HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-06-2017 Agenda Packet
Tuesday, June 6, 2017
6:00 PM
REGULAR MEETING
Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo Page 1
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Heidi Harmon
ROLL CALL: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy
Pease, Vice Mayor Dan Rivoire and Mayor Heidi Harmon
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Andy Pease
PRESENTATIONS
1. MAYOR'S AWARDS FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE (HARMON – 10 MINUTES)
Presentation of the Mayor's Awards for Community Service to San Luis Obispo High
School students for completing eighty hours or more of community service.
2. PROCLAMATION - NET ZERO ENERGY DAY (HARMON – 5 MINUTES)
Presentation of a proclamation to Marcus Carloni, Sustainability Coordinator, representing
the City of San Luis Obispo, declaring June 20, 2017 as "Net Zero Energy Day" and
encouraging all residents of the City of San Luis Obispo to support Net Zero Energy Day by
consciously reducing or eliminating their energy use for the day.
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.
Packet Pg 1
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 6, 2017 Page 2
CONSENT AGENDA
A member of the public may request the Council to pull an item for discussion. Pulled items
shall be heard at the close of the Consent Agenda unless a majority of the Council chooses
another time. The public may comment on any and all items on the Consent Agenda within the
three minute time limit.
3. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
Recommendation
Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
4. MINUTES OF APRIL 4 AND 12, 2017 (GALLAGHER)
Approve the Minutes of the City Council meeting of April 4, 2017 and Joint City Council
and Planning Commission Special meeting of April 12, 2017.
5. ORDINANCE ADOPTION TO AMEND TITLE 17 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
ASSOCIATED WITH ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (CODRON / WISEMAN)
Recommendation
Adopt Ordinance No. 1634 (2017 Series) entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending Title 17 (Zoning Regulations) of the
Municipal Code associated with Accessory Dwelling Units with a Statutory Exemption from
Environmental Review (CODE-0107-2017).”
6. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT CODE
ENFORCEMENT FINES (CODRON / SCHNEIDER)
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, authorizing the San Luis Obispo County Auditor to assess amounts due
on delinquent administrative fines as special assessments against the properties pursuant to
California Government Code Section 53069.4(a).”
Packet Pg 2
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 6, 2017 Page 3
7. COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
REGARDING CITY PARTICIPATION IN THE URBAN COUNTY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FEDERAL PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEARS
2018-2020 (CODRON / WISEMAN)
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving a Cooperation Agreement between the City and County of
San Luis Obispo to recognize joint participation in the Urban County Grant Program for
Fiscal Years 2018-2020.”
8. LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD/US 101 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO. 99821–TWO LAND QUITCLAIM DEEDS TO
CALTRANS (GRIGSBY / ROWLAND / VAN BEVEREN)
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo,
California, approving and authorizing the Mayor to execute a Quitclaim Deed transferring real
property from the City to Caltrans” as part of the southbound U.S. 101 onramp at Los Osos
Valley Road.
9. RESOLUTION UPDATING THE CITY’S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS (CODRON / VAN LEEUWEN)
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, adopting revised Development Review Notification Requirements,” to
be consistent with State Requirements.
10. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR POLICE AND FIRE ALARM TRACKING AND
BILLING SERVICES (CANTRELL / HIXENBAUGH)
Recommendation
1. Authorize staff to submit a Request for Proposal for Police and Fire Alarm Tracking and
Billing Services (Specification No. 91551) for fiscal years 2018-21; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement for services.
Packet Pg 3
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 6, 2017 Page 4
11. ADVISORY BODY BYLAWS AND HANDBOOK UPDATE (PRICE / GALLAGHER)
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
California, amending the bylaws of certain advisory bodies and adopting a revised Advisory
Body Handbook.”
12. CONTRACT WITH LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE (IRONS / ROLTGEN)
Recommendation
Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
(LCW) to provide specialized employment and labor relations legal services to the City of
San Luis Obispo up to $160,000 for fiscal year 2017-18.
13. AUTHORIZE USE OF FUNDS FOR CONTINUING LITIGATION (DIETRICK)
Recommendation
Authorize the City Attorney to execute a Third Amendment to the Legal Services
Agreement with the law firm of Jarvis, Fay, Doporto & Gibson (Original Agreement dated
March 31, 2015) increasing the not to exceed amount from $75,000 to $85,000, for the
City’s legal defense in the case of Palacios, et al. v. Nielsen, et al., as authorized by the City
Council and reported out of closed session on March 31, 2015.
14. AMENDMENT TO DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CONTRACT (DIETRICK)
Recommendation
Authorize the City Attorney to execute a First Amendment to the Legal Services Agreement
with the law firm of Hanley and Fleishman, LLP (Original Agreement effective April 1,
2017) adding a term of 18 months and a not to exceed amount of $108,000.
PUBLIC HEARING/BUDGET WORKSHOP – 240 MINUTES
15. PUBLIC HEARING - 2017 WATER FUND REVIEW AND 2017-18 WATER RATE
ADOPTION (MATTINGLY / FLOYD / ELKE)
Recommendation
1. Review and approve the 2017 Water Fund Review; and
2. Conceptually approve the 2017-19 Water Fund financials and budget with final action
on June 20, 2017, with the adoption of the City’s 2017-19 Financial Plan; and
Packet Pg 4
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 6, 2017 Page 5
3. Adopt a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, establishing the Water Rates for Fiscal Year 2017-18” provided there
is no majority protest against such increases; and
4. Adopt a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, setting charges for water meters, customer valves, and adapters.”
16. 2017 SEWER FUND REVIEW (MATTINGLY / HIX / ELKE)
Recommendation
1. Review and approve the 2017 Sewer Fund Review; and
2. Conceptually approved the 2017-19 Sewer Fund financials and budget with final action
on June 20, 2017, with the adoption of the City’s 2017-19 Financial Plan.
17. 2017 PARKING FUND REVIEW (GRIGSBY / LEE)
Recommendation
1. Review and accept the 2017-19 Parking Fund Analysis; and
2. Conceptually approve the Parking Enterprise Fund budget for 2017-19 with final action
on June 20, 2017 with the adoption of the 2017-19 Financial Plan; and
3. Authorize the release of the Parking Structure Assessment and Maintenance Report
Request for Proposal (RFP); and
4. Introduce an ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo, California, amending Section 10.52.010 (Parking Meter Zone Rates) of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code” approving an increase in parking rates for metered
spaces effective January 1, 2018, July 1, 2019 and again on July 1, 2020; and
5. Adopt a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving parking fees in the City’s parking structures” effective
January 1, 2018 and July 1, 2020; and
6. Adopt a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving increased parking citation fines” to modify/increase the
fine and forfeiture amounts for certain parking violations identified in the resolution
effective January 1, 2018.
Packet Pg 5
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 6, 2017 Page 6
18. TRANSIT FISCAL YEAR 2017-19 FUND REVIEW (GRIGSBY / ANGUIANO)
Recommendation
1. Review and approve the Fiscal Year 2017-19 Transit Enterprise Fund Review; and
2. Conceptually approve the Fiscal Year 2017-19 Transit Enterprise Fund financials and
budget, with final action on June 20, 2017, with the adoption of the 2017-19 Financial
Plan.
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)
ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. and
6:00 p.m., respectively, 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 6
San Luis Obispo Page 1
Tuesday April 4, 2017
Regular Meeting of the City Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, April 4,
2017 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, by Mayor Harmon.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor
Dan Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson,
Assistant City Manager; and Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk; were present at Roll
Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated
in the minutes.
PUBLIC HEARING AND BUSINESS ITEMS
1. PUBLIC HEARING - 2017 TRANSIT FARES AND ADVERTISEMENT RATES
ANALYSIS
Public Works Director Grigsby and Transit Manager Anguiano provided an in-depth staff
report with the use of a Power Point presentation and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
Liz Thyne, San Luis Obispo, Chair of Mass Transportation Committee spoke in support of
an increase in transit fares; she noted the importance of an increase to keep the program
running as well as for its future success.
Louise Justice, San Luis Obispo, Mass Transportation Committee member spoke in support
of an increase in transit fares as well as in support of an extension on bus pass times.
---End of Public Comment---
Packet Pg 7
4
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 4, 2017 Page 2
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY
COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, CARRIED 5-0 to:
As recommended by Mass Transportation Committee (MTC):
1. Adopt Resolution 10784 (2017 SERIES) entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the fare and interior bus advertising
rates for San Luis Obispo (SLO) Transit”; and
2. Set June 18th 2017 as the date for the new fares to be implemented.
As recommended by Staff:
1. Adopt the recommendation of the MTC for the Regular 31-Day Monthly pass with a
revision to limit the increase to $40 instead of $41; and
2. Adopt the recommendation of the MTC for the Senior 31-Day Monthly pass with a
revision to limit the increase to $20 to be half the Regular 31-Day Monthly pass.
Staff was directed by Council to monitor advertising rates and return in the future with a
follow up report.
STUDY SESSION
2. STUDY SESSION REGARDING INFLOW AND INFILTRATION REDUCTION
AND PRIVATE SEWER LATERAL PROGRAM
Utilities Director Mattingly, Utilities Deputy Director Hix, Utilities Project Manager Metz,
and Wastewater Collection System Supervisor Nance provided an in-depth staff report with
the use of a Power Point presentation and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
Sandra Rowley, San Luis Obispo, stated that additional information was needed and
inquired about outreach to property owners.
Steve Delmartini, spoke on behalf of Association of Realtors, he spoke regarding point of
sale issues and noted time requirements to complete repairs in the process of a home sale.
---End of Public Comment---
By consensus, Council directed staff to receive and file the presentation on inflow and
infiltration reduction, including a Private Sewer Lateral Program, in a study session and
provided feedback on reduction approaches.
Packet Pg 8
4
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 4, 2017 Page 3
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND BUSINESS ITEM
3. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE COMPENSATION OF THE UNREPRESENTED
MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES
Human Resources Director Irons and Human Resources Analyst Sutter provided an in-depth
staff report and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER GOMEZ, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 10785 (2017 SERIES) entitled, “A Resolution of the Council of
the City of San Luis Obispo, California, regarding management compensation for
appointed officials, department heads, and management employees and superseding
previous resolutions in conflict,” with a one and one-half year term (January 1, 2017 to
June 30, 2018) adjusting the compensation of the Unrepresented Management
Employees.
CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of
Government Code § 54956.9: No. of potential cases: One.
City Manager Lichtig stated that Council may return to the dais slightly later than
anticipated due to the late start of the closed session.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
None.
---End of Public Comment---
RECESSED AT 5:46 P.M. TO CLOSED SESSION
Packet Pg 9
4
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 4, 2017 Page 4
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, April 4,
2017 at 6:15 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, by Mayor Harmon.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor
Dan Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson,
Assistant City Manager; and Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk; were present at Roll
Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated
in the minutes.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Vice Mayor Dan Rivoire led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mayor Harmon announced that Item 18 was has been withdrawn at the request of the applicant
and continued to a date uncertain; she stated that the item will not be heard tonight.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Dietrick stated that there was no reportable action for Closed Session Item A.
PROCLAMATIONS
4. PROCLAMATION - MONTH OF THE CHILD AND CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION
MONTH
Mayor Harmon provided a presentation of a proclamation proclaiming April 2017 as both the
“Month of the Child” and “Child Abuse Prevention Month.”
5. PROCLAMATION - SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH
Mayor Harmon provided a presentation of a proclamation proclaiming April 2017 as "Sexual
Assault Awareness Month" and April 29, 2017 as "Walk a Mile In Her Shoes Day" in San
Luis Obispo.
Packet Pg 10
4
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 4, 2017 Page 5
PRESENTATIONS
6. PRESENTATION - WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY (WRRF)
PROJECT ENERGY REBATE BY SEMPRA ENERGY (THE GAS COMPANY)
Utilities Director Mattingly, Water Resources Recovery Facility Supervisor Brewen, and
Frank Mateo representing Sempra Energy provided a presentation regarding a rebate check
as a result of the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) Energy Efficiency project.
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comment---
APPOINTMENTS
7. AMENDMENTS TO THE 2017 COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE LIAISON
ASSIGNMENTS
City Clerk Gallagher presented the contents of the report.
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comments---
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY VICE
MAYOR RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0
1. Upon formation, add the San Luis Obispo Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability
Agency (GSA) to the Council Liaison Subcommittee assignments list for calendar year
2017; and
2. Appoint Council Member Carlyn Christianson to serve as a member of the community
action partnership of San Luis Obispo County, Inc. (CAPSLO) Board of Directors.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Evan Falkenthal, Los Osos, spoke regarding the re-evaluation of an MOU between the City of
SLO and the Campus Police Department and noted the use of bullying tactics.
Eric Veium, San Luis Obispo, introduced a proposal of a Net Zero Carbon Community Task
Force and requested the incorporation of their goals into the Climate Action Plan.
Barry Rands, San Luis Obispo, Net Zero Carbon Community Task Force, thanked the City for
their efforts in promoting electrical vehicle used with providing charging stations around the
City.
Packet Pg 11
4
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 4, 2017 Page 6
Don Hedrick, spoke regarding illness causing toxins released in the air through chem trails.
---End of Public Comment---
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY
COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Consent Calendar Items 8 thru 14.
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY
COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, CARRIED 4-0 (GOMEZ RECUSED) to approve Consent
Calendar Item 15.
8. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
CARRIED 5-0, to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
9. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS OF FEBRUARY 7, FEBRUARY
16, MARCH 7 AND MARCH 14, 2017
CARRIED 5-0, to approve the Minutes of the City Council meetings of February 7,
February 16, March 7 and March 14, 2017.
10. REVIEW OF A MILLS ACT HISTORIC PRESERVATION AGREEMENT FOR
THE MASTER LIST HISTORIC MICHAEL C. HALPIN HOUSE (116 CHORRO
STREET)
CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 10786 (2017 Series) entitled, “A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving a historic property
preservation agreement between the City and the owner of the Michael C. Halpin House at
116 Chorro Street,” under the terms described in the agreement.
11. VOLUNTARY PARTY REGISTRATION PILOT PROGRAM
CARRIED 5-0, to approve the creation of a voluntary party registration pilot program to be
managed by the Police Department.
Public Comments:
Daniel Halprin, spoke in support of the party registration program, he noted the inclusion of
the student population in its creation and thanked the City for its efforts, additionally he
added some changes he hopes are incorporated into the program.
Warren Fox, San Luis Obispo thanked the Inter Fraternity Council and City for working
together to develop the program, he spoke in support of passing the
voluntary party registration pilot program.
---End of Public Comment---
Packet Pg 12
4
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 4, 2017 Page 7
12. AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF LAND
DEDICATION FOR TRACTS 3063, 3066 AND 3095 (RIGHETTI RANCH, JONES,
IMEL)
CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Approve an Affordable Housing Agreement to accept the dedication of land to meet
to Inclusionary Housing Requirements of Tracts 3063, 3066, and 3095; and
2. Authorize the Community Development Director to approve minor modifications and
to execute the approved Affordable Housing Agreement.
13. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO MAINTAINING STATUS QUO BY EXPRESSLY CODIFYING
AND AFFIRMING THE CITY’S AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE ITS CURRENT
PERMISSIVE ZONING, LICENSING, PERMITTING AND REGULATORY
POLICIES PROHIBITING MARIJUANA USES, ACTIVITIES, AND
OPERATIONS, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PERMITTED UNDER THE
COMPASSIONATE USE ACT, THE MEDICAL CANNABIS REGULATORY AND
SAFETY ACT, OR THE CONTROL, REGULATE, AND TAX ADULT USE OF
MARIJUANA ACT PENDING COUNCIL DIRECTION AND CONSIDERATION
OF PERMANENT REGULATIONS
CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Ordinance No. 1633 (2017 Series) entitled, “An Ordinance of the
City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, codifying and reaffirming current
City law, policy and practice by expressly prohibiting all commercial and industrial
recreational and medical marijuana uses, activities and operations and limiting outdoor
cultivation of medical and recreational marijuana within the City,” maintaining status quo by
expressly codifying and affirming the City’s authority to enforce its current permissive
zoning, licensing, permitting and regulatory policies prohibiting marijuana uses, activities,
and operations, except as otherwise permitted under the Compassionate Use Act, the
Medical Cannabis Regulatory and Safety Act, or the Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use
of Marijuana Act pending Council direction and consideration of permanent regulations.
Public Comments:
Adam Pinterits, Director of Government and Community Relations for Ethnobotanica, a
medical cannabis collective, spoke regarding delivery, cultivation, water and efficiency
measures; he offered to provided impute on empirical research and data on cannabis policy
and community impacts.
---End of Public Comment---
14. CONTRACT AMENDMENT TO COMPLETE AN INDEPENDENT
CONFIDENTIAL PERSONNEL INVESTIGATION
CARRIED 5-0, to:
1. Authorize the City Attorney to execute the second amendment to the agreement with
Burke Williams & Sorensen, LLP, with a not to exceed amount of $70,000; and
Packet Pg 13
4
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 4, 2017 Page 8
2. Authorize the use of non-departmental: contingency budget in the amount of $20,000
to complete an ongoing independent personnel investigation.
15. ADOPT A RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE CITY COUNCIL’S MARCH 21, 2017
DECISION OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY STALWORK, INC.) OF THE TREE
COMMITTEE’S DECISION TO DENY REMOVAL OF TREES FOR A PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2466 AUGUSTA STREET.
CARRIED 4-0 (GOMEZ RECUSED) , to adopt Resolution 10782 (2017 Series) entitled, “A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, Denying in Part,
and Upholding in Part, an Appeal of the Tree Committee’s Decision to Deny a Tree
Removal Request at 2466 Augusta Street and Waiving and Levying Civil Penalties.”
PUBLIC HEARING AND BUSINESS ITEMS
16. PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY TERESA MATTHEWS
AND LYDIA MOURENZA) OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE THE REHABILITATION, ADAPTIVE
REUSE, AND REPOSITIONING OF THE MASTER LIST HISTORIC SANDFORD
HOUSE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 33-UNIT, MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ON 71 PALOMAR DRIVE, WITH A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Ex Parte Communications:
Council Member Pease noted having to recuse herself on this item due to a conflict of
interest relating to her working relationship with Arris Architects; she exited the dais at
7:05pm.
Assistant City Manager Johnson disclosed having not participated in anyway relating to the
preparation, review or technical analysis of staff reports, he reported living over 2000ft from
the project however in the interest of his neighbors he felt it best to recuse himself from this
item and exited the dais at 7:07pm.
Mayor Harmon noted having met with neighbors of the project, Tree Committee Members
and both ARC and CHC Committee Members.
Council Members Christianson, Gomez and Vice Mayor Rivoire reported having no Ex
Parte Communications.
Community Development Director Codron and Associate Planner Rachel Cohen provided
an in-depth staff report with the help of a Power Point presentation and responded to
Council questions.
Community Development Director Codron noted that City Arborist Combs, Transportation
Operations Manager Hudson, Utilities Deputy Director Hix and Richard Dalton of Rincon
Consultants were all in attendance and available for questions if necessary.
Packet Pg 14
4
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 4, 2017 Page 9
Public Comments:
Appellant: Pearl Kan, speaking on behalf of appellants, noted that the appellants are not
asking the Council to violate state law regarding the Housing Accountability Act but rather
the issue they are bringing forward to Council is the projects compliance and conformance
with CEQA; she believes that a full environmental impact report is warranted in place of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration Review. She spoke regarding designation of historical
resources and the way they are distinguished on the master list. She stated that demolition is
not preservation but rather an adverse impact. She noted the closure of Luneta Drive and
differing impacts during its closure and opening.
Appellant: Pearl Kan, appellant representative spoke regarding CEQA legal standards noting
that evidence supports that significant impacts may occur in this project requiring an EIR
and requested a hearing be held following the completion of an EIR.
Applicant: Loren Riehl, he noted the hiring of an architecture historian and stated that the
process began by looking at objective standards that applied, he added that consideration
was taken for neighbors’ concerns regarding low density, parking and traffic off Luneta and
the attempts to design in a sensitive way. He noted adding 33 units including 4 rent
restricted units for low income households with sustainable infill construction while
preserving the Stanford House, he added that the project is consistent with all objective
criteria noting that the designation by prior City Council is underutilized and blighted.
Diane Hanna, Attorney at Law speaking on behalf of the applicant stated that CEQA is
based on objective evidence, not argument, opinion or speculation; she stated that projects
that follow the Secretary of Interior standards and guidelines shall be mitigated to a level of
less than significant as is the case with this project; she stated the removal of the boxy rear
additions improve the historic integrity of the house; adding that the established period of
historic integrity ends in 1930; she clarified that the history of occupancy by Christine
Jacobs does not qualify it as “Historical”; and stated that the project is in full conformance
of the City tree regulations.
Public Comments in Support of the Appeal:
John Snetsinger, San Luis Obispo
David Hafemeister, San Luis Obispo
Roberto Monge
Allen Cooper, San Luis Obispo
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo
Peter Crough, San Luis Obispo
Dan Matthews, San Luis Obispo
Michael Jencks
James Lopes
Cheryl McLean. San Luis Obispo
Bob Mourenza, San Luis Obispo
Diana Schmiett
Sandra Rowley, San Luis Obispo
Jody Vollmer, San Luis Obispo
Kathie Walker, San Luis Obispo
Packet Pg 15
4
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 4, 2017 Page 10
Kevin Rice, San Luis Obispo
Mila Vujovich Le-Barre, San Luis Obispo
Public Comments in Support of Denial of the Appeal:
James Papp, Cultural Heritage Commission Member
Michelle Tasseff, San Luis Obispo
James Papp, San Luis Obispo, Cultural Heritage Commission
Truitt Vance
Victor Johnson
Robert Nastase
Farid Shahid, San Luis Obispo
Steve Delmartini, San Luis Obispo
Neither For or Against:
Sandra Lakeman, San Luis Obispo, spoke about errors in the arborist report making their
conclusions invalid, noting tree misidentifications and the inclusion of incorrect tree heights.
---End of Public Comment---
RECESS
Council recessed at 8:49 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 p.m., with all Council Members
present except for Council Member Pease who was recused from this item.
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY
COUNCIL MEMBER GOMEZ, CARRIED 3-1-1 (HARMON NO) (PEASE RECUSED)
to:
Adopt Resolution 10787 (2017 Series) entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California, denying an appeal filed by Teresa Matthews and
Lydia Mourenza and thereby approving the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and
repositioning of the Master List Historic Sandford House and the construction of a new
33-unit, multi-family residential project, with a mitigated negative declaration of
environmental review, as represented in the City Council agenda report and attachments
dated April 4, 2017 (71 Palomar Avenue, APPL-0158-2017),” and upholding the
Architectural Review Commission's approval of the project.
Council Member Pease returned to the dais at 9:55 pm
17. RESOLUTION FORMALLY SETTING FORTH THE CITY’S CURRENT
POLICIES AND PRACTICES RELATING TO FEDERAL IMMIGRATION
ENFORCEMENT COOPERATION AND DECLARING SAN LUIS OBISPO AS A
WELCOMING CITY TO ALL PERSONS, IRRESPECTIVE OF IMMIGRATION
STATUS
Police Chief Cantrell, City Attorney Dietrick, and Assistant City Manager Johnson,
provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions.
Packet Pg 16
4
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 4, 2017 Page 11
Public Comments:
Jane Lehr, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the resolution hoping to ensure that
immigrant residents can continue to participate in civic life without fear of unwarranted
intervention.
Don Hedrick, San Luis Obispo spoke in support of the President and rebuilding boarders.
Michelle Tasseff, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the resolution.
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, SECOND BY VICE
MAYOR RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0 to: consider a Resolution 10788 (2017 Series) entitled,
“A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, formally
setting forth the City’s current policies and practices relating to federal immigration
enforcement cooperation and declaring San Luis Obispo as a welcoming city to all persons,
irrespective of protected characteristics or immigration status.” As amended: 7th WHEREAS
to read: the City of San Luis Obispo values families remaining together and opposes
separation due to parents or personal immigration status; and
18. PUBLIC HEARING - TAX AND EQUITY FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT
(TEFRA) HEARING REGARDING THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO ISSUANCE OF TAX EXEMPT DEBT OBLIGATIONS TO FINANCE 36
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS TO BE LOCATED AT 3175 VIOLET STREET
Mayor Harmon reiterated that Item 18 was has been withdrawn at the request of the
applicant and continued to a date uncertain and stated that the item will not be heard tonight.
1. Conduct a public hearing under the Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA)
of 1982 and pursuant to the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
2. Adopt a resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo
issuance of tax exempt debt obligations to finance 36 affordable housing units located at
3175 Violet Street.”
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND LIAISON REPORTS
Mayor Harmon reported attending an Air Pollution Control District meeting, a homelessness and
tiny house presentation, and went sailing on Laguna Lake with community members.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned to a Special City Council Meeting scheduled for Monday, April 10,
2017 at 10:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m., and 2:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of conducting closed sessions to evaluate
appointed officials.
Packet Pg 17
4
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 4, 2017 Page 12
A subsequent Special Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled for
Wednesday, April 12, 2017, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, to discuss zoning code updates.
The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 6:00 p.m., in
the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
__________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2017
Packet Pg 18
4
San Luis Obispo Page 1
Wednesday, April 12, 2017
Special Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Special Joint Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council and Planning Commission was
called to order on Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Harmon.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor
Dan Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon.
Council Members
Absent: None
Planning Commissioners
Present: Planning Commissioners Kim Bisheff, Hemalata Dandekar, Ronald Malak, Scott
Mann, Nicholas Osterbur, Vice Chairperson John Fowler, and Chairperson
Charles Stevenson
Planning Commissioners
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson,
Assistant City Manager; Michael Codron, Community Development Director;
Doug Davidson, Deputy Director; and Monique Lomeli, Recording Secretary;
were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to
questions as indicated in the minutes.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council Member Carlyn Christianson led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Packet Pg 19
4
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 12, 2017 Page 2
STUDY SESSION
1. STUDY SESSION WITH PLANNING COMMISSION FOR ZONING
REGULATIONS UPDATE
Consultant Project Manager Laura Stetson, MIG, provided and in-depth staff report with use of a
PowerPoint presentation.
Community Development Director Codron, Consultant Project Manager Stetson, and
Community Development Deputy Director Davidson responded to Council and Commission
questions.
Public Comments:
Myron Amerine, San Luis Obispo, urged the Commission and Council to provide better
consideration to the amount and type of bicycle parking.
Matt Quaglino, San Luis Obispo, expressed frustration regarding the current zoning regulations
and encouraged the City to implement policies outlined in LUCE
David Brodie, Save Our Downtown, San Luis Obispo, expressing concerns regarding
commercial zoning regulations in the downtown area, housing density, inadequate parking, and
height requirements; requested staff reduce the number of variances accepted.
Tom Swem commented on the lack of continuity between the outdated long-range planning
documents and zoning regulations; requested expanded, west-end parking-in-lieu locations and
simplified informational materials.
David Juhnke, San Luis Obispo, encouraged the Council, Commission, and staff to focus on
implementing LUCE policies with clear and certain simplicity.
Peter Williamson, SLO Regional Ride Share, San Luis Obispo, encouraged the City to
implement a transportation demand management (TDM) program into the zoning update.
Martha Miller, San Luis Obispo, voiced appreciation to the City for the zoning regulation
updates, suggested the City consider personal mobility as an overall topic versus automobile and
bicycle sections, and requested a revised and simplified review process.
Dale Stoker, SLO U40, encouraged more affordable access and non-traditional solutions to
housing and transportation issues that are supportive of cultural lifestyle differences.
Charlie Zenn, expressed concerns over the burden the use permit process places on local
businesses and suggested the commercial service zoning on the west end of Broad Street be
modified to permit hotels with a Planning Commission use permit.
Steve Delmartini, San Luis Obispo, requested clarification regarding regulations associated with
work-force housing; encouraged the City to address the unused potential of South Higuera Street.
Packet Pg 20
4
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 12, 2017 Page 3
Greg Wynn, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of the zoning regulation update and encouraged the
City to preserve the flexibility that current regulations provide.
---End of Public Comment---
Planning Commission Deliberation:
Commissioner Dandekar requested mixed-housing options in the downtown area with a greater
consideration to affordability.
Commissioner Mann referenced his written correspondence, suggesting softening intersections to
slow traffic as it approaches the downtown core.
Chair Stevenson recommended removal of the Cannabis Regulation and Climate Action Plan
Implementation white papers to be replaced with categories focused on healthy communities and
incentive-driven housing programs.
Council Deliberation:
Vice-Mayor Rivoire spoke in favor of revising the review process and supported the five white
papers as presented.
Council Member Christianson expressed interest in a white paper focused on parking and voiced
support for review process revisions.
Council Member Pease expressed interest in a personal mobility white paper and encouraged
staff to continue community outreach efforts with clearly communicated expectations.
Council Member Gomez suggested expansion of the Climate Action Plan white paper to include
a personal mobility component.
Mayor Harmon encouraged staff to explore participatory mapping; voiced support for personal
mobility, review process revisions, and meaningful workforce housing; expressed interest in
receiving information regarding the effects of alcohol on zoning in communities and clarification
regarding mixed-use zoning.
By consensus, the City Council and Planning Commissioners directed staff to receive and file the
following:
1. Receive a presentation on the status of the Zoning Regulations update; and
2. Review and receive a presentation on the Interview Summary Report, and provide direction
to staff regarding any additional issues to evaluate and consider during the Zoning
Regulations update process; and
3. Endorse the proposed update process and schedule.
Packet Pg 21
4
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 12, 2017 Page 4
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned to the next Regular City Council Meeting scheduled for Tuesday,
April 18, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., respectively, in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
__________________________
Monique Lomeli
Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2017
Packet Pg 22
4
Meeting Date: 6/6/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Department
Prepared By: Jenny Wiseman, Acting Housing Programs Manager
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE INTRODUCED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
ON MAY 2, 2017 TO AMEND TITLE 17 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
ASSOCIATED WITH ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Ordinance No. 1634 (2017 Series) amending Title 17 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code regarding Accessory Dwelling Units.
DISCUSSION
On May 2, 2017, the City Council voted 5:0 to introduced Ordinance No. 1634 (2017 Series),
which amends Title 17 of the City’s Municipal Code regarding Accessory Dwelling Units. The
Ordinance amends the City's existing Secondary Dwelling Unit Ordinance (Chapter 17.21.010 of
the Zoning Regulations) and other applicable sections to align with the amended state law, which
will allow the City to continue to regulate the development of accessory dwelling units consistent
with State standards.
The Ordinance reflects the amendments made at the meeting and is now ready for adoption. A
summary of the Ordinance was prepared and published in the local newspaper ten days prior to
the second reading. The amendment will become effective thirty (30) days after final passage of
the Ordinance.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council could reject adoption of the Municipal Code amendments. This is not
recommended because the Council previously voted to introduce the Ordinance and the
new ordinance is crucial to the continued regulation of accessory dwelling units.
2. The Council could continue final adoption of the proposed amendments and provide
direction to staff for research and revisions, which would require re-introduction of the
ordinance.
Attachments:
a - Ordinance No. 1634 (2017 Series)
Packet Pg 23
5
O _______
ORDINANCE NO. 1634 (2017 SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING
REGULATIONS) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE ASSOCIATED WITH
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS WITH A STATUTORY EXEMPTION
FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CODE-0107-2017)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street , San Luis Obispo, California, on
February 22, 2017 (CODE-0107-2017) and recommended the City Council adopt amendments to
the City’s Municipal Code related to the regulation of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on May 2,
2017, for the purpose of considering amendments to the Municipal Code related to the regulation
of ADUs (CODE-0107-2017); and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with
Assembly Bill 2299 and Senate Bill 1069, the City’s General Plan, the purposes of the Zoning
Regulations, and other applicable City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section
21080.17, the adoption of an ordinance to implement Government Code section 65852.2 is exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Similarly, the ministerial approval of
ADU applications would not be a "project" for CEQA purposes, and environmental review would
not be required prior to approving individual applications.
SECTION 2. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following
findings:
1. The proposed amendments to the City’s ADU regulations will not significantly alter the
character of the City or cause significant health, safety or welfare concerns, since the
amendments are consistent with the General Plan and directly implement City goals and
policies.
2. The proposed amendments to the City’s ADU regulations are consistent with Assembly
Bill 2299 and Senate Bill 1069 and Government Code section 65952.2
3. The proposed amendments to the City’s ADU regulations do not burden the development
Packet Pg 24
5
Ordinance No. 1634 (2017 Series) Page 2
O _______
of ADUs within the City.
SECTION 3. Chapter 17.100. “Definitions, S.” (Single Family Dwelling) of the City of
San Luis Obispo’s Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Single Family Dwelling. A building designed for and/or occupied exclusively by one
family, or one of more persons occupying premises and living as a single housekeeping
unit which is not attached to or located on a lot with commercial uses. Single family
dwellings contain one dwelling on one lot. Single family dwellings may also include
approved secondary accessory dwelling units. Also includes factory built, modular housing
units, constructed in compliance with the Uniform, Building Code (UBC), and mobile
homes/manufactures housing units that comply with the National Manufactured Housing
Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, places on permanent foundations.
SECTION 4. Chapter 17.21.010 (Secondary Dwelling Units) of the City of San Luis
Obispo’s Municipal Code is hereby repealed and replaced in its entirety to read as follows:
Chapter 17.21: Accessory Spaces
Sections:
17.21.010 Accessory Dwelling Units
17.21.020 Guest Quarters
17.21.030 Accessory Structures
17.21.010 Accessory Dwelling Units.
A. Purpose.
1. The purpose of this chapter is to provide for the creation of accessory dwelling units in a
manner that is consistent with requirements set forth in California Government Code
Sections 65852.2, as amended from time to time.
2. Implementation of this section is meant to expand housing opportunities by increasing the
number of smaller units available within existing neighborhoods.
B. Definitions.
For the purpose of this section, the following words and phrases have the meanings given them in
this section:
1. “Accessory dwelling unit” means an attached or detached dwelling unit which provides
complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and complies with all
provisions of this section. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating,
cooking and sanitation on the same parcel as the primary unit. An Accessory Dwelling Unit
Packet Pg 25
5
Ordinance No. 1634 (2017 Series) Page 3
O _______
also includes the following:
a. An efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code.
b. A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code.
2. “Director” means the director of the Community Development Department or his designate.
3. “Director’s Action” means the required submittal of an Administrative Approval Application
and review by the Community Development Director.
4. “Passageway” means a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street
to one entrance of the accessory dwelling unit. Passageways are not required for detached
accessory dwelling units.
5. “Primary unit” means the existing single-family residential structure on the site.
C. General Requirements.
1. Application. Where this section does not contain a particular type of standard or procedure,
conventional zoning standards and procedures shall apply.
2. Areas Where Accessory Dwelling Units Are Allowed. Upon meeting the requirements of
this section, accessory dwelling units may be established in the following zones: R-1, R-2,
R-3, R-4, and O, when the primary use on the site is a single-family dwelling.
3. Areas Prohibited. Accessory dwelling units shall not be established in any condominium
or planned development project unless specifically addressed in the planned development
ordinance as adopted or amended, or any mobile home subdivision, or trailer park.
4. No Subdivision of Property. No subdivision of property shall be allowed where an
accessory dwelling unit has been established unless the subdivision meets all requirements
of zoning and subdivision regulations.
5. Sale of Property. This section shall also apply to new owners of property where an accessory
dwelling unit has been established. All conditions of Director’s Action (if applicable),
restrictive covenants, and other contractual agreements with the city shall apply to the
property and the new owners.
6. Unit Types Allowed. An accessory dwelling unit may be either attached or detached from
the primary single family dwelling on the lot.
a. An attached accessory dwelling unit shall be defined as either attached to (by a
minimum of one shared wall), or completely contained within, the primary existing
space of the single family dwelling unit or existing accessory structure.
Packet Pg 26
5
Ordinance No. 1634 (2017 Series) Page 4
O _______
b. A detached accessory dwelling unit shall be defined as new residential square footage
not attached or sharing any walls with the primary existing single family dwelling
unit.
7. Size of Accessory Dwelling Unit. The gross floor area of an accessory dwelling unit shall
be no less than an efficiency unit, and shall not exceed the lesser of fifty percent (50%) of
the primary unit’s existing living area or eight hundred (800) square feet. The Director may
authorize an exception to this standard up to 1,200 square feet by a Director’s Action, defined
above.
8. Accessory dwelling units are limited to one (1) unit per property.
D. Performance Standards and Compatibility.
1. Design Standards. Accessory dwelling units shall conform to all applicable development
standards included in the underlying zone such as height, yards, parking, building coverage,
etc. An accessory dwelling unit that conforms to this chapter shall not be considered to
exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be
a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for
the lot.
a. Accessory dwelling units shall conform to all applicable building and construction
codes.
b. No passageway, defined above, shall be required in conjunction with the construction
of a detached accessory dwelling unit.
c. No setback shall be required for an existing garage that is converted to an accessory
dwelling unit, and a setback of no more than five feet from the side and rear lot lines
shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit that is constructed above a garage.
d. Accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if fire
sprinklers are not required for the primary residence.
e. No additional parking spaces shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit.
i. Replacement of Required Parking for Primary Unit: When a garage, carport,
or covered parking structure is demolished or converted in conjunction with
the construction of an accessory dwelling unit, replacement parking spaces
may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the accessory dwelling
unit, including but not limited to covered spaces, uncovered spaces, or tandem
spaces.
f. Accessory dwelling units on listed historic properties and in historic districts shall be
found consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance including Historic
Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of
Packet Pg 27
5
Ordinance No. 1634 (2017 Series) Page 5
O _______
Historic Properties.
g. Where ADUs are being created within an existing structure (primary or accessory),
no new utility connection or payment of impact fees shall be required. For all other
ADUs, a new utility connection for the ADU and payment of impact fees shall be
required.
2. Architectural Compatibility. Accessory dwelling units should be architecturally and
functionally compatible with the primary residence. The accessory dwelling unit shall
comply with the following design standards:
a. Architectural Style and Form. Architectural style and form shall match or be
compatible with the style and form of the primary residence on the property.
b. Materials. The materials of the accessory dwelling unit shall match or be compatible
with the materials of the primary residence on the property.
Compliance with these design standards shall be reviewed ministerially and be performed
during the building permit application process.
E. Procedure requirements.
An accessory dwelling unit that meets the standards contained in Section 17.21.010 shall be subject
to ministerial review (Building Permit) and approval without discretionary review (i.e. Use Permit,
Architectural Review, etc.) or public hearing. All applications shall be permitted within 120 days of
submission of a complete application which complies with all applicable requirements and
development standards as set forth in this Chapter.
Any application for an accessory dwelling that exceeds the lesser of fifty percent (50%) of the
primary unit’s existing living area or eight hundred (800) square feet may apply for a Director’s
Action, defined above, in which the Community Development Director may authorize an exception
to that standard.
F. Owner-Occupancy.
The owner of the property must occupy either the primary residence or the accessory dwelling unit.
The Director may waive this requirement in one (1) year increments, not to exceed a total of five
consecutive years, based on a showing of a hardship. A hardship shall include, but not be limited to,
inheritance of property with an accessory dwelling unit.
G. Covenant Agreement
Prior to the issuance of building permits for an accessory dwelling unit, a covenant agreement shall
be recorded which discloses the structure’s approved floor plan and status as a “accessory dwelling
Packet Pg 28
5
Ordinance No. 1634 (2017 Series) Page 6
O _______
unit” and agreeing that the property will be owner-occupied. This agreement shall be recorded in the
office of the County Recorder to provide constructive notice to all future owners of the property.
H. Violations.
Violation of any of the provisions shall be subject to basic code enforcement action as provided in
Title 1 of this code.
Packet Pg 29
5
Ordinance No. 1634 (2017 Series) Page 7
O _______
SECTION 5. Chapter 17.22: Use Regulation. Table 9 (Uses Allowed by Zone).
Residential Uses land uses of the City of San Luis Obispo’s Municipal Code is hereby repealed
and replaced in its entirety to read as follows:
Packet Pg 30
5
Ordinance No. 1634 (2017 Series) Page 8
O _______
SECTION 6. Severability. If any subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of
this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforcement of the
remaining portions of this ordinance, or any other provisions of the city' s rules and regulations. It
is the city' s express intent that each remaining portion would have been adopted irrespective of
the fact that any one or more subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared
invalid or unenforceable.
SECTION 7. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with
the ayes and noes shall be published at least five days prior to its final passage in the Tribune, a
newspaper published and circulated in said City, and the same shall go into effect at the expiration
of 30 days after its final passage. A copy of the full text of this ordinance shall be on file in the
Office of the City Clerk on and after the date following introduction and passage to print and shall
be available to any member of the public.
INTRODUCED on the 2nd day of May, 2017, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the______ day of______, 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 31
5
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 32
5
Meeting Date: 6/6/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Anne Schneider, PE, Chief Building Official
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT
CODE ENFORCEMENT FINES
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the collection of delinquent code enforcement fines by the San
Luis Obispo County Auditor by means of special assessments on the secured property tax roll.
DISCUSSION
The Building & Safety Division enforces building, housing, zoning, storm water and property
maintenance provisions contained in the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code through its Code
Enforcement Neighborhood Wellness Programs. When violations are confirmed, a Notice of
Violation is issued to the property owner describing the violation(s) and providing a time period
for correction. This is preceded by an effort to contact the property owner to discuss the
violation(s) and obtain voluntary compliance through the issuance of a Notice to Correct.
When the initial Notice of Violation is not effective in gaining compliance, an Administrative
Citation may be issued pursuant to SLOMC Chapter 1.24. Fines associated with Administrative
Citations range from $50, $100, and $200 per violation for the first, second and third citations,
respectively, issued for property maintenance related violations. For other violations of the
Municipal Code the fines are $100, $200, and $500 for the first, second and third citations,
respectively. Each day a violation exists is considered a separate and distinct violation;
therefore, fines may be assessed on a daily basis for continuing violations beyond the third
citation or in very delinquent or serious cases (ref: SLOMC 1.24.050 D).
Code Enforcement Administrative Citation fines are issued to property owners who fail to
correct violations within a reasonable time period after issued a Notice of Violation. The
property owner is afforded the right to appeal both the Notice of Violation and the
Administrative Citation itself.
Unpaid fines become delinquent after sixty (60) days and, pursuant to SLOMC Section 1.24.150,
Government Code sections 53069.4, and 38773.5, unpaid fines may be collected by a special
assessment pursuant (Attachment A). Special assessments require certification of the amount of
the fines by the City Council. The proposed Resolution (Attachment B) authorizes the San Luis
Obispo County Auditor to assess the amounts due on delinquent fines as special tax assessments
against the properties listed.
A list of the outstanding fines for each property is attached hereto as Attachment C. Each
property owner has been sent two Notices of Proposed Special Assessment ; one 30 days before
the hearing and again 10 days prior to the hearing, which notifies them of the time and date of
Packet Pg 33
6
the Council Meeting when the assessment is to be considered and providing them an opportunity
to pay the delinquent fines prior to the hearing. The Community Development Department
utilized extensive cross-checking with our tracking spreadsheet and Energov payment and billing
records to identify those fines that were outstanding. Each case was then reviewed for accuracy,
proper notice and service, and the completion of any appeal submitted prior to inclusion in the
resolution. This overall approach authorized by both state law and the City municipal code has
been used since 2015 and has proven to be the most effective ways to recover unpaid fines and
resolve code issues.
CONCURRENCES
This process is consistent with the procedure prescribed in Municipal Code Section 1.24.150.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
There is no environmental review for this item.
FISCAL IMPACT
Projected revenue from the collection of delinquent fines by the County Auditor for Fiscal Year
2016-17 is expected to be $13,450.
ALTERNATIVES
Do not adopt the resolution and continue to forward unpaid fines to a collection agency. This is
not recommended as it typically does not result in fines being paid in an amount to cover the
fine, but more importantly placing liens does have the potential effect of causing the correction
of persistent violations as owners typically want the lien cleared and pay the fines in addition to
addressing the violation.
Attachments:
a - SLOMC 1.24.150
b - Resolution Collection of Delinquent Code Enf Fines
c - Exhibit A to Resolution - List of Properties
Packet Pg 34
6
1.24.150 Collection of unpaid fines.
A. City Remedies. The city, at its discretion, may pursue any and all legal, equitable, and
administrative remedies for the collection of unpaid civil administrative fines. A civil administrative
fine shall be deemed unpaid the day after the due date set by the administrative citation, or if
appealed, the day after the due date set by the hearing officer or applicable board in its decision. If
the decision of the hearing officer or applicable board is appealed to, or petition for writ filed with,
the superior court, the civil administrative fine shall be deemed unpaid the day after the due date
set by the superior court. If the superior court upholds the administrative citation, but fails to set a
due date, the fine shall be deemed unpaid on the eleventh day after the superior court decision is
mailed.
1. Remedies Cumulative. Pursuit of one remedy does not preclude the pursuit of any other
remedies.
2. Refusal to Issue Permits. A city department may refuse to accept an application for a city
permit or license or refuse to issue, extend, or renew to any person who has unpaid delinquent
fines, liens, or assessments any city permit, license, or other city approval pertaining to the
property that is the subject of unpaid delinquent fines, liens or assessments.
3. Suspension of Issued Permits. Notwithstanding any other provision of the code, any permit,
license, or any type of land use approval issued by the city to a person who has unpaid
administrative citations totaling five hundred dollars or more which remain delinquent for thirty
days or longer may be suspended by the department which issued the permit or other
entitlement. The suspension becomes effective ten days after the date the notice of the
suspension is placed by the issuing department in the United States mail postage prepaid,
addressed to the person, and continues until the administrative delinquency is paid in full. The
person may request an appeal or review hearing pursuant to the specific permit, license, or
other city approval procedures or ordinance if such a request is filed before the ten-day period
ends.
4. Criminal Remedies. The city attorney, at his or her discretion, may also issue a criminal
citation or complaint (infraction or misdemeanor) to any person for a code violation.
B. Violations Constitute a Public Nuisance. The director may pursue the remedies described in this
section whether or not the city is pursuing any other action to terminate an ongoing code violation
that was the basis for an administrative citation or to otherwise abate the violation or sanction the
property owner. To compel code compliance, the city may also seek to collect assessed fines by
means of a nuisance abatement lien or special assessment against the property where a property
related violation occurred in accordance with the procedures in Government Code Sections 38773.1
and 38773.5.
The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1628, passed February 16, 2016.
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 1.24.150 Collection of unpaid fines.Page 1 of 2
Packet Pg 35
6
C. Lien Conditions. To recover any delinquent administrative fines as a lien or special assessment
on real property, the following conditions must be met:
1. The director must submit to and receive approval from the city council for a resolution
certifying the amounts of the liens and special assessments sought to be collected from each
property owner; and
2. The total amount of the delinquent fine against the property owner must be delinquent for
sixty days or more.
D. Lien Collections. The director is authorized to take any steps necessary to enforce collection of
the lien or special assessment, including but not limited to the following:
1. Request the county recorder to record a notice of any lien or special assessment certified
by resolution of the city council.
2. Request the county tax collector on behalf of the city to collect any special assessments
certified by resolution of the city council.
E. Notice of Lien Collection Procedures. All administrative citations shall contain a notice that
unpaid fines are subject to the assessment and lien collection procedures of this chapter. This
notice shall satisfy the notice requirements of Government Code Sections 38773.1 and 38773.5
when an administrative citation is served on the person. In addition, the director shall by first class
mail send notice to each property owner at least ten days before the city council considers the
resolution to certify the amounts of the liens and special assessments stating the date, time, and
location of the meeting. The lien or special assessment shall be imposed on the date the
administrative citation for the code violation is issued to the responsible person and shall become
effective upon the recording of a notice of lien or special assessment by the county recorder.
F. Contesting Certification of a Lien. A person may contest the amount or the validity of any lien or
special assessment for a civil fine at the public hearing when the city council considers the
resolution to certify the liens or assessments. Such contests shall be limited to the issue of the
amount or validity of the lien or assessment and may not consider whether the underlying code
violation occurred. Pursuit of such a contest by a person is necessary to exhaust the administrative
remedies concerning a legal challenge to the validity of any such lien or special assessment. (Ord.
1625 § 1 (part), 2015)
The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1628, passed February 16, 2016.
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 1.24.150 Collection of unpaid fines.Page 2 of 2
Packet Pg 36
6
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY AUDITOR TO ASSESS AMOUNTS DUE ON DELINQUENT
ADMINISTRATIVE FINES AS SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AGAINST THE
PROPERTIES PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 53069.4(a)
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 53069.4(a) authorizes the City to adopt an
ordinance that governs the imposition, enforcement, collection and administrative review of
administrative fines arising out of violations of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Government Code Section 53069.4(a), the City adopted Chapter
1.24 of the Municipal Code, which has been subsequently amended; and
WHEREAS, Section 1.24.150 of the Municipal Code provides that the City may request
that the County Assessor collect, on behalf of the City, any administrative fines which are more
than 60 days delinquent, and which are certified by the City Council as special assessments; and
WHEREAS, The City Council of San Luis Obispo finds that all of the fine amounts for
the referenced properties listed below are at least 60 days delinquent; and
WHEREAS, the property owners responsible for the violations were notified of the
violations and received citations and were subsequently notified in writing by a notice mailed May
23, 2017, pursuant to Section 1.24.150 (E) of the Municipal Code of this hearing and their right of
appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by
this reference as the findings of the City Council.
SECTION 2. Action. The City of San Luis Obispo hereby authorizes the San Luis Obispo
County Auditor to assess the amounts due on delinquent accounts as special assessments against
the properties listed on the Exhibit A, pursuant to California Government Code 54988, et seq.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2017.
Packet Pg 37
6
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
____________________________________
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 38
6
Exhibit A to Resolution No. ______ (2017 Series)
List of Properties
Name of Property Owner Assessor’s
Parcel #
Property Address Amount Citation #
1335 Foothill LLC 052-082-035 1335 Foothill $200.00 00006674
Amelia Sinclair 052-093-021 117 Longview $50.00 00008240
Amelia Sinclair 052-093-021 117 Longview $100.00 00008474
Aracely Plateroti 003-511-023 570 Marsh $100.00 00008935
Arthur Fry 052-352-001 4 La Entrada $100.00 00007796
Banez Epitacia C 003-724-009 260 South $50.00 00006183
Burdett John W Living Trust 004-731-013 1171 San Carlos $500.00 00008065
California Coastal Investments LLC 004-581-001 2881 Broad $50.00 00007689
Christopher Nielsen 052-092-017 1274 Bond $100.00 00005955
Concepcion Hernandez 004-581-019 646 Perkins $150.00 00007814
Concepcion Hernandez 004-581-019 646 Perkins $200.00 00008076
Darin Grandfield 003-564-009 1690 Fairview $100.00 00008321
Delta Sigma Phi Frant SLO 052-072-011 244 California $100.00 00007204
Eric Newton, Triad Real Estate 003-523-002 1234 Broad $200.00 00006035
Fiduciary Properties Inc 053-051-047 3566 So. Higuera 205 $100.00 00007165
Fiduciary Properties Inc 053-051-047 3566 So. Higuera 205 $200.00 00008034
Fiduciary Properties Inc 053-051-047 3566 So. Higuera 205 $500.00 00008749
Grand High LLC A CA LLC 052-231-015 470 Grand $100.00 00008806
Grand High LLC A CA LLC 052-231-015 470 Grand $200.00 00008915
Jerry Burch 004-784-009 2505 Johnson $800.00 00006910
Jerry Burch 004-784-009 2505 Johnson $800.00 00007102
Jerry Burch 004-784-009 2505 Johnson $800.00 00007468
Jerry Burch 004-784-009 2505 Johnson $800.00 00007778
Jerry Burch 004-784-009 2505 Johnson $800.00 00008067
Justin Warren 003-656-009 1026 George $100.00 00008186
Justin Warren 003-656-009 1026 George $200.00 00008853
Kinsey Fay 003-737-006 2046 King $100.00 00005924
Kinsey Fay 003-737-006 2046 King $100.00 00006182
Kinsey Fay 003-737-006 2046 King $50.00 00006378
Kinsey Fay 003-737-006 2046 King $200.00 00006379
Kinsey Fay 003-737-006 2046 King $200.00 00006534
Kinsey Fay 003-737-006 2046 King $200.00 00006705
Lee Brazil 003-571-018 1901 Henry #M $400.00 00006919
Mark Alonzo 052-202-021 446 Hathway $50.00 00006884
Matthew Herrera 001-132-018 1575 Phillips $100.00 00007319
Matthew Herrera 001-132-018 1575 Phillips $200.00 00007662
Matthew Herrera 001-132-018 1575 Phillips $500.00 00007948
Matthew Herrera 001-132-018 1575 Phillips $500.00 00008411
Matthew Herrera 001-132-018 1575 Phillips $500.00 00008839
McCapes Family LLC A CA LLC 052-072-002 215 Hathway $50.00 00007953
Mid-State Properties LLC 004-532-005 1228 Atascadero $200.00 00006252
Nevarez Guillermo R Tre 052-234-012 1990 Loomis $50.00 00008618
Olsen Jon C 1996 Trust 410 Grand $50.00 00008570
Packet Pg 39
6
Exhibit A to Resolution No. ______ (2017 Series)
List of Properties
Pacifica Investments LLC A Ut LLC 052-071-020 158 California $100.00 00006645
Pacifica Investments LLC A Ut LLC 052-071-020 158 California $200.00 00006955
Potts Family Trust 052-092-005 138 Orange $200.00 00005891
Potts Family Trust (Tr 2) 052-091-015 191 Orange $100.00 00008712
Potts Family Trust (Tr 2) 052-091-015 191 Orange $200.00 00006881
Ramesh T & Madhu R Patel 001-142-009 1604 Monterey $50.00 00008309
Regan & Shelley D Candelario 004-781-009 1284 Sydney $50.00 00006303
Regan & Shelley D Candelario 004-781-009 1284 Sydney $100.00 00006440
Regan & Shelley D Candelario 004-781-009 1284 Sydney $200.00 00006686
SLOCA LLC A CA LLC 052-126-026 344 Henderson $50.00 00007979
Snyder Family Survivor's Trust 053-182-029 3191 South Higuera $200.00 00007679
Spade Timothy E Tre ETAL 052-231-008 430 Grand $200.00 00005609
Spade Timothy E Tre ETAL 052-231-008 430 Grand $200.00 00006579
Spade Timothy E Tre ETAL 052-231-008 430 Grand $200.00 00006731
Steve Ferrario 052-081-001 108 Crandall $50.00 00006040
Steve Ferrario 052-081-001 108 Crandall $100.00 00006332
Tank Farm Center LLC A CA LLC 053-251-050 120 Tank Farm $100.00 00008448
Tank Farm Center LLC A CA LLC 053-251-050 120 Tank Farm $200.00 00008929
Warren Justin J 003-656-009 1026 George $100.00 00008855
$13450.00
Packet Pg 40
6
Meeting Date: 6/6/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Jenny Wiseman, Acting Housing Programs Manager
SUBJECT: COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
REGARDING CITY PARTICIPATION IN THE URBAN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FEDERAL PROGRAM
FOR FISCAL YEARS 2018-2020
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) approving the Cooperation Agreement (Attachment B) with
the County of San Luis Obispo for participation in the Urban County federal grant program for
fiscal years 2018-2020.
BACKGROUND
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has notified all eligible
jurisdictions about qualifying or re-qualifying as urban entitlement counties for Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding for fiscal years 2018-2020. The cities of Arroyo
Grande, Atascadero, Morro Bay, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach, San Luis Obispo, and the
unincorporated County are currently participating in the San Luis Obispo Urban County. The
County recently informed all cities in the County of their option to join or rejoin the Urban
County for the coming term.
In 1993 the cities of San Luis Obispo, Atascadero and Paso Robles were designated by the
federal government as Metropolitan Statistical Areas and eligible to directly receive federal grant
funding. Starting in 1994 and under the leadership of City and County staff, several cities joined
the County of San Luis Obispo to form an “Urban County”, thereby maximizing grant funds
available to the County as a whole and allowing the unincorporated County and participating
cities to be designated by HUD as “entitlement” jurisdictions. This action resulted in the Urban
County receiving over $34 million in CDBG funding between 2001 and 2016. Of that, the City
of San Luis Obispo received approximately $10 million, or 30 percent of total Urban County
funding.
To continue participating in, or to join the Urban County, the legislative body of the jurisdiction
must adopt a resolution approving a “Cooperation Agreement” which sets out the terms and
requirements of participation (Attachment B). The term of the Agreement is for a period of three
fiscal years commencing July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2021. This Agreement provides for
automatic renewal of participation in successive three-year qualification periods, unless the City
provides written notice at least 60 days prior to the end of the term that it elects not to participate
in a new qualification period.
Packet Pg 41
7
DISCUSSION
Urban County Program Experience
Under the current Cooperation Agreement. the CDBG program has been well managed and the
Urban County partnership has been mutually beneficial. As long as the City Council’s funding
allocations meet federal grant rules, the Cooperation Agreement requires the County to “pass
through” the funds as directed by Council. In essence, the City has the flexibility of allocating its
CDBG funds independently, with the County assuming the primary responsibility for
administering the overall program and meeting HUD rules.
The County provides administrative support to the City’s program. County staff is the liaison
with HUD and responsible for: 1) Preparing and adopting the five-year Consolidated Plan; 2)
Annual Action Plans; 3) Community Participation Plan; 4) Fair Housing Plan; 5) Administering
fund disbursements using HUD’s computer program; 6) Preparing and adopting NEPA (federal)
environmental documents; and 7) Reporting, auditing and monitoring sub-recipients. These
tasks are required by CDBG regulations and benefit Urban County jurisdictions.
County Proposal Regarding Administrative Funds
There are no significant changes to the proposed Cooperation Agreement from the 2015-17
Cooperation Agreement the City is currently operating under. HUD continues to advise the
County that participating Urban County jurisdictions (i.e. all cities) should not administer their
CDBG funded projects due to the increasing complexity of grant administration responsibilities
and associated consequences for non-compliance. HUD recommends County staff continue to
take on this responsibility and retain enough CDBG administrative funds to cover staffing costs.
The County has proposed the same administrative funding provisions for the upcoming 2018-
2020 Cooperation Agreement that are in the City’s current Cooperation Agreement, as outlined
below:
1) Authorize the County to administer CDBG funds on behalf of the City once the City has
approved funding allocations.
2) Authorize the County to retain 13% of the City’s 20% CDBG administrative allowance to
cover staffing costs.
3) Avoid individual grant awards of less than $8,000 for public service activities.
Staff Analysis
Participation in the 2015-17 Cooperation Agreement with the County has been mutually
successful for both City and County. The movement of administrative and monito ring duties to
the County has freed up staff time dedicated to CDBG program administration to work on other
high priority City projects, such as the Affordable Housing Program, Housing Element
implementation and homeless initiatives.
Packet Pg 42
7
CDBG funds have been used to leverage significant funds from other grant programs and the
City’s Affordable Housing Fund for financing affordable housing projects such as Estelita Ct.
Housing Rehab, Bishop Street Studios, Iron Works Apartments, and Maxine Lewis Memorial
Shelter. CDBG funds received under the program provide an outside source of funding for
affordable housing and social service programs that would otherwise not be funded or would
draw funding from other priority City programs and services.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is exempt from environmental review per CEQA Guidelines under the General Rule
(Section 15061(b)(3)). The project is a Cooperation Agreement between the City and County for
joint participation in administering the CDBG grant program for fiscal years 2018-2020. Each
grant request approved for funding will be subject to CEQA at the time the project is filed. It can
be seen with certainty that the proposed Cooperation Agreement will have no significant effect
on the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
The 2018-2020 Cooperation Agreement will not have a negative fiscal impact to the City. Since
costs to administer the CDBG program will continue to be funded through the grant itself,
participation in the Urban County will have no effect on the City’s fiscal condition. The City will
continue to receive 7% of the total annual CDBG allocation towards administering the CDBG
program.
ALTERNATIVE
Do not participate in the Urban County. In this case, the City would be required to compete for
CDBG funds directly from HUD. Staff does not recommend this alternative since the Urban
County program has proven effective and opting out of the Urban County would result in
increased program administrative costs without any guarantee that the City would receive grant
funding. Furthermore, grant applications are highly competitive and it is unlikely that the City
would be awarded funding at the frequency and amounts that participation in the Urban County
provides.
Attachments:
a - Draft Resolution
b - City of San Luis Obispo 2018-2020 Cooperation Agreement
Packet Pg 43
7
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A COOPERATION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TO
RECOGNIZE JOINT PARTICIPATION IN THE URBAN COUNTY
GRANT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEARS 2018-2020
WHEREAS, the County of San Luis Obispo (“County”), a political subdivision of the
State of California, and the City of San Luis Obispo (“City”), a municipal corporation, desire to
participate in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program administered by the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and
WHEREAS, said program will promote the public health, safety and welfare by
providing grant funds to be used by the City and County (“parties”) to impr ove housing
opportunities for low- and moderate-income households, to encourage economic reinvestment, to
improve community facilities and public services, and to provide other housing-related facilities
or services; and
WHEREAS, HUD requires that the parties enter into a cooperation agreement to define
their rights and obligations as a prerequisite of participation in the Urban County program; and
WHEREAS, the parties have developed such an agreement that automatically renews for
subsequent three year increments unless the City provides written notice of its intent to not
participate in a new qualification period; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to continue its participation for the upcoming 2018-2020
fiscal years.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the
following findings:
1. The proposed Cooperation Agreement is consistent with the General Plan and with City
and County policies encouraging cooperation between agencies on issues of regional
significance such as affordable housing and public services.
2. The proposed Cooperation Agreement will promote the public health, safety and welfare
by enabling the City and County to participate in HUD’s Urban County entitlement
program, thus making available funds for a variety of housing projects, economic
development, and public services programs not otherwise possible or available.
3. The City and County intend to enter into subrecipient agreements that will establish
administrative policies and procedures, performance standards and funding schedules,
project descriptions and funding, and guidelines for CDBG program implementation.
Packet Pg 44
7
Resolution No. (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
4. The project is exempt from environmental review per CEQA Guidelines under the
General Rule (Section 15061(b)(3)). The project is a Cooperation Agreement between the
City and County for joint participation in administering the CDBG gra nt program for
fiscal years 2018-2020. Each grant request approved for funding will be subject to CEQA
at the time the project is filed. It can be seen with certainty that the proposed Cooperation
Agreement will have no significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 2. Action. The City Council does hereby authorize the Mayor to sign the
Urban County Cooperation Agreement with the County to enable continued joint participation in
the Urban County CDBG program administered by HUD.
SECTION 3. City Manager Authority. The City Manager is hereby authorized to act
on behalf of the City in connection with the implementation of the agreement, on-going
operation of the CDBG program, and all other activities necessary to carry out the intent of the
agreement and amendments thereto.
Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this _____ day of ______________, 2017.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
Packet Pg 45
7
Resolution No. (2017 Series) Page 3
R ______
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 46
7
Attachment B
Page 1
A COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO AND THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FOR JOINT PARTICIPATION
IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, THE
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM, AND THE EMERGENCY
SOLUTIONS GRANT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEARS 2018 THROUGH 2020
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of ,
2017, by and between the County of San Luis Obispo, a political subdivision of
the State of California, hereinafter called “County,” and the City of San Luis
Obispo, a municipal corporation of the State of California, located in the County
of San Luis Obispo, hereinafter called “City;” jointly referred to as “Parties.”
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, in 1974, the U.S. Congress enacted and the President signed
a law entitled, The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, herein
called the “Act.” The Act is omnibus legislation relating to federal involvement in
a wide range of housing and community development activities and contains
eight separate titles; and
WHEREAS, Title I of the Act is entitled “Community Development” and
governs programs for housing and community development within metropolitan
cities and urban counties or communities by providing financial assistance
annually for area-wide plans and for housing, public services and public works
programs; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Block Grant Program
(hereinafter referred to as “CDBG”), the HOME Investment Partnerships Act
Program (hereinafter referred to as “HOME”), and the Emergency Solutions
Grant Program (hereinafter referred to as “ESG”) are consolidated under Title I of
the Act; and
WHEREAS, the County has requested of the federal Department of
Housing and Urban Development, hereinafter referred to as “HUD,” designate
the County as an “urban county;” and
WHEREAS, the County needs to requalify as an urban county and will be
eligible to receive CDBG funds provided that the County’s entitled cities defer
their entitlement to the County to enable both the County and the entitlement
cities to jointly participate in the program; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to participate jointly with the County in said
program; and
Packet Pg 47
7
Attachment B
Page 2
WHEREAS, if HUD redesignates the County as an urban county, then the
County may also be eligible to receive funds from the H OME Program and the
ESG Program; and
WHEREAS, the CDBG Regulations issued pursuant to the Act provide
qualified urban counties must submit an application to the HUD for funds, and
cities and smaller communities within the metropolitan area not qualifying as
metropolitan cities may join the County in said application and thereby become a
part of a more comprehensive County effort; and
WHEREAS, as the urban county applicant, the County must take
responsibility and assume all obligations of an applicant under federal statues,
including: the analysis of needs, the setting of objectives, the development of
community development and housing assistance plans, the consolidated plan,
and the assurances of certifications; and
WHEREAS, by executing this Agreement, the Parties hereby give notice
of their intention to participate in the urban county CDBG, HOME, and ESG
Programs.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, recitals and other
provisions hereof, the Parties agree as follows:
SECTION I. General.
A. Responsible Officers. The Director of the County of San Luis Obispo
Department of Planning and Building (hereinafter referred to as “Director”)
is hereby authorized to act as applicant for the CDBG, HOME, and ESG
Programs and to administer funding and activities under the programs.
The City Manager is hereby authorized to act as the responsible officer of
the City under the programs.
B. Full Cooperation. Parties agree to fully cooperate and to assist each
other in undertaking eligible grant programs or projects, including but not
limited to community renewal and lower income housing assistance
activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly-assisted housing; public
services; and economic development.
C. Term of Agreement – Automatic Renewal Provision. The term of this
Agreement shall be for a period of three (3) years commencing July 1,
2018 through June 30, 2021. In addition, this Agreement provides for
automatic renewal for participation in successive three -year qualification
periods, unless the City provides written notice at least 60 days pri or to the
end of the term that it elects not to participate in a new qualification period.
Before the end of the first three -year term, the County will notify the City in
writing of its right not to participate in the urban county for a successive
three-year term.
Packet Pg 48
7
Attachment B
Page 3
The Parties agree to adopt amendments to this Agreement incorporating
changes necessary to meet the requirements for cooperation agreements
set forth in an Urban County Qualification Notice by HUD for a subsequent
three-year urban County qualification period, prior to the subsequent
three-year extension of the term. Any amendment to this Agreement shall
be submitted to HUD as required by the regulations and any failure to
adopt required amendments will void the automatic renewal of th is
Agreement for the relevant qualification period.
This Agreement remains in effect until the CDBG, HOME, and ESG
Program funds and income received with respect to the three-year
qualification period, and the subsequent three -year renewals are
expended and the funded activities are completed. The Parties may not
terminate or withdraw from this Agreement while this Agreement remains
in effect.
D. Scope of Agreement. This Agreement covers the following formula
funding programs administered by HUD where the County is a warded and
accepts funding directly from HUD: the CDBG Program, the HOME
Program, and the ESG Program.
SECTION II. Preparation and Submittal of CDBG Funding Applications.
A. Inclusion of City as Applicant. The Parties agree the City shall be
included in the application the County shall submit to HUD for Title I
Housing and Community Development Block funds under the Act.
B. Consolidated Plan. The City shall assist the County by preparing a
community development plan, for the period of this Agreement, which
identifies community development and housing needs, projects and
programs for the City; and specifies both short and long-term City
objectives, consistent with requirements of the Act. County agrees to:
(1) include the City plan in the program application, and (2) include
City’s desired housing and community development objectives,
policies, programs, projects and plans as submitted by the City in the
County’s consolidated plan.
C. Application Submittal. The County agrees to commit sufficient
resources to completing and submitting the Consolidated Plan and
supporting documents to HUD in time for the Parties to be eligible to
receive funding beginning July 1, 2018, and to hold public hearings as
required to meet HUD requirements.
D. County Responsibility. Parties agree the County shall, as applicant,
be responsible for holding public hearings and preparing and
submitting the CDBG funding application and supporting materials in a
Packet Pg 49
7
Attachment B
Page 4
timely and thorough manner, as required by the Act and the federal
regulations established by HUD to secure entitlement grant funding
beginning July 1, 2018.
E. Grant Eligibility. In executing this Agreement, the Parties understand
they shall not be eligible to apply for grants under the Small Cities or
State CDBG Programs for appropriations for fiscal years during the
period in which the Parties are participating in the urban county CDBG
entitlement program; and further, the City shall not be eligible to
participate in the HOME, or ESG Programs except through the urban
county.
SECTION III. Program Administration.
A. Program Authorization. The Director is hereby authorized to carry out
activities that will be funded from the annual CDBG, HOME, and ESG
Programs from fiscal years 2018, 2019, and 2020 appropriations and
from any program income generated from the expenditure of such
funds.
B. Responsibilities of Parties. The Parties agree the County shall be
the governmental entity required to execute any grant agreement
received pursuant to the CDBG, HOME, and ESG applications, and
subject to the limitations set out in this Agreement, the County shall
thereby become liable and responsible thereunder for the proper
performance of the plan and CDBG, HOME, and ESG under County
programs. County agrees to perform program administrative tasks
such as environmental clearance under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), subrecipient agreements and monitoring of
subrecipients. The City agrees to act in good faith and with due
diligence in performance of the City obligations and responsibilities
under this Agreement and under all subrecipient agreements. The City
further agrees that it shall fully cooperate with the County in all thi ngs
required and appropriate to comply with the provisions of any Grant
Agreement received by the County pursuant to the Act and its
Regulations.
C. City Assistance. The City agrees to undertake, conduct, perform or
assist the County in performing the essential community development
and housing assistance activities identified in the City’s community
development plan. Pursuant to the Act and pursuant to 24 CFR
570.501(b), the City is subject to the same requirements applicable to
subrecipients, including the requirement of a written agreement with
the County as set forth in 24 CFR 570.503.
SECTION IV. Use of Program Funds.
Packet Pg 50
7
Attachment B
Page 5
A. Allocation of CDBG funds. All funds received by the County
pursuant to this Agreement shall be identified and allocated, as
described below, to the specific projects or activities set out in the
application, and such allocated amounts shall be expended exclusively
for such projects or activities; provided, however, that a different
distribution may be made when required by HUD to comply with Title I
of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as
amended.
1) Metropolitan Cities’ Allocation. The Parties agree the County
shall make available to the City a total amount of CDBG funds
equal to that which the City would have been entitled had it applied
separately as a “metropolitan city,” using HUD allocation formulas
as applied by the County, except that an amount equal to thirteen
(13) percent of the Metropolitan Cities’ allocations of CDBG funds
will be deducted by the County to meet its obligations under the
terms of this Agreement and/or HUD requirements for
administrative costs. Further, with respect to the availability of the
funds, the County agrees to fully cooperate and assist the City in
expending such funds.
2) Non-Metropolitan Cities’ Allocation. The County agrees to
allocate a portion of CDBG program funds to the non -Metropolitan,
incorporated cities participating in the program. The amount of
allocation per city shall be equal to that which the urban county
formula award from HUD increases as a resu lt of the HUD
allocation formulas as applied by the County, except that an
amount equal to thirteen (13) percent of the Non-Metropolitan
Cities’ allocations of CDBG funds will be deducted by the County to
meet its obligations under the terms of this Agreement and/or HUD
requirements for administrative costs.
3) Urban County. Parties shall not recommend a CDBG award of less
than $8,000 for any one project or program due to the staff cost of
processing such awards in compliance with federal requirements.
A project or program recommended to receive an amount less
$8,000 can still receive an award if any other Party or Parties make
an award, which is aggregated to be greater than $8,000.
B. Availability of Funds. The County agrees to make CDBG funds
available to all participating incorporated cities as set out here when
HUD makes the CDBG funds available to it. The County shall
immediately notify the participating incorporated cities of the availability
of the funds.
Packet Pg 51
7
Attachment B
Page 6
It is understood by the Parties, hereto, the CDBG funds being used for
the purposes of this Agreement are funds furnished to the County,
through HUD, pursuant to the provisions of the Act. Notwithstanding
any other provision of this Agreement, the liability of the County shall
be limited to CDBG funds available for the Project. The City
understands that the County must wait for release of CDBG funds from
HUD before CDBG funds may be advanced or reimbursed. The
County shall incur no liability to the City, its officers, agents,
employees, suppliers, or contractors for any delay in making any such
payments.
C. Administrative and Public Services Costs. The County hereby
acknowledges the City, as subrecipient, incurs certain administrative
costs in preparing housing and economic development plans, program
planning, management and accounting, professional support services,
and other reasonable and necessary expenses to carry out the City’s
plan; and further, the County agrees that after the availability of CDBG
program funds to the City, the County shall not use its remaining
balance of funds in any way that would limit the City’s ability to use its
CDBG funds to the maximum extent allowed by HUD for
administrative, public service, or program purposes.
D. Income Generated. The City shall notify the County of any income
generated by the expenditure of CDBG funds received by the City.
Such program income may be retained by the City subject to the
provisions of this Agreement, the Act and its Regulations. Any
program income retained must only be used for eligible activities in
accordance with all CDBG requirements as they apply.
E. Use of Program Income. The County shall monitor the use of any
program income, requiring appropriate record-keeping and reporting by
the City as may be needed for this purpose, and shall report the use of
such program income to HUD. In the event of close-out or change of
status of the City, all program income on hand or received by the City
subsequent to the close-out or change of status shall be paid to the
County. In the event that the City withdraws from the urban county to
become an entitlement grantee, as provided under 24 CFR 570.504,
all program income on hand or received by the City from urban county
activities shall be retained by the City to be used as additional CDBG
funds subject to all applicable requirements governing the use of
CDBG funds.
F. Change in Use of Property. The City shall notify the County of any
modification or change in the use of real property acquired or improved
in whole or in part using CDBG funds that is within the control of the
City, from that use planned at the time of acquisition or improvement
Packet Pg 52
7
Attachment B
Page 7
including disposition. Such notification shall be made within thirty (30)
calendar days of such change of use and comply with the provisions of
24 CFR 570.505.
G. Fair Housing Implementation. The Parties agree no urban county
funding shall be allocated or expended for activities in or in support of
any cooperating unit of general local government that does not
affirmatively further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or that
impedes the County’s actions to comply with its fair housing
certification.
H. Conflict Resolution. In the event of disagreement between the
County and the City as to the allocations, disbursement, use, or
reimbursement of CDBG funds, the Parties agree to accept HUD’s
written determination as to the appropriate resolution or disposition of
funds to the extent HUD is willing to resolve such disagreement.
I. Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act. The City
may not sell, trade, or otherwise transfer all of any portion of CDBG
funds to another metropolitan city, urban county, unit of general local
government, or Indian tribe, or insular area that directly or indirectly
receives CDBG funds in exchange for any other funds, credits or non-
Federal considerations, but must use such funds for activities eligible
under Title I of the Act.
J. Special Provisions for the Urban County.
(1) To affirmatively furthers fair housing and implement the Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice or better known as the Fair
Housing Plan, the cities are encouraged to contribute CDBG funds to
affordable housing projects when there is an eligible CDBG component
in the proposal that is located within the city’s jurisdiction.
(2) The County will enforce remedies for noncompliance pursuant to 2
CFR Part 200.338 and allowed per 2 CFR Part 200.207 by pulling
CDBG funds for under preforming projects or programs not
implemented during agreed timeframe identified in the subrecipient
agreement.
SECTION V. Amendment or Extension of Agreement.
A. Subrecipient Agreement. For each fiscal year during the term of this
Agreement, the County and the City shall enter into a Subrecipient
Agreement, prepared jointly by the County and the City, which
identifies a project or program that the County will administer with the
City’s CDBG entitlement funds during that program year. The
Subrecipient Agreement will set forth the project changes, time
Packet Pg 53
7
Attachment B
Page 8
schedule for completion of the project(s), deliverable checklist, and
additional funding sources, if any. If substantial compliance with the
completion schedule cannot be met by the City due to unforeseen or
uncontrollable circumstances, then the County may extend the
schedule for project completion, as allowed by federal regulations.
B. Amendments. Any amendments to this Agreement shall be in writing.
Parties agree any such fully executed amendment or amendments to
this Agreement may be entered into at any time if required or
necessary to implement the plans contemplated hereunder, or to
comply with any grant agreement or the regulations issued pursuant to
the Act.
SECTION VI. Compliance with Federal Regulations.
A. General. The Parties agree to take all actions necessary to assure
compliance with the urban county’s certifications required by section
104(b) of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974, as amended, regarding Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
the Fair Housing Act, affirmatively furthering fair housing, Section 109
of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974; the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970; and other
applicable laws.
B. Citizen Participation. The Parties agree to comply with federal citizen
participation requirements of 24 CFR Part 91, and provide citizens
with:
1) An estimate of the amount of CDBG funds proposed to be used for
activities that will benefit persons of low and moderate income; and
2) A plan for minimizing displacement of persons as a result of CDBG -
assisted activities and programs, and to provide assistance to such
persons.
C. Citizen Participation Plan. The Parties agree to follow a citizen
participation plan which:
1) Provide for and encourages citizen participation, particularly those
of low or moderate income who reside in slum or blighted areas
where CDBG funds are proposed to be used;
2) Provide citizens with reasonable and timely access to local
meetings, staff reports, and other information relating to grantee’s
proposed use of funds, as required by HUD regulations related to
the actual use of funds under the Act;
Packet Pg 54
7
Attachment B
Page 9
3) Provides for public hearings to obtain citizen views and to respond
to proposals and questions at all stages of the community
development program, including at least: 1) formulation of needs; 2)
review of proposed grant activities; and 3) review of program
performance; for which public hearings shall be held after adequate
notice, at times and locations convenient to potential or actual
beneficiaries, and with accommodation of handicapped persons;
4) Provides for a timely written answer to written complaints and
grievances, within 15 working days where practicable;
5) Identifies how the needs of non-English speaking residents will be
met in the case of public hearings where a significant number of
non-English speaking residents can be reasonably expected to
participate.
6) Identifies the use of non-traditional methods of community
outreach, including the provision of CDBG documents in a user-
friendly format, including but not limited to Braille, large print, oral
format, and delivering copies to homebound individuals.
D. The Parties hereby certify, to the best of their knowledge and
belief, that:
1) Conflict of Interest. No federal grant monies have been paid or
will be paid, by or on behalf of the Parties, to any officer or
employee or any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or
employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress
in connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making
of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering
into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation,
renewal, amendment or modification of any federal contract, grant,
loan, or cooperative agreement.
2) Influence. If any funds other than federally appropriated funds
have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or
attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a
Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an
employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this federal
contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned
shall complete and submit standard form LLL, “Disclosure Form to
Report Lobbying,” in accordance with its instructions.
3) Certifications Disclosure. Parties agree to include this
certification in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers
Packet Pg 55
7
Attachment B
Page 10
(including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants,
loans, and cooperative agreements), and that all gra nt
subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. This
certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance
was placed when this transaction was entered into.
E. Certification Regarding Policies Prohibiting Use of Excessive
Force and Regarding Enforcement of State and Local Laws
Barring Entrances.
In accordance with Section 519 Public Law 101-144 (the 1990 HUD
Appropriations Act), the City certifies that it has adopted and is
enforcing.
1) A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement
agencies within their respective jurisdictions against any individuals
engaged in non-violent civil rights demonstrations; and
2) A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against
physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which
is the subject of such non-violent civil rights demonstrations within
their jurisdictions.
SECTION VII. Execution of Agreement and Recordkeeping.
A. HUD Certification. The Director is hereby authorized to execute and
submit to the County the HUD Certification Form with respect to the
community development activities carried out within the boundaries of
the City. It is further understood that the County will rely upon the
certification executed by the Director for purposes of executing a
certification form for submission to HUD.
B. Maintenance of Records. The City shall maintain records of activities
for any projects undertaken pursuant to the program, and said records
shall be open and available for inspection by auditors assigne d by
HUD and/or the County on reasonable notice during the normal
business hours of the City.
Packet Pg 56
7
Attachment B
Page 11
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed and attested by their proper officer thereunder duly authorized, and
their official seals to be hereunto affixed, all as of the day first above written.
County Counsel Certification
The Office of the County Counsel hereby certifies that the terms and provisions
of this Agreement are fully authorized under State and local laws, a nd that this
Agreement provides full legal authority for the County to undertake or assist in
undertaking essential community development and housing assistance activities,
specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EFFECT:
RITA L. NEAL
County Counsel
BY: ________________________________
Deputy County Counsel
DATED: ________________
By:
Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors
Date:
ATTEST:
Tommy Gong, County Clerk
Date:
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed and attested by their proper officer ther eunder duly authorized, and
their official seals to be hereunto affixed, all as of the day first above written.
Packet Pg 57
7
Attachment B
Page 12
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
HEIDI HARMON, MAYOR
Date:
ATTEST:
CARRIE GALLAGHER, CITY CLERK
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:
J. CHRISTINE DIETRICK, CITY ATTORNEY
Date:
Packet Pg 58
7
Meeting Date: 6/6/2017
FROM: Daryl R. Grigsby, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Kyle Rowland, Engineer III
Dan Van Beveren, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD/US 101 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO. 99821–TWO LAND QUITCLAIM DEEDS
TO CALTRANS
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving and authorizing the Mayor to execute a Quitclaim Deed releasing
the City’s interest in two small portions of property as part of the southbound U.S. 101 onramp at
Los Osos Valley Road from the City to Caltrans.
DISCUSSION
Background
During the design phase of the Los Osos Valley Road 101 Interchange Project (Project), the
southbound 101 on-ramp was redesigned with a layout which encroached onto two small
portions of City roadway right-of-way. Caltrans approved the onramp design with the condition
that once construction was complete, the City would transfer the jurisdiction of the two small
properties to Caltrans. The proposed roadway right-of-way relinquishment are located adjacent
to 1545 Calle Joaquin and 1675 Calle Joaquin as shown below:
The Project consisted of improvements to the interchange necessary to improve safety and to
correct operational deficiencies. Los Osos Valley Road was widened to four lanes between Calle
1675 Calle Joaquin
1545 Calle Joaquin
N
1” = 200’
Packet Pg 59
8
Joaquin and South Higuera Street and a new bridge was constructed adjacent to the existing
bridge. The project also included 6-foot wide sidewalks over the freeway, 6.5-foot bike lanes,
and improvements to the on and off-ramps.
The subject properties are located along the boundary between the existing Caltrans right-of-way
and the existing City right-of-way, and totals approximately 0.16 acres. The properties were
formerly occupied by an unimproved parking area and undeveloped land, and are now being
used for the newly constructed southbound U.S. 101 On-Ramp. The right of way being
transferred was specifically needed to improve the SB On-Ramp and lengthen the merge lane for
safety purposes.
The attached draft resolution (Attachment A) authorizes the Mayor to execute a Quitclaim Deed
transferring any interest the City has in these two properties to Caltrans. A draft quitclaim deed
(Attachment B) is approved by Caltrans.
CONCURRENCES
On April 26, 2017, the Planning Commission made a General Plan Conformity finding in regards
to the relinquishment of property to the State for right-of-way use. The resolution signed by the
Planning Commission is included as Attachment C.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
There is no environmental review associated with the execution of a Quitclaim Deed.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no payment required to execute a Quitclaim Deed. This action transfers the asset to
Caltrans.
ALTERNATIVES
Deny approval of the Quitclaim Deed with the State of California. Council may choose to deny
approval of the relinquishment with Caltrans. This alternative is not recommended considering
the relinquishment was a condition of project approval by Caltrans prior to approval of the final
design.
Attachments:
a - Resolution
b - Exhibit A - to Resolution - Quitclaim Deed to Caltrans
c - Conformity Resolution from Planning Commission
Packet Pg 60
8
R _____
RESOLUTION NO. (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE A QUITCLAIM DEED TRANSFERRING REAL
PROPERTY FROM THE CITY TO CALTRANS
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) constructed a new overpass at the Los
Osos Valley Interchange (“LOVR Project”);
WHEREAS, a portion of the LOVR Project consisted of freeway modifications which
were designed and constructed over two small portions of land under the jurisdiction of the City;
WHEREAS, a Quitclaim Deed has been prepared to transfer these two properties from
the City to Caltrans;
WHEREAS, Caltrans has reviewed and approved the Quitclaim Deed;
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has reviewed the Quitclaim Deed and has
confirmed that it is in conformation with the City’s General Plan.
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 approves and authorizes the Mayor to execute the
Quitclaim Deed attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by ________________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this ______ day of _______________ 2017.
________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
Packet Pg 61
8
Resolution No. (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
ATTEST:
______________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg 62
8
Form RW 6-1(I) (Revised 01/08)
RECORDING REQUESTED BY CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
- - - - - - -
WHEN RECORDED – RETURN TO
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attn: Tim Bochum
Space above this line for Recorder's Use
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation
a corporation organized
and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California , does hereby release
and quitclaim to the State of California all that real property in the City of San Luis Obispo , County of San Luis
Obispo , State of California, described as:
Parcel 11727-1 as described in Exhibit “A” and depicted on Exhibit “B”
AND
Parcel 11726-1 as described in Exhibit “C” and depicted on Exhibit “D”
Said exhibits attached hereto and made part of this quitclaim deed.
This quitclaim deed is made for the purpose of a freeway and the undersigned hereby releases and
relinquishes to the STATE any and all abutter’s rights of access, over and across above described courses A, B, C and
D as said courses are described in Exhibits “A” and “C”.
Transfer Tax Not Applicable: R & T Code 11911
STATE BUSINESS: Free
This is to certify that this document is presented for recordation by the State of California under Government Code
27383 and is necessary to complete the chain of title of the State to property acquired by the State of California.
District County Route Post Number
05
SLO
101
PM 25.7
PM 25.9
11726-1
11727-1
QUITCLAIM DEED
(CORPORATION)
Packet Pg 63
8
Form RW 6-1(I) (Revised 01/08)
The grantor further understands that the present intention of the grantee is to construct and maintain a public
highway on the lands hereby conveyed in fee and the grantor, for itself, its successors and assigns, hereby waives any
claims for any and all damages to grantor's remaining property contiguous to the property hereby conveyed by reason
of the location, construction, landscaping or maintenance of said highway.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said corporation has caused its corporate name to be hereunto subscribed and its
corporate seal to be affixed hereto, this day of ______________________, 20_____
By ,
Name: +HLGL+DUPRQ
Title: &LW\RI6DQ/XLV2ELVSRMayor
ATTEST:
By ,
1DPH &DUULH*DOODJKHU
7LWOH &LW\RI6DQ/XLV2ELVSRClerk
APPROVED TO FORM:
By
Name: J. Christine Dietrick
Title: City of San Luis Obispo, Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
By
Name: 'DU\O*ULJVE\
Title: &LW\RI6DQ/XLV2ELVSR DirectorRI3XEOLF:RUNV
[CORPORATE SEAL]
Packet Pg 64
8
Form RW 6-1(I) (Revised 01/08)
(Here insert name and title of the officer)
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California
County of _______________
On ___________ before me,_____________________________________________________, personally
appeared_________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis
of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged
to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity (ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on
the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and
correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature ____________________________________________ (Seal)
THIS IS TO CERTIFY, That the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation
(pursuant to Government Code Section 27281), hereby accepts for public purposes the real property described in
the within deed and consents to the recordation thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ____ day of _______________, 20____.
MALCOLM DOUGHERTY, Director of Transportation
By _______________________________________
Marshall Garcia, Attorney in Fact
Department of Transportation
District 5, Right of Way Office Chief
} ss
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Packet Pg 65
8
Packet Pg 66
8
Packet Pg 67
8
Packet Pg 68
8
Packet Pg 69
8
Packet Pg 70
8
Packet Pg 71
8
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 72
8
Meeting Date: 6/6/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION UPDATING THE CITY’S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) revising the D evelopment Review Notification
Requirements to be consistent with State Requirements.
DISCUSSION
Background
The Notification Requirements are a technical document that has historically been adopted by
Council Resolution. The Standards govern when and where the City distributes mailed postcards,
legal ads, and posted signs about upcoming development projects. The Notification Standards
identify who will be noticed and when the noticing will happen. These Standards reflect State
law and local policy. The Notification Requirements that were adopted on December 15, 2015
(Attachment B, Resolution No. 10681), included revisions from the 2008 standards and some
additional changes that were in response to public feedback requesting the expansion of noticing
for certain project types. Since that time, City staff has discovered that some of the City’s
requirements need to be updated to comply with State requirements, and call for noticing on
ministerial reviews and approvals.
Updates to Current Standards
The proposed updates to the Notification Requirements will change three items on the
established list of Development Projects. These procedure types are ministerial approvals, and no
notification is required because no hearing and/or discretionary action is taking place. The three
items are discussed further below.
1. Final Map
Currently, the Notification Requirements identify Final Maps as requiring a public notice. This is
inconsistent with State requirements because the vast majority of these approvals are ministerial
actions and require no notice to the public. The one exception to this is Final Map submittals that
include corrections or amendments to a map that has already been filed in the office of the
County Recorder (Subdivision Map Act § 66472.1). Final Map submittals that include
corrections or amendments can require a public hearing. This hearing is before the legislative
body or advisory agency that originally acted on the project, and therefore will require a public
notice of the hearing. This type of approval is very uncommon and rarely seen in the City. The
Notification Requirements Document will be amended to require no notice for Final Maps
(FMAP), with an asterisk that identifies this uncommon type of submittal as requiring a public
Packet Pg 73
9
notice.
2. Secondary Dwelling Unit (SDU)
At the time the current Notification Requirements were adopted, the City’s Secondary Dwelling
Unit (SDU) Ordinance required discretionary architectural approval to establish an SDU on any
property. As of January 1, 2017, the State of California revised its regulations in connection to
these types of units (now called Accessory Dwelling Units). These new regulations stipulate that
only a ministerial approval can be required to establish this type of unit, and no noticing is
required for ministerial approvals. While our previous ordinance included a discretionary
component, the approval of SDUs as a use on a specific property was based on code consistency
and was not considered discretionary. SDUs will be completely removed from the document
because they are no longer a submittal type, and only a building permit is required to establish an
Accessory Dwelling Unit.
3. Subdivision-Voluntary Merger
Currently, the Notification Requirements identify Voluntary Mergers as requiring a publi c
notice. This is inconsistent with State requirements because these approvals are ministerial
actions. The document will be amended to require no notice for these approvals.
Conclusion
The goal of updating the Notification Standards is to inform and involve the affected community
in discretionary governmental decisions. If local residents are directly involved in the process
they will be able to identify with the reasons behind the decisions. The proposed changes will
allow greater consistency with State requirements, without negatively affecting public
participation and other departmental goals.
CONCURRENCES
The proposed changes to the City’s notification standards were reviewed by City Departments
with responsibility for development review and no impacts to staff resources were identified with
the proposed changes. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(Section 15061(b)3).
FISCAL IMPACT
No increase in cost is anticipated with the proposed changes because no expansion of noticing is
proposed.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Direct staff on specific changes to the Notification Requirements. Staff can return at a
later meeting to review and discuss changes.
2. Do not approve the Notification Requirements.
Packet Pg 74
9
Attachments:
a - Notification Requirements Resolution
b - Resolution No. 10681 (2015)
Packet Pg 75
9
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING REVISED DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) follows specific notification
requirements for projects requiring development review;
WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted Resolution No. 10681 (2015 Series)
establishing development review notification requirements;
WHEREAS, the City’s current notification practice meets or exceeds the minimum state
law requirements; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to revise its notification requirements to reflect current
requirements set by the State of California for projects requiring development review.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
that the Notification Standards for Development Projects are hereby amended as shown in Exhibit
“A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Resolution No. 10681 (2015) is superseded by this
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series).
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this ___________day of ___________ 2017.
______________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg 76
9
Resolution No. _________ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
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 or ______________, _________.
______________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg 77
9
Resolution No. _________ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
Address Change 7
Annexation - ANNX 10 10 10
Appeal - APPL
Architectural Review - ARCH
ARC 10 10 10
Minor/Incidental 7 7 7
Condo Conversion - CNDO 10 10 10
Cultural Heritage Projects
Projects/Demolitions in Historic District 10 10 10
Change in Historical District Boundaries 10 10 10
Directors Approval - DIR
Daycare (7-12 Adults or 9-14 Children)10 10 10
All others (Special Events, Nightwork, etc..)7
Environmental Review a
Fence Height Exception - FNCE 7 7 7
Final Map - FMAP *
General Plan - GENP
Map Amendment (incl. Rezoning) - PC and CC 10 10 10
Text Amendment - PC and CC 10
Guest Quarters - GUST 7 7 7
Historic Review - HIST 10 10 10
Homestay - HOME
Homestay 7 7 7
Homestay with Exceptions (Administrative Hearing)7 7 7
Occupancy - OCC
Home Occupation 7
Administrative Hearing for Home Occupation 7 7 7
Planned Development - PDEV
Plan Amendment 10 10 10
Rezoning (Final Plan)
Rezoning (Preliminary)10 10 10
School Tenant Permits
Allowed use 7
Approved by Use Permit 7 7 7
Sign Permits
Specific Plan - SPEC - Amendment 10 10
Street Abandonment - STAB (Noticed for each step in Process)10 10 10 c
Street Name Change - STNE 10 10 10 b
Subdivision - SBDV
Tentative Lot Line Adjustment 7 7 7
Tentative Parcel Map (4 or less lots)10 10 10
Tentative Tract map (5 or more lots)10 10 10
Voluntary Merger
Time Extensions
Use Permit - USE
Administrative Hearing (Setback Exceptions, , Etc.) 7 7 7
High Occupancy Residential 10 10 10
Offsite Parking 7 d 7 d 7 d
Downtown Housing Conversion 10 10 10
Planning Commission or City Council 10 10 10
Variance - VAR 7 7 7
Notification Requirements for Development Projects
3) All projects will be noticed to interested parties as requested.
Notes:
1) The Community Development Director can increase these notification standards for any project, at any time.
2) Distances for notification shall be measured from the edge of property lines.
a) No specific date or time limit
b) Minimum 3 signs
c) Signs must be 300' apart or less, minimum of 3 signs
d) Offsite parking address must also be used for noticing (2 posters)
Days of notification required before hearing or final decision
Procedures Legal Ad Legal Ad
with Map
Postcards to Owners and
Occupants within 100'
Postcards to Owners and
Occupants within 300’
- - no notice - -
The above noted procedures meet or exceed the requirements of other sections of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code or applicable state law. While it is city
policy to provide additional notice beyond these requirements, failure to provide such notice shall not be construed in any way as invalidating otherwise proper
actions or decisions.
Posters
(on-site
notification)
- - no notice - -
- - use requirement for body being appealed to - -
- - no notice - -
- - no notice - -
4) For projects with multiple entitlements, each notification for the project will be noticed at the highest level required
for any entitlement of the project. Example: an Administrative Use Permit which also requires ARC review will be
noticed at the distance required for ARC (owners and occupants within 300' instead of 100').
- - no notice - -
* Final Maps w/ amendments submitted pursuant to § 66472.1 of the Subdivision Map Act will be noticed as required
Exhibit A
Packet Pg 78
9
Packet Pg 79
9
Packet Pg 80
9
Packet Pg 81
9
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 82
9
Meeting Date: 6/6/2017
FROM: Deanna Cantrell, Chief of Police
Prepared By: Kurt Hixenbaugh, Sergeant
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR POLICE AND FIRE ALARM
TRACKING AND BILLING SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize staff to submit a Request for Proposal (Attachment A) for Police and Fire Alarm
Tracking and Billing Services (Specification No. 91551) for fiscal years 2018-21; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement for services.
DISCUSSION
Background
In 2012, the City conducted a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Police alarm tracking and billing
services. Through this competitive process the contract was awarded to PMAM Corporation. The
contract with PMAM Corporation is due to expire June 30, 2017. Staff is requesting to conduct
an RFP to select a vendor for a contract term starting July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2021.
In 2016, the Police Department received 1,684 alarm calls for service. 417 of these calls were
cancelled by the alarm company before the police officers arrived. 1,063 of these calls were
referred to PMAM Corporation for tracking and billing. Addresses that had three or more false
alarms were billed a service fee for the Police response. The purpose of the service fee is to
prompt the business to take corrective action and prevent excessive false alarms. Chapter 15.12
of the Municipal Code (Attachment B) provides policy guidance and framework for “Alarm
Systems”.
The following table shows the City’s current fees for Police responses to False Alarms. There is
no fee associated with the first and second false alarm:
Excessive Alarms Fee
3rd false alarm in 12-month period $82
4th “ $137
5th “ $226
6th “ $406
7th or more $619
Packet Pg 83
10
In House Option
Based on the number of alarm permits and false alarm responses, the amount of staff time
required to administer the alarm program would be significant and the workload too great to be
absorbed with either existing staff or volunteers. In addition, the City does not currently have the
appropriate software necessary for such a program. Therefore, staff recommends continuing the
administration of the police and fire alarm programs with a contractor selected through a
competitive bid process.
Furthermore, the alarm tracking industry continues to evolve and improve in response to the
needs of municipalities. Many companies utilize web-based solutions that allow alarm users to
pay fees, maintain their account, and view their activity on-line. Staff believes it would be
prudent to continue using a contractor for alarm tracking/billing services to ensure the City is
providing the best service possible to our community.
CONCURRENCES
The Police Chief and Interim Finance Director concur with the recommendation.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding currently exists in the Police Department budget for false alarm billing services.
Typically, vendors require a percentage of revenue collected as their fee for service. With
PMAM Corporation, this equated to 15-20% of the gross revenue collected; the Police
Department budgets $32,700 annually for this expense recognizing that the amount of revenue
may vary from year to year depending on compliance.
The chart below depicts actual annual revenue received from false alarm fees and permits
collected over the past three fiscal years. Revenue generated from these fees offsets the
expenditure; so as a result, the actual amount realized (net revenue) equals revenues less any
costs paid for the services.
Revenue Received – False Alarm/Permit Billing
Year Gross Revenue Collected Net Revenue
2013-14 $129,655 $108,376
2014-15 $142,806 $119,470
2015-16 $122,175 $100,399
ALTERNATIVES
1. Delay the RFP and further research in-house options. Staff does not recommend this
alternative. If Council is interested in administering the alarm services using City staff rather
than contract, staff would conduct additional research and evaluation to determine the staff
and technology resources needed for the program. Staff resources are not currently available
to administer the program so additional personnel would be needed. Additional analysis is
necessary to determine if the additional costs of administering the service would be off-set by
the amount of income generated.
Packet Pg 84
10
2. Do not initiate the RFP process and negotiate a new contract with PMAM Corporation. This
option is not recommended. The City has contracted with PMAM Corporation for five years.
Although the Police Department has been very satisfied with their service, periodic surveying
of the market is necessary to ensure that the City continues to receive the best value in
purchasing services.
Attachments:
a - RFP package alarm FY18-21
b - Municipal Code Chapter 15.12
Packet Pg 85
10
Notice Requesting Proposals for
Police and Fire Alarm Tracking & Billing Services
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals for police and fire alarm tracking services
pursuant to Specification No. 91551. All proposals must be received by the Department of Finance by
3:00 pm on June 26, 2017 when they will be opened publicly in the City Hall Council Chambers, 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.
Proposals received after said time will not be considered. To guard against p remature opening, each
proposal shall be submitted to the Department of Finance in a sealed envelope plainly marked with the
proposal title, specification number, bidder name, and time and date of the proposal opening. Proposals
shall be submitted using the forms provided in the specification package.
Specification packages and additional information may be obtained by contacting Administrative
Sergeant Fred Mickel, 805-594-8048 or fmickel@slocity.org.
Packet Pg 86
10
2
Specification No. 91551
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Description of Work 3
B. General Terms and Conditions 4
Proposal Requirements
Contract Award and Execution
Contract Performance
C. Special Terms and Conditions 9
Contract Term
Estimated Quantities
Proposal Content
Proposal Evaluation and Selection
Proposal Review and Award Schedule
Unrestrictive Brand Names
Start and Completion of Work
Accuracy of Specifications
D. Agreement 13
E. Insurance Requirements 15
F. Proposal Submittal Forms 17
Proposal Submittal Summary
References
Statement of Past Contract Disqualifications
Bidder’s List
Packet Pg 87
10
3
Section A
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
The City is requesting proposals for the service of an alarm tracking Management Company, which
includes, but is not limited to, the following features:
1. Deploy a software package that maintains and tracks false alarm data and generate related reports
2. Send alarm permit applications for renewals
3. Send alarm permit applications to residents and businesses who may have alarms but are not
registered with the San Luis Obispo Police or San Luis Obispo Fire Departments
4. Download call data within three days of receipt
5. Send letters and invoices to the residences/businesses for false alarms as per ordinance
6. Follow up with the default residents/businesses who have not paid their fees by the due date
7. Collect fees and engage collection agency for unpaid fees
8. Reconcile accounts daily, weekly, or monthly, as specified
9. Identify the top 1%-5% of residents/businesses that have been responsible for the maximum false
alarm calls and send them the required material to increase awareness of the false alarm reduction
program.
10. Respond timely to all queries from citizens and businesses
11. Provide required information and reports to the San Luis Obispo Police or San Luis Obispo Fire
Departments and other City officials on a regular basis.
12. Track new and existing permits
13. Provide self-service login capability by the homeowners and businesses to maintain their account
and view alarm activity
14. Provide detailed invoice generation, which will have the history of all false alarms at the location
Packet Pg 88
10
4
Section B
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a proposal (bidder)
shall meet all of the terms, and conditions of the Invitation for Bids (IFB) or Request for
Proposals (RFP) specifications package. By virtue of its proposal submittal, the bidder
acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of all provisions of the IFB/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
Department of Finance, City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401.
In order to guard against premature opening, the proposal should be clearly labeled with the
proposal title, specification number, name of bidder, 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 bidder’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 E.
4. Proposal Quotes and Unit Price Extension. The extension of unit prices for the quantities
indicated and the lump sum prices quoted by the bidder must be entered in figures in the spaces
provided on the Proposal Submittal Form(s). Any lump sum bid shall be stated in figures. The
Proposal Submittal Form(s) must be totally completed. If the unit price and the total amount
stated by any bidder for any item are not in agreement, the unit price alone will be considered as
representing the bidder’s intention and the proposal total will be corrected to conform to the
specified unit price.
5. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A bidder may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice
prior to the time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the
Director of Finance for its withdrawal, in which event the proposal will be returned to the bidder
unopened. No proposal received after the time specified or at any place other than that stated in
the “Notice Inviting Bids/Requesting Proposals” will be considered. All proposals will be opened
and declared publicly. Bidders or their representatives are invited to be present at the opening of
the proposals.
6. 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 bidder submitting a proposal, or who has quoted prices on materials to such bidder,
is not thereby disqualified from submitting a sub-proposal or from quoting prices to other bidders
submitting proposals.
Packet Pg 89
10
5
7. Cooperative Purchasing. During the term of the contract, the successful bidder will extend all
terms and conditions to any other local governmental agencies upon their request. These
agencies will issue their own purchase orders, will directly receive goods or services at their place
of business, and will be directly billed by the successful bidder.
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.
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION
9. Proposal Retention and Award. The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a peri od
of 60 days for examination and comparison. The City also reserves the right to waive non-
substantial irregularities in any proposal, to reject any or all proposals, to reject or delete one part
of a proposal and accept the other, except to the extent t hat 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.
10. Competency and Responsibility of Bidder. The City reserves full discretion to determine the
competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of bidders. Bidders will
provide, in a timely manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a
decision.
11. Contract Requirement. The bidder to whom award is made (Contractor) 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.
12. Insurance Requirements. The Contractor shall provide proof of insurance in the form,
coverages and amounts specified in Section E of these specifications within 10 (ten) calendar
days after notice of contract award as a precondition to contract execution.
13. Business License & Tax. The Contractor must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business
license & tax certificate before execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the
City’s business tax program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134.
CONTRACT PERFORMANCE
14. Ability to Perform. The Contractor warrants that it possesses, or has arranged through
subcontracts, all capital and other equipment, labor, materials, and license s necessary to carry out
and complete the work hereunder in compliance with any and all federal, state, county, city, and
special district laws, ordinances, and regulations.
15. Laws to be Observed. The Contractor 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.
16. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the
Contractor is required to pay.
17. Permits and Licenses. The Contractor shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and
fees, and give all notices necessary.
Packet Pg 90
10
6
18. Safety Provisions. The Contractor 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 Contractor’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 Contractor 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 Contractor’s operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the
Contractor’s expense. The facilities shall be replaced or restored to a condition as good as when
the Contractor began work.
21. Immigration Act of 1986. The Contractor warrants on behalf of itself and all subcontractors
engaged for the performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United State
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. Contractor Non-Discrimination. In the performance of this work, the Contractor agrees that it
will not engage in, nor permit such subcontractors as it may employ, to engage in discrimination
in employment of persons because of age, race, color, sex, national origin or ancestry, sexual
orientation, or religion of such persons.
23. Work Delays. Should the Contractor 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 Contractor. 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.
24. Payment Terms. The City’s payment terms are 30 days from the receipt of an original invoice
and acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment, or services provided by the
Contractor (Net 30).
25. Inspection. The Contractor shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to
ascertain that the services of the Contractor 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 Contractor of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract requirements.
26. Audit. The City shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all records and other written
materials used by Contractor in preparing its invoices to City as a condition precedent to any
payment to Contractor.
27. Interests of Contractor. The Contractor 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
Packet Pg 91
10
7
with the performance of the work hereunder. The Contractor further covenants that, in the
performance of this work, no subcontractor or person having such an interest shall be employed.
The Contractor 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 Contractor shall at all times be deemed an independent contractor and
not an agent or employee of the City.
28. Hold Harmless and Indemnification. Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and
hold the City and its agents, officers and employees harmless from and against any and all
claims asserted or liability established for damages or injuries to any person or property,
including injury to Contractor's employees, agents or officers which arise from or are
connected with or are caused or claimed to be caused by the acts or omissions of Contractor,
and its agents, officers or employees, in the performance of all obligations under this
Agreement, and all expenses of investigating and defending against same; provided, however,
that Contractor's duty to indemnify and hold harmless shall not include any claims or liability
arising from the established sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its agents,
officers or employees.
29. Contract Assignment. The Contractor 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.
30. Termination for Convenience. The City may terminate all or part of this Agreement for any or
no reason at any time by giving 30 days written notice to Contractor. Should the City terminate
this Agreement for convenience, the City shall be liable as follows: (a) for standard or off-the-
shelf products, a reasonable restocking charge not to exceed ten (10) percent of the total purchase
price; (b) for custom products, the less of a reasonable price for the raw materials, components
work in progress and any finished units on hand or the price per unit reflected on this Agreement.
For termination of any services pursuant to this Agreement, the City’s liability will be the lesser
of a reasonable price for the services rendered prior to termination, or the price for the services
reflected on this Agreement. Upon termination notice from the City, Contractor must, unless
otherwise directed, cease work and follow the City’s directions as to work in progress and
finished goods.
31. Termination. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Contractor is not
faithfully abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Contractor
in writing of such defect or failure to perform. This notice must give the Contractor a 10 (ten)
calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to perform said work or cure the deficiency.
If the Contractor 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 Contractor 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 Contractor’s surety shall remain in full force and effect, and shall not be
extinguished, reduced, or in any manner waived by the terminations thereof.
In said event, the Contractor 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 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 Contractor as may be set forth in the
Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any other work, services or goods performed or
Packet Pg 92
10
8
provided by the Contractor 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 Contractor be entitled to
receive in excess of the compensation quoted in its proposal.
Packet Pg 93
10
9
Section C
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Contract Award. Subject to the reservations set forth in Paragraph 9 of Section B (Gener al
Terms and Conditions) of these specifications, the contract will be awarded to the lowest
responsible, responsive bidder.
2. Sales Tax Reimbursement. For sales occurring within the City of San Luis Obispo, the City
receives sales tax revenues. Therefore, for bids from retail firms located in the City at the time of
proposal closing for which sales tax is allocated to the City, 1% of the taxable amount of the bid
will be deducted from the proposal by the City in calculating and determining the lowest
responsible, responsive bidder.
3. Labor Actions. In the event that the successful bidder is experiencing a labor action at the time
of contract award (or if its suppliers or subcontractors are experiencing such a labor action), the
City reserves the right to declare said bidder is no longer the lowest responsible, responsive
bidder and to accept the next acceptable low proposal from a bidder that is not experiencing a
labor action, and to declare it to be the lowest responsible, responsive bidder.
4. Failure to Accept Contract. The following will occur if the bidder to whom the award is made
(Contractor) fails to enter into the contract: the award will be annulled; any bid security will be
forfeited in accordance with the special terms and conditions if a bidder’s bond or security is
required; and an award may be made to the next lowest responsible, responsive bidder who shall
fulfill every stipulation as if it were the party to whom the first award was made.
5. Contract Term. The supplies or services identified in these specifications will be used by the
City between July, 2017 and June 30th, 2021. The prices quoted for these items must be valid for
the entire period indicated above unless otherwise conditioned by the bidder in its proposal.
6. Contract Extension. The term of the contract may be extended by mutual consent for an
additional one (1) year. During this extended period, unit prices may not be increased by more
than the percentage change in the US consumer price index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).
7. Estimated Quantities. The quantities indicated in the Detail Proposal Submittal Form are
estimates based on past purchasing experience, and will be used to determine the lowest overall
proposal. Actual quantities purchased during the period of this contract may vary from these
estimated amounts as required by the City.
8. Supplemental Purchases. Supplemental purchases may be made from the successful bidder
during the contract term in addition to the items listed in the Detail Proposal Submittal Form. For
these supplemental purchases, the bidder shall not offer prices to the City in excess of the
amounts offered to other similar customers for the same item. If the bidder is willing to offer the
City a standard discount on all supplemental purchases from its generally prevailing or published
price structure during the contract term, this offer and the amount of discount on a percentage
basis should be provided with the proposal submittal.
9. Contractor Invoices. The Contractor shall deliver a monthly invoice to the City, itemized by up
to 20 cost centers, with attached copies of work order forms or detail invoices (standard color or
copy to be agreed upon) as supporting detail.
Packet Pg 94
10
10
10. Non-Exclusive Contract. The City reserves the right to purchase the items listed in the Detail
Proposal Submittal Form, as well as any supplemental items, from other vendors during the
contract term.
11. Unrestrictive Brand Names. Any manufacturer’s names, trade names, brand names or catalog
numbers used in the specifications are for the purpose of describing and establishing general
quality levels. Such references are not intended to be restrictive. Proposals will be considered for
any brand that meets or exceeds the quality of the specifications given for any item. In the event
an alternate brand name is proposed, supplemental documentation shall be provided
demonstrating that the alternate brand name meets or exceeds the requirements specified herein.
The burden of proof as to the suitability of any proposed alternatives is upon the bidder, and the
City shall be the sole judge in making this determination.
12. Start and Completion of Work. Work on this project shall begin immediately after contract
execution and shall be completed at the end of the contract period.
13. Change in Work. The City reserves the right to change quantities of any item after contract
award. If the total quantity of any changed item varies by 25% or less, there shall be no change in
the agreed upon unit price for that item. Unit pricing for any quantity changes per item in excess
of 25% shall be subject to negotiation with the Contractor.
14. Submittal of References. Each bidder shall submit a statement of qualifications and references
on the form provided in the IFB/RFP package.
15. Statement of Contract Disqualifications. Each bidder shall submit a statement regarding any
past governmental agency bidding or contract disqualifications on the form provided in the
IFB/RFP package.
16. Proposal Content. Your proposal must include the following information:
Submittal Forms
a. Proposal submittal summary.
b. Certificate of insurance.
c. References from at least three firms for whom you have provided similar services.
Qualifications
d. Experience of your firm in performing similar services.
e. Resumes of the individuals who would be assigned to this project, including any sub -
consultants.
f. Standard hourly billing rates for the assigned staff, including any sub-consultants.
g. Statement and explanation of any instances where your firm has been removed from a
project or disqualified from proposing on a project.
Work Program
h Description of your approach to completing the work.
i. Tentative schedule by phase and task for completing the work.
j. Estimated hours for your staff in performing each major phase of the work, including
sub-consultants.
k. Services or data to be provided by the City.
l. Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decision.
Packet Pg 95
10
11
Compensation
m. Proposed compensation and payment schedule tied to accomplishing key tasks.
Proposal Length and Copies
n. Proposals should not exceed 10 pages, including attachments and supplemental materials.
o. Three (3) copies of the proposal must be submitted.
17. Proposal Evaluation and Selection. Proposals will be evaluated by a review committee based
on the following criteria:
a. Understanding of the work required by the City.
b. Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal.
c. Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for successfully
performing the work required by the City.
d. Recent experience in successfully performing similar services.
e. Proposed approach in completing the work.
f. References.
g. Background and related experience of the specific individuals to be assigned to this
project.
h. Proposed compensation.
As reflected above, contract award will not be based solely on price, but on a combination of
factors as determined to be in the best interest of the City. After evaluating the proposals and
discussing them further with the finalists or the tentatively selected contractor, the City reserves
the right to further negotiate the proposed work and/or method and amount of compensation.
18. Proposal Review and Award Schedule. The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule
for proposal review and contract award:
a. Issue RFP 6/7/17
b. Receive proposals 6/26/17
c. Complete proposal evaluation & finalize staff recommendation 7/7/17
d. Award contract 7/10/17
e. Execute contract 7/10/17
f. Start work 7/11/17
19. Ownership of Materials. Al original drawings, plan documents and other materials prepared by
or in possession of the Contractor as part of the work or services under these specifications shall
become the permanent property of the City, and shall be delivered to the City upon demand.
20. Release of Reports and Information. Any reports, information, data, or other material given to,
prepared by or assembled by the Contractor 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 Contractor without the prior written approval of the City.
21. Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports, drawings,
specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Contractor is required to furnish in
limited quantities as part of the work or services under these specifications, the Contractor shall
Packet Pg 96
10
12
provide such additional copies as are requested, and City shall compensate the Contractor for the
costs of duplicating of such copies at the Contractor’s direct expense.
22. Alternative Proposals. The proposer may submit an alternative proposal (or proposals) that it
believes will also meet the City’s project objectives but in a different way. In this case, the
proposer must provide an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the
alternatives, and discuss under what circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the
other(s). If an alternative proposal is submitted, the maximum length of the proposal may be
expanded proportionately by the number of alternatives submitted.
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. Bidders 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 bidder and all subcontractors named in its proposal shall
bear sole responsibility for proposal preparation errors resulting from any misstatements or
omissions in the plans and 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 plans and specifications will be as determined by law, any patent
ambiguity or defect shall give rise to a duty of bidder to inquire prior to proposal submittal.
Failure to so inquire shall cause any such ambiguity or defect to be construed against the bidder.
An ambiguity or defect shall be considered patent if it is of such a nature that the bidder,
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 bidder or subcontractors to
notify City in writing of specification or plan defects or ambiguities prior to proposal submittal
shall waive any right to assert said defects or ambiguities subsequent to submittal of the proposal.
To the extent that these specifications constitute performance specifications, the City sha ll not be
liable for costs incurred by the successful bidder 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 plans and/or specifications, or any other matter whatsoever, Contractor
shall immediately notify the City in writing, and the Contractor and all subcontractors 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 contractor’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.
Packet Pg 97
10
13
Section D
FORM OF AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on this _____________day
of ____________________________________, by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal
corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and [CONTRACTOR’S NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS], hereinafter
referred to as Contractor.
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, on [date], City [requested proposals] for [generally describe the purchase] per Specification
No. [9x-xx].
WHEREAS, pursuant to said invitation [request], Contractor submitted a proposal that was accepted by
City for said [supplies, equipment, services, project, whatever].
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 [supplies, equipment, services, project, whatever].
2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. City Specification No. [9x-xx] and Contractor’s
proposal dated [date], are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement.
3. CITY’S OBLIGATIONS. For providing [supplies, equipment, services, project, whatever] as
specified in this Agreement, City will pay and Contractor shall receive therefor [SELECT ONE] [Fixed Quantity
Contract] compensation in a total sum not to exceed [$ .00 ]. [Estimated Quantity Contract] payments
based upon the actual quantities ordered and received by City and the unit prices bid by Contractor . [Other
Payment Method] department prepares appropriate contract language or refers to an exhibit “attached hereto and
incorporated into this Agreement.”
4. CONTRACTOR’S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements
hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City, Contractor agrees with City to [SELECT ONE] do
everything required by this Agreement and the said specification [OR] provide [supplies, equipment, services,
project, whatever] as described in Exhibit [ ] attached hereto and incorporated into this Agreement.
Packet Pg 98
10
14
5. AMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement
shall be in writing and shall be effective only up on approval by the Council [or other official] of the City.
6. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically
incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No ora l
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.
7. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage
prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows:
City City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Contractor [ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
8. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Contractor 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.
ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, A Municipal Corporation
____________________________________ By:____________________________________
City Clerk City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR
____________________________________ By:____________________________________
City Attorney
Packet Pg 99
10
15
Section E
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Consultant Services
The Contractor 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 Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees, or subcontractors.
Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001).
2. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code
1 (any auto).
3. Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer’s Liability
Insurance.
4. Errors and Omissions Liability insurance as appropriate to the consultant’s profession.
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor 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 Contractor 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 Contractor; products
and completed operations of the Contractor; premises owned, occupied or used by the Contractor;
or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage shall contain
no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials,
employees, agents or volunteers.
2. For any claims related to this project, the Contractor’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 contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3. The Contractor’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
Packet Pg 100
10
16
(30) days’ prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the
City.
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. Contractor 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 101
10
17
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM Sample A
The undersigned declares that she or he has carefully examined Specification No. 91551 which is hereby
made a part of this proposal; is thoroughly familiar with its contents; is authorized to represent the
proposing firm; and agrees to perform the specified work for the following cost quoted in full:
BID ITEM: Police and Fire Alarm Tracking & Billing Services
Total Base Price
Sales tax
Other (provide detail below)
TOTAL
Delivery of equipment to the City to be within ________ calendar days after contract execution and
written authorization to proceed.
Certificate of insurance attached; insurance company’s A.M. Best rating:___________________.
Firm Name and Address
Contact Phone
Signature of Authorized Representative
Date
NOTES ON THIS SAMPLE FORM
This is the City’s “basic” submittal form, and something like it should accompany all
proposals, even if: a combined “description of work/detailed proposal subm ittal form” (like
Sample E) is required; or price information is not requested (like Sample F).
Packet Pg 102
10
18
PROPOSED SUBMITTAL FORM Sample B
The undersigned declares that she or he has carefully examined Specification No. 91551, which is hereby
made a part of this proposal; is thoroughly familiar with its contents; is authorized to represent the
proposing firm; and agrees to perform the specified work for the following cost quoted in full:
Description Quantity Unit Price Total
TOTAL BASE PRICE
Sales tax
Other (provide detail below)
TOTAL $
Delivery of equipment to the City to be within __________ calendar days after contract execution and
written authorization to proceed.
Certificate of insurance attached; insurance company’s A.M. Best rating:___________________.
Firm Name and Address
Contact Phone
Signature of Authorized Representative
Date
NOTES ON THIS SAMPLE FORM
This is another sample of “basic” submittal form when you have multiple bid items that are
specified in detail in the “description of work” section.
Packet Pg 103
10
19
Description of Work/Detail Proposal Submittal Form Sample E
The City is requesting proposals for the following services:
1. Deploy a software package that maintains and tracks false alarm data and generate related reports
2. Send alarm permit applications for renewals
3. Send alarm permit applications to residents and businesses who may have alarms but are not
registered with the San Luis Obispo Police or San Luis Obispo Fire Departments
4. Download call data within three days of receipt
5. Send letters and invoices to the residences/businesses for false alarms as per ordinance
6. Follow up with the default residents/businesses who have not paid their fees by the due date
7. Collect fees and engage collection agency for unpaid fees
8. Reconcile accounts daily, weekly, or monthly, as specified
9. Identify the top 1%-5% of residents/businesses that have been responsible for the maximum false
alarm calls and send them the required material to increase awareness of the false alarm reduction
program.
10. Respond timely to all queries from citizens and businesses
11. Provide required information and reports to the San Luis Obispo Police or San Luis Obispo Fire
Departments and other City officials on a regular basis.
12. Track new and existing permits
13. Provide self-service login capability by the homeowners and businesses to maintain their account
and view alarm activity
14. Provide detailed invoice generation, which will have the history of all false alarms at the location
NOTES ON THIS SAMPLE FORM
In this sample, the bid form and the description of work are combined for simplicity. However,
as indicated above, a proposal summary form should also be submitted with this form to
document the bidders agreement with the specifications and submittal of insurance
information.
If the quantities are estimates to determine the lowest overall proposal, this column should be
titled as such, and noted in the “special terms and conditions” section.
Packet Pg 104
10
20
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 & FAX number
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Description of services provided
including contract amount, when
provided and project outcome
Reference No. 2
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & FAX number
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Description of services provided
including contract amount, when
provided and project outcome
Reference No. 3
Customer Name
Contact Individual
Telephone & FAX number
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Description of services provided
including contract amount, when
provided and project outcome
Packet Pg 105
10
21
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS
The bidder 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 Bidder Representative
Packet Pg 106
10
22
BIDDERS LIST
ALARM TRACKING SERVICE—SPECIFICATION NO. 91551
Public Safety Corporation
CryWolf
103 Paul Mellon Ct.
Waldorf MD 20602
Phone 877.729.9654 x101
Fax 301.638.9319
PMAM Corporation
FAMS (False Alarm Management)
5430 Lyndon B Johnson Fwy #370,
Dallas, TX 75240
Phone 972.831.7406
Fax 972.831.7499
Municipal Alarm Tracking
P.O. Box 2490
Valley Center CA 92082-0560
Phone 800.749.9669
Fax 760.749.8549
Phoenix Group
2677 N. Main St., Suite 400
Santa Ana CA 92705
Phone 714.460.7200
Fax 714.384.0151
Alarm Tracking & Billing Svc
3021 N Hancock Ave #210
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
Phone 719-559-3303
Packet Pg 107
10
Chapter 15.12
ALARM SYSTEMS
Sections:
15.12.010 Purpose.
15.12.020 Definitions.
15.12.030 Alarm system standards.
15.12.040 Alarm business standards.
15.12.050 Alarm use standards.
15.12.060 Enforcement and appeals.
15.12.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to reduce false alarms and to regulate burglary,
robbery, fire and fire protection and medical attention alarm systems, and alarm
businesses, agents and users. (Ord. 1162 § 2 (part), 1990)
15.12.020 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, words and phrases used in this chapter are defined
as follows:
A. "Alarm agent" means a person employed by an alarm business, either directly or
indirectly, whose duties include selling, leasing, altering, installing, maintaining, moving,
repairing, replacing, servicing, responding to or monitoring an alarm system, or a person
who manages or supervises a person employed by an alarm business to perform any of
the duties described herein.
B. "Alarm business" means any business held by an individual, partnership,
corporation or other entity for the purpose of selling, leasing, altering, installing,
maintaining, moving, repairing, replacing, servicing, responding to or monitoring any
alarm system in a building, structure or facility.
C. "Alarm system" means any mechanical or electronic device or series of devices
which transmits a signal or message, either directly or indirectly, to the emergency
dispatch center, or which emits an audible or visual signal at the alarm location, and
which is designed to:
1. Detect unauthorized entry into any building, structure or facility;
2. Signal the occurrence of an unlawful act upon the premises;
3. Detect a fire, or detect activation, equipment problems or the malfunction of a
fire protection system;
4. Detect a hazardous material leak or system malfunction; or
5. Signal the need for medical attention.
For purposes of this chapter, devices operated by the city or devices which are not
designed or used to register alarms that are audible, visible or perceptible outside of the
protected premises are not included within the meaning of alarm system.
D. "Alarm user" means the person, firm, partnership, association, corporation or
organization of any kind that owns, leases, rents, uses or makes available for use by its
agents, employees, representatives or family any alarm system.
E. "Chief of police" means the chief of police of the city of San Luis Obispo, or his/her
designated representative.
F. "City" means the city of San Luis Obispo.
G. "Day" means calendar day.
H. "Department head" means the chief of police, the fire chief or their designated
representatives.
Packet Pg 108
10
I. "Direct dial system" means an alarm system which is connected to a telephone line
and, upon activation of an alarm system, automatically transmits a message or signal to
the emergency dispatch center indicating a need for emergency response.
J. "Emergency dispatch center" means the combined police and fire communications
and dispatch center located at the police department facility.
K. "False alarm" means an activation of an alarm system through mechanical failure,
malfunction, improper installation or maintenance, or negligence of the alarm user when
an emergency situation does not exist. A determination as to whether an alarm signal
was a false alarm or an actual alarm shall be made by the appropriate department head.
"False alarms" shall not include those alarms activated by extraordinary meteorological,
atmospheric or other conditions or means as determined by the department head.
L. "Finance department" means the finance department of the city of San Luis Obispo.
M. "Fire chief" means the chief of the fire department of the city of San Luis Obispo or
his/her designated representative.
N. "Notice" means written notice given by personal service upon the addressee or
given by United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the person to be notified at
his or her last known address. Service of such notice shall be effective upon the
completion of personal service or upon the placing of the same in the custody of the
United States Postal Service.
O. "Private alarm dispatch center" means a center maintained by an alarm business
which receives emergency signals from alarm systems, and thereafter, immediately
relays the message by live voice to the emergency dispatch center.
P. "Responsible department" means the city department having the responsibility of
providing emergency services upon receipt of an alarm signal at the emergency dispatch
center. For incidents related to fires, or waterflow in fire sprinkler systems, or other
extinguishing agents in fire protection systems, as well as medical attention, the fire
department is the responsible department. For incidents related to burglary, robbery,
unauthorized building entry, etc., the responsible department is the police department.
(Ord. 1162 § 2 (part), 1990)
15.12.030 Alarm system standards.
A. In General.
1. The council, upon recommendation of the chief of police or fire chief, may
prescribe by resolution minimum standards and regulations for the construction and
maintenance of all alarm systems installed in the city. All
equipment shall meet or exceed these standards and regulations.
2. No alarm system shall be installed unless the alarm user has either a service
agreement with an alarm business qualified under this chapter or has available a
designated person who will respond to the site of an activated alarm with the ability to
deactivate the alarm.
B. Audible Alarm Systems. No audible alarm system shall be installed or used unless
it shall have an automatic reset capability which shall silence the alarm within fifteen
minutes of activation.
C. Silent Alarm Systems.
1. No direct dial systems shall be allowed within the city.
2. All silent alarm systems shall be connected to a private alarm dispatch center.
(Ord. 1162 § 2 (part), 1990)
15.12.040 Alarm business standards.
A. Alarm businesses operating within the city shall comply with all state licensing
requirements and operate in accordance with the standards set forth in the State Alarm
Packet Pg 109
10
Company Act as to conduct of business and qualification of employees, including alarm
agents.
B. No person or company which installs, or otherwise provides, an alarm system shall
install such device or system without the ability to provide twenty-four-hour service for
that system. "Service" for the purposes of this section shall-include the ability to promptly
repair a malfunctioning alarm system and, in any event, a service response to the alarm
location shall be accomplished within thirty minutes of a request for service. "Service"
shall also include the ability to provide periodic maintenance necessary to assure normal
functioning of the system. This section shall not apply to persons or businesses who
merely sell from fixed locations, or who manufacture alarm systems, unless such
persons or firms also install, monitor or service such systems.
C. Any alarm business operating a private alarm dispatch center shall, within one
minute of receiving notice that an alarm has been activated, notify the emergency
dispatch center of the activation. Notification shall normally be made via a designated
one-way telephone line which is dedicated solely to the reporting of such notifications.
D. Each alarm business that monitors fire alarm systems must comply with all sections
of National Fire Protection Association Bulletin #71-1988 and as amended.
E. It shall be the duty of the alarm business to cooperate fully at all times with the city
and its employees. Every alarm business shall, upon request during normal hours of
business, make any and all records and information in its possession relating to alarm
systems operating within the city available to personnel authorized by the chief of police
or fire chief. Each alarm business must possess a valid city business license. (Ord. 1162
§ 2 (part), 1990)
15.12.050 Alarm use standards.
A. 1. All existing and prospective users of alarm systems shall obtain an alarm user
permit approved by the responsible department head within sixty days following the
effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, or prior to the installation and use
of an alarm system, as the case may be. A separate permit shall be required for each
separate alarmed building or facility and for each separate alarm system. Application for
the permit, and a fee as established by council resolution, must be filed for each year or
part thereof. Each permit application shall contain the current name, address, telephone
number and signature of the individual accepting responsibility for the proper functioning
and maintenance of the alarm system covered by the permit. A copy of the permit shall
be posted upon the premises where the alarm system is installed. Each permit will bear
the signature of the issuing official and the chief of the responsible department. All
permits shall expire one year after the date of issuance.
2. Application for permits more than sixty days after the need for such permit
arises shall require the payment of a one hundred percent penalty fee.
B. The alarm user shall, at all times, insure that the emergency dispatch center is in
possession of a minimum of three names, telephone numbers and home addresses of
persons with twenty-four-hour access to the alarm location and the alarm system who
are authorized to and will respond to the location where an alarm has been activated.
The response shall be within a reasonable time and, in any event, within thirty minutes of
being requested to do so. At any time that one of these persons no longer possesses
such access to the alarm location, the alarm user shall immediately notify the emergency
dispatch center and, in any event, this notification shall be made within forty-eight hours
of the time at which the person no longer possesses access to the location.
C. 1. It shall be the duty of the alarm user to properly use the alarm system and to
maintain it mechanically and technically to insure safe and responsible operation and
minimize the number of false alarms. If the chief of police or fire chief determines that a
Packet Pg 110
10
system lacks in quality, components, servicing, or is improperly used by the alarm user,
he/she may require that modifications be made to the system to make it comply with this
chapter.
2. False alarms shall be considered excessive when they exceed three
activations in any twelve-month period.
3. As provided by resolution of the city council, a fee shall be paid to the city by
each alarm user for excessive false alarms. The police chief or fire chief shall cause to
be issued a monthly bill for the unpaid fees accrued during any monthly billing period
and any prior periods. Such bills shall be due and payable within thirty days after the
billing date.
4. A penalty of fifteen percent shall be added to the fees required by this section
in connection with any fees not paid in the time and manner set forth above.
5. The amount of any fee and late penalty assessed pursuant to this chapter
shall be deemed a debt to the city and an action may be commenced in the name of the
city in any court of competent jurisdiction in the amount of the delinquent debt.Payment
of any user fees and late charges shall not prohibit criminal prosecution for the violation
of any provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 1162 § 2 (part), 1990)
15.12.060 Enforcement and appeals.
A. Revocation. In addition to other remedies provided, the department head of the
responsible department may revoke an alarm user’s permit for a violation of this chapter.
B. Civil Penalties. For violations of this chapter, the department head of the
responsible department may assess a civil penalty of up to five hundred dollars for each
violation.
C. Criminal Penalties. A violation of this chapter is punishable as a misdemeanor.
D. Appeals. The decision of a department head to revoke an alarm user’s permit or to
assess a civil penalty may be appealed to the city council. All appeals must be filed
within thirty days of receipt of notice of the department head’s action. (Ord. 1162 § a
(part), 1990)
Packet Pg 111
10
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 112
10
Meeting Date: 6/6/2017
FROM: Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk
Prepared By: Lee Price, MMC, Special Projects Manager
SUBJECT: ADVISORY BODY BYLAWS AND HANDBOOK UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
California, amending the bylaws of certain advisory bodies and adopting a revised Advisory
Body Handbook.”
DISCUSSION
In accordance with Council policy, a review of each Advisory Body’s bylaws is to be conducted
on a biennial basis. The review has been done and there are a few amendments. In addition, the
Offices of the City Clerk and City Attorney have reviewed the Handbook to ensure that the
bylaws comport with various laws, regulations and current and best practices. Modifications to
the Handbook are included in legislative draft format as outlined in “Exhibit A” (attachment to
the Draft Resolution) and are summarized, as follows:
1. Advisory Body Bylaws
Administrative Review Board – In 2016, the Council established the Administrative
Review Board and adopted Bylaws (12/13/16). The Bylaws have been incorporated into
the Handbook.
Bicycle Advisory Committee – On July 21, 2016, the Bicycle Advisory Committee
recommended changing their meeting start time from 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. This is the
only change to the Bylaws.
Jack House Committee – On April 12, 2017, the Jack House Committee recommended
the following amendments to the Bylaws:
Clarified committee membership concerning required “special expertise.”
Removed the residency requirement for members with “special expertise.”
Clarified and updated the role of the ex-officio for the volunteer docent group.
Defined subcommittee purpose and terms.
Added a volunteer docent group to Article 6.
Removed Article 7 as operational maintenance is provided by the Public Works
Department.
Packet Pg 113
11
Mass Transportation Committee – On March 8, 2017, the Mass Transportation
Committee recommended the following amendments to the Bylaws:
Committee meetings will be held in the Council Hearing Room, unless otherwise
noticed.
Officers will be elected at the Committee meeting in May to serve for one-year
terms.
A new article has been added to provide new members with transit passes in order
to assist them with their transit advocacy function.
Promotional Coordinating Committee – On April 12, 2017, the Promotional Coordinating
Committee reviewed their bylaws and agreed to remove “the preparation of an annual
marketing plan” from the functions and duties of the PCC.
These changes have been included in the amended Handbook.
2. Other Revisions to the Handbook
a) Added definition of “technical or “special purpose” committees
b) Added notations to each Advisory Body denoting whether it is “technical or special
purpose” (T/SP) or “advisory” (A)
c) Added a category for the City’s “Regional” committees.
d) Added a category for “City Committee"
e) Revised to reflect current practices provisions relating to the appointments of Council
Liaisons and the interview process for applicants for Advisory Bodies
f) Added information relating to biennial training for Advisory Bodies
g) Updated various sections regarding the filing of Statements of Economic Interest
h) Revised sections regarding departmental functions to reflect the current organizational
structure
i) Added provisions regarding the recording of Advisory Body meetings, the preparation of
“action” minutes, correspondence received from the public and public comments on
agenda items, to be consistent with City Council procedures and practices
j) Added a section entitled “Public Records Act and Public Records Retention” to clarify
that all records, including emails, are “public records”; and providing some guidance for
Advisory Body members as it relates to the receipt of email correspondence
k) Added “Purpose” statements where necessary for uniformity
l) Clarified which Advisory Bodies receive compensation
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The requested action is not defined as a project and therefore not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact as a result of these revisions.
Packet Pg 114
11
ALTERNATIVES
Council could choose not to adopt the revisions as recommended and/or provide additional
direction regarding the bylaws and handbook amendments.
Attachments:
a - Resolution Amending AB Handbook 2017
b - Exhibit A – Amended Advisory Body Handbook (including Bylaw Amendments)
Packet Pg 115
11
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE BYLAWS OF CERTAIN
ADVISORY BODIES AND ADOPTING A REVISED ADVISORY BODY
HANDBOOK
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Charter of the City of San Luis Obispo, the San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code, and its own Resolutions, the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo appoints individuals to serve on its advisory bodies; and
WHEREAS, those advisory bodies have adopted bylaws to aid them in conducting their
meetings fairly, smoothly, efficiently and in accordance with law; and
WHEREAS, certain advisory bodies have reviewed their bylaws and some of those
bodies have recommended revisions of their bylaws; and
WHEREAS, City staff have also reviewed said bylaws and the Advisory Body
Handbook and Advisory Committee recommendations and have made suggestions for revisions;
and
WHEREAS, the Council periodically revises its Advisory Body Handbook to ensure
clarity, consistency with state law, and conformity with the City Charter and Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the Advisory Body Handbook was last adopted by the City Council in
September 2015 by Resolution No. 10667 (2015 Series).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The amended Advisory Body Bylaws and Advisory Body Handbook as set
forth in Exhibit “A” are hereby approved and adopted. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to
update the Advisory Body Handbook, consistent with the City Council Policies and Procedures,
Resolutions, and Ordinances as necessary.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to furnish a copy of the Advisory Body
Handbook to all department heads, support staff, and advisory body members.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2017.
Packet Pg 116
11
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
____________________________________
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 117
11
EXHIBIT A
ADVISORY BODY HANDBOOK
Adopted by Resolution No. _____(2017 Series)
Updated on June 6, 2017
Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk
Packet Pg 118
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 1 | P a g e
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Section 1. Advisory Body Basics.................................................................................................... 4
A. Background ............................................................................................................................ 4
B. Opportunities for Service ....................................................................................................... 4
C. Membership Qualifications & Appointment Process............................................................. 5
D. Oath of Office ........................................................................................................................ 6
E. Orientation .............................................................................................................................. 7
F. Training................................................................................................................................... 8
G. Term of Office ....................................................................................................................... 8
H. Removal from Office ............................................................................................................. 8
I. Vacancies ................................................................................................................................. 8
J. Ethics and Conflict of Interest ................................................................................................. 8
K. Awards and Recognition ...................................................................................................... 10
Section 2. How City Government Works ..................................................................................... 11
A. City Charter .......................................................................................................................... 11
B. City Council ......................................................................................................................... 11
C. City Organization ................................................................................................................. 12
D. Council-Appointed Officers ................................................................................................. 13
E. City Departments .................................................................................................................. 13
Section 3. How Advisory Bodies Work ........................................................................................ 17
A. Council Liaison Members .................................................................................................... 17
B. Bylaws and Procedures ........................................................................................................ 17
C. Continuity of Work and New Ideas...................................................................................... 18
D. Communications .................................................................................................................. 19
E. Role of City Staff Persons and Advisory Body Members .................................................... 20
F. Absences, Leaves of Absence, and Resignations ................................................................. 20
G. Functional Review ............................................................................................................... 21
Section 4. The Brown Act ............................................................................................................. 22
A. Overview .............................................................................................................................. 22
B. Brown Act Provides for Public Comments .......................................................................... 22
C. Common Questions about the Brown Act............................................................................ 23
Section 5. Tips for Being an Effective Advisory Body Member .................................................. 25
A. Understanding Your Role and Scope of Responsibility ...................................................... 25
B. Prepare Ahead for Meetings ................................................................................................. 25
Packet Pg 119
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 2 | P a g e
C. Develop Positive Relationships ............................................................................................ 26
D. Encourage and Honor Public Participation .......................................................................... 27
E. Respect Individual Viewpoints............................................................................................. 27
F. Communicate Effectively ..................................................................................................... 28
G. Special Tips for the Chairperson .......................................................................................... 28
H. Managing Difficult Meetings ............................................................................................... 29
I. Public Records Act and Public Records Retention ............................................................... 30
Section 6. Advisory Body Bylaws ................................................................................................ 31
A. Administrative Review Board Bylaws (T/SP) ..................................................................... 32
B. Architectural Review Committee (A) .................................................................................. 36
C. Bicycle Advisory Committee Bylaws (T/SP) ...................................................................... 39
D. Citizens' Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission Bylaws (T/SP) ........................... 41
E. Construction Board of Appeals Bylaws (T/SP) .................................................................... 46
F Cultural Heritage Committee Bylaws (A) ............................................................................. 49
G. Human Relations Commission Bylaws (A) ......................................................................... 52
H. Jack House Committee Bylaws (T/SP) ................................................................................ 54
I. Mass Transportation Committee Bylaws (T/SP) ................................................................... 57
J. Parks & Recreation Commission Bylaws (A) ....................................................................... 59
K. Personnel Board Bylaws (A)................................................................................................ 62
L. Planning Commission Bylaws (A) ....................................................................................... 64
M. Promotional Coordinating Committee Bylaws (A) ............................................................. 68
N. Tourism Business Improvement District Board Bylaws (T/SP) .......................................... 71
O. Tree Committee Bylaws (T/SP) ........................................................................................... 74
Appendix A. Mission Statement ................................................................................................... 76
Appendix B. Organizational Values ............................................................................................. 77
Packet Pg 120
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 3 | P a g e
Introduction
Welcome to San Luis Obispo City Government!
The City Council and staff hope that this Advisory Body Handbook will answer many of your
questions and provide you with fundamental information related to the responsibilities of the
City’s various advisory bodies.
Serving on one of the City commissions, committees, or boards can be a fascinating and
rewarding experience. These advisory bodies are charged with formulating new ideas,
information gathering, receiving public testimony and comments, analyzing complex issues, and
making recommendations on specific projects and broad policy - all toward helping the City
Council make better-informed decisions.
As you may realize, it isn’t always easy. Issues are often more complex than anticipated, public
opinion can be sharply divided, questions may overlap, and sometimes the province of one body
may also be the territory of another.
Much of the information in this Handbook comes from a variety of City policy documents, such
as the City’s Charter, Municipal Code, Financial Plan (or budget) and Council Policies and
Procedures. In addition, State Law governs certain responsibilities of advisory body members.
The material presented is intended to: 1) give interested persons an understanding of why the
City’s advisory bodies have been established and how they function within the overall
governmental framework; and, 2) summarize the roles, relationships and responsibilities of each
advisory body member. The Handbook is divided into six sections:
Section 1: Advisory Body Basics
Section 2: How City Government Works
Section 3: How Advisory Bodies Work
Section 4: The Brown Act
Section 5: Tips for Being an Effective Member and Chair of an Advisory Body
Section 6: Advisory Body Bylaws
Thank you for your interest in serving on one of our citizen advisory bodies and volunteering
your time and skills to enhance our community.
Packet Pg 121
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 4 | P a g e
Section 1. Advisory Body Basics
A. Background
San Luis Obispo has a long history of involving its citizens in the business of their City
government. Advisory committees and commissions provide an opportunity for interested
residents to participate in the governing of their community under guidelines and procedures
established by the Council. Advisory bodies can improve the quality of City government by
providing the Council with resources to make better-informed decisions. Because of the nature of
various advisory bodies, they can serve as the “eyes and ears” of the C ouncil for issues and
matters that otherwise might not receive the attention they deserve. Other benefits of advisory
bodies include improvement in the lines of communication between the public and the Council,
greater opportunities for discussion of public issues, and more citizen involvement in City
government.
There is considerable variety in the purpose or charge of these bodies. Some are required by State
law or the Charter and are directed to guide certain City activities such as community planning or
personnel affairs. Others have been created by the City Council to serve San Luis Obispo’s unique
needs. Some bodies considered “technical” or “special purpose” have been formed to address
defined subjects and frequently require members with specific areas of expertise.
However, theThe authority of an advisory body will depend upon its specific purpose. Some
have been delegated specific authority to approve or deny projects. Decisions made by an
advisory body may be appealed to the Council. The Council may not always accept the
recommendation of an advisory body because of additional information available or a need to
balance the recommendation with policy or community priorities.
Generally, advisory bodies are empowered only to make recommendations to the Council or to
the City staff, unless specifically authorized by law or Council to do otherwise. Lastly, there
should be two-way communication so that commissions are aware of the long-term goals
Council has adopted, and the advisory body is able to present new ideas to the Council.
Commission members are encouraged to attend Council meetings.
B. Opportunities for Service
Interested individuals may apply for appointment to any of the following City advisory bodies:
(T/SP) – denotes “technical or special-purpose”
(A) – denotes “advisory”
Administrative Review Board (T/SP)
Architectural Review Commission (A)
Bicycle Advisory Committee (T/SP)
Citizens’ Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission (T/SP)
Construction Board of Appeals (T/SP)
Cultural Heritage Committee (A)
Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (T/SP)
Human Relations Commission (A)
Jack House Committee (T/SP)
Packet Pg 122
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 5 | P a g e
Mass Transportation Committee (T/SP)
Parks & Recreation Commission (A)
Personnel Board (A)
Planning Commission (A)
Promotional Coordinating Committee (A)
Tourism Business Improvement District Board (T/SP)
Tree Committee (T/SP)
There are opportunities for San Luis Obispo residents to serve on the following City committee:
Investment Oversight Committee (IOC), as set forth in the Investment Management Plan,
this committee is responsible for reviewing the City’s portfolio on an ongoing basis to
determine compliance with the City’s investment policies and for making
recommendations to the City Treasurer (Finance Director regarding investment
management practices.)
In addition, there are opportunities for San Luis Obispo residents to serve on the following
regional bodies:
Central Coast Commission for Senior Citizens Area Agency on Aging (AAA), a non-
profit organization responsible for allocating federal and state dollars to local agencies to
insure that supportive, nutrition and health promotion services are available to older
adults in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties.
Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC), which provides citizen review and
recommendations on agenda items to staff and COG Board. - provides citizen review and
recommendations on matters considered by the County Council of Governments.
San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 9 Advisory
Committee, which was formed to assist the San Luis Obispo County Board of
Supervisors on policy decisions relating to Zone 9. The Advisory Committee assists in
determining the needs, desires, and financial capabilities of property owners in Zone 9.
The Advisory Committee also recommends specific programs to alleviate and control
flood damage, with recognition of the ecological and aesthetic values of the programs.
C. Membership Qualifications & Appointment Process
The City of San Luis Obispo encourages participation of a wide variety of its citizens through
service on an advisory body. Unless specified, there is no special education, training or
background required for appointment.
With the following exceptions, only residents who are registered voters within the City limits are
eligible to apply to an advisory body. Exceptions include the Tourism Business Improvement
District (TBID) Board, one representative from the TBID Board serving on the Promotional
Coordinating Committee, the Cal Poly employee and student representatives serving on the Mass
Transportation Committee, and members of the Housing Authority. In addition, part- or full-time
City officials and management employees are not eligible to apply.
Packet Pg 123
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 6 | P a g e
Note: Former members of the City Council may not be appointed to serve on an advisory body
until one year after the expiration of their term of office. (Charter §409)
Basic elements of the appointment process are as follows:
1. Each person seeking appointment or reappointment to an advisory body shall obtain and file
an application in the Office of the City Clerk. Application may be made for a vacancy that
currently exists or which may occur in the future.
2. Applicants should have read and become familiar with the contents of this handbook.
3. Applicants shall be interviewed by a Council Liaison Subcommittee (CLS) consisting of two
Council Members. At the discretion of the CLS, interviews may be waived for those
applicants designated by another agency or for applicants who have been interviewed
previously for a vacancy on the same advisory body to which they’ve applied within the past
year. The Chair or the Vice Chair of the advisory body is invited to participate in the
interviews. The CLS will independently make the final nominee selection. If the Chair or the
Vice Chair is unable to participate or is being considered for reappointment, the CLS may
designate another representative to another member who is available may attend. The CLS
shall submit recommendations for appointment to the entire Council. If a unanimous decision
by the Subcommittee for recommendation to the full Council cannot be reached, the Council
shall take a separate motion for each candidate proposed by each member of the CLS.
4. Applicants not appointed will be so advised and their applications held for no less than one
year for consideration in the event of a future vacancy.
5. As a general policy, an applicant shall not be appointed to serve on more than one advisory
body except that a member may also serve on one technical or special -purpose committee at
the same time. Unless excepted as previously stated, if an applicant is appointed to another
advisory body, he/she must immediately resign from one body upon being appointed to
another. (Technical and special purpose committees are formed to address defined subjects.
They frequently require members with specific areas of expertise.)
6. Liaisons to advisory bodies (i.e., the CLS) are selected annually by the full Council—usually
in December or early January. The Mayor and Vice Mayor shall submit recommendations to
the full Council and rotate nominations for Council Liaison Subcommittees to provide an
opportunity for each member to serve as a liaison at least once on each advisory body when
possible. When terms of office do not allow each member to serve once, members with
greatest seniority shall have first right of selection. Automatic rotation for the technical and
regional committees is not always followed, allowing Council Members to develop a higher
level of expertise for some of the more complex committees, as well as continuity where
appropriate.
D. Oath of Office
Following appointment and usually at the next meeting of the advisory body, the City Clerk, or
designee, will administer the Oath of Office pursuant to the City Charter. The Oath may also be
administered in the Office of the City Clerk.
Packet Pg 124
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 7 | P a g e
E. Orientation
After the appointments are made by the Council, new appointees will be given a resource manual
to be provided by their staff liaison which will include including a variety of introductory
references to assist them in becoming more fully knowledgeable about City government. The
department serving as staff support to a particular advisory body will coordinate and conduct an
orientation with new appointees. Before or during that orientation, support staff will provide
relevant documentation and background information about the specific advisory body upon
which the new appointee shall serve.
Packet Pg 125
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 8 | P a g e
F. Training
The City Clerk’s Office and the City Attorney’s Office conducts a training every two year s to
review Conflict of Interest laws, Brown Act regulations, and best practices for meeting
management. Newly-appointed members are encouraged to view archived recordings of the
training available on the City’s website and to communicate any questions they may have to the
City or City Attorney.
FG. Term of Office
The term of office for each appointee to an advisory body shall be from one year to a maximum
of four years. The length of a term is dictated by the principle that no more than two terms on
any committee will expire each year. This rule ensures continuity for all committees. Annual
appointments commence on April 1st, appointments to unexpired terms begin the day the
appointment is made by the Council. No appointee shall serve on the same advisor y body for
more than two consecutive, full terms (eight years), but may subsequently serve on another
advisory body unless noted otherwise. Exceptions include the Board of Appeals, Housing
Authority, and Jack House Committee.
A mid-term appointment to a vacant seat on an advisory body shall not preclude the appointee
from serving two additional consecutive full terms, provided that the initial, partial term served is
less than half of a full term.
GH. Removal from Office
Members of advisory bodies serve at the pleasure of the Council and may be removed without
cause by Council action in an open public meeting.
HI. Vacancies
Seats become vacant in two ways; they either expire at the end of the term or an “unscheduled”
vacancy occurs when a member resigns during a term. The City Clerk’s Office will advertise in
accordance with statutory requirements and a subsequent appointment shall be made consistent
with the provisions set forth in Section C, above.
J. Ethics and Conflict of Interest
1. The duties of an advisory body member shall be performed in good faith and in a manner
which the member believes to be in the best interest of the City.
2. It is improper for any member of an advisory body to utilize, for personal pecuniary gain or
in an otherwise self-dealing manner, any information which is received by reason of said
membership and is not a matter of public record.
3. No member of an advisory body shall have a material financial interest in any contract or
other transaction involving that advisory body. The member shall promptly disclose such
interest in any proposed activity of the advisory body and shall not participate in any related
deliberations or actions of that body, nor vote on the matter.
Packet Pg 126
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 9 | P a g e
4. Potential conflicts of interest may arise when an advisory body member serves on another
board within the community and there is a clash of duties between the two positions, e.g.
when one board exercises supervisory, auditory, or removal powers over the other.
5. The Political Reform Act of 1974, as amended (Government Code sections 81000-91014)
and the City’s Conflict of Interest Code; (Resolution No. 10582 10758 (2014 2016 Series)
require certain elected and appointed officials and designated employees to disclose certain
personal financial holdings. Most of the City’s advisory bodies are solely advisory, meaning
that final decisions are made by the City Council, and therefore are not required to file
Statements of Economic Interest (Form 700).
However, becauseT the following committees/commissions advisory bodies have limited
decision-making authority therefore, they are required to file Statements of Economic Interest
(Form 700) with the Office of the City Clerk.
Administrative Review Board
Architectural Review Commission
Construction Board of Appeals
Cultural Heritage Committee
Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo
Human Relations Committee
Investment Oversight Committee
Planning Commission
Promotional Coordinating Committee
Filing dates for Statement of Economic Interest (Form 700) are mandated by State law and are as
follows:
Assuming Office Statement – Must be filed within 30 days of taking office.
Annual Statements – Must be filed by April 1st of each year.
Leaving Office Statement – Must be filed within 30 days of leaving office.
Please Note: The City Council has adopted a late fine policy pursuant to State law (December
13, 2016). A late fee of $10.00 per day may be assessed for filing late. In addition, failure to file
timely or not at all may be grounds for removal, so it is important to comply with the filing
requirements and associated deadlines.
6. In addition to the requirement to file Conflict Statements of Economic Interest (Form 700),
filing requirement, the following advisory board body members and Staff are required to
complete two hours of ethics training pursuant to State Law within one year of assuming
office, and further to . For newly elected and appointed officials, the requirement is to receive
this training within one year of assuming office and renew this training within at least once
every two years thereafter. of receiving the first training. The original proof of participation
certificate, awarded after completion of the training, must be sent to the City Clerk.
Architectural Review Commission
Housing Authority
Packet Pg 127
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 10 | P a g e
Planning Commission
Tourism Business Improvement District
Primary Staff Liaisons to the Above
7. Individual advisory body members should avoid making public comments on Council actions
or public policies that might appear to represent the official position of their advisory body.
Advisory body actions, with the voting of each member, are conveyed to the Council in the
form of official minutes or by resolution. The chairperson of an advisory body is the
spokesperson for the advisory body.
8. Questions regarding possible ethical issues or conflicts of interest should be reviewed with
the chairperson, City Attorney, or City Clerk, as appropriate under the circumstances, in
advance of the subject meeting or discussion.
K. Awards and Recognition
The City Council values and appreciates each citizen who volunteers his/her time and energy to
serving the City on an advisory body. An annual appreciation event hosted by the City Council is
one way in which appreciation is expressed for all advisory body members. When a member
terminates service on an advisory body, the Council will recognize that member’s contribution to
the City through an appropriate expression of appreciation. If that advisory body wishes to make
its own presentation to an outgoing member, the chairperson shall communicate with the City
Clerk in order to avoid duplication of awards.
Packet Pg 128
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 11 | P a g e
Section 2. How City Government Works
A. City Charter
San Luis Obispo is a "charter" City as contrasted to a "general law" City. Under California law,
the authority of a general law City is derived only from the powers granted to it by the general
laws adopted by the State Legislature pertaining to the organization and operation of a
municipality, and from the police power granted to it by the State Constitution. On the other
hand, a charter City's power is not defined or limited by the State's general laws. Instead, with
respect to municipal affairs, a charter City's powers are defined by the City's own charter, subject
only to the limitations of the State Constitution. As a result, charter cities usually have more
operational latitude than do the more prevalent general law cities. A charter serves as the City's
"constitution" and may only be amended by a vote of the people.
San Luis Obispo's Charter was first adopted on May 1, 1876, and has been amended by popular
vote on several subsequent occasions. In 1955, the Charter was amended to approve a Council -
Mayor-City Manager form of government. The City’s organizational structure is outlined in the
chart on the following page.
B. City Council
The City Charter provides for an elected, five-member City Council as the governing body of the
City. Four Council Members serve staggered four-year terms (two are elected every two years).
The fifth member is the Mayor who is elected for a two-year term. City Council elections are
held in November of even numbered years. Regular Council meetings are held on the first and
third Tuesdays of each month in the Council Chamber at City Hall. In addition, special meetings
and study sessions are held from time to time as the need arises. The Mayor is the official
spokesperson for the Council.
The Council has the power to make and enforce all laws and regulations relating to municipal
affairs, subject to the limitations of the City Charter, the United States and California
Constitutions, and certain state statutes.
Final decisions on City taxes and fees, budgets, City policies including the General Plan and land
use issues, and other matters are made by the City Council.
Packet Pg 129
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 12 | P a g e
C. City Organization
As shown on the Organizational Chart, the City Council is directly responsible to the citizens for
the operation and well-being of the City. To carry out these responsibilities, the Council relies
on:
1. The administrative skills of a City Manager
2. The legal advice of a City Attorney
3. The citizen advice rendered by advisory commissions, committees, and boards.
Citizens
Mayor and City
Council
Advisory BodiesCity Manager
UtilitiesPublic WorksPoliceParks and
Recreation
Human
ResourcesFireFinance Community
Development
Administration &
Information
Technology
City Attorney
Elected
Official
Council
Appointed
City Manager
Appointed
Packet Pg 130
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 13 | P a g e
D. Council-Appointed Officers
City Manager: The City Charter requires the Council to appoint an executive to run the City’s
day-to- day operations. The City Manager is appointed by and directly responsible to the Council
for all City activities. The nine operational departments, through their directors or chiefs, are
responsible to the City Manager.
City Attorney: The City Attorney provides legal services and advice to the Council, the City
Manager, departmental staff, advisory bodies and other City agencies or officials. The City
Attorney represents the City in court, prepares ordinances and other legal documents, and
prosecutes cases involving violations of City laws. The City Attorney is appointed by, and is
directly responsible to, the Council.
E. City Departments
The following departments are directly responsible to the City Manager.
Administration: The Administration Department is responsible for providing information and
recommendations to the Council, implementing Council policies, and guiding the day-to-day
operations of the City. In addition, the City Clerk, Economic Development, Natural Resources
and Cultural Activities programs are carried out by staff in the Administration Department, under
the supervision of the Assistant City Manager. The City Clerk provides a full range of services
for the City Council, including preparation of the minutes, codifying ordinances, and conducting
elections. The City Clerk also administers the advisory body appointment process. Economic
Development provides staff support for two City advisory bodies, including the Promotional
Coordinating Committee and the Tourism Business Improvement Board. The Natural Resources
Program frequently makes presentations and seeks concurrence and recommendations from the
Parks and Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission regarding conservation plans
for City-owned open space areas.
Community Development: The Community Development Department has four divisions, all
under the direction of the Community Development Director who is appointed by, and is
responsible to, the City Manager. The Long Range Planning Division is responsible for the
preparation, maintenance, and implementation of the City’s General Plan and its various
elements. The Development Review Division assists the community with land use issues,
evaluates all types of development applications, and maintains the City’s development
regulations. The Building and Safety Division administers state and local building codes and is
responsible for ensuring safe and sound public and private construction. The Division is
responsible for the enforcement of municipal, zoning and property maintenance requirements,
State Housing and Building Codes, and State and Federal regulations pertaining to disabled
accessibility. The Division issues building permits, reviews and approves building plans, and
performs inspections of construction projects to insure code conformity. The Administration
Division provides management and support for the three other divisions and is responsible for
database and records management, organization development, human resource management,
budgeting and resource allocation, contract and securities management, citywide addressing,
committee and commission support, public Information and support services.
Packet Pg 131
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 14 | P a g e
Finance & Information Technology: The Finance & Information Technology Department is
responsible for billing and collecting all monies owed to the city which includes water and
wastewater charges, business license fees and transient occupancy taxes. The department also
processes payroll bi- weekly for all city employees and processes weekly payments to its
vendors. The department also manages the City’s investments, provides centralized accounting,
prepares all financial reports and develops the city’s short and long-term financial plans. Under
the Charter provision that allows for combining positions, it is the City’s longstanding policy that
whomever the City Manager appoints as the Director of Finance & Information Technology also
serves as City Treasurer. The Department is also responsible for managing information
technology operations such as the City’s fiber optic network, data file servers, fixed and mobile
computer workstations, fixed and mobile telephones along with multiple radio systems. An
extensive Geographic Information System (GIS) is also provided and maintained by the
department. The Department’s goals are: developing and implementing efficient and effective
financial policies, plans and reporting systems that help the operating departments achieve their
objectives and assure the City's long-term fiscal health; protecting the City’s assets from
unauthorized use; effectively using the City's information technology resources in improving
productivity, customer service and public access to City information; and providing quality
service to all of the department’s customers-both external and internal to the organization.
Fire: The San Luis Obispo City Fire Department is a progressive all -hazards, community-
focused organization. Operating from four fire stations located throughout the City to decrease
response times, highly trained fire companies respond rapidly and with compassion to help
citizens, visitors, and business owners in need. While running in to burning buildings to save
lives and property is a vital part of our tradition that lives on today, San Luis Obispo City
responders are cross trained as paramedic to provide advanced life support; as hazardous
materials technicians to mitigate dangerous leaks and spills; as urban search and rescue
technicians to rescue people from trails, peaks, waterways, and industrial accidents; and as wild
land firefighting experts to protect our community and preserve our beautiful coastal
environment. These same responders partner with the department’s Fire Prevention staff to
ensure buildings are constructed and maintained with citizen safety in mind and that fires are
investigated to determine cause and prevent further loss. Fire Department members are also
active in the community in an education role, regularly interacting with business owners and
managers, children, and at-risk populations.
Human Resources: The Human Resources Department conducts a comprehensive personnel
management program to attract and retain competent City employees. The Director is
responsible for recruiting, testing, classifying, evaluating and training employees, evaluating
employee salaries, administering the City’s Personnel Rules and Regulations and Work Force
Diversity Program, and directing the City’s Risk Management Program. The Director of Human
Resources is appointed by, and is responsible to, the City Manager.
Information Technology: The Information Technology Department is responsible for managing
information technology operations such as the City’s fiber optic network, data file servers, fixed
and mobile computer workstations, fixed and mobile telephones along with multiple radio
systems. An extensive Geographic Information System (GIS), a utility services supervisory
control and data acquisition (SCADA) system, and highly functional data base systems are also
provided and maintained by the Department as services to other departments and the public. The
Packet Pg 132
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 15 | P a g e
Department’s goals are: protecting the City’s technology assets from unauthorized use;
effectively using the City’s information technology resources in improving productivity,
customer service and public access to City information; and partnering to provide excellent
service to our community by connecting people to information and technology solutions.
Parks & Recreation: The Parks & Recreation Department programs recreational activities in City
parks, facilities and open space. It consists of the following divisions: Administration,
Facilities/Aquatics; the Laguna Lake Golf Course; Ranger Services; Recreational Sports;
Community Services and Events and Youth Services. The Department serves all ages and
abilities from young children to teens to boomers and seniors. Recreational activities range from
after school childcare at local schools to the use of the Damon Garcia Sports fields to a range of
activities at the Senior Center. The department facilitates contract classes, special events, the
City’s Public Art and Community Garden programs and the Santa Rosa Skate Park for local
residents use and enjoyment. The department mission is to enhance and promote personal well-
being and a sense of community. With the assistance of the Parks and Recreation Commission
the Department evaluates the City’s policies for open space, parks and recreational facilities and
actively seeks state and federal grants to help pay for projects consistent with the Parks and
Recreation Element of the General Plan.
Police: The Police Department has primary jurisdiction for the enforcement of state law within
City of San Luis Obispo as well as certain ordinances included in the City’s municipal code.
Additionally, the Police Department implements and manages programs designed to reduce
crime, and partners with other City departments, government entities, stakeholder groups, and
individual citizens to protect the quality of life in San Luis Obispo. This department is under the
direction of the Chief of Police who is appointed by, and is responsible to, the City Manager.
Public Works: The Public Works Department is responsible for two primary areas, Managing the
Transportation Network and Building and Maintaining Public Infrastructure. Managing the
Transportation Network, the Department is responsible for several elements which include:
traffic signals and signage, traffic safety, traffic studies, traffic calming, street construction and
maintenance, sidewalk maintenance, transportation and bike planning, bike facility development,
bike parking, parking meters on-street, in public surface lots, and in three current structures,
neighborhood parking districts, SLO Transit system, including buses, shelters and other transit
facilities and bridges. Building and Maintaining Public Infrastructure includes; parks, street
lights, urban forest, landscaped areas, storm water and flood control facilities, private
development review and inspection, City buildings and facilities and City fleet. Several programs
carry out the work of the Department, and the department is managed by the Public Works
Director, who is appointed by, and is responsible to, the City Manager.
Utilities: The Utilities Department provides essential services that support the community’s
health, well-being, and quality of life. With an ethic of being efficient stewards of the
community’s resources and environment, the department treats and distributes the community’s
potable water and then collects, treats, and recycles the wastewater for beneficial uses. It believes
in a culture of employee development, empowerment, innovation, and creativity. Its goal is to be
a valued partner in ensuring the public health and safety of our community. The Utilities
Packet Pg 133
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 16 | P a g e
Department also manages the solid waste service franchise provided by San Luis Garbage
Company.
Packet Pg 134
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 17 | P a g e
Section 3. How Advisory Bodies Work
A. Council Liaison Members
Each year the Council selects two of its members to be “Liaison Members” to each advisory
body. The primary responsibility of these subcommittees is to review applications of citizens
who would like to serve on a particular advisory body and thereafter hold interview sessions and
make recommendations to the full Council for final appointment.
These Council Liaison members can be called upon to facilitate the flow of information between
the Council and that advisory body. From time to time they may attend advisory body meetings.
B. Bylaws and Procedures
1. Bylaws: Each advisory body has approved bylaws that set forth procedures, purpose, specific
functions, meetings, officers, budget, etc. (Charter, Article XII, Section 1204). By May 1st of
each odd-numbered year, the bylaws of each advisory body shall be reviewed by that body.
Any proposed changes shall be submitted to the Council through the City Clerk for approval.
If no changes are proposed, a report of the review shall be submitted.
2. Code of Ethics: Each body shall be governed by the City’s adopted Code of Ethics
(Resolution No. 8313 [1994 Series]).
3. Parliamentary Procedures: All advisory body meetings shall be conducted in accordance with
City practices and policies. Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, shall also be used as a
guide in conducting meetings. Questions should be directed to the appropriate City staff. A
quorum of the Committee shall be as stated in individually adopted advisory body bylaws or
procedures.
4. Meetings & Events: All regular meetings shall be held at the established time and place set
for that body, unless a change is approved by Council. Council may hold an event from time
to time to recognize advisory body members. (See also Section 1 K).. Special meetings may
be held pursuant to State Law (see Section 4. The Brown Act).
5. Meetings are recorded: Planning Commission meetings are video-recorded. All other
advisory body meetings shall be audio-recorded. Recordings shall be retained for a
minimum of two (2) years and in accordance with the City’s approved Records Retention
Schedule.
6. Action Minutes: The recording secretary for each advisory body shall record the official
actions taken. Minutes shall be prepared and retained permanently in an “action minutes:
format in accordance with Council policy (Resolution No. 5304 (1984 Series).
7. Correspondence from the Public: Written correspondence received from members of the
public regarding any agenda item are retained as part of the official record of the meeting.
Consistent with City Council practice, citizens are encouraged to present written comments
(including emails) at least one day prior to the meeting. This provides advisory bodies with a
greater opportunity to review and consider issues and/or concerns expressed in written
communications prior to a meeting. (See Section 5 .I. “Public Records Act and Public
Records Retention” on page 29 for more information about records, including emails).
Packet Pg 135
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 18 | P a g e
8. Public Comments on Agenda Items: Consistent with City Council practice for receiving
public testimony on agenda items (with the exception of certain types of public hearings),
advisory bodies are encouraged to limit public comments to three (3) minutes per speaker to
ensure that everyone who wishes to be heard has the opportunity to do so. The Chair, with
the consensus of the advisory body, may allow additional brief testimony from speakers who
have already commented on the same agenda item; however speakers should not be allowed
to yield their time to another speaker.
C. Continuity of Work and New Ideas
1. Continuity: There exists a pattern of continuing work for every advisory body in order that
the needs of the community are served in a thoughtful yet expeditious manner. Advisory
body chairpersons and the assigned professional staff are the responsible parties for
establishing an even flow of work. New members to advisory bodies are expected to
familiarize themselves with the workload. Normally, it will take new members a bit of time
to develop a full understanding of their new work and confidence in their decision-making
abilities. Staff members can be helpful with questions.
2. New Ideas: Advisory body members should view themselves as an extension of the abilities
of the Council and staff to see and hear matters of importance in our community. Sometimes
old policies and established ways of doing things need to be changed. Sometimes fresh ideas
need to be given a trial. How does the process of developing a new “idea” work?
a. Test the idea on friends; are reactions favorable?
b. Bring the idea to your advisory body under the portion of your agenda where
individual member comments on items not on the agenda are entertained. If fellow
members react favorably; the idea should be formalized in written form.
c. At this point, the “cost” of the idea in terms of staff time and dollars must be
evaluated. If staff sees the cost to be minor and the impact on City operations to be
negligible, the idea can be agendized, discussed publicly and a final decision can be
made for a recommendation to the City Council.
d. Should the “cost” in staff time and money be deemed high, then the Council should
be properly informed and budgeting and staff time approved before further action is
taken by the advisory body?
A good time for advancing new ideas is during the Financial Plan and City Goal Setting
process, when advisory bodies are actively encouraged to offer such suggestions to the
Council, as most of the resource decisions are made at that time.
Packet Pg 136
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 19 | P a g e
D. Communications
1. Written Reports: Advisory bodies are occasionally requested to make special reports or
recommendations to the Council on specific subjects. The Council may make this request in
writing, with specific direction as to the approach, scope, and schedule for the study desired.
These recommendations often play a major role in assisting the Council to reach a final
decision on important issues.
a. Any recommendation or report from an advisory body is required to be in written
form. If the matter is to appear on the Council agenda, the report must be submitted to
the City Clerk no later than two weeks prior to the Council meeting at which the
report is to be considered. This report becomes part of the record and is forwarded to
each Council Member for review in advance of public consideration.
b. Some advisory bodies may receive study or action requests from citizens or groups.
These requests should also be presented in writing to the advisory body, which will
then determine if the committee wishes to pursue that particular issue. The committee
shall advise the Council of the request and the body’s determination for action.
2. Goals/Budget: Each advisory body shall prepare proposed major City Goals and Objectives
in a manner established by the City Manager. The advisory body chairperson will be
responsible for speaking to this proposal when the Council conducts its goal setting in study
session. The City Manager will notify the chairperson of time and place of such Council
review. More detailed budget proposals will be made through advisory body staff, consistent
with the budget schedule and process.
3. Statements: An advisory body does not have authority to speak for the City. If the body
wishes to recommend that a statement be made, such as a letter written to state a position, it
shall be submitted to and receive approval of the Council.
4. Public Forums and Surveys: An advisory body shall not sponsor or co-sponsor a public
forum, meeting or survey without the prior approval of the Council.
5. Personal Testimony: If a member of an advisory body appears before the Council (or another
advisory body) in a capacity other than as representative of his/her body, it should be
explained in advance that any statements made are not to be construed as representing the
opinions or recommendations of the advisory body.
6. Changes: Changes in a member’s address or telephone number, and the names of new
officers, shall be submitted to the City Clerk and advisory body staff liaison as soon as
possible.
7. Quarterly Meetings: The Mayor shall meet quarterly with the chairpersons of all advisory
bodies. The purpose shall be for informational updates and to encourage communication.
Quarterly written reports shall be submitted at this meeting and are shared with all Council
Members. The chairperson shall report back to the full committee at the next regular meeting.
Packet Pg 137
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 20 | P a g e
8. Annual Report: Each advisory body is required by the Charter to submit to the Council by
May 1st an annual report describing its activities and evaluating its progress for the year
(Charter, Article XII, Section 1205). To provide more timely information to the Council,
most Committees submit reports at the Mayor/Advisory Body Chairs Quarterly Meetings
throughout the year, thereby fulfilling the Charter requirement.
E. Role of City Staff Persons and Advisory Body Members
Staff support and assistance is provided, but advisory bodies do not have supervisory authority
over City employees. While they may work closely with advisory bodies, staff members remain
responsible to their immediate supervisors and ultimately to the City Manager and Council. The
advisory body members are responsible for the functions of the advisory body and the
chairperson is responsible for committee compliance with the policies outlined in this handbook.
Staff support includes preparation of a summary agenda subject to approval by the chairperson,
and preparation of agenda reports providing a brief background of the issue, a list of alternatives,
recommendations and appropriate backup material, as necessary. Staff will assist advisory bodies
in the conduct of public meetings and ensure that the business listed on the agenda is addressed.
Advisory body members should have sufficient information to reach decisions based upon a
clear explanation of the issues involved. The recording secretary for each advisory body insures
assigned staff person serves as Secretary, insuring that meetings are recorded and action minutes
are taken as needed.
It is important that recommendations the advisory bodies wish to communicate to the City
Council are made through adopted or approved Council agenda procedures. Staff members shall
assist the advisory body chair to insure appropriate legal review or City and state legislation is
complied with.
F. Absences, Leaves of Absence, and Resignations
1. Attendance: If an advisory body member fails, for any reason, to attend three consecutive
regular meetings or a total of six regular meetings within any twelve-month period, that
member shall automatically be considered for replacement. The chairperson of the advisory
body shall inform the Council, through the City Clerk, of such a situation, explaining any
extenuating circumstances resulting in the absences.
2. Absences: There shall be no “excused” absences. Because of quorum requirements, when an
absence is anticipated, the individual advisory body member is responsible for notifying the
chairperson or the secretary in advance and the absence shall be counted in that member’s
attendance record.
3. Leaves of Absence: Leaves of absence are not granted to advisory body members except
under very unusual circumstances and when authorized in advance by the Council.
4. Resignation: In the event a member finds it necessary to resign from an advisory body, a
letter of resignation stating the effective date of the resignation shall be immediately directed
to the Council through the City Clerk, with a copy forwarded to the chairperson o f the
advisory body.
Packet Pg 138
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 21 | P a g e
G. Functional Review
1. Election: When possible, in April, each advisory body, at its regular meeting, shall elect a
chairperson and a vice chairperson.
2. Terms of Office: The term of office of a chairperson or vice chairperson shall be one year,
commencing upon election. No person shall serve as chairperson or vice chairperson for
more than two consecutive terms except if noted elsewhere under specific boards and
commissions.
Completion of a partial term of office as chairperson or vice chairperson shall not preclude
an advisory body member from serving two additional consecutive full terms, provided that
the partial term served is less than one year.
Packet Pg 139
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 22 | P a g e
Section 4. The Brown Act
A. Overview
The State Legislature has declared that the actions of public bodies be taken openly and that their
deliberations be conducted openly. California’s Ralph M. Brown Act (found in the Government
Code Section 54950 through 54961), also known as the “open meeting law,” applies to all
advisory bodies, and requires that they:
1. Meet within the jurisdictional limits of the City.
2. Post the agenda 72 hours before a regular meeting containing a brief general description of
each item of business to be transacted or discussed.
3. Hold open and public meetings.
4. Give notice of the meetings to any requesting party at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.
5. Provide in bylaws or rules for time and place of regular meetings, if regular meetings are to
be held.
A meeting is defined as a gathering of a majority (quorum) of the advisory body for the purpose
of discussing items before the body or conducting other business of the body. It is important to
understand that the Brown Act generally prohibits any action or discussion of items not on the
posted agenda. There are special posting requirements for advisory body agendas:
Regular Meetings – 72 hours in advance
Special Meetings – 24 hours in advance
Adjourned Meetings – a regular or special meeting may be adjourned to a specific time
and place (usually to continue a public hearing or other business). A special notice is
required and should be posted within 24 hours of adjournment.
B. Brown Act Provides for Public Comments
The Brown Act mandates that regular meeting agendas allow for two types of public comment
periods. The first is a general audience comment period, where the public can comment on any
item of interest that is within subject matter jurisdiction of the local agency and that is not listed
on the posted agenda. This general audience comment period may come at any time during a
meeting (§54954.3).
The second type of public comment period is the specific comment period pertaining to items on
the advisory body’s agenda. The Brown Act requires that the advisory body allow these specific
comment periods on agenda items to occur prior to or during the advisory body’s consideration
of that item (§54954.3), including consent calendar items.
Public Comments at Special Meetings: The Brown Act requires that agendas for special
meetings provide an opportunity for members of the public to speak about any item listed on the
agenda prior to the advisory body’s consideration of that item (§54954.3). Therefore, for special
meetings, advisory bodies must allow public comments for items on the agenda, however (unlike
regular meetings), a public comment period for items not on the agenda is not required.
Packet Pg 140
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 23 | P a g e
Limitations on Length and Content of Public's Comments: The Brown Act allows a legislative
body to adopt reasonable regulations limiting total amount of time allocated for public testimony.
In San Luis Obispo, the typical time limit for speakers is three (3) minutes.
It is not permissible to prohibit public criticism of policies, procedures, programs, or services of
the City or acts or omissions of the City (§54954.3(c)). This does not mean that a member of the
public may speak on “anything.” If the topic is not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the
advisory body, the Chair should remind the speaker to direct his/her comments to only those
subjects within the advisory body’s purview.
C. Common Questions about the Brown Act
The following is intended to give advisory body members a broad understanding of the Brown
Act. Please consult with the staff liaison, the City Clerk, or the City Attorney for more specifics.
1. What are serial meetings?
A serial meeting is any direct communication amongst a majority of the members, outside of
a meeting, to develop a collective concurrence as to action to be taken on an item by the
members. Serial meetings are strictly prohibited by the Brown Act.
Even though a majority of members never gather in a room at the same time, a Brown Act
violation may occur if ideas are exchanged among the majority by going through any person
acting as an intermediary (including staff), and/or through the use of a technological devices,
e.g. telephone answering machine, computer email, or voice mail.
2. What are some examples of serial meetings?
The most common example of a serial meeting is when “Member A” calls “Member B” and
then “Member B” calls “Member C,” and so on to share ideas among a majority of the
advisory body.
Another example: A member of a five-member advisory body receives a letter regarding City
business and writes a note on that letter that says "I agree," and then provides a copy of the
letter to two other members.
Email can also be troublesome. Here’s an example of how easy it can be to unintentionally
conduct a serial meeting: A staff member sends out via email a document in draft form for
review by the advisory body prior to a meeting. “Member A” recommends to staff a revision
and copies fellow advisory body members. “Member B” disagrees with the proposed change
and others begin to “weigh in” on the subject.
3. This seems restrictive... aren’t there any exceptions?
Of course, prohibition against serial meetings does not prohibit all communication between
individuals regarding City business. The Brown Act only prohibits use of serial meetings for
the purpose of "developing a collective concurrence" concerning an issue. This does not
prohibit a staff person from "briefing" members provided that the briefing is limited to
Packet Pg 141
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 24 | P a g e
furnishing information, and the staff person does not solicit opinions concerning an
appropriate course of action for City and then share them among the members.
4. What’s a Quorum?
A quorum is the majority (more than half) of the total number of established members of the
committee. A quorum must be present for any business discussion or action to take place. A
quorum must be present for the duration of a meeting. If a member leaves during the
meeting, resulting in the lack of a quorum, no further business may be conducted and the
meeting must be adjourned.
If vacancies exist on the advisory body, those vacant positions st ill count towards the
quorum. For example, if one seat is vacant on a five-member body, and two members are
absent there is not a quorum.
5. What are some exceptions to the Brown Act?
Advisory body members may attend and/or participate in the following as long as a majority
of the members do not discuss amongst themselves matters that are within the subject
jurisdiction of the advisory body:
Informational or educational workshops or conferences
Community meetings, such as town hall meetings, workshops, forums, etc. not sponsored
by the advisory body
A meeting of another body of the local agency
Social or ceremonial events.
6. Can an advisory body conduct a retreat?
“Team building” or “goal setting” retreats may be held, but they must be held within the
City, be properly noticed, and be open to the public.
Packet Pg 142
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 25 | P a g e
Section 5. Tips for Being an Effective Advisory Body Member
A. Understanding Your Role and Scope of Responsibility
After appointment by the Council, the City Clerk will present new advisory body members with
a useful binder of information about the City, which includes this handbook. In addition, the City
staff member designated to serve in support of your advisory body will schedule an orientation
appointment with you. This is your chance to learn more about City government and the scope of
responsibility of the advisory body to which you have been appointed. In addition to reading this
Handbook (which will answer many of your questions), start preparing for your new role by:
1. Reviewing the City’s Mission Statement, Organizational Values, and your advisory body by-
laws.
2. Reading the other information provided to you in your orientation binder about the City and
your specific advisory body. Keep the binder handy for easy reference and review.
3. Getting to know fellow advisory body members and staff. Learn the history and “language”
of your advisory body. Ask about upcoming issues.
4. Considering meeting with the Chair of your advisory body and/or a Council Liaison to learn
more about your role and to understand expectations. This will help you focus in on the “big
picture” and how you fit in.
5. Becoming familiar with basic meeting management and diplomatic decision-making
procedures.
6. Attending training programs and workshops offered to you by the City.
B. Prepare Ahead for Meetings
Most citizens understand when they apply to serve on an advisory body that they will be making
a commitment of time to attend meetings, but many are often surprised by the amount of time it
takes to prepare properly for a meeting. Being prepared is key to making good decisions and
will strengthen the value of your advisory body’s recommendations.
1. Do your homework! This involves setting enough time aside to review thoroughly and
consider the entire agenda packet.
2. When you receive your agenda packet, read it carefully. Be prepared to discuss fully,
evaluate, and act on all matters scheduled for consideration. Think about:
a. The number of items.
b. Those items that may be controversial.
c. Difficult procedural items.
d. Issues you know little about.
Packet Pg 143
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 26 | P a g e
3. Visit any sites or facilities that will help you understand the issues.
4. Start a list of questions for staff.
5. Call or meet with staff before the meeting to learn more, if need be. Getting more information
ahead of time may make your decision-making easier and help move the meeting. Your
questions may also alert staff to issues that others may also be pondering. Advance knowledge
assists staff with preparing oral reports and adequately addressing the issues during the
meeting.
6. Show up on time and be ready to work. (It’s also helpful to be well rested!)
C. Develop Positive Relationships
Being selected by the City Council to serve on an advisory body is a high honor and provides a
unique opportunity for genuine public service. Open, honest and supportive relationships with
the City Council, with City staff and fellow members of your advisory body will ensure your
success and effectiveness.
1. The proper channel to contact City staff on items of consideration is through the designated
City staff person providing support to your advisory body.
2. Demonstrate respect to your fellow advisory body members by being a good listener, by
communicating honestly, and by being dependable.
3. Adopt a positive attitude and become a problem-solver.
4. If you have a new idea, propose it to the group as a whole. (See also Section 3.C.2,
Continuity of Work and New Ideas.)
5. If friction develops, individuals should make every attempt to clarify differences and make
certain that clear communication is taking place. The public meeting should not be used to
express anger or disagreement.
6. If differences cannot be resolved, consider consulting with the appropriate individual/s next
in line in the “chain of command”: 1) Staff Liaison or Chair, 2) the Department Head, 3) City
Manager or Council Liaison.
Packet Pg 144
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 27 | P a g e
DE. Encourage and Honor Public Participation
Some advisory body meetings are well attended by the public and others are not. Nevertheless,
it’s important to remember that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions.
Some members of the public are quite used to speaking before a public body, but most are not.
Individuals may address the advisory body to either present an issue or concern, or to speak for
or against an item. This may be the first time they have ever done th is, and they may find the
experience intimidating. Anxiety can be expressed in a variety of ways, including
aggressiveness or forgetfulness, so be patient and remember to:
1. Be fair and consistent.
2. Pay attention to all speakers and actively listen to what they are saying.
3. Ask questions for clarification, but avoid debate or “cross-examining.”
4. Be sure that your body language is not sending mixed or negative messages.
5. See also this section H: Special Tips for the chairperson.
EF. Respect Individual Viewpoints
Although it may seem like this tip could simply go unsaid, it is important to remember it
(especially when you feel very strongly about a matter): Treat fellow members of your advisory
body, staff, and the public with respect and courtesy at all times.
1. Allow others time to present their views fully.
2. Actively listen and seek to understand.
3. Avoid interrupting others.
4. Be open to new ideas.
5. Explore alternatives.
6. When necessary, agree to disagree.
Packet Pg 145
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 28 | P a g e
FG. Communicate Effectively
Advisory body members serve as a communications link between the community, staff, and City
Council. You provide a channel for citizen expression. Not only is it important for you to listen
carefully to others, but you also need to be able to communicate effectively what you are hearing
and thinking.
1. Take notes to remind yourself of questions you want to ask or important comments you wish
to make.
2. Be direct, open, and forthright.
3. Provide rationale for opinions or recommendations.
4. Stay on topic.
5. Take your charge seriously, but maintain composure and keep your sense of humor.
6. When speaking to the public and/or press, be sure you are representing the majority views of
your individual advisory body. Personal opinions should be clearly identified as such.
7. Speak clearly and be sure people can hear you.
8. If you wish to communicate using electronic mail (email), use the tool wisely. It is easy to
unintentionally violate the Brown Act, so certain caution must be exercised when using
email. (See Section 4 C, Common Questions about the Brown Act.)
GH. Special Tips for the Chairperson
The chairperson’s main role is to provide the advisory body with group direction and to set the
tone for meetings. The Chair must balance being strong enough to move the meeting along and
democratic enough to involve all members in the meeting. The effective chairperson:
Remembers to explain the public participation process to the audience. (For example: “The
commission will hear first from staff who will present the staff report. Commission questions to
staff will follow and then the floor will be open to the public, who may comment on the matter.
Following public comment, the matter will come back to the commission for our deliberation
and action.”)
1. Announces each item before discussion begins.
2. Is even-handed and fair to all participants.
3. Observes specified time limits.
4. Protects commissioners and staff from verbal attacks.
5. Solicits opinions, feelings, and positions from all members.
6. Encourages the generation of alternative solutions.
Packet Pg 146
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 29 | P a g e
7. Protects new thoughts from being rejected prior to fair evaluation.
8. Discourages finger pointing and blame-orientated statements or questions.
9. Keeps the discussion focused on the issue.
10. Delays evaluation and analysis of alternatives until all are on the table.
11. Guides the process of screening alternatives and selecting the solution.
12. Attempts to obtain consensus.
13. Moves the meeting along and does not let the advisory body drift off the subject at hand.
HI. Managing Difficult Meetings
Here are some additional tips for managing any meeting, but particularly the difficult ones:
1. Encourage the designation of a spokesperson for any groups.
2. Ask staff to make sure there are plenty of extra agendas and staff reports.
3. Establish and announce rules before the meeting begins.
4. Introduce each item and possible actions.
5. Try not to waste time on routine items.
6. Encourage speakers to address the advisory body and not the audience.
7. Discourage clapping and shouting.
8. Use recesses to help diffuse hostility.
9. Adhere to speaker time limits.
10. If you don’t already, use speaker slips/cards.
11. Make sure that all advisory body members are addressing each other, through you, and not
the audience.
12. Consider continuing an item for further discussion if it appears consensus may not be
reached.
Packet Pg 147
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 30 | P a g e
IJ. Public Records Act and Public Records Retention
The state’s Public Records Act (Government Code Sections 6250 et seq.) generally authorizes
any person to request and receive copies of public records maintained by any state or local
agency, unless the records sought are exempt from disclosure. The definition of “public record”
is quite extensive and incorporates almost every conceivable sort of electronic or hard copy
image, document or communication that relates in a substantive way to the conduct of City
business, that is in the possession of a public employee or official. Public records are required to
be retained by public agencies under a different set of statutes for varying periods of time. Public
records stored on either City or personal devices and accounts must comply with the Public
Records Act and retention statutes. See the City ‘s Records Retention Policy, Electronic
Communications Policy, and Cell Phone Policy for what constitutes a public record that must be
retained.
Advisory board members that receive records substantively relating to City business, either hard
copy or electronic, at home or work should forward them to appropriate City staff for storage and
retention on the City’s system.
No advisory board member has a City managed email account. Each board member is required
to forward email records pertaining to their conduct of City business, received directly or
through private accounts or devices, to the advisory body mailbox. The staff member assigned
to the respective board can advise the members as to how to forward records to the advisory
body mailbox.
Packet Pg 148
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 31 | P a g e
Section 6. Advisory Body Bylaws
Permanent advisory bodies are established by the City Council by either ordinance or resolutio n.
Membership is defined in the enabling legislation and all members are appointed by the Council.
Members are selected:
On the basis of interest, experience and knowledge in the field pertinent to the committee.
To represent a particular segment of the community (student, elderly, disabled).
From a broad representation of community interest and expertise.
Most advisory bodies meet regularly at established times. Some advisory bodies are defined as
technical Technical or special-purpose bodies . They may meet regularly or only when projects
or proposals require their attention.
Packet Pg 149
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 32 | P a g e
A. Administrative Review Board Bylaws (T/SP)
MEMBERSHIP
The Administrative Review Board (ARB) consists of three members appointed for two year
terms. However, after appointment of the initial board for a two year term, one member is
eligible to be appointed for a one year term, and two members are eligible to be appointed for a
two year term. Thereafter, appointments will be made in a staggered, every other year pattern, so
that the term of one member will expire in one given year, and the term of the other members
will expire one year later.
Members must be residents and registered voters of the City pursuant to the City of San Luis
Obispo City Council Policies & Procedures Manual, and qualified by experience, training or
education in the conduct of administrative hearings.
PURPOSE
The purpose of the Board is described in Article 1. Functions.
ARTICLE 1. FUNCTIONS
The Administrative Review Board is established to provide the following functions:
1. To conduct and decide, as final decision maker for the City, administrative appeal
hearings relating to administrative citations issued for certain contested San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code enforcement matters that require a more detailed administrative record.
This Board will not hear appeals of citations issued for violations of Title 15 (Building
and Construction), which appeals are heard by the Construction Board of Appeals, or
appeals of most zoning or subdivision appeals, which are heard by the Planning
Commission.
2. To issue written decisions based on findings of fact supported by evidence introduced at
the hearing in a format sufficient to enable an appellant to challenge the decision by
petition for writ to the Superior Court.
ARTICLE 2. MEETINGS
1. The Board shall meet at least once annually to elect its officers, consider adoption of any
policies or procedures, and make any recommendations to the Council.
2. Regular meetings of the Board shall be held on the second Tuesday of each month at 3:00
p.m.
3. Other meetings shall be held as needed, in accordance with Municipal Code section
1.24.110 B , unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Appellant and the Department
Head of the department that issued the citation that is the subject of the appeal. The
agenda for any such meeting shall be publicly posted at least three days in advance of the
meeting in a form and manner acceptable to the City Clerk.
Packet Pg 150
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 33 | P a g e
4. Meetings shall be held in the Council Hearing Room, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California, or at a location otherwise noticed.
5. In the event the Board desires to hold all or any portion of a meeting at a place other than
the City Hall, then the place of such meeting shall be posted on the bulletin board located
at the entrance to City Hall prior to the time herein designated for such meetings in
accordance with law.
ARTICLE 3. OFFICERS
1. Officers of the Board shall be a Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson.
2. Offices shall be filled from appointed members by voice vote of the voting membership.
3. Election of officers shall be held annually at the first meeting held after April 1.
4. The City Clerk shall designate a staff person to serve as Secretary to the Board.
ARTICLE 4. DUTIES OF THE CHAIRPERSON
The Chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the Board. The Chairperson shall preserve order
and decorum at all meetings, shall vote on all questions and announce the Board’s decisions on
all subjects.
ARTICLE 5. DUTIES OF VICE CHAIRPERSON
The Vice Chairperson shall act as Chairperson during the temporary absence or incapacitation of
the Chairperson.
ARTICLE 6. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY
1. It shall be the duty of the Secretary to keep full, true and correct records of the action of
the Board and provide each member of the Board with minutes of each meeting. The
Secretary shall also audio record the meeting.
2. After final action by the Board on an appeal, the Secretary shall transmit copies of the
decision to the appellant, Board and City department initiating the administrative citation.
3. Minutes will be submitted to the Board for approval at the next meeting.
4. The Secretary shall prepare an agenda for each meeting.
Packet Pg 151
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 34 | P a g e
ARTICLE 7. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS
1. Board members should address questions through the Chairperson.
2. Members of the audience should address Board members or other persons present
through the Chairperson.
3. After roll call, the Chairperson shall publicly announce the procedures to be followed to
consider the hearing item(s)and then proceed as follows:
a. Members of the public wishing to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the appeal
shall be invited to comment.
b. The Chairperson shall introduce the appeal and ask for oral staff reports.
c. The staff report and any administrative citation issued and submitted to the Board
shall be placed into the record with all communications received regarding the
appeal. Staff reports shall be submitted for all appeal hearings in a form
acceptable to the Board.
d. The administrative citation and any documents, photos or other written
information provided to the appellant at time of, or prior to, issuance of the
administrative citation shall be admitted as prima fascia evidence under
Government Code Section 53069.4.
e. The appellant or the attorney for the appellant shall be invited to make a
presentation on the appeal and to address the staff presentation, public comments
or Board questions.
4. The City shall have an opportunity to respond to the appellant’s presentation, answer any
questions from the Board and may briefly summarize its position.
5. The appellant shall have the opportunity to address any final comments, answer any
questions from the Board and may briefly summarize its position.
6. Thereafter, discussion shall be confined to members of the Board; provided that the
Board may at any time prior to a decision on an item, ask questions of City staff, the
appellant or any person present as it deems necessary and appropriate to its resolution of
the appeal.
7. The Board, upon formal motion, shall take action on the appeal. A board member shall
not vote unless he or she was present during the entire hearing, unless he or she listens to
the tape of the hearing or reads the written hearing record (if an y) prior to voting.
8. The Board shall issue a written decision, which shall contain, at a minimum, the
information required by Municipal Code Section 1.24.130. If the action is other than the
staff recommendation, the Board shall direct staff to prepare a proposed decision for
Board consideration at the next meeting reflecting the deliberation and conclusion of the
Packet Pg 152
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 35 | P a g e
Board, which shall be distributed to the Board and appellant at least 72 hours prior to the
next meeting. The decision shall include information concerning the appellant’s right of
petition for writ and/or right of appeal for a trial de novo to the Superior Court
ARTICLE 8. QUORUM
A majority of the number of established Board members shall constitute a quorum for the
transaction of business.
ARTICLE 9. VOTING
1. The vote on all motions deciding the appeal may be, but is not required to be, by
resolution and a roll call vote shall be taken for the ayes and noes prior to the
consideration of the next order of business. All other motions may be by voice vote.
2. Failure of any motion resolution or other action to receive two affirmative votes shall
result in failure or denial of the motion, resolution or other action.
ARTICLE 10. AGENDA
In order for items and materials to be included on an agenda or to be acted upon by the Board,
they must be submitted to the Secretary of the Board at least 3 days prior to the date on which
said request will be considered by the Board, unless a longer period is specified in Chapter 1.24
of the Municipal Code. Such request must be made in writing.
(COUNCIL ADOPTED ON 12/13/2016)
Packet Pg 153
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 36 | P a g e
AB. Architectural Review Committee (A)
MEMBERSHIP
The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) has seven members. Members must be residents
and registered voters of the City. The only special qualifications for membership are a proven
interest in the City’s physical environment and the ability to make positive and fair aesthetic
evaluations.
PURPOSE
The ARC shall review and approve plans for all structures and physical improvements, and for
any relocation, addition, extension, or exterior change to existing buildings, structures and
physical improvements, as set forth in Section 2.48.050 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
Approval by the ARC must be obtained before a building permit or other city permit may be
issued authorizing construction, alteration, relocation, addition, or extension.
ARTICLE 1. MEETINGS
1. Regular meetings shall be held at 5:00 p.m. on the first and third Monday of each month.
2. Agenda items shall be completed by 9:00 p.m. unless a majority of Commissioners agree
to extend the meeting.
3. Regular meetings shall be held in the Council Hearing Room, City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California.
4. In the event that the Architectural Review Commission desires to hold all or any portion
of a regular meeting at a place other than the Council Hearing Room, then the place of
such meeting shall be posted on the doors of the Council Hearing Room prior to the time
designated for the meeting in accordance with law.
ARTICLE 2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
1. The Commission shall select a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson from among its
members to serve for a one-year term beginning April 1st of each year.
2. Commissioners shall serve as Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson at the discretion of the
Commission.
3. The Chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the Commission. The Vice-Chairperson
is Chairperson in the absence of the Chairperson or in case of inability of the Chairperson
to act.
Packet Pg 154
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 37 | P a g e
ARTICLE 3. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS
1. Commissioners should address questions through the Chairperson.
2. Members of the audience should address Commissioners or other persons present through
the Chairperson.
3. Procedure for reviewing public hearing items:
After roll call the Chairperson shall announce to the public the procedures to be followed
to consider the public hearing items and then proceed as follows:
a. The Chairperson shall introduce the items and ask for oral staff reports.
b. The staff report previously submitted to the Architectural Review Commission
shall be placed into the record with all communications received regarding the
proposal. Staff reports shall be submitted for all public hearing items in a form
acceptable to the Commission.
c. The applicant shall be invited to make a presentation on behalf of the request.
d. Members of the public wishing to speak in favor or in opposition of the
application shall be invited to make a presentation.
e. The public hearing shall be closed to the public and discussion confined to
members of the Commission; provided that the Commission may reopen the
public hearing at any time prior to a decision on an item on an affirmative vote if
of the majority of those members present.
f. The Commission, upon formal motion, shall take action on the proposal. The
Chairperson shall inform the applicant and public of the right of appeal and
procedures for filing such an appeal.
ARTICLE 4. QUORUM
1. Four members of the Commission constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business.
2. No approval or other action of the Commission shall become effective without receiving
the affirmative vote of a majority of the members present.
ARTICLE 5. VOTING
1. Except as otherwise provided in the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code and state law, no
motion or any other action shall be passed or become effective without receiving the
affirmative vote of at least a majority of members present.
2. Failure to receive such an affirmative vote shall result in failure or denial, as appropriate,
of the motion or other action.
Packet Pg 155
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 38 | P a g e
3. Except as allowed under the Political Reform Action of 1974, any member abstaining due
to a declared conflict of interest shall not participate in the discussion of the items or
otherwise influence or attempt to influence in any manner the decision on the item.
4. All members, when present, must vote except when refraining from participating due to a
potential conflict of interest.
5. Commissioners not supporting a motion for project approval shall summarize the reason
for their vote.
ARTICLE 6. PUBLIC RECORDS
1. Records of all public hearings shall be made available to the public in the office of the
Community Development Department.
2. Secretary Duties: The secretary shall keep minutes of each meeting and shall record the
official action taken. The records of all proceedings and the basis for all findings shall be
available to the Council and to the public.
ARTICLE 7. ATTENDANCE
1. Any member of the Architectural Review Commission who fails, for any reason, to
attend three consecutive regular, adjourned regular, or specially-scheduled (excluding
Commission site visits) meetings, or a total of six such Commission meetings within any
12 month period, shall be reviewed by the Chairperson for possible referral to the City
Council.
ARTICLE 8. FILLING VACANCIES AND REMOVAL OF MEMBERS
1. Vacancies shall be filled for unexpired terms. The Council, by majority action, may
remove any Commissioner as provided in the City Charter.
ARTICLE 9. RULES, REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES
1. The Commission may adopt rules, regulations and procedures as required for the
transaction of its business. These rules shall become effective upon approval of the
Council.
COMPENSATION
The City Council has approved a stipend of $60 per meeting (not to exceed $240 monthly) for
each member of the ARC (Resolution No. 10516 [2014 Series]).
Packet Pg 156
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 39 | P a g e
BC. Bicycle Advisory Committee Bylaws (T/SP)
ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE
The purpose of the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) is to provide oversight and policy
direction on matters related to bicycle transportation in San Luis Obispo and its relationship to
bicycling outside the City.
ARTICLE 2. COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP AND TERMS OF OFFICE
The Bicycle Advisory Committee shall have seven members appointed by the City Council to
staggered terms of four years. Members must be residents and registered voters of the City.
Committee members will serve at the pleasure of the City Council. Any Committee member may
be reappointed, provided no appointee serves more than two consecutive four-year terms. A
member who has served two consecutive four-year terms can be reappointed after a one year
absence from the Committee.
ARTICLE 3. OFFICERS
The officers will consist of a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson who will be elected annually at
a regular Committee meeting in each calendar year. The Chairperson will preside over all
meetings of the Committee and perform such duties as directed by the Committee. The Vice-
Chairperson will serve in the absence or incapacity of the Chairperson.
ARTICLE 4. MEETINGS
1. The Committee will hold a regular meeting at least quarterly. The meetings are generally
held the third Thursday of every other month (January, March, May, July, September and
November) at 7:006:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California. All meetings will be open to the public.
2. The Chairperson or any four members of the Committee may call a special meeting,
provided that a week's prior notice is given in writing to each member.
3. A quorum will consist of a majority of established Committee members.
4. All actions of the Committee will be decided by a majority vote or consensus and will be
directed through the Chairperson.
5. All members present must vote, except when abstaining due to a declared conflict of
interest.
A failure or refusal to vote when present (except for a declared conflict of interest) will
be construed as an affirmative vote.
Packet Pg 157
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 40 | P a g e
6. Any member with a declared conflict of interest will not vote or participate in any
discussion of any item or in any manner attempt to influence the decision on that item.
ARTICLE 5. SUBCOMMITTEES
Subcommittees consisting of less than a quorum of the Committee can be appointed as
needed by the Chairperson.
ARTICLE 6. ADVISORY BODY POLICIES
The Committee adopts and incorporates by reference all policies as stated in the City of
San Luis Obispo Advisory Body Handbook that are not in conflict with these bylaws.
Packet Pg 158
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 41 | P a g e
CD. Citizens' Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission Bylaws (T/SP)
MEMBERSHIP
The Citizens’ Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission (REOC) has five members.
Members must be residents and registered voters of the City. When recruiting members, the City
seeks members that have experience with finance, budgeting, or municipal accounting, though
this is not a requirement of membership.
PURPOSE
REOC was established to provide transparency and maximize city accountability, as part of the
passage of a ballot measure approving a general use tax to protect and maintain essential services
and facilities—such as open space preservation; bike lanes, sidewalks and other traffic
congestion relief projects; public safety; neighborhood street paving and code enforcement; flood
protection; senior citizen programs including services and facilities; and other vital general
purpose services and capital improvement projects. REOC is responsible for reviewing and
making budget recommendations directly to the City Council regarding expenditures from the
essential services transactions (sales) and use tax, and reporting annually to the community on
the City’s use of these tax revenues. (San Luis Obispo Municipal Code §3.15.020)
ARTICLE 1. MEETINGS
1. The REOC shall meet a minimum of four times per year to conduct its business.
2. REOC regular meetings will follow the diagram below on the next page and be integrated
into the City’s budget processes for the two -year financial plan, fiscal year-end, and
financial plan supplement. Meeting dates may change from year to year according to the
actual budget schedule.
Packet Pg 159
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 42 | P a g e
3. Agenda items shall be completed by 9:00 p.m. unless a majority of Commissioners agree
to extend the meeting.
4. Regular meetings shall be held in the Council Hearing Room, City Hall, 9 90 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California.
5. Special meetings may be called by a majority of the REOC, or by City staff in
consultation with the Chairperson, if additional meetings are necessary to accomplish the
purpose and duties of the Commission.
6. In the event that the REOC desires to hold all or any portion of a regular meeting at a
place other than the Council Hearing Room, then the place of such meeting shall be
posted on at the doors of the Council Hearing Room prior to the time designated for the
meeting in accordance with law.
Packet Pg 160
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 43 | P a g e
ARTICLE 2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
1. The Commission shall select a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson from among its
members to serve for a one-year term beginning with the first meeting following the start
of each fiscal year (July 1).
2. Commissioners shall serve as Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson at the discretion of the
Commission.
3. The Chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the Commission. The Vice-Chairperson
is Chairperson in the absence of the Chairperson or in case of inability of the Chairperson
to act.
ARTICLE 3. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS
1. Commissioners should address questions through the Chairperson.
2. Members of the audience should address Commissioners or other persons present through
the Chairperson.
3. Procedure for reviewing public hearing items:
After roll call the Chairperson shall announce to the public the procedures to be followed
to consider the items listed on the agenda and then proceed as follows:
a. The Chairperson shall introduce the items and ask for oral staff reports, as
appropriate.
b. The staff report previously submitted to the REOC shall be placed into the record
with all communications received regarding the item. Staff reports shall be
submitted for all public hearing items in a form acceptable to the Commission.
c. Members of the public wishing to speak on the topic of the agenda item shall be
invited to make a presentation. Public comment shall be accepted for agenda
items that are listed as presentations, business items, or public hearings.
d. Following public testimony on an agenda item, the public hearing or public
testimony portion of the meeting shall be closed to the public and discussion
confined to members of the Commission; provided that the Commission may
reopen the public hearing or invite additional testimony at any time prior to a
decision on an item on an affirmative vote of the majority of those members
present.
e. The Commission, upon formal motion, shall take action on the item or
recommendation.
Packet Pg 161
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 44 | P a g e
ARTICLE 4. QUORUM
1. Three members of the Commission constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business.
2. No action of the Commission shall become effective without receiving the affirmative
vote of a majority of the members present.
ARTICLE 5. VOTING
1. Except as otherwise provided in the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code and state law, no
motion or any other action shall be passed or become effective without receiving the
affirmative vote of at least a majority of members present.
2. Failure to receive such an affirmative vote shall result in failure or denial, as appropriate,
of the motion or other action.
3. Except as allowed under the Political Reform Action of 1974, any member abstaining due
to a declared conflict of interest shall not participate in the discussion of the items or
otherwise influence or attempt to influence in any manner the decision on the item.
4. All members, when present, must vote except when refraining from participating due to
actual or potential conflict of interest.
5. Commissioners not supporting a motion for action shall summarize the reason for their
vote.
ARTICLE 6. PUBLIC RECORDS
1. Records of all public hearings shall be made available to the public in the office of the
City Clerk.
2. Secretary Duties: The secretary shall be a representative of the City Clerk’s Office, and
shall keep minutes of each meeting and shall record the official actions taken. The
records of all proceedings shall be available to the Council and to the public.
ARTICLE 7. ATTENDANCE
1. Any member of the REOC who fails, for any reason, to attend three regular, adjourned
regular, or specially-scheduled meetings, within any 12 month period, shall be reviewed
by the Chairperson for possible referral to the City Council.
ARTICLE 8. FILLING VACANCIES AND REMOVAL OF MEMBERS
1. Vacancies shall be filled for unexpired terms. The Council, by majority action, may
remove any Commissioner as provided in the City Charter.
Packet Pg 162
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 45 | P a g e
ARTICLE 9. RULES, REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES
1. The Commission may adopt rules, regulations and procedures as required for the
transaction of its business. These rules shall become effective upon approval of the
Council.
Packet Pg 163
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 46 | P a g e
DE. Construction Board of Appeals Bylaws (T/SP)
MEMBERSHIP
The Construction Board of Appeals (CBOA) consists of seven members. Members must be
residents and registered voters of the City pursuant to the City of San Luis Obispo City Council
Policies & Procedures Manual. Five of the seven members shall be qualified by experience and
training to pass on matters pertaining to building construction and building service equipment,
hazards of fire, explosions, hazardous conditions or fire protection and who are not employees of
the City. Two members of the Board shall be physically disabled persons, as defined in the
adopted California Building Code. Board members may serve simultaneously on other non-
technical City advisory bodies pursuant to the City of San Luis Obispo City Council Policies &
Procedures Manual.
PURPOSE
The purpose of the Board is described in Article 1. Functions.
ARTICLE 1. FUNCTIONS
The Construction Board of Appeals is established to provide the following functions:
A1. To determine the suitability of alternate materials, methods of construction, and other
specifications set out in the City’s adopted Uniform Codes.
B2. To interpret the provisions of the City’s adopted Uniform Codes and to hear and decide
appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the Chief Building Official, Code
Official or Fire Marshall relative to the application and interpretations of the adopted
Codes of Title 15.
C3. To conduct hearings and provide the second level of administrative review for contested
Administrative Citations issued pursuant to the adopted codes of Title 15 or otherwise
issued by the Chief Building Official. To serve as the acting Housing Appeals Board
required under California Health & Safety Code section 17920.6, and to also serve as the
appeals body for any other adopted codes found within Title 15 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code, including disability access requirements imposed by the California
Building Standards Code and the California Health & Safety Code.
ARTICLE 2. MEETINGS
A1. Meetings shall be on call of the Chief Building Official on at least three days public
notice given in a form acceptable to the City Clerk.
B2. Meetings shall be held in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, or at a location otherwise noticed.
Packet Pg 164
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 47 | P a g e
C3. In the event the Board desires to hold all or any portion of a meeting at a place other than
the City Hall, then the place of such meeting shall be posted on the bulletin board located
at the entrance to City Hall prior to the time herein designated for such meetings in
accordance with law.
ARTICLE 3. OFFICERS
A1. Officers of the Board shall be a Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson.
B2. Offices shall be filled from appointed members by written ballot of the voting
membership.
C3. Election of officers shall be held annually at the first meeting held after April 1.
ARTICLE 4. DUTIES OF THE CHAIRPERSON
The Chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the Board. The Chairperson shall preserve order
and decorum at all meetings, shall vote on all questions and announce the Board’s decisions on
all subjects.
ARTICLE 5. DUTIES OF VICE CHAIRPERSON
The Vice Chairperson shall act as Chairperson during the temporary absence or incapacitation of
the Chairperson.
ARTICLE 6. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY
1A. In the event the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson are absent, the Secretary shall call the
meeting to order and the Board shall elect one of its members to act as Chairperson pro
tempore.
2B. It shall be the duty of the Secretary to keep full, true and correct records of the action of
the Board and provide each member of the Board with minutes of each meeting.
3C. The Secretary shall transmit copies of decisions and written findings to the City Council.
4D. Minutes will be submitted to the Board for approval at the next meeting.
5E. The Secretary shall prepare an agenda for each meeting.
ARTICLE 7. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS
1A. Board members should address questions through the Chairperson.
2B. Members of the audience should address Board members or other persons present
through the Chairperson.
Packet Pg 165
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 48 | P a g e
ARTICLE 8. QUORUM
A majority of the number of established Board members shall constitute a quorum for the
transaction of business.
ARTICLE 9. VOTING
1A. The vote on all motions making recommendation to the City Council shall be by
resolution, and a roll call vote shall be taken for the ayes and noes prior to the
consideration of the next order of business. All other motions may be by voice vote.
2B. Failure of any motion resolution or other action to receive three affirmative votes shall
result in failure or denial of the motion, resolution or other action.
ARTICLE 10. AGENDA
In order for items and materials to be included on an agenda or to be acted upon by the
committee, they must be submitted to the Secretary of the Board at least ten days prior to the
date on which said request will be considered by the Board. Such request must be made in
writing setting forth the following:
1A. The applicable Code provision.
2B. The nature of the requested change or interpretation.
3C. The reasons for the change or interpretation.
ARTICLE 11. REFERRAL TO CITY COUNCIL
After the conclusion of the hearing on the request, all decisions and findings shall be made in
writing to the City Council with a duplicate copy to the appellant. The Board may recommend
such new legislation as may be necessary.
Packet Pg 166
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 49 | P a g e
E.F Cultural Heritage Committee Bylaws (A)
ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE
The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) promotes the preservation of architectural,
archaeological, historical and cultural resources in San Luis Obispo, by:
1. Helping the public pursue cultural resource preservation projects.
2. Sponsoring educational programs and research which improves our understanding of the
community’s history and archaeology.
3. On request, commenting on the effects of public and private actions on community
cultural resources.
4. Helping with the administration of City-sponsored benefit programs.
ARTICLE 2. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS
The functioning of the Cultural Heritage Committee and all of its actions and decisions shall be
in compliance with the provisions of the Advisory Body Handbook and as established by
Council Resolution.
ARTICLE 3. MEMBERSHIP
1. The CHC will have seven members appointed by the City Council. Members must be
residents and registered voters of the City. If possible, membership of the Committee
should include a person knowledgeable in local history, a person with training or
experience in structural rehabilitation, a person knowledgeable in local archaeology, and
a person with knowledge of architecture.
2. If possible, the Committee should include one resident from each of the five Historical
Preservation Districts created but the Council is not limited to this district residency
requirement when making appointments.
ARTICLE 4. TERMS OF APPOINTMENT
Members shall be appointed by the City Council for an initial term of a maximum of four years
and may be reappointed for additional terms, not exceeding a total of two consecutive four-year
terms.
Packet Pg 167
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 50 | P a g e
ARTICLE 5. OFFICERS
1. A Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson shall be elected by the Committee at its first
meeting in April for one-year terms. No person may serve in the office of Chairperson or
Vice-Chairperson for more than two consecutive terms.
2. The Chairperson shall preside over all Committee meetings, vote on all matters, appoint
all subcommittees, call special meetings, and submit an annual report and budget to the
Committee for approval and presentation to the City Council.
3. The Vice-Chairperson shall serve in the absence or incapacity of the Chairperson and
perform such other duties as requested by the Chair.
ARTICLE 6. MEETINGS
1. The Committee shall hold a regular meeting each month. All meetings shall be open to
the public. Regular meetings shall be held at 5:30 p.m. on the fourth Monday of each
month in the City Council Hearing Room, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California.
2. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the established members.
3. All action of the Committee shall be decided by a majority vote or consensus of the
quorum directed through the Chairperson.
4. Minutes of each meeting shall be forwarded to the City Council and be available as a
public record.
5. The Chairperson or a quorum majority of the Committee may call a special meeting,
provided that all public notice requirements are met.
6. All Committee meetings shall be conducted according to City practices, customs, and
policies.
Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, may be used as a guideline.
7. All members present must vote, except when a member declares a conflict of interest.
Any member declaring a conflict of interest shall not vote or participate in any related
deliberations or action of the Committee.
ARTICLE 7. ABSENCES AND RESIGNATIONS
1. If a member fails to attend three consecutive regular meetings or a total of six regular
meetings within any 12 months, the member shall automatically be considered for
replacement. The Chairperson of the Committee shall inform the Council of such a
situation and explain any special circumstances.
Packet Pg 168
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 51 | P a g e
2. Committee members are responsible for notifying the Chairperson or the Secretary in
advance when an absence is anticipated.
3. If a member needs to resign from the Committee, the member shall immediately direct a
letter to the City Council with copies forwarded to the Committee Chairperson and City
Clerk.
ARTICLE 8. SUBCOMMITTEES
1. Subcommittees shall be appointed, as needed, by the Chairperson. Subcommittees may
include non-Committee members who shall have no voting power.
ARTICLE 9. AMENDMENTS
Bylaw amendments shall be submitted for Council approval by an affirmative vote of the
members present at a regular meeting of the Committee, provided that such amendments shall
have been discussed by the Committee on the agenda of at least two meetings prior to the vote.
The members shall receive the proposed amendments at least 10 days prior to the first meeting.
Packet Pg 169
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 52 | P a g e
FG. Human Relations Commission Bylaws (A)
ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE
It is the purpose of the Human Relations Commission (HRC) to advise the Council in its actions
to create an environment within the City in which all persons can enjoy equal rights and
opportunities regardless of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, age, or
physical, mental or economic status. The Human Relations Commission shall make
recommendations to the City Council or the City Manager on how these social concerns and
human needs can best be addressed.
ARTICLE 2. MEMBERSHIP AND TERMS OF OFFICE
The HRC has seven members. Members must be residents and registered voters of the City.
While there are no special qualifications for applicants, the Council usually seeks individuals
with experience, or a demonstrated interest in community social issues.
Commissioners shall be appointed by the City Council for terms of four years, commencing on
April 1st. Commissioners shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council. Any Commissioner may
be reappointed, provided that no appointee shall serve more than two consecutive four-year
terms.
ARTICLE 3. MEETINGS
1. The Commission shall hold a regular meeting at least quarterly.
2. Regular meetings will be held generally on the first Wednesday of the month at a
specified time and place.
3. The Commission meetings shall be open to the public and shall be held at City Hall in the
Council Hearing Room or other previously announced locations at specific times as
required by California law.
4. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the established Commissioners.
5. All actions of the Commission shall be decided by a majority vote or consensus and shall
be directed through the Commission Chair.
6 Minutes of each meeting shall be forwarded to the City Council and be available as a
public record.
7. The Chairperson or any three members of the Commission may call a special meeting
providing a week’s prior notice is given in writing to each member.
8. All Commission meetings shall be conducted according to Robert’s Rules of Order.
9. All members present must vote, except when abstaining due to a declared conflict of
interest.
Packet Pg 170
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 53 | P a g e
10. Any member with a declared conflict of interest shall not vote on or participate in any
discussion of any item or in any manner attempt to influence the decision on that item.
ARTICLE 4. SUBCOMMITTEES
Subcommittees consisting of less than a quorum of the Commission shall be appointed, as
needed, by the Chairperson. Study committees may include non-commission members who shall
have no voting power.
ARTICLE 5. OFFICERS
1. The officers shall be a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson who shall be elected at the
Commission meeting in April for one-year terms.
2. The Chairperson shall preside over all meetings of the Commission, prepare all meeting
agendas and perform such duties as directed by the Commission.
3. The Vice-Chairperson shall serve in the absence or incapacity of the Chairperson.
ARTICLE 6. AMENDMENTS
Bylaw amendments shall be submitted for Council approval by an affirmative vote of the
members present at a regular meeting of the Commission, provided that such amendments shall
have been discussed by the Commission on the agenda of at least two meetings prior to the vote.
The members shall receive the proposed amendments in writing at least ten (10) days prior to t he
first reading.
Packet Pg 171
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 54 | P a g e
HG. Jack House Committee Bylaws (T/SP)
ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE
The Jack House and Grounds were deeded to the City of San Luis Obispo on March 10, 1975. In
accepting the deed, the City agreed to appoint a committee of seven (7) members to advise the
Council on the House and Grounds. The Jack House Committee (JHC) is charged with the
responsibility to advise the City Council on matters concerning: Facility use, fees and charges,
capital improvements, and any other item affecting the House and Grounds.
ARTICLE 2. COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
The grant deed requires that persons with “special expertise” fill four (4) of the seven (7) seats
on the Jack House Committee as follows:
1. A representative of the San Luis Obispo County History Center.
2. One member of the faculty, current or retired, of California Polytechnic State University
College of Architecture and Environmental Design, preferably an architectural historian.
3. One member of the faculty, current or retired, of California Polytechnic State University
College of Agriculture, preferably a horticulturist.
4. A member of the San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Commission.
The City Council has resolved that due to these special conditions and requirements, members
with this special expertise may serve terms of undetermined length, the choice being left to
individual Committee members.
The remaining three (3) Committee members shall be members-at-large and must reapply after
4-year terms. All members are required to be residents and registered voters of the City of San
Luis Obispo. They shall serve four-year terms, with a maximum of eight years.
The docent president coordinator of the volunteer docent group shall serve as an ex-officio (non-
voting) Jack House Committee member and shall not count toward a quorum.
ARTICLE 3. MEETINGS
1. The Committee shall hold a regular meeting each month but no fewer not less than ten
(10) times a year.
2. Meetings will be held at 5:30 p.m. the second Wednesday of each month.
3. The Committee meetings shall be open to the public and shall be held at the Parks and
Recreation Department Office, the Jack House or any other previously announced
locations at specific times as required by California law.
4. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Committee members currently serving.
Packet Pg 172
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 55 | P a g e
5. All actions of the Committee shall be decided by a majority vote or consensus and shall
be directed through the Committee Chair.
6. Minutes of each meeting shall be forwarded to the City Council and be available as a
public record.
7. The Chairperson or any three members of the Committee may call a special meeting
provided a week’s prior notice is given in writing to each member.
8. All Committee meetings shall be conducted according to Robert’s Rules of Order.
9. With the exceptionExcept for the ex-officio member (who serves as the coordinator of
the volunteer docent group) of the docent president, all Committee members shall vote.
10. Any Committee member with a declared conflict of interest shall not vote on or
participate in any discussion of any item or in any manner attempt to influence the
decision on that item. The member with such conflict shall remove himself/herself from
the room until such discussion has concluded.
ARTICLE 4. SUBCOMMITTEES
Subcommittees consisting of less than a quorum of the Committee shall be appointed, as needed,
by the Chairperson. Subcommittees shall convene for a specific purpose, study or project and
shall have a limited term, not-to-exceed 12 consecutive months. Study subcommittees may
include non-Committee members who shall have no voting power.
ARTICLE 5. OFFICERS
1. The officers shall be a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson who shall be elected at the
Committee meeting in April for two-year terms.
2. The Chairperson shall preside over all meetings of the Committee, assist in preparing all
meeting agendas and perform such duties as directed by the Committee.
3. The Vice-Chairperson shall serve in the absence or incapacity of the Chairperson.
ARTICLE 6. STAFF
The Director of Parks and Recreation or designee is the staff liaison to the Jack House
Committee. The Director may designate such other staff as is necessary to provide support to the
Committee.
The Director of Public Works should designate a Public Works staff representative for both the
house (building maintenance) and the garden (parks maintenance). The Committee shall receive
notification if there are any changes to staff representation.
Packet Pg 173
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 56 | P a g e
The Committee shall support volunteer opportunities via a docent program for the historic Jack
House and gardens through the use of volunteers serving as tour guides of the historic home,
gardens, exhibitions and special tours. The ex-officio (non-voting) Jack House Committee
member shall serve as the coordinator of this volunteer group in accordance with best
management practices for volunteer guides of historic sites.
ARTICLE 7. MAINTENANCE PLAN
The Committee shall develop a maintenance plan on an annual basis starting in January of each
year. The maintenance plan shall be a description of the activities that will be undertaken in
order to maintain the historic house and gardens and to meet the goals and objectives of the
Committee.
ARTICLE 87. AMENDMENTS
Prior to May 1, in each odd number year, these by-laws shall be reviewed by the Committee. By-
law amendments shall be submitted for Council approval by an affirmative vote of the members
present at a regular meeting of the Committee, provided that such amendments shall have been
discussed by the Committee on the agenda of at least two meetings prior to the vote. The
members shall receive the proposed amendments in writing at least ten days (10) prior to the first
meeting.
Packet Pg 174
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 57 | P a g e
IH. Mass Transportation Committee Bylaws (T/SP)
ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE
The purpose of the Mass Transportation Committee (MTC) is to advise City staff and the City
Council on all matters related to public transportation in San Luis Obispo (buses, trolley, and
taxi).
ARTICLE 2. COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
The Committee has seven voting members, consisting of one Cal Poly employee designated by
Cal Poly and one Cal Poly student representative designated by Associated Students, Inc. (ASI);
one person 62 years of age or older; one person from the business community; one person with
technical transportation planning experience; one person with a disability; one member-at-large.
In addition, when possible, two alternate members selected from the general public will be
appointed. The Cal Poly and technical planning representatives are exempt from the residency
requirements. All other members must be residents and registered voters of the City.
ARTICLE 3. TERMS OF OFFICE
Committee members will be appointed by the City Council to staggered terms of four years.
Committee members will serve at the pleasure of the City Council. Any Committee member may
be reappointed, providing no appointee serves more than two consecutive terms (eight years). A
member who has served eight years can be reappointed after a one year absence from the
Committee.
ARTICLE 4. MEETINGS
1. The Committee will hold a regular meeting at least quarterly.
2. The Committee will approve an annual regular meeting schedule by June of each year.
3. The Committee meetings will be open to the public and held at the Council Hearing,
Room City Hall, or other previously announced locations.unless otherwise noticed.
4. A quorum will consist of a majority of the established Committee members.
5. All actions of the Committee will be decided by a majority vote or consensus and will be
directed through the Committee Chair.
6. Minutes of each meeting will be available as a public record in the Public Works
Department.
7. The Chairperson or any four members of the Committee may call a special meeting,
provided that a week’s prior notice is given in writing to each member.
8. All Committee meetings will be conducted in accordance with City practices, customs,
and policies. Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, may be used as a guideline.
Packet Pg 175
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 58 | P a g e
9. All members present must vote, except when abstaining due to a declared conflict of
interest. A failure or refusal to vote when present (except for a declared conflict of
interest) will be construed as an affirmative vote.
10. Any member with a declared conflict of interest will not vote or participate in any
discussion of any item or in any manner attempt to influence the decision on that item.
11. If, or when, a voting member of the MTC is absent from an MTC meeting, one of the
Alternate members shall take the place of the voting member in order to maintain as
many voting members as possible. If only one voting member of the MTC is absent,
choice between the two Alternates will be decided by a fair game of chance such as a
coin flip or roll of the die performed by the Chairperson of the MTC.
ARTICLE 5. SUBCOMMITTEES
Subcommittees consisting of less than a quorum of the Committee can be appointed as needed
by the Chairperson.
ARTICLE 6. OFFICERS
1. The officers will consist of a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson who will be elected at
the Committee meeting in April or May for one-year terms that commence the first
meeting of the next fiscal year.
2. The Chairperson will preside over all meetings of the Committee, prepare (with the
assistance of staff) all meeting agendas and perform such duties as directed by the
Committee.
3. The Vice-Chairperson will serve in the absence or incapacity of the Chairperson.
ARTICLE 7. NEW MEMBER TRANSIT PASSES
In order to assist new MTC members with their transit advocacy function, new members shall
receive an initial 31 Day Transit Pass for their personal use.
ARTICLE 78. POLICIES
The Committee adopts policies as stated in the City of San Luis Obispo Advisory Bo dy
Handbook, incorporated herein by reference.
Packet Pg 176
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 59 | P a g e
JI. Parks & Recreation Commission Bylaws (A)
ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE
The Parks & Recreation Commission (PRC) is a body of citizens appointed to advise the City's
Parks & Recreation Department and the City Council on the development and operation of
recreation programs and parks, and on the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Element
of the City's General Plan. It also provides recommendations to the City Council and San Luis
Obispo Coastal Unified School District Board of Trustees regarding those facilities which have
been mutually designated as joint use facilities; and for the operation of recreational facilities,
priority for use of the facilities, and development of new recreation facilities at Sinsheimer Park.
ARTICLE 2. MEMBERSHIP
1. The Parks and Recreation Commission shall consist of seven members.
2. Members are appointed by the City Council for a term of four years. Members are
eligible for reappointment for an additional four-year term. Members are subject to a term
limit of eight years, or two consecutive four-year terms.
ARTICLE 3. MEETINGS
1. Regular meetings of the Parks & Recreation Commission shall be held on the first
Wednesday of each month at 5:30 p.m., except during the annual tour of the City's parks
and facilities.
2. Meetings will be held in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California. In the event that the Parks & Recreation Commission chooses to hold
all or any portion of a regular meeting other than at City Hall, then the place of such
meeting shall be posted at least 72 hours in advance at the Parks & Recreation
Department office, 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, California and on the bulletin
board located at the entrance to the City Hall prior to the established meeting time.
ARTICLE 4. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
1. In April of each year, the Parks & Recreation Commission shall select a Chair and Vice
Chair from among its members to serve a one-year term.
2. Commissioners shall serve as Chair or Vice Chair at the discretion of the Commission.
3. The Chair shall preside at all meetings of the Parks & Recreation Commission. The Vice
Chair will act as the Chair in the absence of the Chair or in case of the inability of the
Chair to act.
4. In the event that the Chair and Vice Chair are unavailable to attend to their duties, the
assembled members shall determine a Chair Pro Tempore.
5. No person shall serve as Chair or Vice Chair for more than three consecutive terms.
Packet Pg 177
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 60 | P a g e
ARTICLE 5. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS
All meetings will be conducted in accordance with City practices, customs, and policies. Robert's
Rules of Order, Newly Revised shall be utilized as a guide in the conduct of meetings.
ARTICLE 6. QUORUM
Four members of the Parks & Recreation Commission shall constitute a quorum for the purposes
of conducting business.
ARTICLE 7. VOTING
1. Except as otherwise provided in the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code and state law, no
resolution, motion or other action shall be passed or become effective without receiving
the affirmative vote of at least a majority of the members present.
2. Failure to receive such an affirmative vote shall result in failure or denial, as appropriate,
of the motion, resolution or other action.
3. Except as allowed under the Political Reform Act of 1974, as amended, any member
abstaining due to a declared conflict of interest shall not participate in the discussion of
the items or otherwise influence or attempt to influence in any manner the decision on the
item.
4. All members, when present, must vote except when abstaining due to a declared conflict
of interest.
5. Failure or refusal to vote when present—except for a declared conflict of interest—shall
be counted as an affirmative vote.
ARTICLE 8. PUBLIC RECORDS
Records of all public hearings shall be made available to the public in the offices of the Parks &
Recreation Department.
ARTICLE 9. ATTENDANCE
Any member of the Parks & Recreation Commission who fails, for any reason, to attend three
consecutive regular meetings or a total of six regular meetings within any twelve month period
shall be automatically be considered for replacement by the City Council. The Chairperson of the
Parks & Recreation Commission shall inform the Council of such a situation, explaining any
special circumstances.
Packet Pg 178
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 61 | P a g e
ARTICLE 10. COMMITTEES
1. A member of the Parks & Recreation Commission shall represent the Commission and sit
as a voting member on the following City advisory bodies: Jack House Committee and
Tree Committee.
2. Additional committee assignments shall be made as deemed necessary by the Chair.
3. Committee assignments will be made in April of each year.
ARTICLE 11. AMENDMENTS
1. These bylaws may be recommended for amendment by the majority vote of the
Commission members present at a regular meeting, provided that a quorum is present.
Members shall receive the proposed amendments at least seven days prior to the meeting
in which the amendment is proposed.
2. Prior to May 1 in each odd-numbered year, these bylaws shall be reviewed by the
Commission. Any proposed changes shall be submitted to the City Council for approval.
If no changes are proposed, a report of the review shall be submitted.
Packet Pg 179
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 62 | P a g e
KJ. Personnel Board Bylaws (A)
ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE
It is the purpose of the Personnel Board (PB) to hear employee appeals of disciplinary action, to
review employee grievances, and to hear issues of Council censure. The Board shall then make
advisory recommendations to the City Council. The Personnel Board shall also perform other
duties pertaining to personnel management as directed by the City Council.
ARTICLE 2. MEMBERSHIP AND TERMS OF OFFICE
Five members of the Personnel Board shall be appointed by the City Council and shall serve for
terms of four years. Members must be residents and registered voters of the City.
1. Appointments will be made in a staggered every-other-year pattern, such that two
members’ terms will expire during a given year and the terms of the other three members
will expire two years later.
2. Any vacancies on the Personnel Board shall be filled for the unexpired term of the person
replaced.
3. Members shall be appointed for no more than two consecutive terms (eight years).
ARTICLE 3. OFFICERS
1. The officers shall be a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson who shall be elected at the
first meeting of alternate calendar years to serve two-year terms.
2. The Chairperson shall preside over all meetings of the Personnel Board, subpoena
witnesses and require the production of books, papers and any other materials pertinent to
the investigation or hearing.
3. The Vice-Chairperson shall serve in the absence of the Chairperson.
4. The Director of Human Resources or his or her designee shall serve as recording
secretary, keeping record of all meetings, and shall issue all necessary notices, copies of
agendas, minutes and copies of necessary documents.
Packet Pg 180
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 63 | P a g e
ARTICLE 4. MEETINGS
1. The Personnel Board shall meet as needed.
2. Three members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
However, for the purpose of a hearing on appeal of a disciplinary action, no Board
member may vote on a decision if absent from part of a hearing, unless such member
certifies that he/she listened to a recording of or read the transcript of the missed portion
of the hearing.
3. Pursuant to Personnel Exception of the Brown Act (Government Code Section 54957), a
meeting may be closed to the public at the request of any appellant when the pending
issue deals with a particular employee.
4. The Chairperson or the legal advisor to the Board shall administer oaths to all witnesses
appearing before the Board. Any regular officer or employee of the City who fails to take
the oath or fails to testify truthfully under oath at a hearing shall be subject to disciplinary
action.
5. All grievance and disciplinary appeal hearings shall be recorded.
6. At the request of the appellant, a court reporter shall be used. The cost of the court
reporter shall be paid as agreed upon by both sides.
7. All actions of the Board shall be decided by majority vote, and shall be directed through
the Board Chairperson.
8. The Board may meet with its legal advisor, as needed and outside the presence of any
other persons, to receive opinions and advice.
9. The Board may direct the parties to submit hearing briefs outlining the facts and
arguments to be presented prior to any hearing. The Chairperson shall establish a
schedule for submission of the hearing briefs.
ARTICLE 5. AMENDMENTS
At such time as these bylaws need to be amended, the Director of Human Resources shall meet
with the Board and determine an appropriate procedure for making such amendment(s).
Packet Pg 181
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 64 | P a g e
LK. Planning Commission Bylaws (A)
MEMBERSHIP
The Planning Commission (PC) has seven members who are not necessarily planning
professionals. Members must be residents and registered voters of the City. No special training is
required for appointment. Members occasionally may be requested to attend seminars and
workshops to enhance skills in planning.
PURPOSE
The Planning Commission’s basic responsibility is to make recommendations to the Ccity
Ccouncil for the Ccity’s development, as set forth in San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
§2.12.040. To carry out this responsibility the commission will:
1. Prepare and recommend a general plan and appropriate attachments;
2. Prepare and recommend appropriate specific plans;
3. Review the Ccity’s capital improvement program annually;
4. Perform authorized duties related to development review;
5. Perform such other duties required by the Ccouncil or by Sstate or Ccity laws.
ARTICLE 1. MEETINGS
1. Regular meetings shall be held at 6:00 p.m. on the second and fourth Wednesday of each
month.
2. No agenda item shall be introduced after 11:00 p.m. without the consent of a majority of
Commissioners present.
3. Regular meetings shall be held in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California.
4. In the event the Planning Commission desires to hold all or any portion of a regular
meeting at a place other than the City Hall, then the place of such meeting shall be posted
on the bulletin board located at the entrance to City Hall prior to the time herein
designated for such regular meetings in accordance with law.
Packet Pg 182
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 65 | P a g e
ARTICLE 2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
1. The Commission shall select a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson from among its
members to serve for a one-year term beginning the first meeting in April of each year.
2. Commissioners shall serve as Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson at the discretion of the
Commission.
3. The Chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the Commission. The Vice-Chairperson
is Chairperson in the absence of the Chairperson or in case of inability of the Chairperson
to act.
4. No person shall serve as Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson for more than two consecutive
terms.
ARTICLE 3. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS
1. Commissioners should address questions through the Chairperson.
2. Members of the audience should address Commissioners or other persons present through
the Chairperson.
3. Procedure for reviewing public hearing items:
After roll call the Chairperson shall announce to the public the procedures to be followed
to consider the public hearing items and then proceed as follows:
a. The Chairperson shall introduce the items and ask for oral staff reports.
b. The staff report precisely submitted to the Planning Commission shall be placed
into the record with all communications received regarding the proposal. Staff
reports shall be submitted for all public hearing items in a form acceptable to the
commission.
c. The applicant shall be invited to make a presentation on behalf of the request.
d. Members of the public wishing to speak in favor or in opposition of the
application shall be invited to make a presentation.
e. The applicant shall have the opportunity at the end of the public hearing to
address comments made by the public and address any further commission
questions.
f. The public hearing shall be closed to the public and discussion confined to
members of the Commission; provided that the Commission may reopen the
public hearing at any time prior to a decision on an item on an affirmative vote of
the majority of those members present.
Packet Pg 183
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 66 | P a g e
g. The Commission, upon formal motion, shall take action to dispose of the
proposal. The Chairperson shall announce the vote and thereafter, inform the
applicant and public of the right of appeal and procedures for filing such appeal.
ARTICLE 4. QUORUM
Four members of the Planning Commission constitute a quorum for transacting business.
ARTICLE 5. VOTING
1. Except as otherwise provided in the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code and state law, no
resolution, motion or any other action shall be passed or become effective without
receiving the affirmative vote of at least a majority of members present.
2. Failure to receive such an affirmative vote shall result in failure or denial, as appropriate,
of the motion, resolution or other action.
3. Except as allowed under the Political Reform Action of 1974, any member abstaining due
to a declared conflict of interest shall not participate in the discussion of the items or
otherwise influence or attempt to influence in any manner the decision on the item.
4. All members, when present, must vote except when abstaining due to a declared conflict
of interest.
5. Failure or refusal to vote when present—except for a declared conflict of interest— shall
be counted as an affirmative vote.
ARTICLE 6. PUBLIC RECORDS
Records of all public hearings shall be made available to the public in the office of the
Community Development Department.
ARTICLE 7. ATTENDANCE
1. Any member of the Planning Commission who fails, for any reason, to attend three
consecutive regular, adjourned regular, or specially-scheduled (excluding Commission site
visits) meetings, or a total of six such commission meetings within any 12-month period, shall be
automatically considered by the City Council for removal from office. The Chairperson shall
inform the Council of such situation, explaining any special circumstances.
ARTICLE 8. POLICY
All matters of policy not covered by law may be adopted as a “Resolution of Policy” and when
so adopted shall be considered the official policy of the Planning Commission subject to
ratification of the City Council.
Packet Pg 184
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 67 | P a g e
COMPENSATION
The City Council has approved a stipend of $60 per meeting (not to exceed $240 monthly) for
each member of the Planning Commission (Resolution No. 10516 [2014 Series]).
Packet Pg 185
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 68 | P a g e
MN. Promotional Coordinating Committee Bylaws (A)
ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE
The Promotional Coordinating Committee (PCC) advises the Council in working to improve the
quality of life for all City residents and our visitors. The Committee recommends projects to help
promote the City as a regional trade, recreation, and tourist center, consistent with community
goals.
ARTICLE 2. MEMBERSHIP
The PCC shall consist of seven members appointed by the Council. Six of the members shall be
residents of the City of San Luis Obispo. The seventh member shall be the Chair of the Tourism
Business Improvement District (TBID) Board as appointed by the TBID Board. Committee
members shall be appointed for a term of four years, commencing on April 1st or other date as
directed by the Council. No Committee member shall serve more than two consecutive terms
(eight years) on the PCC. Any Committee member who has been appointed to fill a vacant seat
in mid-term shall not be precluded from thereafter serving two four-year terms (eight years), so
long as the initial, partial term is less than one year. The representative from the TBID Board
shall serve a term concurrent with his/her term as the Chairperson of the TBID Board.
ARTICLE 3. OFFICERS
The officers shall be a Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson, each of whom shall be elected for a
one-year term at the March meeting of the PCC for the term starting in April. No Committee
member shall serve more than two consecutive one-year terms as Chairperson or Vice
Chairperson. Any Committee member who has been appointed to fill a vacant seat as
Chairperson or Vice Chairperson in mid-term shall not be precluded from thereafter serving as
Chairperson or Vice Chairperson for two consecutive one-year terms, so long as the initial,
partial term is less than six months.
The Chairperson shall preside over all meetings of the PCC, prepare all meeting agendas with
staff, and otherwise perform such duties as directed by the PCC or Council.
The Vice Chairperson shall serve in the absence or incapacity of the Chairperson.
ARTICLE 4. MEETINGS
1. The PCC shall hold a regular meeting each month, but no fewer than ten times per year.
2. The meetings are to be held at City Hall, the second Wednesday of each month, unless
another location and/or time has been announced as required by California law.
3. The meetings shall be open to the public.
4. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Committee member currently serving on the
PCC.
Packet Pg 186
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 69 | P a g e
5. All actions of the PCC shall be by a majority vote or consensus and shall be directed
through the Chairperson.
6. Minutes of each meeting shall be taken and forwarded to the Council and shall be -
available as a public record.
7. A special meeting may be called at any time by the Chairperson or by a majority of the
Committee members currently serving on the PCC, provided each member is given
written notice of the special meeting at least 24 hours prior to the meeting, and the time
and place of the special meeting is announced as required by California Law.
8. All meetings shall be conducted in general accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order,
newly revised edition, subject to minor variation by the Chair as appropriate to the needs
of the advisory body.
9. All Committee members present at a meeting shall vote on any motion or resolution
brought before the PCC, except when abstaining due to a conflict of interest.
10. Any Committee member with a conflict of interest shall not vote on or participate in any
discussion of an item or in any way attempt to influence the decision on such item.
11. Any member who fails to attend three regular meetings within any twelve-month period
may be automatically considered for replacement at the discretion of the Committee.
ARTICLE 5. SUBCOMMITTEES
Subcommittees shall be appointed, as needed, by the Chairperson. Standing subcommittees are
the Grants-in-Aid and Events Promotion subcommittees. The subcommittee members will serve
for a two year term. After two years they will automatically rotate to the other standing
subcommittee.
ARTICLE 6. FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES
The functions and duties of the PCC shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. Planning a comprehensive program to promote the City of San Luis Obispo and prepare
an annual marketing program consistent with City goals and objectives.
2. Develop promotional programs and projects for the City of San Luis Obispo.
3. Hear requests for financial aid from cultural and promotional groups seeking grants from
the City of San Luis Obispo and make recommendations to the Council thereon.
4. Present an annual assessment report to the City Council regarding the Promotional
Coordinating Committee’s Grants-in-Aid program and other programs as appropriate.
Packet Pg 187
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 70 | P a g e
5. Initiate and support community activities that are meaningful to residents and visitors of
the City of San Luis Obispo.
6. Provide a liaison to Grant-In -Aid recipients who work to promote the quality of life for
residents and visitors of the City of San Luis Obispo.
7. Perform any other lawful tasks as directed by the Council.
ARTICLE 7. AMENDMENTS
These bylaws may be amended by the Council, upon the recommendations of two-thirds of the
Committee members currently serving on the PCC, provided that the text of any such proposed
amendment shall have first been provided in writing to each Committee member.
Packet Pg 188
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 71 | P a g e
NM. Tourism Business Improvement District Board Bylaws (T/SP)
ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE
The Tourism Business Improvement District Board (TBID Board) advises the Council in the
administration and use of the TBID assessment funds. The Board recommends projects to
promote tourism to the City of San Luis Obispo to directly benefit the City’s lodging industry.
ARTICLE 2. MEMBERSHIP
The TBID Board shall consist of seven members from the San Luis Obispo City lodging industry
as appointed by the Council. Because of the diversity among assessment district members
represented by the Board, including local, regional and national lodging industry interests, it is
neither practical nor advisable to limit Board membership to City residents. Accordingly,
membership on the TBID Board shall be exempt from residency requirements otherwise
applicable to City Advisory bodies.
Board members shall be appointed for a term of four years, commencing on April 1st or any
other date as directed by the Council. No Board member shall serve more than two consecutive
terms (eight years) on the TBID Board. Any Board member who has been appointed to fill a
vacant seat in mid-term shall not be precluded from thereafter serving two four-year terms (eight
years), so long as the initial, partial term is less than one year.
One member of the TBID Board shall be appointed by the Board to the Promotional
Coordinating Committee for a term concurrent with his/her TBID Board term.
ARTICLE 3. OFFICERS
The officers shall be a Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson, each of whom shall be elected for a
one-year term at the March meeting of the TBID Board for a term starting in April. No Board
member shall serve more than two consecutive one-year terms as Chairperson or Vice
Chairperson. Any Board member who has been appointed to fill a vacant seat as Chairperson or
Vice Chairperson in mid-term shall not be precluded from thereafter serving as Chairperson or
Vice Chairperson for two consecutive one-year terms, so long as the initial, partial term is less
than six months.
The Chairperson shall preside over all meetings of the TBID Board, prepare all meeting agendas
with staff, and otherwise perform such duties as directed by the TBID Board or Council.
The immediate Past Chairperson shall automatically serve as the Vice Chairperson in order to
give support to the incoming Chairperson and guarantee continuity and stability for the board
proceedings during the absence of the Chairperson. The Vice Chairperson shall serve in the
absence or incapacity of the Chairperson.
Packet Pg 189
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 72 | P a g e
ARTICLE 4. MEETINGS
1. The TBID Board shall hold a regular meeting each month and no fewer than ten times per
year.
2. The meetings are to be held in the Council Hearing Room, City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California the second Wednesday of each month, unless another
location and/or time has been announced as required by California law.
3. The meetings shall be open to the public.
4. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the members currently serving on the TBID
Board.
5. All actions of the TBID Board shall be by a majority vote or consensus and shall be
directed through the Chairperson.
6. Minutes of each meeting shall be taken, shall be available as a public record and
forwarded to the Council if requested.
7. A special meeting may be called at any time by the Chairperson or by a majority of the
Board members currently serving on the TBID Board, provided each member is given
written notice of the special meeting at least 24 hours prior to the meeting, and the time
and place of the special meeting is announced as required by California Law.
8. All meetings shall be conducted in general accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order,
newly revised edition, subject to minor variation by the Chair as appropriate to the needs
of the advisory body.
9. All Board members present at a meeting shall vote on any motion or resolution brought
before the TBID Board, except when abstaining due to a conflict of interest.
10. Any Board member with a conflict of interest shall not vote on or participate in any
discussion of an item or in any way attempt to influence the decision on such item.
11. Any failure to attend three consecutive meetings or a total of six regular meetings within
any twelve-month period shall result in that member being automatically considered for
replacement.
Packet Pg 190
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 73 | P a g e
ARTICLE 5. FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES
The functions and duties of the TBID Board shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. Plan a comprehensive program to promote tourism to the City of San Luis Obispo and
prepare an annual marketing program consistent with industry goals and objectives.
2. Develop advertising and promotional programs and projects to benefit the lodging
industry in San Luis Obispo.
3. Present an annual assessment report to the City Council regarding the implemented
promotional programs and projects.
4. Perform any other lawful tasks as directed by the Council.
ARTICLE 6. AMENDMENTS
These bylaws may be amended by the Council, upon the recommendations of two -thirds of the
members currently serving on the TBID Board, provided that the text of any such proposed
amendment shall have first been provided in writing to each Board member.
ARTICLE 7. FUND RESERVE POLICY
The purpose of the Fund Reserve policy for the TBID is to ensure stability of the program under
economic uncertainties. For the TBID Fund the level of the reserve has been established at
$100,000. Under this policy, it is allowable for total expenditures to exceed revenues in a given
year; however, the fund reserve can only be used to fund “one-time,” non-recurring expenditures
upon TBID Board approval. In the instance funds are used, the reserve fund would be
replenished to the established level in the next fiscal year.
Packet Pg 191
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 74 | P a g e
ON. Tree Committee Bylaws (T/SP)
ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE
The purpose of the Tree Committee (TC) is to advise City staff and the City Council on all
matters related to trees in San Luis Obispo.
ARTICLE 2. COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
The Tree Committee shall have seven members and shall consist of one representative from the
Parks and Recreation Commission, one representative from the Architectural Review
Commission, and five members from the general public (one of whom shall be a horticultural
expert, if possible). Members must be residents and registered voters of the City.
ARTICLE 3. TERMS OF OFFICE
Committee members will be appointed by the City Council to staggered terms of four years,
commencing April 1. Committee members will serve at the pleasure of the City Council. Any
Committee member may be reappointed, provided no appointee serves more than two
consecutive terms (eight years).
ARTICLE 4. MEETINGS
1. The Committee will hold a regular meeting each month.
2. Regular meetings will be held at 5:00 pm the fourth Monday of each month.
3. The Committee meetings will be duly advertised according to the Ralph M. Brown Act,
and open to the public and held at the City’s Corporation Yard, located at 25 Prado Road
in Conference Room A, San Luis Obispo, California or other previously announced
locations at specific times as required by California law.
4. A quorum will consist of three voting Committee members.
5. All actions of the Committee will be decided by a majority vote or consensus and will be
directed through the Committee Chair.
6. Minutes of each meeting will be available as a public record in the Public Works
Department.
7. The Chairperson or any three members of the Committee may call a special meeting
provided that a week’s prior notice is given in writing to each member and the meeting is
otherwise properly noticed pursuant to the Brown Act.
8. All Committee meetings will be conducted in accordance with City Practices, customs,
and policies. Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, shall be utilized as a guide in the
conduct of meetings.
Packet Pg 192
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 75 | P a g e
9. All members present must vote, except when abstaining due to a declared conflict of
interest.
A failure or refusal to vote when present (except for a declared conflict of interest) will
be construed as an affirmative vote.
10. Any member with a declared conflict of interest will not vote or participate in any
discussion of any item or in any manner attempt to influence the decision on that item.
ARTICLE 5. SUBCOMMITTEES
Subcommittees consisting of less than a quorum of the Committee can be appointed as needed
by the Chairperson.
ARTICLE 6. OFFICERS
1. The officers will consist of a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson who will be elected at
the Committee meeting in April for one year terms.
2. The Chairperson will preside over all meetings of the Committee, prepare (with the
assistance of staff) all meeting agendas and perform such duties as directed by the
Committee.
3. The Vice-Chairperson will serve in the absence or incapacity of the Chairperson.
ARTICLE 7. POLICIES
The Committee adopts policies as stated in the City of San Luis Obispo Advisory Body
Handbook, incorporated herein by reference.
Packet Pg 193
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 76 | P a g e
Appendix A. Mission Statement
SAN LUIS OBISPO STYLE
QUALITY WITH VISION
WHO ARE WE?
People Serving People
A team that puts high value on each citizen it serves.
Providers of programs that meet basic service needs of each citizen.
Enhancers of the quality of life for the community as a whole.
WHAT DO WE STAND FOR?
Quality in all Endeavors – Pride in Results
Service to the community – the best – at all times.
Respect – for each other and for those we serve.
Value – ensuring delivery of service with value for cost.
Community involvement – the opportunity to participate in attaining the goals of the
City.
WHERE ARE WE GOING?
Into the Future with a Design
Planning and managing for levels of service consistent with the needs of the citizens.
Offering skills development and organizational direction for employees in order to
improve the delivery of municipal services.
Developing sources of funding and establishing a sound financial management program
which will result in fiscal independence and flexibility in the delivery of City Services.
Providing the residents of the City with accurate and timely information on issues which
affect them, and encouraging the full utilization of City services.
Promoting the Cit y as a regional trade, recreational and tourist center and improving the
quality of life for residents and visitors.
Packet Pg 194
11
Advisory Body Handbook June 6 ,2017
City of San Luis Obispo 77 | P a g e
Appendix B. Organizational Values
Shared Vision, Mission and Goals
We have a sense of common purpose and
direction pursued with passion and translated
into concrete actions.
Service
We are dedicated to the best use of resources to
fulfill identified community goals and needs.
Leadership and Support
We recognize that the ability to lead can be found
at all levels and that to create an environment to
succeed requires leading by example.
Communication
We foster open and clear discussion that
encourages the willingness to speak up and to
listen, within a framework of respect and
understanding.
Team Players
We encourage effective working relationships
within and between departments and the public
to address issues and achieve valuable results.
Honesty, Respect and Trust
We honor commitments, acknowledge
legitimate differences of opinion and accept
decisions reached with integrity.
Initiative and Accountability
We take personal responsibility to do what
needs to be done and report the results in a
straightforward manner.
Innovation and Flexibility
We are open to change and willing to try new
ways to fulfill the organization’s vision,
mission, and goals more effectively.
Employee Development and Recognition
We encourage and support each employee to
improve relevant job skills and celebrate
personal and team accomplishments.
Stewardship and Ethics
We promote public trust by using City
resources wisely, and through consistent
fulfillment of these values.
Packet Pg 195
11
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 196
11
Meeting Date: 6/6/2017
FROM: Monica Irons, Director of Human Resources
Prepared By: Brittani Roltgen, Human Resources Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: CONTRACT WITH LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Liebert Cassi dy Whitmore (LCW) to
provide specialized employment and labor relations legal services to the City of San Luis Obispo
up to $160,000 for fiscal year 2017-18.
DISCUSSION
Background
LCW is a full-service labor, employment, and education law firm specializing in public sector
employment law. The firm has provided employment and labor relations legal services to the
City since 2005 following a request for proposals for labor relations services. LCW is also on
the City Attorney’s on-call attorney list for the categories of Labor Employment, Pension and
Benefits Programs because of a Request for Qualifications issued by the City Attorney’s office in
2014.
LCW has provided excellent support in the critical and evolving area of labor relations,
negotiations, and employment law during the past several years. Due their expertise they
supplement staff in the Human Resources and City Attorney departments, including representing
the City in the role of chief negotiator during several labor negotiations.
As staff plans for fiscal year 2017-18 it is apparent there are several ongoing and anticipated
labor relations matters that will require specialized knowledge and services. These include: 1)
orienting and preparing the City Council for its role in the next cycle of labor negotiations with
three labor groups (the San Luis Obispo Firefighters Association, Local 3523, the San Luis
Obispo Police Officers Association, and the San Luis Obispo City Employees Association), 2)
providing chief negotiator and/or advisory services for negotiations with these three labor
groups, 3) continuing an internal review of the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA) compliance,
4) representing the City in grievance hearings if needed. The fourth item is anticipated given a
pending grievance submitted by the Firefighters Association, Local 3523 alleging the City’s
failure to meet and confer in advance of the City Council authorizing three additional firefighter
positions.
Packet Pg 197
12
FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated needs for 2017-18 are $160,000. Funds are available from the following sources:
Item Account Number Amount
2017-18 Budget for LCW 100.30100.7227 $42,400
Available from 2016-17 HR Budget
(temporary salaries and contract services)
100.30100.7012
100.30100.7227
$64,551
Encumbrance for FLSA audit 100.30100.7227 $ 26,137
Non-Departmental Account 100.25200.7050 $ 26,912
Total $ 160,000
ALTERNATIVES
Do not approve the additional funding for LCW. This is not recommended due to the specialized
services that LCW provides.
Attachments:
a - Liebert Cassidy Whitmore Agreement
Packet Pg 198
12
8112054.1 LC001-009
AGREEMENT FOR SPECIAL SERVICES
This Agreement is entered into between the law firm of LIEBERT CASSIDY
WHITMORE, a Professional Corporation (“Attorney”), and the CITY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO, a Municipal Corporation (“City”).
1. Conditions
This Agreement will not take effect, and Attorney will have no obligation to
provide services, until City returns a properly signed and executed copy of this
Agreement.
2. Attorney’s Services
Attorney agrees to provide City with consulting, representational and legal
services pertaining to employment relations matters, including acting in the
capacity of chief negotiator and advising on labor negotiations and related
strategic planning, representation in administrative and City proceedings, and
conducting/or guiding internal employment law compliance reviews.
3. Fees, Costs, Expenses
City agrees to pay Attorney the sums billed monthly for time spent by Attorney
in providing the services, including reasonable travel time, not to exceed $160,000.00,
unless mutually agreed upon by the parties.
The range of hourly rates for Attorney time is from Two Hundred to Three
Hundred Fifty Dollars ($200.00 - $350.00), One Hundred Ninety-Five Dollars to Two
Hundred Thirty Dollars ($195.00-$230.00) for time of Labor Relations/HR Consultant
and from Seventy-Five to One Hundred Sixty Dollars ($75.00 - $160.00) for time of
paraprofessional and litigation support staff. Attorney reviews its hourly rates on an
annual basis and, if appropriate, adjusts them effective July 1. Attorneys and
Packet Pg 199
12
8112054.1 LC001-009
paraprofessional staff bill their time in minimum units of one-tenth of an hour.
City agrees to reimburse Attorney for necessary costs (including travel expenses)
incurred by Attorney on behalf of City. Attorney bills photocopying charges at Fifteen
Cents ($.15) per page and facsimile charges at Twenty-Five Cents ($0.25) per page. A
Public Agency Fee and Cost Schedule is attached to this Agreement and is incorporated
herein by reference.
Payment by City against monthly billings is due upon receipt of statements, and is
considered delinquent if payment is not received within thirty (30) days of the date of the
invoice.
The California Business & Professions Code requires us to inform you whether
we maintain errors and omissions insurance coverage applicable to the services to be
rendered to you. We hereby confirm that the firm does maintain such insurance
coverage.
4. Arbitration of Professional Liability or Other Claims
Disputes. If a dispute between City and Attorney arises over fees charged for
services, the controversy will be submitted to binding arbitration in accordance with the
rules of the California State Bar Fee Arbitration Program, set forth in California Business
and Professions Code, sections 6200 through 6206. The arbitrator or arbitration panel
shall have the authority to award to the prevailing party attorneys’ fees, costs and interest
incurred. Any arbitration award may be served by mail upon either side and personal
service shall not be required.
If a dispute arises between City and Attorney over any other aspect of the
attorney-client relationship, including, without limitation, a claim for breach of
professional duty, that dispute will also be resolved by arbitration. It is understood that
Packet Pg 200
12
8112054.1 LC001-009
any dispute as to any alleged breach of professional duty (that is, as to whether any legal
services rendered under this agreement were allegedly unnecessary, unauthorized,
omitted entirely, or were improperly, negligently or incompetently rendered) will be
determined by submission to arbitration as provided by California law, and not by a
lawsuit or resort to court process except as California law provides for judicial review of
arbitration proceedings. Both parties to this agreement, by entering into it, are giving
up their constitutional right to have any such dispute decided in a court of law
before a jury, and instead are accepting the use of arbitration. Each party is to bear
its own attorney’s fees and costs.
5. Hold Harmless and Indemnification
Attorney agrees to indemnify, protect and hold City and its agents, officers and
employees harmless from and against any and all claims asserted or liability established
for damages or injuries to any person or property, including injury to the Attorney’s
employees, agents or officers that arise from or are connected with or are caused or
claimed to be caused by the negligent acts or omissions of Attorney, and its agents,
officers or employees, in performing the work or services herein, and all expenses of
investigating and defending against same; provided, however, that the Attorney’s duty
to indemnify and hold harmless shall not include any claims or liability arising from the
established sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its agents, officers or
employees.
6. Insurance
Attorney 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
Packet Pg 201
12
8112054.1 LC001-009
connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Attorney, its agents,
representatives, employees or subcontractors.
Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence
form CG 0001).
2. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile
Liability, code 1 (any auto).
3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and
Employer's Liability Insurance.
4. Errors and Omissions Liability insurance as appropriate to the attorney’s
profession.
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor 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.
Packet Pg 202
12
8112054.1 LC001-009
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions
must be declared to and approved by City. City may review options with Attorney, which
may include reduction or elimination of the deductible ($50,000) or self-insured retention,
substitution of other coverage, or other solutions.
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, and agents are to be covered as
additional insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or
on behalf of the Attorney; products and completed operations of the Attorney;
premises owned, occupied or used by the Attorney; or automobiles owned, leased,
hired or borrowed by the Attorney. The coverage shall contain no special
limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, official,
employees, or agents.
2. For any claims related to this project, the Attorney’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
Attorney’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3. The Attorney’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.
Packet Pg 203
12
8112054.1 LC001-009
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 30 (thirty) days' prior written notice has been
given to the City.
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. Attorney shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance
showing maintenance of the required insurance coverage. Original endorsements
effecting general liability 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.
7. File Retention
After our services conclude, Attorney will, upon City’s request, deliver the file for
the matter to City, along with any funds or property of City’s in our possession. If City
requests the file for the matter, Attorney will retain a copy of the file at the City’s
expense. If City does not request the file for this matter, we will retain it for a period of
seven (7) years after this matter is closed. If City does not request delivery of the file for
this matter before the end of the seven (7) year period, we will have no further obligation
to retain the file and may, at our discretion, destroy it without further notice to City. At
any point during the seven (7) year period, City may request delivery of the file.
Attorney will endeavor to timely inform City prior to destruction of files in order that
City may elect to have them shipped to City at its expense.
Packet Pg 204
12
8112054.1 LC001-009
8. Assignment
This Agreement is not assignable without the written consent of City.
9. Independent Contractor
It is understood and agreed that Attorney, while engaged in performing the terms
of this Agreement, is an independent contractor and not an employee of City.
10. Authority
The signators to this Agreement represent that they hold the positions set forth
below their signatures, and that they are authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf
of their respective parties and to bind their respective parties hereto.
11. Term
This Agreement is effective July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018, and may be modified
by mutual agreement of the parties. This agreement shall be terminable by either party
upon thirty (30) days written notice.
LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
A Professional Corporation A Municipal Corporation
By __________________________ By_______________________
J. Scott Tiedemann
Title: Managing Partner Title:
Date _________________________ Date _____________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM
By ______________________
Title:
Date _____________________
Packet Pg 205
12
8112054.1 LC001-009
I. PUBLIC AGENCY FEE SCHEDULE
Hourly Rates (As of Agreement Effective Date)
Partners $350.00
Senior Counsel $305.00
Associates $200.00 - $285.00
Labor Relations/HR Consultant $195.00 - $230.00
Paraprofessionals & Litigation Support $75.00 - $160.00
II. COST SCHEDULE
Photocopies $0.15 per copy
Facsimile Transmittal $0.25 per page
Packet Pg 206
12
Meeting Date: 6/6/2017
FROM: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE USE OF FUNDS FOR CONTINUING LITIGATION
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Attorney to execute a Third Amendment to the Legal Services Agreement
with the law firm of Jarvis, Fay, Doporto & Gibson (Original Agreement dated March 31, 2015)
increasing the not to exceed amount from $75,000 to $85,000, for the City’s legal defense in the
case of Palacios, et al. v. Nielsen, et al., as authorized by the City Council and reported out of
closed session on March 31, 2015.
DISCUSSION
Background
During the City Council Closed Session on March 31, 2015, Council authorized the defense of
the City as a party in San Luis Obispo Superior Court Case No. 15CV-0150, Gil Palacios and
Micki Howard v. Morten H. Nielsen, Hanne Sandsberg, The City of San Luis Obispo and DOES
1 to 25. That authorization was reported out of closed session in the immediately following open
session.
Petitioner an original complaint, which it amended in response to the City’s filing of a demurrer,
followed by three successive amended complaints. The City prepared, filed and prevailed upon
demurrers to each of amended complaints, with the court granting the City’s final demurrer
without leave to amend, effectively resulting in the dismissal of the City from the case.
Petitioner then filed an appeal before the California Court of Appeal. The administrative record
for the appeal has been prepared and lodged, with review pending. Briefing will be complete at
the time of Council’s consideration of this request. It is very uncommon to have to file four
successful demurrers in a single case, which drove additional costs not anticipated at the outset
of this case. At this stage, the City’s outside counsel, Rick Jarvis of firm Jarvis, Fay, Doporto &
Gibson, LLP (“Jarvis Fay”), has estimated an additional $5,000 - $10,000 in funding will be
required to complete the Court of Appeal stage of litigation. Thus, the City Attorney is
requesting Council approval of a contract amendment in an amount not to exceed to $10,000.
Current Authorization Request
Based on the original proposal rates submitted by Jarvis Fay, and the estimated remaining hours
of work, the City Attorney requests that the City Council authorize her to sign a Third
Amendment (attachment D) to the original Legal Services Agreement, increasing the contract
value to an amount not to exceed $85,000. The additional $10,000 will be encumbered to Jarvis
Fay from the surplus funds remaining after the conclusion of the litigation San Luis Obispo
Property and Business Owners v. City of San Luis Obispo.
Packet Pg 207
13
FISCAL IMPACT
With funds available in the 2016-17 fiscal year City Attorney’s budget, there is no impact of this
request.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Direct funds from another part of the City budget to be used to cover the increase in the
agreement amount.
2. Do not authorize signature of the Third Amendment to the Agreement, the consequences
of which would be to preclude defense of the City through the appeals stage of litigation.
Attachments:
a - Second Amendment - Jarvis Fay Palacios
b - Council Agenda Report Continued Litgation Funding
c - City Manager Report - Palacios Further Funding
d - Third Amendment Jarvis Fay Palacios
Packet Pg 208
13
SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
This Second Amendment to Agreement is made and entered in the City of San Luis Obispo on
2016, by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, herein
after referred to as City, and JARVIS, FAY, DOPORTO & GIBSON, LLP, a professional corporation,
hereinafter referred to as Consultant.
WITNES SETH:
WHEREAS, on March 31, 2015, the City entered into an Agreement with Consultant for
professional legal services for its defense in Palacios, et al. v. Nielsen, et al.; and
WHEREAS, work on this matter is not yet complete; and
WHEREAS, the parties seek to modify certain provisions of the Agreement between them.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants
hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. "Section 1. Term" of the Agreement is modified to increase the "shall not exceed"
amount to $75,000.
2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement, as amended hereby, remain in full force
and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day
and year first above written.
CITY OF SALT LU1 OBI9PO
J. Christ e Dietrick, City Attorney
JARVIS, FAY, D OP ORTO & GIB S ON, LLP
I
By:
Rick Jarvis
Its: Pch
Packet Pg 209
13
FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
T is First Amendment to Agreement is made and entered m the City of San Luis Obispo on
2015, by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, herein
after leferred to as City, and JARVIS, FAY, DOPORTO & GIBSON, LLP, a professional corporation,
hereinafter referred to as Consultant.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, on March 31, 2015, the City entered into an Agreement with Consultant for
professional legal services for its defense in Palacios, et al. v. Nielsen, el al.; and
WHEREAS, work on this matter is not yet complete, and
WHEREAS, the parties seek to modify certain provisions of the Agreement between them.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants
hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. "Section 1. Term" of the Agreement is modified to increase the shall not exceed amount
to $50,000_
All other terms and conditions of the Agreement, as amended hereby, remain in full force
and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day
and year first above written.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISN
y _
C stine Dietrick, Cityttorney
g/1-7// 5
JARVIS, FAY, DOPORT
fO &
GIBSON, LLP
By:Lq
Rick Jarvis
s+'
Its
Packet Pg 210
13
AGREEMENT
1211 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on M arc 1
2015 by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation,
referred to as City, and JARVIS, FAY, DOPORTO & GIBSON, LLP, a professional
hereinafter referred to as Consultant.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, on July 3, 2013, City requested qualifications and proposals for legal counsel;
hereinafter
corporation,
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Consultant submitted a proposal that was accepted by City for said
services; and
WHEREAS, the City requires professional legal services for its defense in Palacios, et al. v. Nielsen, et al.
the "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 March 31, 2015 until completion of said services and
the total costs for this engagement shall not exceed $25,000 without express written consent signed
by both parties.
2. 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 such payment representing the City's damages from such breach.
Reasonable value" includes fees or charges for goods or services as of the last milestone or task
satisfactorily delivered or completed by the Consultant as may be set forth in the Agreement payment
schedule; compensation for any other work, services or goods performed or provided by the
Consultant shall be based solely on the City's assessment of the value of the work -in -progress in
completing the overall workscope.
The City reserves the right to delay any such payment until completion or confirmed abandonment of
the project, as may be determined in the City's sole discretion, so as to permit a full and complete
accounting of costs. In no event, however, shall the Consultant be entitled to receive in excess of the
compensation quoted in its proposal.
If, at any time during the term of the contract, the City determines that the project is not feasible due
to funding shortages or unforeseen circumstances, the City reserves the right to terminate the
contract. Consultant will be paid compensation due and payable to the date of termination.
Packet Pg 211
13
3. Ability to Perform. The Consultant warrants that it possesses licenses and qualifications 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.
4. Sub -contract Provisions. No portion of the work pertinent to this contract shall be subcontracted
without written authorization by the City. Any substitution of sub -consultants must be approved in
writing by the City.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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 engagement. 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 employee of the City.
B. 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.
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.
10. 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.
11. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the
Consultant is required to pay.
Packet Pg 212
13
12. Safety Provisions. The Consultant shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety
established by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Insurance.
16.1 Professional Errors and Omissions Insurance. The Consultant shall obtain and maintain
in full force and effect at all times Professional Errors and Omissions Liability Insurance. Such
insurance shall provide coverage in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000)
per occurrence. The insurance policy required under this paragraph shall be endorsed to
state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, cancelled, reduced in coverage, or in
limits, except after thirty (30) days prior written notice, by certified mail return receipt
requested, given to the City.
16.2 Workers Compensation Insurance. The Consultant shall obtain and maintain workers
compensation insurance in accordance with section 3700 of the California Labor Code.
17. Non -Exclusive Contract. The City reserves the right to contract for the services listed in this
proposal from other consultants during the contract term.
18. Consultant Invoices and Payment. 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. For on-call services, the City will pay and the Consultant
shall receive compensation as agreed to on a project by project basis. Hourly rates include direct
salary costs, employee benefits, overhead and fee. The City's payment terms are 30 days from the
receipt of an original invoice.
19. Agreement Parties.
City: City Attorney's Office Consultant: Jarvis, Fay, Doporto & Gibson, LLP
City of San Luis Obispo 492 Ninth Street
990 Palm Street Suite 310
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Oakland, CA 94607
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.
20. Incorporation by Reference. City Request for Proposal and Consultant's proposal are hereby
incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement.
3
Packet Pg 213
13
21. 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 City Attorney.
22. Working Out of Scope. If, at any time during the project, the Consultant is directed to do work by
persons other than the City Attorney and the Consultant believes that the work is outside of the scope
of the original contract, the Consultant shall inform the City Attorney immediately. If the City Attorney
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
Attorney shall be at Consultant's own expense.
23. 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.
24. Authority to Execute Agreement. Both
executing this agreement on behalf of each
execute Agreements for such party.
City and Consultant do covenant that each individual
party is a person duly authorized and empowered to
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and
year first above written.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OSI_SPO:
Christine Dietrick,
City Attorney
44
JARVIS, FAY, DOPORTO & GIBSON, LLP:
y.
ra r v j's
Its: FGtY-+Ke p-
Packet Pg 214
13
Meeting Date: 5/17/2016
FROM: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE USE OF FUNDS FOR CONTINUING LITIGATION
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Attorney to execute a Second Amendment to the Legal Services Agreement
with the law firm of Jarvis, Fay, Doporto (Original Agreement dated March 31, 2015; First
Amendment dated August 17, 2015) increasing the not to exceed amount from $50,000 to $75,000,
for the City’s legal defense in the case of Palacios, et al. v. Nielsen, et al., as authorized by the
City Council and reported out of closed session on March 31, 2015.
DISCUSSION
Background
During the City Council Closed Session on March 31, 2015, Council authorized the defense of the
City as a party in San Luis Obispo Superior Court Case No. 15CV-0150, Gil Palacios and Micki
Howard v. Morten H. Nielsen, Hanne Sandsberg, The City of San Luis Obispo and DOES 1 to 25.
That authorization was reported out of closed session in the immediately following open session.
Due to lack of available resources in the City Attorney’s office to take on another in-house
litigation matter, the City Attorney retained Rick Jarvis of Jarvis, Fay, Doporto to defend the City.
The initial estimated defense costs were anticipated to be within the City Manager’s contracting
authority and the Community Development Department had available budget to cover the
expenses. Thus, with City Manager authorization, the City Attorney signed a Legal Services
Agreement (Attachment A) for Jarvis, Fay, Doporto’s work on this matter and $25,000 was
encumbered to the law firm from the Community Development Department budget.
The City filed a demurrer to the original complaint to which the petitioner (plaintiff) responded by
filing an Amended Complaint prior to hearing on the first demurrer. A second demurrer to the
amended complaint addressing new issues then had to be prepared, resulting in greater costs than
were forecast and the need for an amendment to the legal services agreement. A First Amendment
to the Agreement (Attachment B) was authorized via City Manager Report in August 2015
(Attachment C), which increased the cap to $50,000. The City’s second demurrer was heard and
granted, but the court granted leave to amend the First Amended complaint. The petitioner filed a
Second Amended (third) Complaint, to which the City also drafted and filed a demurrer and which
the court again granted after hearing, but with yet another opportunity to amend. On April 27,
after a continuance at the request of the petitioner, a brief hearing on April 13, 2016 and a brief
continuance to accommodate the transition of the file to a new Judge who had to review the past
history of the case, the Court heard and granted the City’s fourth demurrer in this case. This last
grant of the City’s demurrer was without leave to amend, effectively resulting in the dismissal of
the City from the case. As of the date of this report, the case is still within the appeals deadlines
for the petitioner to seek review before the California Court of Appeal and the City does not know
Packet Pg 215
13
whether the petitioner intends to appeal. Unfortunately, the final costs associated with the
unanticipated multiple demurrer brief and hearing preparation have driven legal costs exceeding
the current contract amount and the City Manager’s approval authority. Thus, the City Attorney
is requesting Council approval of a contract amendment to address final costs to date that will
exceed the current contract cap by an anticipated $5,000-$10,000 and to provide funding to oppose
any appeal that may follow.
Current Authorization Request
Based on the original proposal rates submitted by Jarvis, Fay, Doporto and the estimated remaining
hours of work, the City Council is asked to authorize the City Attorney to sign a Second
Amendment (attachment D) to the original Legal Services Agreement increasing the contract value
to an amount not to exceed amount $75,000. The additional $25,000 will be encumbered to Jarvis
Fay from the Contract Services line of the City Attorney budget to cover costs through the
conclusion of the litigation.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City Attorney Department received $50,000 for Contract Services as part of the 2015-2017
Financial Plan Development Services Staffing, Contract Services and CDD Reorganization SOPC
for additional legal services support (Attachment E). The first $25,000 of the SOPC funds was
already encumbered to Jarvis Fay in August 2015 for use in this matter. The remaining $25,000
from the SOPC would be encumbered now to cover the amendment. Staff is hopeful that additional
costs will be limited to costs through the April 27, 2016 hearing and preparation of the final order
and that the matter will conclude far under the amended limit, in which case the remaining funds
will be released for use on other development related legal matters.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Direct funds from another part of the City budget to be used to cover the increase in the
agreement amount.
2. Do not authorize signature of the Second Amendment to the Agreement, the consequences
of which would be to preclude final payment for legal services required to complete the
City’s defense in this matter.
Attachments:
a - Agreement.Jarvis Fay.Palacios
b - First Amend.Agreement.Jarvis Fay.Palacios
c - CMR - Palacios further funding - 2015 08 14
d - Second Amend.Agreement.Jarvis Fay.Palacios
e - 2015-17 SOPC Dev Services Staffing and Contract Services
Packet Pg 216
13
City of San Luis Obispo, City Manager Report
August 5, 2015
Final City Manager Approval Approver Name Date Approved
City Administration Michael Codron August 14, 2015
Reviewer Routing List Reviewer Name Date Reviewed
City Attorney JCD 8/5/2015
Finance & Information Technology mwP 8/7
Community Development Department Djj 08/07
FROM: J. Christine Dietrick Jcd 8/5/15
SUBJECT: Further Funding for Litigation Defense in Palacios v. Nielsen, et al.
Recommendation:
1. Authorize the City Attorney to execute an Amendment to the Legal Services Agreement with
the law firm of Jarvis, Fay, Doporto (Original Agreement dated March 31, 2015) increasing the
not to exceed amount from $25,000 to $50,000, for the City’s legal defense in the case of
Palacios, et al. v. Nielsen, et al., as authorized by the City Council and reported out of closed
session on March 31, 2015.
Summary of Authorization
During the City Council Closed Session on March 31, 2015, Council authorized the defense of
the City as a party in San Luis Obispo Superior Court Case No. 15CV-0150, Gil Palacios and
Micki Howard v. Morten H. Nielsen, Hanne Sandsberg, The City of San Luis Obispo and DOES
1 to 25. That authorization was reported out of closed session in the immediately following open
session.
Due to lack of available resources in the City Attorney’s office to take on another in-house
litigation matter, the City Attorney solicited proposals from two law firms on our current on-call
list, both of which have significant land use, building, and writ experience and have performed
well for the City in the past. Burke, Williams & Sorensen and Jarvis, Fay, Doporto provided
defense proposals and cost estimates. Based on the preliminary case analyses provided by the
two firms (on confidential file in the City Attorney’s office), the City Attorney concluded that
Jarvis, Fay, Doporto had the more directly applicable litigation expertise for this case and
retained that firm.
The initial estimated defense costs were anticipated to be within the City Manager’s contracting
authority and the Community Development Department had available budget to cover the
expenses. Thus, with City Manager authorization, the City Attorney signed a Legal Services
Packet Pg 217
13
Litigation Defense Contract Amendment Page 2
Agreement for Jarvis, Fay, Doporto’s work on this matter and $25,000 was encumbered to the
law firm from the Community Development Department budget.
Due to an Amended Complaint being filed prior to hearing on the first demurrer and the resulting
need to prepare a second demurrer addressing new issues, costs are now close to hitting the total
$25,000 cap in the current contract (approximately $19,500 through June). Additional work was
required to finish the demurrer, analyze the opposition, brief and revise the reply, and argue the
demurrer at hearing. The City received a favorable ruling on August 5, but the Plaintiff was
granted leave to amend the complaint one additional time within the next 30 days. Based on the
original proposal rates submitted by Jarvis, Fay, Doporto and the estimated remaining hours of
work, the City Manager is asked to authorize the City Attorney to sign an Amendment to the
original Legal Services Agreement adjusting the contract value not to exceed $50,000. The
additional $25,000 will be encumbered to Jarvis Fay from the Contract Services line of the City
Attorney budget to cover costs through the conclusion of the litigation. This will come out of the
$50,000 the City Attorney Department received for Contract Services as part of the 2015-2017
Financial Plan Development Services Staffing, Contract Services and CDD Reorganization
SOPC for additional legal services support. We are hopeful that the matter will conclude far
under the new limit, in which case we will release the remaining encumbrance for use on other
development related legal matters.
Attachment:
1. 2015 03 31 - signed LSA - Jarvis Fay.pdf
2. 2015 08 - Jarvis Fay - Amendment to Agreement.docx
Packet Pg 218
13
THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
This Third Amendment to Agreement is made and entered in the City of San Luis Obispo on
___________, 2017, by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, herein
after referred to as City, and JARVIS, FAY, DOPORTO & GIBSON, LLP, a professional corporation,
hereinafter referred to as Consultant.
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, on March 31, 2015, the City entered into an Agreement with Consultant for
professional legal services for its defense in Palacios, et al. v. Nielsen, et al.; and
WHEREAS, work on this matter is not yet complete; and
WHEREAS, the parties seek to modify certain provisions of the Agreement between them.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants
hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. “Section 1. Term” of the Agreement is modified to increase the shall not exceed amount
to $85,000.
2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement, as amended hereby, remain in full force
and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day
and year first above written.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
By:________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
JARVIS, FAY, DOPORTO & GIBSON, LLP
By: ________________________________
Rick Jarvis
Its:
Packet Pg 219
13
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 220
13
Meeting Date: 6/6/2017
FROM: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CONTRACT
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Attorney to execute a First Amendment to the Legal Services Agreement with
the law firm of Hanley and Fleishman, LLP (Original Agreement effective April 1, 2017) adding
a term of 18 months and a not to exceed amount of $108,000.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City Attorney’s Department was recently authorized (attachment C) to execute a month-to-
month agreement (attachment A) with the law firm Hanley and Fleishman, LLP for code
enforcement, development review and other general municipal law support services to facilitate
the efficient and responsive operation of the office, as described in the attached contract.
After evaluating several different service delivery alternatives, contracting for these services was
determined by the City Attorney to be the most efficient use of funds budgeted to the department
to accomplish the goals of improved legal support for code enforcement, development review
and a broad range of issues, while additionally freeing up in-house time to provide greater legal
support and responsiveness on the most significant City projects, pending litigation, election
issues, and Council and advisory body advice and support.
Additionally, as part of the 2016-17 Budget, Council approved the Organizational Efficiency,
Effectiveness & Transparency Initiative SOPC (attachment D), which included $150,000 in
additional temporary staffing dollars each fiscal year, for three years, for legal and administrative
support in the City Attorney’s Department in addition to its three full-time, permanent employees
to address significant increases of volume and complexity of legal services requested of the
office over the past several years. Efficient use of these dollars to date to fund the salaries of a
Temporary, part-time Assistant City Attorney at a significantly discounted hourly rate as
compared to market attorney rates, and a part-time, contract Administrative Assistant I, has left
surplus budget which the City Attorney believes would be best used to further fund the
agreement with Hanley and Fleishman; significantly enhancing the objective of supporting the
varied legal needs of the City in a cost effective and flexible manner.
Contract Amendment
In order to ensure the continued ability of the department to fund the current month-to-month
agreement with Hanley and Fleishman, the addition of a time frame (18 months) and not-to-
exceed amount ($108,000) was deemed necessary. The City Attorney recommends this
amendment (attachment B) as a means to accomplish the goals for which the department has
been given contract and staffing budget. The contract remains terminable for convenience or
Packet Pg 221
14
financial need with 30 days’ notice.
FISCAL IMPACT
With funds already approved in the current budget (Fiscal Year 2016-17), and included in the
proposed two-year financial plan (2017-19), there is no impact of this request.
ALTERNATIVES
Do not authorize signature of the First Amendment to the Agreement, the consequences of which
would be to limit the department’s ability to use the funds in its budget to accomplish the
efficiency and legal support for which it was intended.
Attachments:
a - Agreement Hanley Deputy City Attorney
b - First Amendment Hanley Fleishman
c - City Manager Report Hanley Contract Deputy City Attorney
d - 2016-17 Efficiency SOPC
Packet Pg 222
14
RETAINER
HANLEY AND FLEISHMAN, LLP
Legal Services Agreement
{Municipal Law; Deputy City Attorney Services}
This Agreement made between HANLEY AND FLEISHMAN, LLP ("H&F") and
THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ("City"), sets forth the terms and
conditions under which H&F agrees to provide certain legal services to City and is
intended to meet and fulfill the requirement for a written fee contract under California law.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
LEGAL SERVICES. City retains H&F to serve as a contract deputy city attorney.
As deputy city attorney, H&F will provide general municipal legal services ("Legal
Services") as assigned by the City Attorney, including but not limited to code
enforcement advisory and prosecutorial services, contract drafting and review, special
projects research and analysis, criminal court appearances, ordinance development and
review, program implementation support, election support, land use and development
review, advice and training, and public records act, Political Reform Act and Brown Act
advice and other support as directed by City. Said services shall be provided on an on-
call, as needed basis for a flat fee of $6,000/mo, whether or not firm's generally
applicable hourly rates for service would result in charges in excess of the flat fee. Legal
Services shall not include Council or advisory body support or attendance, nor civil
litigation. To the extent H&F and City are parties to any separate legal services
agreements providing for those legal services excluded from Services hereunder, the
separate agreements shall remain in effect according to their terms.
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ASSIGNMENT
Roy A. Hanley shall serve as deputy city attorney, and he may assign such
matters to other attorneys within H & F as he deems appropriate in consultation with the
City Attorney..
CITY DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE
City designates its City Attorney as its representative under this Agreement. The
designated representative is authorized to assign work to H&F according to the legal
services described above.
Legal Services Agreement 1 San Luis Obispo
Packet Pg 223
14
RESPONSIBILITIES OF H&F AND CITY
RESPONSIBILITIES OF H&F. H&F will perform the Legal Services called for
under this Agreement, keep City informed of progress and developments, and respond
promptly to City's inquiries and communications.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITY. City will be truthful and cooperative with H&F,
keep H&F informed of developments, and timely make any payments required by this
Agreement.
LEGAL FEES AND BILLING PRACTICES
COMPENSATION. City agrees to pay H&F as and for attorneys' fees for Legal
Services, as defined supra, the sum of six thousand dollars ($6,000.00) per month.
TIME. H&F will account for all activities undertaken in providing Legal Services to
City under this Agreement, including, but not limited to, telephone calls relating to City's
matters, attendance at meetings, communications with the City Attorney and Staff,
correspondence, review and drafting papers, and legal research. In no event shall H&F
charge more than the amount stated as Compensation.
COSTS. H&F may, in addition to its base fees, incur various costs and expenses
in performing Legal Services under this Agreement. H&F agrees to absorb all internal
copying and telephone charges. All external costs and expenses will be charged at
H&F's actual cost and shall be payable by City only if the external cost and expense is
pre approved by the City Attorney.
PERIODIC BILLING. H&F will send City periodic statements, not less frequently
than monthly, indicating attorney fees and costs incurred, any amounts applied from
deposits, any current balance owed, a reasonably detailed description of services
performed, and any costs and expenses for which H&F is entitled to reimbursement.
City agrees to pay the balance within fifteen (15) days of billing.
TERM, DISCHARGE & WITHDRAWAL
TERM AND TERMINATION. This Agreement may be terminated by either party
with or without cause at any time upon 30 days' written notice to the other party. In the
event of termination, City shall be responsible only for a pro rata portion of the retainer
and costs incurred as of the effective date of the termination. This Agreement shall
continue until termination or until modified by written Agreement of the parties.
Legal Services Agreement 2 San Luis Obispo
Packet Pg 224
14
OTHER PROVISIONS
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. H&F acknowledges that it and/or its principals
are independent contractors and not employees of the City.
ASSIGNMENT. This Agreement cannot be assigned by either party for any
reason whatsoever without the consent in writing of the other party.
INSURANCE DISCLOSURE. H&F represents and discloses to City that it
maintains professional liability insurance, including errors and omissions coverage.
ARBITRATION. In case any disagreement, difference, or controversy shall arise
between H&F and the City with respect to any matter in relation to or arising out of or
under this Agreement, whether as to the construction or operation thereof, or the
respective rights and liabilities of the City or otherwise, and the parties to the controversy
cannot mutually agree as to the resolution thereof, then such disagreement, difference,
or controversy shall be determined by arbitration under the commercial arbitration rules
of the American Arbitration Association or upon such other rules as the parties may
agree. The submission to arbitration in accordance with the requirements of this section
of any and all agreements, differences, or controversies that may arise hereunder is
made a condition precedent to the institution of any action or appeal at law or in equity
with respect to the controversy involved. The award by the arbitrators shall have the
same force and effect and may be filed and entered, as a judgment of the Superior Court
of the State of California and shall be subject to appellate review upon the same terms
and conditions as the law permits for judgments of Superior Courts.
NON-DISCRIMINATION. H&F agrees that in the provision of services under this
Agreement, it shall not unlawfully discriminate against any individual based on that
individual's race, color, sex, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, cancer-related
medical condition, marital status, physical or mental disability, or on any other basis
protected by California or federal law.
ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire understanding of the
parties regarding their rights and obligations hereunder. Any alleged oral representations
or modifications concerning this Agreement and the subjects thereof shall have no force
or effect unless reduced to a writing signed by both parties.
AMENDMENT. This Agreement may be amended only in writing signed by both
parties.
NOTICES. Notices regarding this Agreement shall be given to the parties at the
following addresses:
Legal Services Agreement 3 San Luis Obispo
Packet Pg 225
14
CITY: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ATTN: City Attorney
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo City, California 93401-3249
H&F: HANLEY AND FLEISHMAN, LLP
Roy A. Hanley
8930 Morro Road
Atascadero, Ca 93422
Effective Date. The effective date of this Agreement shall be
¿Wl I .2017.
Executed this i? day of /U/r; / , 2017 at San Luis Obispo,
California.
California.
HANLEY AND FLEISHMAN, LLP
7 ~" *r /
Roy A. Hanley (J
'hh
Executed this M^ day of frp^l , 2017 at San Luis Obispo,
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ristine DietricKTCity Attorney
Legal Services Agreement 4 San Luis Obispo
Packet Pg 226
14
FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
This First Amendment to Agreement is made and entered in the City of San Luis Obispo on
___________, 2017, by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, herein
after referred to as City, and Hanley and Fleishman, LLP, a limited liability partnership, hereinafter
referred to as Consultant.
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2017, the City entered into an Agreement with Consultant for
professional legal services to serve as a contract deputy city attorney; and
WHEREAS, the parties wish to clarify the term of the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the parties seek to modify certain provisions of the Agreement between them.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants
hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. The “COMPENSATION.” Section is modified to read “City agrees to pay H&F as and
for attorneys’ fees for Legal Services, as defined supra, a sum not to exceed six thousand
dollars ($6,000.00) per month, or $108,000 over the term of the Agreement.
2. The last sentence of the “TERM AND TERMINATION.” section is modified to read
“This Agreement shall continue until termination, for eighteen (18) months from the
effective date of the contract, or until modified by written Agreement of the parties.”
3. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement, as amended hereby, remain in full force
and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day
and year first above written.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
By:________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
HANLEY AND FLEISHMAN, LLP
By: ________________________________
Roy A. Hanley
Its:
Packet Pg 227
14
March 29, 2017
FROM: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney jcd
SUBJECT: Authorization to execute month-to-month contract for Deputy City Attorney
consultant services
RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize the City Attorney to execute a legal services agreement with Hanley and
Fleishman, LLP, for Deputy City Attorney consultant services on a month-to-month basis.
2. Authorize the use of City Attorney: Contract Services budget in the amount of $6,000 per
month as needed and available, up to $48,000.
DISCUSSION
Starting with the City’s 2012-13 Budget, the City Attorney department contract services budget
line (15100-7227) was increased by $25,000 to facilitate code enforcement support for City staff
and prosecution of code enforcement cases in furtherance of the neighborhood wellness Major
City Goal (Code Enforcement SOPC). Since that time, these funds have been used to support the
hiring of contract and temporary staff into the department as those staffing methods were deemed,
at those times, the most efficient way to achieve the originally intended goals.
During the current fiscal year, the City Attorney department contract services budget line (15100-
7227) also includes an additional $25,000 for Development Review Support via a one-time SOPC
approved as part of the 2016-17 Budget. These funds remain largely unused to date. The City
Attorney department, while in clear need of additional staff to support development review, has
found it difficult to keep up with the demands of its workload and also procure any cost effective
contract with an attorney who would support the department in a useful and efficient way without
significant training demands.
At this time, the City Attorney negotiated an opportunity to contract with the law firm of Hanley
and Fleishman, LLP for code enforcement, development review and other general municipal law
services to facilitate the efficient and responsive operation of the office, as described below (also
in the draft agreement):
City retains H&F [Hanley and Fleishman, LLP] to serve as a contract deputy city
attorney. As deputy city attorney, H&F will provide general municipal legal
services (“Legal Services”) as assigned by the City Attorney, including but not
Final City Manager Approval Approver Name Date Approved
City Administration DJJ 04/03/17
Reviewer Routing List Reviewer Name Date Reviewed
City Attorney’s Office jcd 3/30/17
Finance XB 4/3/17
Packet Pg 228
14
Month-to-month contract for Deputy City Attorney consultant services Page 2
limited to code enforcement advisory and prosecutorial services, contract drafting
and review, special projects research and analysis, criminal court appearances,
ordinance development and review, program implementation support, election
support, land use and development review, advice and training, and public records
act, Political Reform Act and Brown Act advice and other support as directed by
City. Said services shall be provided on an on-call, as needed basis for a flat fee
of $6,000/mo, whether or not firm’s generally applicable hourly rates for service
would result in charges in excess of the flat fee. Legal Services shall not include
Council or advisory body support or attendance, nor civil litigation. To the extent
H&F and City are parties to any separate legal services agreements providing for
those legal services excluded from Services hereunder, the separate agreements
shall remain in effect according to their terms.
The City Attorney believes contracting for these services at this time and with this law firm will
simultaneously accomplish the goals of both original SOPCs, and also allow for legal support on
a broader range of issues as deemed necessary by the City Attorney, freeing up in-house time to
provide greater legal support and responsiveness on the most significant City projects.
FISCAL IMPACT
The combined funding in City Attorney department contract services (15100-7227) described
herein is a total of $50,000. Less than $1,300 of that amount has been used to date this fiscal year.
With resources available in existing budget lines, executing the proposed contract will have no impact
on the General Fund.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Do not authorize the execution of the contract. This is not recommended given the current
and anticipated workloads in the City Attorney department. Failing to authorize this contract
will result in slower response times to staff requests and diminished work-product production,
as well as delays in code enforcement filings and development review support.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2012-13 - Code Enforcement SOPC.pdf
2. 2016-17 Development Services SOPC.pdf
3. Draft Legal Services Agreement - Hanley & Fleishman
Packet Pg 229
14
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE – GENERAL GOVERNMENT
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFICIENCY, EFFECTIVENESS & TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE
Summary of Change: Add temporary and ongoing resources in Finance, HR, Administration and City Attorney’s office
to 1) support significant operational process improvements, 2) facilitate the acquisition and implementation of an
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system, 3) continue to respond to increased demands for service in support of
operating departments and the community and 4) implement systems to enhance transparency and accountability.
Fiscal Impact: Ongoing cost of $ 472,545 starting in 2016-17 and one-time cost of $ 2,832,000 in 2016-17.
One-time cost to support the significant operational process improvements and implement the ERP system will continue
through fiscal year 2018-19. Staff requests Council to designate one-time General Fund available balance in the amount
of $2.8 million for this purpose to be allocated in the 2016-19 Financial Plan.
The total one-time cost of this effort is estimated at $4.6 million throughout the three years of implementation. This cost
will be shared between the General Fund and Enterprise Funds and the General Fund portion of the cost is estimated at
$2.8 million. The $1.8 million funded by Enterprise Funds has been included in the Enterprise Fund analyses.
Ongoing costs to support added resources and technology will increase to $514,500 by fiscal year 2018-19 and will be
paid by the General Fund with the Enterprise Funds paying the proportional costs under the Cost Allocation Plan. Once
new business processes are in place, it is anticipated ongoing costs would be approximately $1 million dollars per year
in the 2019-2020 fiscal year. Of that amount, $815,000 would be paid by the General Fund with the remaining amount
covered through the cost allocation plan.
In the long-term, implementation of operational efficiencies through process realignment and implementation of
technological advancements, will result in operational efficiencies, staff expenditure savings (i.e. reduction in use in
temporary employees) and enhanced service levels.
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.
KEY OBJECTIVES
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 Enterprise Resources Planning (ERP1) 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.
1 ERP is a category of software that provides integrated modules to handle financial transactions, purchasing, human resources, payroll
and other related functions.
D-34 Packet Pg 230
14
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE – GENERAL GOVERNMENT
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFICIENCY, EFFECTIVENESS & TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE
EXISTING SITUATION: FACTORS DRIVING THE NEED FOR CHANGE
Implementation of 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.
The GFOA report recognizes that addressing these core issues will take time, a considerable financial investment and a
concerted organizational focus. GFOA recommendations must be phased and the initial funding request includes:
Additional Resources for Finance
1. Temporary Staffing ($638,000)2
1) Temporary staffing for a Project Manager to focus on streamlining business processes, identifying the requirements for
a new ERP system, and managing the implementation of the system.
2) Temporary staffing to provide support through anticipated transitions in the area of advanced accounting.
3) Temporary staffing in the area of payroll and accounts receivable to support role and responsibility clarification as
recommended by GFOA.
2. Regular Staffing ($156,000)
1) Regular staffing to establish a centralized purchasing function that will manage and coordinate all purchasing functions
at the City, including purchasing policies and processes, competitive bidding, p-cards, and contract management. This
should ultimately result in organizational wide improved efficiency as most departments expend considerable resources on
purchasing.
2) Regular staffing, half-time, to provide administrative support to the Finance Department so that technical and
professional staff is relieved of this work. The reason for this request is that administrative tasks are being managed by
accountants and the creation of a separate IT department will require additional administrative support.
3. Foundational Technology Systems ($1,939,000)
1) Acquiring an ERP system will require approximately $2.25 million to purchase. $1.9 million is budgeted for 2016-2017
and then$350,000 would be budgeted in 2018-2019 to align with the timing to implement an HRIS system. Additionally,
there will be one time temporary staffing costs to revise business processes and manage the implementation effort of
$640,000 over three years.
2) Due to the fact that purchase and implementation of a new ERP system is estimated by GFOA to take three years,
$89,000 is requested to purchase an “off the shelf” budget module to reduce the amount of data entry and routine spreadsheet
work necessary to conduct key budgeting functions. Again, implementation of an interim system could save significant
time throughout the City in addition to Finance staff.
2 Costs identified in each heading are for the 2016-2017 fiscal year.
D-35 Packet Pg 231
14
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE – GENERAL GOVERNMENT
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFICIENCY, EFFECTIVENESS & TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE
4. Contract Services ($80,000)
Continued consultation from GFOA will be essential in 2016-17 to ensure implementation of GFOA recommendations
including “quick wins” that will provide relief and improvement as staff works towards the longer term business process
improvement and ERP system implementation.
Additional Resources for Information Technology ($179,500)
The Citywide Technology Strategic plan addressed the need to increase help desk staffing back in 2010. That
recommendation has not yet been implemented and the help desk workload has increased substantially since then. Analysis
of the KBox trouble reporting system indicates that year over year Network Administrators are consistently working the
majority of trouble tickets, which means they aren’t working on critical City IT projects.
The proposal is to add a regular ongoing Customer Services Supervisor to manage the help desk workload and to add
temporary support in GIS and for the help desk to manage service requests. Further, staff that could effectively provide
Help Desk support is currently providing administrative support to IT staff. The Customer Services Supervisor is identified
as a need in the IT Strategic Plan. Adding regular, half time administrative support allows technical resources to focus on
technical work. A shared Administrative assistant is proposed in support Finance and in the new IT Department to relieve
technical staff from doing clerical tasks.
The second component of the request is to convert the existing IT Manager to an IT Director position to oversee the newly
created department. This request is consistent with GFOA’ recommendations and is meant to provide strategic focus,
direction and oversight to the continued maintenance and development of IT systems.
Additional Resources for Human Resources ($256,000)
Human Resources Department has seen a steep increase in the demand for services during the past several years for a variety
of reasons including: 1) An increase in authorized positions and ongoing attrition driving an increase in recruitment and
retention activities, 2) Legislation surrounding leaves of absence and paid sick leave resulting in a higher need to track and
report time, 3) Affordable Care Act driving more tracking to ensure benefits are appropriately offered and increasing
enrollment workload, 4) The City’s commitment to addressing workforce reliability and succession planning efforts through
its Leadership and Learning Academy requiring more planning and administration, 5) Council’s commitment to its Labor
Relations Objectives requiring more sophisticated financial analysis of labor relations effort, 6) Continued management of
the City’s liability and workers compensation programs and costs including ensuring compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act and other legislation, 7) Council’s adoption of a Compensation Philosophy suggesting a regular (every five
year) review of market compensation data. Increased workload has been spread across existing full time staff and recently
very limited temporary staffing has been approved to address increase in classification and recruitment work critical to meet
major city goals. Recruitments have been “paced” according to HR staff capacity, not organizational needs and recruitment
advertising has only been partially funded from HR due to limited operating budget. Focus on important initiatives has
suffered and in some cases, including risk management, only limited progress on Council’s Other Important Objective of
Fiscal Responsibility has been made.
Further, in reviewing Finance recommendations made by GFOA, similarities exist in HR where there is lack of clarity
regarding roles and responsibilities as workload is distributed based on availability and urgency. Human Resources is
dependent upon the outdated financial system for all employee related data and, as GFOA concludes, the functionality of
that system is very limited. Efforts have been made to improve processes and streamline, but these additional stand-alone
systems, reports, and processes require extraordinary efforts to maintain for fundamental information on turnover, time and
cost of hire, status of performance appraisals, etc.
In order for HR to fully participate in the streamlining of processes and implementation of an ERP while meeting the legal
and organizational demands, additional resources are necessary as provided here:
D-36 Packet Pg 232
14
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE – GENERAL GOVERNMENT
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFICIENCY, EFFECTIVENESS & TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE
Additional Resources for HR
1. Temporary Staffing ($206,000)
1)One full-time and one three quarter time Analyst to provide process improvement, systems identification and
implementation, classification and compensation analysis, and recruitment support.
2)One three quarter time Specialist to support recruitment, new hire, onboarding, HR program support, and wellness
coordination.
2. Operating Budget ($50,000)
Based on historical and anticipated recruitments including recommendations from the GFOA report, HR anticipates needing
an additional $50,000 in operating costs in 2016-17 to support centralized recruitment advertising, implementation of
onboarding recommendations resulting from Leadership Lab Project Team work, pre-employment testing, department head
assessment center costs, and a “placeholder” for an update to the City’s Recruitment and Hiring Incentive Program adopted
by Council in 2001.
Additional Resources for City Attorney’s Office ($150,000)
Similarly, the City Attorney’s Office has experienced increased demand to provide legal support with growing volume and
legal complexities of City operations, including: 1) Increased development applications, 2) Environmental review activity,
3) Large project review and negotiations, and project appeals; 4) Increased public works project contracting activity; 5)
Increased support for new program implementation and ordinance development (i.e. Rental Housing Inspection, medical
marijuana, polystyrene, e-cigarettes, sign regulations/zoning code analysis, 6) Anticipated subdivision regulations update,
etc.); 7) Increased code enforcement activity, 8) Municipal code prosecution and coordination with criminal justice and
social services partners; 9) Neighborhood wellness initiatives and evaluation and support of University partnerships; 10)
Public/private partnership negotiations; 11) Drought regulations and impacts analysis; 12) Legal support of
water/wastewater and storm water regulatory analysis and compliance; 13) Personnel actions; and 14) Public Records Act,
Brown Act and conflicts of interest compliance.
While the City Attorney’s Department assesses that additional ongoing regular staffing will be necessary to address
anticipated ongoing workloads (and so an estimated need is included under regular staffing), the current proposal is for
temporary/contract staff funding in the 2016-17 fiscal year to address current needs and to better assess what ongoing needs
will be in the next budget cycle, including the most effective allocation between attorney and support staff. Thus, the City
Attorney’s Department expects to present a more refined final proposal in the 2017-19 financial planning process that will
best address the needs in the context of the broader support function, process and technology realignments that will be
underway at that time.
Additional Resources for Administration ($139,000)
Effective external and internal communication will be critical to success in implementing the changes previously discussed.
In addition, the importance of delivering timely, clear and consistent information to the public from the City has increased
dramatically with the proliferation of digital information channels. This SOPC proposes to retain a local communications
consultant to produce regular communications to the community, coordinate media releases, proactively conduct public
outreach and respond to inquiries.
Today, information management and communication with the community is ad hoc and decentralized, often resulting in
duplication of effort and inefficient use of high level staff time. The addition of this resource will improve the City’s ability
to streamline communication to get important information out to its residents and community members more quickly and,
internally, to ensure effective and efficient exchange of information between City departments and employees. The
consultant will contribute significantly to the City’s efforts to enhance transparency and access to information through
increased use of social media, news features on the City’s website and Channel 20. An important focus of the consultant
team will be to develop the organization’s capacity for effective communications through the development of a
communications plan, protocols, templates, staff training and other foundational projects.
D-37 Packet Pg 233
14
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE – GENERAL GOVERNMENT
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFICIENCY, EFFECTIVENESS & TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE
The addition of a communications consultant will consolidate many of those functions into a single role, creating
efficiencies in the organization and improving our ability to communicate effectively with the public.
Additionally, this SOPC requests funding for the on-going license costs for OpenGov (the software provider for the City’s
online financial tracking tool) and Socrata (the software tool to be used for the City’s performance dashboard). The one-
time costs are to be used as exploratory funding for new open government initiatives as new technology and ideas are
frequently introduced and can be tested as a pilot for future investment.
Original funding for this work came from a one-time carryover from the 2013-14 fiscal year and has since been exhausted
through pilot programs of each application. Ongoing funding is needed to support access to these applications going forward
and ensure the completion of current City Council adopted work plan.
GOAL AND POLICY LINKS
These operating program changes align with the Fiscal Responsibility Philosophy, Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility
Other Important Objective (OIO) and with the Council Policy “Addressing the Long Term Costs” adopted on February 17,
2015 and incorporated into the 2015-2017 Financial Plan. Specifically, the OIO includes “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.”
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.Gather public opinion to establish a baseline for City performance and to determine what information the public is
interested in seeing in a new set of online dashboards.
Implement a system for ongoing tracking, management, and reporting of performance and service metrics.
PROGRAM WORK COMPLETED
Financial responsibility has been a focus for the City for several years now and Council adopted a Financial Responsibility
Philosophy in 2014. However, turnover at the executive level of the Finance and Information Technology Department has
made progress slow. In 2015 the City contracted with the GFOA to conduct an assessment of the Finance Department. In
each of the key recommendations, GFOA identifies “ripple effects” often negative impacts on other parts of the organization.
In other words, issues in Finance “ripple” throughout the organization and impact others by requiring redundant process,
additional work, etc.
As GFOA conducted their assessment and spoke with internal stakeholders throughout the organization, it became clear
that other foundational support departments, primarily IT, HR, Administration and the City Attorney’s office were suffering
from many of the same issues as the Finance department – inadequate systems driving an over-reliance on manual or “side”
systems, complicated business processes, and confusion around assignment of duties as responsibilities and expectations
expanded without additional staff (e.g. new or additional work is given to a person because of availability not skill set or
work flow) and a lack of processes and tools to effectively communicate with the public.
As GFOA recommendations were fleshed out, it became clear that all support departments need to be involved in
implementing recommendations and in expanding them to IT, HR, Administration and the City Attorney’s office. Each
department was asked to assess short-term resources needed to transition to a new “stronger foundational” state as well as
estimate possible ongoing needs.
D-38 Packet Pg 234
14
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE – GENERAL GOVERNMENT
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFICIENCY, EFFECTIVENESS & TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE
The City’s current open government applications include:
- Open City Hall (funded by the Community Development Department)
- NuCivic Open Data Portal (uses open source code and does not require on-going funding)
- OpenGov Financial Dashboard (requesting on-going funding)
- Socrata Performance Dashboard (requesting on-going funding)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
No environmental review or regulatory permits are required.
PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS AND LIMITATIONS
1.Defining and communicating the “why” behind the need. The immediate benefits of overhauling business
practices and implementing an ERP system that include, planning, customization, configuration, testing,
and implementation is significant, and improved efficiency and effectiveness may not be tangible. It will
be important to establish performance measures and metrics so that the purpose, need, functionality, scope
of this project is understood and appreciated even if savings/payback is delayed.
2.Change management. Maintaining high morale and a healthy working environment with the significant
amount of change that the organization will undergo while still providing excellent service to the
community will be challenging. In addition to staying focused on the why and establishing measures of
success it will be important to celebrate successes and note progress.
3.Managing project scope, costs, and expectations. Overhauling business practices and systems is highly
time-consuming –the project is anticipated to take 3-4 years to complete and become fully operational.
Some may push for expanded scope as the project moves forward while others may push to revert back to
old ways. Appropriate planning and reliance on subject matter experts will help avoid pitfalls.
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.
IMPLEMENTATION
See Exhibit A.
KEY PROGRAM ASSUMPTIONS
These changes assume continued support and engagement from every level in the organization including the City Council.
PROGRAM MANAGER AND TEAM SUPPORT
Program Manager:
The Executive Sponsor for this project is the Assistant City Manager who will be supported by the Director of
Finance and a project manager who will be solely dedicated to business process improvements and launching the
ERP finance system.
D-39 Packet Pg 235
14
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE – GENERAL GOVERNMENT
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFICIENCY, EFFECTIVENESS & TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE
Project Team:
The project team is shown in Exhibit B.
Alternatives:
What are the reasonable alternatives to your request? These could include:
1.Continue the Status Quo. Continuing the status quo 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.
2.Defer or Re-Phase the Request. Should this SOPC be deferred, the consequences as outlined in the section
directly above would continue until adequate staffing resources are available and new business processes and
technologies are implemented. The request is appropriately phased with full implementation of systems and
on-going staffing not complete until the 2019-2021 financial plan.
3.Change the Scope of Request. The request has been considered from a holistic approach on the basis that investing in
one support department but not all of them, will not result in a stronger organizational foundation and improved service
delivery, but instead will drive further inefficiencies as not all participants will have the resources required to fully
embrace and implement the required change.
4.Implementation in a Different Way. The request is for temporary staffing with the exception of requests directly
resulting from GFOA recommendations that can be implemented in 2016-17. Estimates of potential ongoing staffing
needs are foreshadowed, but would go through required approvals in subsequent financial plan processes.
5.Existing Program Evaluation. Due to the scope and scale of this effort, redeploying existing resources in
Administration, Human Resources, Finance, and IT is not an option without significantly impacting current
support service levels and risking increased employee turnover and burnout.
OPERATING PROGRAM
The proposed SOPC would provide funding to the following programs 1) Financial Administration, 2)
Accounting, 3) Information Technology, 4) City Attorney, 4) Human Resources, and 5) Administration.
D-40 Packet Pg 236
14
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE – GENERAL GOVERNMENT
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFICIENCY, EFFECTIVENESS & TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE
COST SUMMARY
Uses 2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19 2019‐20 Totals 4 Fys.
Consultant Support
Organizational Consultant 15,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$
Finance System Specifications 65,000$
subtotal:80,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ ‐$ 110,000$
Temporary Staffing
Finance
Business Process/System Integrator 100,000$ 135,000$ 145,000$
Transition Support 40,000$
Accountant 70,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$
City Attorney Department
Contract Legal Support 130,000$ 130,000$ 130,000$
Legal Admin Support 20,000$ 20,500$ 21,000$
Human Resources Department
HR Analyst II 91,000$ 123,000$ 125,000$
HR Analyst I (.75)63,000$ 85,000$ 87,000$
HR Specialist (.75)52,000$ 71,000$ 72,000$
IT
Help Desk & GIS Support 72,000$
subtotal:638,000$ 639,500$ 655,000$ ‐$ 1,932,500$
ERP System
ERP Acquisition 1,900,000$ 350,000$ ‐$
System Integrator 70,000$
Interim Budget System 89,000$ 35,000$ 35,000$
subtotal:1,989,000$ 105,000$ 385,000$ ‐$ 2,479,000$
Recruitment
Human Resources Recruitment Cost 50,000$ ‐$
subtotal:50,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 50,000$
Work Space
Minor Improvements and IT Hardware 75,000$ ‐$
subtotal:75,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 75,000$
ONE‐TIME TOTAL 2,832,000$ 759,500$ 1,055,000$ ‐$ 4,646,500$
D-41 Packet Pg 237
14
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE – GENERAL GOVERNMENT
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFICIENCY, EFFECTIVENESS & TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE
Regular Staffing
Finance Department
Purchasing Supervisor 54,422$ 113,464$ 118,330$ 123,412$
Purchasing Accountant 100,227$ 104,417$ 108,814$ 113,428$
Admin Assistant (.5)34,598$ 35,978$ 37,426$ 38,959$
Information Technology Department
IT Director 35,000$ 45,000$ 50,000$
Customer Service Supervisor 109,701$ 114,607$ 119,751$ 125,168$
Admin Assistant (.5)34,598$ 35,978$ 37,426$ 38,959$
subtotal:333,545$ 439,443$ 466,746$ 489,925$ 1,239,734$
Services
Transparency and Accountability Software 19,500$ 19,500$ 19,500$ 19,500$
ERP Licensing and Support 200,000$
Administrative Support 350,000$
Communications Consultant 119,500$ 119,500$ 119,500$ 119,500$
subtotal:139,000$ 139,000$ 139,000$ 689,000$ 417,000$
ONGOING TOTAL 472,545$ 578,443$ 605,746$ 1,178,925$ 1,656,734$
TOTAL 3,304,545$ 1,337,943$ 1,660,746$ 3,536,775$ 6,303,234$
Sources 2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19 2019‐20 Totals 4 Fys.
One Time Sources
Transit 58,081$ 58,081$ 116,163$
Parking 151,011$ 151,011$ 302,023$
Wastewater 336,871$ 336,871$ 673,743$
Water 336,871$ 336,871$ 673,743$
General Fund 2,832,000$ 48,830$ 2,880,830$
subtotal:2,832,000$ 882,835$ 931,665$ ‐$ 4,646,500$
Ongoing Sources
General Fund 472,545$ 578,443$ 353,509$ 895,983$ 2,300,480$
Parking 42,040$ 47,157$ 89,197$
Transit 21,020$ 23,579$ 44,598$
Wastewater 94,589$ 106,103$ 200,692$
Water 94,589$ 106,103$ 200,692$
subtotal:472,545$ 578,443$ 605,746$ 1,178,925$ 2,835,659$
One Time Total:2,832,000$ 882,835$ 931,665$ ‐$ 4,646,500$
Ongoing Total:472,545$ 578,443$ 605,746$ 1,178,925$ 1,656,734$
Total:3,304,545$ 1,461,278$ 1,537,411$ 1,178,925$ 6,303,234$
D-42 Packet Pg 238
14
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE – FUNCTION UPDATE FOUNDATIONAL POLICIES, PROCESSES, AND SYSTEMS TO INCREASE ORGANIZATIONAL EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS Exhibit A D-43Packet Pg 23914
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE – FUNCTION UPDATE FOUNDATIONAL POLICIES, PROCESSES, AND SYSTEMS TO INCREASE ORGANIZATIONAL EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS Exhibit B D-44Packet Pg 24014
Meeting Date: 6/6/2017
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared By: Aaron Floyd, Water Division Manager
Brigitte Elke, Utilities Business Manager
SUBJECT: 2017 WATER FUND REVIEW AND 2017-18 WATER RATE ADOPTION
RECOMMENDATION
1. Review and approve the 2017 Water Fund Review; and
2. Conceptually approve the 2017-19 Water Fund financials and budget with final action on
June 20, 2017, with the adoption of the City’s 2017-19 Financial Plan; and
3. Adopt a resolution (1) increasing the water base fee and volumetric rates provided there
is no majority protest against such increases; and (2) increasing the water system access
charges for emergency purposes; and
4. Adopt a resolution increasing/decreasing the cost for residential and commercial water
meters.
DISCUSSION
Overview
Managing water utilities has likely never been more complex than 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 of going through the most recent drought, the
way the City administers the business of providing water
services must be critically assessed and debated to develop
appropriate funding stability for the services the Utilities
Department provides.
Background
The City of San Luis Obispo’s Water Fund financials are
recognized as an enterprise fund and its operating, capital
and debt service expenditures are covered by rates and fees
paid for the services it renders. The Water Fund financials
for the upcoming City budget are reviewed and approved by
the City Council together with the City’s overall two-year
Financial Plan.
Currently, the Water Fund collects fees from approximately
15,100 accounts to cover the cost for water services
operation and infrastructure. The Fund is comprised of five
programs (Source of Supply, Utilities Services, Water
Treatment, Water Distribution, and Administration) that support the different elements involved
in providing water services to San Luis Obispo customers.
City Water at a Glance
Programs 5
Employees 28
Water Reservoirs 3
Distribution Pipes 145 miles
Storage Tanks 10
Pressure Zones 16
Water Treated per year
1.9 billion gallons
Packet Pg 241
15
Current Challenges
After six years of drought, California has finally experienced a wet winter. The City’s surface
reservoirs largely recovered and the State rescinded its drought declarati on in April 2017. The
community has proven to be an excellent steward of its water resources, exceeding the required
twelve percent water reduction mandated by the State by eight percent. Water conservation is a
mind set and a way of life for San Luis Obispo and California. For the Water Utility, this means
adjusting to a new reality in which water sales might pick back up during wet years, but will
likely never return to 2013-14 levels from which the reduction was measured. It also highlights
the challenge associated with a water rate structure/revenue plan tied predominantly to the
number of gallons of water sold. Eighty percent of costs associated with running a water utility
are fixed and do not change regardless of how much water is delivered.
Fund Review
The Water Fund Review (Attachment A) presents the Water Fund’s proposed 2017-18 budget,
its work program and capital investments considering continued fiscal uncertainty. Despite the
challenges, the budget process and the allocation of resources keeps the Utilities Department’s
core purpose in mind:
“To provide essential services that support the community’s health, well-being, and quality of
life” Utilities Department Strategic Plan
As a result, it defines the work program with forecasts and financial positions for the upcoming
two years to:
Continue to deliver safe and reliable water services to the community; and
Sustain an ongoing level of capital improvement projects to maintain the
community’s water treatment and delivery infrastructure assets; and
Maintain a positive fiscal position in the Water Fund; and
Maintain sufficient working capital and a revenue plan forecast to position the Water
Fund to secure favorable financing terms for possible debt financing of treatment,
storage, and delivery assets.
The 2017 Water Fund Review provides an in-depth look at changes in financial position, revenue
and operational assumptions, an update on major activities and programs, and incorporates key
financial impacts. To arrive at the proposed budget, the fund analysis looks at the past as well as
into the future to determine the financial resources needed to fulfill all obligations.
Revenues
As the community began responding to California’s drought, water sales declined rapidly. In
order to avoid mid-year rate adjustments, the rate stabilization reserve was used in 2014-15 to
offset the shortfall. With the 2015-17 Financial Plan, in accordance with Proposition 218
notification to the community, Council approved a drought surcharge to counter-act the
reduction of water sales. The surcharge allowed for revenues to be stabilized at 2014-15 levels.
Water Fund revenues are collected from multiple sources, but approximately 90 percent are
Packet Pg 242
15
directly tied to water service charges including the base fee. Another element of water revenues
is development impact fees – costs for water infrastructure improvements that support new
development. San Luis Obispo has been experiencing significant development activity over the
past few years which was reflected in the levels of impact fees collected. However, last fiscal
year as well as in the current fiscal year, impact fee revenues are coming in much lower than the
high of 2014-15. Staff therefore continues the forecast with conservative assumptions relative to
this volatile revenue.
In 2017-18, sales to Cal Poly are expected to remain flat as the University’s effort to conserve
water continues. Sales in future years will most likely increase due to the opening of new
housing projects. This will be analyzed for the revised revenue projections for the 2018 -19
Budget Supplement. Cal Poly pays a portion of the applicable rate as it has its own water supply
in Whale Rock and pays the City for water treatment and distribution only.
The Water Fund’s operating and capital budgets are evaluated by looking at past expenditures
and assessing the upcoming need for infrastructure and the five operating programs that maintain
and service it.
Operating Expenditures
The operating costs include salaries, benefits, contract services, operating material (including
utilities and chemicals), training, and minor capital. They encompass:
● Water Distribution ● Water Treatment Plant
● Water Source of Supply ● Water Administration & Engineering
● Utilities Services
For the upcoming fiscal year, the operating budget also includes an allocati on for one significant
operating program change (SOPC) for continued temporary staffing at the Water Treatment
Plant. The diameter of the Nacimiento pipeline requires water delivery to occur over longer
periods than the standard operational shifts at the Water Treatment Plant. This SOPC provides
continuation of additional staffing needed to receive the City’s entire allocation of water from the
Nacimiento project. These positions provide additional support staff and safety during extended
Packet Pg 243
15
operational hours as well as providing opportunities for succession planning.
Capital Expenditures
The Capital Improvement Project plan addresses the needs of the City’s water infrastructure that
includes the Water Treatment Plant and the system that works to store, pump and distribute water
to the community. On May 5, 2015, the City Council adopted the Potable Water Distribution
System Master Plan that identifies zone consolidations that will ultimately allow a reduction in
needed infrastructure assets. However, to consolidate the system and improve system quality and
efficiencies, several large projects, such as the replacement of Reservoir 2 located at the Water
Treatment Plant and the upgrade of the plant itself, will require significant capital investments.
The Water Distribution system will also see significant investments due to needed upsizing of
pipes and to accommodate pressure zone consolidation.
Debt Obligations.
The Water Fund carries obligations for four debt services includin g the recycled water system.
The debt for the Nacimiento pipeline is carried in the operating program under Source of Supply
Packet Pg 244
15
and therefore not showing under debt obligations. The fund is programmed to seek additional
debt for an energy efficiency project and upgrade of the Water Treatment Plant in 2018-19 and
the replacement of Reservoir 2 in 2019-20. The presented financials include this assumption.
Total Fund Revenue & Expenditures
Below is a comparison of the Fund’s collected or anticipated revenue and the total expenditures.
Fiscal year 2016-17 includes carryover of CIP and encumbered money for contracts that were
budgeted but not expended during fiscal year 2015-16. In 2018-19, the revenue includes
$8,500,000 in debt financing and the corresponding capital expenditure for the Water Treatment
Plant project.
$-
$7,000,000
$14,000,000
$21,000,000
$28,000,000
$35,000,000
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
Revenue & Expenditures
Revenue Expenditures
Proposed Water Rates
Under the City’s water rate structure, bills are based mainly on customer usage and resulting
demand on the water systems. The City currently applies a base fee (minimum charge) and a unit
rate based on the volume of water used. The City applies a two-tier rate structure with water
usage over eight units charged at a higher rate than the first eight units.
Why are Water Rates proposed to be increased?
There are several factors driving the need to increase water rates, including:
1. Cost of a multi-source water supply;
2. Ongoing maintenance and operations costs;
3. Debt covenants;
4. Need to recover fixed costs of operating the water system. Our rate structure is highly
dependent on revenues associated with how much water is sold. Eighty percent of the
costs for providing clean water are fixed. When water use goes down, associated fixed
costs do not.and
5. Declining revenues due to reduced water consumption based on new water use patterns;
Having several sources of water avoids dependence on any one source that may not be available
during a water supply reduction or emergencies. This strategy has served the City well
Packet Pg 245
15
considering recent drought conditions and uncertainties. The City’s reliable multi-source water
supply provides the water needed to achieve the City’s General Plan goals. Maintaining different
types of sources (surface water from Salinas, Whale Rock, and Nacimiento Reservoirs, recycled
water for irrigation, and limited ground water) provides valuable reliability and flexibility.
In addition to water supply, the proposed rates will support
ongoing maintenance and operating programs needed to ensure
that the water treatment and delivery systems meet all federal
and state water treatment regulations and are operated and
maintained to provide safe and reliable service. The fixed cost
to do so is about eighty (80) percent of the water utility’s cost
of service.
Additionally, water rates must provide enough revenue to cover the costs of debt payments.
Because of obligations and covenants to bondholders, the City must maintain a healthy debt
coverage ratio to continue its favorable bond rating which in the short and long run helps
stabilize costs for customers.
Considering the recent winter rains and the recovery of the City’s reservoirs, the Utilities
Director, as authorized by the City Council at the June 2015 fund review, eliminated the drought
surcharge on the base fee in March 2017. The current rate proposal for 2017-18 recommends the
elimination of the drought surcharge on the volumetric rate, but requests an increase of five
percent on the volumetric rates. The third of a successive three-year base fee increase, as directed
by the City Council on March 31, 2015, is also recommended.
PROPOSED WATER RATES FOR 2017-18
Rate Basis Current July 1, 2017
Base Fee $9.98 $12.33
Drought Surcharge $0.74 $0.00
Volume Charge
0 – 8 units $6.92 per unit $7.27 per unit
Tier 1 Drought Surcharge $1.10 per unit none
9+ units $8.65 per unit $9.08
Tier 2 Drought Surcharge $1.37 per unit none
1 unit = 748 gallons
Monthly Residential Water Bill Comparison
Consumption 3 units 6 units 12 units 20 units
Current 34.04$ 58.10$ 114.22$ 194.38$
Proposed 34.14$ 55.95$ 106.81$ 178.45$
Packet Pg 246
15
Proposition 218
Under Proposition 218, property owners and/or customers directly responsible for the payment
of the fee subject to the proposed rate increase may submit a written protest against the proposed
rate increases. The protest must be received by the City Clerk at or before the public hearing on
June 6, 2017, identify what is being protested, and contain the service address and be signed by
the person protesting. The party signing the protest must be listed on the account as the person
responsible for payment of the water bill and/or the property owner. In the event that a protest is
submitted by the owner and by the tenant responsible for payment of the bill, then one valid
protest is counted for the account.
If written protests are filed by a majority (50% + 1), the proposed rate increases may not be
imposed. A majority of approximately 15,100 customers is 7,551. As of May 8, 2017, a total of
425 written protests were received by the Office of the City Clerk. All protests will be validated
regarding property ownership and duplicate addresses.
The City Clerk will provide an updated summary of the protests received at the conclusion of the
Water Fund Review public hearing on June 6, 2017.
OTHER FEE INCREASES:
Water system access charges
Section 13.04.230 of the City’s Municipal Code authorizes the City to impose water system
access charges for some unique circumstances where certain properties in the City do not receive
domestic water service but do have a water line solely for fire protection purposes (i.e.
sprinklers, etc.). Staff recommends that the water system access charge for emergency purposes
be increased from $79.59 to $83.57. This increase reflects the volumetric rate change being
proposed.
Water Meter Charges:
The amount the City charges for its water meters is also being proposed. For clarity, the water
meter fee is not an impact fee. Rather, this amount is the cost the City pays for this piece of
equipment. The proposed increase and decrease is to account for increases and decreases in the
price of equipment.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not applicable to this action.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Do not adopt the proposed water rates. Even if a majority of protests is not received, the
City Council could decide the water rates remain unchanged from current rates. Additionally,
assuming a majority of protests are not received, the City Council could choose to direct staff to
lower the proposed base fee or volumetric fees or both. The rate structure cannot be changed
without a Proposition 218 notification process.
Packet Pg 247
15
In alignment with the City’s fiscal health contingency plan, the proposed rates are the minimum
required to provide debt coverage and see the fund through the upcoming 2017 rate structure
study and another Proposition 218 process. Should Council select this alternative staff would
request conceptual approval of the water fund be delayed until June 20.
2. Do not adopt the new fees for water meters. Should Council choose this alternative, it
would result in cost subsidies or overcharging for services/infrastructure. This Resolution simply
passes on the cost of the services/infrastructure to those receiving those services.
Attachments:
a - 2017 Water Fund Review
b - Water Rate Resolution
c - Water Fixture Charges Resolution
Packet Pg 248
15
WATER FUND
REVIEW
2017
June 6, 2017 City of San Luis Obispo
Utilities Department
Packet Pg 249
15
City of San Luis Obispo 2017 Water Fund
Page 1
TABLE OF CONTENT
I. OVERVIEW
II. Key Assumptions
III. 2017-19 FINANCIAL PLAN
a. Revenue
i. Water Service Charges
ii. Cal Poly
iii. Development Impact Fees
b. Fund Expenditures
i. Operating Programs
ii. Capital Improvement Plan
iii. Debt Service
iv. Fund Summary
IV. MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMS
a. 2016-17 Update
b. 2017-18 and Forecast
V. WATER RATE SETTING
a. Water Rate Structure
Packet Pg 250
15
City of San Luis Obispo 2017 Water Fund
2
b. Proposed Water Rate Changes
EXHIBIT A – FINANCIAL SCHEDULES
A.1 Fund Analysis
A.2 Assumptions for Fund Projections
A.3 Capital Improvement Plan
A.4 Proposition 218 Notification
Packet Pg 251
15
City of San Luis Obispo 2017 Water Fund
Page 3
| The Business of Water
With the arrival of the much‐appreciated rainfall this winter, the City’s three surface water reservoirs began to fill.
Within a few months, the reservoirs were replenished, marking the end of the current drought. For the City, as
the sole water purveyor to the community, this resulted in some short‐term relief, some long‐term perspectives,
and the opportunity to focus on upcoming work efforts. The future can be roughly divided into the categories of
“known” and “lesser known”. The increase in regulatory requirements is a continuing fact of the water industry.
Infrastructure that allows for reliable treatment and delivery of water continues to annually draw nearer to the
end of its functional lifespan. Lesser known, but only in the sense of the impacts it will bring, is the phenomenon
of climate change. We know changes in precipitation patterns will have impacts on the City’s water supplies. We
therefore keep close taps on several climate change models to better inform present decision making. We can be
sure that another drought will come and that we need to be prepared with a resilient and diversified water
portfolio. Expanding of the groundwater program will provide immediate results of more available water, while
exploring opportunities for recycled water expansion. Continued conservation will enable the City to better
understand and fulfill the community’s needs. Finally, as we look to the future, we are positioning the water utility
to realize the use of highly treated wastewater as a new drinking water source.
| Overview
The City of San Luis Obispo’s water services are administered, serviced, and maintained through the Utilities’
Department’s Water Division. The financials are recognized as an enterprise fund as all facets of the operation
and maintenance of capital assets are financed through rates charged for services.
The Water Division is responsible for:
Operating Program Number of
Employees
Core Function
Water Source of Supply This program provides the funding for the City’s three surface
reservoirs: Nacimiento, Salinas, and Whale Rock. Recycled
Water is also included as one of the water sources for
irrigation and 0.7 FTEs are allocated to this effort.
Water Treatment 12 Treating 1.9 billion gallons of raw water annually from three
surface reservoirs.
Water Distribution 12 Maintaining 145 miles of distribution lines, 10 water tanks, 16
pressure zones, 15,1000 water meters, and 2,000 fire
hydrants.
Utilities Services 4 Provides water conservation and customer service assistance
to Utilities’ customers.
Water Administration and Engineering 6.5 Oversight of 34.5 employees, capital projects, engineering,
safety, and overall fund administration.
Packet Pg 252
15
City of San Luis Obispo 2017 Water Fund
4
| Key Assumptions
When preparing the budget, the Water Division analyzes past financial results, reviews upcoming operational and
capital needs, current and future debt obligations to assess the financial position of the fund for its continued
health. The budget prepared for the two‐year financial plan follows a “zero based budgeting” approach,
considering each line item and its future needs anew. Asset condition, infrastructure age, and future capacity
needs are driving factors in determining the Capital Project plan and debt financing evaluations.
The needed revenue is then evaluated based on current rates and income levels, analysis of current water use
and effects on future revenue potential to provide a rate recommendation and possible increases.
| 2017‐18 Financial Plan
REVENUE
As an enterprise fund, the Water Division finances its operation mainly with rates charged for water services.
According to its mandate, rates have to be sufficient to cover operation, capital asset improvements and
maintenance, debt obligations, and appropriate reserve levels to keep the fund healthy and prepared for
unforeseen and future funding needs.
Revenues are collected from multiple sources which include:
Water Service Charges combining a base fee and volumetric charge per unit
Sales to Cal Poly
Development Impact Fees
Miscellaneous charges such as account set‐up fees, late charges, meter sales, and connection fees.
Investment and Property Revenue
As illustrated in this chart, approximately 90% of the fund’s revenue comes from water services charges of which
the base fee amounts to 11.4% of revenue in 2016‐17, growing to 13.75% in 2017‐18.
$‐
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
2015‐16 2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19
Projected
Water Revenue
Investment and Property Revenues Water Service Charges
Water Base Fee Development Impact Fees
Other Revenue Total Revenue
Does not include proceeds from debt financing.
Packet Pg 253
15
City of San Luis Obispo 2017 Water Fund
Page 5
Water Service Charges: Revenue projections for Water service charges are based on a water rate analysis that
includes a review of approximately 15,100 active water accounts (including dedicated irrigation accounts) using
the most recent 12‐month period. The total monthly usage and billed amounts are compared against actual
revenues received for the same period. The data sets are pulled from the City’s utility billing software program to
capture the most recent usage trends by customer account type and by individual residential accounts. Historical
data for all customer types are analyzed to assess revenue stability in the current fiscal year, to forecast usage,
and to gauge the previously forecasted water rates for revenue adequacy in the rate setting process.
As the community began responding to California’s drought, water use declined and the water fund ended the
fiscal year 2014‐15 with a revenue loss of one million dollars. To avoid mid‐year rate adjustments, the rate
stabilization reserve was activated and used to offset the shortfall. With the 2015‐17 Financial Plan, the City
Council approved a drought surcharge to counter‐act the loss in water sales.
Ultimately, the City reduced its water use by 20%, far exceeding the State mandated 12% reduction. The further
downturn in the average winter water use that measures residential indoor water consumption during the winter
months is indicative of a new norm for water use in San Luis Obispo. Though water sales are expected to increase
due to the recent rains, they will likely remain below 2014‐15 levels as water saving devices, drought resistant
landscaping, and a conservation oriented mindset have become a way of life for Californians.
In order to develop a rate structure that considers the new usage patterns and conservation mindset, staff is
embarking on a rate structure study as approved by the City Council on April 18, 2017.
Cal Poly: Revenue projections for Cal Poly are based on the 2012 Agreement between the City and the University.
This agreement set the methodology of the non‐residential rate the University pays to account for the University’s
own water supply in Whale Rock. For 2017‐18, the rate will be 49% of the regular volumetric rate.
Development Impact Fees: These fees become due when new development “buys” into the Water system that
was sized and constructed to accommodate population growth. After the Great Recession, San Luis Obispo
continues to experience a construction boom with unprecedented development activity. However, collection of
impact fees has greatly diminished from a 2014‐15 high of $2,471,502 and the fund analysis takes a conservative
approach as to future income levels based on 2016‐17 collection of $1,031,900 as of April 2017.
$819,477
$2,471,502
$1,542,268 $1,031,900 $800,000
2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17 2017‐18
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Packet Pg 254
15
City of San Luis Obispo 2017 Water Fund
6
Revenue Summary with revised 2016‐17 budget and Financial Plan Assumption
2017‐19
Revenues Budget* Projected
2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19
Investment & Property
Revenues $ 50,000 $ 50,000 0% $ 50,000 0%
Water Service Charges $ 16,673,100 $ 16,255,366 ‐3% $ 16,743,027 3%
Water Base Fee $ 1,904,000 $ 2,234,196 17% $ 2,316,462 4%
Development Impact Fees $ 900,000 $ 800,000 ‐11% $ 800,000 0%
Other Revenue $ 406,000 $ 668,000 65% $ 670,900 0%
Proceeds from Debt $8,500,000
Total Revenue $ 19,933,100 $ 20,007,562 0.4% $ 29,080,389 45%
*as approved at mid‐year
| FUND EXPENDITURES
| Operating Programs
The Water Division’s five operating program costs are summarized below. The summary reflects the net operating
program budget amounts for the 2017‐19 Financial Plan. A rigorous and thorough review of operating cost was
conducted in collaboration with each program supervisor to derive the budget necessary to provide the
community with safe and reliable drinking water.
$‐
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
$18,000,000
Expenditures 2016‐17 Expenditures 2017‐18 Expenditures 2018‐19
Packet Pg 255
15
City of San Luis Obispo 2017 Water Fund
Page 7
Proposed Changes to Operating Programs
There is one proposed significant operating program change for the Water Treatment Plant program to continue
the funding for two temporary employees to process the full allocation of water from the Nacimiento Reservoir.
Due to the smaller diameter pipe size that delivers water from Nacimiento, the Water Treatment Plant must
operate for a longer duration each day. The request is for $130,870 and pursues the following objectives:
Maximize the use and resiliency of the City’s multi‐source water supply;
Maintain operational flexibility; and
Succession planning opportunities for Water Treatment Plant Operators.
The request is for 2017‐18 while staff evaluates the long‐term operational needs of the Water Treatment Plant.
Operating and Maintenance Expenses
The most significant non‐staffing operating costs for water services are: (1) Nacimiento debt and operation cost;
(2) chemicals for raw water treatment; (3) electric utility services for water treatment and distribution; and (4)
cost of service paid to the General Fund.
1. The City of San Luis Obispo’s portion in Nacimiento including its debt obligation is included in the Water
Fund’s operating budget under Source of Supply. The annual payment will amount to:
2017‐18 $7,266,952
2018‐19 $7,390,386
1. Chemicals go out to bid on an annual basis with chemical contracts running from February 1 through
January 31. For budget development purposes, any potential changes to treatment processes are
evaluated and dosage amount for chemicals calculated. The measured chemical quantity is used to
develop the budget.
2. Electric utility rate assumptions, as provided by PG&E, include a rate increase of 5% for both fiscal
years.
3. The cost for General Government is assessed with the City’s annual cost allocation plan and will be
reflected as a transfer between the Water and the General Fund
Expenditures Budget Projected
2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19
Water Admin $ 1,267,924 $ 705,751 ‐44% $ 748,253 6%
Source of Supply $ 9,771,604 $ 9,381,572 ‐4% $ 9,534,626 2%
Water Treatment $ 3,025,277 $ 2,791,977 ‐8% $ 2,770,864 ‐1%
Water Distribution $ 1,419,144 $ 1,835,800 29% $ 1,890,020 3%
Utilities Services $ 896,253 $ 515,893 ‐42% $ 533,834 3%
Total $ 16,380,203 $ 15,230,994 ‐7% $ 15,477,596 2%
Packet Pg 256
15
City of San Luis Obispo 2017 Water Fund
8
| Capital Improvement Plan
The City of San Luis Obispo Water Division maintains a complex infrastructure including:
Water Treatment Plant treating 1.9 billion gallons of raw water from three surface reservoirs
145 miles of water distribution pipes
10 storage tanks, and 16 pressure zones
15,300 water connections
2,000 fire hydrants
Capital expenses are forecast based on infrastructure maintenance and repair history, individual project budget
estimates, regulatory requirements, and projected changes in community demographics. Maintaining the water
system infrastructure, including major equipment upgrades, ongoing treatment processes, technology, and
planning for long‐term infrastructure upgrade and replacement is essential to providing protective and reliable
water services for the community.
Capital Improvement Plan Project Expenses 2017‐22
Project budget estimates in the capital plan forecast include inflationary adjustments assuming a moderate
increase in material costs over time (e.g., price per foot of pipe). The 2017‐22 five‐year CIP program continues
investments in the City’s water infrastructure and begins the pressure zone consolidation per the new water
model findings. Also, included in the capital plan is the large‐scale replacement of water meters and fire hydrants.
A detailed listing of the capital improvement projects can be found in Exhibit A.3.
Packet Pg 257
15
City of San Luis Obispo 2017 Water Fund
Page 9
| Debt Service
The following is a summary of the current debt obligations of the Water Fund. The largest debt obligation which
is its share in Nacimiento is not listed here as it is part of the Fund’s operating budget under Source of Supply.
1. Debt service for 2012 Refunding Water Revenue Bond amounts to $569,600 in 2017‐18 and
$571,600 in 2018‐19.
2. Debt service for the 2006 upgrade of the Water Treatment Plant, the 2006 Water Revenue Bond, is
$1,033,547 in 2017‐18 and $1,035,347 in 2018‐19.
3. Debt service for the repayment of the State Revolving Fund loan for the construction of the Water
Reuse system is $525,456 annually for 2017‐19.
4. Debt service for the Water Fund’s proportionate share of the City’s Public Safety Communications
Center is $28,600 annually for 2017‐19. In addition, the Water Fund’s share of the Public Safety
Radio System Upgrade is $36,800 annually in 2017‐19.
5. Debt service is currently projected in the long‐term financial forecast at $875,000 annually
beginning in 2020‐21 for Ozone Generation and Energy Efficiency Upgrades at the Water Treatment
Plant, based on total project costs currently estimated at $14.3 million. Study and design of the
upgrade will be paid for by the Fund.
6. The 2017‐19 Financial Plan also includes debt service for the replacement of Reservoir 2 to begin
the pressure zone consolidation of the Water Distribution system. The annual debt service cost for
the $10.5 million project is estimated at $642,000 with design being paid for by the fund.
Packet Pg 258
15
City of San Luis Obispo 2017 Water Fund
10
| Fund Summary
The fiscal condition of the Water Fund is currently sound and will remain so through 2021‐22. However, the
long‐range forecast predicts a different outlook beginning in 2022‐23. Reduced revenues due to the recent
drought and the resultant compounding impacts along with significant capital infrastructure needs, require a re‐
evaluation in how to do business long‐term. The long‐term fund analysis also incorporates the debt financing
and resulting debt payments for the replacement of Reservoir 2, and the upgrade to the Water Treatment plant
including an energy efficiency project.
Expenditure by Category
2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19
Budget Budget Budget
Salaries & Benefits $4,169,597 $4,303,352 3% $4,363,850 1%
Operating Expenditures $12,210,606 $10,927,642 ‐11% $11,113,746 2%
Capital Outlay $7,514,756 $3,303,762 ‐56% $9,435,850 186%
Debt Service $2,193,791 $2,194,005 0% $2,955,652 35%
Transfers Out $2,038,842 $2,426,787 19% $2,563,174 6%
Total $28,127,592 $23,155,547 ‐18% $30,432,272 31%
$‐
$7,000,000
$14,000,000
$21,000,000
$28,000,000
$35,000,000
2015‐16 2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19
Revenue & Expenditures
Revenue Expenditures
Packet Pg 259
15
City of San Luis Obispo 2017 Water Fund
Page 11
Expenditure by Function
2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19
Budget Budget Budget
General Government $2,104,229 $2,492,187 18% $2,628,078 5%
Water Source of Supply $11,819,041 $9,907,029 ‐16% $10,060,083 2%
Water Treatment $5,349,678 $5,245,125 ‐2% $14,033,255 168%
Water Distribution $6,503,801 $4,263,300 ‐34% $2,355,020 ‐45%
Utilities Services $925,453 $515,893 ‐ 44% $533,834 3%
Water Administration & Eng. $1,425,389 $732,013 ‐49% $822,003 12%
Total $28,127,592 $23,155,547 ‐18% $30,432,272 31%
| MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMS
2016‐17 Update
1. Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan
The Water Master Plan was received by City Council in May of 2015 and updates the 2000 Water
Master Plan. The Master Plan update includes the development and calibration of a hydraulic
model. The model further helps to identify system improvements to address modern fire and
plumbing codes. In addition, the hydraulic model will inform infrastructure required to serve the
Orcutt and Airport Specific Plan areas, as well as San Luis and Avila Ranch, including distribution
system expansion.
2. Johnson Avenue Waterline Replacement
Construction of the Johnson Avenue Water Main Replacement project was completed in 2016. This
sixteen‐inch waterline is the main transmission pipe from the Mill Street to Bishop Street along
Johnson. The old cast iron pipeline along Johnson had experienced repeated breaks in the past years
causing businesses in the area to be without water. The replacement of the cast iron with a ductile
iron pipe has increased reliability and operational efficiencies for the services in the vicinity, which
includes the hospital along Johnson Avenue.
3. Telemetry System Upgrade Design
An upgrade to the Utilities Department telemetry system for the water distribution and the Whale
Rock water conveyance systems was approved in the 2009‐11 Financial Plan. The telemetry systems
provide oversight and operation of the facilities which are critical for the efficient and reliable
delivery of water. The current systems are over 20 years old and have far exceeded the normal life
for this type of system. The project is currently in construction and is anticipated to be completed
in the of Fall 2018.
Packet Pg 260
15
City of San Luis Obispo 2017 Water Fund
12
2017‐19 and Forecast
1. Water Distribution System Improvements
With the completion of the Water Master Plan in 2015, several necessary projects have been
identified to maintain the water distribution system. These projects will replace over five miles of
the highest priority waterlines. These improvements will help reduce the amount of waterline
breaks related to aging infrastructure and address fire‐flow deficiencies within the system. In
addition, these projects will facilitate the consolidation of water distribution pressure zones, allow
for tanks to be removed, and improve the reliability of the system. Water distribution system
replacement projects over the five‐year capital forecast (2017‐19 through 2021‐22) total $4.2
million or about $2.1 million per year for two years. The remaining three years will be augmented
by zone consolidations in the water system that are a part of the Reservoir 2 replacement project,
and maintenance programs for Terrace Hill and Slack Zone tanks.
2. Water Storage Reservoirs
Reservoir #2, one of the City’s treated water storage reservoirs was also part of the 2015 Water
Master Plan. Initially this project looked at replacing the deteriorating floating covers. It was
determined that the entire distribution system would be better served and reliability improved by
constructing two smaller tanks that could operate independently to allow for maintenance. The
feasibility study is scheduled to be completed in the summer of 2017, and the design phase will
occur in 2017‐18. The capital forecast currently assumes $10.5 million for construction of Reservoir
2 during the 2019‐20 fiscal year.
3. Water Treatment Plant
The Water Treatment Plant serves the drinking water needs of the City, Cal Poly, and the County
Airport. The plant was originally constructed in 1961 and was last upgraded in 2008. The upcoming
energy efficiency project will ensure the plant’s future ability to continue to meet stringent drinking
water quality standards in a cost‐effective manner by upgrading the ozone treatment unit. The
capital forecast currently assumes $14.75 million for construction of the energy efficiency project
during the 2018‐20 fiscal years.
Packet Pg 261
15
City of San Luis Obispo 2017 Water Fund
Page 13
| WATER RATE SETTING
Water Rate Structure
Under the City’s water rate structure, bills are based mainly on customer usage choices and resulting demand on
the water systems. The City currently applies a base fee (minimum charge) and a unit rate based on the volume
of water used. The City applies a two‐tier rate structure with water usage over eight units charged at a higher rate
than the first eight units.
Current policies to guide rate structure setting:
1. Revenue Stability and Predictability
2. Stability and Predictability of Rates
3. Simple and Easy to Understand and Administer
4. Fair Allocation of Total Cost
5. Discourage Wasteful Use
The number of active water accounts changes daily with service turn‐on and turn‐offs due to move‐in and move‐
outs. A large volume of account changes directly correlate with the academic schedules at Cal Poly University and
Cuesta College. Per the last read schedule, the City currently has 15,285 service connections including dedicated
irrigation accounts.
There are a number of factors driving the need to increase water rates, including:
1. Cost of a multi‐source water supply;
2. Ongoing maintenance and operations costs;
3. Debt covenants;
4. Reduced water consumption due to recent drought conditions and adopted water conservation.
Having several sources of water avoids dependence on any one source that may not be available during a water
supply reduction or emergencies. This strategy has served the City
well, provided the current drought conditions and uncertainties. The
City’s reliable multi‐source water supply provides the water needed to
achieve the City’s General Plan goals. Maintaining different types of
sources (surface water from Salinas, Whale Rock, and Nacimiento
Reservoirs; recycled water for irrigation; and limited ground water)
provides valuable reliability and flexibility.
In addition to water supply, the proposed rate increases will support ongoing maintenance and operating
programs needed to ensure that the water treatment and delivery systems meet all federal and state water
treatment regulations and are operated and maintained to provide safe and reliable service. The fixed cost to do
so is about eighty (80) percent of the water utility’s cost of service.
80%
20%Fixed
Cost
Variable
Cost
Packet Pg 262
15
City of San Luis Obispo 2017 Water Fund
14
Additionally, water rates must provide enough revenue to cover the costs of debt payments. Because of
obligations and covenants to bondholders, the City must maintain a healthy debt coverage ratio to continue its
favorable bond rating.
The recent drought showcased the need to do things differently to avoid the ongoing sales/rate cycle the
community is currently subject to. Staff received permission from Council on April 18, 2017, to embark on a rate
structure study to investigate how to best charge for water services. It is under that purview that only a one‐year
rate adjustment is recommended. This deviates from the usual 2‐year rate recommendation.
On April 17, 2017, the City of San Luis Obispo released its Proposition 218 notification (Exhibit A.4). Under
Proposition 218, the owner of record of a parcel or a tenant directly liable for payment of the water may protest
the proposed changes to the water rates presented in the notice. If written protests are filed by a majority (50%
+1) of the affected parcel owners and / or customers, the proposed rate increases will not be imposed. The rates
would revert to the latest adopted rates until a new recommendation can go forth.
PROPOSED WATER RATES FOR 2017
Rate Basis Current July 1, 2017
Base Fee $9.98 $12.33
Drought Surcharge $0.74 Eliminated
Volume Charge
0 – 8 units $6.92 per unit $7.27
Tier 1 Drought Surcharge $0.98 per unit Eliminated
9+ units $8.65 per unit $9.08
Tier 2 Drought Surcharge $1.23 per unit Eliminated
1 unit = 748 gallons
Packet Pg 263
15
WATER FUND ANALYSIS
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Budget (Current)Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget
REVENUES BY TYPE
Water Services Charges 13,000,300$ 14,989,116$ 15,438,789$ 15,901,953$ 16,379,011$ 16,870,382$
Drought Surcharge Volumetric 2,197,800$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Base Fee Revenue 1,772,500$ 2,234,196$ 2,316,462$ 2,401,653$ 2,489,870$ 2,581,219$
Drought Surcharge - Base Fee 131,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Cal Poly Sales 825,000$ 866,250$ 892,238$ 919,005$ 946,575$ 974,972$
Recycled Water 650,000$ 400,000$ 412,000$ 424,360$ 437,091$ 450,204$
Development Impact Fees 900,000$ 800,000$ 800,000$ 800,000$ 800,000$ 800,000$
AB 939 Reimbursement 142,000$ 145,000$ 147,900$ 150,858$ 153,875$ 156,953$
Investment & Property Revenue 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$
Proceeds from Debt 8,500,000$ 16,300,000$
Miscellaneous Revenue *264,000$ 523,000$ 523,000$ 523,000$ 523,000$ 523,000$
TOTAL 19,933,100$ 20,007,562$ 29,080,388$ 37,470,828$ 21,779,422$ 22,406,729$
EXPENDITURE BY CATEGORY
Salaries & Benefits 4,169,597$ 4,303,352$ 4,363,850$ 4,525,990$ 4,628,714$ 4,847,167$
Operating Expenditures 12,210,606$ 10,927,642$ 11,113,746$ 11,168,472$ 11,267,996$ 11,363,188$
Capital Outlay 7,514,756$ 3,303,762$ 9,435,850$ 17,165,287$ 2,785,848$ 2,178,419$
Debt Service 2,193,791$ 2,194,005$ 2,955,652$ 2,955,561$ 3,718,787$ 3,766,571$
Transfers Out 2,038,842$ 2,426,787$ 2,563,174$ 2,280,452$ 2,323,940$ 2,368,297$
TOTAL 28,127,592$ 23,155,547$ 30,432,272$ 38,095,762$ 24,725,284$ 24,523,643$
EXPENDITURE BY FUNCTION
General Government 2,104,229$ 2,492,187$ 2,628,078$ 2,308,845$ 2,352,196$ 2,396,730$
Water Source of Supply 11,819,041$ 9,907,029$ 10,060,083$ 10,138,034$ 10,214,381$ 10,333,324$
Water Treatment 5,349,678$ 5,245,125$ 14,033,255$ 21,953,649$ 6,255,798$ 6,361,811$
Water Distribution 6,503,801$ 4,263,300$ 2,355,020$ 2,310,899$ 4,547,367$ 3,992,037$
Utilities Services 925,453$ 515,893$ 533,834$ 550,909$ 562,462$ 584,754$
Water Administration 1,425,389$ 732,013$ 822,003$ 833,425$ 793,080$ 854,986$
TOTAL 28,127,592$ 23,155,547$ 30,432,272$ 38,095,762$ 24,725,284$ 24,523,643$
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
Working Capital - Beginning 22,571,449$ 14,376,957$ 11,228,971$ 9,877,087$ 9,252,153$ 6,306,291$
Revenues over (under) Expenditure (8,194,492)$ (3,147,986)$ (1,351,884)$ (624,934)$ (2,945,862)$ (2,116,914)$
Working Capital - Year End 14,376,957$ 11,228,971$ 9,877,087$ 9,252,153$ 6,306,291$ 4,189,378$
Operating Reserve 3,683,809$ 3,531,556$ 3,608,154$ 3,594,983$ 3,644,130$ 3,715,731$
Rate Stabilization 1,382,530$ 1,585,537$ 1,633,103$ 1,682,096$ 1,000,000$
Unreserved Working Capital - Year End 9,310,618$ 6,111,878$ 4,635,830$ 3,975,075$ 1,662,162$ 473,647$
A.1
Packet Pg 264
15
A.2
FUND ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS
Categorie 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Cost Inflators
MCI 2.7%2%2%2%2%2%
CCI 3.9%
CPI 3.1%
PPI 1.3%
Salary Increases 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Rate Increases
Base Fee $9.98 12.33 12.70 13.08 13.47 13.88
Base Fee %30.8%23.5%3%3%3%3%
Volumetric 0.0%5.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%
Drought Surcharges
Base Fee 0.74$
Tier 1 1.10$ 1.18$ 1.22$ 1.25$ 1.29$ 1.33$
Tier 2 1.37$ 1.47$ 1.52$ 1.56$ 1.61$ 1.66$
8%3%3%3%3%
Estimated # of meters 15,000 15,100 15,200 15,300 15,400 15,500
Packet Pg 265
15
A.3
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Revised Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget
SOURCE OF SUPPLY
Groundwater
ER 75,000$
Study 70,000$
Design 175,000$
Construction 1,000,000$
Construction Mgmt 150,000$
Water Reuse Automation Improvements 51,980$
TOTAL 1,521,980$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
WATER TREATMENT
PROJECTS
Major Facility Maintenance 35$ 360,000$ 163,000$ 171,000$ 179,000$ 189,000$
Ozone System 191,523$
Enc-Xylem 44,610$
Chemical System 54,000$
Air Compressor & Dryer Maintenance 50,000$
Air Compressor Replacement
Design 10,000$
Construction
Stenner Canyon Waterline Replacement
Study 7,123$
Design 35,000$
Construction 100,000$
Package Thickener 50,000$
Wash water tank #2 - construction
Wash water tank #1
Design 40,000$
Construction 250,000$
Construction Management 25,000$
Reservoir 2 Replacement
Study 110,763$
Design 118,400$ 200,000$
Construction 10,000,000$
Construction Management 500,000$
Energy Efficiency Project
Study 150,000$
Design 300,000$
Hydro & Ozone Construction 8,000,000$ 5,000,000$
Hydro & Ozone Construction Mgmt 500,000$ 800,000$
Forebay and Culvert Rehab
Study
Design
Construction
Construction Mgmt
IT
LAN Tablet System 34,100$
FLEET
Compact Pickup
Service Body Truck 40,000$
General Forecast
TOTAL 721,454$ 850,000$ 8,897,100$ 16,746,000$ 229,000$ 229,000$
Packet Pg 266
15
A.3
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Revised Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget
WATER DISTRIBUTION
PROJECTS
Casa, Stenner, Chorro, Murray, Pacific
Design 150,000$
Construction 1,492,219$ 1,700,000$
Construction Mgmt 150,000$ 170,000$
Mt. View, Hill, West, Lincoln
Design 125,000$
Construction
Construction Mgmt
Craig, Christina, Jaycee
Design 180,000$
Construction 1,800,000$
Construction Mgmt 180,000$
Chorro, El Paseo, El Cerrito
Design 130,000$
Construction 1,300,000$
Construction Mgmt 130,000$
Recycled Water Sys Pilot Study 70,000$
Trench Repairs 299,789$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$
Fredericks Paving 67,781$
Raise Valve Covers 50,765$ 25,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$
Water Meters and Boxes 115,477$ 165,000$ 180,000$ 180,000$ 180,000$ 180,000$
Water Meters and Boxes (from sewer)(82,500)$ (90,000)$ (90,000)$ (90,000)$ (90,000)$
Fire Hydrants 28,348$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$
Water Model Maintenance 20,000$ 20,000$
Wash Water Tank "2 Constr. @ WTP
Foothill/Chorro PRV Replacement
Design 3,751$
Construction 86,950$
Tank Maintenance
Study 13,600$
Design 5$
Construction 900,000$
Construction Mgmt
Terrace Hill Tank Maintenance 65,635$
IT
Telemetry System Provements 50,000$ 50,000$
Telemetry System Upgrade
Design 51,291$
Construction 1,465,613$
Cityworks Upgrade 17,354$
FLEET
Portable Generators
Pickup 70,000$ 35,000$ 35,000$
Extended cab pickup truck 1,079$
TOTAL 5,084,657$ 2,427,500$ 465,000$ 360,000$ 2,555,000$ 1,920,000$
Packet Pg 267
15
A.3
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Revised Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget
UTILITIES SERVICES
Fleet
Compact Pickup 29,200$
TOTAL 29,200$ -$
ADMINISTRATION
Projects
879 Morro Refurbishment 4,447$
HVAC 3,600$ 21,600$
Fleet
Sedan 35,000$
Control Systems Trucks 40,090$
General assumption for future planning
TOTAL 44,537$ 3,600$ 21,600$ 35,000$ -$ -$
SHARED IT
MS Office Replacement 12,400$ 9,620$
Network Firewalls 15,259$
Network Switch Infrastructure Repl.
Radio Handhelds Repl.
S.Hill Radio Site Upgrade 22,662$ 16,363$
Server Operating System 1,848$ 1,848$
Tait Radio System 24,282$
UB System Upgrade 1,667$
UPS Battery Replacement 1,885$ 1,885$ 1,885$
Virtual Private Network Replacment 9,028$
VM Infrastructure 8,945$
VoIP 20,360$
Wireless System Citywide 7,174$
TOTAL 26,745$ 22,662$ 52,150$ 24,287$ 1,848$ 29,419$
COMPLETED PROJECTS
Available Balance 86,183$
GRAND TOTAL - WATER FUND 7,514,756$ 3,303,762$ 9,435,850$ 17,165,287$ 2,785,848$ 2,178,419$
Packet Pg 268
15
The San Luis Obispo City Council will be holding a public hearing to consider
proposed adjustments to water rates. The hearing will be held on:
DATE: JUNE 6, 2017
TIME: 6 :00 PM
PLACE: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
990 PALM STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
The public hearing will cover the proposed rate increases from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 for water
services only. This notice is provided to all property owners and customers who currently receive
water services provided by the City of San Luis Obispo. If adopted, the proposed rate increases will
become effective July 1, 2017.
This Notice of Public Hearing provides information about proposed rate increases to the City’s water service pursuant to the
requirements of California Constitution Article XIII (commonly referred to as Proposition 218). This notice provides information
on (1) the amount of the fee, (2) the reasons for the required rate increases, (3) how water rates are calculated, (4) how
customers can receive more information on the effect of the proposed changes to their water bills, and (5) how to file a protest
regarding the proposed rate increases.
SEWER RATES – INFORMATIONAL ONLY
There will be no changes to the sewer rates. They will remain at 2016-17 levels.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED RATE INCREASE FOR
WATER SERVICE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RATE INCREASE FOR WATER SERVICE 1
SEWER 2016–17 2017–18 VARIANCE
Base Fee $8.57 $8.57 0%
Volumetric Rate $9.44 $9.44 0%
WATER RATES - IS THE DROUGHT OVER?
After a six-year drought, California has finally received rain. Most of the state is no longer under severe
drought conditions. However, several southern parts, including San Luis Obispo’s south county and
Santa Barbara county continue to struggle with water supply. The State Water Board has continued its
drought declaration through May to better gauge the winter season’s total precipitation.
Exhibit A.4
Packet Pg 269
15
2
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR WATER RATES AND DROUGHT SURCHARGES?
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RATE INCREASE FOR WATER SERVICE
HOW CAN I FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THE PROPOSED INCREASES?
To calculate how the proposed rates affect your bill, visit slocity.org/waterservice and click on “Calculate My Bill”.
If you keep your old water bill, you can look back at the units of water used to determine how the proposed rate
will impact your bill. Look up your bill online by going to slocity.org and click “Online Payments”. Please call the
Utilities Department at 805-781-7133 for assistance.
HOW ARE WATER RATES CALCULATED?
Under the City’s water rate structure, bills are based mainly on customer usage and resulting demand on the
water treatment and delivery systems. The City currently applies a base fee for fixed cost and a unit rate based
on the volume of water used. The City applies a two-tier rate structure with water usage over eight units charged
at a higher rate than the first eight units.
The City receives the majority of its water supply
from three surface reservoirs. All three sources have
recovered to 75% to 100% of capacity.
Before the drought, water users consumed roughly
5,100 acre feet of potable water for indoor use and
outdoor irrigation. Through an extraordinary ef fort by
the community, water usage was reduced to 4,100
acre feet of water per year; a stellar 20% reduction
which is 8% over the State-mandated target of 12%.
The City’s water utility is entirely financed by rates
and fees associated with water services. The
utility must generate sufficient income to cover
expenditures, debt service, and maintain a reasonable
operating reserve. Over 80% of its cost is directly
connected to operations and the infrastructure
maintenance required to produce and deliver safe
drinking water. While revenues drop due to reduced
water consumption by the community, the expenses
to maintain the utility remain. To address the loss
of revenue, in 2015, the City enacted a drought
surcharge to cover the revenue gap for the water
utility.
With the winter rainfall, State-mandated emergency
water restrictions should be lifted in May with the City
following suit to declare the end of the City’s water
emergency declaration. In recognition of the health
of the water supply, the City eliminated the drought
surcharge from the base fee in March 2017 (for
February water use) and will eliminate the volumetric
drought surcharge starting July 1, 2017 (which will
apply to June water use).
However, as a result of the severe drought,
community values and state and local laws and policy
governing water use has been significantly altered
resulting in what is anticipated to be a long-term, if
not permanent, change in the community’s water use.
While this shift in our water culture is appropriate and
prepares the City well for water sustainability, the
reduction in water consumption directly impacts utility
revenue based on the method the City charges for its
water ser vices.
The Utilities Department will soon be working with
the City Council on a water and sewer rate structure
study. The study’s purpose is to evaluate what the
best rate structure is to provide sufficient revenue for
each utility in the face of changing climate and water
use. It is critical the City’s rate structures provide
suf ficient funding to continue serving the community
with safe drinking water and sewer service. Because
the outcome of the study will be known by the end
of 2017, a single year rate adjustment, instead of
the usual two-year adjustment, for the water utility
is being proposed at this time. The proposed water
rates take into account the anticipated revenue based
on a decreased per capita water use for the one year
period. Sewer rates will not increase and will remain
at 2016-17 levels for 2017-18.
Exhibit A.4
Packet Pg 270
15
3
WHY ARE WATER RATES BEING INCREASED?
There are a number of factors driving the need to
increase water rates, including:
1. Cost of a multi-source water supply;
2. Major infrastructure repair and replacement
projects;
3. Ongoing maintenance and operations costs;
4. Debt covenants;
5. Drought surcharge elimination/revenue stability; and
6. Community-wide reduction in water consumption.
Having several sources of water avoids dependence
on any one source that may not be available during a
water supply reduction or emergencies. This strategy
has served the City well and kept its water supply
safe during the drought years as it provides valuable
resiliency as proven during this last drought.
In addition to water supply, the proposed rate increases
will support ongoing maintenance and operating
programs needed to ensure that the water treatment
and delivery systems meet all Federal and State water
treatment regulations and are operated and maintained
to provide safe and reliable service. Combined with the
water supply expenditures, the fixed cost accounts for
about 80% of total cost.
Additionally, water rates must provide enough revenue
to cover the costs of debt payments. Because of
obligations and covenants to bondholders, the City
must maintain a required debt coverage ratio to
continue its favorable bond rating.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RATE INCREASE FOR WATER SERVICE
Rate Basis 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 per unit $7.27 per unit 5%
Tier 1 Drought Surcharge $1.10 $0.00
9+ units $8.65 per unit $9.08 per unit 5%
Tier 2 Drought Surcharge $1.37 $0.00
1 unit = 748 gallons
FIXED COST VARIABLE COST
80%
20%
PROPOSED WATER RATES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017-18
MONTHLY RESIDENTIAL WATER BILL COMPARISON
CONSUMPTION 3 UNITS 6 UNITS 12 UNITS 20 UNITS
Current $34.04 $58.10 $114.22 $194.38
July 1, 2017 $34.14 $55.95 $106.81 $179.45
Exhibit A.4
Packet Pg 271
15
PROPOSED RATE INCREASE FOR WATER SERVICE PROTEST FORM
Date:
Name:
(please print)
Service Address:
(please print)
I am protesting the proposed water rate (check the box)
Signature Property Owner Account Holder
Under Proposition 218, if you are the owner of record of a parcel or parcels or a tenant directly liable for payment
of the water bill, you may submit a written protest against the proposed changes to the water rates presented in this
notice. Only one written protest per affected property will be counted towards the majority protest. If written protests
are filed by a majority of the affected parcel owners and/or customers, the proposed rate increases will not be
imposed. Although oral comments at the public hearing will not qualify as formal protests unless accompanied by a
written protest, the Mayor and City Council welcome input from the community during the public hearing.
It is important to follow these instructions in order for your protest to be valid:
1. The protest must be submitted on the form provided and received by the City Clerk at or before the end of
the public hearing on June 6, 2017. Written protests may be mailed or personally delivered to the City Clerk at
990 Palm St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. E-mail and fax protests will not be valid.
2. The box identifying that you are protesting the water rate must be checked.
3. The written protest must contain the service address.
4. The protest must be signed by either the account holder or the property owner of the service address.
The protest form provided below is your official form. It can either be mailed or personally delivered to the City Clerk
at 990 Palm St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.
4 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RATE INCREASE FOR WATER SERVICE
HOW DO I PROTEST THE PROPOSED WATER RATE?
Exhibit A.4
Packet Pg 272
15
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE WATER RATES FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2017-18
WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City of San Luis Obispo to review enterprise fund fees
and rates on an ongoing basis and to adjust them as required to ensure that they remain equitable
and adequate to fully cover the cost of providing services; and
WHEREAS, a comprehensive analysis of Water Fund operating, capital, and debt service
needs has been performed for fiscal years 2017-18 through 2021-22; and
WHEREAS, this comprehensive analysis has been revised based on updated revenue and
expenditure information; and
WHEREAS, current citywide water use information influenced by the recent drought
conditions have been taken into consideration when evaluating consumption and water sales
revenue; and
WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the water service rates necessary to meet system
operating, capital and debt service requirements; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to modify the existing base fee and per-unit water rate,
and eliminate the currently applicable drought surcharge; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was properly noticed and held on June 6, 2017; and
WHEREAS, a majority protest, as contemplated by Article XIII D of the California
Constitution, was not received by the conclusion of the public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Resolution No. 10637 (2015 Series) is hereby rescinded, effective 11:59
p.m. June 30, 2017.
SECTION 2. The water rates set forth in Exhibit “A” are hereby adopted, establishing
water rates effective July 1, 2017.
SECTION 3. The water system access charges for emergency purposes are hereby
increased from $79.59 to $83.57 effective July 1, 2017.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Packet Pg 273
15
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 274
15
Resolution No. _______________ (2017 Series) Page 3
R ______
EXHIBIT A
MONTHLY WATER SERVICE RATES
Proposed Rate Structure July 1, 2017
Base fee (minimum charge) $12.33
Volume Charges
0-8 units $7.27 per unit
9+ units $9.08 per unit
1 unit = 100 Cubic Feet = 748 gallons of water
For service to customers outside the City, the water rates are two times the “in-City” rate.
Recycled water charges are 90% of potable water charges.
Packet Pg 275
15
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. (2017 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, SETTING CHARGES FOR WATER METERS,
CUSTOMER VALVES, AND ADAPTERS
WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City of San Luis Obispo to review charges on an ongoing
basis and to adjust them as required to ensure that they remain equitable and adequate to fully cover the
cost of providing fixtures; and
WHEREAS, based on Assembly Bill 1953, effective January 1, 2010 the amount of lead
in specific plumbing fixtures was reduced from a regulated amount of no more than 8%, to a new
standard not to exceed 0.25%; and
WHEREAS, the City’s costs of procuring compliant equipment have and continue to
increase as a result of the new standard; and
WHEREAS, the charges set forth herein represent the actual costs to the City of procuring
compliant equipment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. The charges set forth in Exhibit “A” are hereby adopted, effective July 1, 2017
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 20th day of June, 2017
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg 276
15
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
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 277
15
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3
R ______
EXHIBIT A
WATER CUSTOMER VALVES, ADAPTERS, METER BOXES AND LIDS CHARGES
Water Fixture Charges
Current Proposed
Customer Valve Costs Customer Valve Costs
1.0 inch $ 104.00 1.0 inch $ 80.00
2.0 inch $ 330.00 2.0 inch $ 265.00
Adapter Costs (Per Pair) Adapter Costs (Per Pair)
1.0 inch service / .75 inch meter $ 19.00 1.0 inch service / .75 inch meter $ 17.80
2.0 inch service / 1.0 inch meter $ 143.00 2.0 inch service / 1.0 inch meter $ 134.00
Water Meter Charges – Material only
Current
Proposed
Water Meter Size Cost Cost
¾" meter $138.55 $198
1" meter $186 $216
2" meter $868.00 $715
3" meter $1,532.00 Time and Material
4" meter $1,755.00 Time and Material
6" meter $2,586.00 Time and Material
Installation cost will be added to the meter material charges identified above based on time and
applicable labor rates.
Packet Pg 278
15
Meeting Date: 6/6/2017
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared By: Dave Hix, Wastewater Division Manager
Brigitte Elke, Utilities Business Manager
SUBJECT: 2017 SEWER FUND REVIEW
RECOMMENDATION
1. Review and approve the 2017 Sewer Fund Review; and
2. Conceptually approved the 2017-19 Sewer Fund financials and budget with final action
on June 20, 2017, with the adoption of the City’s 2017-19 Financial Plan.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City of San Luis Obispo’s Sewer Fund (Wastewater Division) is run as an enterprise fund
and its operating, capital, and debt service expenditures are covered by sewer rates and fees. The
Wastewater Division’s financials for the upcoming City budget, including its 2017-19 work
program, are reviewed and approved by the City Council together with the City’s overall budget
with the two-year Financial Plan.
Currently, the Wastewater Division collects service fees from approximately 2.000 commercial
and 13,000 residential accounts. The Division is comprised of five operating programs that
support the different tasks required to provide services that are highly regulated by state and
federal mandates.
Fund Review
This report presents the Sewer Fund’s proposed 2017-18 budget, its
work programs and capital investments. When beginning the budget
process, analysis for the allocation of resources always keeps the
Utilities Department’s core purpose in mind:
“To provide essential services that support the community’s health,
well-being, and quality of life” Utilities Department Strategic Plan
This results in the work program with forecasts and financial positions
for the upcoming two years to:
Deliver protective, reliable wastewater services to the
community.
Provide investments in capital improvement projects to
maintain the community’s wastewater infrastructure assets;
Maintain sufficient working capital and a revenue plan
forecast to position the Sewer Fund to secure favorable
City Wastewater at a
Glance
Programs 5
Employees 38.5
Sewer Lines 138 miles
Pump Stations 9
Sewage Treated Annually
938 million gallons
Recycled Water produced
annually
64.5 million gallons
Water Returned to Creek*
873.5 million gallons
*As a condition of its recycled water
program, the City is required to release
water into the creek to maintain year-
round habitat for endangered species such
as steelhead trout and red-legged frog.
Packet Pg 279
16
financing terms for Water Resource Recovery Facility Project in the wastewater
capital program forecast; and
Maintain a positive fiscal position in the Sewer Fund.
The attached 2017 Sewer Fund Review (Attachment A), provides an in-depth look at changes in
financial position, revenue and operational assumptions, an update on major activities and
programs (including capital projects), and incorporates key financial impacts. To arrive at the
proposed budget, the fund analysis takes a look at the past as well as into the future to determine
the financial resources needed to fulfil all obligations based on actual revenues and expenditures.
Revenues
The Wastewater Division utilizes a long-range fund analysis to forecast the fiscal impacts of
capital planning, maintenance and operations in order to smooth rate increases to support
upcoming expenses. The Wastewater Division’s long-term fund analysis determines the revenue
needed to cover expenses and obligations assumptions. Revenues are collected from multiple
sources but approximately 95% are directly tied to sewer service provided to the community. San
Luis Obispo has been experiencing very high development activity over the past few years which
was reflected in the levels of impact fees collected. However, last year as well as in the current
fiscal year, impact fee revenues are coming in much lower than the high of 2014-15. Staff
therefore continues the forecast with conservative assumptions as to this volatile revenue.
Sewer service charges are heavily influenced by the residential cap applied to winter water use.
This approach best characterizes the indoor water use because landscape irrigation is typically
off or very low during the winter months. Each year, staff reviews the December, January, and
February consumption with a consultant to establish the applicable cap for the upcoming fiscal
year.
The chart below indicates the influence of the drought on indoor water use as it continues its
Packet Pg 280
16
downward trend for a third consecutive year. It is indicative of the need to look at changing the
way the City charges for wastewater services and review its current rate structure. The fund is
currently healthy and staff recommends leaving rates at 2016-17 levels, despite the anticipated
revenue shortfall of $800,000, in anticipation of the rate structure review currently under way.
The Wastewater Division’s operating and capital budgets are evaluated by looking at past
expenditures and assessing upcoming needs for the infrastructure and the six operating programs.
Operating Expenditures
The operating costs include salaries, benefits, contract services, operating material (including
utilities and chemicals), training, and minor capital. The costs encompass:
● Water Resource Recovery Facility ● Environmental Compliance
● Wastewater Collection ● Water Quality Lab
● Wastewater Administration & Engineering ● Utilities Revenue
Capital Expenditures
The Capital Improvement Project plan addresses the needs of the City’s wastewater
infrastructure and supports its wastewater collection lines, lift and pump stations and the Water
Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF). The WRRF site includes the City’s accredited Water
Annual units used by resident. 1 unit = 748 gallons
Packet Pg 281
16
Quality Lab as well as the production of recycled water. The WRRF’s last major upgrade was
completed 23 years ago. Requirements to fulfill the City’s revised National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit requirements and the capacity for General Plan build-out must now
be addressed. The 2017-22 Capital Plan forecast includes the costs for this $140 million spread
over the years in which the expenditures are anticipated. Contract costs are reimbursed by SRF.
Debt Obligations
The Sewer Fund is currently paying debt service on the Tank Farm lift station and force main
project and the WRRF Energy Efficiency project. It is also still paying on the citywide debt for
the dispatch center and the public safety radio upgrade. The latter will be retired at the end of the
2017-19 Financial Plan period and eliminate $40,000 from the annual debt burden.
The fund has been preparing for the WRRF upgrade’s annual debt service on the $140 million
project. The fiscal forecast incorporates the assumed annual debt payment with project financing
through the State’s Revolving Fund. The annual payment is anticipated to be $6,161,600. A
detailed listing of all debt obligations including future assumptions can be found in Attachment
A – Sewer Fund Review.
Total Fund Revenue & Expenditures
Below is a comparison of the Fund’s collected or anticipated revenue and the total expenditures.
In 2016-17, expenditures include carryover of CIP and encumbrances which were not expended
in prior fiscal years. In 2017-18 and 2018-19 the revenue includes proceeds from debt financing
and the corresponding capital expenditure for the Water Resource Recovery Facility project.
Packet Pg 282
16
Proposed Sewer Rates
According to its mandate, the Wastewater Division must assess service charges to cover its costs
and guarantee the long-term fiscal health of the fund. Considering the current fiscal standing of
the fund and the pending review of the rate structure, staff recommends leaving the rates at 2016-
17 levels. The Proposition 218 notification released on April 17, 2017, included this
recommendation.
PROPOSED SEWER RATES FOR 2017-18
Basis Current Effective
July 1, 2017
Rate Increase No change
Base Fee $8.57 $8.57
Volume
Charge*
$9.44
per unit
$9.44
per unit
*per unit – 1 unit = 748 gallons
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not applicable to this action
ALTERNATIVES
Not applicable to this action
Attachments:
a - 2017 Sewer Fund Review
Packet Pg 283
16
SEWER FUND
REVIEW
2017
June 6, 2017 City of San Luis Obispo
Utilities Department
Packet Pg 284
16
City of San Luis Obispo 2017 Sewer Fund
Page 1
TABLE OF CONTENT
I. OVERVIEW
II. KEY ASSUMPTIONS
III. 2017-19 FINANCIAL PLAN
a. Revenue
i. Sewer Service Charges
ii. Cal Poly
iii. Development Impact Fees
b. Fund Expenditures
i. Operating Programs
ii. Capital Improvement Plan
iii. Debt Service
iv. Fund Summary
IV. MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMS
a. 2016-17 Update
b. 2017-18 and Forecast
V. SEWER RATE SETTING
a. Sewer Rate Structure
Packet Pg 285
16
City of San Luis Obispo 2017 Sewer Fund
Page 2
EXHIBIT A – FINANCIAL SCHEDULES
A.1 Fund Analysis
A.2 Assumptions for Fund Projections
A.3 Capital Improvement Plan
Packet Pg 286
16
City of San Luis Obispo 2017 Sewer Fund
Page 3
The Business of Wastewater
Environmental regulation, infrastructure funding, climate change and succession planning will dominate the
wastewater business in 2017. Increased regulation continues to drive all aspects of the wastewater division for
the unforeseen future. Treatment, collection system operations, and stormwater face new and likely more
stringent requirements. Low interest funding sources for projects have become increasingly more competitive as
wastewater agencies face deteriorating infrastructure and increased regulations. Climate change will become
progressively more important as shifts in temperature and weather patterns create greater impacts on
wastewater operations. Replacing a generation of clean water professionals may prove to be the most taxing
near term challenge with over 50% of the wastewater division being within 3 years of retirement age.
| Overview
The City of San Luis Obispo’s wastewater services are administered, serviced, and maintained through the
Utilities Department’s Wastewater Division. The financials are recognized as an enterprise fund and all facets of
the operation, maintenance of capital assets, and debt obligations are financed through rates and fees charged
for services.
The Wastewater Division is responsible for:
Operating Program Number of
Employees
Core Function
Wastewater Collection 9 Maintaining 138 miles of sewer mains connecting to
approximately 14,500 sewer laterals, 9 pump
stations, and 2,000 manholes.
Water Resource Recovery Facility 13 Treating 938 million gallons of wastewater annually;
producing 64.5 million gallons of recycled water.
Water Quality Lab 7 Analyzing 136,000 water and wastewater samples
for production of recycled water and discharge to
San Luis Creek for maintenance of wildlife habitat.
Environmental Programs 3 Ensuring regulatory compliance with water quality
requirements and safe discharge to the sanitary
sewer system.
Utilities Revenue 2 Responsible for the accurate and timely collection of
revenues that support the City’s water and
wastewater programs and provides customer
interface for billing questions and service requests
Wastewater Administration and
Engineering
6.5 Oversight of 38.5 employees, capital projects, and
overall fund administration including engineering
and safety.
Packet Pg 287
16
City of San Luis Obispo 2017 Sewer Fund
Page 4
| Key Assumptions
When preparing a new budget, the Wastewater Division analyzes the fund’s past financial results, upcoming
operational and capital needs, current and future debt obligations, and the financial outlook of the fund 10
years into the future. The financials prepared for the two‐year financial plan follows a “zero based budgeting”
approach, considering each line item and its future need anew. The condition, infrastructure age, and future
capacity needs are driving factors in determining the Capital Project plan presented in this report and influence
the assessment of debt issuance needs. This forms the base for the evaluation of required revenue and the rate
levels needed to support ongoing operation for wastewater collection and treatment.
| 2017‐19 Financial Plan ‐ Revenue
As an enterprise fund, the Wastewater Division finances its operation mainly with rates charged for sewer
services. Additional revenue is collected for impact fees, and sewer account related charges. In accordance with
its mandate, rates need to be sufficient to cover operation, capital asset improvements and maintenance, debt
obligations, and appropriate reserve levels to keep the fund healthy and prepared for unforeseen and future
funding needs.
Revenues are collected from multiple sources which include:
Sewer Service Charges combining a base fee and volumetric charge per unit
Sales to Cal Poly
Development Impact Fees
Industrial User Fees
Misc. Charges such as account set‐up fees, late charges, meter sales, and connection fees.
Investment and Property Revenue
As illustrated below, approximately 95% of the fund’s revenue comes from sewer service charges of which the
base fee amounts to 11% of revenue. Note: the chart does not include proceeds from debt financing.
$‐
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
2015‐16 2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19
Projected
Sewer Revenue
Investment and Property Revenues Sewer Service Charges
Sewer Base Fee Development Impact Fees
Other Revenue Total Revenue
Packet Pg 288
16
City of San Luis Obispo 2017 Sewer Fund
Page 5
Sewer Service Charges: Revenue projections for sewer service charges are based on a sewer rate analysis that
includes a review of all 14,500 sewer accounts (not including dedicated irrigation accounts) using the most recent
12‐month period (ending March 2017), including monthly usage and invoiced amounts. Historical data for all
customer types and the sewer cap for residential accounts are analyzed to evaluate revenue stability in the current
fiscal year, forecast usage, and to test the previously forecasted sewer rates for revenue adequacy in the rate
setting process.
Due to recent drought conditions and water conservation efforts, the winter water use analysis showed a further
reduction of indoor water use from 4.2 units to 3.6 units per month, effectively lowering the sewer cap applicable
for 2017‐18. This reduction will lower the anticipated Wastewater Division revenue by $800,000. The 2017‐18
sewer cap marks a three‐year downward trend in residential indoor water use. Prior fund assessments assumed
a rate increase of three percent to continue preparing the fund for upcoming capital expenses. However, the
downward trend in water use and connected wastewater production indicates that water saving fixtures and
conservation habits require a new approach to assessing sewer revenue and is indicative that current rate models
might no longer be appropriate for adequate revenue collection.
However, over the last 10 years the fund has been prepared for the needed upgrade of the Water Resource
Recovery Facility. Provided current reserve levels and unappropriated working capital, staff recommends
maintaining sewer service rates at 2016‐17 levels while embarking on a rate structure review to consider different
revenue models. This rate structure review was approved by the City Council on April 18, 2017.
Cal Poly: Sewer service charges for Cal Poly are based on effluent flow trends and the 2012 Agreement between
the City and the University. The University had previously prepaid its share for capital improvements for the sewer
system and was therefore receiving a reduced service rate. In 2016‐17, Cal Poly paid 97% of applicable rate, but
will reach and maintain 100% of the non‐residential rate in fiscal year 2017‐18 as the debt has now been retired.
The University did not indicate interest in prepaying its obligation for the WRRF upgrade to receive a reduced
service rate. It is therefore anticipated that the University will pay 100% of the applicable rate into the future.
Development Impact Fees: These fees become due when new development “buys” into the sewer system that
was sized and constructed to accommodate population growth. After the Great Recession, San Luis Obispo
continues to experience a construction boom with unprecedented development activity. However, collection of
the fees has greatly diminished from a 2014‐15 high of $1,161,746 and the fund analysis takes a conservative
approach as to future income levels based on 2016‐17 collection of $540,000 as of April 2017.
63 64 66 50 44
2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17
$341,902 $1,161,746 $675,489 $376,000 $300,000
2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17 2017‐18
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Packet Pg 289
16
City of San Luis Obispo 2017 Sewer Fund
Page 6
Revenue Summary with revised 2016‐17 budget and Financial Plan Assumption for 2017‐19
Revenues Budget Projected
2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19
Investment and Property
Revenues $ 50,000 $ 50,000 0% $ 50,000 0%
Sewer Service Charges $ 13,675,000 $ 13,675,000 0% $ 14,085,250 3%
Sewer Base Fee $ 1,491,100 $ 1,501,464 1% $ 1,557,100 4%
Development Impact Fees $ 400,000 $ 300,000 ‐25% $ 300,000 0%
Other Revenue $ 329,100 $ 458,000 39% $ 468,071 2%
Proceeds from Debt Financing $ ‐ $ 19,500,000 $ 56,500,000
Total Revenue $ 15,945,200 $ 35,484,464 15% $ 72,960,421 9%
*increased based on an addition of 100 water meters in the system.
Packet Pg 290
16
City of San Luis Obispo 2017 Sewer Fund
Page 7
| FUND EXPENDITURES
| Operating Programs
The Wastewater Division’s five operating program costs are summarized below. The summary of operating
programs reflects the net operating program budget amounts for 2017‐19. A rigorous and thorough review of
operating costs and trends was conducted in development of the proposed budget in collaboration with all
program supervisors to derive the budget necessary to meet regulatory requirements and continue to provide
protective, reliable wastewater services to the community.
Operating and Maintenance Expenses
The operating budgets for the Sewer Fund programs include staffing, benefits, and operational expenses needed
to operate the various systems involved in providing wastewater services to the community.
The most significant non‐staffing operating costs for wastewater services are for:
chemicals for wastewater treatment;
electric utility services for wastewater collection and resource recovery, and;
cost for General Government paid to the General Fund.
1. Chemicals go out to bid on an annual basis with chemical contracts running from February 1 through January
31. For budget development purposes, any potential changes to treatment processes are evaluated and dosage
amounts for chemicals calculated. The measured chemical quantity is used to develop the budget. In the two‐
$‐
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
Expenditures 2016‐17 Expenditures 2017‐18 Expenditures 2018‐19
Packet Pg 291
16
City of San Luis Obispo 2017 Sewer Fund
Page 8
year 2017‐19 Financial Plan, chemical costs are projected at $780,000 in 2017‐18 and $803,400 in 2018‐19.
2. Electric utility rate assumptions, as provided by PG&E, include a rate increase of 5% for the both years of the
Financial Plan for commercial and industrial accounts. However, the Energy Efficiency project the City
completed in collaboration with PG&E is showing the desired effects and energy cost is coming in lower than
previous years. Forecasted expenditures have therefore been stagnant at $600,000.
3. The cost for General Government is assessed with the City’s annual cost allocation plan and will be reflected
as a transfer between the Sewer and the General Funds.
Expenditures Projected
2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19
Wastewater Admin $ 1,369,905 $ 823,258 ‐40% $ 883,953 7%
Wastewater Collection $ 1,093,495 $ 1,126,925 3% $ 1,147,450 2%
Environmental Compliance $ 281,281 $ 265,608 ‐6% $ 281,847 6%
Water Resource Recovery $ 3,738,593 $ 3,812,256 2% $ 3,902,540 2%
Utilities Revenue $ ‐ $ 509,532 ‐ $ 523,510 3%
Water Quality Lab $ 889,545 $ 780,277 ‐12% $ 803,775 3%
Sewer Customer Service $ 503,636 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
$ 7,876,455 $ 7,317,857 ‐7% $ 7,543,075 3%
Packet Pg 292
16
City of San Luis Obispo 2017 Sewer Fund
Page 9
| Capital Improvement Plan
The City of San Luis Obispo Wastewater Division services, maintains, and upgrades a complex infrastructure
including a Water Resource Recovery Facility, 138 miles of sewer lines, 9 pump stations, and 2,000 manholes.
Capital expenses are forecast based on infrastructure maintenance and repair history, individual project budget
estimates, regulatory requirements, and projected changes in community demographics. Maintaining the
wastewater system infrastructure, including major equipment upgrades, ongoing treatment processes, State
regulations, changing technology, and planning for long‐term infrastructure upgrade and replacement is essential
to providing protective and reliable wastewater services for the community.
Table C displays the proposed five‐year Capital Improvement Plan for wastewater services. The proposed Sewer
Fund capital plan includes the beginning of the upgrade of the Water Resource Recovery Facility which is offset
by proceeds from debt financing shown under the revenue tables. The project is needed due to the age of the
facility, the new state and federally mandated requirements for effluent under the City’s National Pollutant
Discharge System Permit and the needed capacity increase to accommodate General Plan build‐out.
The total cost for infrastructure maintenance and improvements is estimated at $22,061,023 in 2017‐18 and
$58,255,380 in 2018‐19.
Capital Improvement Plan Project Expenses
Project budget estimates in the capital plan forecast assume a moderate increase in material costs over time (e.g.,
price per foot of pipe). The 2017‐22 five‐year CIP program continues investments in maintaining the City’s
infrastructure.
It is anticipated the actual cost of completing capital projects will vary from the budgeted cost estimate. These
cost estimates are generally conservative; therefore, it is expected those projects listed for each year will be
completed. Should the bidding climate change dramatically, and costs increase above those estimated, project
timelines will be amended.
$4,090,873
Packet Pg 293
16
City of San Luis Obispo 2017 Sewer Fund
Page 10
| Debt Service
The Sewer Fund’s debt obligations had previously been paid down in anticipation of two projects described in
paragraph 4 and 5. The following is a summary of the current debt payments the fund must secure within its
annual budget.
1. Debt service for the Sewer Fund’s proportionate share of the City’s Public Safety Communications
Center is $32,400 in 2017‐18 and $32,300 in 2018‐19 with a final payment in 2039. In addition, the
Sewer Fund’s share of the Public Safety Radio System Upgrade is $41,800 in 2017‐18 and $41,300
in 2018‐19 with 2018‐19 being the final year for this debt obligation.
2. Debt service for the Tank Farm Gravity Sewer, Lift Station, and Force Main project financed by the
California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank revolving fund loan is $557,500 in 2017‐
18 and $556,500 in 2018‐19. This debt will expire in 2037‐38.
3. Debt service for the Tank Farm Gravity Sewer, Lift Station, and Force Main project portion financed
through the SunTrust private placement is $183,700 in 2017‐18 and $182,700 in 2018‐19
4. Debt service for the WRRF Energy Efficiency Project is $618,400 in 2017‐18 and $618,200 in 2018‐
19. This is a 15‐year debt agreement with final payment in 2028‐29.
5. Debt service for the WRRF upgrade project is currently projected at $6,161,600 annually beginning
in 2021‐22 based on a total project cost currently estimated at $140 million. In 2019‐20 and 2020‐
21, the fund will hold $3,080,800 each year to secure the required final payment to be held in
reserve. This project is scheduled to be financed through the State Revolving Fund with a term of
30 years.
Packet Pg 294
16
City of San Luis Obispo 2017 Sewer Fund
Page 11
| Fund Summary
The fiscal condition of the Sewer Fund is currently sound and will remain so over the next five years. However,
the long‐range forecast paints a different picture. Reduced revenues due to the recent drought and the resultant
compounding impacts along with significant capital infrastructure needs, require a re‐evaluation in how to do
business long‐term. The long‐term fund analysis also incorporates the debt financing for the WRRF Upgrade
which assumes the first full debt payments in 2021‐22.
|
Total Expenditure by Category and Function
Expenditure by Category
2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19
Budget* Budget Budget
Salaries & Benefits $ 4,378,890 $ 4,317,323 ‐1% $ 4,474,321 4%
Operating Expenditures $ 3,497,565 $ 3,000,534 ‐14% $ 3,068,754 2%
Capital Outlay $ 21,366,383 $ 22,061,023 3% $ 58,255,380 164%
Debt Service $ 1,435,589 $ 1,433,709 0% $ 1,431,006 0%
Transfers Out $ 2,081,360 $ 2,494,262 20% $ 2,631,998 6%
Total $ 32,759,788 $ 33,306,851 2% $ 69,861,459 110%
*as approved at mid‐year
$‐
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
$70,000,000
$80,000,000
2015‐16 2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19
Revenue & Expenditures
Revenue Expenditure
Packet Pg 295
16
City of San Luis Obispo 2017 Sewer Fund
Page 12
Expenditure by Function
2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19
Budget Budget Budget
General Government $ 2,155,530 $ 2,568,448 19% $ 2,705,621 5%
Wastewater Collection $ 12,233,582 $ 4,410,586 ‐64% $ 3,488,657 ‐21%
Environmental Compliance $ 281,281 $ 265,608 ‐6% $ 281,847 6%
Water Resource Recovery $ 14,959,338 $ 23,930,619 60% $61,080,717 155%
Utilities Revenue $ ‐ $ 509,532 ‐ $ 523,510 3%
Water Quality Lab $ 889,545 $ 780,277 ‐12% $ 803,775
Sewer Customer Service $ 503,636 $ ‐ ‐ $ ‐ ‐
Wastewater Administration $ 1,736,874 $ 841,781 ‐52% $ 977,333 16%
$ 32,759,788 $ 33,306,851 2% $ 69,861,459 210%
3%
Packet Pg 296
16
City of San Luis Obispo 2017 Sewer Fund
Page 13
| MAJOR ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMS
2016‐17 Update
1. Regulatory Requirements
After meetings and discussions with the City’s water quality consultant and the Central Coast Water Board
(CCWB), a reasonable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) was negotiated.
The WRRF’s NPDES permit was adopted by the CCWB on September 25, 2014 and became effective
December 1, 2014. The requirements set forth in this permit significantly drive the design of the WRRF
upgrade. In April of 2017 bids for the membrane equipment came in within budget, which will facilitate
the next series of design milestones needed for construction of the upgrade project.
2. Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy
The 2015 Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy’s high priority project list is
constantly being updated as projects progress in the design and construction phase. The list includes the
railroad crossings near Jennifer Street, Taft Street, and Johnson Avenue. The Jennifer Street sewer railroad
crossing is currently in construction, and scheduled for completion in late 2017. Other important projects
completed in 2016 included the Grove Street sewer main replacement project, and the Madonna Road
sewer lift station replacement.
3. Sewer Lift Station Telemetry
Replacement of the sewer lift station telemetry equipment located on top of South Hills were completed
in 2016, which will augment the reliability of communications to remote lift station locations. Additional
replacements to the lift station’s communication radios for Margarita, Calle Joaquin, and Foothill are
schedule in 2017‐18 as part of the maintenance program.
2017‐18 and Forecast
1. Calle Joaquin Lift Station
Design, environmental work and land acquisition is scheduled to be completed in the fall of 2017 with
bidding to begin in the winter. Construction should begin in the spring of 2018. This lift station
replacement project includes a new siphon under San Luis Obispo Creek, a gravity sewer line under
Highway 101, a new lift station with emergency power and updated controls. The forcemain component
has already been completed. Construction costs are estimated to be $4.5 million.
2. Water Resource Recovery Facility Upgrade
Design work entered the 60% phase in February with 100% design and bidding documents scheduled to
be complete in the first quarter of 2018. The Water Resource Recovery facility will meet all regulatory
requirements, required future capacity as identified in the General Plan, replace aged infrastructure,
maximize recycled water production and while being an asset to the community. Staff will continue to
focus on the triple bottom line for its facility upgrade, continue pilot testing of various technologies, and
Packet Pg 297
16
City of San Luis Obispo 2017 Sewer Fund
Page 14
explore alternatives. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2018 with a 2022 completion date. Total
project costs are currently estimated at $140 million, including $7.5 million for environmental studies and
design services, $5.7 for program management, and $137.8 million for construction and construction
management related services.
3. Infrastructure Maintenance
Ongoing pipeline replacement for the wastewater collection system and equipment replacement and
process maintenance at the WRRF are required to ensure the efficient and compliant conveyance and
treatment of wastewater. To avoid costly failures or excessive maintenance before replacement, these
projects were identified, evaluated, and prioritized. Sewerline replacement projects over the five‐year
capital forecast (2017‐19 thru 2021‐22) total $6.5 million or about $1.3 million per year. WRRF Major
Maintenance will be minimized during the construction of the upgrade, but will resume in 2022‐23.
4. Margarita, and Foothill Lift Stations
These smaller, aging lift stations have reached the end of their useful lifespan, and will require
replacement. Margarita lift station will be re‐advertised for bids with construction anticipated to begin in
the spring of 2018. The project bids received in 2016 showed in increase in construction costs, which
required value engineering of the improvements to be closer to the budget amounts. Foothill is at 30%
design and will require additional design because of the siting issues. The City and the Madonna Inn are
working in partnership for the replacement of the Madonna Lift Station and transfer of ownership. The
lift stations are planned to be replaced over three years with prefabricated units to accommodate space
restrictions and reduce costs and maintenance. The capital forecast currently assumes $3.8 million to
replace Margarita and Foothill lift station at approximately $1.9 million per station, with Margarita and
Foothill lift stations replacement schedules in 2017‐18 and 2021‐22 respectively.
5. Buckley and Airport Lift Stations
Identified in the Airport Area Wastewater Master Plan Update, the Buckley lift station has been scheduled
for construction to correspond with the predicted development. A feasibility study for the Airport lift
station will completed in 2018 to incorporate the proposed service areas near Fiero Lane that are currently
planned for annexation The Buckley Lift Station is tentatively planned for design in 2018‐19 and
construction in 2019‐20, as part of the San Luis Ranch project’s infrastructure improvement plans. The
Airport Lift station construction is currently outside of the five‐year financial forecast.
The capital improvement plan forecast will be continually adjusted as additional information becomes available
while the projects move toward construction.
Packet Pg 298
16
City of San Luis Obispo 2017 Sewer Fund
Page 15
| SEWER RATE SETTING
Sewer Rate Structure
The City Council approved the residential volume‐based sewer rate structure effective July 1, 2007, delivering a
sewer rate structure with a base fee and volume charge to reflect the individual customer’s usage and associated
sewer charges. The volume‐based sewer rate structure encourages efficient water use and achieves fairness and
equity among residential customer classes — customers with low use pay less and customers with higher usage
pay more. Prior to 2007, the single family residential sewer rate structure was a fixed charge which did not reflect
the individual customer’s water use and associated demand placed on the wastewater system.
Current policies to guide rate structure setting:
1. Revenue Stability and Predictability
2. Stability and Predictability of Rates
3. Simple and Easy to Understand and Administer
4. Fair Allocation of Total Cost
5. Discourage Wasteful Use
With the residential volume‐based sewer rate structure, the individual customer’s metered water use during the
winter months of December, January, and February was determined to be most reflective of the demand placed
on the wastewater system for sewer charges. The water use during the winter months, when outdoor irrigation
should be turned down or off, is averaged to establish a “sewer cap”. Residential sewer caps are implemented
with the first full sewer service period after July 1. Sewer charges are based on actual water used up to the
customer’s sewer cap.
Based on the fund analysis, trends, and current unreserved working capital levels, staff recommends to leave
2017‐18 rates unaltered and revisit rates once the rate structure study has concluded.
PROPOSED SEWER RATES FOR 2017‐18
Rate Basis Current July 1, 2018
Rate Increase No change
Base Fee $8.57 $8.57
Volume Charge $9.44 per unit $9.44 per unit
1 unit – 748 gallons
Packet Pg 299
16
A.1
SEWER FUND ANALYSIS
2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-222016-17 Budget
(Current)Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget
REVENUES BY TYPE
Sewer Service Charges 12,800,000$ 12,800,000$ 13,184,000$ 13,579,520$ 13,986,906$ 14,406,513$
Base Fee Revenue*1,491,100$ 1,501,464$ 1,557,100$ 1,614,724$ 1,674,403$ 1,736,210$
Cal Poly Sales 875,000$ 875,000$ 901,250$ 928,288$ 956,136$ 984,820$
Development Impact Fees 400,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$
Industrial User Charges 81,600$ 85,000$ 85,000$ 85,000$ 85,000$ 85,000$
Investment & Property Revenue 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 *247,500$ 373,000$ 383,071$ 390,732$ 398,547$ 406,518$
TOTAL 15,945,200$ 35,484,464$ 72,960,421$ 51,948,264$ 46,450,992$ 17,969,061$
EXPENDITURE BY CATEGORY
Salaries & Benefits 4,378,890$ 4,317,323$ 4,474,321$ 4,638,290$ 4,816,674$ 4,963,645$
Operating Expenditures 3,497,565$ 3,000,534$ 3,068,754$ 3,114,785$ 3,161,507$ 3,208,930$
Capital Outlay 21,366,383$ 22,061,023$ 58,255,380$ 37,447,876$ 30,910,260$ 4,090,873$
Debt Service 1,435,589$ 1,433,709$ 1,431,006$ 4,468,004$ 4,470,107$ 7,548,013$
Transfers Out 2,081,360$ 2,494,262$ 2,631,999$ #2,350,653$ #2,395,545$ 2,441,334$
TOTAL 32,759,788$ 33,306,851$ 69,861,459$ 52,019,607$ 45,754,093$ 22,252,795$
EXPENDITURE BY FUNCTION
General Government 2,155,530$ 2,568,448$ 2,705,621$ 2,382,861$ 2,427,597$ 2,473,587$
Wastewater Collection 12,233,582$ 4,410,586$ 3,488,657$ 3,990,557$ 3,681,969$ 6,001,884$
Environmental Compliance 281,281$ 265,608$ 281,847$ 325,943$ 300,763$ 309,028$
Water Resource Recovery 14,959,338$ 23,930,619$ 61,080,717$ 42,979,345$ 36,989,582$ 11,031,207$
Utilities Revenue -$ 509,532$ 523,510$ 535,112$ 547,428$ 558,455$
Water Quality Lab 889,545$ 780,277$ 803,775$ 827,969$ 853,980$ 876,174$
Sewer Customer Service 503,636$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Wastewater Administration 1,736,874$ 841,781$ 977,333$ 977,821$ 952,774$ 1,002,460$
TOTAL 32,759,788$ 33,306,851$ 69,861,459$ #52,019,607$ #45,754,093$ #22,252,795$
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
Working Capital - Beginning 28,917,309$ 12,102,721$ 14,280,334$ 17,379,296$ 17,307,952$ 18,004,851$
Revenues over (under) Expenditures (16,814,588)$ 2,177,613$ 3,098,962$ (71,344)$ 696,899$ (4,283,735)$
Working Capital - Year End 12,102,721$ 14,280,334$ 17,379,296$ 17,307,952$ 18,004,851$ 13,721,116$
Operating Reserve 1,991,563$ 1,962,424$ 2,035,015$ 2,020,746$ 2,074,745$ 2,122,782$
Rate Stabilization 683,750$ 683,750$ 704,263$ 725,390$ 747,152$ 769,567$
Unreserved Working Capital - Year End 9,427,408$ 11,634,160$ 14,640,019$ 14,561,816$ 15,182,954$ 10,828,768$
Packet Pg 300
16
A.2
FUND ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS
Categorie 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Cost Inflators
MCI 2.7%2%2%2%2%2%
CCI 3.9%
CPI 3.1%
PPI 1.3%
PG&E 5%5%
Salary Increases 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Rate Increases
Base Fee $8.57$ 8.57$ 8.83$ 9.09$ 9.36$ 9.65$
Base Fee %3.0%3.0%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
Packet Pg 301
16
A.3
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget
WASTEWATER COLLECTION
PROJECTS
Santa Barbara, Osos Trench/Pipe Bursting
Design 60,000$
Construction 780,000$
Construction Management 70,000$
Walnut, Morro, etc cured in place
Design 17,000$
Construction 170,000$
Construction Management 17,000$
Albert, Slack, etc cured in place
Design 38,000$
Construction 380,000$
Construction Management 38,000$
Foothill, etc trench & pipe bursting
Design 10,000$
Construction 100,000$
Construction Management 10,000$
Murray, Chorro, Meinecke, etc trench/sewer repl
Design 37,000$
Construction 370,000$
Construction Management 37,000$
Westmont, Cerro Romaldo, etc trench/pipe bursting
Design 110,000$
Construction 1,100,000$
Construction Management 110,000$
Verde, Luneta, etc trench/pipe bursting 110,000$
Design 1,160,000$
Construction 110,000$
Construction Management
Johnson, Buchon, etc trench & pipe bursting
Design 135,000$
Construction 1,350,000$
Construction Management 135,000$
Foothill Chorro Project
Study 60,000$
Design
Construction
Construction Management
Inflow/Infiltration Reduction 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$
Trench Repair 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$
Raise Manholes 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$
Packet Pg 302
16
A.3
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget
WASTEWATER COLLECTION
PROJECTS
Meinecke to Murray Easement 30,000$
Marsh/Higuera/California
Laguna Lift Station Coating Project
Construction Management
Madonna Lift Station
Design
Margarita Lift Station
Easement Acquisition
Design
Construction
Construction Management
Airport Lift Station
Study
Construction
SCADA Upgrade Integration
IT
Telemetry System Improvements 100,000$ 38,000$
Cityworks Upgrade
FLEET
Hydro-Cleaner 410,000$
Portable Generators
CCTV Van
1 1/2 ton service truck
Portable Sewage Pump
Trailer, Portable Concrete Mixer 25,000$
Caterpillar Mini Escavator 70,000$
TOTAL 2,542,500$ 1,602,000$ 2,070,000$ 1,720,000$ 4,010,000$
Packet Pg 303
16
A.3
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget
WATER RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY
PROJECTS
Major Maintenance
Influent Pump Replacement
WRRF Energy Efficiency
Design
Construction
WRRF Upgrade
Study/Environmental
Program Management 1,500,000$
Design
ammendment to CH2M
Construction 15,000,000$ 50,000,000$ 30,000,000$ 24,000,000$
Construction Management 3,000,000$ 6,500,000$ 5,000,000$ 5,000,000$
Aeration Blower
IT
iFix Replacement 250,000$
HachWims 30,000$
MP2 Replacement
FLEET
Utility Trucks (3)
Sedan
Compact Pick-up 36,000$
Club Cars-Electric 60,000$
Dump truck 150,000$
Forklift 55,000$
TOTAL 19,500,000$ 56,560,000$ 35,280,000$ 29,186,000$ 55,000$
2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
FLEET
Prius 35,000$
TOTAL 35,000$
WATER QUALITY LAB
TOTAL -$
2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget
ADMINISTRATION
Projects
879 Morro Refurbishment
HVAC 3,600$ 21,600$
Fleet
Prius 35,000$
Control System Trucks
General Assumption for Future Planning
TOTAL 3,600$ 21,600$ 35,000$ -$ -$
Packet Pg 304
16
A.3
2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget
Department-Wide Cost
South Hills Radio Site Upgrade & Radio Enhancement 14,923$ 10,775$
Radio Receiver Site at Fire Station
Wireless System Citywide 5,739$
Server Operating System 4,260$
VoIP 15,789$
UB System Upgrade
Network Firewalls 8,918$
Virtual Private Network Replacment 18,958$
Network Switch Infrastructure Repl.
Radio Handhelds Repl.
Tait Radio System 42,960$
MS Office Replacement 13,700$
VM Infrastructure
UPS Battery Replacement 4,345$ 4,345$
TOTAL 14,923$ 71,780$ 27,876$ 4,260$ 25,873$
COMPLETED PROJECTS
Available Balance
GRAND TOTAL - SEWER FUND 22,061,023$ 58,255,380$ 37,447,876$ 30,910,260$ 4,090,873$
Packet Pg 305
16
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 306
16
Meeting Date: 6/6/2017
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Scott Lee, Parking Services Manager
SUBJECT: 2017 PARKING FUND REVIEW
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Review and accept the 2017-19 Parking Fund Analysis; and
2. Conceptually approve the Parking Enterprise Fund budget for 2017-19 with final action on
June 20, 2017 with the adoption of the 2017-19 Financial Plan; and
3. Authorize the release of the Parking Structure Assessment and Maintenance Report Request
for Proposal (RFP); and
4. Introduce an ordinance approving an increase in parking rates for metered spaces effective
January 1, 2018, July 1, 2019 and again on July 1, 2020; and
5. Adopt a resolution approving modifications to parking rates in the parking structures
effective January 1, 2018 and July 1, 2020; and
6. Adopt a resolution to modify/increase the fine and forfeiture amounts for certain parking
violations identified in the resolution effective January 1, 2018.
REPORT IN BRIEF
On April 18th, 2017 the Council received a five year forecast for the Parking Fund as part of the
Strategic Budget Direction (SBD). Since that time, projections for revenues and expenses have
been refined and staff has conducted public outreach for potential changes to rates, fines and
forfeitures that are necessary to help the fund meet is financial obligations.
The SBD identified that working capital for the fund at the end of Fiscal Year 2015-16 was over
$11.9 million. The SBD did not include any proposed rate changes as part of the forecast so the
fiscal outlook for the next five years showed the working capital balance decreasing each year
with a projection of falling to less than one-third the current level in the outmost year (2021-22).
Additionally, the forecast included 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.
At SBD staff requested and council conceptually approved multi-year rate increases be adopted
as part of the adoption of the Financial Plan based on the forecasted expenditures, current level
of rates and projected revenues and working capital balances. Staff recommends that the Council
reviews and adopts the specific rates, fines and forfeitures proposed in this report. This will
reestablish the relationship between certain types of rates (permit v. hourly) and build a working
capital balance necessary for the long-term sustainability and reinvestment in capital projects of
the Parking Enterprise Fund, including but not limited to facilitating the construction of the Palm
Nipomo structure.
In addition to the Palm Nipomo Structure, the Parking Enterprise Fund expenditures include
Packet Pg 307
17
completing for the parking structure assessment program (RFP release being recommended as
part of this item), the Marsh Street Structure Maintenance and the long awaited replacement of
the Parking Access Revenue Control System (PARCS) in our structures.
DISCUSSION
This report presents the final 2 017 Parking Fund Review . It highlights adjustments made to
the Parking Fund Analysis since the preparation of the 2016-17 Financial Plan Supplement, the
2016-17 Mid-Year budget and information given to Council as part of the Strategic Budget
Direction session on April 18, 2017.
Attachment A is the full fund review for the Parking Fund for FY 2016-17. As outlined in the
analysis, the Parking Services Division is able to:
1. Provide parking services and enforcement for the Downtown Area for businesses,
visitors and patrons;
2. Provide parking services and enforcement for residential permit district and other areas
seven days per week;
3. Fund the debt service for the existing parking structures as well as new long-term
financing obligations for the Palm-Nipomo parking structure;
4. Meet bond covenants and debt ratios to maintain a strong bond rating;
5. Fund reserves as set by city policy; and
6. Continue capital maintenance projects to maintain assets and provide high quality:
Major assumptions that effect the position of the fund include:
1. Revenue and expense changes resulting from lot closures in the last two years and
projected construction closure of Lot 14 in FY19-20 (location of the Palm Nipomo
structure).
2. Increased retirement costs commencing on July 1, 2018 due to change in CalPERS
discount rate.
3. The Palm-Nipomo Parking structure is scheduled to begin construction in FY 2019-20
and is partially debt financed at $17.6 million.
4. Proposed Rate and Fine Adjustments as shown in Exhibit B.
The Parking Fund remains in a healthy position with a continued modest year-end working
capital in preparation for commencing with the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. The five-year
forecast indicates the fund is able to support current expenses, capital proj ects, and debt service
obligations while maintaining the minimum 20% reserve level in working capital in accordance
with the City Financial Management policies. However, the base five-year forecast shown as part
of the SBD assumed minimal CIP investment in our facilities. This is anticipated to change as a
result of the Structure Assessment Study. That potential investment, combined with no additional
changes in rates or fine would result in a further annual fund balance decline as expenses exceed
revenues. Reinvestment in these community assets is necessary to support the city’s long-term
fiscal health and sustainability.
This report highlights significant issues that affect the Parking Fund for the FY 2017-19
Financial Plan and beyond including the four CIP projects identified below:
Packet Pg 308
17
1. The Structural Assessment Study will be undertaken in FY17-18 for each of the existing
parking structures and may result in the identification of additional capital projects. The
RFP release is recommended as part of this proposed Council action.
2. The Marsh Street Structure maintenance project is anticipated to begin in FY17-18 and
includes resealing decks, painting, lighting replacement and elevator upgrades to extend
the useful life of the structure.
3. The Payment Access and Revenue Control System (PARCS) replacement of existing
hardware and software operating in the three existing parking structures is allocated in
FY18-19 but design and final costs are currently underway.
4. The Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure is moving forward with environmental review and
additional design work. It is programmed to begin construction in FY19-20 but will
continue to expend funds in FY17-18 for planning and design aspects.
5. Increase in operating costs, including pension changes are forecasted for the fund.
Parking Fund Revenues
Parking Fund revenues will continue to grow due to the economic recovery but will be tempered
by the recent loss of on-street meters and lot closures for the Garden Street and Chinatown
projects. Revenue projections for the five-year forecast assume an annual 1% growth in volume
due to redevelopment activity and other factors.
Historically, the Parking Enterprise Fund has assumed the need for a 10% increase in
revenues every third year (by rate, fines and forfeitures changes), that generally were from
system-wide rate increases. As explained in the SBD, prior increases were delayed or not
implemented due to the recession and other factors. The last major increase was delayed in 2008,
approved in 2011, and was not implemented until 2015.
One-time parking in-lieu fees are projected but the timing and amount is conservative because
the payment is sporadic and the annual operating conditions of the fund do not rely on these fees
for solvency.
Table 1: Parking Fund Revenue Projections – without rate or fine changes
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Mid Year Budget Budget Budget Projected Projected Projected
RevenuesService ChargesParking Meter Collections
Lots 166,200 140,400 141,900 122,900 124,200 125,500
Streets 1,539,100 1,648,100 1,664,700 1,681,400 1,698,300 1,715,200
Parking Structure Collections 1,054,700 1,489,500 1,504,400 1,519,500 1,596,700 1,801,100
Long-Term Parking Revenues 434,900 795,000 802,900 810,900 819,100 827,300
Lease Revenues 500,500 502,900 509,800 512,300 514,800 521,800
Parking In-Lieu Fees 20,200 20,400 20,600 20,800 21,000 21,200
Other Service Charges 100 (89,100) (90,000) (96,400) (97,400) (98,400)
Total Service Charges 3,715,700 4,507,200 4,554,300 4,571,400 4,676,700 4,913,700
Investment & Property Revenues 48,200 48,000 52,000 53,900 24,400 22,700
Fines and Forfeitures 669,900 587,300 593,200 599,100 605,100 611,100
Other Revenues 100 100 100 100 100
Total Revenues 4,433,800 5,142,600 5,199,600 5,224,500 5,306,300 5,547,600
Packet Pg 309
17
Table 2: Parking Fund Revenue Projections – WITH proposed rate and fine changes
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Mid Year Budget Budget Budget Projected Projected Projected
RevenuesService ChargesParking Meter Collections
Lots 166,200 152,500 166,000 142,200 165,400 165,400
Streets 1,539,100 1,787,000 1,942,100 1,942,100 2,252,500 2,252,500
Parking Structure Collections 1,054,700 1,658,900 1,843,300 1,843,300 2,299,100 2,560,500
Long-Term Parking Revenues 434,900 890,800 994,500 1,085,200 1,220,600 1,292,500
Lease Revenues 500,500 500,500 504,900 504,900 504,900 509,400
Parking In-Lieu Fees 20,200 20,200 20,200 20,200 20,200 20,200
Other Service Charges 100 (113,100) (134,600) (134,600) (181,500) (181,500)
Total Service Charges 3,715,700 4,896,800 5,336,400 5,403,300 6,281,200 6,619,000
Investment & Property Revenues 48,200 50,000 55,000 60,300 32,500 36,900
Fines and Forfeitures 669,900 616,500 669,000 669,000 686,500 686,500
Other Revenues 100 100 100 100 100
Total Revenues 4,433,800 5,563,400 6,060,500 6,132,700 7,000,300 7,342,500
WITH PROPOSED RATE AND FINE
INCREASES
Operating Program Expenses
The Parking Fund 's operating program budget was based on the continuation of existing
service levels and staffing, but with reduced contract service expenditures forecast due to
reductions in maintenance for closures of Lots 2, 3, and 11. E xpected increases in retirement
contributions, unfunded liabilities and the effects of the CalPERS discount rate adjustment as
well as the one-time costs related to the citywide Motion Project have been included.
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-2022
Mid Year
Budget
Budget Budget Projected Projected Projected
Staffing *1,031,488$ 1,060,392 1,086,949 1,119,500 1,153,100 1,187,700
Contract Services 920,364 694,525 703,662 724,800 746,500 768,900
Other Operating Expenses 235,459 241,171 249,014 256,500 264,100 272,100
Retirement Contributions 197,795 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
Palm Nipomo Expenses - - - - 46,800 192,400
Total Parking Services 2,385,106 2,215,088 2,280,225 2,371,000 2,512,600 2,747,800
General Government 684,603 622,189 622,189 648,400 649,800 651,300
Total Parking Services Operating 3,069,709 2,837,277 2,902,414 3,019,400 3,162,400 3,399,100
Capital Improvement Plan
The City's 2017-22 five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identifies approximately $25.4
Packet Pg 310
17
million projects to be funded by the Parking Fund. Most notable will be the construction of
the Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure ($23.6M) anticipated to begin in FY 2019-20.
The Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure, when constructed, will permanently remove
approximately 77 metered parking spaces in city-owned surface parking L ot 14 and is
anticipated to create approximately 400-445 parking spaces; for a net total of 323-368
parking spaces. It is assumed that Palm Nipomo will cost $23.6 million to construct; $17.6
million from debt financing or Bond Issuance and the remaining $6 million from the Parking
Fund's working capital.
A Parking Structure Assessment will be completed in FY 2017-18 to determine the condition of
existing three parking structures and make recommendations for long term maintenance to
extend the useful life of each of the facilities. This Assessment may result in additional CIP
projects. No additional funding has been approved or requested, except as shown in Exhibit B -
Proposed Rate and Fine Adjustments.
CIP projects to be completed in the five-year plan include the Marsh Street Structure
maintenance project and the long awaited replacement of the Payment Access and Revenue
Control System (PARCS) operating in the three existing parking structures. These projects are
budgeted to occur in FY17-18 and FY18-19 respectively.
Proposed Revisions to Parking Rates and Fine Amounts
As identified in the April 18th SBD meeting, staff has conducted stakeholder outreach regarding
potential rate changes for the Parking Fund. On May 11, 2017 staff presented potential rate and
fine changes for the fund to the Downtown Association Parking and Access committee. It has
been a number of years since a system wide rate change to reflect increases in expense and
program needs. In general, the committee understood the need for rate changes and accepted that
staff would be recommending to Council to increase rates beginning in FY 2107-18.
Therefore, staff recommends that Council approve a multiple year rate and fine increases
schedule that will assist in stabilizing the Parking Enterprise Fund for the next five-year period.
A multi-year rate plan has been common practice for managing the Parking Enterprise Fund.
These increases are recommended to occur in FY17-18 and continue thru FY20-21. This is
intended to fund anticipated expenses, capital projects, and debt service obligations This is
consistent with the historical trend of rate increases on a three-year cycle and can be tempered
with economic changes in condition if necessary. The following is a description of each parking
type along with the recommended changes for Council consideration:
1. Metered Spaces
Table 3 - Metered Spaces
Meter
Classification
Description Min Time Max
Time
Payment Type
Tier 1 Super Core 30 minute 2 Hour Credit Card, Coin
Tier 2 Core 30 minute 2 Hour Coin, Meter Keys
Tier 3 10-Hour & Permit 5 Minute 10 Hour Coin, Permit
Packet Pg 311
17
Table 4 – Proposed Rate Changes
Type Current Rate Proposed
Jan. 1, 2018
Proposed
July 1, 2019
Proposed
July 1, 2020
Tier 1 $ 1.50 $ 1.75 $ 2.00
Tier 2 $ 1.25 $ 1.50 $ 1.75
Tier 3 $ 0.75 $ 1.00 $ 1.25
Tier 3 monthly/quarterly $40 / $120 $60 /$180 $80 / $240 $90 / $270
Continued differential costs between the Tier 1 and Tier 2 meter rates and hourly
structure rates will continue to push increased usage of the parking structures and
increase turnover in the on-street meter spaces. Additionally, the rate increases help offset
the cost of providing the convenience of credit card acceptance.
2. Parking Structures - hourly & monthly
The last rate enhancement in the parking structures was approved in 2011 but the
implementation was delayed until 2015 when it was increased from $.75 to $1.00 per
hour. The "first 60 minutes free" provision of the structures is proposed as an ongoing
practice for the time period in question to allow free short duration visits to Downtown.
Proposed parking structure rate changes:
a. Increases Effective January 1, 2018:
1. Hourly rate: $1.00 per hour to $1.25 per hour
2. Daily maximum rate: $10.00 to $12.50
3. Structure validation booklets: $60 for 100 hours to $75 for 100 hours
4. Proxcards: Increase all structures from $225 per quarter to $255 per quarter
5. DROP Program (overnight): Increase from $300 per quarter to $375 per quarter
b. Increase Effective July 1, 2020:
1. Hourly rate: $1.25 per hour to $1.50 per hour
2. Daily maximum rate: $12.50 to $15.00
3. Structure validation booklets: $75 for 100 hours to $90 for 100 hours
4. Proxcards: Increase all structures from $255 per quarter to $285 per quarter
5. DROP Program (overnight): Increase from $375 per quarter to $435 per quarter
6. Establish the Palm Nipomo Structure rates as:
a. Hourly rate: $1.00 per hour
b. Daily maximum rate: $10
c. Proxcards: $225 per quarter
d. DROP program at Palm/Nipomo only: $375 per quarter
Packet Pg 312
17
3. Annual Residential Permits
Type Current
Rate
Proposed
Jan. 1, 2018
Proposed
July 1, 2020
Residential Parking Permit $ 10 $ 15 $ 20
DT Residential Permit $ 10 $ 15 $ 20
4. Other:
Validation tokens and stickers are available to businesses only in blocks of 100. These
blocks have been offered at a forty percent (40%) discount off the hourly structured
parking rates. Therefore, it is being proposed that the discount be set at forty percent
(40%) and adjust automatically to the then prevailing rate in the structures.
5. Parking Fines:
Parking Fines are being proposed to increase for five (5) specific violations only. These
violations should be increased at the same time as they are comparable violations, and
generally occur in the same areas so this will discourage vehicles from finding a “less
expensive violation” for essentially the same infraction.
Violation Current Fine Amount Proposed Jan. 1, 2018
Expired Meter $ 33 $ 40
Overtime Parking $ 43 $ 50
Passenger Loading Zone $ 33 $ 40
Parking Space Marking $ 33 $ 40
No Permit (parking lot) $ 38 $ 45
Credit Card Acceptance in Parking Structures and Meters
Beginning in late 2016, Parking Services began accepting credit cards at the 919 Palm Street
structure. Plans are underway to expand the acceptance of credit cards at all locations and
expected to be by the end of FY16-17.
Parking Services is looking to expand the number of credit card capable meters deployed
throughout the city. The additional capital and ongoing costs are not projected in the base
forecast operating and CIP budget. These additional costs are included in additional CIP
Projects included in Exhibit B - Proposed Parking Rate and Fine Adjustments as the revenue
from the rate adjustments would be used to fund these additional capital expenditures.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Adoption of a budget is not a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act.
FISCAL IMPACT
Attached to this report is a detailed analysis of the Parking Fund revenues, expenditures,
and changes in financial position. The 2017 Parking Fund Analysis includes the key
assumptions used in preparing Fund projections. W ith the proposed rate and fine increases, the
Packet Pg 313
17
analysis presented to Council in this report and in the Preliminary 2017-19 Financial Plan,
demonstrate sufficient funds to support operations, capital projects, and debt service needs
of the Parking Fund including the CIP projects yet to be specifically identified.
ALTERNATIVES
Council, at its discretion, can adopt all or part of the requested rate and fine increases or
proposed capital improvement projects, presented in this report.
Attachments:
a - 2017-19 Pkg Fund Analysis
b - Structure Assessment RFP
c - Ordinance - Meter Rates - 2017
d - Resolution - Parking Structure Rates - 2017
e - Resolution - Modifying Parking Citation Fines - 2017
Packet Pg 314
17
ATTACHMENT A
Parking Enterprise Fund
2017-19 Financial Plan
Parking Enterprise Fund
2017 Fund Analysis
May 17, 2017
Packet Pg 315
17
Attachment A
Page 2
2017 Parking Fund
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
I. OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 3
II. 2017-19 FINANCIAL PLAN ................................................................................................. 4
a. Summary of Operating Programs ..................................................................................... 4
b. Capital Improvement Program ............................................................................................ 4
c. Revenues ............................................................................................................................. 5
d. Debt Service ........................................................................................................................ 6
e. Revenue over/(Under) Expenses and Working Capital …………………………………..6
III. ASSUMPTIONS ..................................................................................................................... 7
1. General Assumptions .......................................................................................................... 7
2. Parking Lots ........................................................................................................................ 7
3. On-Street Metered Parking ................................................................................................. 7
4. Parking Structures ............................................................................................................... 7
5. Long-Term Parking ............................................................................................................. 8
6. Parking Leases .................................................................................................................... 8
7. Parking In-Lieu ................................................................................................................... 8
8. Investment Earnings............................................................................................................ 8
9. Parking Fines ...................................................................................................................... 8
10. Transportation & General Government Expenses .............................................................. 8
11. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Expenses ........................................................................ 9
12. Debt Service ........................................................................................................................ 9
EXHIBITS……………………………………………………………………………………….10
IV. EXHIBIT A: 2017-19 Changes in Financial Position………………………………….….11
V. EXHIBIT B: 2017-19 Changes in Financial Position with rate & fine increases………….12
VI. EXHIBIT C: Proposed Parking Rate and Fine Adjustments…………………..………….13
Packet Pg 316
17
Attachment A
Page 3
2017 Parking Fund Report
I. OVERVIEW
This report presents the financial condition of the Parking Fund based on the preliminary
2017-19 Financial Plan. The Parking Fund remains in a healthy position with a modest year
end working capital in preparation for commencing with the Palm Nipomo Parking
Structure. A Structural Assessment Study is also being planned for FY17-18 for each of
the existing parking structures. This may result in additional capital projects being
identified. The Marsh Street structure maintenance project is anticipated to begin in FY17-
18 and includes resealing decks, painting, lighting replacement and elevator upgrades to
extend the useful life of the structure. The funding to replace the Payment Access and
Revenue Control System (PARCS) existing hardware and software operating in the three
existing parking structures is allocated in FY18-19, as it is anticipated it will take until then
for a vendor to be selected and a replacement system designed. The Palm-Nipomo Parking
Structure is moving forward with environmental review and additional design work. It is
programmed to begin construction in FY19-20 but will continue to expend funds in FY17-
18 for planning and design aspects.
The five-year forecast indicates the fund is able to support current expenses, capital
projects, and debt service obligations while maintaining the minimum 20% reserve level
in working capital in accordance with the City Financial Management policies. However,
the five-year forecast assumes minimal CIP investment in our facilities (which will likely
change as a result of the Assessment Study) and the fund balance continues to decline
annually due to expenses exceeding revenues. In FY21-22 the balance reaches a level 67%
below the FY15-16 level. This “status quo” fund scenario does not assume any parking
rate, fines and forfeiture adjustments since none were forecast in the current 2015-17
Financial Plan. Reviewing the continual annual deficiency as well as longer fund forecasts,
the adjusting of rates, fines and forfeitures should be considered to balance the fund and
provide working capital to address issues such as CIP delivery and maintaining positive
cash flow. In previous periods, Council preferred that multi-year rate modifications be
adopted by the City to show methodical and steady increases when necessary. This practice
was set aside due to the recession and it has been many years since an across the board rate
modification has occurred.
Parking Services is proposing to return to a multiple year plan for adoption of rate and fine
changes that will assist in stabilizing the Fund. These increases are recommended to occur
beginning in FY17-18 and again in FY20-21 to fund anticipated expenses, capital projects,
and debt service obligations and to maintain a healthy working capital balance. This
follows a historical pattern of rate increases every three years. Proposed Parking Rate
and Fine Adjustments (Exhibit B) includes the proposed rate and fine adjustments,
additional capital improvement projects in the projected years (based on average annual
CIP expenditures) that were not budgeted previously due to lack of sufficient working
capital. Exhibit B also demonstrates the Parking Services target goal of an average 15%
Packet Pg 317
17
Attachment A
Page 4
working capital annual increase and how the revised annual projections reach this target
level.
II. 2017-19 FINANCIAL PLAN
a. Summary of Operating Programs
Below is the summary of the preliminary 2017-19 Financial Plan operating budget
projections for the Parking Services Enterprise Fund. This includes the expected increases
in retirement contributions, unfunded liabilities and the effects of the CalPERS discount
rate adjustment as well as the one-time costs related to the citywide Motion Project.
Mid Year
Budget
Budget Budget Projected Projected Projected
Staffing *1,031,488$ 1,060,392 1,086,899 1,119,500 1,153,000 1,187,700
Contract Services 920,364 694,525 703,662 724,800 746,500 768,900
Other Operating Expenses 235,459 241,171 249,064 256,500 264,200 272,100
Retirement Contributions 197,795 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
Palm Nipomo Expenses - - - - 46,800 192,400
Total Parking Services 2,385,106 2,215,088 2,280,225 2,371,000 2,512,600 2,747,800
General Government 684,603 622,189 622,189 648,400 649,800 651,300
Total Parking Services Operating 3,069,709 2,837,277 2,902,414 3,019,400 3,162,400 3,399,100
b. Capital Improvement Program
Below is the summary of the preliminary 2017-19 Financial Plan capital project budget
projections for the Parking Services Enterprise Fund. The Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure
is projected to begin construction in July 2019. Debt financing will be used to fund $17.6
million of the projected $23.6 million total project cost. This amount is subject to change
as we approach construction and determine the best ratio of borrowing versus capital outlay
for the project.
Packet Pg 318
17
Attachment A
Page 5
Parking Capital Program 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Mid-year Budget
Budget Budget Projected Projected Projected
Fleet Replacement: Utility Vehicle 28,500
Fleet Replacement: Pickup Trucks (2)70,000
Fleet Replacement: Scooter 34,000
Palm Nipomo Parking Structure 250,000 23,600,000
Parking Structure Assessment 76,667
Upgrade Parking Structure Equipment 113,000 650,000
Marsh Street Structure Maintenance 575,000
Vehile License Plate Recognition 145,000
IT MS Office Replacement 5,700 4,080
IT Radio Site Upgrade & Enhancement 6,633 4,789
IT Server Oper System Software 633 633
IT UPS Battery Replacement 646 646 646
IT VM Infrastructure 3,065
IT Wireless System Citywide 2,870
IT VoIP 6,233
IT Tait Radio System 9,339
IT Firewall Replacement 4,069
Carryover from Previous Years
Palm-Nipomo Land acquistion &
Environmental 211,744
Palm-Nipomo Design 1,062,699
Other Carryover projects 165,421
Total Parking Capital Program 1,813,075 831,633 668,854 23,638,069 70,633 9,749
c. Revenues
It is anticipated that Parking Fund revenues will continue to grow due to the economic
recovery but will be tempered by the loss of on-street meters. Revenue projections assume
an annual 1% growth in volume. Overall parking meter revenue from surface parking lots
decreased significantly in FY15-16 due to the lot closures, and is projected to decrease in
FY19-20 with the closure of lot 14 for construction of Palm Nipomo. Revenue from on-
street metered parking and structure parking is projected to increase because of these lot
closures and higher occupancy rates. Parking structure revenue will significantly increase
in FY21-22 with the opening of the Palm Nipomo structure in late FY20-21. One-time
parking in-lieu fees are projected but the timing and amount is very conservative because
the payment is sporadic and the annual operating conditions of the fund do not rely on their
income for solvency.
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Mid Year Budget Budget Budget Projected Projected Projected
RevenuesService ChargesParking Meter Collections
Lots 166,200 140,400 141,900 122,900 124,200 125,500
Streets 1,539,100 1,648,100 1,664,700 1,681,400 1,698,300 1,715,200
Parking Structure Collections 1,054,700 1,489,500 1,504,400 1,519,500 1,596,700 1,801,100
Long-Term Parking Revenues 434,900 795,000 802,900 810,900 819,100 827,300
Lease Revenues 500,500 502,900 509,800 512,300 514,800 521,800
Parking In-Lieu Fees 20,200 20,400 20,600 20,800 21,000 21,200
Other Service Charges 100 (89,100) (90,000) (96,400) (97,400) (98,400)
Total Service Charges 3,715,700 4,507,200 4,554,300 4,571,400 4,676,700 4,913,700
Investment & Property Revenues 48,200 48,000 52,000 53,900 24,400 22,700
Fines and Forfeitures 669,900 587,300 593,200 599,100 605,100 611,100
Other Revenues 100 100 100 100 100
Total Revenues 4,433,800 5,142,600 5,199,600 5,224,500 5,306,300 5,547,600
Packet Pg 319
17
Attachment A
Page 6
d. Debt Service
Debt Service for the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure is scheduled to begin in FY 2019-20,
the expected timeframe when construction would begin. Annual payments for Palm
Nipomo will average $1.45 million depending upon final debt financing terms. The next
debt service to be retired is for the Marsh Street Parking Structure expansion which will
occur in August 2031.
Parking Debt Service 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Mid Year
Budget
Budget Budget Projected Projected Projected
Marsh Expansion until Aug 2031 419,741 418,885 417,997 417,002 416,026 415,096
919 Palm until Jun 2036 539,899 538,755 539,803 540,275 540,162 539,320
Palm-Nipomo until 2048 1,086,023 1,452,112 1,450,684
Dispatch Ctr Upgrade until Jun 2039 9,760 9,760 9,700 4,200 4,200 4,200
969,400 967,400 967,500 2,047,500 2,412,500 2,409,300
e. Revenue over Expenses and Working Capital Balance
The annual expenditures exceed revenues in the FY16-17 mid-year budget and in FY19-
20 and each projected year thereafter. These deficits erode the working capital balance to
a level 67% below the beginning balance in FY16-17. This is not sustainable, nor does
the fund achieve the target of 15% revenue over expenses as an annual increase in the
working capital that Parking Services has set as the goal.
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Mid Year
Budget
Budget Budget Projected Projected Projected
Revenues Over/(Under) Expenses (2,347,911) 361,923 528,686 (5,930,469) (389,233) (320,549)
Working Capital, Beginning of Year 12,255,677 9,907,766 10,269,689 10,798,375 4,867,906 4,478,673
Working Capital, End of Year 9,907,766 10,269,689 10,798,375 4,867,906 4,478,673 4,158,124
Reserve @ 20% 613,942 567,455 580,483 603,880 632,480 679,820
Unreserved Working Capital 9,293,824 9,702,234 10,217,892 4,264,026 3,846,193 3,478,304
TARGET: Revenue over/(Under) Expenses:717,102 700,637 773,245 854,330 880,222 15% annually
CURRENT SCENARIO- NO INCREASES
The table below includes the proposed multi-year parking rate and fine increases, and increased
amount anticipated to be spent on CIP projects (not yet presented or approved) with annual
amounts based on historical averages. This scenario demonstrates how the annual revenue over
expenses essentially achieves the target of 15% and improves the working capital balance, but
the balance still remains below the current level.
Packet Pg 320
17
Attachment A
Page 7
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Mid Year
Budget
Budget Budget Projected Projected Projected
Revenues Over/(Under) Expenses (2,347,911) 776,067 1,370,646 (5,549,869) 867,467 924,251
Working Capital, Beginning of Year 12,255,677 9,907,766 10,683,833 12,054,479 6,504,610 7,372,077
Working Capital, End of Year 9,907,766 10,683,833 12,054,479 6,504,610 7,372,077 8,296,328
Reserve @ 20%613,942 567,460 580,500 603,900 632,440 679,840
Unreserved Working Capital 9,293,824 10,116,373 11,473,979 5,900,710 6,739,637 7,616,488
TARGET: Revenue over/(Under) Expenses:718,100 703,478 852,385 919,925 962,737
Includes additional CIP projects anticipated but not yet presented or approved.
Annual amount based on historical average amount spent on CIP projects.
15% annually
PROPOSED RATE AND FINE INCREASES
III. ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions have been programmed into the long-term forecast of the Parking
Fund. No rate or fine adjustments have been included herein, except as noted in Exhibit B.
1. General Assumptions
Minimum working capital reserve should equal at least 20% of the total Operating Program
expenditures according to the City's fiscal policy and Standard and Poor's rating criteria.
Based upon this policy, the minimum annual reserve level should be approximately
$615,000-680,000. The budgeted and projected year-end working capital balance exceeds
the minimum reserve policy levels.
2. Parking Lots
a. Assumes an annual 1% growth in paid parking usage in city owned lots.
b. Parking revenues from Lot 14 will cease due to the construction of the Palm-Nipomo
parking structure in FY19-20.
3. On Street Metered Parking
a. Assumes an annual 1% growth in paid parking usage for on street meters.
4. Parking Structures
a. Assumes an annual 1% growth in paid parking usage in the parking structures.
b. It is anticipated that some of the vehicles previously parked in now closed lots will park
in garages due to the reduction of lot parking spaces. With the first hour free in the
garages and the lower hourly rate at the structures, it is anticipated that a lesser amount
of revenue will be recouped through garage parking fees than is lost thru the lot
closures.
c. A study will be conducted in FY17-18 to do a structural assessment of each of the
parking structures, determine the current condition and make recommendations for new
annual maintenance plans, projects and programs to extend the useful life of each
structure and minimize emergency repair needs. However, no funds have been
allocated or budgeted for these additional expenses except in exhibit B- Proposed
Parking Rate and Fine Adjustments.
Packet Pg 321
17
Attachment A
Page 8
5. Long-Term Parking
a. Assumes an overall annual 1% growth in paid parking usage for long term options.
b. It is anticipated that more drivers will opt to purchase monthly parking passes (prox
cards) for parking in the structures.
c. The 10-hour Residential Meter Permit sales have reached current capacity.
d. Meter bag sales, loading zone permits and residential permit sales are anticipated to
increase due to continued construction and work projects in the downtown area and
loss of available street and lot parking.
6. Parking Leases
a. Assumes a conservative 1% growth in lease revenue.
b. The Memorandum of Agreement with Garden Street SLO Partners, L.P. states that the
Parking Fund will loan the developer $500,000, and this is assumed to occur in FY16-
17. In the same year, the developer will begin repayment to the City Parking Fund by
paying approximately $36,000 per year for 30 years with the option of a balloon
payment buyout at the end of 10 years.
c. The same MOA states that the Developer will pay an annual rent equal to the annual
net revenue from the operation of surface parking lot 2. The fund review projects this
amount at $222,000 annually. The annual base rent shall be increased on the first day
of every third fiscal year.
7. Parking In-Lieu
a) One-time parking in-lieu fees are minimally projected at the rate of 1 space per year
because the payment and number is uncertain.
8. Investment Earnings
a. Assumes projected interest earnings of 0.5% annually.
9. Parking Fines
a. Assumes a conservative 1% growth rate annually in total parking fine revenue.
b. Transfer of parking fines to the Police Department is approximately $60,000 annually
for citations written by that department.
c. State and County surcharges of $13 per parking citation is included in the base citation
amount, then deducted from collected fine revenues and transferred to the State and
County. The projected surcharge amounts are calculated as a percentage of the overall
projected parking fines.
d. Parking fine revenue is projected to decrease in FY17-18 due to lot closures and loss
of on-street parking stalls.
e. No projected decrease in fine revenues due to the loss of Lot 14 for the construction of
Palm-Nipomo parking structure in FY19-20.
10. Transportation & General Government Expenses
a. Transportation operating expenses are projected to decrease by 3% overall in FY17-18
from the mid-year budget due to budgetary constraints, and increase 3% in FY18-19.
Packet Pg 322
17
Attachment A
Page 9
b. The amount of retirement contributions, unfunded liabilities and CalPERS discount
rate costs are projected to increase by approximately 10% annually from FY18-19 to
FY21-22.
c. Contract Services cost adjustments reflect projected annual CPI increases of 2.5% and
additional of other contracted services.
d. General Government expenses are projected to decrease slightly beginning FY17-18.
e. The Operating Transfers Out includes the citywide Motion Project which has a two
year allocated cost but no projected ongoing costs of the project.
f. Staffing costs are expected to increase 3.0% annually starting in FY17-18.
g. The opening of the Palm Nipomo Structure is anticipated to add approximately
$200,000 in annual expenses to the base budget beginning in FY20-21.
11. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Expenses
a. The Palm Nipomo parking structure construction cost is estimated at $23.6 million in
FY19-20. A $6,000,000 contribution from working capital and $17,600,000 proceeds
from debt financing or bond issuance will be used to fund this amount. Final amounts
will be determined as the project construction documents move forward in the City
process. These amounts will change based upon revised project estimates and final ratio
of capital outlay versus debt financing amounts.
b. Assumes Finance and Information Technology capital projects that have associated
Parking Fund support will occur in the projected years.
c. Funding for the Marsh Street Structural Maintenance project ($575,000) is budgeted in
FY17-18.
d. Additional funding of $650,000 is included in FY18-19 to augment the prior funding
amount of $113,000 for the Parking Access and Revenue Control System (PARCS)
replacement project.
e. The vehicle license plate recognition pilot program ($135,000) will occur in FY17-18
and help reduce operational costs of and improve enforcement in the Downtown and
residential neighborhoods.
f. Additional capital improvement projects not included in the current projections may
arise from the Parking Structure Assessment project scheduled to be completed in
FY17-18.
12. Debt Service
a. Assumes a 30-year level debt service payment, borrowing of $17,600,000 and bond
issuance in FY19-20. Interest and principal payments are due beginning in FY19-20
and estimated at $1.45 million annually.
Packet Pg 323
17
Attachment A
Page 10
2017-19 PARKING FUND
FINANCIAL SCHEDULES & TABLES
IV. Exhibit A: FY2017-19 Financial Plan - Changes in
Financial Position
V. Exhibit B: FY2017-19 Financial Plan with Proposed
Parking Rate & Fine Adjustments
VI. Exhibit C: Proposed Parking Rate & Fine Adjustments
Packet Pg 324
17
EXHIBIT A: 2017-19 Financial Plan - Changes in Financial Position Attachment A
Page 11
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION - PARKING FUND BUDGET
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Actual Mid-Year
Budget
Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection
Revenues
Parking Meter Collections
Lots 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 2,641,296 20,200 20,400 20,600 20,800 21,000 21,200
Other Service Charges (14,269) 100 (89,100) (90,000) (96,400) (97,400) (98,400)
Total Service Charges 6,666,649 3,715,700 4,507,200 4,554,300 4,571,400 4,676,700 4,913,700
Investment and Property Revenues 172,523 48,200 48,000 52,000 53,900 24,400 22,700
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 7,580,159 4,433,800 5,142,600 5,199,600 5,224,500 5,306,300 5,547,600
Expenditures
Operating Programs
Transportation 1,835,753 2,385,106 1,996,088 2,039,625 2,100,800 2,210,500 2,421,100
Retirement Contributions 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 711,587 684,603 622,189 622,189 648,400 649,800 651,300
Total Operating Programs 2,547,340 3,069,709 2,837,277 2,902,414 3,019,400 3,162,400 3,399,100
Capital Improvement Plan Projects 20,547 2,231,404 825,000 650,000 23,688,069 120,633 59,749
Debt Service 959,201 969,400 967,400 967,500 2,047,500 2,412,500 2,409,300
Total Expenditures 3,527,088 6,270,513 4,629,677 4,519,914 28,754,969 5,695,533 5,868,149
Other Sources (Uses)
Operating Transfers Out (473,368) (151,000) (151,000)
Proceeds from Debt Financing 17,600,000
Other (11,198)
GST Loan (per Council Approval)(500,000)
Total Other Sources (Uses)(473,368) (511,198) (151,000) (151,000) 17,600,000 - -
Revenues and Other Sources; Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses 3,579,703 (2,347,911) 361,923 528,686 (5,930,469) (389,233) (320,549)
Working Capital, Beginning of Year 8,436,557 12,255,677 9,907,766 10,269,689 10,798,375 4,867,906 4,478,673
Adjustment for LT Accruals 239,417
Working Capital, End of Year 12,255,677 9,907,766 10,269,689 10,798,375 4,867,906 4,478,673 4,158,124
Reserve @ 20%613,942 567,455 580,483 603,880 632,480 679,820
Unreserved Working Capital 9,293,824 9,702,234 10,217,892 4,264,026 3,846,193 3,478,304
Packet Pg 325
17
Exhibit B: 2017-19 Financial Plan with Proposed Parking Rate & Fine Adjustments Attachment A
Page 12
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION - PARKING FUND BUDGET - WITH PROPOSED RATE & FINE INCREASES
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Actual Mid-Year Budget Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection
Revenues
Parking Meter Collections
Lots 304,345 166,200 152,500 166,000 142,200 165,400 165,400
Streets 1,526,182 1,539,100 1,787,000 1,942,100 1,942,100 2,252,500 2,252,500
Parking Structure Collections 1,162,982 1,054,700 1,658,900 1,843,300 1,843,300 2,299,100 2,560,500
Long-Term Parking Revenues 642,483 434,900 890,800 994,500 1,085,200 1,220,600 1,292,500
Lease Revenues 403,630 500,500 500,500 504,900 504,900 504,900 509,400
Parking In-Lieu Fees 2,641,296 20,200 20,200 20,200 20,200 20,200 20,200
Other Service Charges (14,269) 100 (113,100) (134,600) (134,600) (181,500) (181,500)
Total Service Charges 6,666,649 3,715,700 4,896,800 5,336,400 5,403,300 6,281,200 6,619,000
Investment and Property Revenues 172,523 48,200 50,000 55,000 60,300 32,500 36,900
Fines and Forfeitures 579,823 669,900 616,500 669,000 669,000 686,500 686,500
Other Revenues 161,164 - 100 100 100 100 100
Total Revenues 7,580,159 4,433,800 5,563,400 6,060,500 6,132,700 7,000,300 7,342,500
Expenditures
Operating Programs
Transportation 1,835,753 2,385,106 1,996,100 2,039,700 2,100,900 2,210,700 2,421,200
Retirement Contributions 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 711,587 684,603 622,200 622,200 648,400 649,400 651,300
Total Operating Programs 2,547,340 3,069,709 2,837,300 2,902,500 3,019,500 3,162,200 3,399,200
Capital Improvement Plan Projects 20,547 2,231,404 831,633 668,854 24,215,569 558,133 609,749
Debt Service 959,201 969,400 967,400 967,500 2,047,500 2,412,500 2,409,300
Total Expenditures 3,527,088 6,270,513 4,636,333 4,538,854 29,282,569 6,132,833 6,418,249
Other Sources (Uses)
Operating Transfers Out (473,368) (151,000) (151,000)
Proceeds from Debt Financing 17,600,000
Other (11,198)
GST Loan (Council Approved)(500,000)
Total Other Sources (Uses)(473,368) (511,198) (151,000) (151,000) 17,600,000 - -
Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses 3,579,703 (2,347,911) 776,067 1,370,646 (5,549,869) 867,467 924,251
Working Capital, Beginning of Year 8,436,557 12,255,677 9,907,766 10,683,833 12,054,479 6,504,610 7,372,077
Adjustment for LT Accruals 239,417
Working Capital, End of Year 12,255,677 9,907,766 10,683,833 12,054,479 6,504,610 7,372,077 8,296,328
Reserve @ 20%613,942 567,460 580,500 603,900 632,440 679,840
Unreserved Working Capital 9,293,824 10,116,373 11,473,979 5,900,710 6,739,637 7,616,488
Annual 15% target for Revenue over Expenses (excl Palm Nipomo)695,450 680,828 852,385 919,925 962,737
Packet Pg 326
17
Exhibit B: 2017-19 Financial Plan with Proposed Parking Rate & Fine Adjustments Attachment A
Page 13
Proposed increases to Parking Rates & Fines and effective dates:
Current Rate Proposed effective
January 1, 2018
Proposed effective
July 1, 2019
Proposed effective
July 1, 2020
Parking Meters (hourly):
Tier 1 (SuperCore) $ 1.50 $ 1.75 $ 2.00
Tier 2 (Core) $ 1.25 $ 1.50 $ 1.75
Tier 3 (10 hour meters) $ 0.75 $ 1.00 $ 1.25
Parking Structures (hourly): $ 1.00 $ 1.25 $ 1.50
Monthly permits:
Parking Structures (ALL) $ 75.00 $ 85.00 $ 95.00
DROP Program (overnight parking for DT residents only) $ 100.00 $ 125.00 $ 145.00
10 Hour Meter Permit $ 40.00 $ 60.00 $ 80.00 $ 90.00
Annual Permits:
Residential Parking Permit $ 10.00 $ 15.00 $ 20.00
Downtown Residential Permit $ 10.00 $ 15.00 $ 20.00
OTHER:
Validated Parking (businesses only) – block of 100 hours $ 60.00 $ 75.00 $ 90.00
Parking Fines:
Expired Meter $ 33.00 $ 40.00
Overtime Parking $ 43.00 $ 45.00
Passenger Loading Zone $ 33.00 $ 40.00
Parking Space Markings $ 33.00 $ 40.00
No Permit Lot $ 38.00 $ 45.00
Packet Pg 327
17
Page 1 Structural Assessment and Maintenance Report RFP
990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
INAL
Notice Requesting Proposals for
PARKING STRUCTURE ASSESSMENT AND MAINTENANCE REPORT
Specification No. 91546
The City of San Luis Obispo is soliciting proposals from qualified vendors to prepare a Parking
Structure Assessment and Maintenance Report pursuant to Specification No. 91546. All
proposals must be received by the Finance Department, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, CA no later than 3:30 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time, August 3, 2017.
Proposals received after said date and time will not be considered. To guard against premature
opening, each proposal shall be submitted to the Finance Department in a sealed envelope
plainly marked with the proposer’s name, specification number, proposal title and due date of
proposal opening. Hard copied proposals shall be submitted along with the required forms
provided in the specification package and following instructions contained herein.
Proposals packages may be obtained at either:
The City’s website: www.SLOCity.org – Doing Business – Bids & Proposals Page; or a
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/public-works/public-works-bids-proposals
Additional information may be obtained by contacting:
Scott Lee, Parking Manager, (805) 781-7234 or slee@slocity.org
Bill Humphrey, Parking Coordinator, (805) 781-7236 or BHumphrey@slocity.org
Nicole Lawson, Supervising Administrative Assistant, (805) 781-7059 or nlawson@slocity.org
For Public Records requests see Section 1.14
Packet Pg 328
17
Page 2 Structural Assessment and Maintenance Report RFP
Specification No. 91546
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. NOTICE TO PROPOSERS – PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS .................................................. 5
1.1. Summary and Requirement to Meet All Provisions ......................................................................... 5
1.2. Contract Term and Optional Extensions .......................................................................................... 5
1.3. Important Dates ............................................................................................................................... 5
1.4. Proposal Submittal and Format ....................................................................................................... 5
1.5. Labeling ............................................................................................................................................ 5
1.6. Insurance Certificate ........................................................................................................................ 5
1.7. Submittal of References ................................................................................................................... 6
1.8. Statement of Contract Disqualifications .......................................................................................... 6
1.9. Withdrawal or Revision of Proposals ............................................................................................... 6
1.10. Multiple Proposals ........................................................................................................................... 6
1.11. Procuring Agency/Personnel ............................................................................................................ 6
1.12. Inquiries and Clarifications ............................................................................................................... 6
1.13. Addenda ........................................................................................................................................... 7
1.14. Public Records .................................................................................................................................. 7
2. CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION ................................................................................... 7
2.1. Proposal Retention and Award ........................................................................................................ 7
2.2. Competency and Responsibility of Proposer ................................................................................... 7
2.3. Form of Agreement .......................................................................................................................... 7
2.4. Insurance .......................................................................................................................................... 8
2.5. Business License and Tax .................................................................................................................. 8
2.6. Failure to Accept Contract ................................................................................................................ 8
2.7. Oral Presentations / Site Visits / Meetings ....................................................................................... 8
2.8. Proposer’s Responsibility ................................................................................................................. 8
3. CONTRACT PERFORMANCE...................................................................................................... 8
3.1. Ability to Perform ............................................................................................................................. 8
3.2. Laws to be Observed ........................................................................................................................ 8
Packet Pg 329
17
Page 3 Structural Assessment and Maintenance Report RFP
3.3. Payment of Taxes ............................................................................................................................. 8
3.4. Permits and Licenses ........................................................................................................................ 9
3.5. Safety Provisions .............................................................................................................................. 9
3.6. Public and Employee Safety ............................................................................................................. 9
3.7. Preservation of City Property ........................................................................................................... 9
3.8. Immigration Act of 1986 .................................................................................................................. 9
3.9. Proposer Non-Discrimination .......................................................................................................... 9
3.10. Work Delays ..................................................................................................................................... 9
3.11. Payment Terms .............................................................................................................................. 10
3.12. Inspection ....................................................................................................................................... 10
3.13. Audit ............................................................................................................................................... 10
3.14. Interests of Proposer ...................................................................................................................... 10
3.15. Hold Harmless and Indemnification ............................................................................................... 10
3.16. Contract Assignment ...................................................................................................................... 10
3.17. Termination .................................................................................................................................... 10
4. PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS ............................................................. 11
4.1. Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 11
4.2. Calendar of Events ......................................................................................................................... 12
4.3. Background .................................................................................................................................... 12
4.4. Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 14
4.5. Functional and Technical Requirements ........................................................................................ 14
4.6. Scope of Work ................................................................................................................................ 14
4.7. Selection Process ............................................................................................................................ 15
5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS AND CONTENT OF PROPOSALS .............................................. 16
Chapter 1: Title Page ...................................................................................................................... 16
Chapter 2: Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... 16
Chapter 3: Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 16
Chapter 4: Project Manager ........................................................................................................... 16
Chapter 5: Organizational Experience ........................................................................................... 17
Chapter 6: Organizational Chart and Project Team ...................................................................... 17
Chapter 7: References ......................................................................................................................... 17
Chapter 8: Customer Service and Technical Support ..................................................................... 17
Packet Pg 330
17
Page 4 Structural Assessment and Maintenance Report RFP
Chapter 9: Sub Proposers ............................................................................................................... 17
Chapter 10: System Specifications ................................................................................................. 17
Chapter 11: Implementation .......................................................................................................... 17
Chapter 12: Risks ............................................................................................................................ 18
Chapter 13: Disclosure of Past Contract Failures and Litigation .................................................... 18
Chapter 14: Proposer’s Financial Stability Assurance .................................................................... 18
Chapter 15: Fee Proposal ............................................................................................................... 18
Chapter 16: Additional Required Forms ......................................................................................... 19
REQUIRED FORMS ................................................................................................ 20
FORM A: SIGNATURE AFFIDAVIT ......................................................................................................... 20
FORM B: VENDOR PROFILE ............................................................................................................ 21
FORM C: REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 22
FORM D: STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS ................................................ 25
FORM E: COST PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM .............................................................................. 26
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................... 27
APPENDIX A: SAMPLE AGREEMENT ............................................................................................... 27
APPENDIX B: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................... 29
Packet Pg 331
17
Page 5 Structural Assessment and Maintenance Report RFP
1 NOTICE TO PROPOSERS – PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
1.1 Summary and Requirement to Meet All Provisions
The City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) is soliciting proposals from qualified vendors for the
preparation of a Parking Structure Assessment and Maintenance Report. Vendors
submitting proposals (“Proposers”) are required to read this Request for Proposals (“RFP”)
in its entirety and follow the instructions contained herein and shall meet all of the terms,
and conditions of the RFP specifications package. By virtue of its proposal submittal, the
Proposer acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of all provisions of the RFP
specifications.
1.2 Contract Term and Optional Extensions
The contract term shall be for a period of one (1) year (“initial term”). The City will have
the option renewing the contract for up to five (5) successive one-year term renewals at
the sole discretion of the City.
1.3 Important Dates
Deliver proposals no later than the due date and time indicated below. The City will reject
late proposals:
Issue Date: June 9, 2017
Due Date: August 3, 2017
1.4 Proposal Submittal and Format
Each proposal must be submitted in hard copy form (i.e. printed) with a total of five (5)
copies provided in the order 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:
Finance Department
Attn: Lorraine Colleran
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
No FAX submittals will be accepted.
1.5 Labeling
All proposals must be clearly labeled:
Proposer’s Name and Address: ________________________
Specification # 91546
Title: Parking Structure Assessment and Maintenance Report
DUE: August 3, 2017
1.6 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.
Packet Pg 332
17
Page 6 Structural Assessment and Maintenance Report RFP
The purpose of the submittal is to generally assess the adequacy of the Proposer’s
insurance coverage during proposal evaluation; as discussed below, endorsements are not
required until contract award. The insurance requirements are detailed in Section 2.4.
1.7 Submittal of References
Each proposer shall submit a statement of qualifications and references on the for m
provide in the RFP package as Form C.
1.8 Statement of Contract Disqualifications
Each Proposer shall submit a statement regarding any past government disqualifications on
the form provide in the RFP package as Form D.
1.9 Withdrawal or Revision of Proposals
Proposers may, without prejudice, withdraw proposals by requesting such withdrawal prior
to the time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the Bid
Administrator for its withdrawal, in which event the proposal will be returned to the
Proposer unopened. All proposals will be opened and declared publicly. Proposers may
modify their proposal at any time prior to the due date and time of submission for
proposals.
1.10 Multiple Proposals
Multiple proposals from Proposers are NOT permitted.
1.11 Procuring Agency/ Personnel
The City of San Luis Obispo is the procuring agency:
Scott Lee, Parking Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
(805) 781-7234
slee@SLOCity.org
The City of San Luis Obispo Finance Department administers the procurement function:
Lorraine Colleran (Bid Administrator)
Finance Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781-7435
LColleran@SLOCity.org
1.12 Inquiries and Clarifications
Proposers are to raise any questions they have about the RFP document without delay.
Direct any questions concerning due dates and/or actual submittals to the bid administrator
either by phone or in writing. Direct all technical questions, those concerning sp ecifications
and/or scope of work, to the procuring agency, either by phone or in writing.
Furthermore, Proposers finding any significant ambiguity, error, conflict, discrepancy,
omission, or other deficiency in this RFP document shall immediately notify the procuring
agency and request clarification.
Packet Pg 333
17
Page 7 Structural Assessment and Maintenance Report RFP
1.13 Addenda
In the event it is necessary to provide additional clarification or revision to the RFP, the
City will post addenda to the City website and to EBIDBOARD.COM website. It is Proposer’s
sole responsibility to regularly monitor the websites for any such postings. Failure to
retrieve addenda and include their provisions may result in disqualification.
1.14 Public Records
Proposers are hereby notified that all information submitted in response to th is RFP may
be made available for public inspection according to the Public Records Act of the State of
California and the California Constitution. Information qualifying as a “trade secret” –
defined in California Public Records Act of 2004 – may be held confidential. Proposers shall
seal separately and clearly identify all information they deem to be “trade secrets,” as
defined by the State of California Statutes. Do not duplicate or comingle information,
deemed confidential and sealed, elsewhere in your response.
The City cannot ensure that information will not be subject to release if a request is made
under applicable public records laws. The City cannot consider the following confidential:
a bid in its entirety, price bid information, or the entire contents of any resulting contract.
The City will not provide advanced notice to Proposers prior to release of any requested
record.
To the extent permitted by such laws, it is the intention of the City to withhold the contents
of proposals from public view – until such time as competitive or bargaining reasons no
longer require non-disclosure, in the City’s opinion. At that time, all proposals will be
available for review in accordance with such laws.
2 CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION
2.1 Proposal Retention and Award
The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a period of 90 days for examination
and comparison. The City also reserves the right to waive non-substantial irregularities in
any proposal, to reject any or all proposals, to reject or delete one part of a proposal and
accept the other, except to the extent that proposals are qualified by specific limitations.
2.2 Competency and Responsibility of Proposer
The City reserves full discretion to determine the competence and responsibility,
professionally and/or financial stability, of Proposer. Proposer will provide, in a timely
manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a decision.
2.3 Form of Agreement
Proposers are responsible for reviewing this Form of Agreement prior to submission of their
proposal. The Form of Agreement shall serve as the basis for the contract resulting from
this RFP. The terms of this template contract shall become contractual obligations following
award of the RFP. By submitting a proposal, the contract shall become contractual
obligations following award of the RFP. By submitting a proposal, Proposers affirm their
willingness to enter into a contract containing these terms.
Packet Pg 334
17
Page 8 Structural Assessment and Maintenance Report RFP
2.4 Insurance
Proposers shall provide proof of insurance in the form, coverages and amounts specified in
Appendix B of these specifications within ten (10) calendar days after notice of contract
award as a precondition to contract execution.
2.5 Business License and Tax
The Proposer 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 tax
program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134.
2.6 Failure to Accept Contract
The following will occur if the Consultant to whom the award is made (Consultant) fails to
enter into the contract: the award will be annulled; any bid security will be forfeited in
accordance with the special terms and conditions if a Consultant's bond or security is
required; and an award may be made to the next highest ranked Consultant with whom a
responsible compensation is negotiated, who shall fulfill every stipulation as if it were the
party to whom the first award was made.
2.7 Oral Presentations / Site Visits / Meetings
Proposers may be asked to attend meetings, make oral presentations, inspect City locations
or make their facilities, or those of existing clients with similar operations, available for site
inspection as part of the RFP process. Such presentations, meetings, or site visits will be at
the Proposer’s expense.
2.8 Proposer’s Responsibility
Proposers shall examine this RFP and shall exercise their judgment as to the nature and
scope of the work required. No plea of ignorance concerning conditions or difficulties that
exist or may hereafter arise in the execution of the work under the resulti ng contract, as a
consequence of failure to make necessary examinations and investigations, shall be
accepted as an excuse for any failure or omission on the part of the Proposers to fulfill the
requirements of the resulting contract.
3 CONTRACT PERFORMANCE
3.1 Ability to Perform
The Proposer 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 federal, state, county, city, and special
district laws, ordinances, and regulations.
3.2 Laws to be Observed
The Proposer shall keep itself fully informed of and shall observe and comply with all
applicable state and federal laws and county and City of Sa n Luis Obispo ordinances,
regulations and adopted codes during its performance of the work.
3.3 Payment of Taxes
The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the Proposer is required
to pay.
Packet Pg 335
17
Page 9 Structural Assessment and Maintenance Report RFP
3.4 Permits and Licenses
The Proposer shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all
notices necessary.
3.5 Safety Provisions
The Proposer shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety established by
OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.
3.6 Public and Employee Safety
Whenever the Proposer'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.
3.7 Preservation of City Property
The Proposer 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 Proposer's operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the Proposer's expense. The
facilities shall be replaced or restored to a condition as good as when the Proposer began
work.
3.8 Immigration Act of 1986
The Proposer warrants on behalf of itself and all sub Proposers 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.
3.9 Proposer Non-Discrimination
In the performance of this work, the Proposer agrees that it will not engage in, nor permit
such sub Proposers as it may employ, to engage in discrimination in employment of persons
because of age, race, color, sex, national origin or ancestry, sexual orientation, or religion
of such persons.
3.10 Work Delays
Should the Proposer 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 Proposer. 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 fo r
such delay, and making a finding as to the causes of same.
Packet Pg 336
17
Page 10 Structural Assessment and Maintenance Report RFP
3.11 Payment Terms
Payments will be made consistent with the Agreement. The City's standard payment terms
are 30 days from the receipt of an original invoice and acceptance by the City of the
materials, supplies, equipment or services provided by the Proposer (Net 30).
3.12 Inspection
The Proposer shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain that
the services of the Proposer 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 Proposer
of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract requirements.
3.13 Audit
The City shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all records and other written
materials used by Proposer in preparing its invoices to City as a condition precedent to any
payment to Proposer.
3.14 Interests of Proposer
The Proposer 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 Proposer further covenants that, in the
performance of this work, no sub Proposer or person having such an interest shall be
employed. The Proposer 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 agree d
that, in the performance of the work hereunder, the Proposer shall at all times be deemed
an independent Proposer and not an agent or employee of the City.
3.15 Hold Harmless and Indemnification
The Proposer agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold the City and its agents, officers
and employees harmless from and against any and all claims asserted or liability established
for damages or injuries to any person or property, including injury to the Proposer's
employees, agents or officers that arise from or are connected with or are caused or claimed
to be caused by the acts or omissions of the Proposer, and its agents, officers or employees,
in performing the work or services herein, and all expenses of investigating and defending
against same; provided, however, that the Proposer's duty to indemnify and hold harmless
shall not include any claims or liability arising from the established sole negligence or willful
misconduct of the City, its agents, officers or employees.
3.16 Contract Assignment
The Proposer 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.
3.17 Termination
If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Proposer is not faithfully
abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Proposer in
writing of such defect or failure to perform. This notice must give the Propo ser a 10 (ten)
calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to perform said work or cure the deficiency.
Packet Pg 337
17
Page 11 Structural Assessment and Maintenance Report RFP
If the Proposer 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 Proposer 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 Proposer'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 Proposer shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its servi ces
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 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
Proposer as may be set forth in the Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any
other work, services or goods performed or provided by the Proposer shall be based solely
on the City's assessment of the value of the work-in-progress in completing the overall work
scope.
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 Pr oposer
be entitled to receive any amount in excess of the compensation quoted in its proposal.
4 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS
4.1 Overview
The City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) is soliciting proposals from qualified vendors
(“Proposers”) for an assessment to evaluate existing conditions of the three municipal
parking structures, prepare a detailed assessment of the conditions of each facility and a
prioritization of corrections that may be necessary, recommend a maintenance and repair
schedule for each structure, and provide detailed fiscal analysis with cost estimates for the
recommendations. The assessment will also include life cycle calculations of the facilities
and make recommendations for potential enhancements/modernizations that may lead to
more efficient or longer lives of each facility. Recommended maintenance and repairs shall
be prioritized by need and severity of deficiency using short-term (1-2 years), mid-term (3-
5 years), and long-term (6-10 years) time frames. Cost estimates will assist in the financial
planning process for the Parking Enterprise Fund. The final deliverable will be a Parking
Structure Assessment and Maintenance Report that will serve as a comprehensive master
maintenance plan for the next 10 years.
The City requires well-managed and financially sound Proposers with demonstrated skills
and technical ability, and high levels of customer service and satisfaction, to fulfill the
requirements outlined in this RFP. Proposers must have at least five years of experience
with municipalities and/or college institutions, and provide references demonstrating
relevant services were provided. Only those firms with verifiable structural, parking
equipment and operations, and mechanical operations experience and expertise will be
considered during this proposal process. Project teams may need specialists in certain
Packet Pg 338
17
Page 12 Structural Assessment and Maintenance Report RFP
fields that may include, but not be limited to: structural engineering, materials science,
parking control systems, utilities, HVAC/cooling systems, financial systems, etc.
4.2 Calendar of Events
Listed below are specific and estimated dates and times of RFP events, all of which are
subject to change. Proposers must complete events by specific dates as indicated unless
revised by the City. The City may or may not issue a formal notification for changes in
estimated dates and times.
Figure 4-2: Calendar of Events
Date Event
Friday, June 9, 2017 Issue date of RFP
Tuesday June 22, 2017 OR
Thursday June 24, 2017
Mandatory Pre-Bid site visit with
City Parking Staff
Thursday August 3, 2017 3:30pm PST Proposals due
August- September 2017 Evaluation of proposals
September – October 2017 Interviews and Recommendations
November 2017 Negotiation and award contract
November - December 2017 Contract Routing to City Council
December 2017 Contract Award
January 2018
Contract begins
4.3 Background
The City of San Luis Obispo’s Parking Services Division is seeking a professional
engineering consultant to perform a structural and facility systems conditions assessment
of the City’s three (3) multi-deck parking structures. See map below for locations of the
parking structures. The ideal consultant will have extensive experience evaluating the
condition of buildings primarily used for parking services and developing maintenance
schedules for parking structures with post-tensioned cast-in-place concrete slab
construction. To date, no structural and facility systems conditions assessment has been
performed on the City of San Luis Obispo’s parking structures. The C ity has performed
maintenance and repairs on an as-needed basis for each structure.
The three (3) parking structures included in this project are identified on the map below
and a brief description is provided for each :
Packet Pg 339
17
Page 13 Structural Assessment and Maintenance Report RFP
The 842 Palm Street parking structure is a multi-level post-tensioned cast-in-place
concrete construction that went into operation in 1988. This parking structure has
capacity for 415 vehicles. There are no elevators at this location.
The 871 Marsh Street parking structure is a multi-level post-tensioned cast-in-place
concrete construction that went into operation in 1990 and was expanded (horizontally)
in 2002. This parking structure has capacity for 520 vehicles (252 in the original structure
and 268 in the expansion). There are two elevators at this location. The original portion
of the structure includes 15,000 sq. ft. of retail space and 4,000 sq. ft. of office space on
the ground level. The retail and office spaces are not part of the scope of services.
The 919 Palm Street parking structure is a multi-level post-tensioned cast-in-place
concrete construction that went into operation in 2006. This structure has capacity for
242 vehicles (192 are for public use and 50 are for City employee use only in a separate
basement area). There are two elevators at this location. The structure includes 16,000
sq. ft. of office space. The office space is not part of the scope of services.
It is important to note that the City has plans to construct a fourth parking structure that
will be built near Nipomo Street between Palm Street and Monterey Street. The
anticipated capacity for the structure is 406 vehicles.
Figure 4.3: Location of Existing Parking Structures
Packet Pg 340
17
Page 14 Structural Assessment and Maintenance Report RFP
4.4 Objectives
The City seeks to achieve the objectives stated herein through the Proposers scope of
services which will be defined during the negotiation process.
4.5 Functional and Technical Requirements
The requested Functional and Technical Requirements will be determined during
consultation with selected vendor.
4.6 Scope of Work
The Parking Structure Assessment and Maintenance Report will provide a detailed review
of the condition of the three existing parking structures. The results will be summarized
in a report that will prioritize the preventative maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation
needs for each parking structure using the time frames provided below. Estimated costs
for the recommended repairs and a ten -year implementation plan to complete the work
will be the expected final deliverable, but City will rely on the Consultant to provid e
recommendations for additional deliverables to be included.
The tasks outlined below comprise the draft scope of work for the proposed project. It is
the intent of the City to draw upon the experience and expertise of firms submitting
proposals as to their recommendations for the exact tasks that will be included in the
scope of work to meet the needs of the City. The City will negotiate the final scope of
work with the firm contracted to perform the work.
1. Data Gathering and Inspection
a. The consultant will gather data on existing conditions of the parking structures
through the following methods:
1. Site visits
2. Review of existing as-built plans
3. Interviews with City staff
4. Interview with building tenants, if necessary.
b. The consultant will visually inspect, survey and report on the structural
elements of the parking structures including, but not limited to, the following:
1. Post-tensioned cast-in-place concrete slab systems
2. Expansion joints
3. Control joints
4. Columns, beams, and ceilings
5. Waterproofing
6. Railings
7. Stairwells and walkways
8. Elevator shafts and equipment
9. Exterior façade
c. The consultants will inspect, survey and report on the facility systems of the
parking structures including the following:
1. Mechanical systems
2. Electrical systems
Packet Pg 341
17
Page 15 Structural Assessment and Maintenance Report RFP
3. Plumbing systems
4. Fire protection systems
5. Elevator systems
6. Parking access and revenue control systems
7. HVAC/Cooling systems
8. Parking Control and telemetry
9. Architectural elements
2. Data Analysis
The consultant will analyze the data obtained from existing plans, site visits, visual
inspections, and surveys necessary for the development of an improvement plan.
3. Reporting
The consultant will provide the City with a detailed report referred to as the
PARKING STRUCTURE ASSESSMENT AND MAINTENANCE REPORT. The REPORT will
contain, at a minimum, the following elements:
a. Summary of existing conditions – A description of existing conditions will be
provided for each structure including photos, tables, and charts as needed.
Results from inspections and surveying
b. Summary of results:
1. Description of all deficiencies detailed with photos including causes of
deterioration, if applicable.
2. Prioritization of repairs by phase using short-term (1-2 years), mid-term
(3-5 years), and long-term (6-10 years) time frames. The cost estimates
for each identified or proposed repair for each structure will be
provided.
3. Annual maintenance program and cost estimates for each structure.
4.7 Selection Process
The City may shortlist up to four (4) Proposers based on the submitted proposals
and invite them to an interview process. In addition, the City may request that
Proposers provide copies of prior work product either as part of the interview
process or separately from it. The City, at its discretion, may make site visits to
locations where the Proposers have completed similar reports. The Proposers shall
be evaluated on the following:
o Understanding of the work required by the City;
o Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal;
o Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for
successfully performing the work required by the City;
o Recent experience in successfully performing similar services;
o Proposed approach in completing the work;
o References;
o Background and experience of the specific individuals to be assigned to this
project;
o Interviews; and
o Compensation and total cost
Packet Pg 342
17
Page 16 Structural Assessment and Maintenance Report RFP
As reflected above, contract award will not be based solely on price, but on a combination
of the factors determined to be in the best interest of the City. After evaluating the
proposals and discussing them further with the finalists or the tentatively selected
Proposers, the City reserves the right to further negotiate the proposed work and/or
method and amount of compensation. Once prospective Proposers have been evaluated
by the evaluation panel, negotiations shall begin. If negotiations are unsuccessful, talks
with that Proposer will be abandoned and negotiations will then commence with the next
qualified Proposer, and so on, until a final agreement has been reached and a contract
prepared. Staff will present their findings to the City Council, which, at its discretion, will
award a contact.
5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS AND CONTENT OF PROPOSALS
Proposing companies desiring to respond to this Request for Proposal (RFP) shall submit their
proposal in sufficient detail to allow for a thorough evaluation and comparative analysis. The
City shall use the responses as the basis of its evaluation. The proposals should be as brief and
concise as possible without sacrificing clarity. Proposals containing irrelevant material or an
abundance of excessively vague language may be penalized in the screening process.
Arrange proposals to match the following outline. Respond to each and every question and/or
statement. In the context of this section “you” and “your” is the same as “Proposer” and
“Proposer’s”, respectively.
Chapter 1: Title Page
The title page shall contain at a minimum the name of the Proposer, RFP Title, and Due Date.
Chapter 2: Table of Contents
The Table of Contents outlines in sequential order the chapters of your proposal.
Chapter 3: Executive Summary – Description of Organization
Provide an executive summary introducing your firm. Limit your response to thre e pages. At a
minimum, include the following information:
o Briefly describe your firm’s organization and size (e.g. local, regional, national and
international) in relation to providing Parking Structure Assessment and Maintenance
Report similar to the services described in this RFP.
o Your experience including the number of years in business, and in the provision of
professional engineering services.
o The location of the office from which this engagement will be serviced and the range of
activities performed at that office.
o Reaffirm required experience in providing systems and performing services similar to those
outlined in this RFP.
Chapter 4: Project Manager
Identify the Project Manager you propose to assign to the engagement. Provide background on
the experience of the Project Manager, including projects lead. Limit your response to three
pages plus resume. The City expects that the Project Manager shall be available by telephone on
Packet Pg 343
17
Page 17 Structural Assessment and Maintenance Report RFP
all occasions for discussion with City staff, and shall be locally available for meetings in person on
short notice (one day).
Chapter 5: Organizational Experience
Provide a description of relevant organizational experience, especially in engagements of
similar size and scope that are currently being serviced or took place within the last five years,
from the same office that will serve the City. Describe briefly the nature of services provided
to each organization listed. Include a clear statement of your firm’s specific role in the
engagement. Limit your response to five pages.
The City may utilize additional sources of information about your qualifications.
Chapter 6: Organizational Chart and Project Team
Submit an organizational chart showing the name of the Project Manager, other key personnel,
and all supporting staff to be assigned to the project. The team should demonstrate capabilities,
experience, and qualifications sufficient to successfully perform the scope of work included in this
RFP. The City reserves the right to approve the final staffing plan.
Identify the key project team staff. Include the members’ qualifications, experience and training
that will benefit the project.
Chapter 7: References
Provide three references from similar projects and clients. Limit your response to three pages
total.
Chapter 8: Customer Service and Technical Support
N/A
Chapter 9: Sub Proposers (if any)
Identify any sub-Proposers that would be used. Give a detailed description of their involvement,
scope of work, background, and responsibilities. The price proposed shall include any and all work
to be done by sub-Proposers, and the City will only process claims and payments to the Proposer.
A list of sub-Proposers to be hired shall be submitted as a part of the proposal. Also disclose
whether or not the sub Proposer is a subsidiary or is financially tied to the Proposer in any other
manner. Use of sub-Proposer does not relieve the Proposer of overall responsibility. City reserves
the right to approve all proposed sub-Proposers.
Chapter 10: System Specifications
N/A
Chapter 11: Implementation
Submit an overview of your approach to implementation. Limit your response to ten
pages. At a minimum, include:
o A project schedule including phases, activities, tasks, milestones, decision points,
deliverables, etc.
o A description of how your project management will keep the implementation on schedule
and ensure the end result is a satisfactorily functioning system.
o Expected use of City resources including City hardware and assistance from City Staff.
o Information or data to be used or obtained from the City.
Packet Pg 344
17
Page 18 Structural Assessment and Maintenance Report RFP
Chapter 12: Risks
Identify in detail any anticipated or potential concerns or risks in implementing your system; your
approach to resolving these concerns; and any special assistance required from the City. Limit
your response to two pages.
Chapter 13: Disclosure of Contract Failures and Litigation
Disclose any alleged significant prior or ongoing contract failures, contract breaches, any civil or
criminal litigation or investigation pending which involves your firm or in which your firm has
been judged guilty or liable, or which may affect the performance of the services to be rendered
herein, in which your firm, any of its employees, sub-Proposers, or sub consultants is or has been
involved in within the last three (3) years.
Chapter 14: Proposer’s Financial Stability Assurance
N/A
Chapter 15: Fee Proposal
Include detailed pricing information for preparation of the Parking Structure Assessment and
Maintenance Access Report as described in this RFP.
Quote fees as all inclusive, not-to-exceed, fixed fees for each relevant aspect of the Parking
Structure Assessment and Maintenance Access Report. The fee could be a one-time fee, fee per
use, fee per year, fee per contract period, fee per citation issued, percentage of revenue
generated via citations, etc.
Clearly explain your pricing model. The City will consider alternative pricing models. Also,
identify all other costs beyond the usage cost such as a fee for training, system maintenance, etc.
As noted above, prepare the fee proposal as all inclusive, not-to-exceed, fixed fees:
o All Inclusive – Covers all direct and indirect expenses incurred by the Proposer including but
not limited to; travel, telephone, copying and other out-of-pocket expenses.
o Not To Exceed – The actual fees shall not exceed the amount specified in fee proposal.
o Fixed Fee – All prices, rates, fees and conditions outlined in the proposal shall remain
fixed and valid for the entire length of the contract and any/all renewals.
Provide exact fees - not a range. Take advantage of the opportunity to ask questions and receive
answers to gain clarification. Furthermore, document any significant assumptions for arriving at
fee estimates. You are responsible for verifying the correctness of calculations in your fee
proposal.
Each of the following is a component of the fee proposal. Proposers shall provide a numerical fee
and narrative explanation for each component. Provide as much detail as possible in your
narrative responses.
o Travel – List the fees for visits to the City for onsite inspections, planning, presentation, etc.
List travel fees as a not-to-exceed travel allowance.
o Design/Planning – List the fees for time spent working with the City in determining
workflows, analyzing processes, planning, envisioning how the report will be prepared and
documenting the results.
Packet Pg 345
17
Page 19 Structural Assessment and Maintenance Report RFP
o Support and Maintenance – Present the fees of ongoing support and maintenance for the
final report. If you offer different levels of support , price the level of support that you
recommend the City purchase. Furthermore, provide detailed fees for all levels of support
and maintenance you offer. Support and maintenance fees should start in Year 1, which is
the first 365 days after the system is live and accepted by the City.
o Other Fees – Detail any and all other fees associated with the proposal .
o City Support – Provide the number of City staff and hours needed to support your
proposal. Detail the tasks they will be expected to perform.
o Ongoing Professional Services & Support – Please include the discounted hourly rate
for professional services and support. Include the different rate classes or titles as
appropriate.
The City reserves the right to make an award without further discussion of the fee proposal
submitted. Therefore, the Proposer should submit the fee proposal on the most favorable terms
they can offer. However, this does not limit the City from negotiating with the selected Proposer.
Fees will be evaluated on both initial and ongoing fees.
Configuration Adjustment: The City reserves the right to select and exclude any software for the
acquisition regardless of the configuration proposed. As part of the evaluation process, the City
may find it necessary to add or delete software or services from proposals to make equivalent
comparisons.
A finalization of the specifications and scope of services is expected as a part of final contract
negotiation or through a Best and Final Offer (BAFO) process. By the BAFO the Proposer(s)
remaining in the process will have met with the City and or demonstrated their product giving
them the opportunity to obtain a complete understanding of all requirements.
Chapter 16: Additional Required Forms and/or Attachments
Include the following required forms and/or attachments to your Proposal. Forms are included
in the RFP.
o Form A – Signature Affidavit – A company representative with authority to bind the
Proposer to the City by contract shall sign the form, attesting the proposal has been
submitted in conformance to stated requirements.
o Form B – Vendor Profile – complete the information about your firm.
o Form C – References
o Form D – Statement of Past Contract Disqualifications
o Form E – Cost Proposal Submittal Form
Packet Pg 346
17
Page 20 Structural Assessment and Maintenance Report RFP
FORM A: SIGNATURE AFFIDAVIT
Note: This form must be returned with your response.
In signing proposals, we certify that we have not, either directly or indirectly, entered into any
agreement or participated in any collusion or otherwise taken any action in restraint of free
competition; that no attempt has been made to induce any other person or firm to submit or
not to submit proposals, that proposals have been independently arrived at, without collusion
with any other Proposers, competitor or potential competitor; that proposals have not been
knowingly disclosed prior to the opening of proposals to any other Proposers or competitor;
that the above statement is accurate under penalty of perjury.
The undersigned, submitting this proposal, hereby agrees with all the terms, conditions, and
specifications required by the City in this Request for Proposal, declares that the attached
proposal and pricing are in conformity therewith, and attests to the truthfulness of all
submissions in response to this solicitation.
Proposers shall provide the information requested below. Include the legal name of the
Proposer and signature of the person(s) legally authorized to bind the Proposers to a contract.
SIGNATURE AND DATE OF AUTHORIZE REPRESENTATIVE
PRINT NAME: __________________________________________________
FIRM (PROPOSER) NAME: ________________________________________
Packet Pg 347
17
Page 21 Structural Assessment and Maintenance Report RFP
FORM B: VENDOR PROFILE
Company Information
Company Name (Proposer)
FEIN: (If FEIN is not applicable, SSN collected
upon award)
Contact Name Title
Telephone
( )
Fax
(
)
Email
Address City State Zip
Primary Individual Contact Information
Contact Name Title
Telephone
( )
Fax
(
)
Email
Address City State Zip
Packet Pg 348
17
Page 22 Structural Assessment and Maintenance Report RFP
FORM C: REFERENCES
Describe fully three contracts performed by your firm that demonstrate your ability to provide
the services included with the scope of the specifications. Two of the three shall have been in a
Municipal or University setting. Attach additional pages if required. The City reserves the right
to contact 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 349
17
Page 23 Structural Assessment and Maintenance Report RFP
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
Packet Pg 350
17
Page 24 Structural Assessment and Maintenance Report RFP
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 351
17
Page 25 Structural Assessment and Maintenance Report RFP
FORM D: STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS
The Proposer 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, p roject
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 Representative of Proposer
___________________________________________
Print name of Authorized Representative of Proposer
Packet Pg 352
17
Page 26 Structural Assessment and Maintenance Report RFP
FORM E: COST PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM
The City is requesting proposals for a Parking Structure Assessment and Maintenance Access
Report. Each Proposer shall fill out the following cost proposal in it’s entirely. Cost proposals
that are not complete will not be accepted, and the submitted proposal will be deemed
incomplete. If there are any additional costs not included in this Cost Proposal, those costs
must be identified on a separate sheet of paper and included as stated in this Request for
Proposal. On a separate page, a detailed breakdown of the costs below as well as a detailed
price list shall also be provided.
Item Description-Parking Structure Assessment and
Maintenance Report
Total Cost
Estimate
$
$
$
Item Description- (OPTIONAL) Total Cost
Estimate
$
$
$
Packet Pg 353
17
Page 27 Structural Assessment and Maintenance Report RFP
Appendix A: FORM OF AGREEMENT (SAMPLE)
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on [date],
by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter
referred to as City, and [CONTRACTOR’S NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS], hereinafter
referred to as Contractor.
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, on [date], City requested proposals for the preparation of a
Parking Structure Assessment and Maintenance Report per Specification No.19546.
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Contractor submitted a proposal which
was accepted by City for said [supplies, equipment, services, project, whatever].
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 [supplies,
equipment, services, project, whatever].
2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. City Specification No. 19546 and
Contractor's proposal dated [date], are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement.
3. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing [supplies, equipment, services, project,
whatever] as specified in this Agreement, City will pay and Contractor shall receive therefor
compensation in a total sum not to exceed [$ .00].
4. CONTRACTOR'S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and
agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City, Contractor agrees with City to
do everything required by this Agreement and the said specification.
5. 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 Council [or other official]
of the City.
2.
Packet Pg 354
17
Page 28 Structural Assessment and Maintenance Report RFP
6. 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.
7. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid
by registered or certified mail addressed as follows:
City City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Contractor [ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
1. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Contractor 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.
ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
____________________________________ By:____________________________________
City Clerk City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR
_____________________________________ By: ___________________________________
City Attorney
Packet Pg 355
17
Page 29 Structural Assessment and Maintenance Report RFP
Appendix B: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
The Proposer 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 Proposer, its agents, representatives, employees or
sub Proposers.
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,
Packet Pg 356
17
Page 30 Structural Assessment and Maintenance Report RFP
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.
Sub-consultants. Consultant shall include all sub-consultants as insured under its policies or shall
furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each sub -consultant. All coverages for sub-
consultants shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein.
Packet Pg 357
17
O ______
ORDINANCE NO. ______ (2017 SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 10.52.010 (PARKING
METER ZONE RATES) OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, State law provides, in Vehicle Code Section 22508, that cities must establish
parking meter rates by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the parking program needs to continue to be self-sufficient for its financial
commitments; and
WHEREAS, the City needs to continue to financially support the operation and debt service of
the next City parking structure; and
WHEREAS, the Council considered the staff report and considered the proposed changes to the
parking meter rates at a public meeting on June 6, 2017.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. Section 10.52.010 (Parking meter zone – rates) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code is hereby amended as follows:
10.52.010 Parking meter zone – Rates.
A. Within the area enclosed by a solid line on the parking rate zone map (Exhibit A) and the area
enclosed by the shaded line on Slack Street parking meter zone map (Exhibit B) (more particularly
described as: the north side of Hathway Avenue adjacent to Cal Poly to Longview Lane, the east side of
Longview Street from Hathway Avenue to Slack Street, the north side of Slack Street from Longview
Lane to Grand Avenue, and the south side of Slack Street adjacent to the San Luis Coastal Unified School
District parcel from the midblock point of Slack Street (between Longview Lane and Grand Avenue) to
Grand Avenue), the parking of vehicles on streets or in municipal parking lots may be controlled and
regulated with the aid of parking meters.
B. Unless established otherwise below, the parking meter rate on streets or in municipal parking lots
in the lower rate zone shall be seventy-five cents one dollar per hour.
C. Within the area designated on the parking rate zones map (Exhibit A) the rate for parking meters
on streets or in municipal parking lots shall be one dollar and twenty five fifty cents per hour.
D. Within the area designated on the parking rate zones map (Exhibit A), the rate for parking meters
on streets or in municipal lots shall be one dollar and fifty seventy-five cents per hour.
E. Within the shaded area of the map entitled Slack Street parking meter zone map (Exhibit B) the
parking of vehicles on streets may be controlled and regulated with the aid of parking meters. The
parking meter rate shall be seventy-five cents one dollar per hour if controller by meter.
Packet Pg 358
17
Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
O ______
SECTION 2. Severability. If any subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforcement of the remaining portions
of this ordinance, or any other provisions of the city' s rules and regulations. It is the city' s express intent
that each remaining portion would have been adopted irrespective of the fact that any one or more
subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or unenforceable.
SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of the Council members
voting for and against it, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage , in the
Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance will go into effect
at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the 6th day of June 2017, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of
the City of San Luis Obispo on the 20th of June 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 359
17
Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3
O ______
Packet Pg 36017
Ordinance No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 4
O ______
Packet Pg 36117
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. ______ (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARKING FEES IN THE CITY’S
PARKING STRUCTURES
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo wishes to maintain effective usage of its three parking
structures; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to provide secure and user friendly parking for all users of the
parking structures; and
WHEREAS, the parking program needs to continue to be self-sufficient for its financial
commitments; and
WHEREAS, the Council considered the Parking Revenue Enhancements staff report and held a
public meeting on the proposed changes to the parking structure rates and hours of operation.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. Effective January 1, 2018, all hourly parking structure rates shall increase to $1.25
an hour, including Sundays, with the first hour free.
SECTION 2. Effective January 1, 2018, the maximum daily parking structure rate shall increase
to $12.50 per day, Monday through Saturday and $6.25 per day on Sundays.
SECTION 3. Effective July 1, 2020, the hourly parking structure rates in the 842 Palm, 919
Palm and Marsh Street Structures shall increase to $1.50 an hour, including Sundays, with the first hour
free.
SECTION 4. Effective July 1, 2020, the maximum daily parking structure rate in the 842 Palm,
919 Palm and the Marsh Street Structures shall increase to $15.00 per day, Monday through Saturday
and $7.50 per day on Sundays.
SECTION 5. Upon the opening of the new Palm Nipomo Parking Structure, the hourly rate
shall be $1.00 an hour, including Sundays, with the first hour free.
SECTION 6. Upon the opening of the new Palm Nipomo Parking Structure, the maximum daily
parking structure rate shall be $10.00 per day, Monday through Saturday and $5.00 per day on Sundays.
Packet Pg 362
17
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
Upon motion of ___________________, seconded by_____________________ and on the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and 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 363
17
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INCREASED PARKING
CITATION FINES
WHEREAS, State law provides, in Vehicle Code Section 40203.5, that cities establish the
amount of parking penalties, fees, and surcharges; and
WHEREAS, State law authorizes the City to recover administrative fees, parking penalties, fees
and collection costs related to civil debt collection, late payment penalties, and other related charges;
and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to provide secure and user friendly parking for all users of the
parking structures; and
WHEREAS, the parking program needs to continue to be self-sufficient for its financial
commitments; and
WHEREAS, the Council considered the Parking Revenue Enhancements staff report and held a
public meeting on the proposed changes to the parking citation fines and the establishment of additional
fees.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. Effective January 1, 2018, parking fines shall be modified (see Exhibit A) as
follows:
1. Increase expired meter violation (SLOMC 10.52.050) from $33 to $40;
2. Increase overtime parking violation (SLOMC Section 10.040.010) from $43 to $50;
3. Increase passenger loading zone violation (SLOMC 10.44.040) from $33 to $40;
4. Increase parking space markings violation (SLOMC 10.40.060) from $33 to $40;
5. Increase no permit lot violation (SLOMC 10.36.235) from $38 to $45
Upon motion of ___________________, seconded by_____________________ and
on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this ____ day of ___________, 2017.
_______________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST
Packet Pg 364
17
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
_____________________________
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 365
17
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3
R ______
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PENALTY SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE DATE: 01/01/2018
CODE & SECTION DESCRIPTION PENALTYPENALTY PENALTY & LATE FEE
SLMC 10.12.050 INTERFERENCE WITH POLICE/AUTHORIZED OFFICER #93 123
SLMC 10.14.030 OBEDIENCE TO TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES #58 88
SLMC 10.14.090 UNAUTHORIZED PAINTING ON CURBS #58 88
SLMC 10.34.020 OVERNIGHT CAMPING (10pm - 6 am)100 130
SLMC 10.36.020 STOPPING OR STANDING IN PARKWAYS PROHIBITED #33 63
SLMC 10.36.030 STOP/STAND/PARK IN VIOLATION OF CHAPTER #33 63
SLMC 10.36.040 NO PARKING ZONE - PROHIBITED PARKING - Also Taxi Zone (d)#53 83
SLMC 10.36.050 USE OF STREETS FOR STORAGE OF VEHICLES PROHIBITED #23 53
SLMC 10.36.070 REPAIRING OR GREASING VEHICLE ON PUBLIC STREET #23 53
SLMC 10.36.080 WASHING OR POLISHING VEHICLES #23 53
SLMC 10.36.090 PARKING ADJACENT TO SCHOOLS #23 53
SLMC 10.36.100 PARKING PROHIBITED ON NARROW STREETS #23 53
SLMC 10.36.110 PARKING ON GRADES #23 53
SLMC 10.36.120 UNLAWFUL PARKING - PEDDLERS, VENDORS #23 53
SLMC 10.36.130 EMERGENCY PARKING SIGNS #23 53
SLMC 10.36.140 LARGE/COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING NEAR INTERSECTION #23 53
SLMC 10.36.150 NIGHTTIME PARKING OF LARGE VEHICLES #23 53
SLMC 10.36.160 NIGHTTIME PARKING OF VEH W/OPERATING AIR/REFRIGERATION #23 53
SLMC 10.36.200 PARKING IN A RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING AREA #38 68
SLMC 10.36.230 PERMITS - DISPLAY OF PERMITS 28 58
SLMC 10.36.235 NO PERMIT LOT #45 75
SLMC 10.40.010 TIMED PARKING 10 MINUTES TO 10 HOURS (Overtime Parking)50 80
SLMC 10.40.020 BACKING INTO PARKING SPACE PROHIBITED #28 58
SLMC 10.40.040 PARKING PARALLEL ON ONE-WAY STREETS #21 51
SLMC 10.40.050 DIAGONAL PARKING #21 51
SLMC 10.40.060 PARKING SPACE MARKINGS #40 70
SLMC 10.40.070 NO STOPPING ZONE #21 51
SLMC 10.40.080 ALL NIGHT PARKING PROHIBITED (3-5am)#38 68
SLMC 10.44.020 CURB MARKING TO INDICATE NO STOPPING/PARKING REGS.#23 53
SLMC 10.44.030 EFFECT OF PERMISSION TO LOAD/UNLOAD IN YELLOW ZONE #53 83
SLMC 10.44.040 EFFECT OF PERMISSION TO LOAD/UNLOAD IN WHITE ZONE #40 70
SLMC 10.44.050 STANDING IN ANY ALLEY #33 63
SLMC 10.44.070 DISABLED PARKING 338 368
SLMC 10.48.010 CERTAIN VEHICLES PROHIBITED IN CENTRAL DISTRICT #58 88
SLMC 10.48.020 ADVERTISING VEHICLES #33 63
SLMC 10.48.030 ANIMAL DRAWN VEHICLES #33 63
SLMC 10.48.040 TRUCK ROUTES #88 118
SLMC 10.48.050 COMM. VEHICLES PROHIBITED FROM USING CERTAIN STREETS #88 118
SLMC 10.48.060 MAX. GROSS WT. LIMITS OF VEHICLES ON CERTAIN STREETS #88 118
SLMC 10.52.040 PARKING METERS - OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES #23 53
SLMC 10.52.050 UNLAWFUL TO PARK AFTER METER TIME HAS EXPIRED #40 70
SLMC 10.52.060 UNLAWFUL TO EXTEND TIME BEYOND LIMIT #15 45
SLMC 10.52.070 IMPROPER USE OF METER #15 45
SLMC 10.52.080 PARKING METERS/STANDARDS - PROPER USE #15 45
SLMC 10.52.110 MOTORCYCLE SPACES #15 45
CVC 5204(a)*CURRENT TAB IMPROPERLY ATTACHED *25
CVC 21113(a)VEHICLE OR ANIMAL ON PUBLIC GROUNDS-MOVING #116 146
CVC 21113(b)VEHICLE OR ANIMAL ON PUBLIC GROUNDS-PARKING #33 63
CVC 21113 (c)DRIVEWAYS, PATHS, PARKING FACILITIES ON GROUNDS #33 63
CVC 22500.1 STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: FIRE LANE #116 146
CVC 22500(a)STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: WITHIN INTERSECTION #33 63
CVC 22500(b)STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: ON A CROSSWALK #33 63
CVC 22500(c)STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: BETWEEN SAFETY ZONE #33 63
CVC 22500(d)STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: W/IN 15' FIREHOUSE ENTRANCE #33 63
CVC 22500(e)STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: PUBLIC/PRIVATE DRIVEWAY #33 63
CVC 22500(f)STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: ON SIDEWALK #33 63
CVC 22500(g)STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: ALONG/OPPOSITE OBSTRUCT #33 63
CVC 22500(h)STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: ON ROADWAY SIDE OF VEHICLE #33 63
CVC 22500(i)IMPROPER PARKING IN BUS ZONE #263 293
CVC 22500(j)STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: IN TUBE OR TUNNEL #33 63
CVC 22500(k)STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: UPON BRIDGE EXCEPT AUTH #33 63
Packet Pg 366
17
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 4
R ______
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PENALTY SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE DATE: 01/01/2018
CODE & SECTION DESCRIPTION PENALTYPENALTY PENALTY & LATE FEE
CVC 22500(l)IMPROPER PARKING IN WHEELCHAIR ACCESS #263 293
CVC 22502(a)CURB PARKING #33 63
CVC 22502(b)PARKING OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC #33 63
CVC 22502(c)CURB PARKING - WHEELS MORE THAN 18 INCHES FROM CURB #33 63
CVC 22504(a)UNINCORPORATED AREA PARKING #33 63
CVC 22505(a)PARKING ON STATE HIGHWAY WHERE SIGN POSTED #33 63
CVC 22505(b)POSTED NO PARKING - STATE HIGHWAY #33 63
CVC 22507 UNLAWFUL PARKING #33 63
CVC 22507.8 (a)PARKING IN SPACE FOR DISABLED 338 368
CVC 22507.8 (b)PARKING IN SPACE FOR DISABLED - OBSTRUCT/BLOCK 338 368
CVC 22507.8 (c)(1)PARKING IN SPACE FOR DISABLED - ON LINES MARKED 338 368
CVC 22507.8 (c)(2)PARKING IN SPACE FOR DISABLED - CROSSHATCHED LINES 338 368
CVC 22510 PARKING IN SNOW REMOVAL AREAS 3 33
CVC 22511.7 DISABLED ZONE 338 368
CVC 22512 VEHICLE UNATTENDED #116 146
CVC 22513 TOW CARS - PARKING ON FREEWAY #33 63
CVC 22514 FIRE HYDRANTS #63 93
CVC 22515(a)UNATTENDED VEHICLES - SET BRAKES/STOP MOTOR #33 63
CVC 22515(b)UNATTENDED VEHICLES - SET BRAKES/WHEELS/PREVENT MOVE #33 63
CVC 22516 LOCKED VEHICLE #116 146
CVC 22517 OPENING AND CLOSING DOORS #116 146
CVC 22520.5 VENDING ON FREEWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY #116 146
CVC 22520.5(a) VENDING ON FREEWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY #116 146
CVC 22521 ILLEGAL TO PARK ON RAILROAD TRACKS #33 63
CVC 22522 PARKING NEAR SIDEWALK ACCESS RAMPS #288 318
CVC 22523(a)VEHICLE ABANDONMENT- On Highway #283 313
CVC 22523(b)VEHICLE ABANDONMENT #283 313
CVC 22650 UNLAWFUL REMOVAL OF UNATTENDED VEHICLE #116 146
CVC 22651(b)VEHICLE PARKED/LEFT STANDING TO OBSTRUCT TRAFFIC #116 146
CVC 40225*PROCESSING OTHER VIOLATIONS *10
CVC 40226*FAILURE TO DISPLAY DISABLED PLACARD - ADMINISTRATIVE FEE *25
LATE PAYMENT PENALTY 30
*Fine or fee amounts are set by the Uniform Bail & Penalty Schedule or by specific CVC section
All other fine amounts set by City Council pursuant to CVC 40203.5
Packet Pg 367
17
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 368
17
Meeting Date: 6/6/2017
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Gamaliel Anguiano, Transit Manager
SUBJECT: TRANSIT FISCAL YEAR 2017-19 FUND REVIEW
RECOMMENDATION
1. Review and approve the Fiscal Year 2017-19 Transit Enterprise Fund Review; and
2. Conceptually approve the Fiscal Year 2017-19 Transit Enterprise Fund financials and budget,
with final action on June 20, 2017, with the adoption of the 2017-19 Financial Plan.
DISCUSSION
Overview
The City of San Luis Obispo has been providing public transit service s ince 1974. Each year,
SLO Transit provides essential bus service for over one million passengers. This report
presents the Fiscal Year 2017-19 Transit Fund review for the next two-year period and
provides a five-year forecast for the fund to identify fisc al issues that may affect the Fund.
The report also discusses changes in operational costs and potential funding changes in
local, state and federal funding levels.
Overall, the Transit Fund is forecast to end F iscal Year 2016-17 with a modest year-end
working capital amount to cover operations and assist in minor capital expenditure projects.
The Transit Fund will maintain the minimum 20% reserve level in working capital in
accordance with the City Financial Management policies. Finally, the City of Sa n Luis
Obispo's Transit Fund continues to provide a viable mobility option for residents and
visitors. A wide range of users continue to receive services, including commuters, transit -
dependent riders, students, disabled, and elderly.
Background
Fiscal Year 2017-19 Transit Enterprise Fund Analysis Report
The Fiscal Ye a r 2017-19 Transit Enterprise Fund Analysis Report (Attachment A )
includes changes in financial position, analysis assumptions, an update on major activities
and programs and shows the anticipated five-year capital improvement projects for the
fund.
As presented at the April 18th, 2017 Strategic Budget Review (SBR) the Transit Fund ended
Fiscal Year 2015-16 with a Working Capital of approximately $3 million. The fiscal outlook for
the next five years’ shows some uncertainties given today’s political climate and historical trends
so the Fund is projecting highly conservative revenue numbers. Operations can be sustained
despite CalPERS changes but for years outside of the two-year Financial Plan, the fund balance
is shrinking due to expenses exceeding annual revenues. Major capital projects, such as new bus
purchases, are highly dependent upon future grants.
Packet Pg 369
18
Expenses
Expenditures will continue to be mitigated to reflect revenue levels and m aintain mandatory
20% farebox recovery requirements. While staff had previously anticipated major 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. These new services will be
rolled out beginning on June 18th and will provide important improvements to the base transit
services. This schedule will represent a modest service expansion. The remaining
recommendations for expansion of service will be phased in and dependent on the availability
of funding.
The four-year Operations & Maintenance contract with First Transit Inc, which commenced on
July 1st, 2016, establishes the operational cost for the next four years. Costs incrementally
increase approximately 3% each year. First Transit fees are based on fixed administrative costs
and non-fixed costs based on revenue service hours – these changes are reflected in the Fund
forecast.
Fuel prices for FY 16-17 have been lower than expected. Fuel industry forecasts, however,
predict that they will return to historic levels in FY 17-19, as already being seen. The Transit
Fund forecast continues to program fuel costs in a conservative manner due to the extreme
volatility of prices that have been experienced in recent past.
Revenues
The fund review includes new revenues that are anticipated as a result of the April 4th, 2017, City
Council approval of transit fares. The 25-cent change to the base fare, from $1.25 to $1.50, and
the changes to the various pass types enables the Transit Fund to meet the 20% farebox recovery
obligation.
SLO Transit farebox income also includes the University Transit Subsidy. This subsidy provides
for unlimited trips for students, staff, and faculty on SLO Transit. Cal Poly current ridership is
65% of the total annual trips for the system. The current one-year extension approved by
Council is scheduled to expire on June 30th, 2017 and is currently being negotiated by staff of the
two agencies. It is likely that an extension for a month to month continuation of the program
will be accommodated if a revised agreement is not completed prior to that date. For the fund
projection staff is using a very conservative subsidy amount increase as a placeholder for its
projections in the fund review.
State funding is a major funding source for Transit . The Transit Development Act (TDA) of
California provides two funding sources for transportation programs in general and transit in
particular. Local Transportation Fund (LTF) is derived from a ¼ cent of the general sales tax
collected statewide. State Transit Assistance fund (STA), which is derived from the statewide
sales tax on diesel fuel.
Packet Pg 370
18
1. STA - Fuel price estimates used to set STA revenue amounts, have been lower than
anticipated. Therefore, the tax collected on it has also been lower than expected and STA
adjustments downward have resulted. Although the recent escalation in fuel prices could
have a positive impact in helping reverse the declining STA trend, the escalation of fuel
prices will also have a negative impact on the fuel budget line item.
2. LTF – Similarly, sales tax revenue on gasoline that funds our LTF has been lower but
more recently has begun to stabilize
3. Regional Transit Authority (RTA) Joint Powers Authority (JPA)Funding – the City is a
major JPA partner of the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) who provides our demand
responsive and intracity transit services for the county. Current “off-the-top” funding
requirements for RTA comes directly from state transit funding sources. If these revenue
sources are down it means less funding for SLO Transit unless RTA can accommodate
the reduction. Similarly, if RTA costs increase, additional TDA revenue is required to
help fund their services. RTA expenses are projected to significantly increase during each
of the next two years. This results in less funding for City services and are reflected in the
budget forecast.
Fortunately , during this Financial Plan timeframe the Transit Fund has a modest working
capital reserve and unspent revenue from prior years due to waiting for the SRTP approval
and changes in service levels. These amounts will help address the reduced State revenues
in the next two-year plan. This is significant as it will enable staff to continue services in the
short-term and develop strategies for long-term sustainability and service delivery in the outer
years of the forecast.
Furthermore, Governor Brown recently signed into law Senate Bill No. 1 (SB1). SB1 is an
additional fuel tax to help support transportation projects across the state. Early projections
suggest that revenues generated by SB1 could help the Transit Enterprise Fund in a modest
way. However, it should be noted that there is some disapproval and desire to repeal SB1 by
opposition groups. Given the timeframe for implementation of SB1, funding from this source
has been omitted from this financial plan until it is certain. Staff will be able to provide a
clearer picture of the impact of SB1 at a Mid-Year budget update but the annual amounts for
operating will likely be under $50,000.
Federal funding is the other major source for the Transit Fund. The Fixing America’s Surface
Transportation (FAST) Act is the current federal transportation funding program. While the
FAST Act continues modest support of public transportation, recent recommended cuts to the
Department of Transportation’s budget by the current Administration has some local
implications to the Transit fund. So far, these appear to be nominal, but are uncertain for the
long term. Staff is proceeding with conservative numbers for Federal assistance.
Capital Projects
The 2017-19 Transit Enterprise Fund identifies the essential capital projects for the next five
years. These projects include replacement of six (6) transit vehicles anticipated to meet their
Packet Pg 371
18
“end-of-useful-life” (per Federal Transit Administration) within the next five years. The ability
to carry out these replacements dependent on federal grants which typically fund up to 80% of
the capital expenditure. If the City is not awarded any of these capital assistance grants, the
costs will not be incurred and some alternative fleet management plan will need to be put in
place.
Overall, capital funding continues to be fully dependent upon Federal and State grants.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Adoption of a budget is not a project as defined under CEQA.
FISCAL IMPACT
Attached to this report is the detailed analysis of the Transit Fund revenues, expenditures and
changes in financial position. The 2017 Transit Fund Analysis includes the key assumptions
used in preparing the Fund projections. Consistent with the analysis presented to Council in this
report and the Preliminary 2015-17 Financial Plan, there are sufficient funds to support
operations with capital projects being completed pending grant funding.
ALTERNATIVES
Modify the Fund Analysis. The City Council could choose to accept all or part of the 2017
Transit Fund Review analysis as presented to and direct staff to seek additional funding sources,
defer capital projects or provide transit operating cost reductions. Staff does not recommend this
option as the proposed fiscal forecast provides the best “snapshot” of funding at this time based
upon the current and the latest information projected and provided by the State an d Federal
governments. Staff will continue to update the fiscal forecast and information on funding
sources as received, with the intention to defer capital projects if grant funds are not realized.
Attachments:
a - Transit Fund Analysis 2017
Packet Pg 372
18
ATTACHMENT 1
TRANSIT ENTERPRISE FUND REVIEW
2017-19 Financial Plan
Transit Enterprise Fund
2017 Fund Analysis
June 6th, 2017
Packet Pg 373
18
Attachment 1
Page 2
2017 Transit Fund
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Contents
I. OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 3
II. 2017-19 FINANCIAL PLAN ................................................................................................. 3
1. Summary of Operating Programs ................................................................................. 3
2. Capital Improvement Program ..................................................................................... 4
3. Revenues, Subventions, and Grants ............................................................................. 4
III. ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................................................. 5
1. General Government Assumptions ............................................................................... 5
2. Revenue Assumptions .................................................................................................. 5
3. Transportation Operating Expenses.............................................................................. 6
4. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Expenses ........................................................... 7
5. Ridership Assumptions ................................................................................................. 7
6. Other Unknowns ........................................................................................................... 8
IV. EXHIBIT A – Changes in Financial Position ...................................................................... 8
Packet Pg 374
18
Attachment 1
Page 3
2017 Transit Fund Report
I. OVERVIEW
This report presents the financial position of the Transit Enterprise Fund and recommends
operating program and capital project requests to address the identified needs in the Transit
Services program for the FY 2017-19 Financial Plan.
In recognition of the transit industry’s dependency on State and Federal funding, the Transit Fund
program is moving forward with caution and conservative es timates. In July of 2016, the City
awarded an Operations & Maintenance contract to First Transit Inc. The four -year contract, which
commenced July 1st, 2016, establishes the operational cost for the next four years. In August of 2016,
the City adopted the 2017-22 Short Range Transit Plan. This plan outlines the development of the
SLO Transit system for the next five years. The SRTP calls for a modification of routes for greater
connectivity and efficiency while also expanding transit services to better meet current and projected
passenger demand levels. Most of the recommended changes which result in greater connectivity and
efficiency are scheduled to be implemented on June 18 th, 2017, accompanied by a very modest
expansion of service. Remaining expansion of service will be dependent on the availability of funding.
State transit funding, particularly the Local Transit Fund (LTF), is expected to decrease for FY 17-
18 and beyond. Overall LTF revenues are expected to be about 11% lower for the City.
Fortunately, the Transit Fund has a modest working capital reserve that will help address the
reduced LTF revenues in the next two-year plan. Fuel prices for FY 16-17 have been lower than
expected and industry forecasts predict that they will return to historic levels in FY 17-18. The
Transit Fund budgets fuel costs in a conservative manner due to the historic volatility of prices that
have been experienced.
Overall, funding continues to be lean and highly dependent upon Federal and State grants and their
final budget appropriations. The currently forecast funding, along with the Cal Poly agreement
and farebox recovery, allow SLO Transit to continue its existing level of service. On April 4, 2017
the Council adopted new fares for the SLO Transit system. These changes in fares are included in
the five-year forecast and help deliver services as outlined in the SRTP. Capital expenditures will
be limited to projects that can be funded from grant revenues, keeping the local match required to
a minimum and preserving as much for operating expenses as possible.
II. 2017-19 FINANCIAL PLAN
1. Summary of Operating Programs
Below is the summary of the 2017-19 Financial Plan operating budget projections for the Transit
Services Enterprise Fund.
City of
San Luis Obispo
Packet Pg 375
18
Attachment 1
Page 4
The Fund Analysis is not proposing any Significant Operating Program Changes (SOPC).
2. Capital Improvement Program
Below is the summary of the 2017-19 Financial Plan capital project budget projections for the
Transit Enterprise Fund.
2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Budget Budget Projected Projected Projected
Bus Stop Shelter Replacements 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$
Automatic Vehicle Location System 310,000$
SLO Transit Bus Replacements 1,060,000$ 1,590,000$ 1,590,000$
Trolley Replacement 250,000$
UPS Battery Replacement 1,001$ 1,001$
VM Infrastructure
Server Operating System 982$
VoIP Phone System 1,247$
Tait Radio System 52,299$
Firewall Replacement 2,035$
South Hills Radio Site Upgrade and Radio 3,317$ 2,395$
Microsoft Office Replacement 875$
Total Capital Program Expenditures 338,317$ 1,141,570$ 1,617,035$ 1,615,982$ 277,248$
Transit Capital Program
There are no vehicle replacements needed in 2017-18, however, beginning in FY 2018-19 the Fund
will again need to start programming vehicle replacements to retire vehicles beyond their useful
life. These replacements will be fully reliant on grant assistance to complete and if funding does
not materialize, the projects will need deferral or modification. The fund assumes participation of
Federal capital funding a ratio of 80/20 for all vehicle replacements.
3. Revenues, Subventions, and Grants
Federal revenues, which comprise 40% of operating costs, are expected to be about the same as
previous year’s allocation. However, State transit funding is predicted to decrease for this fiscal
year 2017-18 as a result of the lower than expected sales/gas tax/excise tax revenues in the Local
Transportation Fund (LTF) by as much as 11%. There is some hope that this decrease in State
funds is only true of this budget cycle and will recover to normal levels in outlying years. With
the recent passage of the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB -1), staff anticipates
additional revenue for transit but it is unknown at this time what that amount may be. Staff will
continue to monitor the revenues received by SB-1 and return at midyear if additional funding
appropriations are available.
Packet Pg 376
18
Attachment 1
Page 5
2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Budget Budget Projected Projected Projected
Investment and Property Revenues 5,800$ 5,800$ 5,800$ 5,800$ 5,800$
From Other Governments
TDA Revenues (LTF)1,160,677$ 1,046,313$ 1,160,677$ 1,160,677$ 1,160,677$
TDA Revenues (STA)143,846$ 143,846$ 143,846$ 143,846$ 143,846$
Other Grants*174,600$ 1,060,000$ 1,590,000$ 1,590,000$ 250,000$
FTA Grants 1,399,640$ 1,399,640$ 1,399,640$ 1,399,640$ 1,399,640$
Service Charges 787,914$ 799,715$ 816,876$ 834,501$ 834,501$
Other Revenues 8,000$ 8,000$ 6,600$ 6,600$ 6,600$
Total Revenues 3,680,477$ 4,463,314$ 5,123,439$ 5,141,064$ 3,801,064$
Transit Revenue
III. ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions have been used to forecast the Transit Enterprise Fund analysis. The
discussion below provides detail for the key assumptions used to generate the changes in financial
position as provided as Exhibit A. It is important to note the proposed budget is a “snapshot” of
current funding and expenditure projections as of June 2017. The following discussion focuses on
major issues that could have an affect the Transit Enterprise Fund next fiscal year. These
assumptions have been incorporated into the 2017-19 budget projections.
1. General Government Assumptions
Minimum working capital (reserve) should equal at least 20% of the total Operating Program
expenditures per the City's fiscal policy. The 2017-19 year-end working capital meets the
minimum reserve policy levels however it will be spent down over time along with unspent prior
year revenues to address LTF reductions.
General Assumptions include:
Revenue Assumptions:
a) 0% increase in Federal Grants and 11% decrease in annual State Grants.
b) 9% Fare Increase in 2017-18 and a 1% annual increase thereafter. An annual
increase in Cal Poly Service Agreement.
c) Bus replacement grant revenue is assumed for each bus replacement.
d) 2017-19 LTF revenue reductions are based upon the Regional Transit Authority
(RTA) 'off the top' allocation as adopted by the RTA Board on 5/3/17.
Expenditure Revenues:
a) 2% annual increase in staffing costs.
b) 3% annual increase for contract services per agreement with First Transit.
c) 3% annual increase for operational short-range transit plan implementation
The Transit Enterprise Fund will commit all available transit funding to SLO Transit and will carry
over any unused funding for use in subsequent years and to maintain an adequate year-end fund
balance (reserve) and help weather budget uncertainties.
2. Revenue Assumptions
Packet Pg 377
18
Attachment 1
Page 6
Federal Transit Administration
Federal Transit Assistance (FTA) funding is formula-based upon population and service level
categories. In addition, the SLO Central Urbanized Area receives addition FTA funding for
performing above industry standards. Indications are that the final transit apportionments will
remain similar to current levels. The Fund Analysis projects FTA funding of $1,399,640 in 2017-
18 and 2018-19. FY 17-18 amounts have already been programmed by SLOCOG but need to
await final Federal adoption. This Federal funding will be used for operating assistance of SLO
Transit services and various capital projects such as bus shelter replacements, transit facility
expansion, and bus replacements.
Transportation Development Act
The Transportation Development Act (TDA) is comprised of two sources of funding for
transportation programs, Local Transportation Funds (LTF) and State Transportation Assistance
(STA) funding. LTF is derived from ¼ cent collected in retail sales taxes. STA is derived from
the statewide sales tax on diesel fuel. Both funds are distributed to the regions by the State.
With the recent decrease in fuel prices, along with some other factors, LTF funds are lower than
anticipated. While some “normalization” in the volatile fuel market has occurred, the “benefits”
of are not certain yet. The County Auditor LTF projections a re lower than originally estimated
with approximately $1,160,677 (-11%) in 2017-18 from the previous year which benefited from
one-time higher than anticipated increases. Fortunately, the Transit Fund has a modest working
capital reserve and unspent revenue from the previous year in the LTF. These amounts will help
address the reduced LTF revenues in the next two-year plan.
Fare Revenue
On April 4th, 2017, City Council approved the first rate change to Transit fares in over eight years.
The 25-cent change to the base fare and the subsequent changes to the various pass types helps
support the transit fund in meeting its obligation for generated 20% (farebox recovery) of the
operational costs in revenue. The 20% farebox recovery is based on newly project operational
cost of a new service contract and phased in implementation of the SRTP.
Cal Poly Subsidy
This subsidy program between the City and CalPoly provides for unlimited trips for students, staff,
and faculty on SLO Transit; which, on average, account for 65% of the total system’s ridership.
The current one-year extension approved by Council is scheduled to expire on June 30th, 2017.
Staff hopes to bring a renegotiated multi-year subsidy agreement to Council before then. A month-
to-month extension may be necessary if otherwise. Meanwhile, staff is using a very conservative
subsidy amount as a placeholder for its projections.
Trolley Operations
Trolley operations were reduced in FY 2012-13 in response to the loss of Tourism Business
Improvement District (TBID) support and declining ridership. Since then, Trolley ridership has
improved and the operation is now better supported with the 25¢ fare collected for each ride.
3. Transportation Operating Expenses
Packet Pg 378
18
Attachment 1
Page 7
Contract Services
In July of 2016, the City awarded an Operations & Maintenance contract to First Transit Inc. The
four-year contract, which commenced July 1st, 2016, establishes the operational cost for the next
four years. Costs incrementally increase on average by approximately 3% annually. First Transit
fees are based on fixed administrative costs and non-fixed costs based on revenue service hours.
Fuel
Fuel costs continue to be volatile and are difficult to predict. Fuel prices for FY 16-17 have been
lower than expected. However, industry forecasts predict that they will return to historic levels in
FY 17-19, as already being seen. The Transit Fund forecast continues to program fuel costs in a
conservative manner due to the extreme volatility of prices that have been experienced in recent
past.
General Government
The newly revised Cost Allocation Plan resulted in an increase of approximately 7% for FY 2017-
18 over the current year. This increase is attributed to the change in methodology for how the City
calculates direct and indirect charges for Enterprise Funds that receive General Fund program
support. The Cost Allocation Plan, which also affects the performance of farebox ratio, is
considered a Central Service plan by the FTA and does not require FTA review or certification.
Future cost to the transit system for indirect costs could increase significantly due to the increase
in retirement costs associated with the discount rate adjustment.
Short Range Transit Plan
In August of 2016, the City adopted the 2017-22 Short Range Transit Plan. This plan outlines the
development of the SLO Transit system for the next five years. The SRTP calls for a modification
of routes for greater connectivity and efficiency while also expanding transit services to better
meet current and projected passenger demand levels. Most of the recommended changes which
result in greater connectivity and efficiency are scheduled to be implemented on June 18th, 2017,
accompanied by a very modest expansion of service. The remaining recommendations for
expansion of service will be phased in and dependent on the availability of funding.
4. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Expenses
The Transit Fund analysis anticipates a conservative level of Federal funding apportionment for in
the 2017-19 fiscal years. Capital expenditures will be limited to projects that can be funded from
grant revenues, keeping the local match required to a min imum and preserving as much for
operating expenses as possible. There is no vehicle replacement in 2017-18, however, beginning
in FY 2018-19 the Fund will again need to start programming vehicle replacements to retire vehicle
beyond their useful life. The fund assumes participation of Federal capital funding a ratio of 80/20
for all vehicle replacements. The fund assumes participation of Federal capital fund in a ratio of
80/20 for all vehicle replacements. In 2014 the County became eligible to receive Cong estion
Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) federal funding. This funding is a discretionary fund and can
be used for capital assistance. The Fund analysis does not anticipate the use of CMAQ at this time
but will seek funding assistance from this fund (particularly for vehicle replacement) if it is
available in future years.
5. Ridership Assumptions
Packet Pg 379
18
Attachment 1
Page 8
FY 2015-16 set an all-time high record ridership with 1,209,701 trips provided during this period.
Transit ridership is cyclical with consecutive years of regular increases followed by years of slow
decline. Based upon year to date ridership, FY 16-17 will not be as high as last year’s historic
numbers with a forecast of being slightly above the 1,100,000-ridership threshold.
6. Other Unknowns
Volatile Fuel Prices
Staff continues to exercise prudent judgment in projecting budgets for fuel needed for the SLO
Transit system. Volatile fuel prices continue to pose challenges in balancing the budget. Staff will
continue to analyze fuel trends and make budget adjustments as necessary.
Regional Transit Authority Participation
The fund analysis assumes a modest increase of City funding to RTA services. Depending upon
RTA need, state funding available for use by SLO Transit could be less if RTA requires increased
funding beyond amounts assumed in the fund forecast.
California Air Resource Board – Zero Emission Goal
The Air Resource Board, California’s air quality regulatory body, has started with the development
of its Zero Emission fleet goal for heavy duty vehicles. In this goal, they are proposing that all
heavy-duty vehicles (buses included) move to electric-powered vehicles by 2030, in order to meet
their air quality attainment standards. The current price of an EV vehicle is still well over $1
million per vehicle so the ability to adopt this goal is still out of reach for most transit agencies.
However, considering the twelve-year life of a vehicle, transit agencies across the State will need
to consider procuring EV vehicles come 2018 if this goal is adopted.
IV. EXHIBIT A – Changes in Financial Position
Packet Pg 380
18
Attachment 1
Page 9
2017-19 TRANSIT FUND
FINANCIAL SCHEDULES
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
2021-22
Revenues
Investment and Property Revenues 11,203 5,800 5,800 5,800 5,800 5,800 5,800
From Other Governments
TDA Revenues (LTF)1,312,716 1,286,625 1,160,677 1,046,313 1,160,677 1,160,677 1,160,677
TDA Revenues (STA)162,418 159,890 143,846 143,846 143,846 143,846 143,846
Other Grants*39,738 1,300,200 174,600 1,060,000 1,590,000 1,590,000 250,000
FTA Grants 1,373,948 1,424,555 1,399,640 1,399,640 1,399,640 1,399,640 1,399,641
Service Charges 658,601 690,381 787,914 799,715 816,876 834,501 834,501
Other Revenues 868 4,600 8,000 8,000 6,600 6,600 6,600
TOTAL REVENUES:3,559,492 4,872,051 3,680,477 4,463,314 5,123,439 5,141,064 3,801,065
Expenditures
Operating Programs
Operating Expenses 2,920,657 3,448,368 3,321,189 3,411,092 3,505,513 3,511,832 3,518,277
Retirement Contribution 22,956 22,956 23,276 24,545 25,066
Unfunded Liabilities 38,229 41,634 41,634 50,263 53,858
Discount Rate Adjustment 1,884 3,823 8,526 10,555
General Government 277,329 288,995 319,987 319,987 319,987 319,987 319,987
Motion Project -one time 58,081 58,081
Motion Project - on going 21,020 23,579
Total Operating Programs 3,197,986 3,737,363 3,760,442 3,876,654 3,894,233 3,915,153 3,927,742
Capital Improvement Plan Projects*232,661 1,657,388 338,317 1,141,570 1,617,035 1,615,982 277,248
TOTAL EXPENDITURES:3,430,647 5,394,751 4,098,759 5,018,224 5,511,268 5,531,135 4,204,990
Other Sources (Uses)
Cashflow adjustment for working capital
Operating Transfers Out
Other Sources (4,200)
TOTAL OTHER SOURCES:0 (4,200)0 0 0 0 0
Revenues and Other Sources
(Over/Under) 128,846 (526,900)(418,281)(554,910)(387,829)(390,070)(403,925)
Working Capital, Beginning of Year 2,775,920 2,904,766 2,377,866 1,959,585 1,404,675 1,016,846 626,776
Working Capital, End of Year Fund
Reserves 2,904,766 2,377,866 1,959,585 1,404,675 1,016,846 626,776 222,851
* 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 10% 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. 2017-19 LTF revenue reductions are based upon the Reginonal Transit Authority (RTA) 'off the top' allocation as
adopted by the RTA Board on 5/3/17.
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 381
18
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 382
18