous businesses that provide shopping, dining, special events, cultural, and social activities. Investment in infrastructure and continued maintenance in the Downtown has been a high priority for the City Council for many budget cycles. Beginning with the City’s adopted 2009-11 Financial Plan, the City Council has supported projects to improve the appearance and condition of the City’s Downtown core. Capital project investments have included: sidewalk repair and replacement, tree trimming and planting, pedestrian level lighting, replacement of street furniture, Wayfinding signage, support of the Downtown Association’s efforts to provide tree lighting and electrical power for street events, increased restroom availability, and increased police presence. Ongoing operational expenditures include: sidewalk scrubbing, manual trash pickup, graffiti removal, news rack monitoring, and more frequent street sweeping. The update of the Downtown Concept Plan and drafting of the Mission Plaza Concept Plan have generated significant public input related to the community’s vision for the Downtown of the future. Both plans are in their draft form and are scheduled to be considered by Council for adoption in Fall 2017. While neither of these plans are in their final forms at the time of writing this objective’s work program, many of the action plan items responsive to this objective reflect public input received to date. Highlights of Four Major Objectives 1. Maintain and Improve Downtown Infrastructure Maintenance and improvements to Downtown Infrastructure will continue to occur with the implementation of the Council’s adopted Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for 2017-19. Three examples of CIPs proposed for funding that benefit the Downtown include the construction of the Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure, the continued Downtown Renewal Project, and the construction of the Regional Transit Center in Downtown. Additionally, various City Program operating budgets will support ongoing infrastructure replacements and maintenance in Downtown, such as sidewalk repair and ongoing cleaning. 2. Continued Focus on Downtown Safety The San Luis Obispo Police Department continues to provide a significant and multifaceted police presence in Downtown both day and night. During daytime hours, two bicycle officers are deployed with the specific focus of safety in the downtown area. These officers have enhanced connectivity with the Downtown merchants, citizens, and tourists and serve as vital educational and enforcement resources. There are also two bicycle officers and a Sergeant that are deployed at night to respond to calls for service in the downtown
Packet Pg 418
2
OTHER IMPORTANT OBJECTIVE DOWNTOWN VITALITY core. The Police Department’s CAT (Community Action Team) Program adds another dimension of education and enforcement with particular focus on frequent offenders. CAT team members partner with mental health professionals, social service providers, and the courts to provide focused case management and alternatives to enforcement. In addition to staffing resources deployed to the Downtown, the Police Department has collaborated with the Downtown Association in developing safety training. The City’s “Make Change Count” program provides residents with an opportunity to donate funds toward local social service efforts while discouraging the giving of funds to those engaged in adverse behaviors. With a great deal of the calls for service in the downtown being nuisance type crimes the Police Department will be focusing new efforts and resources on crimes such as disorderly conduct, trespassing, and loitering. To supplement officers, the Police Department will continue to utilize mounted video cameras in many areas of the Downtown. 3. Implementation of Adopted Downtown and Mission Plaza Concept Plans Two major work efforts are in progress downtown: the update of the City’s Downtown Concept Plan and the development of a Mission Plaza Concept Plan. The consideration of each by Council is anticipated in 2017. Work will begin on plan implementation following adoption. 4. Develop the Policy Framework to Ensure the continued success of the Downtown The current success of the Downtown relies on a policy framework started more than 40 years ago. In order to ensure continued progress in line with the long-term goals of the City, key policies related to zoning, retail, commercial and residential expansion, transportation planning and management in the Downtown will be evaluated and brought to Council for direction. Future long-term community vision for the Downtown will be addressed by the continued work on the Mission Plaza Concept Plan, Upper Monterey Plan and the Downtown Concept Plan. WORK PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS AND LIMITATIONS 1. Funding and Resources. Constraints on the availability of General Funds to fully fund capital improvement projects and operational budgets could affect the degree to which this objective is fulfilled. Many capital improvement projects are “scalable” but if scaled too small the impacts sought in this objective may not be met. The Police Department proposes incorporated added Mental Health Services into its Downtown operations requiring fiscal participation and partnership with County Services. 2. Review and adoption of plans and policies could impact timelines and projects. The review and adoption of the Downtown Concept Plan and Mission Plaza Master Plan each provide foundation for project implementation. As they are not yet adopted changes to them and delay in adoption may impact infrastructure projects. Additionally, further policy reviews to benefit the Downtown include the zoning update and several feasibility studies. These policy reviews will have significant public involvement, community engagement, and hearings whose outcomes cannot be fully predicted. Lastly the review and approval of the Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure may take longer than anticipated. STAKEHOLDERS AND PARTNERSHIPS Residents Neighbors Visitors Property Owners Workers Businesses Downtown Association County of San Luis Obispo Cultural Groups Museums Mission de Tolosa
Packet Pg 419
2
OTHER IMPORTANT OBJECTIVE DOWNTOWN VITALITY ACTION PLAN
Task Lead Department Date
Maintain/Improve Downtown Infrastructure
1. Complete Design and begin Construction of the Palm/Nipomo Park Structure. 2. Construct next phase of Downtown Renewal capital improvement project focused on the 800 block of Higuera Street. 3. Actively work with San Luis Obispo Council of Local Governments (SLOCOG) and Regional Transit Association (RTA) to relocate the current Downtown Transportation Center to a new location east of Santa Rosa Street. 4. Following the adoption of the Mission Plaza Concept Plan design Mission Plaza Restroom Replacement. 5. Continued downtown tree maintenance, sidewalk scrubbing, and street sweeping 6. Begin construction of Marsh Street Bridge replacement at the southern gateway to Downtown.
Public Works Public Works Public Works Public Works Public Works Public Works
Summer 2019 Spring 2018 Ongoing Spring 2019 Ongoing Spring 2019
Continued Focus on Downtown Safety
1. Assist noncompliant properties to achieve compliance with the Downtown Fire Sprinkler Ordinance. 2. Continued operation of the Community Action Team (CAT) in Downtown. 3. Continued Downtown Bicycle Patrol 4. Coordination between the Police Department and County of San Luis Obispo to achieve expanded mental Health Services focused on Downtown. 5. Identification and implementation by Police Department of best practice tools designed to decrease nuisance calls in the Downtown.
Fire Police Police Police Police
Winter 2018 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing
Implementation of Adopted Downtown and Mission Plaza Concept Plans
1. Council and community review and consideration of Downtown Concept Plan 2. Council and community review and consideration of Mission Plaza Master Plan 3. Following adoption, oversee the implementation of the Downtown Concept Plan.
CDD PW CDD
Summer 2017 Fall 2017 Ongoing
Packet Pg 420
2
OTHER IMPORTANT OBJECTIVE DOWNTOWN VITALITY 4. Following adoption, develop a phasing and resources needed plan for the implementation of the Mission Plaza Concept Plan, and design the Mission Plaza restroom replacement (see Maintain/Improve Downtown Infrastructure, Task 4)
PW PW
Summer 2018 Spring 2019
Policy Framework for Downtown
1. Complete the City’s Zoning Regulations Update 2. Complete a Feasibility Study for the Upper Monterey Area Plan Parking District. 3. Complete a Feasibility Study of Downtown Maintenance District 4. Coordinate, in partnership with the Downtown Association, exploration of opportunities to provide enhanced maintenance or other services to maintain Downtown vitality.
CDD CDD & PW Administration Administration
Summer 2018 Summer 2019 Summer 2019 Ongoing
RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENTS The Public Works Department is the lead department overseeing the overall Downtown Vitality other important objective. The Department will manage various improvement and operational projects in different stages of delivery to the community. The Police Department will be involved in providing continued services to the Downtown and in evaluating expanded service opportunities. The Community Development Department will provide support services for the policy related projects including the considerations of the Mission Plaza Concept Plan, the Downtown Concept Plan, the Zoning Regulation Update, and a feasibility assessment of the Upper Monterey Area Plan parking district. Administration will partner with the Downtown Association in exploring opportunities to provide enhanced maintenance and other services to the Downtown. FISCAL IMPACT The largest fiscal impacts associated with this Other Important Objective include the Enterprise Funded construction project for building the Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure. The debt financing costs associated with this project will be offset by parking facilities use revenues. General Fund resources aligned with this Objective are proposed for one-time funding needs or facility replacement projects. Continued investment in the Downtown is anticipated to both provide an enhanced community asset as well as increase the likelihood of realization of additional funding due to increased sales tax revenue. FINANCIAL AND STAFF RESOURCES REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL Existing and new resources directed toward achieving the Downtown Vitality Other Important Objective during the 2017-19 Financial Plan are shown below. The costs shown include both funding for operating programs as well as Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects for: 1. Operating Program Cost for Downtown sidewalk scrubbing funded at a level to complete twice per year, 2. Operating Program Cost for Downtown street sweeping, 3. Operating Program Cost for Feasibility Study to support the Downtown Maintenance District, 4. CIP Project for Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure, 5. CIP Project for Downtown Renewal, 6. CIP Project for Relocated Transit Center East of Santa Rosa Street, 7. CIP Project for Mission Plaza Restroom Replacement and Enhancements, and, 8. CIP Project for Railing Replacement at Mission Plaza. Largely for both operating cost expenditures and CIP expenditure will not increase the City’s on-going needs for funding since the proposed projects primarily maintain or improve existing facilities. Increased annual maintenance
Packet Pg 421
2
OTHER IMPORTANT OBJECTIVE DOWNTOWN VITALITY cost will be incurred due to the construction of the new Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure of approximately $200,000 per year after it is constructed and will be funded through that Enterprise Fund. Cost Summary and Funding Source (attached)
Packet Pg 422
2
Cost Summary and Funding Source
2017-18 2018-19 2017-18 2018-19$FTE $FTE $$Sidewalk Scrubbing 29,000$ 29,000$ Street Sweeping 6,800$ 6,800$ Downtown Renewal 41,400$ -$ Mission Plaza Restroom Replacement and Enhancements 33,120$ 33,120$ Mission Plaza Railing Replacement -$ 30,360$ Community Safety Police Patrol Downtown Safety 859,383$ 6 877,977$ 6Total969,703$ 977,257$ -$ -$
2017-18 2018-19 2017-18 2018-19$FTE $FTE $$Governance City Administration Feasibility Study to support Downtown Maintenance District 75,000$ -$ Total 75,000$ -$ -$ -$
2017-18 2018-19 2017-18 2018-19$FTE $FTE $$Parking Operations & Maintenance Parking Structure 250,000$ Streets & Sidewalk Maintenance Downtown Renewal 190,000$ Mission Plaza Restroom Replacement and Enhancements 25,000$ 45,000$ Mission Plaza Railing Replacement 30,000$ Total -$ -$ 465,000$ 75,000$
Program Task
Function Program Task
EXISITNG ONGOING PROGRAMS/PROJECTS PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED AND FUNDEDOperating Capital Improvement Plan
Streets & Sidewalk MaintenanceInfrastructure and Transportation
Community and Neighborhood Livability
Infrastructure and Transportation
CIP Project Engineering
Landscape & Park Maintenance
REALLOCATION OF RESOURCES (NET ZERO FISCAL IMPACT)Operating Capital Improvement Plan
NEW PROGRAMS/PROJECTS Operating Capital Improvement PlanFunctionProgramTask
Function
Packet Pg 423
2
Fiscal Health Contingency Plan
Originally Prepared in October 2001
Plan Purpose
The purpose of this plan is to establish a framework
and general approach in responding to adverse fiscal
circumstances.
What It’s Not: This plan is not intended to be a
specific “recipe” for expenditure cuts or revenue
increases: this needs to be determined on a case-by-
case basis. Preparing detailed reduction options
before they are truly needed is not recommended for
three reasons:
If not taken seriously, quality thought will not be
given to them.
If taken seriously, this is likely to result in
needless anxiety, and sends a conflicting
message if “times are good.”
And even if these were not constraints, they
would have a short shelf-life: needs and
priorities change over time.
However, this plan does set forth the foundation of
principles and values upon which specific responses
will be based.
Triggers
This plan will be “triggered” by any of the
following:
Any adverse fiscal circumstances as determined
by the City Manager, such as:
z Natural or human-made disasters.
z State budget takeaways.
z Large, unexpected costs.
z Economic downturns.
Whenever there are two consecutive quarters of
adverse fiscal results in one or more the City’s
top five General Fund revenues:
z Sales tax
z Property tax
z Transient occupancy tax (TOT),
z Utility users tax
z Vehicle license fee (VLF) “swap”
Adverse results include:
z Actual declines in revenues.
z Significant variances from projected
revenues.
General Fund Focus
This plan is focused on the General Fund, but
Enterprise Funds (water, sewer, parking, transit and
golf) will also fully participate for two key reasons:
We are one organization: all parts need to
participate.
It is strategically important to limit Enterprise
Fund rate increases (rate decreases would also
be nice) at a time when we may be considering
General Fund revenue increases.
Key Plan Elements
There are six key elements to this plan:
Maintaining minimum fund balance at policy
levels.
Following other key budget and fiscal policies.
Monitoring the City’s fiscal health on an
ongoing basis.
Assessing the challenge: short or long-term
problem?
Packet Pg 424
2
Fiscal Health Contingency Plan Page 2
Identifying options.
Preparing and implementing the action plan.
n Minimum Fund Balance
First Line of Defense in Adverse Circumstances
Maintaining minimum fund balances at policy
levels:
Allows continued operations and projects in
responding to short-term problems.
Provides a bridge—“breathing room”—in
addressing longer-term problems while
comprehensive response plans are developed.
This is especially important under Proposition
218, since there are limited opportunities to
implement new revenues.
o Other Key Budget and Fiscal Policies
Following our other key budget and fiscal policies
will prevent problems to begin with, and keep them
from getting bigger when they do happen. These are
set forth in Section B of the Financial Plan, and
include:
Balanced budget
Conservative investment practices
Diversified revenues
User fee cost recovery
Enterprise funds
New development pays its own way
Limited use of debt financing
Fleet replacement
Contracting for services
Productivity improvements
Z Fiscal Health Monitoring
In accordance with our budget and fiscal policies,
the City will develop and implement effective
ongoing systems for reporting and monitoring our
fiscal condition. These include:
Interim Reporting
Reliable automated financial management
system
On-line access organization-wide via the
network
Monthly financial reports
Quarterly “Newsletter” (provided electronically
to all employees)
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) project-to-date
expenditure report
Mid-Year Budget Review
Special Reports: Sales Tax, TOT, Investments
Annual Reporting
Preparing audited financial statements in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles and
highest standards.
q Assess: Short or Long-Term Problem?
Different Strategies for Different Problems
Short-Term: One-time event or downturn that
is not likely to continue indefinitely.
“One-time” fixes are an appropriate response for
“one-time” problems.
Long-Term: Ongoing downturn in revenues or
increases in costs that are systemic.
In this case, “one-time” fixes won’t work: this
requires new ongoing revenues or ongoing
expenditure reductions.
Assessment: Short-Term Problem
Hiring Chill. City Manager approval will be
required to fill vacant regular positions. To fill a
vacant position, department heads must
demonstrate that it is necessary in meeting
public health, safety or other high-priority
service needs that cannot be met on an interim
basis through contract, overtime or temporary
staffing. In implementing the “chill,” the goal is
not just short-term savings, but preserving future
options if the problem turns-out to be ongoing.
Packet Pg 425
2
Fiscal Health Contingency Plan Page 3
Travel Chill. We will limit travel and training:
City Manager approval will be required for all
Travel Authorizations.
CIP Project Deferrals. The CIP Review
Committee will identify candidate projects for
possible deferral or deletion.
“One-Time” Operating Cost Review. The
Budget Review Team will identify special
projects in the operating budget for possible
deferral or deletion.
Fund Balance. The City will consider use of
fund balance below policy levels.
Other. The City will consider other short-term
expenditure curtailments as appropriate.
Assessment: Long-Term Problem
Implement “short-term” actions. (This follows
the first rule of holes: when you find yourself in
one, stop digging.)
Prepare long-term forecast to define the
problem.
Prepare revenue increase and expenditures
reduction options tailored to problem definition
via the forecast.
z It is likely to take 3-6 months to prepare
plans; and another 3-6 months to implement
them.
z This underscores the importance of strong
fund balance and short-term expenditure
reductions to create the time needed to
prepare and implement reasonable long-term
plans.
r Identify Options
In the long-term, there are only two basic budget-
balancing options:
Increase revenues.
Reduce expenditures (and related service levels).
In the short-term, use of fund balance is an option,
but not it is not a viable long-term solution: we can
only spend reserves once. An exception is the
strategic use of fund balance that reduces future year
operating costs or increases ongoing revenues.
Expenditure Reduction Options
Tough But Simple Fact: Meaningful ongoing
expenditure reductions require reductions in regular
staff costs, including public safety personnel:
.
85% of General Fund costs are operating.
80% of General Fund operating costs are for
staffing.
90% of General Fund staffing costs are for
regular staffing.
Over 50% of General Fund staffing costs are for
public safety.
General Strategy
Department Heads are responsible for crafting
operating expenditure reduction options that:
Are real and “doable.”
Reflect the least service impacts to the
community—no game-playing in proposing
least-likely reductions and non-starters.
Are ongoing.
Describe service impacts.
Are within the City’s ability to do
independently—no speculative reductions
contingent upon actions by others.
Can be implemented within three months after
adoption.
Are net of any related revenues from fees or
grants.
Maintain essential facilities, infrastructure and
equipment at reasonable levels—no deferred
maintenance posing as genuine cost reductions.
Packet Pg 426
2
Fiscal Health Contingency Plan Page 4
Reflect participation from throughout their
organization.
Option “Targets”
Targets for surfacing operating expenditure
reduction options will generally be:
Based on percentage reductions from current
operating budgets, less significant one-time
costs.
The same for all departments.
Targets are likely to exceed the “gap” identified in
forecast in order to surface an array of reasonable
policy choices based on priority considerations, and
not driven by arbitrary across-the-board decreases.
Stated simply, like making choices at a restaurant,
making priority-based decisions depends on having
more options on the menu than we plan on ordering.
Operating expenditure reductions are not likely to be
sole “budget-balancers,” but identifying their service
impact is critical to attracting support for new
revenues and other mitigation strategies.
Key Principles in Preparing Operating Expenditure
Reduction Options
Any service reductions will be balanced, and
ensure that highest priority services are retained.
Reductions will be based on service priorities,
not vacant positions: attrition is a helpful tactic,
but will not be the driving strategy in reducing
costs. On the other hand, one of the key
purposes of the “hiring chill” is to create
flexibility in making reductions based on
priorities while mitigating the need for lay-offs.
Our focus will be on retaining “front-line” core
services, and reducing services with the least
impact on the community at-large.
On the other hand, we need to preserve
“organizational” infrastructure, and ensure that
appropriate and necessary internal review
functions remain.
CIP Projects
The CIP Review Committee will be responsible
for identifying ongoing reduction opportunities.
Projects intended to maintain existing
infrastructure and facilities will generally have
higher priority over “new” facilities. Likely
exceptions include:
z Direct adverse impacts to public health and
safety.
z Outstanding contractual commitments.
z Significant outside resources or related one-
time revenues.
Revenues: Limited Options
The Budget Review Team, working with
representatives from the operating departments, will
have the lead responsibility for identifying revenue
options. However, it is likely that any new
significant revenues will require voter approval
under Proposition 218; and most likely, this election
cannot be held until the next regular municipal
election (November of even-numbered years).
There are two exceptions when revenue elections
can be held at any time:
Emergency declared by unanimous vote of the
Council.
Two-thirds voter approval for “earmarked”
revenues.
Nonetheless, there may be options for increased user
fees, fines or use of property. (On the other hand, if
these were easy to do, we would probably have
already done them!) Employees throughout the
organization will be encouraged to surface revenue-
raising options, with the recognition that expenditure
reductions are likely to play the play the leading role
in balancing the budget.
Significant New Revenues: Voter Support Required
Voter approval will require time for effective
preparation before a measure is placed on the
ballot.
Packet Pg 427
2
Fiscal Health Contingency Plan Page 5
Critical Success Factor: An effective,
community-based group that will work hard to
pass measure.
Legislative Advocacy
Depending on the reason for the adverse
circumstances (and especially if they are driven by
state or federal budget actions), the City will work
closely with its elected representatives and others
(such as the League of California Cities) in
mitigating service (and related cost) reductions.
Unlikely Long-Term Budget Balancers
Fund balance below policy levels. Using fund
is balance is a one-time course of action; it
cannot fix a structural imbalance.
Significant reductions in training. With fewer
employees, it will be even more important to
ensure that we have a highly-skilled, well-
trained work force.
Involvement and Participation
The City will actively solicit and encourage
participation by key stakeholders in the budget-
balancing process including:
Organization as a whole.
Employee associations.
Community groups.
This will require effective and ongoing
communication with them.
The Budget-Balancing Paradox. Balancing the
budget and closing the “forecast gap” from a strictly
numbers perspective is easy. However, after cutting
CIP projects, reducing staff, and negotiating and
implementing employee concessions, emerging from
the process with a vibrant, high-morale, high-
productivity organization is hard. Which leads to
the budget-balancing paradox: at a time when the
organization is at its nadir with downsizing, the
resulting smaller organization needs its employees to
be even more energized, fired-up and motivated to
perform.
In our experience, there is only one way to beat this
paradox: believing that the process used in
communicating with employees and meaningfully
engaging them in finding solutions matters. To use
Steven Coven’s metaphor, how we go about this
process is an opportunity to make deposits in our
credibility bank, not just withdrawals. It’s an
opportunity to both show our organizational
character and values, and to build them.
Employee Involvement
Department heads will encourage employee
participation and involvement in preparing
expenditure reduction options.
The City will strive to identify likely position
reductions resulting from this plan six months
before implementation in order to:
z Be straight forward with affected employees
about their employment outlook.
z Provide transfer opportunities.
z Allow affected employees a reasonable
amount of time to make other plans.
Key Value: Respect. There are downsides to this
approach, and many organizations consciously keep
force-reduction actions under wraps as long as
possible because of them. However, treating
employees with respect means informing them about
City plans that affect them as soon as possible.
It also means sharing the hard facts (and
consequences) in a straightforward and timely way,
even if this is painful at times for the organization.
Because ultimately, respect means believing
(contrary to Jack Nicholson's Marine Colonel Jessup
in A Few Good Men) that employees can handle the
truth.
Communication Strategies
The following identifies possible communication
strategies with employees and the community.
Employees
Ongoing employee briefings with City Manager,
Finance & IT Director and Department Heads.
Packet Pg 428
2
Fiscal Health Contingency Plan Page 6
Ongoing updates via voice mail or email.
Periodic “newsletters” and “rumor control
corner” on the Intranet
Ongoing briefings with employee association
representatives.
Special organization-wide briefings as
appropriate.
Community
Viewpoint articles in The Tribune and editorial
board briefings.
New releases.
Presentations to interested community groups.
Periodic “newsletters” via direct mail or utility
billing inserts.
Web site updates.
Community forums and workshops.
Possible Formation of Community Advisory Group
We may form an “ad hoc” advisory group depending
on the circumstances, with careful consideration of:
When should they become involved in the
process?
Who should be on it?
What’s their role?
s Finalize and Implement Action Plan
With advice from Department Heads and the
Budget Review Team, the City Manager is
responsible for preparing the recommended
action plan.
Council approval is required for implementation.
Finance will closely monitor results of the action
plan in achieving its goal, and will quickly
report any significant deviations to the City
Manager and Council.
SUMMARY
While the specifics of both the process will change
based on the circumstances, having a clear strategy
in place as the foundation for decision-making in
tough fiscal times that reflects our organizational
values has been a key factor in the City’s success in
preserving our long-term fiscal and our
organizational vitality.
Packet Pg 429
2
Attachment D
Packet Pg 430
2
ATTACHMENT D:SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE REQUESTS
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE REQUESTSSignificant Operating Program Change (SOPC) requests are written descriptions that are required whenever a program operating budget increases or decreases in a significant manner. SOPCs are also included in the budget to explain any staffing related changes, regardless of the cost.
Overview:
Table of Contents:
SECTION CONTENTS
SOPC Requests –Summary by Fund
Summary of Proposed SOPCs including:- Department- SOPC Title- Summary of Change- Fund- One-Time and Ongoing Expenses
SOPC Requests by Fund
Bar Chart for One-Time and Ongoing expensesduring the 2017-19 Financial Plan period
SOPC Write-Ups Detailed SOPC Requests
Packet Pg 431
2
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE REQUESTSSummary by Fund
DEPARTMENT& SOPC TITLE SUMMARY OF CHANGE FUND One-Time Ongoing
YEAR 1 TOTAL One-Time Ongoing
YEAR 2 TOTAL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Development Service Staffing and Contract Services
The Community Development Department, Fire Department, IT Department and Public Works Department are requesting to continue the use of eight full time contract employees and four part-time temporary employees to serve the present high workload associated with development review and support the Housing Major City Goal. In addition, consultant and contract services totaling $213,000 are needed to assist the departments by providing technical support and timely response to applications. This will be a one-time cost of approximately $862,220 in fiscal year 2017-18 and $206,350 in 2018-19. Fiscal year 2017-18 costs will be offset with anticipated over-realized revenues from Development Services Fees for service. If revenues do not reach anticipated thresholds, the budget will be reduced accordingly.
GENERAL FUND 862,219$ -$ 862,219$ 206,349$ -$ 206,349$
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTCode Enforcement Priorities
On March 7, 2017, the City Council introduced an ordinance to repeal Chapter 15.10 of the Municipal Code, effectively repealing the Rental Housing Inspection Program. The program was the City’s major pro-active inspection initiative for safe housing. In the absence of an inspection program to address safe housing in the community, Council directed staff to consider a variety of alternatives to educate property owners and tenants, and incentivize compliance with minimum health and safety code standards. This request is for one-time funding of approximately $60,000 to support staffing costs for the purpose of managing the project to engage with the public and develop revised priorities for code enforcement.
GENERAL FUND 60,388$ -$ 60,388$ -$ -$ -$
POLICE DEPARTMENTSLO County Animal Shelter Replacement
This request is to appropriate $130,000 per year for the next 25 years (through fiscal year 2044) to jointly finance and construct the replacement of an animal services shelter consistent with a Memorandum of Agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo and the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Pismo Beach and Paso Robles.
GENERAL FUND -$ 130,000$ 130,000$ -$ 130,000$ 130,000$
POLICE DEPARTMENTPolice Patrol - Reorganization
This request is to reorganize the Police Support Services Program due to the retirement of the current Communications and Records Manager. The position will be filled at a lower salary and savings will be re-allocated to fill a temporary part-time Crime Analyst position at a net-zero cost.
GENERAL FUND -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGYCellular Services Funding
The City uses cellular data technology to more efficiently perform daily functions, such as increased connectivity, functionality, and responsiveness. This request is for an increase in the cellular services budget of $12,500 to reflect increases in data/voice services due to the increased use of technology.
GENERAL FUND -$ 12,500$ 12,500$ -$ 12,500$ 12,500$
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGYOffice 365 Funding
Office 365 is the City’s primary platform for Microsoft Office Productivity and Collaboration Software - Outlook, Word, Excel, Access, PowerPoint, OneNote, Skype and SharePoint. This request is for the one-time increase of $26,500 in operating expenditures in licensing subcription costs and the movement of capital outlay funds to the Information Technology operating budget 2018-19 in order to permanently classify these expenditures as operating, instead of capital. This request includes adding $125,000 to the Information Technology operating budget to cover ongoing licensing subscription costs beginning in 2019-20, which were previously budgeted for in the capital improvement plan. The remaining Office 365 licenseing costs will be cost-allocated to other Department operating budgets.
GENERAL FUND 26,500$ -$ 26,500$ -$ -$ -$
FINANCEMotion Project - Business Analyst This request is for the transfer of funds from the approved Organizational Efficiency, Effectiveness & Transparency initiative to hire a Business Systems Analyst with technical and business skills and knowledge to join the Motion project during the Implementation Phase starting around July 2017.GENERAL FUND -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
FINANCEMotion Project - User Licenses
This request is for $200,000 in ongoing licensing costs for the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system, beginning in fiscal year 2018-19. This is a movement from original estimated costs based on project timeline where we were estimating the licensing ongoing costs to begin in 2018-19. This is due to the fact that we now have a developed project plan and the estimated time to start using the system has moved up to beginning of the 2018-19 fiscal year.
GENERAL FUND -$ -$ -$ -$ 200,000$ 200,000$
FINANCEProgram Restructuring This request is to restructure Finance Department Programs to be better aligned with work performed. Create a new Purchasing Program (25130) and a Budget Program (25110) by moving existing budget resources from Financial Administration (25100), Revenue Management (25120), and Accounting (25140).GENERAL FUND -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
HUMAN RESOURCESDay of Welcome This request is for ongoing funding for the City of San Luis Obispo’s Day of Welcome and welcome guides portion of the City’s on-boarding program. GENERAL FUND -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 949,107$ 142,500$ 1,091,607$ 206,349$ 342,500$ 548,849$
UTILITIESWater Treatment-Temporary Staffing The request is to continue the funding for two temporary employees in order to augment the Water Treatment Plant operating budget to allow for treatment plant operational flexibility and maximum water deliveries from the Nacimiento Project.WATER FUND 130,870$ -$ 130,870$ -$ -$ -$
130,870$ -$ 130,870$ -$ -$ -$ 1,079,977$ 142,500$ 1,222,477$ 206,349$ 342,500$ 548,849$
2017-18 2018-19
Subtotal: General Fund
Subtotal: Water FundTOTAL SOPC REQUESTS
$-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
One-Time Ongoing One-Time Ongoing2017-18 2018-19
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE REQUESTS BY FUND
General Fund Water Fund
Packet Pg 432
2
10 - Community Safety 85300 - HAZARD PREVENTION
One-time cost of $862,220 in fiscal year 17-18 and one-time cost of $206,350 in 2018-19. The 2017-18 one-time
costs will be offset by 75% of fiscal year 2016-17 over-realized Development Service Fee revenues (projected at
approximately $725,000) as well as revenue in excess of the General Fund fiscal forecast due to an anticipated fee
increase for fees-for-service, coupled with increased development review activity (Attachment 3 - Anticipated Projects
Chart, Attachment 4 – CDD Revenue Projections 2017-2019 Financial Plan). If revenues do not reach anticipated
thresholds, the budget will be reduced, respectively, for 2017-18 and 2018-19.
The revised fiscal forecast projects an increase of $2,328,587 in forecasted General Fund revenue. As a result,
$1,746,440 (75% of over realized revenue) may be eligible for appropriation to the Development Services
Designation per City policy. This request is to appropriate one-time funds of $862,219 for staffing and contract
services during 2017-18 and $206,349 for staffing and contract services during 2018-19.
Several assumptions have been made to arrive at current revenue forecast and development review activity
projections. The anticipated fee update restructures the fee schedule slightly, which makes it difficult to utilize trend
methodology in the forecast. Revenues and activities will be monitored very closely to ensure that assumptions are
holding true. Staff will reassess revenues and costs at the time of 2017-18 Mid-Year Review and 2017-19 Financial
Plan Supplement Review to recommend adjustments to resources to address workload demands.
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Community Development
Title: Development Service Staffing and Contract Services
Function Program
25 - Community & Neighborhood Livability 40100 - COMMUNITY DEVEL. ADMIN.
25 - Community & Neighborhood Livability 40200 - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
25 - Community & Neighborhood Livability 40400 - LONG RANGE PLANNING
25 - Community & Neighborhood Livability 40600 - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
25 - Community & Neighborhood Livability 40700 - BUILDING AND SAFETY
25 - Community & Neighborhood Livability 50220 - TREE MAINTENANCE
SUMMARY OF CHANGE
The Community Development Department, Fire Department, IT Department and Public Works Department are
requesting to continue the use of eight full-time contract employees and four part-time temporary employees to serve
the present high workload associated with development review and support the Housing Major City Goal. In addition,
consultant and contract services totaling $213,000 are needed to assist the departments by providing technical support
and timely response to applications. This will be a one-time cost of approximately $862,220 in fiscal year 2017-18
and $206,350 in 2018-19. Fiscal year 2017-18 costs will be offset with anticipated over-realized revenues from
Development Services Fees for service. (Attachment 1 - Costing Detail) (Attachment 2 – Organizational Chart). If
revenues do not reach anticipated thresholds, the budget will be reduced accordingly.
Economic forecasts are reporting that development services are stabilizing at pre-recessionary levels. Development
services activities remain high within the City of San Luis Obispo and are projected to remain at this level or slightly
higher over the next five years. The City has monitored staffing closely and has been conservative about adding
regular positions back into Development Services to ensure resources align with the demand for fee-based services. In
2016-17, ten full time contract positions, three part-time temporary positions and $1.3M in Consultant Services have
been relied upon to meet the service demands.
FISCAL IMPACT
Packet Pg 433
2
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Community Development
Title: Development Service Staffing and Contract Services
Fiscal
Year
Expense
Type Fund Account FTEs Ongoing Offsets Net Cost
2018 100 9.67
2018 Regular Staffing 100 7010 17,062
2018 Contract
Staffing
100 7012 422,331
2018 Temporary
Staffing
100 7014 112,769
2018 Operating 100 Various 97,057
2018 Contract
Services
100 7227 213,000
2018
9.67 862,219
2019 100 9.17
2019 Regular Staffing 100 7010 5,235
2019 Contract
Staffing
100 7012 129,588
2019 Temporary
Staffing
100 7014 45,825
2019 Operating 100 Various 25,701
9.17 206,349
1,068,568
17,062
One-Time
213,000
112,769
97,057
422,331
5,235
129,588
Sub-Total: 2018 862,219
Sub-Total: 2019 206,349
45,825
25,701
Total 1,068,568
SERVICE LEVEL IMPACT
The objective of this request is to ensure the City is able to timely process applications through the development
review and plan check process given increased permit activity. This demand impacts development review, building
plan check, fire plan check, arborist plan check and engineering development review services. Requested staffing is
required to keep up with permit activity that has remained consistently high since 2012-13 and is expected to continue
through 2018-19 and beyond. Should these resources not be available, permit volumes will overwhelm the
development review process, impairing the City’s ability to keep pace with permit volumes and implement Major City
Goals and other objectives. Long term temporary staff has been used to fill these positions since September 2013.
Advisory Body Coordination Support
A Full-time Contract Administrative Assistant I is requested for fiscal year 2017-18 to assist the City Clerk’s Office
with Advisory Body coordination activities while the Clerk’s Office is in a state of transition. This will give the
Clerk’s Office a year to fill vacancies and train staff before taking on the coordination of the Planning Commission,
Architectural Review Commission, Cultural Heritage Commission and Human Relations Commission. This position
will also help develop the transition plan to shift the duties from Community Development to the City Clerk’s Office.
Application System Specialist – EnerGov
The City has entered Phase II of the replacement of the permitting software and has been utilizing a fulltime resource
to maintain and coordinate process and procedure modifications of the EnerGov software to ensure the efficient tools
for providing development services to our community. The Application System Specialist has been working closing
with the Database Administrator and Development Services staff to learn the software, the business processes and the
culture of the City. The EnerGov software development, maintenance and implementation need a full-time resource
for the next two years to coordinate efforts to develop the Citizen’s Self-Serve Portal, Impacts Module, e-reviews
module, EnerGov training program and lead fee updates in the EnerGov system.
Packet Pg 434
2
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Community Development
Title: Development Service Staffing and Contract Services
5. Reallocation of Existing Resources – This request will allow several departments to reallocate resources to
streamline a significant citywide task. Funding of an Administrative Assistant will give the Clerk’s office an
opportunity to get fully staffed and trained before taking on the Advisory Body Coordination from Community
Development. The Application System Specialist will take work load off the Database Administrator so efforts can be
reallocated to work on other city databases including involvement in the Motion project.
BACKGROUND & SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
Existing Situation: Factors Driving the Need for Change
1. High levels of permit activity projected to level out and remain high – resources needed to meet processing times
2. Large and complex project submissions – require professional staff and consultants to process permits
3. Transition of Development Review Software to EnerGov
4. Need to bring development review business processes into the age of technology
Key Objectives: Making the Change Happen
1. Match resources available to services being requested
2. Maintain established levels of service
3. Satisfaction of both external and internal customers
Goal & Policy Criteria
1. Legal Concerns – The State of California Permit Streamlining Act requires timely processing of development
applications. The initial 30-day “completeness” review of all applications demands adequate staff to meet that
deadline.
2. Priority Level of Service – Timely processing of development applications is a priority to a significant contingent of
the community and is fundamental to the City’s ongoing economic recovery and viability.
3. Revenue Generation and/or Cost Savings – The use of contract employees is more cost effective than the use of
consultants. For example, from February 2014 to September 2014 $286,790 was paid out to consultants for plans
examining and building inspections. It cost $214,482 to use full-time, regular staffing for a Plans Examiner and a
Building Inspector for one year. This request will enable the processing of more applications in house resulting in
lower operating cost.
4. Reorganization within or across Departments – This request includes support for better efficiency and new
initiatives the City is taking on. EnerGov systems management will assist IT to reorganize or reallocate workload and
develop specialization amongst positions to provide quicker response times. This will keep the database system
working efficiently and therefore improve the efficiency of frontline staff. In addition, support will be provided to the
Clerk’s office to assist with the transition of advisory body coordination, which is planned to be centrally located in
Clerk’s office.
As part of the Continual Improvement Group process, all CDD positions will be utilized to either work directly on
identifying, developing and implementing development services process improvements, or will cover other work to
free up regular staff to engage in process improvement activities. Process improvement opportunities will play a key
role in developing a strategic plan to reorganize/reallocate workloads during the second year of the 2017-19 Financial
Plan and beyond. Approval of this SOPC will support reorganization within and across departments to achieve these
objectives.
Packet Pg 435
2
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Community Development
Title: Development Service Staffing and Contract Services
1.July, 2017
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
TASK DATE
Extend existing employee contracts
The project team will consist of the Community Development Department’s Fiscal Officer, Deputy Directors, Chief
Building Official, Supervising Civil Engineer, the Fire Chief, the Fire Marshall, City Clerk, Deputy City Clerk,
Human Resources, Community Development’s Supervising Admin Assistant, Director of Public Works, Information
Systems Supervisor and Assistant City Manager.
Major City Goal or Other Important Objective Addressed
This request supports long standing Major City Goals, including Housing, Climate Action, and Downtown by
providing a Planning Technician to support the staff that directly manages and implements these goals. In addition,
these positions support implementation of the Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) by providing the
resources needed to ensure timely processing of permits and planning entitlements, hands on customer service and
thorough communication with the community. These staffing resources will also support the major strategy of the
EDSP of streamlining the development review process to remove barriers to creating head-of-household jobs.
STAKEHOLDERS
Development Services affect the entire community. Development projects have the potential to go through three
departments, five divisions, three advisory bodies and the City Council.
PROGRAM MANAGER
The Director of Community Development, Michael Codron, will be responsible for the management of this program.
PROJECT TEAM
Packet Pg 436
2
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Community Development
Title: Development Service Staffing and Contract Services
1. Continue the Status Quo. The number and cost of requested positions are lower than what has been requested in the
last three years, yet permit levels are not predicted to go down in the next two years, therefore the request would be
continuing the status quo. If these resources are not available, permit volumes will generate workload that exceeds the
capacity of the development review process, impairing the City’s ability to meet cycle times and provide the
community with the level of service they have come to expect from the City.
2. Implementation in a Different Way. The program request is for a fairly balanced use of contract staff, temporary
staff and contract services. A trend has been determined that would suggest a need for full time regular staffing while
still maintaining the flexibility of temporary staffing or the use of consultants to adjust to the fluctuating nature of
permit activity. The request could be filled using all temporary staffing and/or consultants, however, when using
temporary staffing and consultants for long terms, the operating cost, turnover costs and impact to regular employees
(taking over workload, additional training for new hires, etc.) becomes unsustainable and inefficient.
3. Existing Program Evaluation. The last four years have provided the opportunity to evaluate the requested program.
Temporary staffing and consultants have been used to meet the resource demand created by elevated permit activity.
Consultant costs far exceed temporary and regular staffing cost. In some cases, we have been unsuccessful in securing
temporary staffing, and predict that it will become more difficult as the economy continues its recovery. All requests
for staffing have been discussed with Human Resources (HR), and preliminary SOPC was reviewed by HR prior to
submittal.
ALTERNATIVES
Packet Pg 437
2
Attachment 2
16‐17 17‐18 18‐19
$71,955 $26,794 $0
16‐17 17‐18 18‐19
$114,539 $88,744 $0
$76,541 $69,973 $0
$76,541 $65,149 $0
16‐17 17‐18 18‐19
$76,541 $63,410 $66,415
16‐17 17‐18 18‐19
$73,583 $64,964 $0
$85,411 $66,302 $0
16‐17 17‐18 18‐19
$119,751 $88,712 $93,253
$694,862 $534,048 $159,668
16‐17 17‐18 18‐19
$84,662 $46,682 $46,682
16‐17 17‐18 18‐19
$21,000 $25,808 $0
16‐17 17‐18 18‐19
$35,000 $30,931 $0
$5,000 $11,751 $0
$145,662 $115,172 $46,682
16‐17 17‐18 18‐19
$500,000 $100,000 $0
16‐17
$98,000 $98,000 $0
$0 $15,000 $0
16‐17
$119,156 $0 $0
$717,156 $213,000 $0
$1,557,680 $862,220 $206,350
EnerGov Reporting (Contract)
Development Review
Plan Check Services (Consultant)
One Time Consultant/Contract Services Subtotal:
Total One Time Cost:
Plan Check Services (Consultant)
Senior Civil Engineer
Public Works
Arborist Support
Fire
Fire Inspector I
Temp Fire Staff
One Time Temp Staffing Subtotal:
Consultant/Contract Services
Building & Safety
Plan Check Services (Consultant)
Fire
Development Review
Planning Tech ‐ (Contract) (Step 2/EE+1)
Planning Tech ‐ Counter (Mid range/EE+2)
Long Range Planning
Planning Tech ‐ (Contract) (Step 2/EE+1)
Building & Safety
Permit Technician II ‐ (Contract) Step 4/Opt Out
Assistant Plans Examiner ‐ Counter (Top Step/EE+2)
IT(EnerGov)
Application System Specialist (Contract) (Step 2/Opt Out)
One Time Contract Request Subtotal:
Continue Part Time Temporary Staffing
Associate Planner (Contract) (Step 2/EE)
17‐19 Financial Plan Staffing SOPC ‐ Attachment 1
Continue Contract Staffing
CDD Administration
Admin Assistant I (Contract) ‐ 6 months
Development Review
Packet Pg 438
2
Replace Contract with TempContinue as ContractContinue as Part Time TemporaryDiscountinue UseBBold Font Represents Supervising PositionsContinue Regular 6 Months Cont App Sys SpecialistContract Planning Tech Temp Senior Civil EngineerContract Asst Plans ExamineContract Planning TechTemp Fire InspectorTemp Admin ‐ EGPUBLIC WORKSTemp Arborist SupportITFIREPlanning InternsContract Planning TechPermit Tech IIPlans ExaminerCode Tech IContract Associate Planner Contract Engineering Tech IPlans ExaminerCode Officer IPlanning InternsAssistant PlannerEngineering Tech IContract Planning Tech Building Inspector IBuilding InternCode Tech IContract Admin AsstAssociate PlannerSenior Civil EngineerAssociate PlannerBuilding Inspector I Contract Permit Tech IICode Enforce SupervisorAdmin Asst IIAssociate PlannerSenior Civil EngineerSenior PlannerBuilding Inspector IPermit Tech IICode Officer ISupervising Admin AsstDeputy DirectorDeputy DirectorChief Building OfficialAdmin Asst IIPrincipal PlannerSupervising Civil EngineerHousing Programs ManagerBuilding & Safety Super Permit Services CoordinatorCommunity Development FY 16‐17 Staffing with Color Coded 2017‐19 Financial Plan SOPC Request ‐ Attachment 2Department HeadAdministrative AnalystADMINISTRATION DEVELOPMENT REVIEWLONG RANGE PLANNINGBUILDING & SAFETYPacket Pg 4392
Community Development ‐ Development Service Staffing and Contract Services SOPC Attachment 3Anticipated Projects ChartApproxConstruction CostSFRCommercialMFRAvila Ranch Specific Plan 6.6m410 units15000 sq ft310 unitsPIP 500,000PIP500,000 Constr.Constr.Constr.San Luis Ranch Specific Plan 6.6m500 units350000 sq ft/200 hotel roomsPIP Planning521,000PIP500,000 Constr.Constr.Constr.Froom Ranch Specific Plan 6.6m84445000 sq ftPIP 900,000 Constr. Constr.East Airport AnnexationPlanning 22094 PIP 50,000Bishop Knoll Annexation12Planning 22094PIPConstr.Righetti Ranch7.6m304 unitsPIP Constr.500,000 Constr. Constr. Constr. Constr.Jones 1.4m65 units15000 sq ftConstr.Constr.Constr.Constr.Constr.West Creek1.4m67 units112PIP 1,200,000 Constr.Constr.Constr.Constr.Imel500k18 unitsPIPConstr.Constr.Wingate Homes 1m142 units5000 sq ftPIPConstr.Ellsworth Tract35 lotsConstr.Constr.Hidden HillsXXPlanningPIPConstr.Tank Farm and BroadPlanningPIPConstr.Constr.MartinellixPlanningPIPConstr.Villa Toscano161 unitsConstr.Constr.Constr.Constr.Serra Meadows Mixed Use?? Sq ft36 AH unitsConstr.Constr.Damon GarciaPlanningPIPConstr.Twin Creeks500k6566102PIPConstr.Constr.Shell Station Development10000 sq ftPlanningConstr.Long Bonetti Ranch47000 sq ftConstr.Constr.French HospitalConstr.Bank of AmericaPlanningConstr.Fremont SquarePlanningConstr.San Luis Square21322 sq ft60 unitsPlanningConstr.Motel Inn52 motel rooms w/25 bungalowsConstr. 81437Monterey Place25000 sq ft/12 hotel rooms 23 unitsConstr.Constr.TownePlace Suites114 hotel rooms ‐ 4 story Constr. 162874McDonalds on FoothillPlanning 1,105Constr.Other projectsSpecific Plans and AnnexationsOrcutt Area Specific PlanAirport Area Specific PlanMargarita Area Specific PlanProject NameProject TypeFiscal Year2017‐182018‐192019‐202020‐212021‐22Packet Pg 4402
2017-19 Financial Plan Revenue Projections - Attachment 42012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19Revised Projected Projected ProjectedActual Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget Budget45480 Planning & Zoning Fees 244,634 598,752 327,608 731,828 490,913 611,484 648,619 406,09745485 Development Review318,316 410,968 803,504 614,740 612,558 743,838 336,731 350,33543335 SGC Grant (Luce)385,466 337,541 93,13200045540 Credit Card Fees(2,536) (27,419) (83,151) (67,692) (97,464) (109,133) (116,406) (112,637) Total Planning:945,880 1,319,842 1,141,093 1,278,876 1,006,007 1,246,189 868,944 643,79545510 Infrastructure. Plan Ck/Insp 264,000 510,000 741,571 845,203 525,050 926,881 1,400,000 1,428,000 45520 Encroachment Permits 143,500 150,000 138,917 165,902 140,626 142,187 244,745 249,640 45380 Maintenance of St Hwys N/A N/A N/A N/AN/A- 45550 Engineering Dev. Rev. Fee 114,100 92,322 270,948 203,168 218,771 231,693 485,900 505,336 45440 Zone 9 Streambed51,000 85,000 48,907 - Total Eng & Dev Review: 572,600 837,322 1,200,344 1,214,273 884,447 1,300,761 2,130,645 2,182,97645490 Building Permits674,701 1,131,031 1,728,5841,585,8251,714,988 1,812,599 1,854,289 1,928,46045497 Code Enforcement Fees 36,687 4,242 28,347 55,548 60,661 21,617 50,000 50,00045500 Plan Check 554,755 907,944 827,022788,496664,620 816,693 800,000 714,00045495 RHIP Registration N/A N/A N/A 211,216260,000 9,9240045496 RHIP Inspections N/A N/A N/A 30,830185,000 139,75600Total Building:1,266,143 2,043,217 2,583,9532,671,915 2,885,269 2,800,589 2,704,289 2,692,46045505Waterway Mgmt Fee33030Total CDD:2,787,926 4,200,381 4,925,390 5,165,064 4,775,723 5,347,539 5,703,878 5,519,23145530Fire Plan Check & Inspection 449,476 396,607 350,000 449,451 400,000 412,000Total Dev Services Revenue5,319,6255,647,310 6,103,878 5,931,231Budgeted Revenue3,734,0004,680,723 6,103,878 5,931,231Overrealized Revenue1,585,625966,587Available for appropriation1,189,219724,940Assumptions:COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT15-17 Financial Plan Revenues were forecasted using the Beacon economics report on building valuation. A 21% decrease from 14/15 Mid Year Revised revenue budgets was projected for 15-16 revenues and a 10% increase from 15/16 for the 16/17 fiscal year. The 15-16 FY revenues have realized a 98% increase in Planning and Zoning Fees, 8% increase in Infrastructure Plan Check/Inspections, a 3% decrease rather than 21% in Building Permit Fees and an 11% decrease rather than 21% in Plan Check Fees. FY 16/17 projected revenues have been revised assuming a 10% increase from revised FY 15/16 revenues for all fees associated with the issuance of building permits. Planning and Zoning fees are assuming a 25% decrease from FY 15/16 revised budget. A 0.07% increase has been assumed for all fees except Code Enforcement Fees (set by municipal code) to account for CPI adjustment. Credit Card Fees have been adjusted to approximately 2% of projected revenue based on Actuals from FY 14/15 and revised projection for FY 15/16. RHIP Fees Revenues adjusted based on assumptions of processing 4000 registrations/yr and 1000 inspections/yr rather than 60% of cost as budgeted during the Financial Planning process.Packet Pg 4412
Fiscal
Year
Expense
Type Fund Account FTEs Ongoing Offsets Net Cost
2018 100 0.50
2018 Staffing 100 7010 60,388
0.42 60,388
60,388Total60,388
SERVICE LEVEL IMPACT
BACKGROUND & SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
Existing Situation: Factors Driving the Need for Change
The City Council has expressed specific objectives it hopes to achieve with revised code enforcement
priorities, focused on safe housing.
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Community Development
Title: Revised Code Enforcement Priorities
Function Program
25 - Community & Neighborhood Livability 40700 - BUILDING AND SAFETY
One-time funding of approximately $60,000 will support staffing costs for the purpose of managing the project
to engage with the public and develop revised priorities for code enforcement. One-time funding of $60,000
will support staffing costs for the purpose of managing the project. Project activities include public
engagement, research on programs implemented by other communities, and fiscal impact analysis to ensure
there is a balance between additional program costs and new revenues to support those costs. The project will
be managed by a Code Enforcement Supervisor, which will ensure that the overall Code Enforcement Program
continues to function at a high level under the guidance of a supervisor. As part of this process, a variety of
alternatives for program supervision will be evaluated. As a result, only six months of funding is being
requested to support the ongoing responsibilities of the Code Enforcement Supervisor.
60,388
SUMMARY OF CHANGE
On March 7, 2017, the City Council introduced an ordinance to repeal Chapter 15.10 of the Municipal Code,
effectively repealing the Rental Housing Inspection Program. The program was the City’s major pro-active
inspection initiative for safe housing. In the absence of an inspection program to address safe housing in the
community, Council directed staff to consider a variety of alternatives to educate property owners and tenants,
and incentivize compliance with minimum health and safety code standards. In addition, Council provided
direction to staff regarding priorities for its overall code enforcement program, including consideration of
increased fines, and more prescriptive exercise of penalties associated with code enforcement activities to
improve cost recovery and to deter illegal construction and other code violations.
FISCAL IMPACT
Operating Expense: One-time costs of $0 in 2018 and ongoing costs of $60,388.
One-Time
Sub-Total: 2018 60,388
Packet Pg 442
2
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Community Development
Title: Revised Code Enforcement Priorities
1.
2.
3.
Full Project Plan Completed April 7, 2017
Anne Schneider, Chief Building Official, Community Development
Anne Schneider, Project Manager
Michael Codron, Executive Sponsor
Teresa Purrington, Community Enforcement Supervisor
PROJECT TEAM
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
TASK DATE
PROGRAM MANAGER
Key Objectives: Making the Change Happen
A public process, led by staff, is needed to ensure that the recommendations that go back to the City Council
are supported by the community.
Goal & Policy Criteria
The work is further implementation of Neighborhood Wellness goals and policies that have been pursued by
the City since 2003.
Major City Goal or Other Important Objective Addressed
2015-17 Neighborhood Wellness Carryover Goal
STAKEHOLDERS
Stakeholders will include:
• Residents
• Tenants and Property owners
• Property management companies
• Other real estate professionals
• Students
• Cal Poly and Cuesta College
City Council Approval of Revised Code Enforcement Priorities
Other tasks TBD based on Project Plan September 19, 2017
Packet Pg 443
2
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Community Development
Title: Revised Code Enforcement Priorities
ALTERNATIVES
1. Complete Project with Existing Staff Resources: The project could be completed with existing staff
resources in the Community Development Department. This alternative is not recommended because the
timeframe for project completion would be extended by at least three months due to existing assignments and
workload in the Building Division. In addition, the Community Development Director strongly recommends
that a Code Enforcement Supervisor be maintained until the program transitions to new priorities to ensure the
ongoing productivity of code enforcement staff, and ensure a smooth transition in program activities and
responsibilities.
Packet Pg 444
2
Fiscal
Year
Expense
Type Fund Account FTEs Ongoing Offsets Net Cost
2018 Operating 100 7211 130,000 130,000
130,000 130,000
2019 Operating 100 7211 130,000 130,000
130,000 130,000
260,000 260,000
One-Time
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Police
Title: Police Administration - SLO County Animal Shelter Replacement
Function Program
10 - Community Safety 80100 - POLICE ADMINISTRATION
SUMMARY OF CHANGE
Appropriate $130,000 per year for the next 25 years (through FY 2044) to jointly finance and construct the
replacement of an animal services shelter consistent with a Memorandum of Agreement with the County of San Luis
Obispo and the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Pismo Beach and Paso Robles.
FISCAL IMPACT
Operating Expense: One-time costs of $0 in 2018 and ongoing costs of $130,000.
Operating Expense: One-time costs of $0 in 2019 and ongoing costs of $130,000.
Entering into a Memorandum of Agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo to jointly finance and construct the
replacement of an animal services shelter will be an ongoing cost of $130,000 annually through FY 2044.
Sub-Total: 2018
Sub-Total: 2019
Total
SERVICE LEVEL IMPACT
The Board of Supervisors directed County staff to pursue the construction of a new 15,000 square foot facility
(approximate) to fully address the facility needs and implement many of the recommendations contained in the
Humane Society of the United States and (HSUS) and SPA report. Further programming was required to define the
proper size for the facility and ultimately landed on the program description as noted below:
Area Square Feet
Building Floor Area 16,000
Outdoor Runs 3,000
Incinerator, Cold Storage 2,000
Sally Port, Truck Wash, Truck Parking
(8 trucks)4,200
Disaster Response Equipment 1,200
Visitor Parking (15 spaces)5,300
Staff Parking (20 spaces)7,000
Large Animal Pens 27,000
Subtotal:65,700
Additional 20% for Circulation,
Landscaping:13,140
TOTAL SQUARE FEET: 78,840
Packet Pg 445
2
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Police
Title: Police Administration - SLO County Animal Shelter Replacement
Existing Situation: Factors Driving the Need for Change
BACKGROUND & SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
The Animal Services shelter was constructed in approximately 1975 on a site which had formerly been a landfill
utilized in the 1940's by the US Army and Camp San Luis Obispo. As initially designed, the structure totaled 6,600
square feet and was intended primarily for the kenneling of dogs, with less than 38 square feet dedicated to the care
and housing of cats; no accommodations were made for other types of animals. Since then, additional building
modifications were constructed to accommodate dog runs adjacent to the kennels, corrals for ranch animals, a small
structure for cats, night drop-off kennels, an expansion for staff administration, and renovation for the public lobby.
Current industry standards and public expectations of animal shelters have shifted substantially and many of the
shelter's original design features and characteristics are now outdated or inconsistent with the current understanding
of humane animal sheltering. The consequences of these design issues relative to their impact on humane animal care
are further compounded by the effects of deferred maintenance, healthy utilization, and harsh environmental
conditions. Over time, roofing leaks have developed, walls and door frames have begun to deteriorate, and the
capacity of electrical and drainage systems have been overloaded. The lack of heating, poor ventilation, and general
facility layout promotes stress, illness, and behavioral problems in sheltered animals. The austere and unwelcoming
environment often discourages the general public from visiting and is believed to have an adverse impact on adoption
and stray reclaim rates.
In 2010, the County contracted with Ravatt Albrecht & Associates to develop design plans for Phase I of the remodel.
Quickly, it became apparent that the scope of this project exceeded the available funding and the dog kennel remodel
component of the remodel was dropped. The ability to design a remodel which could be constructed within budget
was further complicated by soil stability and potential methane off-gassing issues resulting from the shelter's location
on an abandoned landfill. During the environmental permitting process, it was determined that a permit was required
through CalRecycle , adding additional time and cost to the development process. Since then, the project received a
post landfill closure permit through CalRecycle, and a permit from the Air and Water Quality Control Boards.
Packet Pg 446
2
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Police
Title: Police Administration - SLO County Animal Shelter Replacement
In November 2013, the County received five construction bids from contractors· for the Animal Services Cattery and
Lobby Expansion project. Bids ranged between $1,245,200 and $1,382,000. The lowest bid received exceeded the
estimated construction cost or budget by $350,250, which was 39% above the engineers estimated construction cost.
In January 2014, staff recommended and the Board of Supervisors rejected all bids for the Animal Services Cattery
and Lobby Expansion project. In light of the significant disparities between the project budget, operational needs, and
projected construction costs, the project was reassessed and an effort was made to identify design modifications and
alternative operational measures which might bring construction costs within budget. During this reassessment, the
identification of additional structural problems, including the development of a large sinkhole directly adjacent to the
building, caused concern that further investment and attempts to rehabilitate the facility would be fiscally
irresponsible.
The County explored a potential partnership with Woods Humane Society to build and operate a replacement facility.
The County concluded the it was infeasible due to a number of factors with the primary one being that Woods was
not amendable to managing an expansion of services that they provided to the community. In April 2015, the County
Board of Supervisors concluded based on the totality of factors that remodeling the existing facility would be
imprudent, partnerships unlikely and therefore directed staff to pursue the development of a replacement facility.
On January 7, 2017, the City Council approved an agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo and the Cities of
Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Paso Robles, and Pismo Beach to jointly finance and
construct a replacement animal services shelter.
Packet Pg 447
2
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Police
Title: Police Administration - SLO County Animal Shelter Replacement
1.
Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager
Key Objectives: Making the Change Happen
The key objective is to protect public safety and promote animal welfare by jointly replacing the animal services
shelter collectively with the County and other seven cities as this is the most economic approach to providing regional
services and a modern shelter. A modern shelter that is appropriately sized and creates a pleasant environment for
animals and visitors is expected to increase adoption rates, thus reducing overall operating costs for all Cities and the
County.
Goal & Policy Criteria
N/A
Major City Goal or Other Important Objective Addressed
None.
STAKEHOLDERS
1. Police Department
2. County of San Luis Obispo
3. Cities in San Luis Obispo County
4. Community Members
PROGRAM MANAGER
ALTERNATIVES
The City of San Luis Obispo could choose not to approve the agreement. That would leave the City in the position of
having to provide its own sheltering and field services in July 2020 at its sole expense. These costs are estimated to
be significantly higher than partnering with the other six cities and County. This would mean that the City would not
benefit from the economies of scale of sharing both capital and service costs. Staff has determined that the City
cannot provide its own animal field services or shelter services and build its own facility for less that approximately
$305,000** per year.
**Approximately $175,000 for field and shelter services and $130,000 per year for the proposed shelter capital costs.
PROJECT TEAM
Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager
Deanna Cantrell, Police Chief
Melissa Ellsworth, Senior Administrative Analyst
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
TASK DATE
See attached
Packet Pg 448
2
Packet Pg 4492
Fiscal
Year
Expense
Type Fund Account FTEs Ongoing Offsets Net Cost
2018 TBD 100 0.48
2018 TBD 100 7010 -1.00 -27,807 -27,807
2018 TBD 100 7014 36,513 36,513
2018 TBD 100 7016 -1,265 -1,265
2018 TBD 100 7018
2018 TBD 100 7040 -14,839 -14,839
2018 TBD 100 7042 -17,604 -17,604
2018 TBD 100 7044 108 108
-0.52 -24,894 -24,894
2019 TBD 100 0.48
2019 TBD 100 7010 -1.00 -28,313 -28,313
2019 TBD 100 7014 36,513 36,513
2019 TBD 100 7016 -1,265 -1,265
2019 TBD 100 7018
2019 TBD 100 7040 -14,853 -14,853
2019 TBD 100 7042 -17,604 -17,604
2019 TBD 100 7044 108 108
-0.52 -25,415 -25,415
-1.04 -50,309 -50,309
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Police
Title: Police Support Services - Reorganization
Function Program
10 - Community Safety 80400 - SUPPORT SERVICES
SUMMARY OF CHANGE
Request to reorganize the Police Support Services Program due to the retirement of the current Communications and Records
Manager at a net-zero cost.
FISCAL IMPACT
Operating Expense: One-time costs of $0 in 2018 and ongoing costs of $0.
There are no costs associated with re-organizing the structure of the Support Services program. Savings will be incurred by hiring a new position
(Communications Manager) at a lower salary; this savings will be used to partially fund a part time temporary Crime Analyst position.
One-Time
Sub-Total: 2018
Sub-Total: 2019
Total
SERVICE LEVEL IMPACT
The Police Department will be reorganizing the management of Support Services as a result of an upcoming retirement; this
will retain maximum efficiency within the program, while also allowing the Police Department to hire a part time, non-
benefited crime analyst that will increase efficiency in the areas of Patrol, Communications, Records and related law
enforcement functions.
Packet Pg 450
2
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Police
Title: Police Support Services - Reorganization
Existing Situation: Factors Driving the Need for Change
BACKGROUND & SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
The Department’s Communications and Records Manager will be retiring in September 2017. This position oversees both
Dispatch and Records. In dispatch, there are 11 Communications Technician positions and 2 Communications Supervisors;
in Records, there are 5 Clerks and 1 Supervisor.
After analyzing the current structure it became clear that the Department could realize a better organizational structure in
support services program. As a result, the Department intends to reorganize how Communications and Records are managed.
Staff is requesting to change the following:
The current Communications and Records Manager position will be separated. The new Communications Manager will
oversee all of the Emergency Communications Center (ECC) and any state or federal regulations that may affect the center
(including project management of those regulations and/or changes). The position will continue to oversee the two supervisor
positions in dispatch. Additionally, the Records Supervisor will not change work duties but will now be reporting to the
Investigative Lieutenant. Consequently, the Evidence and Property Clerk will report to the Records Supervisor (instead of
reporting to the Investigative Sergeant); this is due to the fact that many regulations relating to property and/or evidence
storage and release is a record’s management function.
Staff is requesting that the salary for the current Communications and Records Manager be used for the new Communications
Manager position. The savings will be used to fund a Crime Analyst position (which will be a part-time temporary
employee).
With regard to the Crime Analyst position, which would be a net-zero new cost, the Police Department is working towards a
transition to a smart, statistical and predictive organization model of data analysis and informed, proactive decision making.
As part of that transition, large amounts of data need to be gathered, analyzed, effectively formatted, and shared. To
adequately meet this need, and to efficiently direct Police and City resources, the department requires a crime analyst.
Having a Crime Analyst position will help identify crime trends to more efficiently focus policing efforts and hopefully result
in a reduction of crime. As an example; 10% reduction in Part I crime would result in 220 less victims, 220 less calls to
dispatch, 220 less calls for officers, 220 less reports for records and so on.
Key Objectives: Making the Change Happen
1. Increase community safety.
2. Reduce crime by using data analysis to develop a predictive policing model.
3. Maximize work efficiency.
4. Reorganize to appropriately provide managerial effectiveness.
5. Enhance the Department’s community policing efforts.
Goal & Policy Criteria
1. 2017-19 Financial Plan, Police Patrol Services Objective – continue to develop and implement proactive policing
strategies.
2. 2017-19 Financial Plan, Police Administration – initiate intelligence lead policing by hiring a Crime Analyst.
Major City Goal or Other Important Objective Addressed
N/A
Packet Pg 451
2
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Police
Title: Police Support Services - Reorganization
1.
2.
3.
Chris Staley, Police Administrative Captain
STAKEHOLDERS
1. Residents, businesses, and visitors of the City of San Luis Obispo
2. Support Services Program (Records and Communications)
3. Police Department
PROGRAM MANAGER
The Police Department could choose not to implement change with the Support Services Program; however, with an
upcoming retirement, staff is looking at ways to maximize efficiency within Support Services (which includes both Records
and Communications) and to add a Crime Analyst at no net cost to the City.
PROJECT TEAM
Chief of Police
Police Administrative Captain
Communications and Records Manager
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
TASK DATE
Hire Communications Manager August, 2017
Implement new reporting structure August, 2017
Retirement of existing Communications and Records Manager September, 2017
ALTERNATIVES
Packet Pg 452
2
Fiscal
Year
Expense
Type Fund Account FTEs Ongoing Offsets Net Cost
2018 Operating 100 7618 12,500 12,500
12,500 12,500
2019 Operating 100 7618 12,500 12,500
12,500 12,500
25,000 25,000
One-Time
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Information Technology
Title: Information Technology - Cellular Services Funding
Function Program
20 - Infrastructure & Transportation 25300 - NETWORK SERVICES
SUMMARY OF CHANGE
This request is for an increase in the Cellular Services budget of $12,500 to reflect increases in data/voice services
due to the increased use of technology.
-The increase in cellular services includes basic phone, smart phones and air cards (laptops). From 2014 to 2017 the
total number of devices increased by 110, which increased the annual cost by $55,200 due to the increase in data
services as departments added 75 smart phones $2,625/mo. and 58 mobile laptops/tablets or iPads ($2,320/mo.).
- IT staff is proposing activating the hot spot feature (data tethering) on City smart phones and deactivating the data
services on laptop or tablet devices for staff using a city cell phone and laptop. Staff is estimating an immediate
savings of $12,200 per year. In addition, departments are revisiting the use of devices to ensure the necessity of each.
- IT and Verizon have completed a plan analysis and Verizon has recommended a change in data plans which will
save $30,484 per year.
FISCAL IMPACT
Operating Expense: One-time costs of $0 in 2018 and ongoing costs of $12,500.
Operating Expense: One-time costs of $0 in 2019 and ongoing costs of $12,500.
Sub-Total: 2018
Sub-Total: 2019
Total
SERVICE LEVEL IMPACT
Departments are using cellular data technology to more efficiently perform daily functions, such as increased
connectivity, functionality, and responsiveness. Enhancements include the move to connected tablets for faster
alerting and response for water system issues; connected laptop computers for Department Heads that allow a virtual
office anywhere; connected tablets for firefighter-paramedics to electronically capture and transmit medical patient
information; tablet allow access to the SCADA system, and using air cards for radio provides backup services for
telemetry
Packet Pg 453
2
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Information Technology
Title: Information Technology - Cellular Services Funding
Existing Situation: Factors Driving the Need for Change
BACKGROUND & SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
PROJECT TEAM
The number of cellular devices has increased over the last 2 ½ years, along with the movement of basic phones to
smart phones and the addition of laptops or tablets that require data services to be used by mobile workforce.
Department Head approval is required for all new cell phone requests or changes and the requesting department is
responsible for covering the cost for the remainder of the budget period which now requires an increase in the cellular
services budget to continue services.
Additionally, the move to smartphones, when approved, provides a significant enhancement in communications
capabilities. Not only can all City smartphones be programmed with PulsePoint, thus enhancing emergency response
capabilities in the City, but these devices also allow for greater remote data access and smart alerting, such as when
key staff needs to be made aware of important information via the City’s various emergency operations center text
groups or Nixle. When discussing the justification for increased cellular access, IT commonly hears departments
advocate for connectivity as a means of maximizing the effectiveness and efficiency of staff.
Key Objectives: Making the Change Happen
Increase the operating budget to continue services and comply with City Policy
Goal & Policy Criteria
Per IT Policies and Procedures Manual - Section 340 – Cellular Phones Policy:
Existing Cell Phones. For existing cell phones, each budget period IT is responsible for requesting adequate funds to
support existing cell phones at current rates and any needed replacements.
Additional Cell Phones. For new cell phone service requests occurring mid-budget, the requesting department will be
responsible for providing funding. This will include both the purchase cost and money sufficient to cover the
monthly service charge and per minute usage for the remainder of the budget period
Major City Goal or Other Important Objective Addressed
N/A
STAKEHOLDERS
City Departments and Community
PROGRAM MANAGER
IT Manager, IT Support Services Supervisor
Packet Pg 454
2
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Information Technology
Title: Information Technology - Cellular Services Funding
1.
ALTERNATIVES
Deactivate Verizon services or drastically reduce the number of devices. This would impact internal efficiency or
service provided by departments that are using the technology in their daily functions. As a result, this alternative is
not recommended.
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
TASK DATE
Continue to decrease costs by departments continuing to more effectively use
services Ongoing
Packet Pg 455
2
Fiscal
Year
Expense
Type Fund Account FTEs Ongoing Offsets Net Cost
2018 Operating 100 7229 140,500
2018 Operating 100 7229 -27,854 -27,854
2018 Fund Balance 412 -86,146 -86,146
-114,000 26,500
2019 Operating 100 7229 154,500
2019 Capital 412 7229 -125,350 -125,350
2019 Operating 100 7229 -29,150 -29,150
-154,500
-268,500 26,500
One-Time
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Information Technology
Title: Information Technology - Office 365 Funding
Function Program
20 - Infrastructure & Transportation 25300 - NETWORK SERVICES
SUMMARY OF CHANGE
Move IT Replacement Fund projected fund balance of $86,146 to Information Technology Network Services operating
budget to offsets the Annual Microsoft Office 365 Subscription Licensing costs in 2017-18.
Contribute less than was projected toward IT Replacement Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects due to migration to
a cloud-based information storage system (Microsoft Office 365). The CIP funds will be allocated within the
Information Technology Network Services operating budget for the Annual Microsoft Office 365 Subscription
Licensing in 2018-19, instead of capital.
The Enterprise Funds will be captured in the cost allocation plan and a Budget Amendment Request will move funds to
the IT operating budget.
FISCAL IMPACT
Operating Expense: One-time costs of $26,500 in 2018 and ongoing costs of $0.
The Information Technology operating budget will include approximately $125,000 in ongoing licensing subscription
costs beginning in 2019-20. The remaining Office 365 licenseing costs will cost-allocated to other Department
operating budgets.
Total 295,000
140,500
Sub-Total: 2018 140,500
154,500
Sub-Total: 2019 154,500
SERVICE LEVEL IMPACT
Office 365 is the City’s primary platform for Microsoft Office Productivity and Collaboration Software - Outlook,
Word, Excel, Access, PowerPoint, OneNote, Skype and SharePoint.
2017‐18 2018‐19
Office 365 Costs 140,500.00$ 154,500.00$
Offset from CIP Projects (125,350.00)$
IT Operating Budget (27,854.00)$
IT Operating Budget
(Cost Allocation) (29,150.00)$
Offset IT Replacement (86,146.00)$
TOTAL SOPC Request 26,500.00$ ‐$
Packet Pg 456
2
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Information Technology
Title: Information Technology - Office 365 Funding
1.
2.
STAKEHOLDERS
BACKGROUND & SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
Existing Situation: Factors Driving the Need for Change
In June 2016, the City entered into a contract with Dell Computer Corporation for Microsoft Office 365 Government
plan subscription licenses. This change represented a fundamental change in the way software products are purchased,
maintained, and serviced. The new model is software as a service and is maintained by the software provider in the
cloud. Previously software was purchased as a product and maintained on city-owned servers and computers (local
computer-based). The previous traditional model is being phased out by the software companies and the City decided
to make the transition to the new model at a time when we were contemplating a major investment in new servers and
software under the traditional model.
IT utilized funding to cover the first two years of this contract from CIP projects to upgrade the City’s traditional (local
computer-based) Microsoft Office environment. We are requesting the transfer of funds and funding for 2017-2019 to
continue the contract.
Key Objectives: Making the Change Happen
To fund Microsoft Office 365 Government plan subscription licenses citywide for the future years as the Microsoft
Office Productivity Software – Outlook, Word, Excel, Access, PowerPoint, OneNote, Skype and SharePoint – is the
City’s primary platform for essential business practices.
Goal & Policy Criteria
Properly fund the Microsoft Office 365 Government plan subscription license contract as an operating budget item.
Major City Goal or Other Important Objective Addressed
Infrastructure
Create BARs to transfer funds from IT Replacement and Enterprise Funds to
Operating Budget May 2019
PROGRAM MANAGER
IT Manager
PROJECT TEAM
All City Departments
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
TASK DATE
Create BARs to transfer funds from Enterprise and Fund Balance to Operating May 2018
Packet Pg 457
2
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Information Technology
Title: Information Technology - Office 365 Funding
Migrate the email infrastructure back into the city and return to a basic Microsoft Office Suite CIP upgrading every 5
years, along with additional email storage. At the 5-year point, the software would lack sufficient functionality to
support the future city’s business needs. In addition, city staff would go through steep learning curves in migrating to
new software versions. This would not include additional features such as Skype and SharePoint.
-Include all City Departments general fund portion of the cost into this SOPC. The total request for 2017-18 would be
$98,000 from the General Fund and $7,500 from Enterprise Funds (along with the $35,000 CIP identified for O365).
The total request for 2018-19 would be $133,000 from the General Fund and $7,500 from Enterprise Funds. These
alternatives are not recommended as they are less efficient and the transition has already been accomplished.
ALTERNATIVES
Packet Pg 458
2
Fiscal
Year
Expense
Type Fund Account FTEs Ongoing Offsets Net Cost
2018 Operating 500 2.00
2018 Operating 500 7014 116,844 116,844
2018 Operating 500 7042 192 192
2018 Operating 500 7044 1,694 1,694
2018 Operating 500 7040 12,140 12,140
2.00 130,870
130,870
One-Time
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Utilities
Title: Utilities - Water Treatment-Temporary Staffing
Function Program
30 - Environmental Health & Open Space 55150 - WATER TREATMENT
SUMMARY OF CHANGE
Continue the funding for two temporary employees in order to augment the Water Treatment Plant operating budget to
allow for treatment plant operational flexibility and maximum water deliveries from the Nacimiento Project.
FISCAL IMPACT
Operating Expense: One-time costs of $130,870 in 2018 and ongoing costs of $0.
Operating Expense: One-time costs of $0 in 2019 and ongoing costs of $0.
One time cost for temporary staffing of $130,780 to the Water Fund. Staffing needs will be evaluated during FY 2018 for
long-term operational needs.
Existing Situation: Factors Driving the Need for Change
Sub-Total: 2018 130,870
Sub-Total: 2019
Total
SERVICE LEVEL IMPACT
Due to the smaller diameter pipe size that delivers Naciemiento water to the Water Treatment Plant, longer operating
hours are required to process the full allocation of Nacimiento water - 5,482 acre feet.
BACKGROUND & SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
In order to process the full allocation of water from the Nacimiento Reservoir (5,482 acre feet), the Water Treatment Plant
must operate for extended hours each day. This need for extended hours of operation and staffing is due to the smaller
diameter pipe size that delivers Nacimiento water to the Water Treatment Plant. Compared to the pipeline that delivers
water from Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs, the Nacimiento pipeline must flow constantly to deliver all of the
allocated water. This longer operational time will require additional funding to cover temporary staffing to cover
vacation, training, holidays, and sick time and also serve to provide additional support staff and safety during the extended
operational hours.
This request is the continuation of additional staffing needs identified in 2016 which was approved by SOPC with the
2015-17 Financial Plan Supplement for calendar year 2017.
Additioanlly, to aid in succession planning, these added temporary positions are being utilized as training positions. With
a majority of current staff eligible to retire, it’s imperative to maintain knowledge and skill continuity at the Water
Treatment Plant.
Packet Pg 459
2
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Utilities
Title: Utilities - Water Treatment-Temporary Staffing
1.
2.
3.
Dean Furukawa - Water Treatment Plant Supervisor
These positions have also been critical to allow operations staff to be assigned additional high-level workload in the areas
of regulatory compliance, advanced treatment optimization, Capital Improvement Projects, climate change and water
supply management. An example of this operational flexibility is the early winter rain events which have resulted in
reservoir water that is more difficult to treat and requires additional staff time and attention. These storm events are
characteristic of forecasted impacts of climate change.
This request is ongoing until further evaluation of the staffing needs of the program in the next fiscal year.
Key Objectives: Making the Change Happen
1. Maximize the use and resiliency of the City’s multi-source water supplies.
2. Maintain operational flexibility.
3. Succession Planning opportunities for Water Treatment Plant.
Goal & Policy Criteria
Major City Goal or Other Important Objective Addressed
N/A
STAKEHOLDERS
All City water users benefit from maximizing water resiliency and succession planning.
PROGRAM MANAGER
PROJECT TEAM
Water Treatment Plant staff
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
TASK DATE
Additional shifts could be covered by scheduled overtime. Because this is an ongoing need, this is not a cost effective or
efficient alternative. Requiring existing employees to work constant overtime would place an unsustainable strain on
current staff.
Overtime budget remains necessary due to emergencies or unusual conditions that require licensed water treatment plant
operators on-site. Temporary employees, per water plant operator requirements, are not qualified to work independently to
cover this type of work. Therefore the current overtime budget cannot offset the cost of this temporary staffing request.
Each line item of the water treatment plant operating budget has been developed using zero-based budgeting. While it
ultimately may show cost-savings, this is unknowable until the end of the fiscal year.
July 2017 - June 2018
September 2017
June 2018
Staff begins evaluation of long-term staffing needs at the Treatment Plant.
Staff returns with recommendation for the 2018-19 Supplement of the 2017-
19 Financial Plan.
ALTERNATIVES
Temporary staffing operations will be continuing during 2017-18.
Packet Pg 460
2
Fiscal
Year
Expense
Type Fund Account FTEs Ongoing Offsets Net Cost
2018 Operating 100 7012 -80,000
2018 Operating 100 7040 8,312 -8,312
2018 Operating 100 7041 800 -800
2018 Operating 100 7042 192 -192
2018 Operating 100 7044 1,160 -1,160
2019 Operating 100 7012 -80,000
2019 Operating 100 7040 8,312 -8,312
2019 Operating 100 7041 800 -800
2019 Operating 100 7042 192 -192
2019 Operating 100 7044 1,160 -1,160
-180,928
80,000
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Finance
Title: Finance - Motion Project - Request Business Systems Analyst
Function Program
35 - Fiscal Health & Governance 25100 - FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION
SUMMARY OF CHANGE
Request transfer of funds from the approved Organizational Efficiency, Effectiveness & Transparency initiative to hire
a Business Systems Analyst with technical and business skills and knowledge to join the Motion project during the
Implementation Phase starting around July 2017. As the Motion project proceeds into the implementation phase, the
project team will be ramped up with the resources required for the design, configuration and implementation of the
new software.
FISCAL IMPACT
Operating Expense: One-time costs of $90,464 in 2017-18 and one-time cost of $90,464 in 2018-19. Costs will be
offset by a transfer from the Motion Project Capital Budget.
This net-zero request is to start utilizing the funds for the implementation of an ERP system approved under the
Foundational Technology Systems section of the Organizational Efficiency, Effectiveness & Transparency initiative of
the 2015-17 Supplemental Financial Plan. This is one-time cost of $90,464 in 2017-18 and one-time cost of $90,464 in
2018-19 (offset by Capital Budget) for a Business Systems Analyst who will join the Motion team as the project goes
into implementation phase. It is anticipated that the implementation phase will commence in the summer of 2017, once
a software vendor has been selected, based on the requirements currently being gathered and documented for the new
system.
One-Time
Sub-Total: 2018 90,464
80,000
Sub-Total: 2019 90,464
Total 180,928
Packet Pg 461
2
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Finance
Title: Finance - Motion Project - Request Business Systems Analyst
Key Objectives: Ensure Integrity of ERP Configuration and Data Transfer
SERVICE LEVEL IMPACT
Per GFOA recommendations to augment the team with a technical team member, this proposal is to add Business
Systems Analyst with technical skills to be fully committed to the Motion project through out ERP implementation.
The request is to add a contract position for a period of two-years. This position will be key to analyze transactional
flow and test the system to ensure that business requirements are met throughout the ERP implementation. This
position will be within Finance Department and will work with Technology Projects Manager and Database
Administrator to ensure accuracy of data transfer and identify areas of failure in the system to deliver desired results.
BACKGROUND & SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
Existing Situation: Factors Driving the Need for Change
As per the GFOA assessment and recommendation and with Efficiency & Effectiveness (E&E) Initiative , Motion
Project was initiated to implement an ERP system for Finance, HR, Procurement and Payroll. In the Finance System
Replacement Recommendation report, GFOA suggested the staffing needs and resource requirements for the project.
They have recommended a Technical Lead/Technical Support resource, part-time, at the readiness phase and at 1 FTE
during the implementation. There is $75,000 allocated for technical support in 2017-18 as part of the E&E Initiative.
These funds are recommended to be used for GFOA consulting services.
This request is for a resource who will be dedicated fully to the project and will work with the City's Database
Administrator (DBA part-time).
Following is a high-level list of skills and qualification being requested:
- Act as liaison between business and technical teams
- Decipher business requirements into functional specification.
- Proven ability to transform business rules into system requirements
- Experience and understanding of life cycle and methodology of systems implementation;
- Experience with Enterprise Resource Planning packages.
- Hands-on experience developing requirements and configuring ERP packages.
- Experience with SQL and/or other programming languages;
- Considerable experience with relational databases; understating of Financial data structures
- Good understanding and working knowledge of appropriate software platform and systems
Goal & Policy Criteria
Major City Goal or Other Important Objective Addressed
This request is in alignment with the Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility Major City Goal, the Fiscal
Responsibility Philosophy, and with the Council Policy “Addressing the Long Term Costs” adopted on February 17,
2015 which was incorporated into the 2015-2017 Financial Plan.
In addition, as a part of the 2015-17 Financial Plan the City Council adopted Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility
as an Other Important Objective. Components of the work plan for that object include:
1. Establish a performance management and reporting team to identify a set of performance criteria for public reporting
based on information the public wants to know and available information already being maintained and reported
internally.
STAKEHOLDERS
All City employees who receive internal services from the support departments and all community members who rely
on City financial data and City services.
Packet Pg 462
2
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Finance
Title: Finance - Motion Project - Request Business Systems Analyst
1.
2.
3.
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
PROGRAM MANAGER
Xenia Bradford, Interim Finance Director
PROJECT TEAM
Xenia Bradford, Interim Finance Director
Vinay Jathanna, Technology Project Manager
Business Systems Analyst will begin required work September, 2017
ALTERNATIVES
1) Status Quo. Without the Business Systems Analyst, the Project Manager will be required to perform the technical
workload needed during implementation of the ERP Software system. As a result, implementation could potentially be
delayed up to 12 months. Delays in project implementation would drive costs higher for the overall project, since the
vendor would require payment throughout the implementation period.
2) Approve this Request for One Year, instead of Two. The workload required of the Business Systems Analyst is
estimated to take two years, during implementation of the ERP System. Reducing the amount of time this position will
have to perform these duties would then place the remaining workload on the Project Manager. As a result,
implementation could be delayed. Delays in project implementation would drive costs higher for the overall project,
since the vendor would require payment throughout the implementation period.
3) Use Existing Staff to Cover Workload Needs. Existing Staff do not have the necessary technical and business skills
and knowledge necessary to perform the duties required of the Business Systems Analyst.
4) Hire a consultant or consulting firm to perform required services. This alternative is not recommended since the
costs for consulting services would be much greater than costs for hiring contract staff.
TASK DATE
Human Resources will establish a temporary classification and work with the Project
Team to develop a Duty Statement for the Business Systems Analyst July 2017
Project Team and Program Manager will advertise, interview, and select a Business
Systems Analyst August, 2017
Packet Pg 463
2
Fiscal
Year
Expense
Type Fund Account FTEs Ongoing Offsets Net Cost
2019 Operating 100 Licensing 200,000 200,000
200,000 200,000
200,000 200,000
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Finance
Title: Finance - Motion Project - License Fees
Function Program
35 - Fiscal Health & Governance 25100 - FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION
SUMMARY OF CHANGE
This request is for $200,000 in ongoing licensing costs for the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system, beginning
in fiscal year 2018-19. This is a movement from original estimated costs based on project timeline where the City
estimated the licensing ongoing costs to begin in 2018-19. This is due to the fact that we now have a developed
project plan and the estimated time to start using the system has moved up to beginning of the 2018-19 fiscal year.
FISCAL IMPACT
Operating Expense: Ongoing costs of $200,000 in 2018-19 for ERP system user licenses.
One-Time
Sub-Total: 2018
Sub-Total: 2019
Total
SERVICE LEVEL IMPACT
Key objectives include: 1) ensure support functions provide a solid foundation to operating departments that deliver
service to the community, 2) improve organizational efficiency and effectiveness and minimize inefficient duplication
of efforts, and 3) provide integrated information and reporting that enhances efficiency, transparency and improves
service to the community.
BACKGROUND & SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
Existing Situation: Factors Driving the Need for Change
Implementation of Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Recommendations:
The GFOA report was presented to Council on April 19, 2016 and provides four key recommendations:
1) Immediately address the lack of a complete financial system,
2) Align a chart of accounts with business requirements and system capabilities,
3) Streamline ineffective business policy and process,
4) Clarify roles and responsibilities and implement service level agreements for all central functions.
GFOA concludes that these core issues represent the most significant problems faced by the City’s Finance function
and cause ripple effects throughout all City departments. In other words, over time, the Finance Department has
blurred lines of responsibility as staffing levels have decreased and responsibilities have increased. This combined
with an outdated financial system inhibits the department’s ability to improve efficiency and effectiveness even with
temporary resources. While there have been attempts to address challenges in FIT in the past by allocating temporary
resources or transferring work to other departments, little if any relief has been achieved and the foundational changes
and improvements needed for long term sustainability have not been achieved.
Packet Pg 464
2
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Finance
Title: Finance - Motion Project - License Fees
1.
Key Objectives
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Approving this request will allow the ERP system project schedule to remain on track. The primary objectives of the
ERP system include:
1) Increasing efficiency, effectiveness, responsiveness, and transparency of support departments will have positive
ripple effects on the City’s ability to deliver quality services and projects to the community.
2) Acquiring and implementing an ERP system that meets the needs of the organization and community during the
course of the next three years, will increase efficiency in daily operations, and establish a strong foundation for data,
analysis, and transparency in the future.
3) Addressing deficiencies in business policies and processes will increase efficiency, effectiveness, responsiveness,
transparency, and reduce redundancy.
4) Clearly aligning roles and responsibilities of support departments and adjusting staffing levels as the organization
transitions to improved business policies and processes and an ERP system will set the above investment up for
success.
Goal & Policy Criteria
Major City Goal or Other Important Objective Addressed
This request is in alignment with the Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility Major City Goal, the Fiscal
Responsibility Philosophy, and with the Council Policy “Addressing the Long Term Costs” adopted on February 17,
2015 which was incorporated into the 2015-2017 Financial Plan.
In addition, as a part of the 2015-17 Financial Plan the City Council adopted Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility
as an Other Important Objective. Components of the work plan for that object include:
1. Establish a performance management and reporting team to identify a set of performance criteria for public
reporting based on information the public wants to know and available information already being maintained and
reported
internally.
2 Implement a system for ongoing tracking management and reporting of performance and service metrics
STAKEHOLDERS
All City employees who receive internal services from the support departments and all community members who rely
on City financial data and City services.
PROGRAM MANAGER
Xenia Bradford, Interim Finance Director
PROJECT TEAM
Xenia Bradford, Interim Finance Director
Vinay Jathanna, Technology Project Manager
TASK DATE
Purchase the appropriate number of user licenses in order to "go-live" with the new
ERP system. July, 2018
Packet Pg 465
2
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Finance
Title: Finance - Motion Project - License Fees
ALTERNATIVES
1. Defer or Deny the Request. This option is not recommended as it will result in continued inefficiency, unnecessary
redundancies, high potential for inaccurate or incomplete information (financial and otherwise) that could be the basis
for significant decisions, and reduced level of service to the community. In addition, delays in project
implementation would drive costs higher for the overall project, since the vendor would require payment throughout
the implementation period.
2. Change the Scope of the Request. Overhauling business practices and systems is highly time-consuming. The ERP
system project is already well under way, with the total anticipated implementation time at about 3-4 years to
complete and become fully operational. Changing scope in the middle of this project is not recommended and may
force the City to lose out on current investments and/or revert back to old ways. Appropriate license funding in 2018-
19 will keep the ERP system project on track and help avoid potential pitfalls.
Packet Pg 466
2
Fiscal
Year
Expense
Type Fund Account FTEs Ongoing Offsets Net Cost
2018 Operating 100 -3.50
2018 Operating 100 3.50
2018 Operating 100 -268,791 -268,791
2018 Operating 100 268,791 268,791
35 - Fiscal Health & Governance 25100 - FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Finance
Title: Finance - Program Restructuring
Function Program
Operating Expense: One-time costs of $0 in 2018 and ongoing costs of $0.
Net-Zero Change to the Finance Department Program Structure.
35 - Fiscal Health & Governance 25110 - BUDGETS
35 - Fiscal Health & Governance 25120 - REVENUE MANAGEMENT
35 - Fiscal Health & Governance 25130 - PURCHASING
35 - Fiscal Health & Governance 25140 - ACCOUNTING
SUMMARY OF CHANGE
Restructure Finance Department Programs to align with work performed. Create a new Purchasing Program (25130)
and a Budget Program (25110) by moving existing budget resources from Financial Administration (25100), Revenue
Management (25120), and Accounting (25140). No new positions or services are requested.
FISCAL IMPACT
Key Objectives: Making the Change Happen
One-Time
Sub-Total: 2018
SERVICE LEVEL IMPACT
It will provide more detailed and transparent budgeting and accounting of Finance Department Programs that will
provide better alignment of work completed.
BACKGROUND & SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
Existing Situation: Factors Driving the Need for Change
This restructure is necessary to accommodate the new positions and duties under the Finance Department (formerly
the Finance and Information Technology Department).
1) Define the new Purchasing Program and Budgets Program utilizing the newly created Finance structure.
2) Increase efficiency and effectiveness of budgeting and reporting for Finance Department workload.
3) Align workload with budgeting and reporting.
Goal & Policy Criteria
This request is in alignment with the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) assessment and
recommendation to separate Budgets, Accounting Purchasing staffing and resource requirements to maximize
efficiencies and effectiveness.
Major City Goal or Other Important Objective Addressed
Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility
Packet Pg 467
2
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Finance
Title: Finance - Program Restructuring
1.
2.
3.
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
STAKEHOLDERS
Finance Department, IT Department
PROGRAM MANAGER
Xenia Bradford, Interim Finance Director
PROJECT TEAM
Xenia Bradford, Interim Finance Director
Courtney Steck, Interim Budget Manager
Kristin Eriksson, Purchasing Analyst
The Accounting Manager/Controller will ensure the Programs were properly
established in the Accounting system.July, 2017
ALTERNATIVES
1) Status Quo: Leave Purchasing and Budgeting tasks lumped into the existing Finance Department Programs and
continue reporting these functions at the current level of detail (currently budgeted in Finance Administration and
Finance Accounting Programs). The current reporting level is not in line with the City's Internal Controls Concept
regarding Separation of Duties. In an effort to remain transparent in reporting, the Finance Department recommends
adoption of this net-zero impact in the Financial Management Manual.
2) Implementation in a Different Way: This request is based on the recommendation of the GFOA to clearly align
roles and responsibilities of support departments as the organization transitions to an Enterprise Resources Planning
system.
TASK DATE
Once approved, the existing Questica budgets system will automatically populate
the new Purchasing and Budgets Programs with budgeted resources, while
simultaneously removing budgeted resources from existing Finance Programs, in
order to create a net-zero effect.
July, 2017
The Budget Manager will ensure the Programs were properly established in the
Questica budgeting system.July, 2017
Packet Pg 468
2
Fiscal
Year
Expense
Type Fund Account FTEs Ongoing Offsets Net Cost
2018 Operating 100 7279 8,000 8,000
2018 Operating 100 7459 -8,000 -8,000
2019 Operating 100 7279 8,000 8,000
2019 Operating 100 7459 -8,000 -8,000
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Human Resources
Title: Human Resources - Day of Welcome
Function Program
35 - Fiscal Health & Governance 30100 - HUMAN RESOURCES
SUMMARY OF CHANGE
Ongoing funding for the City of San Luis Obispo’s Day of Welcome and welcome guides portion of the City’s
on-boarding program.
FISCAL IMPACT
Operating Expense: One-time costs of $0 in 2018 and ongoing costs of $0.
The total estimated cost of Day of Welcome will be paid for within the Human Resource Administration existing budget, having
a net zero cost.
One-Time
Existing Situation: Factors Driving the Need for Change
Sub-Total: 2018
Sub-Total: 2019
Total
SERVICE LEVEL IMPACT
While on-boarding is not the only driver of employee success, an effective on-boarding process directly contributes to
the overall success of new employees and enhances the performance of the City as an organization. One-time funds
were authorized in 2016-17 to support recruitment and retention activities. An employee team who participated in the
City’s Leadership Lab developed the framework for more effective on-boarding, including a Day of Welcome (DOW)
and welcome guides launched in August 2016. To date, 41 participants have attended with great positive feedback on
the program. Without funding we would be forced to discontinue this program.
Paying for DOW within our current HR budget results in $8,000 that was set aside for various citywide trainings that
will not be able to be funded going forward. The amount remaining for various training will go from a previously
budgeted amount of $10,400 to $2,400.
BACKGROUND & SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
The direct and indirect costs of employee turnover has a major impact on the financial performance, effectiveness,
and efficiency of an organization and may impede its ability to carry out its mission. Engaged employees directly
contribute to the success of the City. By successfully on-boarding an employee, they can contribute sooner and will
stay longer.
Packet Pg 469
2
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE
Department Name: Human Resources
Title: Human Resources - Day of Welcome
1.
2.
PROJECT TEAM
Key Objectives: Making the Change Happen
Effectively on board employees.
Ensure alignment with the Vision and Mission of the organization as well as the organizational values.
Ensure employees are quickly able to effectively and efficiently carry out their roles and responsibilities.
Goal & Policy Criteria
Not applicable.
Major City Goal or Other Important Objective Addressed
Not Applicable.
STAKEHOLDERS
All employees and community members.
PROGRAM MANAGER
Monica Irons
Coordinate facilities, speakers, participants, transportation, food.
Monthly January to June and
August to October, 2017-18 &
2018-19
ALTERNATIVES
1. Reduce Frequency of Day of Welcome and scale back costs proportionally based on fewer attendees.
2. Do not approve the funding Day of Welcome and maintain our various training budget of $10,400.
Day of Welcome Onboarding Committee
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
TASK DATE
Prepare Day of Welcome materials.January, April, July, October
2017-18 & 2018-19
Packet Pg 470
2
Attachment E
Packet Pg 471
2
ATTACHMENT E:LOCAL REVENUE MEASURE
LOCA REVENUE MEASUREAttached are the proposed 2017-19 Local Revenue Measure operating and capital outlay expenditures; which were developed using community input, the Major City Goals and Other Important Objective established by the City Council, updated revenue projections, and the funding priorities developed from the ballot language.
Operating ExpenditurePercentage
Capital Expenditure Percentage2017-18 33%($2,529,758)67%($5,073,555)
2018-19 34%($2,624,935)66%($5,027,068)
Introduction:
Revenue and Expenditure Forecast Highlights:
•Revenue projections reflect slowed growth that is aligned with trends in other revenue sources for the City and statewide. This forecast of revenues may change over time and updates will be provided to the REOC and Council.•Increase in the operating expenditures from previous years are due to increases in staffing costs primarily driven by CalPERS retirement benefits.•This trend will be monitored and re-evaluated with a focus to maintain consistent investment in Capital Improvement Program.
Previous input from the community and Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission has been to prioritize Local Revenue Measure funds for capital investments. Historically expenditures have been approximately 60% capital and 40% operating. Operating program costs are a necessary part of implementing capital projects. In addition, operating programs deliver essential services that align with Local Revenue Measure priorities. As such, it would not be sustainable to allocate all Local Revenue Measure dollars to capital projects without related operating program support to implement the projects. The balance of capital and operating costs for the 2017-19 Financial Plan are listed below:
Balance of Capital Versus Operating:
Packet Pg 472
2
ATTACHMENT E:LOCAL REVENUE MEASURE
LOCA REVENUE MEASUREExpenditures are broken into the following categories developed from the Measure G (Local Revenue Measure) ballot language:
•Open Space Preservation, •Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements, •Traffic Congestion Relief/Safety Improvements, •Public Safety, •Neighborhood Street Paving, •Code Enforcement, •Flood Protection, •Parks and Recreation/Senior Programs and Facilities, and •Other Vital Services and Capital Projects.
Local Revenue Measure operating and capital outlay expenditures total $7.6 million in 2017/18 and $7.7 million in 2018/19. A detailed list of the projects and services funded through the Local Revenue Measure is attached. Specific projects include the Bob Jones Trail connection from Prefumo Creek to Oceanaire, traffic signal and striping maintenance, street and sidewalk maintenance services, public safety vehicle replacements, emergency dispatch center building maintenance, bride maintenance, silt removal, park playground equipment replacement and parks and landscape maintenance services.
Local Revenue Measure Uses:
2017-18 2018-19 2017-18 2018-19 Open Space Preservation $ 144,685 $ 152,068 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements $ 189,099 $ 201,675 $ 415,000 $ 456,000 Traffic Congestion Relief / Safety Improvements $ 111,001 $ 112,138 $ 135,000 $ 155,000 Public Safety $ 892,388 $ 936,077 $ 965,455 $ 792,868 Neighborhood Street Paving $ 214,594 $ 217,194 $ 2,165,500 $ 1,833,250 Code Enforcement $ 252,729 $ 269,025 $ 30,000 Flood Protection $ 641,742 $ 652,195 $ 246,000 $ 737,800 Parks & Recreation/Senior Programs and Facilities $ 83,520 $ 84,563 $ 733,100 $ 862,150 Other Vital Services and Capital Projects $ 253,500 Total $ 2,529,758 $ 2,624,935 $ 5,073,555 $ 5,027,068
2017-19 FINANCIAL PLAN - LOCAL REVENUE MEASUREPROPOSED OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET
Category Operating Programs Capital Improvement Plan
Packet Pg 473
2
2017-18 Proposed Budget 2018-19 Proposed Budget
2017-18 Proposed Budget
2018-2019 Proposed Budget
1 Ongoing Open Space Maintenance 60,000 60,000 120,000 C
Funding for the ongoing maintenance of Open Space protects natural resources. Efforts include enhancement to existing trailheads, maintenance and construction of trails and open space facilities for passive recreation purposes, removal of illicit materials, land restoration and stewardship projects, erosion control and stabilization, and education.
2 Open Space Acquisition 100,000 100,000 200,000 C
Funding to pursue and purchase land and conservation easement to enhance the Greenbelt surrounding the City. The Greenbelt protects watershed values, habitat connectivity and provides passive recreation opportunities.3 Open Space Wildfire Fuel Reduction 5,000 5,000 10,000 C Funding to implement Open Space fire prevention efforts.4 Ranger Services (Ranger Staffing; FTE = 2) 139,685 147,068 286,753 C Funding to provide two Ranger Maintenance Workers.Subtotal 144,685 152,068 160,000 160,000 616,753
5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Pathway Maintenance 60,000 60,000 120,000 C,T
This funding is used to maintain the pathway surface, replacing damaged portions of the surfacing and placing a slurry topping to extend the service service life. There are approx. 6.5 miles of asphalt concrete pathways and bike paths within the City. Examples of these paths are the Railroad Safety Trail, the Bob Jones Trail and various pathways located within City Parks.
6 Bicycle Facility Improvements 100,000 100,000 200,000 C,T
This funding allows the City to complete small-scale bicycle facility improvements in a cost efficient manner by incorporating them into larger projects such as the City's annual pavement maintenance project. These funds typical focus on safety improvements that normally would not be completed.
7 Sidewalk Replacement and Installation 25,000 50,000 75,000 C,T
This funding provides for replacement of damaged sidewalk and installation of a limited amout of new sidewalk. This program continues the City's commitment to provide a complete and assessable pedestrian path of travel. Replacing defective sidewalk improves accessiablity and reduces risk to users and the City.
8 Bob Jones Trail - Prefumo Creek Connection to Oceanaire - 216,000 216,000 T
This project will construct the Bob Jones Trail from Calle Joaquin to Oceanaire Ave. past the Target shopping center in the second year of the financial plan. This funding is used to augment grant funding to complete the installation.
FY 2017-19 LOCAL REVENUE MEASURE EXPENDITURES
The following uses of local sales tax revenue are consistent with Council goals and objectives, the spending priorities of voter-approved Local Revenue Measure G, and the recommendations of the Citizens' RevenueEnhancement Oversight Commission (REOC).
Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
Description # MCGOIOOpen Space Preservation
Operating Programs CIP
2-yr Total Funding Project Title
Major City Goal (MCG) = Housing (H); Multi-Modal Transportation (T); Climate Action (C); Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility (F)Other Important Objective (OIO) = Downtown Vitality (D)Packet Pg 474
2
2017-18 Proposed Budget 2018-19 Proposed Budget
2017-18 Proposed Budget
2018-2019 Proposed Budget
FY 2017-19 LOCAL REVENUE MEASURE EXPENDITURES
The following uses of local sales tax revenue are consistent with Council goals and objectives, the spending priorities of voter-approved Local Revenue Measure G, and the recommendations of the Citizens' RevenueEnhancement Oversight Commission (REOC).
Description # MCGOIO
Operating Programs CIP
2-yr Total Funding Project Title
9 Railroad Safety Trail - Pepper Street to Train Station - 30,000 30,000 C,T
This project will complete a gap in the Railroad Safety Trail from Pepper Street to the Train Station. This funding will support the design phase with antipcated construction work being completed in 2019-20.
10 Active Transportation Plan 40,000 - 40,000 C,T
This project will update and expand the Bicycle Transportation Plan scope to include pedestrians, creating and Active Transportation Plan that address both Bicycle and Pedestrian transportation.
11 Downtown Renewal 190,000 - 190,000 C,D,T
This work continues to improve the aesthetic and the safety of the Downtown core. With each project, the addition of pedestrian lighting and conduits to support tree lighting and other Downtown Association activities is incorporated. The specific location of this work is planned for 858 Higuera Street and that design has been completed. Funding will support construction activities.
12 Transportation Planning and Engineering (Engineers, Bike Coordinator; FTE = 1.6) 189,099 201,675 390,774 C,D,T Engineer and Bicycle Coordinator positions. Subtotal 189,099 201,675 415,000 456,000 871,000
13 Traffic Safety Improvements 60,000 - 60,000 T
This funding support will implement one of the projects identified in the 2015 Traffic Safety Report: Speed Feedback Signs. Future projects will include the Marsh & Broad Traffic Signal and Laurel Lane Road Diet $180,000. These projects are anticpated to decrease vehicular collisions, increase pedestrian safety, and reduce vehicle speeds.
14 Transportation Safety & Operations 30,000 30,000 60,000 T
This funding is used to analyzes vehicular collision, multimodal travel patterns, rank and prioritizes locations, development and construction of mitigation measures to improve safety. Additionally, bi-annual traffic volume counts are completed citywide to identify and monitor levels-of service on streets resulting from travel pattern shifts.
15 Traffic Signals & Striping Maintenance 25,000 25,000 50,000 T This funding is used to replace traffic signs and roadway striping in order to increase visibility and increase safety in compliance with Federal requirements.
16 City Facility Parking Lot Maintenance 20,000 100,000 120,000
The City maintains approxiamately 8.3 acres of parking lots of which 50% of the parking surface is considered to be in good condition. In order to increase the percent of lot surfaces in good condition, regular maintenance needs to be completed. This funding will be used to make repairs in the Police Department parking lot.
17 Signal and Light Maintenance (Technician; FTE = 1) 111,001 112,138 223,138 T Signal Technician position.
Subtotal 111,001 112,138 135,000 155,000 453,138
Traffic Congestion Relief / Safety Improvements
Major City Goal (MCG) = Housing (H); Multi-Modal Transportation (T); Climate Action (C); Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility (F)Other Important Objective (OIO) = Downtown Vitality (D)Packet Pg 475
2
2017-18 Proposed Budget 2018-19 Proposed Budget
2017-18 Proposed Budget
2018-2019 Proposed Budget
FY 2017-19 LOCAL REVENUE MEASURE EXPENDITURES
The following uses of local sales tax revenue are consistent with Council goals and objectives, the spending priorities of voter-approved Local Revenue Measure G, and the recommendations of the Citizens' RevenueEnhancement Oversight Commission (REOC).
Description # MCGOIO
Operating Programs CIP
2-yr Total Funding Project Title
18 Police Patrol Vehicles 102,000 153,000 255,000 Funding to replace five police patrol vehicles. 19 Police Motorcycle 34,000 34,000 Funding for one police motorcycle.
20 Fire Emergency Response Vehicle - 135,000 135,000
Funding to replace the Fire Emergency Response Vehicle will result in replacing Fire Engine 3 per the City’s fleet replacement policy. This apparatus is a front-line vehicle assigned to our southernmost fire station and provides 24/7 fire, rescue and emergency medical services.
21 Fire Training Service Vehicle 58,000 - 58,000
Funding to replace the Fire Training Services Vehicle will result in replacing a pickup truck per the City’s fleet replacement policy. This vehicle is assigned to Fire Station 2 and serves multiple purposes, including the deployment of special rescue equipment, which does not fit on the fire engine, for open space rescues.
22 Emergency Dispatch Center Building Maintenance 27,000 145,000 172,000
Funding to replace HVAC system at the Emergency Dispatch Center Computer Room including the cooling for the data center. The unit has experienced several catastrophic failures and has cost $50,000 in repairs in the past 6 years.
23 Emergency Dispatch Center Technology and Equipment Replacement 82,023 82,023
Replacement of battery backup system which is vital to provide maximum power capacity so that City systems such as servers, data and storage networks don’t experience data loss or corruption. Also includes computers and equipment replacement that provide computing environments that are critical to the day-to-day operations of our Public Safety Dispatch Center. These computers and equipment are kept “always on” so in case of a failure or an emergency,. This ‘always on’ state shortens the working life of the equipment.
24 Police Station Building Maintenace 35,000 20,000 55,000 Funding to replace roof on evidence storage building, install cooling system for IT equipment and lobby improvements at the Police Department.
25 Fire Stations Building Maintenance 126,700 57,300 184,000
Funding to perform various maintenance activities at the City's fire stations included sewer lateral replacement, HVAC system replacement, exterior painting and pest control.
Public Safety
Major City Goal (MCG) = Housing (H); Multi-Modal Transportation (T); Climate Action (C); Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility (F)Other Important Objective (OIO) = Downtown Vitality (D)Packet Pg 476
2
2017-18 Proposed Budget 2018-19 Proposed Budget
2017-18 Proposed Budget
2018-2019 Proposed Budget
FY 2017-19 LOCAL REVENUE MEASURE EXPENDITURES
The following uses of local sales tax revenue are consistent with Council goals and objectives, the spending priorities of voter-approved Local Revenue Measure G, and the recommendations of the Citizens' RevenueEnhancement Oversight Commission (REOC).
Description # MCGOIO
Operating Programs CIP
2-yr Total Funding Project Title
26 South Hills Radio Site Upgrade 254,255 254,255
Radio signal strength used by public safety staff has greatly degraded due to new building construction and tree growth. This project includes: a new 100’ radio tower that will replace the existing undersized street light poles at South Hills, a new correctly sized emergency generator and a concrete radio shelter to replace the existing fiberglass shelter built in 1980. Total project cost is $437,837 with the balance coming from the General Fund.
27 Police Digital Storage Equipment Replacement 80,000 - 80,000
The Police Storage Area Network consists of a primary and backup controller. These controllers store all police documents, files and images. It is critical that Police maintain a totally separate file storage system to comply with Department of Justice requirements. The controllers were last replaced in 2012 and are at end of life.
28 Police Handheld and Vehicle Radio Replacement 180,000 180,000
All City radio end user equipment (public safety and non-public safety) are reaching end-of-support and/or end-of-life. The public safety portion of the equipment is heavily used and requires a high degree of reliability. This funding will cover the replacement of 80 Police handheld radios.
29 Facility Security Cameras 26,500 26,500 D
This project will replace the public safety video systems including cameras, camera housings, mounts, servers, storage and a control system located at the Golf Course, City Hall, and the City Pool facility.
30 Fire and Police Radio System Upgrade 108,045 108,045
This project replaces the radio systme used by Police and Fire which is nearing end of life. The upgrade will eliminate points of failure in the system, which significantly reduces the impact of a site loss while improving radio coverage for the City’s Police and Fire personnel. Total cost $508,045 with the balance coming from the General Fund.
31 Fire Station 4 Emergency Backup Generator 7,000 72,500 79,500 The project replaces an existing 38 year old emergency back-up generator at Fire Station 4 and constructs a soundproof concrete block wall enclosure.
32 Street Lighting 20,000 20,000 40,000 C,T
Currently the City does not have a program to respond to requests for new street lighting. This funding is proposed to support requests for new street lighting to fill this need.
33 Police Station Replacement Study 15,000 15,000
Funding to develop a concept plan, implementation plan, and cost estimate for new Police Department Buidling. The existing building was built in 1969, modified over time, and does not meet current operation needs.
34 PuslePoint CPR Software 8,000 8,000 16,000 F Funding supports an app that allows community members to act as first responders.35 Patrol Services (Officers, Sergeant; FTE = 4) 884,388 928,077 1,812,465 Funding support three Patrol Officers and one Police Sergeant.Subtotal 892,388 936,077 965,455 792,868 1,582,337
Major City Goal (MCG) = Housing (H); Multi-Modal Transportation (T); Climate Action (C); Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility (F)Other Important Objective (OIO) = Downtown Vitality (D)Packet Pg 477
2
2017-18 Proposed Budget 2018-19 Proposed Budget
2017-18 Proposed Budget
2018-2019 Proposed Budget
FY 2017-19 LOCAL REVENUE MEASURE EXPENDITURES
The following uses of local sales tax revenue are consistent with Council goals and objectives, the spending priorities of voter-approved Local Revenue Measure G, and the recommendations of the Citizens' RevenueEnhancement Oversight Commission (REOC).
Description # MCGOIO
Operating Programs CIP
2-yr Total Funding Project Title
36 Street Reconstruction and Resurfacing 1,685,000 1,454,000 3,139,000 C,T
Funding for pavement maintenance is used to increase roadway life, smoothness, and usability. Maintaining pavement on a regular basis results in decreased risks to the community and lower pavement maintenance costs in the future. Over the two year period this funding is planned to be used for roadway maintenance on Los Osos Valley Road, Madonna Road, Broad Street and Areas 2 and 3 of the Pavement Management Plan.
37 Streets Maintenance Dump Truck and Street Sweeper Unit 130,000 130,000 260,000 Funding for equipment used to haul asphalt concrete from asphalt batch plant to job site and equipment used to clean up work site.
38 Streets Maintenance Crack Sealant Machine 53,000 53,000
Funding for equipment used to seal pavement gaps and cracks. Filling cracks in pavement stops water from getting into the road section which causes pavement failure.
39 Streets Maintenance Loader with Skip & Drag Attachment 133,000 133,000 Funding for equipment used to remove portions of existing streets that require repair and repaving.40 Streets Maintenance Slide in Patcher 205,000 205,000 Funding for equipment that is used to place the asphalt concrete.
41 Streets Maintenace Medium Duty Truck 120,000 120,000 Funding for replacement heavy duty truck and trailer used daily for traffic control device transportation and weekly for Farmers Market traffic control.
42 Electric Forklift 35,000 35,000 Funding for equipment used to move heavy materials at the Corporation Yard.
43 Streets Maintenance Portable Message Board 20,000 20,000 Funding for replacement traffic control device used to detour vehicles away from roadway work zone.
44 Corporation Yard Building Maintenance 9,500 24,250 33,750
Funding for Corporation Yard fuel island maintenance and replacement of roll up doors. Protecting the fuel islands and the wash bay from the elements is a requirement of the City’s Hazardous Materials Business Plan and Stormwater Management Plan. The metal siding of the fuel island at the Corporation Yard has suffered from severe long-term corrosion.45 CIP Project Engineering (Inspector; FTE = 1) 113,899 115,325 229,224 Funding supports a Field Engineering Inspector position.
46 Streets and Sidewalk Maintenance (Maintenance Worker; FTE = 1) 100,695 101,869 202,564 Funding supports a Streets Maintenance Worker position. Subtotal 214,594 217,194 2,165,500 1,833,250 826,000
Neighborhood Street Paving
Major City Goal (MCG) = Housing (H); Multi-Modal Transportation (T); Climate Action (C); Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility (F)Other Important Objective (OIO) = Downtown Vitality (D)Packet Pg 478
2
2017-18 Proposed Budget 2018-19 Proposed Budget
2017-18 Proposed Budget
2018-2019 Proposed Budget
FY 2017-19 LOCAL REVENUE MEASURE EXPENDITURES
The following uses of local sales tax revenue are consistent with Council goals and objectives, the spending priorities of voter-approved Local Revenue Measure G, and the recommendations of the Citizens' RevenueEnhancement Oversight Commission (REOC).
Description # MCGOIO
Operating Programs CIP
2-yr Total Funding Project Title
47 Mission Plaza Railing Upgrade 30,000 30,000 D
Funding is used to replace or reconstruct existing railings in the Mission Plaza to meet current ADA and Building Codes as well as increase safety for the community. Currently, the vertical railing pickets of the railing are spaced too widely and would not prevent a small child from going through the guard railing or getting stuck between the pickets.
48 Building and Safety (Code Enforcement Officer, Neighborhood Services Specialists; FTE = 3) 252,729 269,025 521,754 H Funding supports a Building Code Enforcement Officer and two Neighborhood Services Specialists.Subtotal 252,729 269,025 30,000 30,000
49 Storm Drain System Replacement 171,000 537,800 708,800 C
This funding is used to replace and improve the City's storm drain system including pipes, culvert and drainage inlets. Maintenance of the City's storm drain system provides for increased flood protection and reduces the likelihood of property loss. Without periodic maintenance repair, these structures will eventually fail and result in unplanned street closures and impacts to the City's drainage system.
50 Bridge Maintenance - 50,000 50,000 T
This funding is used to complete minor bridge maintenance tasks that include deck surfacing and replacement of broken concrete which will extend the bridge's service life. The City of San Luis Obispo has 38 vehicular bridges and 11 pedestrian bridges ranging in age from one to 100+ years old.
51 Silt Removal 75,000 150,000 225,000 C
This funding is used to permit silt removal projects through regulatory agencies and complete removal of the silt. Slit carried by storm water settles at points in the creek where the storm water's velocity decreases. This reduction in velocity allows solids suspended in the water to settle out. As these deposits build up, the capacity of the creek decreases and risk of flooding of the surrounding area increase.
52 Creek and Flood Protection (Collection Operators, Stormwater Management Plan; FTE = 6) 641,742 652,195 1,293,937 C Funding supports a Stormwater Code Enforcement Officer, Stormwater Collection Operators and implementation of the Stormwater Management Plan.Subtotal 641,742 652,195 246,000 737,800 275,000
Code Enforcement
Flood Protection
Major City Goal (MCG) = Housing (H); Multi-Modal Transportation (T); Climate Action (C); Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility (F)Other Important Objective (OIO) = Downtown Vitality (D)Packet Pg 479
2
2017-18 Proposed Budget 2018-19 Proposed Budget
2017-18 Proposed Budget
2018-2019 Proposed Budget
FY 2017-19 LOCAL REVENUE MEASURE EXPENDITURES
The following uses of local sales tax revenue are consistent with Council goals and objectives, the spending priorities of voter-approved Local Revenue Measure G, and the recommendations of the Citizens' RevenueEnhancement Oversight Commission (REOC).
Description # MCGOIO
Operating Programs CIP
2-yr Total Funding Project Title
53 Parks Maintenance Pickup Truck 35,000 35,000 Funding for equipment used to transport maintenance staff, tools, equipment and supplies between the Corporation Yard and parks.
54 Parks Maintenance Tractor 42,000 42,000 Funding for equipment used to maintain park system. The tractor is used maintain play turf areas.
55 Parks Maintenance Utility Cart 26,000 26,000
Funding to replace the utility cart used at Damon Garcia Sports Fields. This equipment is used daily and is critical to the maintenance function of the Damon Garcia Sports Fields.
56 Parks Maintenance Equipment Replacement 41,000 41,000 Funding for equipment replacement used to maintain play turf and to refurbish the portable movable restrooms used for Farmer's Market. 57 Golf Course Mower 33,000 33,000 Funding for mower at Laguna Lake Golf Course.
58 Golf Course Utility Carts 56,000 56,000 Funding for two utility carts used for moving equipment, materials and supplies at the Laguna Lake Golf Course.
59 Swim Center Building Maintenance and Equipment Replacement 18,500 27,000 45,500
Funding to replace Swim Center filter controls, Swim Center bath house roof, and to re-plaster the therapy pool. The Swim Center filter backwash controls are old rotary valves and are failing. The project will replace them with a modern valve system to keep the filters in the clean and sanitary conditions called for by the County Health Department. The bath house roof is past the expected service life and and in need of replacement. The warm water therapy pool at the Swim Center requires re-plaster due to the year-round high heat level, the chemicals needed to keep warm water, and the user direct and extended contact which contributes to a degrading of the plaster in an accelerated manner.
60 Swim Center Co-Generation Plant - 85,000 85,000 Funding for design services to replace the co-generation plant at the Swim Center which burns natural gas to heat the pool water.
61 Ludwick Center Gym Lights 15,500 - 15,500
Funding for to purchase lighting for the Ludwick Center Gym. The lighting will be L.E.D. retro-fit lighting fixtures for the gym that City staff will install. The new lighting will improve lighting quality, lower electrical use, minimize maintenance needs and costs.
62 Ludwick Center and Jack House Shell Assessment - 57,500 57,500
Funding to assess exterior shell of the Jack House and Ludwick Center. The Ludwick Center is a key recreation site and the Jack House is historically significant and are in need of professional assessment for needed repairs. In both cases, siding has begun to deteriorate and some structural issues are beginning to appear.
63 Jack House Building Maintenance - 16,500 16,500 Funding to complete the design and permitting for roof, window, and walk railing replacement at the Jack House. Construction is estaimted to occur in 2019-20.
Parks and Recreation/Senior Programs and Facilities
Major City Goal (MCG) = Housing (H); Multi-Modal Transportation (T); Climate Action (C); Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility (F)Other Important Objective (OIO) = Downtown Vitality (D)Packet Pg 480
2
2017-18 Proposed Budget 2018-19 Proposed Budget
2017-18 Proposed Budget
2018-2019 Proposed Budget
FY 2017-19 LOCAL REVENUE MEASURE EXPENDITURES
The following uses of local sales tax revenue are consistent with Council goals and objectives, the spending priorities of voter-approved Local Revenue Measure G, and the recommendations of the Citizens' RevenueEnhancement Oversight Commission (REOC).
Description # MCGOIO
Operating Programs CIP
2-yr Total Funding Project Title
64 Parks and Recreation Building Maintenance 7,200 43,200 50,400
Funding for the design and replacement of the HVAC system at the Parks and Recreation Administration building. The City averages approciately 700 hours of labor to repair aged HVAC systems that are in service past useful life. This request will replace ageing equipment in a proactive lifecycle costing process.
65 Park Playground Equipment Replacement - 80,000 80,000
Replacing playground equipment in the City's parks limits the City's liability exposure and keeps the City in compliance with State regulations. This funding would support project design services for equipment replacement at Islay Hill Park (Tank Farm Road at Spanish Oaks).
66 Park Major Maintenance and Repairs 155,000 275,000 430,000 C,T
Parks require ongoing maintenance in order to continue to provide users a safe and quality experience. This funding will address bridge replacements at Meadow Park, reconstruct hardscape at Sinsheimer Court and replacement the irrigation system at Sinsheimer Park.
67 City/County Library Remodel, Major Maintenance and ADA Compliance 408,900 22,950 431,850
The City/County Library is a joint project between the City and County. A major remodel project was recently intiated which included the replacement of the elevator, flooring, and roof as well as other various maintenance and accesibility projects.
68 Mission Plaza Restroom and Enhancements 25,000 125,000 150,000 D
This project will replace the Mission Plaza restroom with a new restroom, cafe, and equipment storage room implementing a portion of the Mission Plaza Concept Plan. The identified funding will further scope the design and complete the environmental review. Construction funds will be requested in a the 2019-21 Financial Plan.
69 Parks and Landscape Maintenance (Maintenance Worker; FTE = 1) 83,520 84,563 168,083 Funding for a Parks Maintenance Worker position.Subtotal 83,520 84,563 733,100 862,150 503,400
Other Vital Services and Capital Projects
70 City Hall Building Maintenace 229,500 229,500
This funding will replace the City Hall chiller and lock systems. Both items are failing, discontinued by the manufacturer, and replacement parts are not available. The chiller provides cooling to one of the City's data centers located at City Hall.
71 Multi-Site Energy Management Software 24,000 24,000 C,F
This funding will replace Energy Management System software with a modern application that integrates with the City's computer network allowing for more efficient tracking energy use and improved conservation efforts.Subtotal 253,500 253,500 2,529,758 2,624,935 5,073,555 5,027,068 15,262,316 Total Local Revenue Measure Uses
Major City Goal (MCG) = Housing (H); Multi-Modal Transportation (T); Climate Action (C); Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility (F)Other Important Objective (OIO) = Downtown Vitality (D)Packet Pg 481
2
Packet Pg 482
2
Meeting Date: 4/18/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Diane Dostalek, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 3057
(3080 ROCKVIEW PLACE, TR 202-13)
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution (Attachment D) accepting the public improvements, certifying completion of
the required private subdivision improvements, and authorizing release of securities for Tract 3057
at 3080 Rockview Place.
DISCUSSION
Background
Tract 3057 (TR 202-13) is located at 3080 Rockview Place (Attachment A). A vesting tentative
map for Tract 3057 was approved by the City Council on November 18, 2014, by Resolution
No. 10580 (2014 Series). The final map for Tract 3057 (Attachment B) was approved on
October 20, 2015, by Resolution No. 10671 (2015 Series) (Attachment C). Tract 3057 is a
nine-lot residential common interest subdivision, commonly known as Nine on Rockview.
Subdivision Improvements
The public improvements for Tract 3057 consist of new curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the
Rockview frontage and new water services. The remainder of the subdivision improvements,
including on-site drive aisles, sewer main, sewer laterals, and drainage improvements are
privately-maintained by the property owners as outlined in the CC&R’s recorded with the final
map.
Accepting the Public Improvements and Certifying Completion of Private Improvements
The subdivider has requested final acceptance of the Tract 3057 subdivision improvements by
the City and release of the underlying securities for such improvements. The Subdivision
Agreement authorizes release of the Faithful Performance and Labor & Materials securities upon
Council’s acceptance of the subdivision improvements and receipt of a guarantee of ten percent
of the cost of the subdivision improvements. The ten-percent guarantee is to insure that the
subdivider will remedy any defects in the improvements arising from faulty workmanship or
materials or defective construction of said improvements for a period of one year.
A draft resolution Accepting and Certifying Completion of the Subdivision Improvements is
attached (Attachment D). This resolution authorizes the Public Works Director to release the
faithful performance securities, and to release the warranty securities upon satisfactory
completion of the one-year warranty period.
CONCURRENCES
The Public Works Department and Utilities Department concur with the recommended action.
Packet Pg 483
5
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The necessary findings and environmental review requirements related to the development of
Tract 3057 were made with the tentative map approval. Therefore, no further environmental
review is required.
FISCAL IMPACT
The public improvements for Tract 3057 will result in a minimal increase in maintenance costs for
the curb, gutter, sidewalk, and water services.
ALTERNATIVES
Do not accept the public improvements or certify completion of the private improvements for
Tract 3057. If some of the required subdivision improvements for Tract 3057 have not been
completed, then Council can continue this item until such time as the improvements have been
completed to the satisfaction of the City. Staff does not recommend this alternative because the
subdivision improvements for Tract 3057 have been completed in accordance with the approved
plans and specifications.
Attachments:
a - Vicinity Map
b - Recorded Final Map
c - Resolution No. 10671 (2015 Series) Approving Final Map
d - Draft Resolution Accepting Subdivision Improvements
Packet Pg 484
5
R-2-S
R-2-S
C/OS-40
R-2-S
C-S-PD
R-2-S
C-S-S
C-S-S
C-S-PD
R-3-PD
R-2-PD
C-S-S
C-S
C-S
R-2-S
C-C-S
R-2-PD
R-1-PD
R-1-PD
R-1-PD
B
R
O
A
D
R
O
C
K
V
I
E
W
PERKIN S
SWEEN E Y
ORCUTT
VICINITY MAP File No. 202-133080Rockview ¯Packet Pg 485
5
Packet Pg 4865
Packet Pg 4875
Packet Pg 4885
Packet Pg 4895
Packet Pg 4905
Packet Pg 491
5
Packet Pg 492
5
R _____
RESOLUTION NO. (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS,
CERTIFYING COMPLETION OF THE PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS,
AND AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF THE SECURITIES FOR TRACT 3057
(3080 ROCKVIEW PLACE, TR 202-13)
WHEREAS, the City Council made certain findings concerning Tract 3057, as prescribed
in Resolution No. 10580 (2014 Series); and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the final map for Tract 3057 per Resolution No. 10671
(2015 Series); and
WHEREAS, the subdivider has satisfactorily completed the public improvements for
Tract 3057, in accordance with City standards and specifications and has requested acceptance of
the public improvements for maintenance and operation by the City; and
WHEREAS, the subdivider has satisfactorily completed the private improvements for
Tract 3057, in accordance with City standards, specifications and the approved plans, and has
requested that the City certify completion of these private improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by this
reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby accepts the public improvements for Tract 3057.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby certifies completion of the private improvements
for Tract 3057.
SECTION 4. The Public Works Director is authorized to release the securities once the
requirements for release are met.
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby authorizes the Public Works Director to take action
necessary to carry out the intent of this Resolution.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by ________________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Packet Pg 493
5
Resolution No. (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
The foregoing resolution was adopted this ______ day of _______________ 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 494
5
Meeting Date: 4/18/2017
FROM: Daryl R. Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Brian Nelson, Engineer II
SUBJECT: MADONNA – LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD (LOVR) REHABILITATION
PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO. 91511
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve plans and specifications for the Madonna – Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR)
Rehabilitation Project, Specification Number. 91511; and
2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids; and
3. Authorize the City Manager to award the construction contract including the Base Bid and
any Additive Alternatives if the lowest responsible bid is within the Publicly Disclosed
Funding Amount of $3,500,000.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City’s Pavement Maintenance Plan (Pavement Plan) was adopted by the City Council on
April 14, 1998. The Pavement Plan was subsequently updated in 2009 to provide additional
emphasis on arterial street maintenance. The key element of the Pavement Plan is the
establishment of a rotating and methodical approach to ensuring all areas of the City receive
regular preventative or corrective maintenance. Most recent practice is to perform maintenance
in two neighborhood Pavement Areas one year, then focus on critical arterial street work the
following year, alternating between neighborhood areas and arterials each year. The last arterial
streets to undergo pavement maintenance were Johnson Street and Osos Street in 2015. In
summer 2016, neighborhood Pavement Areas 1 and 8 were completed. Over the last several
pavement projects, cost savings have resulted from project bid prices that were lower than the
engineer’s estimate and project budget. These costs savings have been accrued with the
intention of applying those funds to the next arterial street maintenance and rehabilitation
project.
It should be noted that prior practice was to perform sealing in one of the eight neighborhood
pavement areas each year. This approach enabled the city to stay on schedule for neighborhood
streets, however, the more expensive and heavily used arterials were completed only as the city
obtained grants or other sources of funding. The approach described above, alternating between
neighborhood streets and arterials, enables the city to maintain both on a regular basis. One
challenge is that the cost of the maintaining the arterial corridors exceeds the annual funding for
street maintenance. Therefore, as described below, several creative funding sources are utilized
to maintain the LOVR/Madonna corridors.
The Madonna – LOVR Rehabilitation Project plans to use several different maintenance and
rehabilitation techniques to extend the life of the roadway. Most of the project area will use a
microsurfacing maintenance treatment to seal the pavement. Microsurfacing is a cost -effective
treatment that extends pavement life up to 8 years. A portion of Madonna Road from Oceanaire
Packet Pg 495
6
to LOVR is structurally deficient and is planned to be reconstructed by a technique called Full
Depth Reclamation (FDR). Full Depth Reclamation recycles existing pavement by grinding it up
and incorporating it into the existing base soil. This process increases the base soil’s strength and
will correct the structural deficiency. A benefit of Full Depth Reclamation is that it produces
significant cost savings and environmental benefits over the traditional method of removing and
replacing the paving. These cost savings are primarily due to reduced material transportation and
trucking needs. Less material is required to be both imported and exported from the project area.
This project includes microsurfacing, repairing failed pavement sections, FDR, replacement of
failed sections of curb and gutter, installation of three new ADA curb ramps and substantial
roadway striping changes to improvement safety for roadway bicycle transportation. Bicycle
transportation improvements include the installation of green bike lanes, installation of buffered
bike lanes as well as the narrowing of vehicle travel lanes that encourage slower vehicle speeds.
Completion of the Madonna – LOVR Rehabilitation Project will enable the City to make
progress towards the Council’s established goal to maintain at least 70% of streets in good
condition and have no less than 7% of the City’s streets in bad condition. This project also helps
implement multimodal improvements, a Major City Goal, due to bicycle improvements.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to section 15301 of the
CEQA Guidelines (Existing Facilities) since it is a maintenance and replacement project. A
Notice of Exemption has been filed through the Community Development Department.
FISCAL IMPACT
The project is structured with a Base Bid and two Additive Alternatives to maximize the scope of
the rehabilitation project within the available funding. The strategy is to award the contract with
the Base Bid and as many of the Additive Alternatives as funding will allow, up to the Publicly
Disclosed Funding amount of $3,500,000 in compliance with Public Contract Code Section
20103.8C. The Base Bid portion includes Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna Road from Los
Osos Valley Road to just past Oceanaire Drive. The additive alternatives include additional
microsurfacing and pavement repairs along Madonna Road to the HWY 101 South On/Off
Ramps.
There is currently a balance of $1,756,758 in the Street Reconstruction and Resurfacing Master
Account (Specification Number 90346). Additional funding of $1,685,000 is proposed in the
2017-19 Financial Plan Capital Request to augment the Master Account and provide adequate
funding for the annual pavement project. If the budget is approved as proposed, the additional
funding will be available July 1, 2017, bringing the funding available balance in the Street
Reconstruction and Resurfacing Master Account to $3,441,758.
Additional funding to help complete this work is planned to be obtained from the Los Osos
Valley Road Interchange Project. This project is largely complete with some required
landscaping and creek mitigation work pending. Within the project budget is $689,800 that may
Packet Pg 496
6
be used to restore Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna Road. During the Los Osos Valley Road
Project increased vehicle travelled on both roadways during construction thereby decreasing
roadway life. The Los Osos Interchange Bond Funding will be used to mitigate impacts on
LOVR from the LOVR interchange project
Other sources of funding include Bicycle Facility Improvements Account ($151,892), Water
Distribution System Improvements Master Account ($2,087,210), and the Collections System
Improvement Master Account ($1,307,716), and Sidewalk Ramp Construction ($45,000). These
funding sources support striping improvements for bicycle safety, adjustment of water and sewer
facilities to the new pavement elevations, and installation of three sidewalk ramps on Madonna
Road.
This proposed project will not be awarded until after the start of the new fiscal year, July 1,
2017, when the 2017-19 Financial Plan is adopted by Council and new funding is made
available. If Council has funded the 2017-19 Street Reconstruction & Resurfacing request at the
time of contract award, a Budget Amendment Request will be generated to transfer the funds to
the project account for construction. If the funding has not been approved or if funding is
approved but not sufficient to support this project’s needs, staff will recommend rejection of
bids, re-scoping of project and re-advertisement for bids.
Staff is recommending this project be approved for advertising in advance of final budget
adoption to allow for award of the project, and project completion prior to the start of Cal Poly’s
Fall Quarter, in mid-September 2017. Roadway construction could cause additional traffic
congestion and public inconvenience if done during the school year. This approach worked well
in 2013 when the city completed the maintenance of California Blvd This project is 72% funded
through the one-half percent sales tax measure approved by the City’s residents.
Estimated Project Cost by Funding Sources
Street R& R
Master
Account
(90346)
Distribution
System
Imp. (90227)
Sewer
Collection
System Imp.
(90239)
Bicycle
Facility Impr.
(90572)
Sidewalk
Ramp
Construction
(99868)
LOVR Bond Total
Construction Estimate:$2,312,450 $32,400 $38,000 $82,350 $45,000 $689,800 $3,200,000
Contingencies:$334,725 $3,240 $3,800 $8,235 $0 $0 $350,000
Construction Management $120,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $120,000
Material Testing:$3,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,500
Printing:$500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500
Total for Project
(including additive
alternatives):$2,771,175 $35,640 $41,800 $90,585 $45,000 $689,800 $3,674,000
Current Fund Balance:$1,756,758 $2,087,210 $1,307,716 $151,892 $45,000 $1,764,800
Additional Proposed 2017-
19 Financial Plan Funding
(Available after July 1,
2017):
$1,685,000 $1,940,000 $1,250,000 $100,000 $0 $0
Total funding available
after July 1, 2017 $3,441,758 $4,027,210 $2,557,716 $251,892 $45,000 $1,764,800
Madonna - LOVR Rehabilitation Project (91511)
Packet Pg 497
6
While the construction estimate for the Madonna – LOVR Rehabilitation Project is estimated at
$3,200,000, staff is requesting authorization to award a contract up to $3,500,000 to complete
this work. Staff is expecting a cost savings due to the use of FDR soil stabilization, but the City
has no prior history using this method for street reconstruction and bid prices could vary.
Regardless, FDR soil stabilization is significantly less expensive than traditional street
reconstruction methods using all new materials.
Remaining Street Reconstruction and Resurfacing Master Account funding is planned to be used
to repair concrete streets located at Dana and Nipomo, Palm and Johnson, and Palm and Toro, as
well as numerous pothole repair needs due to recent rain events.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Deny Authorization to Advertise and direct staff to redesign the project within the available
existing budget.
2. Deny authorization to advertise. The City Council may choose not to authorize project
advertisement. This is not recommended since summer is the best time to pave and seal
streets.
Attachments:
a - Pavement Area Map
b - Project Vicinity Map
c - Council Reading File - 91511 Plans
d - Council Reading File - 91511 Specifications
Packet Pg 498
6
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg 499
6
Packet Pg 500
6
Meeting Date: 4/18/2017
FROM: Xenia Bradford, Interim Finance Director
Prepared by: Rico Pardo, Accounting Manager/Controller
SUBJECT: 2015-16 CENTRAL SERVICE COST ALLOCATION PLANS AND COST
OF SERVICES FEE CALCULATION
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve the 2015-16 Central Service Cost Allocation Plans dated March 2017; and
2. Approve the Cost of Services Fee Calculation.
DISCUSSION
Cost Allocation and Reimbursement to the General Fund
Consistent with best practices, the City has prepared a formal Central Service Cost Allocation Plan
(CAP). One of the primary uses of the CAP is to quantify in dollars, the relationship between
administrative and support services contained within the General Fund, also known as central
service cost centers, and the programs they support throughout the City to provide reimbursement
for those services to the General Fund. In other words and as examples, the CAP identifies the costs
to provide service to the City’s enterprise funds (Water, Sewer, Parking and Transit) for activities
such as issuing paychecks to all employees, conducting recruitments or providing legal support to
the city’s which are paid for by the General Fund. The CAP can also be used to determine the
appropriate amount of administrative and support costs that may be charged to an existing or new
grant.
The CAP is prepared using actual operating expenses from one year and the resulting cost
allocations are programmed into the City’s budget two years later. Basing the CAP on actual
amounts allows the City to avoid the need to recalculate and true-up the allocations at a later date,
making it easier for the programs to manage the costs represented by the calculation. In this case,
the CAP is based on 2015-16 actual costs and the cost allocations are reflected in the 2017-18
proposed budget.
Two CAP Documents Required
There are two CAP documents presented. The first is a full cost plan which considers all
administrative and support costs that are allocated across all programs. The second CAP is the 2
Code of Federal Regulations Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and
Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR 200). The 2 CFR 200 supersedes, consolidates,
and streamlines requirements from the Office of Management & Budget Circular A-87. The
purpose of 2 CFR 200 is to streamline Federal government’s guidance on administrative
requirements, costs principles, and audit requirements to more effectively focus Federal resources
on improving performance and outcomes, while ensuring the financial integrity of taxpayer dollars
in partnership with non-Federal stakeholders. The 2 CFR 200 is used to determine which costs can
be allocated to federal grant programs. The 2 CFR 200 is used to allocate costs to the Transit Fund
because it receives grants from the Federal Transit Authority. Under the 2 CFR 200, the costs of the
Packet Pg 501
7
City Council are not allocated to other programs.
The full cost version of the CAP establishes the allocable costs shown in the table below for the
Water, Sewer, Parking and Whale Rock Funds. There are no “Direct Billing Adjustments” to
offset the allocable costs; however, this column is included for presentation purposes only.
“Direct Billing Adjustments” would represent amounts that offset the CAP-generated cost
allocation to the Enterprise Funds as certain costs initially allocated to the Enterprise Funds may
be charged back to the General Fund. The “Actual” column is the net amount that will be
transferred to the General Fund.
2017-18 Reimbursement Transfers (Full CAP)
Fund
Cost Allocation
Based on 2015-16
Actuals
Direct Billing
Adjustments Actual
Water 1,464,023$ -$ 1,464,023$
Sewer 1,668,305 - 1,668,305
Parking 613,715 - 613,715
Whale Rock 138,661 - 138,661
Total 3,884,704$ -$ 3,884,704$
The table below reflects the costs from the 2 CFR 200 that are allocable to the Transit Fund.
2017-18 Reimbursement Transfers (2 CFR 200)
Upon approval by the Council, the 2 CFR 200 certification will be signed by the Interim Finance
Director/City Treasurer.
Cost of Services Analysis
In addition to the Cost Allocation Plan, the City has also prepared a Cost of Service Analysis
which establishes the annual cost of providing the Water and Sewer Enterprise Funds with access
to the City’s right of way property as well as the cost of providing police and fire protection for
both funds. This fee analysis replaces the franchise in-lieu fee which had previously been
charged to the utility enterprise funds based on a percentage of revenue. As part of th e fee
analysis that was prepared, enterprise facilities that are not within the city limits were excluded
from consideration. The cost of service calculation yielded the following amounts for the years
shown. For 2016-17, actual costs from 2014-15 were used and for the 2017-18 calculation,
actual costs from 2015-16 formed the basis for these calculations.
Fund
Cost Allocation
Based on 2015-16
Actuals
Direct Billing
Adjustments Actual
Transit 279,351$ -$ 279,351$
Total 279,351$ -$ 279,351$
Packet Pg 502
7
Water Enterprise 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Public Safety $ 148,054 $ 229,410 $ 248,055
Right of Way 321,554 331,835 356,411
Total $ 469,608 $ 561,245 $ 604,466
Sewer Enterprise
Public Safety $ 219,357 $ 259,982 $ 214,629
Right of Way 223,716 230,337 247,692
Total $ 443,073 $ 490,319 $ 462,321
FISCAL IMPACT
The 2015-16 Central Services Full Cost Allocation Plan, net of direct billing adjustments results in a
total cost recovery of $4,193,770 in 2017-18. This amount is consistent with the estimate that is
shown the 5-Year Fiscal Forecast.
The cost of services fee calculation identified a total of $1,066,787 in costs that are allocable to the
Utility Enterprise Funds for 2017-18.
Attachments:
a - Summary of FY 2015-16 Full CAP
b - Summary of FY 2015-16 2 CFR 200
c - Cost of Services Fee Calculation
d - Council Reading File - FY 2015-16 San Luis Obispo Full CAP
e - Council Reading File - FY 2015-16 San Luis Obispo 2 CFR 200
Packet Pg 503
7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
CENTRAL SERVICE
COST ALLOCATION PLAN
Fiscal Year 2016
Prepared March 20, 2017
1870 Divot Road
Carson City, NV 89701
775-883-3182
www.costplans.com
email: mahoney@costplans.com
Packet Pg 504
7
Packet Pg 505
7
City of San Luis Obispo, CA
Central Service Cost Allocation Plan
Fiscal Year 2016
COST ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
The Central Service Cost Allocation Plan was prepared using a consistent approach and treatment of direct or indirect costs; in no case have
costs charged as direct costs to programs been included as indirect costs. Actual expenditure information was obtained from the financial
statements for the year ended June 30, 2016. Statistics used to allocate costs were taken from FY 2016 data by performing one hundred percent
counts, or in some cases, conducting a representative sample period count.
STEP-DOWN ALLOCATION PROCEDURE
A double step-down allocation methodology was used to distribute costs among central services and to programs that receive benefits. The
double step-down method initially requires a sequential ordering of central service departments. Department indirect cost allocations are then
made in the order elected to all benefiting programs, including cross allocations to other central services. To ensure that the cross-benefit of
services among central services is fully recognized, a second step-down allocation for each central service is made. Costs allocated to each
central service consist of the following:
First Allocation – the actual operating expenditures, exclusive of unallowable items (i.e. capital expenditures, interest expense, and
general government costs as designated by 2 CFR Part 200), plus all allocated costs from other central services, which have been
identified up to this point.
Second Allocation – costs from other central services made subsequent to that section’s first allocation. With respect to the double step-
down methodology, two important points should be noted:
1. The initial sequencing of Central Services was made in consideration of the ordering which maximizes the benefits of the
services, and
2. After the second allocation of each central service, that service was “closed” and could not receive any additional
allocation from other central services.
To ease comprehension and to avoid unnecessary bulk in the plan, the first and second allocations are shown on the same detail allocation
schedule.
Packet Pg 506
7
City of San Luis Obispo, CA
Central Service Cost Allocation Plan
Fiscal Year 2016
Prepared by:
COST ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY
FORMAT
A Table of Contents is included at the beginning of the Plan. The allocation of costs has been accomplished in the same order as shown in the
Table of Contents. The Table of Contents also permits the ready identification of the following summary data and sections of the Plan:
Summary Data – Three summary schedules are provided at the beginning of the Plan:
1. Allocated Costs by Department (Schedule A) – provides the costs allocated from each central service to each operating
department. The central service departments are listed on the left side of the page and the operating programs detailed in the
plan are listed across the top. Costs shown at the bottom of each column represent the costs allocated to the department or fund.
2. Summary of Allocated Costs (Schedule C) – summarizes the costs allocated from each central service. The column labeled
“Total Expenditures” is the total costs of the central service department. The column labeled “Cost Adjustments” are any costs
added or deducted from the central service. These costs are additions or subtractions to the cost identified in the General Ledger.
The column labeled “Total Allocated” is the amount allocated to each operating department (this agrees with Schedule A).
3. Summary of Allocation Bases (Schedule E) – provides the bases used to allocate the costs for each function of every central
service.
Detail Data – information on each central service are presented in the following format:
1. Nature and Extent of Services – a narrative description of the central service and each function that was identified. Also described
are the allocation bases used for each function and any other relevant information on expenditures.
2. Costs to be Allocated – presents the total costs to be allocated based on actual expenditures from the financial statements.
Allocated additions represent costs allocated to a central service from other central services.
Packet Pg 507
7
City of San Luis Obispo, CA
Central Service Cost Allocation Plan
Fiscal Year 2016
COST ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY
FORMAT (Continued)
3. Costs to be Allocated by Function – costs for each Central Service are functionalized to the extent deemed necessary to insure
the application of an allocation basis that most closely correlates with the benefits derived by receiving programs. Total costs
allocated are the same as reflected on the previous schedule. Functions of the central services are listed across the top of the
page and a detailed schedule is provided on each function.
4. Detail Allocation – detailed schedule of the allocation of each function is provided on all allocated functions except for General
Administration. Costs of General Administration are re-allocated to all other agency functions based on functional costs unless
otherwise noted.
5. Departmental Cost Allocation Summary – provides a summary of the costs allocated by function. The programs that receive
allocations are listed on the left side of the page and the central service functions are listed across the top.
INTERVIEWS
Through discussions and review with Departmental staff, Mahoney & Associates Consulting, LLC established functions performed by central
service departments and costs associated with each function.
Packet Pg 508
7
This Page Intentionally Left Blank Packet Pg 5097
IVA/Cap9503/20/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA Central Service Cost AllocationTable of ContentsSchedule TOC.0012016SchedulePageSummary ReportsAllocated Costs by DepartmentA 1Summary of Allocated CostsC 9Detail of Allocated CostsD 12Summary of Allocation BasisE 21Building ChargeNarrative1.01Costs to be Allocated1.02 25Costs by Function1.03 26Detail Allocation - City Hall1.04 27Detail Allocation - 919 Palm1.05 28Detail Allocation - Corporation Yard1.06 29Allocation Summary1.07 30City CouncilNarrative2.01Costs to be Allocated2.02 32Costs by Function2.03 33Detail Allocation - City Council2.04 34Allocation Summary2.05 36City AdministrationNarrative3.01Costs to be Allocated3.02 39Costs by Function3.03 40Detail Allocation - Citywide Administration3.04 41Allocation Summary3.05 43City AttorneyNarrative4.01Costs to be Allocated4.02 46Costs by Function4.03 47Detail Allocation - City Attorney4.04 48Allocation Summary4.05 50Administration & RecordsNarrative5.01Costs to be Allocated5.02 53Costs by Function5.03 54Detail Allocation - City Clerk Services5.04 55Detail Allocation - Main Switchboard5.05 56Packet Pg 5107
IVA/Cap9503/20/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA Central Service Cost AllocationTable of ContentsSchedule TOC.0022016SchedulePageAllocation Summary5.06 58Finance Narrative6.01Costs to be Allocated6.02 61Costs by Function6.03 62Detail Allocation - Accounts Payable6.04 64Detail Allocation - Payroll6.05 66Detail Allocation - General Finance6.06 68Detail Allocation - Utility Billing6.07 70Detail Allocation - Utility Billing Costs6.08 71Detail Allocation - Cashier6.09 72Detail Allocation - Budget6.10 73Detail Allocation - IT Supervision6.11 75Detail Allocation - GIS Supervision6.12 76Allocation Summary6.13 77Network ServicesNarrative7.01Costs to be Allocated7.02 82Costs by Function7.03 83Detail Allocation - Network Services & Desktop Support7.04 85Detail Allocation - MDC Support7.05 87Detail Allocation - Tablet Support7.06 88Detail Allocation - Server Support7.07 89Detail Allocation - Network Support7.08 91Detail Allocation - Radios7.09 93Detail Allocation - Telemetry7.10 94Detail Allocation - Cell Phones7.11 95Detail Allocation - Pagers7.12 96Detail Allocation - Cellular Data Services7.13 97Detail Allocation - Telephones7.14 99Detail Allocation - Cuesta Peak7.15 101Detail Allocation - South Hills7.16 102Detail Allocation - Tassajara7.17 103Detail Allocation - Development Review7.18 104Allocation Summary7.19 105Geographic Information ServicesNarrative8.01Costs to be Allocated8.02 110Costs by Function8.03 111Detail Allocation - GIS8.04 112Allocation Summary8.05 113Support ServicesPacket Pg 5117
IVA/Cap9503/20/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA Central Service Cost AllocationTable of ContentsSchedule TOC.0032016SchedulePageNarrative9.01Costs to be Allocated9.02 115Costs by Function9.03 116Detail Allocation - General Support Services9.04 117Detail Allocation - Postage9.05 119Detail Allocation - Parking9.06 121Allocation Summary9.07 122Human ResourcesNarrative10.01Costs to be Allocated10.02 125Costs by Function10.03 126Detail Allocation - Human Resources10.04 127Allocation Summary10.05 129Risk ManagementNarrative11.01Costs to be Allocated11.02 132Costs by Function11.03 133Detail Allocation - Risk Management11.04 134Detail Allocation - Workers Comp Premiums11.05 136Allocation Summary11.06 138Wellness ProgramNarrative12.01Costs to be Allocated12.02 141Costs by Function12.03 142Detail Allocation - Wellness Program12.04 143Allocation Summary12.05 145Public Works AdministrationNarrative13.01Costs to be Allocated13.02 148Costs by Function13.03 149Detail Allocation - Deputy Director/City Engineer13.04 150Detail Allocation - Director13.05 151Detail Allocation - Development Review13.06 152Detail Allocation - Long Range Planning13.07 153Detail Allocation - Utilities13.08 154Allocation Summary13.09 155Building MaintenanceNarrative14.01Packet Pg 5127
IVA/Cap9503/20/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA Central Service Cost AllocationTable of ContentsSchedule TOC.0042016SchedulePageCosts to be Allocated14.02 157Costs by Function14.03 158Detail Allocation - Janitorial - Other14.04 159Detail Allocation - Janitorial - City Hall14.05 160Detail Allocation - Janitorial - Corp Yard14.06 161Detail Allocation - Janitorial - 919 Palm Street14.07 162Detail Allocation - Utilities14.08 163Detail Allocation - Parking Facility Maintenance14.09 165Detail Allocation - Maintenance14.10 166Allocation Summary14.11 168Vehicle & Equipment MaintenaceNarrative15.01Costs to be Allocated15.02 171Costs by Function15.03 172Detail Allocation - Fleet15.04 173Allocation Summary15.05 174CIP Project EngineeringNarrative16.01Costs to be Allocated16.02 176Costs by Function16.03 177Detail Allocation - Project Engineering16.04 178Allocation Summary16.05 179Transportation/Plan EngineeringNarrative17.01Costs to be Allocated17.02 181Costs by Function17.03 182Detail Allocation - Parking17.04 183Detail Allocation - Transit17.05 184Detail Allocation - Development Review17.06 185Detail Allocation - Long Range Plan17.07 186Allocation Summary17.08 187Natural Resources Protection (Utility Services)Narrative18.01Costs to be Allocated18.02 189Costs by Function18.03 190Detail Allocation - Program Support18.04 191Allocation Summary18.05 192Hazard Prevention (Utility Svc)Narrative19.01Packet Pg 5137
IVA/Cap9503/20/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA Central Service Cost AllocationTable of ContentsSchedule TOC.0052016SchedulePageCosts to be Allocated19.02 194Costs by Function19.03 195Detail Allocation - Fire Hydrant19.04 196Allocation Summary19.05 197Eng Dev Rev (Utility Services)Narrative20.01Costs to be Allocated20.02 199Costs by Function20.03 200Detail Allocation - Utility Services20.04 201Allocation Summary20.05202Packet Pg 5147
IVA/Cap9503/20/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA Central Service Cost AllocationAllocated Costs by DepartmentSummary page 1Schedule A.0012016Central Service DepartmentsCultural ActivitiesEcon DevNat Res ProtectionComm PromotionHuman RelationsComm Dev AdminCommissions & CommDevelopment ReviewLong Range PlanBuilding Charge$249 $226 $484 $15,463 $3,522 $3,522 City Council$1,006 $720 $1,430 $1,355 $775 $1,973 $137 $2,572 $2,399 City Administration$3,575 $2,559 $5,082 $4,814 $2,755 $7,010 $487 $9,140 $8,523 City Attorney$2,994 $2,143 $4,255 $4,031 $2,307 $5,870 $407 $7,653 $7,136 Administration & Records$6,790 $15,211 $9,852 $64,372 $3,262 $9,485 $7,854 Finance $3,084 $3,196 $6,442 $4,814 $2,498 $12,701 $682 $11,384 $10,897 Network Services$4,368 $8,324 $710 $18,388 $132,225 $16,698 Geographic Information Services$127,721 Support Services$421 $416 $829 $595 $325 $1,858 $57 $1,651 $1,578 Human Resources$2,375 $4,748 $594 $11,871 $11,871 $11,871 Risk Management$11,001 $22,003 $2,750 $55,006 $55,006 $55,006 Wellness Program$80 $160 $20 $720 $400 $400 Public Works Administration$225,657 $97,395 Building Maintenance$1,594 $1,450 $3,102 $33,593 $7,653 $7,653 Vehicle & Equipment Maintenace$1,587 $3,174 CIP Project EngineeringTransportation/Plan Engineering$166,004 $61,160 Natural Resources Protection (Utility Services)Hazard Prevention (Utility Svc)Eng Dev Rev (Utility Services)Subtotal$12,923 $35,324 $73,657 $29,535 $8,660 $359,720 $5,032 $644,223 $292,092 Proposed Costs$12,923 $35,324 $73,657 $29,535 $8,660 $359,720 $5,032 $644,223 $292,092 Packet Pg 5157
IVA/Cap9503/20/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA Central Service Cost AllocationAllocated Costs by DepartmentSummary page 2Schedule A.0022016Central Service DepartmentsBuilding & SafetyEng Dev Rev Landscape/Prk MaintSwim Center MaintTree MaintSt/Sidewalk MaintPavement MaintFlood ControlTraffic Signals/LightsBuilding Charge$9,793 $2,646 $19,939 $3,068 $11,503 $11,503 City Council$5,250 $2,070 $7,677 $1,245 $1,652 $3,718 $901 $1,264 City Administration$18,657 $7,357 $27,283 $4,426 $5,871 $13,212 $3,201 $4,494 City Attorney$15,620 $6,159 $22,843 $3,706 $4,916 $11,061 $2,680 $3,762 Administration & Records$11,878 $22,799 $5,939 $266 $1,064 $2,859 $944 $532 Finance $26,086 $10,318 $37,205 $5,754 $8,323 $20,820 $5,762 $5,785 Network Services$60,874 $16,698 $51,495 $7,888 $15,761 $35,403 $12,054 $16,477 Geographic Information Services$29,529 Support Services$25,138 $1,555 $5,072 $636 $1,150 $2,789 $784 $759 Human Resources$30,866 $11,871 $28,491 $2,375 $9,497 $22,912 $7,716 $4,748 Risk Management$143,019 $55,006 $132,017 $11,015 $44,005 $106,164 $35,754 $22,003 Wellness Program$1,120 $480 $1,297 $80 $321 $860 $284 $160 Public Works Administration$37,777 $102,651 $6,296 $25,837 $80,511 $28,874 $18,680 Building Maintenance$21,275 $5,748 $33,288 $5,507 $28,541 $28,541 $4,661 Vehicle & Equipment Maintenace$7,935 $3,169 $177,725 $44,431 $209,461 $42,845 $25,389 CIP Project EngineeringTransportation/Plan EngineeringNatural Resources Protection (Utility Services)Hazard Prevention (Utility Svc)Eng Dev Rev (Utility Services)Subtotal$377,511 $183,653 $652,922 $43,687 $171,403 $549,814 $40,044 $171,328 $108,714 Proposed Costs$377,511 $183,653 $652,922 $43,687 $171,403 $549,814 $40,044 $171,328 $108,714 Packet Pg 5167
IVA/Cap9503/20/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA Central Service Cost AllocationAllocated Costs by DepartmentSummary page 3Schedule A.0032016Central Service DepartmentsDev ServicesRental Housing InspRec AdminFacilities - Prk & RecRecreational SportsYouth ServicesTeen/Seniors/ClassCommunity ServicesRanger ProgramBuilding ChargeCity Council$1,411 $694 $2,218 $718 $1,042 $3,047 $832 $1,046 City Administration$5,017 $2,466 $7,883 $2,552 $3,705 $10,831 $2,960 $3,718 City Attorney$4,201 $2,065 $6,600 $2,137 $3,102 $9,069 $2,478 $3,112 Administration & Records$789 $9,485 $266 $11,181 $532 $266 $1,197 Finance $4,504 $4,194 $11,150 $3,130 $31,512 $12,944 $4,924 $6,912 Network Services$8,754 $29,449 $29,109 $7,590 $21,042 $5,523 $18,354 Geographic Information Services$32,531 Support Services$591 $631 $1,502 $415 $5,260 $1,506 $464 $953 Human Resources$7,123 $11,871 $2,375 $2,375 $4,748 $2,375 $10,684 Risk Management$33,004 $55,006 $11,001 $11,001 $22,003 $11,001 $49,507 Wellness Program$242 $400 $80 $3,366 $160 $80 $360 Public Works AdministrationBuilding Maintenance$6,613 $356,985 $6,613 $6,613 $6,613 $6,613 $6,615 Vehicle & Equipment Maintenace$4,761 $3,174 $19,042 CIP Project EngineeringTransportation/Plan EngineeringNatural Resources Protection (Utility Services)Hazard Prevention (Utility Svc)Eng Dev Rev (Utility Services)Subtotal$15,724 $64,723 $177,882 $408,768 $86,747 $92,495 $6,613 $37,516 $121,500 Proposed Costs$15,724 $64,723 $177,882 $408,768 $86,747 $92,495 $6,613 $37,516 $121,500 Packet Pg 5177
IVA/Cap9503/20/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA Central Service Cost AllocationAllocated Costs by DepartmentSummary page 4Schedule A.0042016Central Service DepartmentsAquatics/ Sinsheimer PrkGolf CoursePolice AdminPatrolInvestigationsPolice Support SvcSupp Svcs - GrantNeighborhood SvcsTraffic SafetyBuilding ChargeCity Council$1,141 $1,917 $4,837 $21,918 $9,120 $8,040 $733 $2,226 City Administration$4,053 $6,813 $17,191 $77,895 $32,412 $28,571 $2,604 $7,911 City Attorney$3,394 $5,704 $14,393 $65,219 $27,137 $23,922 $2,180 $6,624 Administration & Records$266 $1,542 $24,297 $11,619 $3,723 $5,317 $5,159 $1,330 Finance $4,643 $11,686 $21,934 $96,691 $37,500 $38,028 $3,105 $10,342 Network Services$12,319 $14,093 $64,011 $263,125 $86,728 $231,097 $12,932 $36,678 Geographic Information Services$97,091 Support Services$593 $1,467 $2,025 $9,176 $3,818 $3,366 $421 $1,506 Human Resources$2,375 $9,497 $13,058 $97,345 $33,239 $47,485 $2,375 $11,871 Risk Management$11,001 $44,005 $60,507 $451,057 $154,019 $220,028 $11,001 $55,006 Wellness Program$80 $464 $440 $3,497 $1,120 $1,601 $80 $400 Public Works AdministrationBuilding Maintenance$20,654 $20,654 $20,654 $20,654 $20,654 $20,654 $20,654 Vehicle & Equipment Maintenace$3,174 $47,605 $58,713 $147,575 $90,449 $7,935 $55,539 CIP Project EngineeringTransportation/Plan EngineeringNatural Resources Protection (Utility Services)Hazard Prevention (Utility Svc)Eng Dev Rev (Utility Services)Subtotal$43,039 $144,793 $399,151 $1,265,771 $499,919 $628,109 $20,654 $69,179 $210,087 Proposed Costs$43,039 $144,793 $399,151 $1,265,771 $499,919 $628,109 $20,654 $69,179 $210,087 Packet Pg 5187
IVA/Cap9503/20/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA Central Service Cost AllocationAllocated Costs by DepartmentSummary page 5Schedule A.0052016Central Service DepartmentsTraffic Sfty-OTS GrantFire AdminFire Admin GrantEmergency ResponseFire ApparatusFEMA PPE GrantHazard PreventionHazard Prev GrantTraining ServicesBuilding ChargeCity Council$2,937 $28,581 $1,269 $383 $2,600 $377 City Administration$10,440 $101,575 $4,510 $1,360 $9,241 $1,339 City Attorney$8,741 $85,046 $3,775 $1,139 $7,737 $1,121 Administration & Records$12,481 $13,596 $1,595 Finance $12,981 $118,082 $6,000 $1,178 $12,228 $1,682 Network Services$57,652 $275,250 $37,270 Geographic Information Services$61,158 Support Services$1,689 $17,128 $531 $160 $1,777 $157 Human Resources$9,497 $104,467 $14,246 Risk Management$44,005 $484,063 $66,009 Wellness Program$321 $3,601 $480 Public Works AdministrationBuilding Maintenance$28,499 $18,763 $18,763 $18,763 Vehicle & Equipment MaintenaceCIP Project EngineeringTransportation/Plan EngineeringNatural Resources Protection (Utility Services)Hazard Prevention (Utility Svc)Eng Dev Rev (Utility Services)Subtotal$250,401 $1,250,152 $16,085 $4,220 $171,946 $23,439 Proposed Costs$250,401 $1,250,152 $16,085 $4,220 $171,946 $23,439 Packet Pg 5197
IVA/Cap9503/20/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA Central Service Cost AllocationAllocated Costs by DepartmentSummary page 6Schedule A.0062016Central Service DepartmentsRecruit AcademyTechnical ServicesDisaster PrepFD210 Downtown BidFD240 CDBGFD250 Law Enforc GrantFD290 Tourism BidFD300 Debt ServiceFD400 Cap EngBuilding Charge$182 City Council$169 $160 $739 $899 $472 $4,641 $5 City Administration$601 $569 $2,626 $3,195 $1,677 $16,494 $17 City Attorney$504 $476 $2,199 $2,674 $1,404 $13,810 $14 Administration & Records$199 Finance $1,051 $842 $2,323 $2,793 $1,483 $15,999 $15 Network Services$3,077 Geographic Information ServicesSupport Services$71 $68 $309 $376 $198 $2,029 $2 Human Resources$1,781 Risk Management$8,251 Wellness Program$60 Public Works AdministrationBuilding Maintenance$18,763 $18,763 $1,173 Vehicle & Equipment MaintenaceCIP Project Engineering$128,695 $1,096,879 Transportation/Plan EngineeringNatural Resources Protection (Utility Services)Hazard Prevention (Utility Svc)Eng Dev Rev (Utility Services)Subtotal$21,159 $20,878 $8,196 $138,632 $5,234 $67,696 $53 $1,096,879 Proposed Costs$21,159 $20,878 $8,196 $138,632 $5,234 $67,696 $53 $1,096,879 Packet Pg 5207
IVA/Cap9503/20/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA Central Service Cost AllocationAllocated Costs by DepartmentSummary page 7Schedule A.0072016Central Service DepartmentsFD401 Grant CIPFD405 TIF CIPFD500 WaterFD510 ParkingFD520 SewerFD530 TransitFD625 Jack HouseFD640 ReservoirFD650 Narcotics Task ForceBuilding Charge$11,503 $11,503 $516 City Council$15,486 $6,106 $19,926 $9,715 $5 $2,790 $75 City Administration$55,037 $21,700 $70,815 $34,525 $17 $9,912 $274 City Attorney$46,081 $18,169 $59,291 $28,907 $14 $8,299 $237 Administration & Records$37,468 $7,501 $43,158 $2,495 $1,037 Finance $317,863 $50,727 $336,026 $35,702 $78 $12,371 $247 Network Services$243,584 $54,685 $320,645 $49,527 $744 $28,762 Geographic Information Services$96,191 $96,191 Support Services$9,982 $5,088 $12,186 $4,440 $2 $1,615 $34 Human Resources$72,415 $23,909 $79,538 $7,123 $9,259 Risk Management$335,542 $110,784 $368,546 $33,004 $42,904 Wellness Program$2,441 $1,767 $2,681 $260 $312 Public Works Administration$20,906 $211,348 $20,905 $92,857 Building Maintenance$43,160 $55,586 $43,159 $1,118 Vehicle & Equipment Maintenace$98,383 $12,695 $168,204 $19,042 CIP Project Engineering$155,177 $37,866 $148,247 $15,592 $117,064 Transportation/Plan Engineering$26,532 $19,798 Natural Resources Protection (Utility Services)$2,372 $5,634 Hazard Prevention (Utility Svc)$8,300 Eng Dev Rev (Utility Services)($77,139)($77,140)Subtotal$155,177 $37,866 $1,485,450 $622,189 $1,695,070 $319,987 $860 $141,937 $867 Proposed Costs$155,177 $37,866 $1,485,450 $622,189 $1,695,070 $319,987 $860 $141,937 $867 Packet Pg 5217
IVA/Cap9503/20/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA Central Service Cost AllocationAllocated Costs by DepartmentSummary page 8Schedule A.0082016Central Service DepartmentsFD653 Hazardous MatFD655 Bomb Task ForceAll OtherSubtotalDirect BilledUnallocatedTotalBuilding Charge$105,622 $105,622 City Council$190 $25 $194,634 $194,634 City Administration$675 $91 $691,718 $691,718 City Attorney$564 $76 $579,158 $579,158 Administration & Records$81,551 $441,157 $29,921 $471,078 Finance $848 $165 $132,529 $1,542,163 $147,723 $1,689,886 Network Services$11,897 $2,321,260 $2,321,260 Geographic Information Services$540,412 $540,412 Support Services$85 $11 $137,245 $137,245 Human Resources$742,837 $742,837 Risk Management$3,442,010 $3,442,010 Wellness Program$30,675 $30,675 Public Works Administration$969,694 $32,108 $1,001,802 Building Maintenance$990,359 $990,359 Vehicle & Equipment Maintenace$36,497 $1,288,504 $1,288,504 CIP Project Engineering$1,699,520 $661,791 $2,361,311 Transportation/Plan Engineering$273,494 $528,071 $801,565 Natural Resources Protection (Utility Services)$8,006 ($8,006) $429,905 $429,905 Hazard Prevention (Utility Svc)$8,300 ($8,300) $781,727 $781,727 Eng Dev Rev (Utility Services)($154,279) $154,279 $622,340 $622,340 Subtotal$2,362 $368 $262,474 $15,852,489 $170,081 $3,201,478 $19,224,048 Proposed Costs$2,362 $368 $262,474 $15,852,489 $170,081 $3,201,478 $19,224,048 Packet Pg 5227
IVA/Cap9503/20/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA Central Service Cost AllocationSummary of Allocated CostsSummary page 9Schedule C.0012016DepartmentsTotal ExpendituresCost AdjustmentsTotal AllocatedBuilding Charge$180,659 City Council$154,921 City Administration$770,619 City Attorney$791,896 ($176,837)Administration & Records$550,828 Finance $1,598,380 Network Services$2,461,933 Geographic Information Services$520,475 Support Services$215,027 ($41,788)Human Resources$790,879 Risk Management$4,066,945 Wellness Program$20,139 Public Works Administration$975,334 Building Maintenance$1,102,501 Vehicle & Equipment Maintenace$1,066,202 CIP Project Engineering$1,818,636 Transportation/Plan Engineering$523,327 Natural Resources Protection (Utility Services)$429,905 Hazard Prevention (Utility Svc)$781,727 Eng Dev Rev (Utility Services)$622,340 Cultural Activities$12,923 Economic Development$35,324 Natural Resource Protection$73,657 Community Promotion$29,535 Human Relations$8,660 Community Development Admin$359,720 Commissions & Committees$5,032 Development Review$644,223 Long Range Planning$292,092 Building and Safety$377,511 Eng Dev Rev $183,653 Landscape & Park Maintenance$652,922 Swim Center Maintenance$43,687 Tree Maintenance$171,403 Streets & Sidewalk Maintenance$549,814 Pavement Maintenance$40,044 Flood Control$171,328 Traffic Signals & Lights$108,714 Development Services$15,724 Rental Housing Inspection$64,723 Recreation Administration$177,882 Facilities - Parks and Recreation$408,768 Packet Pg 5237
IVA/Cap9503/20/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA Central Service Cost AllocationSummary of Allocated CostsSummary page 10Schedule C.0022016DepartmentsTotal ExpendituresCost AdjustmentsTotal AllocatedRecreational Sports$86,747 Youth Services$92,495 Teens, Seniors and Classes$6,613 Community Services$37,516 Ranger Program$121,500 Aquatics & Sinsheimer Park$43,039 Golf Course Oper & Maint$144,793 Police Adminstration$399,151 Patrol$1,265,771 Investigations$499,919 Police Support Services$628,109 Support Services - Grant$20,654 Neighborhood Services$69,179 Traffic Safety$210,087 Traffic - OTS GrantFire Administration$250,401 Fire Administration GrantEmergency Response$1,250,152 Fire Apparatus Service$16,085 FEMA PPE Grant$4,220 Hazard Prevention$171,946 Hazard Prevention GrantTraining Services$23,439 Recruit AcademyTechnical Services$21,159 Disaster Preparedness$20,878 FD210 Downtown Bid Fund$8,196 FD240 CDBG Fund$138,632 FD250 Law Enforcement Grant Fund$5,234 FD290 Tourism Bid Fund$67,696 FD300 Debt Service Fund$53 FD400 Capital Engineering$1,096,879 FD401 Grant CIP$155,177 FD405 TIF CIP$37,866 FD500 Water Fund$1,485,450 FD510 Parking Fund$622,189 FD520 Sewer Fund$1,695,070 FD530 Transit Fund$319,987 FD625 Jack House Fund$860 FD640 Reservoir Operations$141,937 FD650 Narcotics Task Force Fund$867 FD653 Hazardous Mat Task Force Fund$2,362 FD655 Bomb Task Force Fund$368 Packet Pg 5247
IVA/Cap9503/20/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA Central Service Cost AllocationSummary of Allocated CostsSummary page 11Schedule C.0032016DepartmentsTotal ExpendituresCost AdjustmentsTotal AllocatedAll Other$262,474 Unallocated$3,201,478 Direct Billed$170,081 Total$19,262,014 ($37,966)$19,224,048 Packet Pg 5257
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
2 CFR PART 200
COST ALLOCATION PLAN
Fiscal Year 2016
Prepared March 25, 2017
1870 Divot Road
Carson City, NV 89701
775-883-3182
www.costplans.com
email: mahoney@costplans.com
Packet Pg 526
7
Packet Pg 527
7
City of San Luis Obispo, CA
2 CFR 200 Cost Allocation Plan
Fiscal Year 2016
Prepared by:
COST ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
The cost allocation plan was prepared in accordance with the 2CFR 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit
Requirements for Federal Awards. A consistent approach has been followed in the treatment of direct or indirect costs; in no case have costs
charged as direct costs to programs been included as indirect costs. Actual expenditure information was obtained from the financial statements for
the year ended June 30, 2016. Statistics used to allocate costs were taken from FY2016 data by performing one hundred percent counts, or in
some cases, conducting a representative sample period count.
STEP-DOWN ALLOCATION PROCEDURE
A double step-down allocation methodology was used to distribute costs among central services and to programs that receive benefits. The double
step-down method initially requires a sequential ordering of central service departments. Department indirect cost allocations are then made in the
order elected to all benefiting programs, including cross allocations to other central services. To ensure that the cross-benefit of services among
central services is fully recognized, a second step-down allocation for each central service is made. Costs allocated to each central service consist
of the following:
First Allocation – the actual operating expenditures, exclusive of unallowable items (i.e. capital expenditures, interest expense, and general
government costs as designated or required by 2 CFR Part 200), plus all allocated costs from all other central services which have been
identified up to this point.
Second Allocation – costs from other central services made subsequent to that section’s first allocation. With respect to the double step-
down methodology, two important points should be noted:
1. The initial sequencing of Central Services was made in consideration of the ordering which maximizes the benefits of the
services, and
2. After the second allocation of each central service, that service was “closed” and could not receive an additional allocation
from other central services.
To ease comprehension and to avoid unnecessary bulk in the plan, the first and second allocations are shown on the same detail allocation schedule.
Packet Pg 528
7
City of San Luis Obispo, CA
2 CFR 200 Cost Allocation Plan
Fiscal Year 2016
Prepared by:
FORMAT
A Table of Contents is included at the beginning of the Plan. The allocation of costs has been accomplished in the same order as shown in the
Table of Contents. The Table of Contents also permits the ready identification of the following summary data and sections of the Plan:
Summary Data – Three summary schedules are provided at the beginning of the Plan:
1. Allocated Costs by Department (Schedule A) – provides the costs allocated from each central service to each operating department.
The central service departments are listed on the left side of the page and the operating programs detailed in the plan are listed
across the top. With a total at the bottom of the page.
2. Summary of Allocated Costs (Schedule C) – summarizes the costs allocated from each central service. The column labeled “Total
Expenditures” is the total costs of the central service department. The column labeled “Cost Adjustments” are any costs added or
deducted from the central service. The column labeled “Total Allocated” is the amount allocated to each operating department (this
agrees with Schedule A).
3. Summary of Allocation Bases (Schedule E) – provides the bases used to allocate the costs for each function of every central service.
Sections – sections on each central service are presented in the following format:
1. Nature and Extent of Services – a narrative description of the central service and each function that was identified. Also described
are the allocation bases used for each function and any other relevant information on expenditures.
2. Costs to be Allocated – presents the total costs to be allocated based on actual expenditures from the financial statements. Allocated
additions represent costs allocated to a central service from other central services.
Packet Pg 529
7
City of San Luis Obispo, CA
2 CFR 200 Cost Allocation Plan
Fiscal Year 2016
Prepared by:
FORMAT (Continued)
1. Costs to be Allocated by Function – costs for each Central Service are functionalized to the extent deemed necessary to insure the
application of allocation basis which most closely correlate with the benefits derived by receiving programs. Total costs allocated
are the same as reflected on the previous schedule. Functions of the central services are listed across the top of the page and a
detailed schedule is provided on each function.
2. Detail Allocation – detailed schedule of the allocation of each function is provided on all allocated functions except for General
Administration. Costs of General Administration are re-allocated to all other agency functions based on functional costs unless
otherwise noted.
3. Departmental Cost Allocation Summary – provides a summary of the costs allocated by function. The programs that received
allocations are listed on the left side of the page and the central service functions are listed across the top.
INTERVIEWS
Through discussions and review with Departmental staff, Mahoney & Associates Consulting, LLC established functions performed by central service
departments and costs associated with each function. It was the primary objective of Mahoney & Associates to use data representative of services
provided to users while still adhering to the specifications of the 2 CFR Part 200 cost principles.
Packet Pg 530
7
This Page Intentionally Left Blank Packet Pg 5317
CERTIFICATE OF COST ALLOCATION PLAN
This is to certify that I have reviewed the cost allocation plan submitted herewith and to the best of my knowledge and belief:
(1) All costs included in this proposal to establish cost allocations or billings for Fiscal Year 2016 (July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016) are allowable
in accordance with the requirements of 2 CFR 200 and the Federal award(s) to which they apply. Unallowable costs have been adjusted for in
allocating costs as indicated in the cost allocation plan.
(2) All costs included in this proposal are properly allocable to Federal awards on the basis of a beneficial or causal relationship between the
expenses incurred and the awards to which they are allocated in accordance with applicable requirements. Further, the same costs that have been
treated as indirect costs have not been claimed as direct costs. Similar types of costs have been accounted for consistently.
I declare that the foregoing is true and correct.
Governmental Unit: _____________________________________________________
Signature: ____________________________________________________________
Name of Official: _______________________________________________________
Title: ________________________________________________________________
Date of Execution: _____________________________________________________
Packet Pg 532
7
Packet Pg 5337
IVA/Cap9503/25/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA 2CFR 200 Cost AllocationTable of ContentsSchedule TOC.0012016SchedulePageSummary ReportsAllocated Costs by DepartmentA 1Summary of Allocated CostsC 9Detail of Allocated CostsD 12Summary of Allocation BasisE 21Building ChargeNarrative1.01Costs to be Allocated1.02 25Costs by Function1.03 26Detail Allocation - City Hall1.04 27Detail Allocation - 919 Palm1.05 28Detail Allocation - Corporation Yard1.06 29Allocation Summary1.07 30City AdministrationNarrative2.01Costs to be Allocated2.02 32Costs by Function2.03 33Detail Allocation - Citywide Administration2.04 34Allocation Summary2.05 36City AttorneyNarrative3.01Costs to be Allocated3.02 39Costs by Function3.03 40Detail Allocation - City Attorney3.04 41Allocation Summary3.05 43Administration & RecordsNarrative4.01Costs to be Allocated4.02 46Costs by Function4.03 47Detail Allocation - City Clerk Services4.04 48Detail Allocation - Main Switchboard4.05 49Allocation Summary4.06 51Finance Narrative5.01Costs to be Allocated5.02 54Costs by Function5.03 55Detail Allocation - Accounts Payable5.04 57Packet Pg 5347
IVA/Cap9503/25/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA 2CFR 200 Cost AllocationTable of ContentsSchedule TOC.0022016SchedulePageDetail Allocation - Payroll5.05 59Detail Allocation - General Finance5.06 61Detail Allocation - Utility Billing5.07 63Detail Allocation - Utility Billing Costs5.08 64Detail Allocation - Cashier5.09 65Detail Allocation - Budget5.10 66Detail Allocation - IT Supervision5.11 68Detail Allocation - GIS Supervision5.12 69Allocation Summary5.13 70Network ServicesNarrative6.01Costs to be Allocated6.02 75Costs by Function6.03 76Detail Allocation - Network Services & Desktop Support6.04 78Detail Allocation - MDC Support6.05 80Detail Allocation - Tablet Support6.06 81Detail Allocation - Server Support6.07 82Detail Allocation - Network Support6.08 84Detail Allocation - Radios6.09 86Detail Allocation - Telemetry6.10 87Detail Allocation - Cell Phones6.11 88Detail Allocation - Pagers6.12 89Detail Allocation - Cellular Data Services6.13 90Detail Allocation - Telephones6.14 92Detail Allocation - Cuesta Peak6.15 94Detail Allocation - South Hills6.16 95Detail Allocation - Tassajara6.17 96Detail Allocation - Development Review6.18 97Allocation Summary6.19 98Geographic Information ServicesNarrative7.01Costs to be Allocated7.02 103Costs by Function7.03 104Detail Allocation - GIS7.04 105Allocation Summary7.05 106Support ServicesNarrative8.01Costs to be Allocated8.02 108Costs by Function8.03 109Detail Allocation - General Support Services8.04 110Detail Allocation - Postage8.05 112Detail Allocation - Parking8.06 114Allocation Summary8.07115Packet Pg 5357
IVA/Cap9503/25/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA 2CFR 200 Cost AllocationTable of ContentsSchedule TOC.0032016SchedulePageHuman ResourcesNarrative9.01Costs to be Allocated9.02 118Costs by Function9.03 119Detail Allocation - Human Resources9.04 120Allocation Summary9.05 122Risk ManagementNarrative10.01Costs to be Allocated10.02 125Costs by Function10.03 126Detail Allocation - Risk Management10.04 127Detail Allocation - Workers Comp Premiums10.05 129Allocation Summary10.06 131Wellness ProgramNarrative11.01Costs to be Allocated11.02 134Costs by Function11.03 135Detail Allocation - Wellness Program11.04 136Allocation Summary11.05 138Public Works AdministrationNarrative12.01Costs to be Allocated12.02 141Costs by Function12.03 142Detail Allocation - Deputy Director/City Engineer12.04 143Detail Allocation - Director12.05 144Detail Allocation - Development Review12.06 145Detail Allocation - Long Range Planning12.07 146Detail Allocation - Utilities12.08 147Allocation Summary12.09 148Building MaintenanceNarrative13.01Costs to be Allocated13.02 150Costs by Function13.03 151Detail Allocation - Janitorial - Other13.04 152Detail Allocation - Janitorial - City Hall13.05 153Detail Allocation - Janitorial - Corp Yard13.06 154Detail Allocation - Janitorial - 919 Palm Street13.07 155Detail Allocation - Utilities13.08 156Detail Allocation - Parking Facility Maintenance13.09158Packet Pg 5367
IVA/Cap9503/25/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA 2CFR 200 Cost AllocationTable of ContentsSchedule TOC.0042016SchedulePageDetail Allocation - Maintenance13.10 159Allocation Summary13.11 161Vehicle & Equipment MaintenaceNarrative14.01Costs to be Allocated14.02 164Costs by Function14.03 165Detail Allocation - Fleet14.04 166Allocation Summary14.05 167CIP Project EngineeringNarrative15.01Costs to be Allocated15.02 169Costs by Function15.03 170Detail Allocation - Project Engineering15.04 171Allocation Summary15.05 172Transportation/Plan EngineeringNarrative16.01Costs to be Allocated16.02 174Costs by Function16.03 175Detail Allocation - Parking16.04 176Detail Allocation - Transit16.05 177Detail Allocation - Development Review16.06 178Detail Allocation - Long Range Plan16.07 179Allocation Summary16.08 180Natural Resources Protection (Utility Services)Narrative17.01Costs to be Allocated17.02 182Costs by Function17.03 183Detail Allocation - Program Support17.04 184Allocation Summary17.05 185Hazard Prevention (Utility Svc)Narrative18.01Costs to be Allocated18.02 187Costs by Function18.03 188Detail Allocation - Fire Hydrant18.04 189Allocation Summary18.05 190Eng Dev Rev (Utility Services)Narrative19.01Packet Pg 5377
IVA/Cap9503/25/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA 2CFR 200 Cost AllocationTable of ContentsSchedule TOC.0052016SchedulePageCosts to be Allocated19.02 192Costs by Function19.03 193Detail Allocation - Utility Services19.04 194Allocation Summary19.05195Packet Pg 5387
IVA/Cap9503/25/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA 2CFR 200 Cost AllocationAllocated Costs by DepartmentSummary page 1Schedule A.0012016Central Service DepartmentsCity CouncilCultural ActivitiesEcon DevNat Res ProtectionComm PromotionHuman RelationsComm Dev AdminCommissions & CommDevelopment ReviewBuilding Charge$5,654 $249 $226 $484 $15,463 $3,522 City Administration$1,826 $3,563 $2,551 $5,064 $4,797 $2,746 $6,986 $485 $9,109 City Attorney$1,527 $2,981 $2,134 $4,237 $4,014 $2,297 $5,845 $406 $7,620 Administration & Records$44,597 $6,637 $14,865 $9,623 $62,911 $3,185 $9,290 Finance $3,113 $3,073 $3,184 $6,417 $4,798 $2,488 $12,649 $680 $11,336 Network Services$22,024 $4,350 $8,291 $708 $18,316 $131,778 Geographic Information Services$127,303 Support Services$214 $420 $415 $824 $593 $323 $1,850 $57 $1,644 Human Resources$2,366 $4,732 $591 $11,830 $11,830 Risk Management$10,963 $21,926 $2,740 $54,815 $54,815 Wellness Program$80 $159 $20 $719 $399 Public Works Administration$224,763 Building Maintenance$30,676 $1,349 $1,225 $2,623 $33,457 $7,622 Vehicle & Equipment Maintenace$1,581 $3,162 CIP Project EngineeringTransportation/Plan Engineering$165,386 Natural Resources Protection (Utility Services)Hazard Prevention (Utility Svc)Eng Dev Rev (Utility Services)Subtotal$109,631 $11,635 $34,131 $71,203 $27,884 $7,854 $355,306 $4,813 $639,114 Proposed Costs$109,631 $11,635 $34,131 $71,203 $27,884 $7,854 $355,306 $4,813 $639,114 Packet Pg 5397
IVA/Cap9503/25/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA 2CFR 200 Cost AllocationAllocated Costs by DepartmentSummary page 2Schedule A.0022016Central Service DepartmentsLong Range PlanBuilding & SafetyEng Dev Rev Landscape/Prk MaintSwim Center MaintTree MaintSt/Sidewalk MaintPavement MaintFlood ControlBuilding Charge$3,522 $9,793 $2,646 $19,939 $3,068 $11,503 $11,503 City Administration$8,493 $18,592 $7,331 $27,189 $4,411 $5,852 $13,166 $3,190 City Attorney$7,105 $15,554 $6,133 $22,746 $3,690 $4,895 $11,014 $2,669 Administration & Records$7,697 $11,675 $22,296 $5,887 $266 $1,060 $2,850 $941 Finance $10,850 $25,977 $10,272 $37,054 $5,732 $8,289 $20,736 $5,740 Network Services$16,631 $60,628 $16,631 $51,295 $7,857 $15,700 $35,266 $12,007 Geographic Information Services$29,434 Support Services$1,571 $25,036 $1,548 $5,051 $634 $1,145 $2,778 $781 Human Resources$11,830 $30,756 $11,830 $28,390 $2,357 $9,464 $22,831 $7,689 Risk Management$54,815 $142,518 $54,815 $131,556 $10,955 $43,853 $105,792 $35,630 Wellness Program$399 $1,117 $478 $1,293 $80 $319 $857 $283 Public Works Administration$97,009 $37,628 $102,244 $6,271 $25,734 $80,193 $28,760 Building Maintenance$7,622 $21,190 $5,725 $33,157 $5,487 $28,428 $28,428 Vehicle & Equipment Maintenace$7,906 $3,164 $177,092 $44,273 $208,717 $42,692 CIP Project EngineeringTransportation/Plan Engineering$60,932 Natural Resources Protection (Utility Services)Hazard Prevention (Utility Svc)Eng Dev Rev (Utility Services)Subtotal$288,476 $370,742 $180,497 $642,893 $42,253 $169,139 $544,131 $39,931 $169,816 Proposed Costs$288,476 $370,742 $180,497 $642,893 $42,253 $169,139 $544,131 $39,931 $169,816 Packet Pg 5407
IVA/Cap9503/25/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA 2CFR 200 Cost AllocationAllocated Costs by DepartmentSummary page 3Schedule A.0032016Central Service DepartmentsTraffic Signals/LightsDev ServicesRental Housing InspRec AdminFacilities - Prk & RecRecreational SportsYouth ServicesTeen/Seniors/ClassCommunity ServicesBuilding ChargeCity Administration$4,478 $5,000 $2,458 $7,856 $2,543 $3,692 $10,793 $2,950 City Attorney$3,746 $4,183 $2,057 $6,572 $2,128 $3,089 $9,030 $2,467 Administration & Records$530 $787 $9,290 $266 $11,145 $530 $266 Finance $5,763 $4,485 $4,181 $11,105 $3,119 $31,371 $12,896 $4,908 Network Services$16,412 $8,711 $29,328 $28,993 $7,559 $20,959 $5,501 Geographic Information Services$32,424 Support Services$755 $589 $624 $1,497 $414 $5,238 $1,498 $462 Human Resources$4,732 $7,098 $11,830 $2,366 $2,366 $4,732 $2,366 Risk Management$21,926 $32,889 $54,815 $10,963 $10,963 $21,926 $10,963 Wellness Program$159 $245 $399 $80 $3,356 $159 $80 Public Works Administration$18,606 Building Maintenance$4,641 $6,588 $355,585 $6,588 $6,588 $6,588 $6,588 Vehicle & Equipment Maintenace$25,299 $4,744 $3,162 CIP Project EngineeringTransportation/Plan EngineeringNatural Resources Protection (Utility Services)Hazard Prevention (Utility Svc)Eng Dev Rev (Utility Services)Subtotal$107,047 $14,257 $63,794 $174,866 $406,457 $85,367 $89,111 $6,588 $36,551 Proposed Costs$107,047 $14,257 $63,794 $174,866 $406,457 $85,367 $89,111 $6,588 $36,551 Packet Pg 5417
IVA/Cap9503/25/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA 2CFR 200 Cost AllocationAllocated Costs by DepartmentSummary page 4Schedule A.0042016Central Service DepartmentsRanger ProgramAquatics/ Sinsheimer PrkGolf CoursePolice AdminPatrolInvestigationsPolice Support SvcSupp Svcs - GrantNeighborhood SvcsBuilding ChargeCity Administration$3,705 $4,040 $6,790 $17,132 $77,628 $32,301 $28,473 $2,595 City Attorney$3,099 $3,379 $5,680 $14,333 $64,942 $27,023 $23,820 $2,171 Administration & Records$1,193 $266 $1,537 $23,756 $11,583 $3,711 $5,301 $5,044 Finance $6,885 $4,626 $11,641 $21,851 $96,287 $37,343 $37,868 $3,092 Network Services$18,280 $12,270 $14,036 $63,785 $262,125 $86,399 $230,158 $12,886 Geographic Information Services$96,774 Support Services$950 $591 $1,461 $2,017 $9,137 $3,802 $3,351 $420 Human Resources$10,647 $2,366 $9,464 $13,013 $97,002 $33,122 $47,318 $2,366 Risk Management$49,333 $10,963 $43,853 $60,297 $449,481 $153,482 $219,259 $10,963 Wellness Program$359 $80 $462 $439 $3,487 $1,117 $1,596 $80 Public Works AdministrationBuilding Maintenance$6,590 $20,575 $20,575 $20,575 $20,575 $20,575 $20,575 Vehicle & Equipment Maintenace$18,974 $3,162 $47,435 $58,503 $147,050 $90,128 $7,906 CIP Project EngineeringTransportation/Plan EngineeringNatural Resources Protection (Utility Services)Hazard Prevention (Utility Svc)Eng Dev Rev (Utility Services)Subtotal$120,015 $41,743 $142,359 $392,475 $1,239,297 $489,003 $617,719 $20,575 $68,098 Proposed Costs$120,015 $41,743 $142,359 $392,475 $1,239,297 $489,003 $617,719 $20,575 $68,098 Packet Pg 5427
IVA/Cap9503/25/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA 2CFR 200 Cost AllocationAllocated Costs by DepartmentSummary page 5Schedule A.0052016Central Service DepartmentsTraffic SafetyTraffic Sfty-OTS GrantFire AdminFire Admin GrantEmergency ResponseFire ApparatusFEMA PPE GrantHazard PreventionHazard Prev GrantBuilding ChargeCity Administration$7,885 $10,405 $101,226 $4,494 $1,356 $9,209 City Attorney$6,596 $8,705 $84,684 $3,760 $1,134 $7,704 Administration & Records$1,326 $12,209 $13,520 $1,590 Finance $10,300 $12,930 $117,591 $5,979 $1,173 $12,178 Network Services$36,537 $57,440 $274,175 $37,123 Geographic Information Services$60,957 Support Services$1,500 $1,682 $17,055 $529 $162 $1,769 Human Resources$11,830 $9,464 $104,099 $14,196 Risk Management$54,815 $43,853 $482,371 $65,778 Wellness Program$399 $319 $3,591 $478 Public Works AdministrationBuilding Maintenance$20,575 $28,394 $18,691 $18,691 Vehicle & Equipment Maintenace$55,341 CIP Project EngineeringTransportation/Plan EngineeringNatural Resources Protection (Utility Services)Hazard Prevention (Utility Svc)Eng Dev Rev (Utility Services)Subtotal$207,104 $246,358 $1,217,003 $14,762 $3,825 $168,716 Proposed Costs$207,104 $246,358 $1,217,003 $14,762 $3,825 $168,716 Packet Pg 5437
IVA/Cap9503/25/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA 2CFR 200 Cost AllocationAllocated Costs by DepartmentSummary page 6Schedule A.0062016Central Service DepartmentsTraining ServicesRecruit AcademyTechnical ServicesDisaster PrepFD210 Downtown BidFD240 CDBGFD250 Law Enforc GrantFD290 Tourism BidFD300 Debt ServiceBuilding Charge$182 City Administration$1,334 $599 $567 $2,616 $3,184 $1,671 $16,436 $17 City Attorney$1,116 $502 $474 $2,189 $2,663 $1,398 $13,750 $14 Administration & Records$199 Finance $1,677 $1,049 $840 $2,313 $2,781 $1,476 $15,937 $15 Network Services$3,065 Geographic Information ServicesSupport Services$157 $70 $66 $308 $374 $196 $2,020 $2 Human Resources$1,774 Risk Management$8,222 Wellness Program$60 Public Works AdministrationBuilding Maintenance$18,691 $18,691 $18,691 $991 Vehicle & Equipment MaintenaceCIP Project Engineering$128,246 Transportation/Plan EngineeringNatural Resources Protection (Utility Services)Hazard Prevention (Utility Svc)Eng Dev Rev (Utility Services)Subtotal$22,975 $20,911 $20,638 $7,426 $137,248 $4,741 $62,636 $48 Proposed Costs$22,975 $20,911 $20,638 $7,426 $137,248 $4,741 $62,636 $48 Packet Pg 5447
IVA/Cap9503/25/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA 2CFR 200 Cost AllocationAllocated Costs by DepartmentSummary page 7Schedule A.0072016Central Service DepartmentsFD400 Cap EngFD401 Grant CIPFD405 TIF CIPFD500 WaterFD510 ParkingFD520 SewerFD530 TransitFD625 Jack HouseFD640 ReservoirBuilding Charge$11,503 $11,503 $516 City Administration$54,849 $21,627 $70,571 $34,407 $17 $9,879 City Attorney$45,885 $18,092 $59,039 $28,784 $14 $8,264 Administration & Records$36,754 $7,443 $42,328 $2,454 $1,034 Finance $316,903 $50,527 $334,995 $35,561 $78 $12,323 Network Services$242,677 $54,462 $319,428 $49,350 $740 $28,651 Geographic Information Services$95,876 $95,876 Support Services$9,940 $5,066 $12,133 $4,420 $2 $1,608 Human Resources$72,159 $23,824 $79,257 $7,098 $9,227 Risk Management$334,370 $110,396 $367,260 $32,889 $42,756 Wellness Program$2,434 $1,761 $2,674 $259 $311 Public Works Administration$20,759 $210,511 $20,759 $92,490 Building Maintenance$42,989 $55,387 $42,990 $1,113 Vehicle & Equipment Maintenace$98,034 $12,649 $167,605 $18,974 CIP Project Engineering$1,093,055 $154,636 $37,734 $147,730 $15,537 $116,655 Transportation/Plan Engineering$26,433 $19,725 Natural Resources Protection (Utility Services)$2,372 $5,634 Hazard Prevention (Utility Svc)$8,300 Eng Dev Rev (Utility Services)($77,139) ($77,140)Subtotal$1,093,055 $154,636 $37,734 $1,464,023 $613,715 $1,668,305 $309,066 $851 $138,661 Proposed Costs$1,093,055 $154,636 $37,734 $1,464,023 $613,715 $1,668,305 $309,066 $851 $138,661 Packet Pg 5457
IVA/Cap9503/25/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA 2CFR 200 Cost AllocationAllocated Costs by DepartmentSummary page 8Schedule A.0082016Central Service DepartmentsFD650 Narcotics Task ForceFD653 Hazardous MatFD655 Bomb Task ForceAll OtherSubtotalDirect BilledUnallocatedTotalBuilding Charge$111,276 $111,276 City Administration$278 $672 $89 $691,173 $691,173 City Attorney$231 $562 $75 $578,221 $578,221 Administration & Records$79,638 $477,480 $29,828 $507,308 Finance $237 $844 $164 $132,058 $1,539,738 $147,261 $1,686,999 Network Services$11,850 $2,334,382 $2,334,382 Geographic Information Services$538,644 $538,644 Support Services$36 $79 $11 $136,875 $136,875 Human Resources$740,212 $740,212 Risk Management$3,429,979 $3,429,979 Wellness Program$30,587 $30,587 Public Works Administration$965,727 $32,108 $997,835 Building Maintenance$1,016,089 $1,016,089 Vehicle & Equipment Maintenace$36,367 $1,283,920 $1,283,920 CIP Project Engineering$1,693,593 $659,482 $2,353,075 Transportation/Plan Engineering$272,476 $526,104 $798,580 Natural Resources Protection (Utility Services)$8,006 ($8,006) $429,905 $429,905 Hazard Prevention (Utility Svc)$8,300 ($8,300) $781,727 $781,727 Eng Dev Rev (Utility Services)($154,279) $154,279 $622,340 $622,340 Subtotal$782 $2,157 $339 $259,913 $15,702,399 $170,081 $3,196,647 $19,069,127 Proposed Costs$782 $2,157 $339 $259,913 $15,702,399 $170,081 $3,196,647 $19,069,127 Packet Pg 5467
IVA/Cap9503/25/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA 2CFR 200 Cost AllocationSummary of Allocated CostsSummary page 9Schedule C.0012016DepartmentsTotal ExpendituresCost AdjustmentsTotal AllocatedBuilding Charge$180,659 City Administration$770,619 City Attorney$791,896 ($176,837)Administration & Records$550,828 Finance $1,598,380 Network Services$2,461,933 Geographic Information Services$520,475 Support Services$215,027 ($41,788)Human Resources$790,879 Risk Management$4,066,945 Wellness Program$20,139 Public Works Administration$975,334 Building Maintenance$1,102,501 Vehicle & Equipment Maintenace$1,066,202 CIP Project Engineering$1,818,636 Transportation/Plan Engineering$523,327 Natural Resources Protection (Utility Services)$429,905 Hazard Prevention (Utility Svc)$781,727 Eng Dev Rev (Utility Services)$622,340 City Council$109,631 Cultural Activities$11,635 Economic Development$34,131 Natural Resource Protection$71,203 Community Promotion$27,884 Human Relations$7,854 Community Development Admin$355,306 Commissions & Committees$4,813 Development Review$639,114 Long Range Planning$288,476 Building and Safety$370,742 Eng Dev Rev $180,497 Landscape & Park Maintenance$642,893 Swim Center Maintenance$42,253 Tree Maintenance$169,139 Streets & Sidewalk Maintenance$544,131 Pavement Maintenance$39,931 Flood Control$169,816 Traffic Signals & Lights$107,047 Development Services$14,257 Rental Housing Inspection$63,794 Recreation Administration$174,866 Facilities - Parks and Recreation$406,457 Packet Pg 5477
IVA/Cap9503/25/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA 2CFR 200 Cost AllocationSummary of Allocated CostsSummary page 10Schedule C.0022016DepartmentsTotal ExpendituresCost AdjustmentsTotal AllocatedRecreational Sports$85,367 Youth Services$89,111 Teens, Seniors and Classes$6,588 Community Services$36,551 Ranger Program$120,015 Aquatics & Sinsheimer Park$41,743 Golf Course Oper & Maint$142,359 Police Adminstration$392,475 Patrol$1,239,297 Investigations$489,003 Police Support Services$617,719 Support Services - Grant$20,575 Neighborhood Services$68,098 Traffic Safety$207,104 Traffic - OTS GrantFire Administration$246,358 Fire Administration GrantEmergency Response$1,217,003 Fire Apparatus Service$14,762 FEMA PPE Grant$3,825 Hazard Prevention$168,716 Hazard Prevention GrantTraining Services$22,975 Recruit AcademyTechnical Services$20,911 Disaster Preparedness$20,638 FD210 Downtown Bid Fund$7,426 FD240 CDBG Fund$137,248 FD250 Law Enforcement Grant Fund$4,741 FD290 Tourism Bid Fund$62,636 FD300 Debt Service Fund$48 FD400 Capital Engineering$1,093,055 FD401 Grant CIP$154,636 FD405 TIF CIP$37,734 FD500 Water Fund$1,464,023 FD510 Parking Fund$613,715 FD520 Sewer Fund$1,668,305 FD530 Transit Fund$309,066 FD625 Jack House Fund$851 FD640 Reservoir Operations$138,661 FD650 Narcotics Task Force Fund$782 FD653 Hazardous Mat Task Force Fund$2,157 FD655 Bomb Task Force Fund$339 Packet Pg 5487
IVA/Cap9503/25/17City of San Luis Obispo, CA 2CFR 200 Cost AllocationSummary of Allocated CostsSummary page 11Schedule C.0032016DepartmentsTotal ExpendituresCost AdjustmentsTotal AllocatedAll Other$259,913 Unallocated$3,196,647 Direct Billed$170,081 Total$19,107,093 ($37,966)$19,069,127 Packet Pg 5497
Enterprise Cost of Services Allocation Summary‐2014‐15 using 2012‐13 Actual Amounts
Allocation Type
Water
Enterprise
Sewer
Enterprise
Total Enterprise
Allocation
Public Safety 253,959$ 228,648$ 482,607$
Right‐of‐Way Maintenance 455,867$ 321,927$ 777,794$
Direct Credit for Private Sec. ‐$ (3,300)$ (3,300)$
Total 709,826$ 547,275$ 1,257,101$
Enterprise Cost of Services Allocation Summary‐2015‐16 using 2013‐14 Actual Amounts
Allocation Type
Water
Enterprise
Sewer
Enterprise
Total Enterprise
Allocation
Public Safety 148,054$ 219,357$ 367,411$
Right‐of‐Way Maintenance 321,554$ 227,076$ 548,630$
Direct Credit for Private Sec. ‐$ (3,360)$ (3,360)$
Total 469,608$ 443,073$ 912,681$
Enterprise Cost of Services Allocation Summary‐2016‐17 using 2014‐15 Actual Amounts
Allocation Type
Water
Enterprise
Sewer
Enterprise
Total Enterprise
Allocation
Public Safety 229,410$ 259,982$ 489,392$
Right‐of‐Way Maintenance 331,835$ 234,337$ 566,172$
Direct Credit for Private Sec.‐$ (4,000)$ (4,000)$
Total 561,245$ 490,319$ 1,051,564$
Enterprise Cost of Services Allocation Summary‐2017‐18 using 2015‐16 Actual Amounts
Allocation Type
Water
Enterprise
Sewer
Enterprise
Total Enterprise
Allocation
Public Safety 248,055$ 214,629$ 462,685$
Right‐of‐Way Maintenance 356,411$ 251,692$ 608,103$
Direct Credit for Private Sec.‐$ (4,000)$ (4,000)$
Total 604,466$ 462,321$ 1,066,787$
Packet Pg 550
7
Meeting Date: 4/18/2017
FROM: Daryl R. Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Bryan Wheeler, Transportation Planner / Engineer II
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS - TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
AND ENGINEERING ON-CALL SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to provide Transportation Planning &
Engineering On-Call Services, Specification No. 100.50500.7227; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute agreements with selected consulting firms; and
3. Authorize the Finance Director or their designee to execute and amend Purchase Orders for
individual consultant services contracts in an amount not-to-exceed the authorized project
budget; and
4. Authorize the City Manager, or her designee, to amend or extend the agreement for services
in accordance with its terms and within the available annual budget.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City’s Transportation Division is responsible for a wide range of City functions. These
include implementation of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), managing the City Traffic
Safety, Operations & Neighborhood Traffic Management Program, and providing Development
Review. These programs have been managed efficiently through a list of prequalified consultants
who provide on-call services for various areas of specialized work. This on-call service approach
has been used successfully for many years, starting with survey services in 1998, expanding to
construction management in 2001, right-of-way acquisition services in 2002, and engineering
and architecture in 2007.
Existing consultant contracts for transportation planning and engineering expire this year and
staff is recommending the City re-advertise for these services through the Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) process. The RFQ model is used to identify the skill set of the consultants
submitting qualifications. In addition, the RFQ determines how those skills align with the type of
work proposed in the City’s CIP. This contrasts with the more project-specific Request for
Proposals (RFP) model. After evaluating the RFQ submittal packages, two to three top
consultants in each specialized area will be selected to enter an agreement with the City. Their
selection will be based on their demonstrated ability to provide the services proposed in a timely
manner with qualified staff. Once the selected consultants enter an agreement with the City,
their services on an individual project can be implemented without the need for an individual
RFP. Any subsequent public works contract based on the consultant’s services would be required
to be bid pursuant to the Public Contracts Code and the City’s bidding rules and regulations.
Packet Pg 551
8
Consultants will operate under the conditions of the agreement included in the RFQ. Individual
projects will be scoped by the City department most involved, workin g with the Project Manager
in Engineering and the consultant. The specific project work will then be authorized via a
Purchase Order through the Finance Department, referencing the signed agreement for the terms
and conditions.
FISCAL IMPACT
The RFQ process, in and of itself, does not obligate any funds for consultant work. After the
agreements are executed by the City Manager, scoping meetings and issuance of Purchase
Orders will follow, obligating funds. Work will be billed to individual project accounts, within
the authorized project budget.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Individual Project RFPs. The Council could direct staff to proceed in a more traditional
fashion issuing RFP’s for each individual project. On the plus side, a company with greater
experience in the specific work might be attracted. On the negative side, this process is very
time consuming and increases the work required for an individual project, reducing overall
project production. Staff does not recommend this approach because it increases the time to
implement individual contracts, while providing very little benefit. RFPs can still be issued on a
case-by-case basis when specialized skills not available through on-call contracts, is needed.
2. In-house Approach. The Council could direct staff to complete more of the work in-house.
Transportation Planning & Engineering does not have sufficient staff to deliver the volume of
work or accommodate the volume of development applications.
Attachments:
a - 2017 Traffic RFP
Packet Pg 552
8
Notice Requesting Qualifications for Transportation On-Call Services
Specification No. 100.50500.7227.TE
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting qualifications for Transportation On-Call Services, Specification No.
100.50500.7227.TE. All qualification proposals must be received by the Public Works Department at 919 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 by 2:00 P.M. on Wednesday, May 17, 2017.
Qualifications received after said time will not be considered. To guard against premature opening, each
qualifications package must be submitted to the Public Works Department in a sealed envelope plainly marked with
the request title, specification number, Consultant name, and time and date of the proposal opening. Qualification
proposals must be submitted using the forms provided in the specification package.
Obtaining a Specification Package
Download from the City’s Web site www.slocity.org - Bids & Proposals page
A list of companies that have requested a copy of the proposal is maintained on the web page.
Questions
Contact Bryan Wheeler at (805) 781-7178 or bwheeler@slocity.org with any questions regarding this Request for
Qualifications.
Disadvantaged Business Participation
DBE and other small businesses as defined in Title 49 CFR 26, are encouraged to participate in the performance of
agreements financed in whole or in part with federal funds.
Packet Pg 553
8
Transportation On-Call Services Page 2 of 18
Specification No. 100.50500.7227.TE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIPTION OF WORK ........................................................................................................................................... 3
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................... 4
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................................................ 4
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION ................................................................................................................ 5
PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS ............................................................................................... 6
PROPOSAL CONTENT ........................................................................................................................................... 6
PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTION .............................................................................. 6
FORM OF AGREEMENT .............................................................................................................................................. 8
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORMS ............................................................................................................................. 15
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ......................................................................................................................................... 15
INSURANCE CERTIFICATE .................................................................................................................................. 15
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................... 16
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................... 16
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Consultant Services ............................................................................................. 18
Packet Pg 554
8
Transportation On-Call Services Page 3 of 18
Section A
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
The City is looking for consultants interested in working with the City to provide Transportation Planning and
Engineering services in support of the City’s Capital Improvement Program, Development Review, Land Use,
Circulation Element Implementation, and other various Transportation related tasks as needed.
Background:
The City is requesting qualifications from qualified consultants to provide Transportation On-Call services. Currently
the City is not adequately staffed to perform this work. The City is interested in generating a list of qualified consultants
specializing in this type of work to draw from as needed. While the exact list of the City’s future Transportation
planning and engineering On-Call services is unknown at this time, consultants should expect Transportation On-Call
services will be required to help facilitate the City’s Capital Improvement Program along with other various
Transportation planning and engineering tasks. The City’s existing Capital Improvement Plan may be found on the
City’s website:
http://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=7563
Workscope: Transportation On-Call services:
The consultant(s) selected will be responsible to perform the necessary work to perform miscellaneous traffic
engineering and planning services to ensure projects are designed to City standards and perform traffic planning
review of development review projects as needed.
Our goal is as follows:
To develop a “short list” of qualified traffic planning and engineering firms that becomes familiar with City traffic
and transportation standards and principles to assist staff with projects when staff resources don’t match project
delivery needs.
Provide consistency with traffic planning and engineering services for development review projects that are
processed through the City’s development review process.
Consultant may be required to provide a wide variety of services related to municipal transportation engineering. This
includes, but is not limited to:
1. Planning, design, construction assistance, and technical review of efforts directed to roadway design,
traffic signals, roadside safety features, signage and striping programs, pavement maintenance
programs and related features and activities.
2. Travel Demand Modeling using the City of San Luis Obispo Traffic Model (Transcad), the San Luis
Obispo Council of Governments Countywide Transportation Model (Transcad) or other forecasting
software
3. Expertise with multi-modal traffic operations analysis software such as Synchro Version 9, VISSIM,
Highway Capacity Manual software.
4. Review development proposals for consistency with City policy & programs, traffic impact study
guidelines, and consistency with transportation best practices.
5. Assist staff with processing projects with Caltrans and other regional/State agencies that require
permitting of transportation related improvement projects.
Agreement Management:
The selected consultant will be expected to assign a single point person who understands the overall agreement and
can manage paperwork associated with it. This person does not need to be assigned to any of the individual projects,
but should be available to listen and follow up on concerns regarding performance. Cost proposals will be received
after scoping meetings, and may include the cost of the scoping meeting. The City will evaluate the proposal upon
receipt and negotiate work scope further as needed. The consultant will receive a Purchase Order after the proposal
scope and cost has been accepted, signaling the start of the project work.
Packet Pg 555
8
Transportation On-Call Services Page 4 of 18
Section B
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a proposal (Consultant) shall meet all
of the terms, and conditions of the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) specifications package. By virtue of its
proposal submittal, the Consultant acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of all provisions of the RFP
specifications.
2. Proposal Submittal. Each proposal must be submitted on the form(s) provided in the specifications and
accompanied by any other required submittals or supplemental materials. Proposal documents shall be enclosed
in an envelope that shall be sealed and addressed to the Public Works Department, City of San Luis Obispo, 919
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401. Each proposal submittal shall include one electronic copy of the
proposal, submitted in Adobe Acrobat format on CD or flash drive. In order to guard against premature opening,
the proposal should be clearly labeled with the proposal title, specification number, name of Consultant, and date
and time of proposal opening. No FAX submittals will be accepted.
3. Insurance Certificate. Each proposal must include a certificate of insurance showing:
a. The insurance carrier and its A.M. Best rating.
b. Scope of coverage and limits.
c. Deductibles and self-insured retention.
The purpose of this submittal is to generally assess the adequacy of the Consultant’s insurance coverage during
proposal evaluation; as discussed under paragraph 12 below, endorsements are not required until contract
award. The City’s insurance requirements are detailed in Section F.
4. Submittal of References. Each proposer shall submit a statement of qualifications and references on the form
provided in the RFP package.
5. Statement of Contract Disqualifications. Each proposer shall submit a statement regarding any past
government disqualifications on the form provided in the RFP package.
6. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A Consultant may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice prior to the time
specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the City for its withdrawal, in which event
the proposal will be returned to the Consultant unopened. No proposal received after the time specified or at any
place other than that stated in the "Notice Requesting Qualifications" will be considered. All qualification
proposals will be opened and declared publicly. Consultants or their representatives are invited to be present at
the opening of the qualification proposals.
7. Submittal of One Proposal Only. No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowed to make or file,
or to be interested in more than one proposal, except an alternative proposal when specifically requested;
however, an individual or business entity that has submitted a sub-proposal to a Consultant submitting a proposal,
or who has quoted prices on materials to such Consultant, is not thereby disqualified from submitting a sub-
proposal or from quoting prices to other Consultants submitting qualification proposals.
8. Communications. All timely requests for information submitted in writing will receive a written response from
the City. Telephone communications with City staff are not encouraged, but will be permitted. However, any
such oral communication shall not be binding on the City.
9. Alternative Qualification Proposals. When specifically requested, the proposer may submit an alternative
qualification proposal (or proposals) that it believes will also meet the City's project objectives but in a different
way. In this case, the proposer must provide an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the
alternatives, and discuss under what circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the other(s). If an
alternative proposal is submitted, the maximum length of the proposal may be expanded proportionately by the
number of alternatives submitted.
Packet Pg 556
8
Transportation On-Call Services Page 5 of 18
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION
10. Proposal Retention and Award. The City reserves the right to retain all qualification proposals for a period of
60 days for examination and comparison. The City also reserves the right to waive non substantial irregularities
in any proposal, to reject any or all qualification proposals, to reject or delete one part of a proposal and accept
the other, except to the extent that proposals are qualified by specific limitations. See the "Special Terms and
Conditions" in Section C of these specifications for proposal evaluation and contract award criteria.
11. Competency and Responsibility of Consultant. The City reserves full discretion to determine the competence
and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of Consultants. Consultants will provide, in a timely manner,
all information that the City deems necessary to make such a decision.
12. Contract Requirement. The Consultant to whom award is made (Consultant) shall execute a written contract
with the City within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the award has been sent by mail to it at the address
given in its proposal. The contract shall be made in the form adopted by the City and incorporated in these
specifications.
13. Insurance Requirements. The Consultant shall provide proof of insurance in the form, coverages and amounts
specified in Section F of these specifications within 10 (ten) calendar days after notice of contract award as a
precondition to contract execution.
14. Business License & Tax. The Consultant must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business license and tax
certificate before execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the City's business license and tax
program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134.
15. Failure to Accept Contract. The following will occur if the Consultant to whom the award is made (Consultant)
fails to enter into the contract: the award will be annulled and an award may be made to the next highest ranked
Consultant with whom a responsible compensation is negotiated, who shall fulfill every stipulation as if it were
the party to whom the first award was made.
Packet Pg 557
8
Transportation On-Call Services Page 6 of 18
Section C
PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS
PROPOSAL CONTENT
1. Submittal Forms
a. Acknowledgement
b. Certificate of Insurance
c. References
d. Statement of Past Disqualifications
2. Qualifications
a. Experience of your firm in performing Transportation Engineering and Planning work for government clients
and facilities, any other qualifications or specialties which you make your firm well-suited in assisting the City
in engineering work other similar activities.
b. Experience of the staff to be assigned to this work in performing similar services.
c. Redundancy in the company of staff experienced in this type of work.
d. Resumes of the individuals who would be assigned to this work.
e. Proximity and staffing levels of the nearest company office.
f. Statement and explanation of any instances where your firm has been removed from a project or disqualified
from proposing on a project
g. Standard hourly billing rates for consultant and sub-consultant staff
h. Detailed list of services available directly from your firm.
3. Work Program
a. Description of your approach to working with City staff to achieve their goal of completing the assigned
Capital Improvement Plan and City Development work on schedule.
b. Services or data anticipated to be provided by the City.
c. Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decision.
4. Proposal Length and Copies
a. Qualification proposals should be the minimum length to provide the required information. Charts and other
short form approaches to conveying information are encouraged.
b. 3 copies of the proposal must be submitted.
c. 1 pdf format electronic copy must be submitted on flash drive.
PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTION
Qualification proposals will be evaluated by a review committee and contract award process as follows:
5. Written Proposal Review/Finalist Candidate Selection
Evaluation of the qualification proposals will be based on the following qualifications:
1. Understanding of the work involved in completing transportation engineering and planning work
2. Demonstrated competence, professional qualifications of proposed staff
3. Recent experience in successfully performing similar services
4. Ability to respond quickly to work requests
Qualification proposals will be reviewed by a selection committee and ranked in accordance with the above
criteria. Where one or more qualification proposals are rated consistently higher than others, the consultants
may be selected as the top ranked consultants for purposes of contract negotiation.
Packet Pg 558
8
Transportation On-Call Services Page 7 of 18
6. Proposal Review and Award Schedule
The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for proposal review and contract award:
Issue RFQ ................................................................. 04/19/17
Receive qualification proposals ................................. 05/17/17
Complete proposal evaluation ................................... 05/31/17
Award contract ........................................................... 06/07/17
Execute contract ........................................................ 06/14/17
Packet Pg 559
8
Transportation On-Call Services Page 8 of 18
Section D
FORM OF AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on [day, date, year] by and
between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and
[CONSULTANT’S NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS], hereinafter referred to as Consultant.
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, on [date], requested qualifications for X per Specification No. X.
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Consultant submitted a proposal that was accepted by City for said
services.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter
contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and entered, as first written
above, until acceptance or completion of said services.
2. Start and Completion of Work. Individual projects shall be completed in accordance with approved project
schedules.
3. Contract Term for On-Call Service Contracts. The services identified in this specification will be contracted
for by the City for two years. Actual work may extend beyond the final date.
4. Contract Extension and Cost Increases for On-call Service Contracts. The term of the contract may be
extended by mutual consent for an additional year. During this extended period, labor rates may be increased
to reflect increased labor costs and overhead at each 1 year contract anniversary, provided the City is notified of
the increases in advance. During the term of the agreement, beginning July 1, 2015, contract prices shall be
increased by a percentage equal to the percentage increase in the U.S. Consumer Price Index/All Urban
Consumers (CPI-U) from March in the previous year to March in the year of adjustment.
5. Work Delays. Should the Consultant be obstructed or delayed in the work required to be done hereunder by
changes in the work or by any default, act, or omission of the City, or by strikes, fire, earthquake, or any other
Act of God, or by the inability to obtain materials, equipment, or labor due to federal government restrictions
arising out of defense or war programs, then the time of completion may, at the City's sole option, be extended
for such periods as may be agreed upon by the City and the Consultant. In the event that there is insufficient
time to grant such extensions prior to the completion date of the contract, the City may, at the time of acceptance
of the work, waive liquidated damages that may have accrued for failure to complete on time, due to any of the
above, after hearing evidence as to the reasons for such delay, and making a finding as to the causes of same.
6. Termination. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Consultant is not faithfully abiding
by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Consultant in writing of such defect or failure
to perform. This notice must give the Consultant a 10 (ten) calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to
perform said work or cure the deficiency.
If the Consultant has not performed the work or cured the deficiency within the ten days specified in the notice,
such shall constitute a breach of the contract and the City may terminate the contract immediately by written
notice to the Consultant to said effect. Thereafter, neither party shall have any further duties, obligations,
responsibilities, or rights under the contract except, however, any and all obligations of the Consultant's surety
shall remain in full force and effect, and shall not be extinguished, reduced, or in any manner waived by the
termination thereof.
In said event, the Consultant shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its services performed from the beginning
date in which the breach occurs up to the day it received the City's Notice of Termination, minus any offset from
Packet Pg 560
8
Transportation On-Call Services Page 9 of 18
such payment representing the City's damages from such breach. "Reasonable value" includes fees or charges
for goods or services as of the last milestone or task satisfactorily delivered or completed by the Consultant as
may be set forth in the Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any other work, services or goods
performed or provided by the Consultant shall be based solely on the City's assessment of the value of the work-
in-progress in completing the overall workscope.
The City reserves the right to delay any such payment until completion or confirmed abandonment of the project,
as may be determined in the City's sole discretion, so as to permit a full and complete accounting of costs. In no
event, however, shall the Consultant be entitled to receive in excess of the compensation quoted in its proposal.
The City reserves the right to terminate the contract for any reason with 30 days’ notice. Consultant will be paid
compensation due and payable to the date of termination.
7. Ability to Perform. The Consultant warrants that it possesses, or has arranged through subcontracts, all capital
and other equipment, labor, materials, and licenses necessary to carry out and complete the work hereunder in
compliance with any and all applicable federal, state, county, city, and special district laws, ordinances, and
regulations.
8. Sub-contract Provisions. No portion of the work pertinent to this contract shall be subcontracted without written
authorization by the City, except that which is expressly identified in the Consultant’s proposal. Any substitution
of sub-consultants must be approved in writing by the City. For any sub-contract for services in excess of
$25,000, the subcontract shall contain all provisions of this agreement.
9. Contract Assignment. The Consultant shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of the contract,
or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a contract to any individual or business entity of any kind
without the previous written consent of the City.
10. Inspection. The Consultant shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain that the
services of the Consultant are being performed in accordance with the requirements and intentions of this
contract. All work done and all materials furnished, if any, shall be subject to the City's inspection and approval.
The inspection of such work shall not relieve Consultant of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract requirements.
11. Record Retention and Audit. For the purpose of determining compliance with various laws and regulations as
well as performance of the contract, the Consultant and sub-consultants shall maintain all books, documents,
papers, accounting records and other evidence pertaining to the performance of the contract, including but not
limited to the cost of administering the contract. Materials shall be made available at their respective offices at
all reasonable times during the contract period and for four years from the date of final payment under the
contract. Authorized representatives of the City shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all records.
For Federally funded projects, access to records shall also include authorized representatives of the State and
Federal government. Copies shall be furnished if requested.
12. Conflict of Interest. The Consultant shall disclose any financial, business, or other relationship with the City
that may have an impact upon the outcome of this contract, or any ensuing City construction project. The
Consultant shall also list current clients who may have a financial interest in the outcome of this contract, or any
ensuing City construction project which will follow.
The Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest—direct, indirect or
otherwise—that would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the work hereunder. The
Consultant further covenants that, in the performance of this work, no sub-consultant or person having such an
interest shall be employed. The Consultant certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest in
performing this work is an officer or employee of the City. It is hereby expressly agreed that, in the performance
of the work hereunder, the Consultant shall at all times be deemed an independent Consultant and not an agent
or employee of the City.
13. Rebates, Kickbacks or Other Unlawful Consideration. The Consultant warrants that this contract was not
obtained or secured through rebates, kickbacks or other unlawful consideration, either promised or paid to any
City employee. For breach or violation of the warranty, the City shall have the right in its discretion; to terminate
the contract without liability; to pay only for the value of the work actually performed; to deduct from the contract
price; or otherwise recover the full amount of such rebate, kickback or other unlawful consideration.
Packet Pg 561
8
Transportation On-Call Services Page 10 of 18
14. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Consultant warrants by execution of this contract that no person or
selling agency has been employed, or retained, to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or
understanding, for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or
bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Consultant for the purpose of securing
business. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City has the right to annul this contract without liability; pay
only for the value of the work actually performed, or in its discretion, to deduct from the contract price or
consideration, or otherwise recover the full amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent
fee.
15. Compliance with Laws and Wage Rates. The Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and shall observe
and comply with all applicable state and federal laws and county and City of San Luis Obispo ordinances,
regulations and adopted codes during its performance of the work. This includes compliance with prevailing
wage rates and their payment in accordance with California Labor Code. For purposed of this paragraph,
“construction” includes work performed during the design and preconstruction phases of construction, including
but not limited to, inspection and land surveying work.
16. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the Consultant is
required to pay.
17. Permits, Licenses and Filing Fees. The Consultant shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and
fees, and file all notices as they pertain to the completion of the Consultant’s work. The City will pay all application
fees for permits required for the completion of the project including building and regulatory permit application
fees. Consultant will provide a 10 day notice for the City to issue a check.
18. Safety Provisions. The Consultant shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety established
by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.
19. Public and Employee Safety. Whenever the Consultant's operations create a condition hazardous to the public
or City employees, it shall, at its expense and without cost to the City, furnish, erect and maintain such fences,
temporary railings, barricades, lights, signs and other devices and take such other protective measures as are
necessary to prevent accidents or damage or injury to the public and employees.
20. Preservation of City Property. The Consultant shall provide and install suitable safeguards, approved by the
City, to protect City property from injury or damage. If City property is injured or damaged resulting from the
Consultant's operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the Consultant's expense. The facilities shall be
replaced or restored to a condition as good as when the Consultant began work.
21. Immigration Act of 1986. The Consultant warrants on behalf of itself and all sub-consultants engaged for the
performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United States pursuant to the Immigration
Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws shall be employed in the performance of the work
hereunder.
22. Consultant Non-Discrimination. In the award of subcontracts or in performance of this work, the Consultant
agrees that it will not engage in, nor permit such sub-consultants as it may employ, to engage in discrimination
in employment of persons on any basis prohibited by State or Federal law.
23. Accuracy of Specifications. The specifications for this project are believed by the City to be accurate and to
contain no affirmative misrepresentation or any concealment of fact. Consultants are cautioned to undertake an
independent analysis of any test results in the specifications, as City does not guaranty the accuracy of its
interpretation of test results contained in the specifications package. In preparing its proposal, the Consultant
and all sub-consultants named in its proposal shall bear sole responsibility for proposal preparation errors
resulting from any misstatements or omissions in the specifications that could easily have been ascertained by
examining either the project site or accurate test data in the City's possession. Although the effect of ambiguities
or defects in the specifications will be as determined by law, any patent ambiguity or defect shall give rise to a
duty of Consultant to inquire prior to proposal submittal. Failure to so inquire shall cause any such ambiguity or
defect to be construed against the Consultant. An ambiguity or defect shall be considered patent if it is of such
a nature that the Consultant, assuming reasonable skill, ability and diligence on its part, knew or should have
known of the existence of the ambiguity or defect. Furthermore, failure of the Consultant or sub-consultants to
notify City in writing of specification defects or ambiguities prior to proposal submittal shall waive any right to
assert said defects or ambiguities subsequent to submittal of the proposal.
Packet Pg 562
8
Transportation On-Call Services Page 11 of 18
To the extent that these specifications constitute performance specifications, the City shall not be liable for costs
incurred by the successful Consultant to achieve the project’s objective or standard beyond the amounts provided
therefor in the proposal.
In the event that, after awarding the contract, any dispute arises as a result of any actual or alleged ambiguity or
defect in the specifications, or any other matter whatsoever, Consultant shall immediately notify the City in writing,
and the Consultant and all sub-consultants shall continue to perform, irrespective of whether or not the ambiguity
or defect is major, material, minor or trivial, and irrespective of whether or not a change order, time extension, or
additional compensation has been granted by City. Failure to provide the hereinbefore described written notice
within one (1) working day of Consultant's becoming aware of the facts giving rise to the dispute shall constitute
a waiver of the right to assert the causative role of the defect or ambiguity in the plans or specifications concerning
the dispute.
24. Indemnification for Professional Liability. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Consultant shall
indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City and any and all of its officials, employees and
agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and
expenses, including attorney’s fees and cost which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence,
recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant.
25. Non-Exclusive Contract. The City reserves the right to contract for the services listed in this proposal from
other consultants during the contract term.
26. Standards. Documents shall conform to City Standards and City furnished templates shall be used.
27. Consultant Endorsement. Technical reports, plans and specifications shall be stamped and signed by the
Consultant where required.
28. Required Deliverable Products and Revisions. The Consultant will be required to provide documents
addressing all elements of the workscope. Plans shall be prepared using City’s standardized title blocks and
coversheets. Draft plans may be submitted for review using either the full D (24x36) format or a reduced 11x17
format. Consultant shall ensure that drawings and notes are clearly legible if using the reduced format.
Specifications and bid documents shall conform to standard City formats unless authorized. The City’s current
Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards must be incorporated where applicable.
City staff will review any documents or materials provided by the Consultant and, where necessary, the
Consultant will respond to staff comments and make such changes as deemed appropriate. Submittals shall
include the previous marked up submittal (returned to the Consultant) to assist in the second review. Changes
shall be made as requested or a notation made as to why the change is not appropriate.
2 copies of the draft preliminary reports, technical studies and 50% plans and estimate
1 copy of the final preliminary reports, technical studies plus markups
2 copies of the 90% plans, specifications and estimate plus 50% markups
2 copy of the 100% plans, specifications and estimate plus 90% markups
1 copy of the final plans, specifications and estimates plus 100% markups
1 copy of the final record drawings after construction
All Submittals must include one electronic copy submitted in Adobe Acrobat format.
Draft reports and plan submittals shall be submitted as paper copies. Final documents shall be submitted as
camera-ready original, unbound, each page printed on only one side, including any original graphics in place and
scaled to size, ready for reproduction AND one electronic copy submitted in Adobe Acrobat format including all
original stamps and signatures
In the event the City will be compiling the final specifications, incorporating the Consultant’s work, the final
specifications will also be required to be submitted in Microsoft Word format.
Final plans will also be required to be submitted in AutoCAD
Packet Pg 563
8
Transportation On-Call Services Page 12 of 18
Electronic files shall be submitted on a flash drive and all files must be compatible with the Microsoft operating
system. Files may be emailed to the City in lieu of flash drive.
29. Ownership of Materials. Upon completion of all work under this contract, ownership and title to all reports,
documents, plans, specifications, and estimates produced as part of this contract will automatically be vested in
the city and no further agreement will be necessary to transfer ownership to the City. The Consultant shall furnish
the City all necessary copies of data needed to complete the review and approval process.
It is understood and agreed that all calculations, drawings and specifications, whether in hard copy or machine
readable form, are intended for one-time use in the construction of the project for which this contract has been
entered into.
The Consultant is not liable for claims, liabilities, or losses arising out of, or connected with the modification, or
misuse by the City of the machine-readable information and data provided by the Consultant under this
agreement. Further, the Consultant is not liable for claims, liabilities, or losses arising out of, or connected with
any use by City of the project documentation on other projects, except such use as may be authorized in writing
by the Consultant.
30. Release of Reports and Information. Any reports, information, data, or other material given to, prepared by or
assembled by the Consultant as part of the work or services under these specifications shall be the property of
City and shall not be made available to any individual or organization by the Consultant without the prior written
approval of the City.
The Consultant shall not issue any news release or public relations item of any nature, whatsoever, regarding
work performed or to be performed under this contract without prior review of the contents thereof by the City
and receipt of the City’s written permission.
31. Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports, drawings, specifications,
or any other material in addition to what the Consultant is required to furnish in limited quantities as part of the
work or services under these specifications, the Consultant shall provide such additional copies as are requested,
and City shall compensate the Consultant for the costs of duplicating of such copies at the Consultant's direct
expense.
32. Attendance at Meetings And Hearings. Consultant shall attend as many "working" meetings with staff as
necessary to accomplish the workscope tasks. Consultant shall attend workshops with the public, and City
commission, committee or Council meetings as identified in the individual project scoping.
33. Permit and Filing Fees. The Consultant shall procure all permits, and licenses, pay all charges and fees and
file all notices necessary as they pertain to the completion of the Consultant’s work. The City will pay all
application fees for permits required for the completion of the project work. The City requires a 10 day notice to
issue a check.
34. Project Proposal Submittal. Upon completion of the project scoping meeting, the Consultant shall submit a
proposed workscope, compensation and schedule within 10 working days. The cost proposal shall include all
costs including miscellaneous direct cost items.
35. Consultant Invoices. The Consultant shall deliver a monthly invoice to the City, itemized by project work phase
or, in the case of on-call contracts, by project title. Invoice must include a breakdown of hours billed and
miscellaneous charges and any sub-consultant invoices, similarly broken down, as supporting detail.
36. Payment. For providing services as specified in this Agreement, City will pay and Consultant shall receive
therefore compensation in a total sum not to exceed the individual agreed upon project fee. Should the
Consultant’s designs, drawings or specifications contain errors or deficiencies, the Consultant shall be required
to correct them at no increase in cost to the City.
For on-call services, the City will pay and the Consultant shall receive compensation as agreed to on a project
by project basis.
The Consultant shall be reimbursed for hours worked at the hourly rates attached to this agreement. Hourly rates
include direct salary costs, employee benefits, overhead and fee. In addition, the Consultant shall be reimbursed
Packet Pg 564
8
Transportation On-Call Services Page 13 of 18
for direct costs other than salary and vehicle cost that have been identified and are attached to this agreement.
The Consultant’s personnel shall be reimbursed for per diem expenses at a rate not to exceed that currently
authorized for State employees under State Department of Personnel Administration rules.
37. Payment Terms. The City's payment terms are 30 days from the receipt and approval of an original invoice and
acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment or services provided by the Consultant (Net 30).
38. Resolution of Disputes. Any dispute, other than audit, concerning a question of fact arising under this contract
that is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by a committee consisting of the City’s Project Manager
and the City Director of Public Works, who may consider written or verbal information submitted by the
Consultant. Not later than thirty days after completion of all deliverables necessary to complete the plans,
specifications and estimate, the Consultant may request review by the City Council of unresolved claims or
disputes, other than audit, in accordance with Chapter 1.20 Appeals Procedure of the Municipal Code.
Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an audit of this contract that is not disposed of by
agreement, shall be reviewed by the City’s Chief Fiscal Officer. Not later than 30 days after issuance of the final
audit report, the Consultant may request a review by the City’s Chief Fiscal Officer of unresolved audit issues.
The request for review must be submitted in writing.
Neither the pendency of a dispute, nor its consideration by the City will excuse the consultant from full and timely
performance in accordance with the terms of this contract.
39. Agreement Parties.
City: Jake Hudson
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Consultant:
All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by registered or
certified mail addressed as shown above.
40. Incorporation by Reference. City Request for Proposal Specification No. 100.50500.7227.TE and Consultant's
proposal dated X, are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement.
41. Amendments. Any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing
and shall be effective only upon approval by the Traffic Manager.
42. Working Out of Scope. If, at any time during the project, the consultant is directed to do work by persons other
than the City Project Manager and the Consultant believes that the work is outside of the scope of the original
contract, the Consultant shall inform the Project Manager immediately. If the Project Manager and Consultant
both agree that the work is outside of the project scope and is necessary to the successful completion of the
project, then a fee will be established for such work based on Consultant's hourly billing rates or a lump sum price
agreed upon between the City and the Consultant. Any extra work performed by Consultant without prior written
approval from the City Project Manager shall be at Consultant's own expense.
43. Complete Agreement. This written agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by
reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No oral agreement,
understanding or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of any force
or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding or representation be binding upon the parties hereto.
For and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed
by City, Consultant agrees with City to do everything required by this Agreement, the said specification and
incorporated documents.
Authority to Execute Agreement. Both City and Consultant do covenant that each individual executing this
agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such
party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year first above
written.
Packet Pg 565
8
Transportation On-Call Services Page 14 of 18
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO: CONSULTANT:
Katie Lichtig, City Manager By:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
Packet Pg 566
8
Transportation On-Call Services Page 15 of 18
Section E
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORMS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The undersigned declares that she or he:
Has carefully examined Specification No. 100.50500.7227.TE
Is thoroughly familiar with its content
Is authorized to represent the proposing firm; and
Agrees to perform the work as set forth in the specification and this proposal.
Firm Name and Address:
Contact Name:
Email:
Fax: Phone:
Signature of Authorized Representative:
Date:
INSURANCE CERTIFICATE
Insurance Company’s A.M. Best Rating
Certificate of insurance attached
Packet Pg 567
8
Transportation On-Call Services Page 16 of 18
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS
The Consultant shall state whether it or any of its officers or employees who have a proprietary interest in it, has
ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal, state, or local
government project because of the violation of law, a safety regulation, or for any other reason, including but not
limited to financial difficulties, project delays, or disputes regarding work or product quality, and if so to explain the
circumstances.
Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to declare? Yes No
If yes, explain the circumstances.
Executed on ______________________at _______________________________________ under penalty of
perjury of the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
______________________________________
Signature of Authorized Consultant Representative
REFERENCES
Number of years engaged in providing the services included within the scope of the specifications under the
present business name: _________
Describe fully the last three contracts performed by your firm that demonstrate your ability to provide the services
included with the scope of the specifications. Attach additional pages if required. The City reserves the right to
contact each of the references listed for additional information regarding your firm's qualifications.
Reference No. 1
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
Packet Pg 568
8
Transportation On-Call Services Page 17 of 18
Reference No. 2
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
Reference No. 3
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Date of Services
Contract Amount
Description of Services
Project Outcome
Packet Pg 569
8
Transportation On-Call Services Page 18 of 18
Section F
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Consultant Services
The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to
persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder
by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or sub-consultants.
Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 20 10 Prior to 1993 or
CG 20 10 07 04 with CG 20 37 10 01 or the exact equivalent as determined by the City).
2. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto).
3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance.
4. Errors and Omissions Liability insurance as appropriate to the consultant's profession.
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than:
1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If
Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate
limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required
occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
4. Errors and Omissions Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence.
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and
approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or
self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall
procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense
expenses.
Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed
to contain, the following provisions:
1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects:
liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations
of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired
or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection
afforded to the City, its officers, official, employees, agents or volunteers.
2. For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as
respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance
maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers shall be excess of the
Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is
brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
4. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended,
voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days prior written
notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. The Consultant agrees to notify
the City in the event that the policy is suspended, voided or reduced in coverage or limits. A minimum of 30
days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, will be provided.
Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than
A:VII.
Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing maintenance of
the required insurance coverage. Original endorsements effecting general liability and automobile liability coverage
required by this clause must also be provided. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that
insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work
commences.
Packet Pg 570
8
Meeting Date: 4/18/2017
FROM: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
Michael Codron, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: REPORT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE SECTION 9212
ON THE PROPOSED INITIATIVE MEASURE TO REPEAL CHAPTER 15.10
OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED “RENTAL
HOUSING INSPECTION” AND TO ADOPT NEW CHAPTER 15.10
ENTITLED “NON-DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING.”
RECOMMENDATION
Receive a report on the potential impacts of the proposed Initiative Measure Repealing Chapter
15.10 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code entitled “Rental Housing Inspection” (RHIP) and
adopting New Chapter 15.10 Entitled “Non-Discrimination in Housing.”
PLEASE NOTE
This item will be provided under separate cover and distributed as agenda correspondence.
Packet Pg 571
9
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 572
9
Meeting Date: 4/18/2017
FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk
SUBJECT: INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE REGARDING RENTAL HOUSING
INSPECTION AND NON-DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING OR PROVIDE
DIRECTION TO RETURN WITH DOCUMENTS TO ORDER A SPECIAL
ELECTION
RECOMMENDATION
1. Introduce an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, abolishing Chapter 15.10 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code entitled
“Rental Housing Inspection” and adopting a new chapter 15.10 entitled “Non-Discrimination
in Housing”; or
2. Direct the City Clerk to prepare the necessary documents to call for an All Mail Ballot
Special Election pursuant to Elections Code § 1405(a).
DISCUSSION
Background
On August 30, 2016, proponents Stewart D. Jenkins, Daniel J. Knight and Daniel L. Carpenter
filed a Notice of Intention to Circulate a Petition, together with a request for preparation of the
ballot title and summary by the City Attorney.
The City Attorney prepared the ballot title to read, “An Initiative to Repeal Chapter 15.10 of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code entitled “Rental Housing Inspection” and to adopt new Chapter
15.10 entitled “Non-Discrimination in Housing.”
On February 16, 2017, proponents of An Initiative to Repeal Chapter 15.10 of The San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code Entitled “Rental Housing Inspection” and to Adopt New Chapter 15.10
Entitled “Non-Discrimination in Housing” submitted a signed petition for filing with the City
Clerk’s office. After prima facie review, the petition appeared to exceed the minimum
requirement of 3,918 signatures, or fifteen percent (15%) of the City’s 26,122 registered voters
(per the County Elections official’s last report of registration to the Secretary of State). Pursuant
to the California Elections Code 9211 and 9115, the petition was examined for signature
verification using the random sample method by the San Luis Obispo County Clerk-Recorder.
On February 16, 2017, a Special City Council workshop was held to discuss the rental housing
inspection program at which time, Council directed staff to return with an ordinance repealing
the existing ordinance Chapter 15.10 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
On March 7, 2017, at the regular meeting of the City Council, a public hearing was held to
introduce an Ordinance repealing Chapter 15.10 Rental Housing Inspection Program of Title 15
Packet Pg 573
10
of the Municipal Code. Council voted and the item unanimously passed.
On March 13, 2017, the City Clerk determined that the initiative petition met the following
criteria: 1) the petition was timely filed; 2) the petition contained the requisite number of valid
signatures; and 3) the format of the petition substantially complies with the technical
requirements of the California Elections Code, was sufficient and qualified to be submitted to the
voters at a special municipal election.
On March 21, 2017, at the regular meeting of the City Council, Ordinance 1632 repealing
Chapter 15.10 Rental Housing Inspection Program of Title 15 of the Municipal Code was
unanimously adopted. Ordinance No. 1632 becomes effective on April 20, 2017.
On March 21, 2017, the Council approved the City Clerks Certificate of Sufficiency and
pursuant to Elections Code § 9212, requested a report of the effect of the proposed initiative be
presented no later than 30 days after the elections official certifies to the legislative body, the
sufficiency of the petition.
On April 18, 2017, City staff provided the report of the effects of the proposed initiative as
previously directed by the City Council. Once the impacts report has been considered, the
Council has the option of: (1) Adopt the Ordinance (Attachment A), without alteration, at this
regular meeting or within 10 days after it is presented; or (2) immediately order a special
election, to be held pursuant to Elections Code § 1405(a), at which the ordinance, without
alteration, shall be submitted to a vote of the voters of the city.
Ordinance No. 1559 (2011 Series), (Attachment B), to this report enables the Council, by
resolution, to call a mailed ballot election for any purpose on dates established under the
Elections Code or any other date specified by Council resolution. Per Elections Code § 1405(a),
except as provided below, the election for a county, municipal, or district initiative that qualifies
pursuant to Section 9116, 9214, or 9310 shall be held not less than 88 nor more than 103 days
after the date of the order of election.
Should Council decide to order a Special Election, the City Council will be asked to provide the
City Clerk direction on:
1. All necessary documents to set election date by resolution; and
2. All necessary documents to allow for the setting of priorities for filing, written
arguments, and delegate or otherwise provide for the submittal of arguments; and
3. The necessary documents to direct the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis; and
4. All necessary documents to provide for the filing of rebuttal arguments by resolution.
Packet Pg 574
10
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court, No. S207173 (Supreme Court,
Aug. 7, 2014), the California Supreme Court ruled that the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) does not apply when a lead agency receives a voter initiative petition that qualifies
under the Elections Code and the lead agency chooses to adopt the initiative without putting the
decision to the voters. Likewise, CEQA does not apply should the City Council determine to
place the matter before the voters.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City of San Luis Obispo has made it a practice to contract with the County Registrar of
Voters for assistance in the conduct of its municipal elections. The City Clerk's staff is
investigating costs associated which are estimated between $119,000 to $158,000.
ALTERNATIVES
The range of alternatives are specified in California Elections Code and are reflected in the
recommendation.
Attachments:
a - Initiative Measure to be Submitted Directly to the Voters
b - Ordinance No. 1559 (2011 Series)
Packet Pg 575
10
O ______
ORDINANCE NO. _____ (2017 SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ABOLISHING CHAPTER 15.10 OF THE SAN
LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED “RENTAL HOUSING
INSPECTION” AND ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 15.10 ENTITLED
“NON-DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING”
WHEREAS, the People of San Luis Obispo seek to protect the privacy of all residents
from discriminatory inspections invading residents’ privacy that violate the First, Fourth and Fifth
Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 15.10 requires mandatory intrusive inspections inside homes in San
Luis Obispo violating the privacy of City residents under the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments;
and
WHEREAS, Chapter 15.10 is so vague that City Officials are authorized to silently
discriminate in determining whose home to target based on age, income, political activity, or status
as a renter or an owner; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 15.10 must be abolished and replaced with a Non-Discrimination in
Housing Ordinance to protect residents’ privacy in San Luis Obispo;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. This ordinance shall be known as the “Non-Discrimination in Housing
Ordinance.”
SECTION 2. Chapter 15.10, “Rental Housing Inspection”, of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code is hereby repealed and new Chapter 15.10 is adopted to read as follows:
CHAPTER 15.10. NON-DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING
SECTION 15.10.010 The City of San Luis Obispo shall not discriminate against any
person based upon age, income, disability, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual identity, or inability or
ability to own a home, by imposing any compulsory program, policy, intrusion or inspection
applicable to any residential dwelling unit. No determination to conduct an inspection of any
dwelling shall be based substantially on any occupant’s age, income, disability, gender, race,
ethnicity, sexual identity or status as an owner or renter of such dwelling.
SECTION 3. The people of City of San Luis Obispo hereby request this ordinance be
submitted immediately to a vote of the people at a special election, pursuant to Elections Code §
9214.
Packet Pg 576
10
Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
O ______
INTRODUCED on the 18th day of April, 2017, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the 2nd day of May 2017, on the following 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 577
10
ORDINANCE NO. 1559 (2011 Series )
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RELATING TO TH E
CONDUCT OF MAILED BALLOT ELECTION S
WHEREAS,pursuant to the authority granted under Section 301 of the City Charter, th e
City Council desires to provide procedures for conducting special municipal elections for an y
purpose by mailed ballot .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Lui s
Obispo that any special municipal election may be conducted as an all-mail ballot election i n
accordance with the provisions of Sections 1 through 11 of this ordinance .
SECTION 1 .Scope of Mailed Ballot Elections . Any special municipal electio n
specified herein may be held as a mailed ballot election for any purpose .
SECTION 2 . Any mailed ballot election may be conducted, and the votes thereo f
canvassed, and the returns thereof made, and the result thereof ascertained and determined, a s
herein provided ; and in all particulars not prescribed by this ordinance, said elections shall b e
held as provided by the general laws of the State of California for the holding of municipa l
elections in the City . The Elections Official is hereby authorized and directed to take all action s
necessary to conduct said special elections as provided herein and as required by law .
SECTION 3 .Dates for Special Municipal Elections . The date for any mailed ballo t
special municipal election shall either be on a date set by the California Elections Code section s
1000, 1001, or 1500, or on any other date set by resolution of the City Council .
SECTION 4 .Drop-off Centers . The Elections Official, or his or her designe e
(hereinafter "Elections Official"), shall establish the official ballot drop-off centers . The officia l
drop-off centers shall be open during normal business hours 29 days before Election Day o n
weekdays (excluding holidays) and on Election Day from 7 :00 a .m . to 8 :00 p .m., and at tha t
time, shall be closed .
SECTION 5 .Provision of Ballot Materials . The Elections Official shall provide to eac h
registered voter appropriate supplies necessary for the use and return of the ballot by mail .
A.Each ballot mailed by the Elections Official shall be accompanied by a ballo t
pamphlet and instructions for return of the ballot, including the location of the official ballo t
drop-off centers for the special election, and the date and time by which such ballot must b e
received at the official ballot drop-off centers to be counted for the election .
B.Each ballot mailed by the Elections Official shall be accompanied by an officia l
return envelope .
C.The return envelope shall bear the following information, to be printed thereon b y
the Elections Official or provided by the voter, as appropriate :
0 1559
Packet Pg 578
10
Ordinance No . 1559 (2011 Series )
Page 2
1.A notice that the envelope contains an official ballot and is to be opened only by th e
canvassing board .
2.A warning plainly printed that voting more than once constitutes a crime .
3.A declaration of the voter, under penalty of perjury, that he or she resides within th e
precinct in which he or she is voting and is the person whose name appears on th e
envelope .
4.The residence address of the voter as shown on the affidavit of registration .
5. The signature of the voter .
6. The date of signing .
7.If the ballot will be returned in person by someone other than the voter, the voter's
handwritten designation of that person by name, and a declaration signed by the voter ,
under penalty of perjury, that said adult person has been authorized by the voter to retur n
the ballot .
D.The Elections Official shall not commence to mail the ballot and electio n
materials prior to the 29th day before the election, and shall complete the mailing no later tha n
the 10th day prior to the election .
E.The failure of any registered voter to receive an official ballot shall not invalidat e
any election conducted pursuant to this Chapter .
SECTION 6 .Return of Ballots .
A.Ballots may be returned by regular, certified or registered United States mail ,
overnight commercial carrier or in person . Ballots returned in person may be returned to th e
official drop-off centers . The Elections Official may include a notice to voters to the effect tha t
they are permitted to return the voted ballot by regular, certified, or registered United States mai l
or overnight commercial carrier .
B.All ballots shall be delivered, by mail to the Elections Official or in person by th e
voter or other authorized person to the official ballot drop-off centers no later than 8 :00 p .m . on
the date of the special election . Any ballot received by the Elections Official by mail or at th e
official ballot drop-off centers after 8 :00 p .m . on the date of the Special Election shall not b e
accepted or counted . However, if at the time of the announcement that the poll is closed ther e
are any voters inside the official ballot drop-off centers who have not been able to deposit thei r
official ballot envelope with the election officials there, the election officials shall continue t o
accept envelopes from such voters until all have had the opportunity to deliver their ballots .
Packet Pg 579
10
Ordinance No . 1559 (2011 Series )
Page 3
C.Any ballot returned in person shall be returned by the voter who was authorized to
cast the ballot or by an adult person designated and authorized, in said voter's own handwriting ,
in the appropriate place provided by the Elections Official on the outside of the return envelope .
Any person who shall deliver any other voter's ballot to the official ballot drop-off
centers shall, at the time of such delivery, personally sign, in the presence of the Election s
Official or a Deputy Elections Official, a declaration under penalty of perjury relating to suc h
designation, authorization and delivery on a form to be furnished by the Elections Official .
D.The Elections Official shall establish appropriate procedures for verifying th e
signature and residence address of each voter casting a mailed ballot . Upon receipt at th e
Elections Official's office, the Elections Official or a Deputy Elections Official shall compare th e
signature on each envelope with that appearing on the affidavit of registration of such voter and ,
if determined to be the same, deposit the ballot, still in the official return envelope, in a ballo t
container in the Elections Official's office . If the ballot is rejected on the basis of such
comparison, the envelope shall not be opened and the ballot shall not be counted, and the caus e
of rejection shall be noted on the face of the envelope . A variance between the signatures cause d
by the substitution of initials for the first or middle name, or both, shall not invalidate the ballot .
No ballot shall be removed from its envelope until the time for processing . No ballot shall b e
rejected on the basis of this subsection after the envelope has been opened .
SECTION 7 . Official Ballot Drop-off Centers . The Elections Official shall establish th e
appropriate procedures and furnish the necessary staffing to ensure the secrecy and adequat e
security of ballots returned to the officially designated ballot drop-off centers .
SECTION 8 .Absent Voter .
A.No application need be made by any voter for an absentee ballot for this specia l
election conducted entirely by mail and, except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, th e
provisions of Division 3 (Section 3000 et seq .) of the Elections Code of the State of Californi a
shall not apply to this special election ; provided, however that any voter who has qualified as a
permanent absentee voter under the Elections Code shall receive and return a ballot in th e
manner provided herein for all other voters . The return of the mailed ballot conforming in al l
particulars to the requirements of this ordinance shall be accepted as an absentee ballot on behal f
of any voter who is absent from the City on the date of the election .
B.Any registered voter who will be absent from the City prior to the mail-ballo t
election to and including the date of the election may file a written application with the Cit y
Clerk to receive an absentee mailed ballot at an address other than the voter's residence . The
application shall be filed following the adoption of the resolution calling the mailed ballo t
election and on or before the seventh day prior to the election . The application shall show th e
voter's place of residence and the address to which the ballot should be mailed, and state that th e
voter will be unable to receive and return the mailed ballot by the election date, and shall b e
signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury. No voter who requests an absentee mail ballot
shall be required to return or surrender a duplicate mailed ballot sent to the voter's residence .
Packet Pg 580
10
Ordinance No . 1559 (2011 Series )
Page 4
SECTION 9 .Provisional Ballots . Any registered voter who has not already cast his o r
her vote may obtain a ballot at the official drop-off centers . The drop-off centers shall provid e
the necessary materials to enable voters to cast their votes in person, in accordance with th e
provisional ballot provisions of the Elections Code .
SECTION 10 .Processing of Ballots . Notwithstanding any provision in the Californi a
Elections Code, the Elections Official may commence processing the ballots no earlier than th e
seventh working day prior to the election . However, the Elections Official shall not release an y
results until 8 :00 p .m. on the day of the special election .
SECTION 11 .Effective Date . This ordinance, being an ordinance calling, ordering an d
relating to an election, shall take effect immediately from and after its adoption .
SECTION 12 .If any part of this ordinance is held by a court of competent jurisdictio n
to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remainder of the ordinance shall remain in full forc e
and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired, or invalidated .
SECTION 13 .A summary of this ordinance approved by the City Attorney shall b e
published at least once in a newspaper of the City of San Luis Obispo at least three (3) day s
before its adoption .
INTRODUCED on the 15th day of March 2011,AND FINALLY ADOPTED by th e
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, on the 5th day of April, 2011, on the following vote :
AYES :
Council Members Carpenter, Carter and Smith, Vice Mayor Ashbaug h
and Mayor Mar x
NOES :
None
ABSENT : None
ATTEST :
d,-
Elaina Can o
City Clerk
hereby certify that this document is a tru e
-)riginal of Ordinance No ./;c-59 ,',,)anre was published pursuant
to C'al Section 602 .
Date
Clerk
Packet Pg 581
10
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 582
10
Meeting Date: 4/18/2017
FROM: Katie Lichtig, City Manager
Prepared By: Xenia Bradford, Interim Finance Director
Courtney Steck, Contract Budget Manager
SUBJECT: STRATEGIC BUDGET DIRECTION AND MAJOR CITY GOAL WORK
PROGRAMS FOR THE 2017-19 FINANCIAL PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
1. Review updated General Fund Five-Year Fiscal Forecast and Enterprise Funds forecasts;
and
2. Review and provide guidance to the City Manager regarding proposed Major City Goals
and Other Important Objective work programs; and
3. Review and provide guidance to the City Manager regarding the recommended use and
allocation of one-time and ongoing budget resources to fund proposed Significant Operating
Program Changes (SOPCs), the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Fleet Replacement Fund,
Information Technology (IT) Replacement Fund, and Major Facility Replacement Fund;
and provide direction whether Parks Element Update should be funded; and
4. Approve a policy for the Insurance Benefit Fund, establishing funding and fund balance
requirements for newly formed Excess Liability Insurance program; and
5. Receive an update on key informational items regarding future financial uncertainties and
challenges.
PLEASE NOTE
This item has been continued from the 4:00 p.m. regular meeting. Refer to Item 2 of this agenda
packet to view Council Agenda Report documents.
Packet Pg 583
2
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 584
2