Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1001-1500 Emails and Calendars Batch 1
1 From:Maggio, Rodger Sent:Tuesday, October 17, 2023 1:39 PM To:Kazemi, Neema Cc:Bernstorff, Rebecca Subject:RE: Construction square footage, fire Thank you From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 1:30 PM To: Maggio, Rodger <rmaggio@slocity.org> Cc: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Construction square footage, fire Hi Rodger, I think this would be possible. I’ll reuse what I did for building and see what I can get. I’m hoping to have something for you by end of day tomorrow. Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Maggio, Rodger <rmaggio@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 4:57 PM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: Construction square footage, fire Good afternoon Neema, Would it be possible to pull construction square footage data out of EnerGov for project routed to Fire for review as you were able to do with Building for the fee study? Rodger Rodger Maggio Fire Marshal 2 Fire Department Fire Prevention 2160 Santa Barbara Avenue, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-5240 E rmaggio@slocity.org T 805.781.7386 C 805.431.4446 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 3 From:Bernstorff, Rebecca Sent:Tuesday, October 17, 2023 1:31 PM To:Kazemi, Neema; Maggio, Rodger Subject:RE: Construction square footage, fire Attachments:FW: Volume Data - Due Date 10.12.23 Thanks Neema! Sharing B&S’ info in case Rodger can glean anything from that for Fire while you work on the report. Thanks! Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 1:30 PM To: Maggio, Rodger <rmaggio@slocity.org> Cc: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Construction square footage, fire Hi Rodger, I think this would be possible. I’ll reuse what I did for building and see what I can get. I’m hoping to have something for you by end of day tomorrow. Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org 4 Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Maggio, Rodger <rmaggio@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 4:57 PM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: Construction square footage, fire Good afternoon Neema, Would it be possible to pull construction square footage data out of EnerGov for project routed to Fire for review as you were able to do with Building for the fee study? Rodger Rodger Maggio Fire Marshal Fire Department Fire Prevention 2160 Santa Barbara Avenue, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-5240 E rmaggio@slocity.org T 805.781.7386 C 805.431.4446 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 1 From:Keller, Erin Sent:Tuesday, October 17, 2023 11:08 AM To:Bernstorff, Rebecca Subject:FW: Volume Data - Due Date 10.12.23 Attachments:CopyServiceNames.xlsx; Plans.csv; Permits.csv Plans CSV has the Fire Fees and Volumns Erin Keller pronouns she/her/hers Senior Business Analyst Community Development E EKeller@slocity.org T 805.781.7296 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Keller, Erin Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 2:19 PM To: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Volume Data - Due Date 10.12.23 Please see the attached volumes you requested based on the Service names in excel spreadsheet you provided us. Respectfully, Erin Keller pronouns she/her/hers Senior Business Analyst Community Development E EKeller@slocity.org T 805.781.7296 2 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 2:10 PM To: Keller, Erin <EKeller@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Volume Data - Due Date Hi Erin, Attached is the spreadsheet you sent filled out to the best of my ability. Also, this shows data for the past 5 years since 1/1/2018 but the spreadsheet shows the fees for 23-24. Fees are adjusted each year for CPI/CCI. I also attached the csv files I extracted to from the database. Let me know if I can provide any more data! Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications -----Original Appointment----- From: Keller, Erin <EKeller@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 7:35 AM To: Kazemi, Neema Subject: Volume Data - Due Date When: Thursday, October 12, 2023 3:00 PM-3:25 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada). Where: Microsoft Teams Meeting Importance: High Service Names by Department – Volume and Total Excel File data. 3 ________________________________________________________________________________ Microsoft Teams meeting Join on your computer, mobile app or room device Click here to join the meeting Meeting ID: Download Teams | Join on the web Learn More | Meeting options ________________________________________________________________________________ feename Count of feename 12x20 Meter Box (Mission Style)1 12x20 Solid Cover (Mission Style)1 17x28 Cover for Drop-in Lid (Mission Style)1 17x28 Meter Box (Mission Style)1 A/C Residential - BLDG 250 Adapter Cost (1" Service/.58"x.75" Meter)1 Adapter Cost (1" Service/.75" Meter)5 Adapter Cost (2" Service/1" Meter)6 Adapter Cost (2" Service/1.5" Meter)3 Administrative Fee 210 Administrative Fee 2018 47 Affordable Housing (C)34 Affordable Housing (R) - In City 39 After Hours Call Out (Building) - BLDG 1 Air Handler - BLDG 29 Alt Method and Material Review 9 Annual Encroachment Permit for Utility Comp - ENG 21 Antenna/Tower w/ Equipment Shelter - BLDG 12 Attached Accessory / Utility Uses - Fire 64 Awning/Canopy - BLDG 21 Balcony/Porch/Deck - BLDG 313 Blue Card Inspection 4 Building Permit GL 36 Building Permit Review - Fire 38 Building Permit Review - Planning 1942 Building Permit Review - Utilities 4 Building Plan Rev - Commercial - Minor 466 Building Plan Rev - Commercial - Moderate 70 Building Plan Rev - Residential - Minor 479 Building Plan Rev - Residential - Moderate 359 Building Sewer - BLDG 139 C&D Recycling - UTIL 2791 Cell Tower/Antenna - BLDG 31 Chiller - BLDG 3 CityWide TIF - Multi Family Vested 68 CityWide TIF - Single Family Vested 361 Citywide Water MF - Vested 14 Citywide Water SF - Vested 127 Citywide WW MF - Vested 14 Citywide WW SF - Vested 127 Code Enforcement Fee 113 Commercial Access Upgrade - Site work - BLDG 110 Commercial Access Upgrade - Upgrades - BLDG 23 Commercial Coach Installation - BLDG 2 Commercial Residential & MF Remodel - Fire 10 Commercial Residential & Multi Family - Fire 60 Commercial Tenant Improv - Non Structural - FIRE 176 Commercial Uses - Structural - Fire 44 Consolidated Inspection Fees 3099 Consolidated Plan Check Fees 2852 Consolidated TIF AASP Plan Prep Fees 2 Consolidated TIF AASP Traffic Fees 1 Consolidated TIF Citywide Base Fees 167 Consolidated TIF LOVR Base Fees 2 Consolidated TIF LOVR Traffic Fees 2 Consolidated TIF MASP Base Fees 32 Consolidated TIF MASP Plan Prep Fee 32 Consolidated TIF MASP Traffic Fees 32 Consolidated TIF OASP Plan Prep Fees 75 Consolidated TIF OASP Traffic Fees 4 Consolidated Wastewater (Calle Joaquin) Impact Fee 5 Consolidated Wastewater (Citywide) Impact Fee 189 Consolidated Wastewater (Laguna) Impact Fee 1 Consolidated Wastewater (Silver City) Impact Fee 33 Consolidated Wastewater (Tank Farm) Impact Fee 79 Consolidated Wastewater (Tank Farm)- OASP Vested 381 Consolidated Wastewater Impact Fees 28 Consolidated Water Impact Fee 266 Consolidated Ww (Tank Farm)- OASP Vested Jones 17 Deferred Submittal (Building)226 Demolit - Interior or Garage/Utility Build - BLDG 153 Demolition - Entire Building - BLDG 72 DEPOSIT: COMMERCIAL REVIEW- MAJOR- PLAN 15 DEPOSIT: RESIDENTIAL REVIEW- MAJOR -PLAN 85 DEPOSIT: TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN REVIEW - MAJOR - ENG 7 Detached Accessory and Utility Uses - Fire 7 Doors/Windows - Non-Structural - BLDG 72 Doors/Windows - Structural - BLDG 36 Drain Vent Repair/Replace - BLDG 11 Drainage Report/Flood Study - BofS - Major - ENG 25 Drainage Report/Flood Study - BofS - Minor - ENG 144 Dry Chemical Systems 4 Dry Rot / Termite Repair - BLDG 7 Duct Work Only - BLDG 24 Dup Floor Plan - Sf Dwel & Duplexes - Fire 25 Duplicate Floor Plan Commercial Res- Fire 66 Duplicate Floor Plan De/attached & Utility - Fire 78 Dwelling Unit Construction Tax 1341 Electric Car Charging System -BLDG 180 Electric Service Add/Replace - BLDG 32 Electric Service Add/Replace (per AMP) - BLDG 220 Electric Service Upgrade (up to 200 amp) -BLDG 468 Encroachment Permit Plan Rev fee (if required)-ENG 16 Engineering Development Review 79 Evaporative Cooler - BLDG 4 Exhaust Hood - Type I - BLDG 2 Exhaust Hood & Duct - Residential - BLDG 3 Fence or Non-Engineered Wall - BLDG 22 Final Inspection - NSF Res - PW 378 Final Inspection - SF Residential - PW 1291 Fire Alarm System - New Install 89 Fire Alarm System - Tenant 62 Fire Citywide Base fee (MF)31 Fire Citywide Base fee (SF)154 Fire Citywide Industrial fee 3 Fire Citywide Office fee 12 Fire Citywide Retail fee 2 Fire Citywide Service fee 6 Fire Impact Fee 2018 8 Fire Permit Handling Fee - BLDG 1 Fire Safety Surcharge 68 Fire sprinkler consolidated - new 630 Fire Sprinkler Systems - Tenant Consolidated 329 Fire Sprinkler Systems Tenant 29 Fireplace Insert Upgrade -BLDG 57 Fireplace Retrofit / Chimney Repair - BLDG 5 Fixtures - BLDG 80 Flag, Light, or Sign Pole - BLDG 10 Flatwork 241 Flood Zone Analysis - Major - ENG 13 Flood Zone Analysis - Minor - ENG 102 Foundation New/Replace - BLDG 38 Foundation Repair Only - BLDG 143 Furnace/Heater Replacement -BLDG 189 Furnaces - BLDG 122 Garage Conversion - BLDG 1 Gas System Repair/Replace/Extend - BLDG 74 Generator Installation - BLDG 11 Grading - BLDG 124 Graywater Systems - BLDG 2 Grease Trap - BLDG 3 Green Building Fee 4223 Heat Pump - BLDG 81 Heater - BLDG 14 Heater - Wall - BLDG 10 Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee - For Sale 1 Inert Gas Systems 2 Insulation/Energy Upgrade -BLDG 4 IT Surcharge 10384 Make-Up Air System - BLDG 1 MASP Park In-Lieu - Single Family 33 MASP Park In-Lieu - Single Family - Toscano 80 Meter Cost (.75")107 Meter Cost (1")1243 Meter Cost (1.5")17 Meter Cost (2")39 Meter Cost (3")10 Meter Cost (4")2 Meter Cost (6")1 Meter Service: Install (.58"-1")1320 Meter Service: Install (> 2")2 Meter Service: Install (1.5"-2")50 Minor Code Corrections - BLDG 26 Minor Encroachment - ENG 528 Minor Lease Space Improvements - BLDG 4 Minor Repairs - up to 2 inspections - BLDG 62 Misc Electrical Items NOS - BLDG 49 Misc Mechanical Items NOS - BLDG 4 Misc Plumbing Items NOS - BLDG 5 New/Altered Circuits - 15 or 20 amp - BLDG 187 New/Altered Circuits - 200+ amps - BLDG 3 New/Altered Circuits - 25 to 40 amp - BLDG 6 New/Altered Circuits - 50 to 175 amp - BLDG 12 Non-Single Family Residential -ENG 422 Non-Single Family Residential Final Insp - ENG 221 OASP Park Fee - Multi-Family Residential 1 OASP Park Fee - Multi-Family Residential Vested 15 OASP Park Fee - Single Family Residential 69 OASP Park Fee - Single Family Residential - Vested 1 OASP Park Improvement - Single Family Vested 24 OASP Plan Prep - Multi Family Vested 67 OASP Plan Prep - Single Family Vested 338 OASP TIF - Multi Family Vested 40 OASP TIF - Single Family Vested 67 OASP Wastewater - Multi Family Vested 55 OASP Wastewater - Single Family Vested 340 OASP Water - Multi Family Vested 72 OASP Water - Single Family Vested 341 OASP WW - Multi Family Vested Jones 18 Other Electrical Inspections - BLDG 42 Other Mechanical Inspections - BLDG 2 Other Plumbing & Gas Inspections - BLDG 6 Paint Spray Booth 1 Park Improvement fee (MF)28 Park Improvement Fee (SF)211 Park Improvement Impact Fee 3 Park Improvement Impact Fee (MFA)41 Park Improvement Impact Fee (MFC)2 Park Improvement Impact Fee (SF)78 Parking Meter Bags (non-URM)1089 Parkland Acquisition in-lieu - Imel (SF)18 Parkland Acquisition in-lieu - Jones (SF)9 Parkland Acquisition in-lieu - Taylor Muick (MF)12 Parkland Acquisition in-lieu - Taylor Muick (SF)55 Parkland Acquisition in-lieu - West Creek (MF)9 Parkland Acquisition in-lieu - West Creek (SF)67 Parkland Impact Fee 7 Parkland Impact Fee (SF)81 Parkland Impact Fee (MFA)45 Parkland in lieu (MFC)2 Partition - BLDG 28 Patio - Enclosed - BLDG 13 Patio Cover - Open - BLDG 74 Permit Issuance - BLDG 1059 Planning Development Review Fee 78 Planning Entitlement Review Surcharge - Adjusted 57 Police Citywide Base fee (MF)27 Police Citywide Base fee (SF)179 Police Citywide Industrial fee 4 Police Citywide Office fee 12 Police Citywide Retail fee 1 Police Citywide Service fee 6 Police Impact Fee 2018 8 Pool/Spa Commercial - BLDG 8 Post Construction Req / Stormwater - NSF Res - ENG 226 Post Construction Req / Stormwater SF res - ENG 1052 Public Art 173 Recycled Water Services - UTIL 143 Re-Inspection Fee (Fire)1 Re-Roof (C) - BLDG 12 Re-Roof Residential - BLDG 103 Re-roof with Added Ventilation -BLDG 18 Residential Photovoltaic System 2473 Residential Pool/Spa - Site Built - BLDG 29 Retaining Wall Engineered - BLDG 217 Retaining Wall Non-Engineered - BLDG 23 Rev of Mitigation Measures, Cond, and TIF's - PW 218 Revision Fee 2 Roof Structure Replacement - BLDG 17 Sewer Wye Abandonment 19 Sewer Wye Installation 179 SF Dwellings & Duplexes - Fire 23 Shear Wall / Steel Support Column - BLDG 2 Shell Building - Commercial Use - Fire 13 Sign - Monument or free standing - BLDG 47 Sign - Wall - BLDG 272 Single Family Residential -ENG 1433 Single Family Residential Final Inspection - ENG 657 Site Improvements - FIRE 2 SLR - Citywide Water MF - Vested 5 SLR - Citywide Water SF - Vested 67 SLR - Citywide WW MF - Vested 5 SLR - Citywide WW SF - Vested 67 SLR - TIF Citywide MF - Vested 5 SLR - TIF Citywide SF - Vested 67 SMIP (Commercial)1112 SMIP (Residential)3119 Solar Photovoltaic - Commercial/Multifamily - BLDG 95 Solar Water System Fixtures - BLDG 3 Special Investigation Fee 224 Sprinkler Monitoring System 171 Stairs - Repair/Replace - BLDG 75 Stand Alone Electrical Plan Check - BLDG 1 Stand Alone Mechanical Plan Check - BLDG 1 Stand Alone Plumbing Plan check - BLDG 1 Store Front / Facade Alterations: Minor - BLDG 50 Stormwater - Major Project - BLDG 49 Stormwater - Minor Project - BLDG 1511 Stormwater - Moderate Project - BLDG 341 Stucco/Siding - BLDG 116 Supplemental Inspection - Half (Building) - BLDG 47 Supplemental Inspection (Building) - BLDG 1710 Supplemental Plan Check (Building) - BLDG 1459 T-Bar Ceiling - BLDG 2 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy 112 Temporary Service - BLDG 64 TIF Avila LOVR Sub Single Family Residential 90 TIF Citywide Base fee (MF) < 549 8 TIF Citywide Base fee (MF) >1100 27 TIF Citywide Base fee (MF) 550 <>1100 26 TIF Citywide Base fee (SF) < 699 3 TIF Citywide Base fee (SF) >1400 59 TIF Citywide Base fee (SF) 700 <> 1400 25 TIF Citywide Hotel/Motel Vested 2016-2017 1 TIF Citywide Industrial 2016-2017 3 TIF Citywide Industrial fee 5 TIF Citywide MF - Vested 14 TIF Citywide Office fee 13 TIF Citywide Retail fee 2 TIF Citywide Service fee 5 TIF Citywide SF - Vested 127 TIF LOVR Base fee (SF) >1400 74 TIF LOVR Base fee (SF) 700 <> 1400 18 TIF LOVR Service fee 1 TIF MASP Base Fee - Toscano 80 TIF MASP Plan Prep Fee - Toscano 80 TIF MASP Traffic Fees - Toscano 81 Traffic Control Plan Inspection - Major - ENG 4 Traffic Control Plan Inspection - Minor 261 Traffic Control Plan Inspection - Moderate - ENG 13 Traffic Control Plan Review - Minor - ENG 70 Traffic Control Plan Review - Moderate - ENG 103 Transportation - Annual - ENG 86 Transportation - Single Trip - ENG 785 Trash Enclosure - BLDG 52 Utilities Excavation 928 Vapor Recovery - BLDG 1 Vent Fan (Single Duct) - BLDG 21 W Meter 1 1 W Residential Unit > 1201 sqft 192 W Residential Unit 451 <> 800 sqft 30 W Residential Unit 800 <> 1200 sqft 59 W Studio (<450 sqft)9 Wastewater (Citywide) Impact Fee - Toscano 81 Wastewater (Non-Res) - SLR 2 Vested 2016-17 2 Wastewater (Non-Res) - SLR 4 Vested 2016-17 1 Wastewater (Silver City) Impact Fee - Toscano 80 Water (Non-Res) - SLR 2 Vested 2016-17 1 Water (Non-Res) - SLR 4 Vested 2016-17 1 Water Heater - BLDG 96 Water Heater Replacement -BLDG 1 Water Heater Replacements 47 Water Impact Fee - Toscano 80 Water Pipe Repair/Replace - BLDG 43 Water Service or Trash Enc or Landscape - UTIL 468 Wet Chemical/Kitchen Hood 84 Window Retrofits (non-structural) -BLDG 520 WW Residential Unit > 1201 sqft 188 WW Residential Unit 451 <> 800 sqft 30 WW Residential Unit 800 <> 1200 sqft 61 WW Studio (<450 sqft)11 feename Count of feename Additional Doc Review/Cert. of Correction - ENG 2 Administrative Approval Applications 532 Administrative Use Permit- Application 149 Administrative Use Permit- Completion 108 Affordable Housing Incentive Requests- Completion 11 Affordable Housing Incentive Requests-Application 11 Agreements 23 ALUC Hearing Required - Completion 1 ALUC Hearing Required- Application 4 Annual Business License Renewal 22 Appeals 1 Arch Review: Conceptual Review - Application 10 Arch Review: Conceptual Review - Completion 3 Arch Review: Development Projects- Application 40 Arch Review: Development Projects- Completion 31 Arch Review: Major - Application 57 Arch Review: Major - Completion 33 Arch Review: Minor-Incidental- Application 158 Arch Review: Minor-Incidental- Completion 113 Arch Review: Signs - Application 11 Arch Review: Signs - Completion 9 Architectural Review: Development Projects 5 Business - Downtown Association 19 Business License Tax 554 Business Tax 98 Cannabis Operator Application 8 Cannabis Operator Completion 3 Cannabis Retail Operator 10 Certificate of Compliance 7 Certificates of Compliance - ENG 5 Construction Inspection - ENG 50 Construction Inspection (Base)2 DEPOSIT: 21+ LOTS 1 DEPOSIT: ANNEXATION 1 DEPOSIT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1 DEPOSIT: GENERAL PLAN MAP AMENDMENT 2 DEPOSIT: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - PLAN AMENDMENT 3 DEPOSIT: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - REZONING 2 DEPOSIT: SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 5 Design Exception - ENG 79 Environmental Impact Determ 19 Fence Height Exception 58 Guest Quarters Permit 2 Home Occupancy Business -Renewal or New 493 Home Occupation Permit 514 Improvement plan check - ENG 58 Improvement Plan Check (Base)1 IT Surcharge 2160 Land Use Documentation Requests 56 Lot Line Adjustment/Cert of Compliance - ENG 31 Maps/ Additional Documents - ENG 5 Mills Act Application Fee 11 New Business License Application 201 Non-Profit Special Event Fee 1 Parcel Map - ENG 38 Park Improvement Impact Fee (MFC)5 Park Improvement Impact Fee (SF)10 Park In-Lieu (MF)2 Park In-Lieu (SF)2 Parking in-Lieu: Change in Occupancy 2 Parkland Impact Fee (SF)8 Parkland in lieu (MFC)4 Parkland In-Lieu (SF)2 Parklet 13 Planning Commission Use Permit - Application 24 Planning Commission Use Permit - Completion 15 Planning Entitlement Review - Building 33 Pre-Application Review 52 Pre-Application w/ Site Check 8 Public Improvement Plans - ENG 15 Replacement Business License 20 Sidewalk Cafe User Permit 9 State CASp Fee 652 Tentative Lot Line Adjustment - Planning 43 Tentative Subdivision Map 79 Tier 1 Appeal - Applicant 3 Tier 2 Appeal - Non Applicant 2 Tier 3 Appeal - Applicant 1 Tier 3 Appeal - Non Applicant 1 Tier 4 Appeal - Applicant 1 Tier 4 Appeal - Non Applicant 1 Time Extension / Modification 110 Tract Map Check Fee - ENG 16 Variance - Application 5 Variance - Completion 4 Voluntary Merger 20 Zoning & Building Clearance 107 12 From:Purrington, Teresa Sent:Tuesday, October 17, 2023 8:56 AM To:Bernstorff, Rebecca Cc:McDonald, Whitney; Jackson, Emily Subject:RE: Fee Study - Study Session Hi Rebecca, How long do you think the Study Session will be? The reason I ask is that is the same day as the Mid-Year Budget review and Campaign Contributions are scheduled. Also I would say avoid April 2 since that is the day the Parking Rate Study Session Review is scheduled. Teresa From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 5:06 PM To: Purrington, Teresa <TPurring@slocity.org> Cc: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Jackson, Emily <ejackson@slocity.org> Subject: Fee Study - Study Session Hi Teresa, As we are nearing a draft of the fee study results from the consultant (hoping by early December), I am anticipating a study session (requested by Derek) would be best on the February 6 CC meeting but wanted to ask if this works for you and any other pending/upcoming items. We are planning to have the Public Hearing for adoption of the fee study and new fee schedule occur in April (2 and 16 respectively if possible), as there is a 60 day “cooling” period for the fees to take effect, and we are aiming for them to be in alignment with being effective July 1, 2024 when budget supplement items goes into effect as well. Wanted to get these on the agenda before agenda review tomorrow but no rush. Thanks! Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 13 From:McDonald, Whitney Sent:Tuesday, October 17, 2023 8:05 AM To:Bernstorff, Rebecca Subject:Re: 2024 Agenda Forecast Thank you!! Apologies for not seeing you response. That looks perfect. Get Outlook for iOS From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 7:52:30 AM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 2024 Agenda Forecast Whitney, I emailed Teresa yesterday and cc’d you. Please see email attached. Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 10:13 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: Fwd: 2024 Agenda Forecast Hi Rebecca, Could you take a look at the agenda forecast and recommend some dates for a study session and a public hearing for adoption of the fee study? Thanks much!! Whitney Get Outlook for iOS 14 From: Purrington, Teresa <TPurring@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 2:36:53 PM To: Department Heads <DepartmentHeads@slocity.org>; Managers Group <ManagersGroup@slocity.org> Subject: 2024 Agenda Forecast Derek has asked me to remind everyone that the tentative Council Meeting dates for 2024 have been added to the agenda forecast. Please check your work plans for next year and start adding items to the forecast. One item in particular that he asked for was the adoption of the fee study. Also please remember: Time estimates for Public Hearing, Business, and Study Session items should include time for the presentation, Council questions, and public comment. Item descriptions should not include acronyms, if it involves property include address or APN, and if you are adopting a Resolution or Ordinance include that in description. Teresa Teresa Purrington pronouns she/her/hers City Clerk City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E TPurring@slocity.org T 805.781.7102 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 17 From:Tuggle, Todd Sent:Tuesday, October 17, 2023 6:45 AM To:Vert, Nicole Subject:Re: Impact Fees Thanks Nicole, That is really helpful information to have, in fact it seems quite intuitive now that we have the explanation. Knowing we have needs that will come up in the future and that there will be Impact fees accruing along the way will be very valuable as the city continues to grow and build out. Thanks for tracking this information down and getting such a comprehensive explanation. Thanks for sending the calculations. I went through both documents you sent in Teams trying to figure out what the difference was, and could not see any discrepancies, now I know why:) Todd Tuggle Fire Chief City of San Luis Obispo 805 858-0435 From: Vert, Nicole <nvert@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 5:54:52 PM To: Tuggle, Todd <ttuggle@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Impact Fees Good meeting with the consultants to clarify their findings. This is a service-based study, as opposed to a plan-based study. Meaning they calculated what the city/dept is providing to the citizens right now using a list of our assets (that we provided) and the current demographics of the city to determine what service levels per 1000 residents. They then used the city’s general plan from 2020 to estimate future growth for the next 20 years. That gives an estimate of future population and units. They recalculated what we would need to provide the same service to the size of the city in 20 years. Based on that level of service they determined the fees needed to be charged to be at that level of service in 20 years. And I don’t know why I can’t send the proper documents for this fee study. I looked back and I sent the memo twice instead of the spreadsheet with calculations. Third times a charm. SLO Impact Fee Calculations 10.05.23.xlsx Drive safe!! Nicole Vert pronouns she/her/hers Business Analyst 18 Fire Department 2160 Santa Barbara Avenue, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-5240 E nvert@slocity.org T 805.781.7184 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Tuggle, Todd <ttuggle@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 10:56 AM To: Vert, Nicole <nvert@slocity.org> Subject: Impact Fees Nicole, Thanks for sharing the information regarding the impact fees, really good information to have. There are a lot of embedded questions here to the least. The challenging part is how they came up with the numbers they have. They are a nice bump from the existing numbers, but also don’t really have an explanation of how we got here. The first question I have would be, “how did they arrive at these values?” AB 602 says the local agency must “…determine a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.” Todd Tuggle pronouns he/him/his Fire Chief 19 Fire Department 2160 Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-5240 E ttuggle@slocity.org C 805.858.0435 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 23 From:Barcenas, Miguel Sent:Monday, October 16, 2023 5:16 PM To:Floyd, Aaron Subject:RE: 2024 Agenda Forecast Copy – I don’t believe E&P has had to many changes on forecast. From: Floyd, Aaron <afloyd@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 4:04 PM To: UT_Managers <UT_Managers@slocity.org> Subject: FW: 2024 Agenda Forecast Also – before you add something to the agenda forecast, PLEASE make sure you give me advanced warning so that I can prepare. We go over the agenda forecast before Council meetings and have to give a summary of the item to Derek and a Councilmember – sometimes difficult to do if you don’t have the background. Thanks! From: Purrington, Teresa <TPurring@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 2:37 PM To: Department Heads <DepartmentHeads@slocity.org>; Managers Group <ManagersGroup@slocity.org> Subject: 2024 Agenda Forecast Derek has asked me to remind everyone that the tentative Council Meeting dates for 2024 have been added to the agenda forecast. Please check your work plans for next year and start adding items to the forecast. One item in particular that he asked for was the adoption of the fee study. Also please remember: Time estimates for Public Hearing, Business, and Study Session items should include time for the presentation, Council questions, and public comment. Item descriptions should not include acronyms, if it involves property include address or APN, and if you are adopting a Resolution or Ordinance include that in description. Teresa Teresa Purrington pronouns she/her/hers City Clerk City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E TPurring@slocity.org T 805.781.7102 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 25 From:Maggio, Rodger Sent:Monday, October 16, 2023 4:57 PM To:Kazemi, Neema Cc:Bernstorff, Rebecca Subject:Construction square footage, fire Attachments:Copy of Fire User Fee Model FY24 7.31.23.xlsx Good afternoon Neema, Would it be possible to pull construction square footage data out of EnerGov for project routed to Fire for review as you were able to do with Building for the fee study? Rodger Rodger Maggio Fire Marshal Fire Department Fire Prevention 2160 Santa Barbara Avenue, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-5240 E rmaggio@slocity.org T 805.781.7386 C 805.431.4446 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 28 From:Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com> Sent:Friday, October 13, 2023 9:43 AM To:Loew, Michael; Nichols, Vanessa Cc:Bernstorff, Rebecca Subject:Building Model - 1st Draft - Edits Requested Attachments:Workforce Planning Tool - CDD.xlsx; Building & Safety User Fee Model FY24 10.12.23 - 1st draft.xlsx This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. As discussed on our call yesterday, attached is the updated 1 st draft. Here are some of the changes I made Assignable hours tab -I update the hours based on the document provided in the chat during the call (also attached to this email). Table 1, rows 64 & 69 - I added the average square footage/fee for each category based on the data in the 'prototype' tab which is a list of actual projects sent by Mike. Table 2 - I added a few columns to account for cross support departments. Feel free to add more, if needed. Here's the to-dos: I know the City is pushing to get this wrapped up sooner rather than later. I possible i'd like to get edits for this draft by 10/23. Thanks again for all your help on this. Have a great weekend. 29 Ruben Rivas Manager 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 831.227.3911 Email: rrivas@mgtconsulting.com 30 From:Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Sent:Friday, October 13, 2023 6:41 AM To:Aiello, Antonio; Rachel King Cc:Whittington, Shane; Barcenas, Miguel; Lehman, Chris; Boerman, Mychal; Bernstorff, Rebecca Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: SLO UF Study- Utilities Time Estimates That works great on my end Antonio. I will send an invite. Thanks! Jamie Radcliff Manager Performance SoluƟons Group 432-208-8194 jradcliff@mgtconsulƟng.com Impacting Communities for Good The informaƟon contained in this electronic communicaƟon is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidenƟal communicaƟon. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby noƟfied that you have received this transmiƩal in error; any review, disseminaƟon, distribuƟon, or copying of this transmiƩal is strictly prohibited. From: Aiello, Antonio <AAiello@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 6:28 PM To: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com>; Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Whittington, Shane <swhittin@slocity.org>; Barcenas, Miguel <MBarcena@slocity.org>; Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org>; Boerman, Mychal <mboerman@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: SLO UF Study- Utilities Time Estimates Jamie, Sure thing! How does 11 AM tomorrow morning work on your end? Antonio Aiello, MBA Financial Analyst Public Utilities E: aaiello@slocity.org CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 31 T: (805) 783-7806 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 3:03 PM To: Aiello, Antonio <AAiello@slocity.org>; Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Whittington, Shane <swhittin@slocity.org>; Barcenas, Miguel <MBarcena@slocity.org>; Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org>; Boerman, Mychal <mboerman@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: SLO UF Study- Utilities Time Estimates Antonio- I have a few questions I need to review with you or someone from the team before I can proceed with the model. Would you perhaps have any time tomorrow to chat for a few minutes? My questions are regarding the Utilities positions. I need to verify FTE’s, and which of the positions are working directly with the fees. Additionally, I need to verify those positions that are completely administrative and temporary. Let me know! Thanks! Jamie Radcliff Manager Performance SoluƟons Group 432-208-8194 jradcliff@mgtconsulƟng.com Impacting Communities for Good The informaƟon contained in this electronic communicaƟon is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidenƟal communicaƟon. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby noƟfied that you have received this transmiƩal in error; any review, disseminaƟon, distribuƟon, or copying of this transmiƩal is strictly prohibited. From: Aiello, Antonio <AAiello@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 5:57 PM To: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com>; Whittington, Shane <swhittin@slocity.org>; Barcenas, Miguel <MBarcena@slocity.org>; Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org>; Boerman, Mychal <mboerman@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: SLO UF Study- Utilities Time Estimates Rachel – I have included the Annualized Volume # in Column H of the shared Utilities User Fee spreadsheet. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 32 Regarding the PW Encroachment Inspector, we do not have a position at the City with this title. However, we do have an Engineering Inspector (III) in the PW Department that handles Inspections and Encroachments. Annual Wages = $93,990.00. Lastly, are you able to grant SharePoint access to Rebecca Bernstorff? I have copied her in the email. Best, Antonio Aiello, MBA Financial Analyst Public Utilities E: aaiello@slocity.org T: (805) 783-7806 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 7:52 AM To: Aiello, Antonio <AAiello@slocity.org> Cc: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com>; Whittington, Shane <swhittin@slocity.org>; Barcenas, Miguel <MBarcena@slocity.org>; Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org>; Boerman, Mychal <mboerman@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: SLO UF Study- Utilities Time Estimates Hi Antonio, Happy Friday! Thank you all again for entering your time estimates for the fees. We’ve updated our model and the next steps would be to gather the volumes for the fees. Can you please send us the volumes at your convenience? If I overlooked it in the file, my apologies. Additionally, we did not have the Public Works Encroachment Inspector within our model. Can you please let me know the FTE and annual wages? If there is another title for this position we may already have it in our model. Thanks! Kind Regards, From: Aiello, Antonio <AAiello@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 1, 2023 11:03 AM To: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com>; Whittington, Shane <swhittin@slocity.org>; Rachel King 33 <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Barcenas, Miguel <MBarcena@slocity.org>; Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org>; Boerman, Mychal <mboerman@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: SLO UF Study- Utilities Time Estimates Hi Jamie, As a follow up to our meeting, we have provided the remaining information that was needed. Quick side note: Wastewater Division is investigating cost per gallon for the highlighted cells “Septage Charge” and “Surcharge”. Have a great weekend! Best, Antonio Aiello, MBA Financial Analyst Public Utilities E: aaiello@slocity.org T: (805) 783-7806 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Aiello, Antonio Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 1:15 PM To: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com>; Whittington, Shane <swhittin@slocity.org>; Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Barcenas, Miguel <MBarcena@slocity.org>; Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org>; Boerman, Mychal <mboerman@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: SLO UF Study- Utilities Time Estimates Jamie- See responses to each pending item in red below. Looking forward to the next meeting. Best, Antonio Aiello, MBA Financial Analyst Public Utilities E: aaiello@slocity.org CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 34 T: (805) 783-7806 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 1:32 PM To: Whittington, Shane <swhittin@slocity.org>; Aiello, Antonio <AAiello@slocity.org>; Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Barcenas, Miguel <MBarcena@slocity.org>; Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org>; Boerman, Mychal <mboerman@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: SLO UF Study- Utilities Time Estimates Hi Shane and Antonio! Thanks for meeting with us today. And thank you for being so proactive! To summarize, the following are items still pending information or need a follow-up: 1. On the ‘Significant Industrial User Annual Permit’ please meet with staff to determine whether to remove the university as an outlier, and how to average the time of the remaining situations falling under this permit. – Eliminated outlier while speaking with Environmental Programs Department. Average hours ~ 20. I have added this to the spreadsheet. 2. Please fill in column K for all the corresponding hours in column J. We didn’t get row 27-37 (sorry I didn’t notice these didn’t all have staff positions identified). On the new fees please try and find out what positions are/will be responsible for servicing those fees. Spoke with corresponding staff to gather information as to which positions are involved in each task. Added to spreadsheet. 3. Decide on comparison entities to review fees like Whale Rock Day Use Fee – Salinas, Nacimiento and Lopez Lake are all run by the County and would be good comparisons. 4. Gather fee volumes. – I have an outstanding email with CDD Building Permit Services Supervisor, will contact you with any updates from them. Hope I didn’t miss anything. The file is in the shared folder. Below is our availability in two weeks: Tuesday August 28th 8:00 am to 9:00 am 10:00 am to 11:00 am 11:30 am – 12:30 pm Wednesday August 29th 9:00 am – 10:00 am 10:30 am – 11:30 am 1:00 – 2:00 pm Thursday August 30th 10:00 am – 11:00 am 11:00 am – 12:00 pm Let me know what works best for you guys. Thank you! Jamie Radcliff Manager Performance SoluƟons Group 432-208-8194 jradcliff@mgtconsulƟng.com 35 Impacting Communities for Good The informaƟon contained in this electronic communicaƟon is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidenƟal communicaƟon. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby noƟfied that you have received this transmiƩal in error; any review, disseminaƟon, distribuƟon, or copying of this transmiƩal is strictly prohibited. From: Whittington, Shane <swhittin@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 12:07 PM To: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com>; Aiello, Antonio <AAiello@slocity.org>; Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Barcenas, Miguel <MBarcena@slocity.org>; Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org>; Boerman, Mychal <mboerman@slocity.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: SLO UF Study- Utilities Time Estimates Hi! Here is the link for our shared folder for User Fees. SLO- Utilities Data Upload Sincerest thanks, Shane Whittington Business Manager Utilities E swhittin@slocity.org T 805.781.7506 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Jamie Radcliff Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 11:49 AM To: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com>; Aiello, Antonio <AAiello@slocity.org>; Rachel King CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 36 <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Barcenas, Miguel <MBarcena@slocity.org>; Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org>; Boerman, Mychal <mboerman@slocity.org>; Whittington, Shane <swhittin@slocity.org> Subject: SLO UF Study- Utilities Time Estimates When: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 10:00 AM-11:00 AM. Where: Microsoft Teams Meeting ________________________________________________________________________________ Microsoft Teams meeting Join on your computer, mobile app or room device Click here to join the meeting Meeting ID: Download Teams | Join on the web Learn More | Meeting options ________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________ From: Aiello, Antonio <AAiello@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 1:31 PM To: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Barcenas, Miguel <MBarcena@slocity.org>; Boerman, Mychal <mboerman@slocity.org>; Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org>; Whittington, Shane <swhittin@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: Meeting Summary and Tasks 7.24.23 Jamie – Let’s schedule for 8/15/2023 from 10am-11am. Best, Antonio Aiello, MBA Financial Analyst Public Utilities E: aaiello@slocity.org T: (805) 783-7806 slocity.org CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 37 Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 10:46 AM To: Aiello, Antonio <AAiello@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Barcenas, Miguel <MBarcena@slocity.org>; Boerman, Mychal <mboerman@slocity.org>; Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org>; Whittington, Shane <swhittin@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: Meeting Summary and Tasks 7.24.23 Hi Antonio- Many times, I can do a 5:00 pm meeting but some days I cannot. I am two hours ahead of you in Central time. Do any of these work for your team? Thank you. Monday August 14th 10 am – 11 am 11 am – 12 pm Tuesday August 15th 10 am – 11 am 11:30 – 12:30 pm Wednesday August 16th 11 am – 12 pm 12 pm – 1 pm 1 pm – 2 pm Jamie Radcliff Manager Performance Solutions Group 432-208-8194 jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com Impacting Communities for Good The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. From: Aiello, Antonio <AAiello@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 2:34 PM To: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Barcenas, Miguel <MBarcena@slocity.org>; Boerman, Mychal <mboerman@slocity.org>; Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org>; Whittington, Shane <swhittin@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: Meeting Summary and Tasks 7.24.23 38 Jamie- How does 8/8/2023 3-3:30 or 4:30-5 work? Antonio Aiello, MBA Financial Analyst Public Utilities E: aaiello@slocity.org T: (805) 783-7806 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 12:05 PM To: Aiello, Antonio <AAiello@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Barcenas, Miguel <MBarcena@slocity.org>; Boerman, Mychal <mboerman@slocity.org>; Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org>; Whittington, Shane <swhittin@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: Meeting Summary and Tasks 7.24.23 Hi Antonio- My apologies, but we are having difficulty finding availability for everyone at those times. Any other available times on 8/8 or 8/10? Thanks, Jamie Radcliff Manager Performance Solutions Group 432-208-8194 jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com Impacting Communities for Good The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 39 From: Aiello, Antonio <AAiello@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 11:02 AM To: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Barcenas, Miguel <MBarcena@slocity.org>; Boerman, Mychal <mboerman@slocity.org>; Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org>; Whittington, Shane <swhittin@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: Meeting Summary and Tasks 7.24.23 Jamie – The availability on our end for next week is as follows: 8/7/2023: 11:00-12:00 8/7/2023: 4:00-5:00 8/9/2023: 1:00-2:00 Please let us know which works best, Kindly, Antonio Aiello, MBA Financial Analyst Public Utilities E: aaiello@slocity.org T: (805) 783-7806 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Whittington, Shane <swhittin@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 5:09 PM To: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com>; Aiello, Antonio <AAiello@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Barcenas, Miguel <MBarcena@slocity.org>; Boerman, Mychal <mboerman@slocity.org>; Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: Meeting Summary and Tasks 7.24.23 Hey! Apologies for the slow reply. (1) What to do with FTEs that are reflecting 0? Apologies for the slow reply. We want to include the FTEs you have included as 0. Position FTEs CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 40 Engineer II 0.89 Engineering Inspector IV 0.89 Environmental Compliance Inspector 2 Environmental Programs Manager 1 Underground Utilities Locator 1 Wastewater Collections System Supervisor 1 I suspect these positions are coming up as 0s because we only partially cover the salaries. Some of these salaries are covered by the General Fund. (2) Are we able to start a shared document? If you would like to send me a document to open in Sharepoint, I am happy to work off a shared file. I was hoping you could use the template that you were going to have us populate as the shared document. But we do have the attached document if you wanted to put this in a centralized place as well. ( ). (4) When do we anticipate our next meeting? @Aiello, Antonio can you work with Serenity to identify a time period between 8/7-8/11 that'll work for us? ( ( 41 Sincerest thanks, Shane Whittington Business Manager Utilities E swhittin@slocity.org T 805.781.7506 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 10:55 AM To: Whittington, Shane <swhittin@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Aiello, Antonio <AAiello@slocity.org>; Barcenas, Miguel <MBarcena@slocity.org>; Boerman, Mychal <mboerman@slocity.org>; Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: Meeting Summary and Tasks 7.24.23 Hi Shane! Thanks for the email. I have a few questions for you as well and I will respond to your questions below in blue. The split between indirect/direct salary time at the top of the ICRP is generated by the previous tab. The hourly rates and t he job duties/breaks/training are recorded to identify indirect time and drive the calculations to the next tab. We are using 2080 hours annually as a base, but this can be revised based on department training, meetings, breaks and other administrative duties. This will be a future exercise 뇤눎눐눑눒눏 42 On the MODEL attachment, the personnel list has many positions with 0 FTE’s. We don’t want to include their salaries if that position doesn’t exist or if the positions are frozen. Now, if your vacancies were budgeted and you want to include them as part of the analysis, we can do that. I just need to know how you want to handle these. Please advise. Thank you, Shane! Jamie Radcliff Manager Performance Solutions Group 432-208-8194 jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com 43 Impacting Communities for Good The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. From: Whittington, Shane <swhittin@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 10:38 AM To: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Aiello, Antonio <AAiello@slocity.org>; Barcenas, Miguel <MBarcena@slocity.org>; Boerman, Mychal <mboerman@slocity.org>; Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: Meeting Summary and Tasks 7.24.23 Hey Jamie! We are still working on the outstanding items that you sent in the summary email. After sitting down with our Deputy Directors, we ended up having a couple of follow up questions-- 1. Are we able to start a shared document? This would be instead of sending back and forth versions of the attached document. We think this will help with version control and information sharing. If you would like to send me a document to open in Sharepoint, I am happy to work off a shared file. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 44 3. When do we anticipate our next meeting? Asking to gauge how/when we need to coordinate internally to get the outstanding questions resolved. Please provide your availability the week of the August 7-11 th. Sincerest thanks, Shane Whittington Business Manager Utilities E swhittin@slocity.org T 805.781.7506 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 3:03 PM To: Aiello, Antonio <AAiello@slocity.org>; Whittington, Shane <swhittin@slocity.org>; Barcenas, Miguel <MBarcena@slocity.org>; mboermen@slocity.org <mboermen@slocity.org>; Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: Meeting Summary and Tasks 7.24.23 This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Good Afternoon: Thank you for your time today! We are almost there on the design. To recap, please do the following: 45 1. Confirm the categories on the Fee Structure. There are 16 new fees that need to be placed in the two current categories or create new categories if you wish. 2. Double Check Sewer WYE Installation current fee amount. Place under Meter Services? 3. Does the Lateral Installation Fee include sewer installation? Check Lateral Installation and Lateral Abandonment Fees, and get additional description of what fee can include. I will check on the following: 1. Expenditures- legal expenses and materials expense- want to ensure materials for water and sewer installation are included. 2. Check if MGT has determined a methodology for overhead costs and confirm fully burdened hourly rate. 3. Check % on ICRP Please send me your revised Fee Design when you are finished! Thank you, Jamie Radcliff Manager Performance Solutions Group 432-208-8194 jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com Impacting Communities for Good The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. 46 From:Boyle, Ellen Sent:Thursday, October 12, 2023 4:33 PM To:Johnson, Derek; McDonald, Whitney; Rice, Jennifer; Horn, Matt; Jackson, Emily; Hermann, Greg; Hussey, Gaven; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Kacsinta, Madeline; Leon, Jose (Luis); Leann Standish; Bettina Swigger; Shannon DalPorto; Pease, Andy; Harnett, Natalie; Patty Thayer Subject:Parking Operations Steering Committee Meeting Minutes Attachments:Parking Operations Steering Committee Meeting Minutes 09.28.23.pdf Hi everyone, Please see the attached meeting minutes from the September 28th Parking Operations Steering Committee meeting. Meeting minutes for internal City staff can be found here: Parking OperaƟons Steering CommiƩee MeeƟng Minutes 09.28.23.docx Thank you, Ellen Boyle Administrative Assistant II Public Works PW - PW Admin 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E eboyle@slocity.org T 805.781.7274 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle Page | 1 Last Edited: 10/9/2023 10:09 AM Agenda Parking Operations Steering Committee Meeting Date: September 28th, 2023 Time: 1:30-3:30pm Location: FIT Conference Room Attendees and Roles Derek Johnson – Decision Maker Jennifer Rice- Facilitator Whitney McDonald– Thought Partner Matt Horn- Thought Partner Emily Jackson- Thought Partner Greg Hermann- Thought Partner Gaven Hussey- Presenter and Thought Partner Timmi Tway- Thought Partner Madeline Kacsinta- Presenter and Thought Partner Luis Leon- Thought Partner Leann Standish- Thought Partner Bettina Swigger- Thought Partner Shannon DalPorto- Thought Partner Andy Pease- Thought Partner Natalie Harnett- Thought Partner Ellen Boyle – Scribe Purpose: Provide status updates related to the CADPS, Parking and Access Management Plan, gateless operations, and financing related to the CADPS. Parking Operations Steering Committee Topic Desired Outcomes Discussion Leader Time Allocated 1 Opening/Introductions Review purpose and outcomes Jennifer Rice 5 minutes 2 Parking Stats Provide updated parking stats for review Jennifer Rice 10 minutes 3 Cultural Arts District Parking Structure Update Update staff on project progress: CADPS Madeline Kacsinta 10 minutes 4 Gateless Operations Update Update staff on project progress Gaven Hussey 10 minutes City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle Page | 2 Last Edited: 10/9/2023 10:09 AM Agenda Parking Operations Steering Committee Meeting 5 Communications Update Update staff on communications related to all parking operations Jennifer Rice 10 minutes 6 Rate Study Draft RFP Provide draft RFP and solicit input on scope of work (presentation) Jennifer Rice 30 minutes Parking Operations Management Meeting 1 Shoe Palace Lease Review Timeline Gaven Hussey 5 minutes 2 Future Agenda Items Confirm Future Agenda Jennifer Rice 5 minutes Outcomes: Parking Statistics: Consistent increase in parking, consistent with what we have been seeing since July 1st Decrease in structure usage for 919 Palm and Marsh structures, increase in on street and 842 Palm, overall consistent 25% total. 40% mobile apps and 60% pay stations in gateless structure, which is the only structure to use Park Local program. Cultural Arts District Parking Structure: Dry Utility- PG&E mobilizing on November 1st. Will take approximately 4 days to complete work to remove pole on site and overhead lines that feed the pole. Soil remediation will begin on 10/2 and will take one month to complete- completion date by Nov 8th Groundbreaking ceremony- hopefully Nov. 9th Screened fencing has been delivered and will be put up by Monday, 10/2, at the latest. Gateless: Rear exit onto Morro Street opening soon and will be restricted to an exit only. Working on way finding sticker decals by end of October and hopefully finished by end of the year. Working on getting permanent maps/signage for pay stations to show when they are out of order. 5,300 total registrants for the Park Local Program Staff are working with 2 mobile app vendors to help reflect the one-hour free park local time on the mobile session and connect it with the permit- no timeline of when this will be complete. Implementation of gateless in other structures scheduled for next Summer/Fall, depending on CIP Engineer availability. City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle Page | 3 Last Edited: 10/9/2023 10:09 AM Agenda Parking Operations Steering Committee Meeting Communications: Internal changes o Streamlining voicemail system and archiving voicemails into emails/transcripts. o Updating voicemail recording to provide answers to FAQs o Caller ID is now showing as SLO Parking to help callers recognize Parking is calling them back. o Filling vacant admin assistant position, who starts October 12th. o Mobility Communications Coordinator- hopefully filled by end of the year, with 60% of their time spent on Parking. o In house support of communications- using Juanita part time, who has a desk and is in the Mobility office one day a week. External communications o Weekly social media posts, flyers, how to videos on website, parking website will be getting a full overhaul at the end of October. o Downtown business toolkit pamphlets shared with downtown businesses in person. Staff taking sentiment surveys from downtown businesses while passing out the toolkit. o Staff attended the September 20th Downtown SLO Access Committee meeting and received lots of good feedback from attendees Are other businesses sharing comments about parking rates? A lot of businesses expressed that business was down this summer, but it’s hard to pinpoint that to parking. Businesses are appreciative of the toolkit provided to support customers. o Downtown validation tickets- offering and providing to downtown businesses. o Working on a media package- radio ads and KSBY ads, Good morning SLO this morning (9/28) to give update on Parking structure o Working on parking sentiment surveys- in person and on mobile apps (only 1 app has survey set up, Park Mobile) “Why did you choose on street parking instead of structure?” Possible question to add to the survey. Park local member survey- registrants receive an email with how to video and a link to a survey regarding park local program- offering an incentive of an extra free hour of parking if they complete survey. RFP: Presenting scope of work to Chamber of Commerce and Downtown SLO for review and comments Draft RFP will go to Council on 11/7 Reviewed attached PowerPoint o Customer Outreach- serving members of the community/parking users. Survey to be done January-March 2024. o Anything specific this group thinks will be important to include? o How are we reaching people not currently downtown (SLO County residents)? City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle Page | 4 Last Edited: 10/9/2023 10:09 AM Agenda Parking Operations Steering Committee Meeting Overall goal is to identify if our rate structure covers our needs, recommend pricing, as needed. Tier based pricing is included for our consultant to review and approve. Provide talking points to downtown businesses and stakeholders to provide feedback regarding upcoming study. Crucial for downtown businesses to communicate effectively with customers. Not a statistically valid survey Be sensitive of timing of the survey launch- tourism is down in the Winter Anticipate that we will have more input than with other RFPs Go to events (Farmers market, etc.) What other types of programs could relieve pressure for downtown businesses besides free parking? o Look at best practices from other cities/counties Inventory Existing Parking- Updating inventory for public/private on street and off- street parking- inventory from 2022-23, previous study completed last year. Parking Usage and Observation Analysis - Day and night observation of average rates of stay Assessment of Existing and Future Demand- Asses current and future demand for downtown area. Evaluate various scenarios- Residential districts and how that affects the fee study- preferential parking districts- currently not creating new districts, except for North Chorro neighborhood. Rate study o Will we be looking at relatively low rate- look at cost recovery for neighborhoods? Evaluate all long-term plans, including preferential parking districts. Covers both commercial and residential districts/areas. o Evaluate citation fees? It will be included in rate study, a citation is a penalty/violation, where only part of it goes into fund. More of a matter of policy decision. o Demand based parking? Variable, with Thursday-Saturday having a different rate than other days. Can be based on occupancy trends, based on on- street activity. A lot of agencies will have set times. o Evaluate potential changes to employee parking o What are our goals for our fee system? Help employers? Encourage visitors to stay longer and walk longer around downtown? Consultant to take the lead Identify Parking Priorities and Recommendations- Develop parking recommendations, bike and pedestrian improvements. Final Report- Take to Council in April of 2024 o Final report will be provided to the public and have public comment at the Council meeting. Shoe Palace- Currently waiting for a response from Jamestown, agreed to terms, current terms expiring February 2024, with one 5 year extension for Shoe Palace. $ rent/month, City receiving $11,000 of that. City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle Page | 5 Last Edited: 10/9/2023 10:09 AM Agenda Parking Operations Steering Committee Meeting City Council approval scheduled for November, and signing of the lease in December, with new lease starting in February 2024. Action Items: What Who Due Date Look at Parking statistics before July 2023 Jennifer Rice 10/25/23 Next Meeting: October 25th, 1:30-3:30 PM 62 From:Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Sent:Thursday, October 12, 2023 3:03 PM To:Aiello, Antonio; Rachel King Cc:Whittington, Shane; Barcenas, Miguel; Lehman, Chris; Boerman, Mychal; Bernstorff, Rebecca Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: SLO UF Study- Utilities Time Estimates Antonio- I have a few questions I need to review with you or someone from the team before I can proceed with the model. Would you perhaps have any time tomorrow to chat for a few minutes? My questions are regarding the Utilities positions. I need to verify FTE’s, and which of the positions are working directly with the fees. Additionally, I need to verify those positions that are completely administrative and temporary. Let me know! Thanks! Jamie Radcliff Manager Performance SoluƟons Group 432-208-8194 jradcliff@mgtconsulƟng.com Impacting Communities for Good The informaƟon contained in this electronic communicaƟon is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidenƟal communicaƟon. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby noƟfied that you have received this transmiƩal in error; any review, disseminaƟon, distribuƟon, or copying of this transmiƩal is strictly prohibited. From: Aiello, Antonio <AAiello@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 5:57 PM To: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com>; Whittington, Shane <swhittin@slocity.org>; Barcenas, Miguel <MBarcena@slocity.org>; Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org>; Boerman, Mychal <mboerman@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: SLO UF Study- Utilities Time Estimates Rachel – I have included the Annualized Volume # in Column H of the shared Utilities User Fee spreadsheet. Regarding the PW Encroachment Inspector, we do not have a position at the City with this title. However, we do have an Engineering Inspector (III) in the PW Department that handles Inspections and Encroachments. Annual Wages = $93,990.00. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 63 Lastly, are you able to grant SharePoint access to Rebecca Bernstorff? I have copied her in the email. Best, Antonio Aiello, MBA Financial Analyst Public Utilities E: aaiello@slocity.org T: (805) 783-7806 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 7:52 AM To: Aiello, Antonio <AAiello@slocity.org> Cc: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com>; Whittington, Shane <swhittin@slocity.org>; Barcenas, Miguel <MBarcena@slocity.org>; Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org>; Boerman, Mychal <mboerman@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: SLO UF Study- Utilities Time Estimates Hi Antonio, Happy Friday! Thank you all again for entering your time estimates for the fees. We’ve updated our model and the next steps would be to gather the volumes for the fees. Can you please send us the volumes at your convenience? If I overlooked it in the file, my apologies. Additionally, we did not have the Public Works Encroachment Inspector within our model. Can you please let me know the FTE and annual wages? If there is another title for this position we may already have it in our model. Thanks! Kind Regards, From: Aiello, Antonio <AAiello@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 1, 2023 11:03 AM To: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com>; Whittington, Shane <swhittin@slocity.org>; Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Barcenas, Miguel <MBarcena@slocity.org>; Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org>; Boerman, Mychal <mboerman@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: SLO UF Study- Utilities Time Estimates 64 Hi Jamie, As a follow up to our meeting, we have provided the remaining information that was needed. Quick side note: Wastewater Division is investigating cost per gallon for the highlighted cells “Septage Charge” and “Surcharge”. Have a great weekend! Best, Antonio Aiello, MBA Financial Analyst Public Utilities E: aaiello@slocity.org T: (805) 783-7806 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Aiello, Antonio Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 1:15 PM To: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com>; Whittington, Shane <swhittin@slocity.org>; Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Barcenas, Miguel <MBarcena@slocity.org>; Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org>; Boerman, Mychal <mboerman@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: SLO UF Study- Utilities Time Estimates Jamie- See responses to each pending item in red below. Looking forward to the next meeting. Best, Antonio Aiello, MBA Financial Analyst Public Utilities E: aaiello@slocity.org T: (805) 783-7806 slocity.org CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 65 Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 1:32 PM To: Whittington, Shane <swhittin@slocity.org>; Aiello, Antonio <AAiello@slocity.org>; Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Barcenas, Miguel <MBarcena@slocity.org>; Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org>; Boerman, Mychal <mboerman@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: SLO UF Study- Utilities Time Estimates Hi Shane and Antonio! Thanks for meeting with us today. And thank you for being so proactive! To summarize, the following are items still pending information or need a follow-up: 1. On the ‘Significant Industrial User Annual Permit’ please meet with staff to determine whether to remove the university as an outlier, and how to average the time of the remaining situations falling under this permit. – Eliminated outlier while speaking with Environmental Programs Department. Average hours ~ 20. I have added this to the spreadsheet. 2. Please fill in column K for all the corresponding hours in column J. We didn’t get row 27-37 (sorry I didn’t notice these didn’t all have staff positions identified). On the new fees please try and find out what positions are/will be responsible for servicing those fees. Spoke with corresponding staff to gather information as to which positions are involved in each task. Added to spreadsheet. 3. Decide on comparison entities to review fees like Whale Rock Day Use Fee – Salinas, Nacimiento and Lopez Lake are all run by the County and would be good comparisons. 4. Gather fee volumes. – I have an outstanding email with CDD Building Permit Services Supervisor, will contact you with any updates from them. Hope I didn’t miss anything. The file is in the shared folder. Below is our availability in two weeks: Tuesday August 28th 8:00 am to 9:00 am 10:00 am to 11:00 am 11:30 am – 12:30 pm Wednesday August 29th 9:00 am – 10:00 am 10:30 am – 11:30 am 1:00 – 2:00 pm Thursday August 30th 10:00 am – 11:00 am 11:00 am – 12:00 pm Let me know what works best for you guys. Thank you! Jamie Radcliff Manager Performance SoluƟons Group 432-208-8194 jradcliff@mgtconsulƟng.com 66 Impacting Communities for Good The informaƟon contained in this electronic communicaƟon is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidenƟal communicaƟon. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby noƟfied that you have received this transmiƩal in error; any review, disseminaƟon, distribuƟon, or copying of this transmiƩal is strictly prohibited. From: Whittington, Shane <swhittin@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 12:07 PM To: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com>; Aiello, Antonio <AAiello@slocity.org>; Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Barcenas, Miguel <MBarcena@slocity.org>; Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org>; Boerman, Mychal <mboerman@slocity.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: SLO UF Study- Utilities Time Estimates Hi! Here is the link for our shared folder for User Fees. SLO- Utilities Data Upload Sincerest thanks, Shane Whittington Business Manager Utilities E swhittin@slocity.org T 805.781.7506 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Jamie Radcliff Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 11:49 AM To: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com>; Aiello, Antonio <AAiello@slocity.org>; Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Barcenas, Miguel <MBarcena@slocity.org>; Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org>; Boerman, CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 67 Mychal <mboerman@slocity.org>; Whittington, Shane <swhittin@slocity.org> Subject: SLO UF Study- Utilities Time Estimates When: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 10:00 AM-11:00 AM. Where: Microsoft Teams Meeting ________________________________________________________________________________ Microsoft Teams meeting Join on your computer, mobile app or room device Click here to join the meeting Meeting ID: Download Teams | Join on the web Learn More | Meeting options ________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________ From: Aiello, Antonio <AAiello@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 1:31 PM To: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Barcenas, Miguel <MBarcena@slocity.org>; Boerman, Mychal <mboerman@slocity.org>; Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org>; Whittington, Shane <swhittin@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: Meeting Summary and Tasks 7.24.23 Jamie – Let’s schedule for 8/15/2023 from 10am-11am. Best, Antonio Aiello, MBA Financial Analyst Public Utilities E: aaiello@slocity.org T: (805) 783-7806 slocity.org CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 80 From:Malicoat, Debbie Sent:Thursday, October 12, 2023 10:41 AM To:Miles, Courtney Subject:RE: Pkg Fee Analysis.xlsx Thank you! Great job! From: Miles, Courtney <cmiles@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 3:45 PM To: Malicoat, Debbie <dmalicoa@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Pkg Fee Analysis.xlsx Updated! Courtney Miles Financial Specialist Finance 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cmiles@slocity.org P 805-781-7041 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Miles, Courtney Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 3:06 PM To: Malicoat, Debbie <dmalicoa@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Pkg Fee Analysis.xlsx Hi Debbie, Let me know what you think of this when you have chance, and if you need anything else from me. Thanks! Courtney Miles Financial Specialist Finance 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cmiles@slocity.org P 805-781-7041 slocity.org 81 Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kawaguchi, Traci <tkawaguc@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 3:30 PM To: Miles, Courtney <cmiles@slocity.org> Subject: Pkg Fee Analysis.xlsx 82 From:Malicoat, Debbie Sent:Thursday, October 12, 2023 10:37 AM To:Jackson, Emily Subject:FW: Pkg Fee Analysis.xlsx Attachments:Pkg Fee Analysis.xlsx Courtney’s analysis From: Miles, Courtney <cmiles@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 3:45 PM To: Malicoat, Debbie <dmalicoa@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Pkg Fee Analysis.xlsx Updated! Courtney Miles Financial Specialist Finance 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cmiles@slocity.org P 805-781-7041 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Miles, Courtney Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 3:06 PM To: Malicoat, Debbie <dmalicoa@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Pkg Fee Analysis.xlsx Hi Debbie, Let me know what you think of this when you have chance, and if you need anything else from me. Thanks! Courtney Miles Financial Specialist Finance 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cmiles@slocity.org 83 P 805-781-7041 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kawaguchi, Traci <tkawaguc@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 3:30 PM To: Miles, Courtney <cmiles@slocity.org> Subject: Pkg Fee Analysis.xlsx FY Period Total Revenue 65013 - CC Fees Bank Analysis 18 Jul-17 18 Aug-17 18 Sep-17 18 Oct-17 18 Nov-17 18 Dec-17 18 Jan-18 18 Feb-18 18 Mar-18 18 Apr-18 18 May-18 18 Jun-18 19 Jul-18 19 Aug-18 19 Sep-18 19 Oct-18 19 Nov-18 19 Dec-18 19 Jan-19 19 Feb-19 19 Mar-19 19 Apr-19 19 May-19 19 Jun-19 20 Jul-19 20 Aug-19 20 Sep-19 20 Oct-19 20 Nov-19 20 Dec-19 20 Jan-20 20 Feb-20 20 Mar-20 20 Apr-20 20 May-20 20 Jun-20 21 Jul-20 21 Aug-20 21 Sep-20 21 Oct-20 21 Nov-20 21 Dec-20 21 Jan-21 21 Feb-21 21 Mar-21 21 Apr-21 21 May-21 21 Jun-21 22 Jul-21 22 Aug-21 22 Sep-21 22 Oct-21 22 Nov-21 22 Dec-21 22 Jan-22 22 Feb-22 22 Mar-22 22 Apr-22 22 May-22 22 Jun-22 23 Jul-22 23 Aug-22 23 Sep-22 23 Oct-22 23 Nov-22 23 Dec-22 23 Jan-23 23 Feb-23 23 Mar-23 23 Apr-23 23 May-23 23 Jun-23 24 Jul-23 24 Aug-23 24 Sep-23 - - - 84 From:Ellsworth, Melissa Sent:Thursday, October 12, 2023 10:37 AM To:Taylor, Brent Cc:Bernstorff, Rebecca Subject:RE: Police Impact Fee Calculation Sounds good, thanks Brent. From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 9:15 AM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Police Impact Fee Calculation Hi Melissa, that is the plan, but not yet at a point where we need to loop them in yet. The calculation of fee(s) is still not finalized, and anything received so far are just preliminary. We will continue working with each departments analyst and DTA to finalize the fee calculation and will loop in department heads once we have a draft version of the Impact Fee Study. Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications -----Original Appointment----- From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> On Behalf Of Taylor, Brent Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 8:54 AM To: Taylor, Brent Subject: FW: Police Impact Fee Calculation When: Thursday, October 12, 2023 9:00 AM-9:25 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada). Where: Microsoft Teams Meeting Importance: High Not a problem. But I did have a question – will CSG and/or the consultant be meeting as well with each individual department to explain to Department Heads how we got the this outcome? -----Original Appointment----- From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 4:27 PM To: Taylor, Brent; Bernstorff, Rebecca; Ellsworth, Melissa Subject: Canceled: Police Impact Fee Calculation 85 When: Thursday, October 12, 2023 9:00 AM-9:25 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada). Where: Microsoft Teams Meeting Importance: High Cancelling meeting for today and will re-schedule in near future. CSG has some additional questions for consultant DTA that we would like to have answered prior to having this meeting. Sorry for any inconvenience on cancelling with such short notice. Purpose of meeting is to discuss the Police Impact Fee calculation provided by DTA and seek approval of the new fee amount. See attached spreadsheet (Police tab) for calculation and notes from DTA. ________________________________________________________________________________ Microsoft Teams meeting Join on your computer, mobile app or room device Click here to join the meeting Meeting ID: Download Teams | Join on the web Learn More | Meeting options ________________________________________________________________________________ 88 From:Bernstorff, Rebecca Sent:Wednesday, October 11, 2023 5:28 PM To:Keller, Erin Subject:FW: Revised 1st Draft Attachments:Fire User Fee Model FY241st Draft 10.11.23.xlsx FIRE! (for the first draft sharepoint folder) Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 4:00 PM To: Maggio, Rodger <rmaggio@slocity.org>; Vert, Nicole <nvert@slocity.org>; Tuggle, Todd <ttuggle@slocity.org> Cc: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: Revised 1st Draft This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Rodger, Attached is the updated first draft. I update the hourly rate based on our conversation from yesterday. Here are some of the items you need to review: In the table 1 tab please review and address my comment starting on row 123 and provide feedback. In the table 2 and 3 tabs, please review my comments on column V and provide clarification/edits. 89 I'd like to get back edits by next Friday 10/20, if possible. We're getting a big push to wrap up this study sooner rather than later. Ruben Rivas Manager 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 831.227.3911 Email: rrivas@mgtconsulting.com 90 From:Accounts Payable Sent:Wednesday, October 11, 2023 5:15 PM To:Clancy, Daniel Subject:FW: Emailing - MGT Consulting Inv 53714 PO 617737.pdf Attachments:MGT Consulting Inv 53714 PO 617737.pdf Hello Daniel, I hope this email finds you well. Can you please update the address for MGT of American Consulting (Supplier # 12088) to the address below: P.O. Box 735759 Chicago, IL 60673-5759 Please let me know if you have any questions comments or concerns. Thank you, Timothy Holt Accounting Assistant Finance 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3668 E tholt@slocity.org T 805.781.7448 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: ParksRec Accounts Payable <pr_ap@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 2:15 PM To: Accounts Payable <ap@slocity.org> Subject: Emailing - MGT Consulting Inv 53714 PO 617737.pdf Invoice 53714 Date:09/28/2023 Payment Terms:Net 30 Due Date:10/28/2023 PO number: Bill To:Please remit electronic payments to: City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ACH Routing Number: SWIFT Code: Account Number: Account Name: MGT of America Consulting, LLC Bank Name: JPMorgan Chase Bank Address: New York, NY 10017 Project: FSG | FY23 | City of San Luis Obispo | User and Impact Fee Stud | CA Description Quantity Rate Amount Project Management 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 MGT - User Fee Analysis 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 MGT - User Fee Peer Price Comparison 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 DTA - Impact Fee Study (subcontractor)1 $18,239.84 $18,239.84 SubTotal:$37,239.84 Tax:$0.00 Total:$37,239.84 Company Confidential Remit To:Overnight Courier Remit To: P.O. Box 735759 Chicago, IL 60673-5759 813-327-4717 arinv@mgtconsulting.com JPMorgan Chase Attn: MGT OF AMERICA CONSULTING LLC & 735759 131 S Dearborn, 6th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 92 From:Accounts Payable Sent:Wednesday, October 11, 2023 3:49 PM To:eids.fin.invoices@workflow.mail.us6.oraclecloud.com Subject:FW: Emailing - MGT Consulting Inv 53714 PO 617737.pdf Attachments:MGT Consulting Inv 53714 PO 617737.pdf Timothy Holt Accounting Assistant Finance 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3668 E tholt@slocity.org T 805.781.7448 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: ParksRec Accounts Payable <pr_ap@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 2:15 PM To: Accounts Payable <ap@slocity.org> Subject: Emailing - MGT Consulting Inv 53714 PO 617737.pdf 93 From:Miles, Courtney Sent:Wednesday, October 11, 2023 3:45 PM To:Malicoat, Debbie Subject:RE: Pkg Fee Analysis.xlsx Attachments:Pkg Fee Analysis.xlsx Updated! Courtney Miles Financial Specialist Finance 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cmiles@slocity.org P 805-781-7041 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Miles, Courtney Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 3:06 PM To: Malicoat, Debbie <dmalicoa@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Pkg Fee Analysis.xlsx Hi Debbie, Let me know what you think of this when you have chance, and if you need anything else from me. Thanks! Courtney Miles Financial Specialist Finance 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cmiles@slocity.org P 805-781-7041 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kawaguchi, Traci <tkawaguc@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 3:30 PM 94 To: Miles, Courtney <cmiles@slocity.org> Subject: Pkg Fee Analysis.xlsx Total Revenue BI Report 65013 - CC Fees BI Report Bank Analysis Bank Analysis > Page 4, Vault Services > "Service Charge" Subtotal FY Period Total Revenue 65013 - CC Fees Bank Analysis 19 Jul-18 337,310.18 - 2,389.75 19 Aug-18 221,970.98 - 2,666.10 19 Sep-18 315,829.35 - 2,068.00 19 Oct-18 1,102,763.60 42,638.07 2,339.75 19 Nov-18 308,888.73 10,437.47 2,182.25 19 Dec-18 502,829.79 10,620.50 2,099.50 19 Jan-19 505,459.81 10,665.78 2,424.75 19 Feb-19 416,572.37 9,869.35 2,107.00 19 Mar-19 791,836.82 7,549.85 2,209.50 19 Apr-19 340,651.36 8,712.13 2,324.80 19 May-19 282,005.14 14,216.73 2,233.00 19 Jun-19 864,765.73 11,298.97 2,179.00 20 Jul-19 389,972.10 10,461.79 2,114.75 20 Aug-19 599,397.69 12,029.81 2,511.85 20 Sep-19 507,111.31 12,382.86 2,914.55 20 Oct-19 299,873.46 13,436.66 3,353.30 20 Nov-19 309,692.42 11,908.42 1,685.60 20 Dec-19 471,672.17 12,657.18 1,734.10 20 Jan-20 350,346.83 12,768.43 2,534.40 20 Feb-20 286,061.09 13,304.40 814.60 20 Mar-20 362,273.02 9,781.65 884.30 20 Apr-20 188,058.12 3,379.38 141.50 20 May-20 48,188.66 1,722.04 94.25 20 Jun-20 457,312.96 4,018.20 135.50 21 Jul-20 112,166.53 3,979.08 341.75 21 Aug-20 401,529.02 5,754.90 205.50 21 Sep-20 225,342.15 6,865.42 359.00 21 Oct-20 285,573.66 8,602.67 357.50 21 Nov-20 252,894.21 9,763.95 480.75 21 Dec-20 167,064.07 8,101.74 296.75 21 Jan-21 214,376.31 6,975.85 294.75 21 Feb-21 180,481.56 7,981.84 323.45 21 Mar-21 397,175.28 11,202.06 433.25 21 Apr-21 257,840.76 11,877.19 451.30 21 May-21 239,655.82 13,933.10 342.75 21 Jun-21 334,727.51 15,734.96 411.60 22 Jul-21 359,450.47 16,013.13 452.50 22 Aug-21 639,352.58 20,336.56 507.75 22 Sep-21 423,160.06 18,726.86 395.00 22 Oct-21 336,076.68 18,575.33 309.75 22 Nov-21 326,144.57 6,502.07 409.50 22 Dec-21 413,273.11 14,270.44 307.75 22 Jan-22 455,821.09 17,196.96 278.75 22 Feb-22 363,778.16 16,211.36 250.25 22 Mar-22 411,625.85 13,560.91 419.25 22 Apr-22 422,057.94 19,412.98 365.00 22 May-22 518,884.39 21,752.93 370.00 22 Jun-22 888,125.95 20,414.85 369.55 23 Jul-22 1,238,944.47 23,106.74 428.50 23 Aug-22 754,285.88 24,021.33 384.25 23 Sep-22 463,898.52 22,239.60 375.25 23 Oct-22 380,971.51 21,871.29 362.50 23 Nov-22 425,131.18 21,839.02 334.00 23 Dec-22 487,055.57 37,881.44 315.50 23 Jan-23 578,716.28 24,832.67 228.75 23 Feb-23 568,008.58 22,681.45 340.00 23 Mar-23 779,797.14 27,171.05 299.50 23 Apr-23 560,480.60 26,446.73 286.50 23 May-23 588,137.04 32,523.11 303.00 23 Jun-23 1,139,756.93 44,295.90 328.00 24 Jul-23 1,093,604.04 40,420.94 332.00 24 Aug-23 1,196,716.14 42,901.45 332.25 24 Sep-23 914,850.94 38,818.99 449.50 30,057,776.24 1,008,658.52 59,975.00 - 200,000.00 400,000.00 600,000.00 800,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,200,000.00 1,400,000.00 Jul-18Oct-18Jan-19Apr-19Jul-19Oct-19Jan-20Apr-20Jul-20Oct-20Jan-21Apr-21Jul-21Oct-21Jan-22Apr-22Jul-22Oct-22Jan-23Apr-23Jul-23Total Revenue - 5,000.00 10,000.00 15,000.00 20,000.00 25,000.00 30,000.00 35,000.00 40,000.00 45,000.00 50,000.00 Jul-18Oct-18Jan-19Apr-19Jul-19Oct-19Jan-20Apr-20Jul-20Oct-20Jan-21Apr-21Jul-21Oct-21Jan-22Apr-22Jul-22Oct-22Jan-23Apr-23Jul-2365013 - CC Fees - 500.00 1,000.00 1,500.00 2,000.00 2,500.00 3,000.00 3,500.00 4,000.00 Jul-18Oct-18Jan-19Apr-19Jul-19Oct-19Jan-20Apr-20Jul-20Oct-20Jan-21Apr-21Jul-21Oct-21Jan-22Apr-22Jul-22Oct-22Jan-23Apr-23Jul-23Bank Analysis 97 From:Jerry Wolf <jwolf@mgtconsulting.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 11, 2023 9:49 AM To:Bernstorff, Rebecca Subject:Re: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO Transportation DIF Rebecca, Look forward to your call. Jerry Jerry Wolf Jwolf017@gmail.com Jwolf@mgtconsulting.com 847.404.0030 cell On Oct 11, 2023, at 10:29 AM, Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> wrote: Hi All, Nice to virtually meet you, Jerry. Thank you all for your help and jumping on providing this information and guidance. We are scheduling an internal meeting next week to discuss the timing of the ROW fee and TIF and will get back to you shortly after on the direction we are hoping to head. Thank you, Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager <image001.png> Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org <image002.png> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 98 <image003.png> <image004.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, October 6, 2023 4:33 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Cc: Jerry Wolf <jwolf@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO Transportation DIF Thanks Cindy. I’m out on vacation all week as well. If your team is able to confirm a time with Rebecca while I’m out, Rebecca should be able to coordinate with our admin staff to find an open spot on my calendar to book for when I return. We’ll figure it out. Thanks, Luke Schwartz, PE Transportation Manager <image005.jpg> Public Works Transportation Planning/Engineering 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E LSchwartz@slocity.org T 805.781.7190 slocity.org Note: Upcoming vacaƟon 10/9 – 10/13 From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Friday, October 6, 2023 4:30 PM To: Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Cc: Jerry Wolf <jwolf@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO Transportation DIF Thanks Luke. Let me see what Jerry’s schedule looks like the following week. I know he is busy 10/16-10/18. I’ll check with Rebecca on her schedule when I meet with her Monday. I have a vacation coming up as well so I might have to have Jerry meet with you and have Ruben or Jamie attend in my absence. Cindy Sconce (she/her/hers) Director, Performance Solutions Group 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 916.276.8807 Email: csconce@mgtconsulting.com <image006.jpg> <image007.png> <image008.png> <image009.png> <image010.png> 99 <image011.png> The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. From: Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, October 6, 2023 4:23 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Cc: Jerry Wolf <jwolf@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO Transportation DIF Thanks Cindy. I’ve been reviewing examples from other cities and also trying to get a handle on exactly how we want to structure this fee to accomplish our intended goals. I’m out of office all next week, but if you could suggest a few times the following week that work for you and Jerry, hopefully we can confirm a time that Rebecca and I can join you for a call to discuss next steps. Best, Luke Schwartz, PE Transportation Manager <image005.jpg> Public Works Transportation Planning/Engineering 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E LSchwartz@slocity.org T 805.781.7190 slocity.org Note: Upcoming vacaƟon 10/9 – 10/13 From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Friday, October 6, 2023 4:01 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org> Cc: Jerry Wolf <jwolf@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO Transportation DIF Hi Rebecca I spoke with Jerry Wolf, our Director that handles the right of way and in lieu fee calculations. It might be easier if we spoke with Luke to see what type of fees he was looking for and then we could provide a scope and pricing. For these types of fees, the methodology can vary depending on where these are located, if there is a loss in revenue, time of day of the closure, length of the closure (i.e. a day, a week, 30 days etc). These fees are considered public inconvenience fees, use of public right of ways, and there is a little bit of labor just to issue, review the request and if there is an inspection piece to it. Often these fees will involve us contacting the CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 100 County Assessors department to assess land values as well. As you can imagine, this is a bit time consuming so these types of fees are typically their own studies and can run 100 hours or more to complete. Here are a few common fees that fall under this category: 1. Pedestrian Walkway closure 2. Street Closure 3. Travel lane closure (lanes dedicated for use from bicycles) 4. Parking lane closure 5. Alley Closure Happy to set up a call with Jerry, you, me and Luke to provide a little more information if you would like. Sorry it isn’t a simpler answer. Cindy Sconce (she/her/hers) Director, Performance Solutions Group 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 916.276.8807 Email: csconce@mgtconsulting.com <image006.jpg> <image007.png> <image008.png> <image009.png> <image010.png> <image011.png> The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 10:52 AM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO Transportation DIF Hi Cindy, I completely understand and recognize this was unexpected. I have a meeting with our Assistant City Manager and Finance Director on Monday regarding council meeting dates and additional fee study items. Would it be possible to provide me with a very brief scope, cost and time estimate on this request and how it would impact our current work effort so that I can share it at a the meeting? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 101 Happy to talk through as well. As always, thanks so much Cindy. Rebecca Get Outlook for iOS From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 7:02 PM To: Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO Transportation DIF Hi Rebecca Yes it is common to charge right of way (ROW) fees but it is a different type of calculation from an impact fee or user fee. As the link describes, these are a little different than user fees since there is no direct labor involved and it is a public inconvenience fee and not a fee for service as the link describes. There are a variety of ways to calculate these types of fees depending on what the obstruction is. If the obstruction blocks parking meters for instance, then it is common to base the fee on lost revenue for those parking spaces. If it is sidewalk and street closures it is a different calculation. We are already well past the design phase and we did not anticipate the additional time for adding in ROW fees for analysis. Let’s discuss and see wat our options to move forward. Cindy Sconce (she/her/hers) Director, Performance Solutions Group 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 916.276.8807 Email: csconce@mgtconsulting.com <image006.jpg> <image007.png> <image008.png> <image009.png> <image010.png> <image011.png> The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. From: Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 5:26 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> 102 Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO Transportation DIF Thanks Rebecca. Cindy – Here’s an example from Washington DC, who has a similar fee schedule already in place https://ddot.dc.gov/publication/public-inconvenience-fee-faqs Luke Schwartz, PE Transportation Manager <image005.jpg> Public Works Transportation Planning/Engineering 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E LSchwartz@slocity.org T 805.781.7190 slocity.org Note: Upcoming vacation 10/9 – 10/13 From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 4:25 PM To: Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: SLO Transportation DIF Hi Luke, Thank you for the update; please let me know if there’s anything I can do to help. I’ve cc’d Cindy from the user fee side who has been instrumental in any of the questions we’ve had for new fees or how to capture them. Cindy, what do you think about Luke’s inquiry below? Thanks! Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager <image001.png> Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org <image002.png> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 103 <image003.png> <image004.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 11:13 AM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: SLO Transportation DIF Thanks Bebecca. I had a good discussion with the DTA staff and we’ll be continuing progress on the TIF items. Leni was going to schedule a reoccurring check-in meeting for the TIF effort to keep all appraised as things continue to move along. Also, I was assigned a task by Matt Horn (via Brian Nelson) to explore creation of a “Right-of-Way Use Fee” for encroachment projects in the downtown. Thanks, Luke Schwartz, PE Transportation Manager <image005.jpg> Public Works Transportation Planning/Engineering 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E LSchwartz@slocity.org T 805.781.7190 slocity.org From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 9:59 AM To: Leni Zarate <Leni@financedta.com>; Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org>; Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org>; Richard Ruiz <richard@financedta.com> Subject: RE: SLO Transportation DIF Hi everyone, Unfortunately I won’t be able to make this meeting, I have a last minute conflict with our Leadership Team and Brent is OOO. I will follow up with Luke and Leni/Richard. Thank you, 104 Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager <image001.png> Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications -----Original Appointment----- From: Leni Zarate <Leni@financedta.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 9:06 AM To: Leni Zarate; Bernstorff, Rebecca; Taylor, Brent; Schwartz, Luke; Richard Ruiz Subject: SLO Transportation DIF When: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 10:00 AM-11:00 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada). Where: Microsoft Teams Meeting This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Review information provided. ________________________________________________________________________________ Microsoft Teams meeting Join on your computer, mobile app or room device Click here to join the meeting Meeting Download Teams | Join on the web Learn More | Meeting options ________________________________________________________________________________ Disclaimer 105 The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website. 142 From:Kawaguchi, Traci Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 3:30 PM To:Miles, Courtney Subject:Pkg Fee Analysis.xlsx Attachments:Pkg Fee Analysis.xlsx Total Revenue BI Report 65013 - CC Fees BI Report Bank Analysis Bank Analysis > Page 4, Vault Services > "Service Charge" Subtotal FY Period Total Revenue 65013 - CC Fees Bank Analysis 19 Jul-18 337,310.18 10,659.52 2,389.75 19 Aug-18 221,970.98 10,659.52 2,666.10 19 Sep-18 315,829.35 10,659.52 2,068.00 19 Oct-18 1,102,763.60 10,659.52 2,339.75 19 Nov-18 308,888.73 10,437.47 2,182.25 19 Dec-18 502,829.79 10,620.50 2,099.50 19 Jan-19 505,459.81 10,665.78 2,424.75 19 Feb-19 416,572.37 9,869.35 2,107.00 19 Mar-19 791,836.82 7,549.85 2,209.50 19 Apr-19 340,651.36 8,712.13 2,324.80 19 May-19 282,005.14 14,216.73 2,233.00 19 Jun-19 864,765.73 11,298.97 2,179.00 20 Jul-19 389,972.10 10,461.79 2,114.75 20 Aug-19 599,397.69 12,029.81 2,511.85 20 Sep-19 507,111.31 12,382.86 2,914.55 20 Oct-19 299,873.46 13,436.66 3,353.30 20 Nov-19 309,692.42 11,908.42 1,685.60 20 Dec-19 471,672.17 12,657.18 1,734.10 20 Jan-20 350,346.83 12,768.43 2,534.40 20 Feb-20 286,061.09 13,304.40 814.60 20 Mar-20 362,273.02 9,781.65 884.30 20 Apr-20 188,058.12 3,379.38 141.50 20 May-20 48,188.66 1,722.04 94.25 20 Jun-20 457,312.96 4,018.20 135.50 21 Jul-20 112,166.53 3,979.08 341.75 21 Aug-20 401,529.02 5,754.90 205.50 21 Sep-20 225,342.15 6,865.42 359.00 21 Oct-20 285,573.66 8,602.67 357.50 21 Nov-20 252,894.21 9,763.95 480.75 21 Dec-20 167,064.07 8,101.74 296.75 21 Jan-21 214,376.31 6,975.85 294.75 21 Feb-21 180,481.56 7,981.84 323.45 21 Mar-21 397,175.28 11,202.06 433.25 21 Apr-21 257,840.76 11,877.19 451.30 21 May-21 239,655.82 13,933.10 342.75 21 Jun-21 334,727.51 15,734.96 411.60 22 Jul-21 359,450.47 16,013.13 452.50 22 Aug-21 639,352.58 20,336.56 507.75 22 Sep-21 423,160.06 18,726.86 395.00 22 Oct-21 336,076.68 18,575.33 309.75 22 Nov-21 326,144.57 6,502.07 409.50 22 Dec-21 413,273.11 14,270.44 307.75 22 Jan-22 455,821.09 17,196.96 278.75 22 Feb-22 363,778.16 16,211.36 250.25 22 Mar-22 411,625.85 13,560.91 419.25 22 Apr-22 422,057.94 19,412.98 365.00 22 May-22 518,884.39 21,752.93 370.00 22 Jun-22 888,125.95 20,414.85 369.55 23 Jul-22 1,238,944.47 23,106.74 428.50 23 Aug-22 754,285.88 24,021.33 384.25 23 Sep-22 463,898.52 22,239.60 375.25 23 Oct-22 380,971.51 21,871.29 362.50 23 Nov-22 425,131.18 21,839.02 334.00 23 Dec-22 487,055.57 37,881.44 315.50 23 Jan-23 578,716.28 24,832.67 228.75 23 Feb-23 568,008.58 22,681.45 340.00 23 Mar-23 779,797.14 27,171.05 299.50 23 Apr-23 560,480.60 26,446.73 286.50 23 May-23 588,137.04 32,523.11 303.00 23 Jun-23 1,139,756.93 44,295.90 328.00 24 Jul-23 1,093,604.04 40,420.94 332.00 24 Aug-23 1,196,716.14 42,901.45 332.25 24 Sep-23 914,850.94 38,818.99 449.50 30,057,776.24 1,008,658.52 59,975.00 - 200,000.00 400,000.00 600,000.00 800,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,200,000.00 1,400,000.00 Jul-18Oct-18Jan-19Apr-19Jul-19Oct-19Jan-20Apr-20Jul-20Oct-20Jan-21Apr-21Jul-21Oct-21Jan-22Apr-22Jul-22Oct-22Jan-23Apr-23Jul-23Total Revenue - 5,000.00 10,000.00 15,000.00 20,000.00 25,000.00 30,000.00 35,000.00 40,000.00 45,000.00 50,000.00 Jul-18Oct-18Jan-19Apr-19Jul-19Oct-19Jan-20Apr-20Jul-20Oct-20Jan-21Apr-21Jul-21Oct-21Jan-22Apr-22Jul-22Oct-22Jan-23Apr-23Jul-2365013 - CC Fees - 500.00 1,000.00 1,500.00 2,000.00 2,500.00 3,000.00 3,500.00 4,000.00 Jul-18Oct-18Jan-19Apr-19Jul-19Oct-19Jan-20Apr-20Jul-20Oct-20Jan-21Apr-21Jul-21Oct-21Jan-22Apr-22Jul-22Oct-22Jan-23Apr-23Jul-23Bank Analysis - 5,000.00 10,000.00 15,000.00 20,000.00 25,000.00 30,000.00 35,000.00 40,000.00 45,000.00 Jul-18Aug-18Sep-18Oct-18Nov-18Dec-18Jan-19Feb-19Mar-19Apr-19May-19Jun-19Jul-19Aug-19Sep-19Oct-19Nov-19Dec-19Jan-20Feb-20Mar-20Apr-20May-20Jun-20Jul-20Aug-20Sep-20Oct-20Nov-20Dec-20Jan-21Feb-21Mar-21Apr-21May-21Jun-21Jul-21Aug-21Sep-21Oct-21Nov-21Dec-21Jan-22Feb-22Mar-22Apr-22May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22Nov-22Dec-22Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23Apr-23May-23Jun-23Jul-23Aug-23Sep-23CC Fees and Bank Analysis 65013 - CC Fees Bank Analysis 147 From:Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 5:40 PM To:Bernstorff, Rebecca Subject:SLO UF - Public Works 1st draft results Attachments:San Luis Obispo Public Works UF FY24 10-02-23.xlsm Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Rebecca AƩached is the 1st draŌ of the Public Work fees. The department itself only has a few direct fees, which are listed under ord 1- 18 (we didn’t look at the abandoned shopping carts). The rest are the cross support costs that are for Engineering or Planning. We will be comparing these costs to what the prior study listed to see if there seems to be any issues. Let me know when you have about an hour so I can walk you through the calculaƟon for the hourly rate for TransportaƟon and the CIP staff and then the fee calculaƟons. My availability is listed below: Tues. 10/10: 4-5 Wed. 10/11: 2:30-5 Thurs. 10/12: 9-11; 1-3; 4-5 Fri. 10/13: 9-4 Mon. 10/16: 1-3; 4-5 Cindy Sconce (she/her/hers) Director, Performance Solutions Group 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 916.276.8807 Email: csconce@mgtconsulting.com The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. 148 From:Loew, Michael Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 4:38 PM To:Nichols, Vanessa Subject:FW: 1st Draft - Building and Safety Attachments:Building & Safety User Fee Model FY24 10.3.23 - 1st draft.xlsx Mike Loew Deputy Director Chief Building Official Community Development E Mloew@slocity.org T 805.781.7157 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 4:51 PM To: Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org>; Vert, Nicole <nvert@slocity.org> Cc: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: 1st Draft - Building and Safety This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Good afternoon, everyone. I am pleased to present you with the Building and Safety 1 st draft results. Still a few items we need to discuss, and I'd like to set up a meeting to discuss. I'm out on PTO Thursday/Friday but here's my availability for next week. Monday, October 9th - All booked Tuesday, October 10th - 8am - 2pm Weds, October 11th 8am-10am, 12pm-4pm Thursday, October 12th - 12pm-3pm Friday, October 13th - 12pm-4pm Let me know what times work best and I'll send out a Teams invite. 149 Below are some of the items we need to discuss: Results items: Table 2 - Building Flat fees. Review MGT's notes based on results. Table 1 - o This table is driven by the edits we make to table 2. Therefore, I don't want to get too into the results of this table just yet. o Thanks again for all your help on this. HUGE progress. Looking forward to fine tune and upate some of the items listed above. Don't be too alarmed if some of this is confusing, we will discuss over our call next week. Ruben Rivas Manager 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 831.227.3911 Email: rrivas@mgtconsulting.com 151 From:Bernstorff, Rebecca Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 4:22 PM To:Horn, Matt Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO Transportation DIF Hi Matt, Are you in the loop on the fee study convo from Luke’s perspective for TIF and this new request for ROW fees? Hoping we can talk through some things in his absence. Thanks, Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, October 6, 2023 4:21 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO Transportation DIF Hi Rebecca, At this point, it’s most likely that the TIF update will be on a longer timeline to be ready to bring to Council than the res t of the user and impact fees, correct? I’m wondering if it makes sense to break of this new R/W Use Fee as a separate task than the rest of the user fees and I can help lead that effort and work with the consultant to bring that to the Council along with the TIF update at a later date? I’ve been tasked with advancing this R/W Use Fee but also don’t want to bog down the rest of the fee update process. Let me know what you think – either way, I’ll coordinate a discussion with the consultant for when I return from vacation after next week to get into the details and scope of what we need for the R/W Use Fee task. Thanks, Luke Schwartz, PE Transportation Manager 152 Public Works Transportation Planning/Engineering 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E LSchwartz@slocity.org T 805.781.7190 slocity.org Note: Upcoming vacaƟon 10/9 – 10/13 From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Friday, October 6, 2023 4:01 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org> Cc: Jerry Wolf <jwolf@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO Transportation DIF Hi Rebecca I spoke with Jerry Wolf, our Director that handles the right of way and in lieu fee calculations. It might be easier if we spoke with Luke to see what type of fees he was looking for and then we could provide a scope and pricing. For these types of fees, the methodology can vary depending on where these are located, if there is a loss in revenue, time of day of the closure, length of the closure (i.e. a day, a week, 30 days etc). These fees are considered public inconvenience fees, use of public right of ways, and there is a little bit of labor just to issue, review the request and if there is an inspection piece to it. Often these fees will involve us contacting the County Assessors department to assess land values as well. As you can imagine, this is a bit time consuming so these types of fees are typically their own studies and can run 100 hours or more to complete. Here are a few common fees that fall under this category: Pedestrian Walkway closure Street Closure Travel lane closure (lanes dedicated for use from bicycles) Parking lane closure Alley Closure Happy to set up a call with Jerry, you, me and Luke to provide a little more information if you would like. Sorry it isn’t a simpler answer. Cindy Sconce (she/her/hers) Director, Performance Solutions Group 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 916.276.8807 Email: csconce@mgtconsulting.com The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. 153 From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 10:52 AM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO Transportation DIF Hi Cindy, I completely understand and recognize this was unexpected. I have a meeting with our Assistant City Manager and Finance Director on Monday regarding council meeting dates and additional fee study items. Would it be possible to provide me with a very brief scope, cost and time estimate on this request and how it would impact our current work effort so that I can share it at a the meeting? Happy to talk through as well. As always, thanks so much Cindy. Rebecca Get Outlook for iOS From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 7:02 PM To: Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO Transportation DIF Hi Rebecca Yes it is common to charge right of way (ROW) fees but it is a different type of calculation from an impact fee or user fee. As the link describes, these are a little different than user fees since there is no direct labor involved and it is a public inconv enience fee and not a fee for service as the link describes. There are a variety of ways to calculate these types of fees de pending on what the obstruction is. If the obstruction blocks parking meters for instance, then it is common to base the fee on lost revenue for those parking spaces. If it is sidewalk and street closures it is a different calculation. We are already well past the design phase and we did not anticipate the additional time for adding in ROW fees for analysis. Let’s discuss and see wat our options to move forward. Cindy Sconce (she/her/hers) Director, Performance Solutions Group 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 916.276.8807 Email: csconce@mgtconsulting.com The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 154 From: Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 5:26 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO Transportation DIF Thanks Rebecca. Cindy – Here’s an example from Washington DC, who has a similar fee schedule already in place https://ddot.dc.gov/publication/public-inconvenience-fee-faqs Luke Schwartz, PE Transportation Manager Public Works Transportation Planning/Engineering 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E LSchwartz@slocity.org T 805.781.7190 slocity.org Note: Upcoming vacation 10/9 – 10/13 From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 4:25 PM To: Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: SLO Transportation DIF Hi Luke, Thank you for the update; please let me know if there’s anything I can do to help. I’ve cc’d Cindy from the user fee side who has been instrumental in any of the questions we’ve had for new fees or how to capture them. Cindy, what do you think about Luke’s inquiry below? Thanks! Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 155 Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 11:13 AM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: SLO Transportation DIF Thanks Bebecca. I had a good discussion with the DTA staff and we’ll be continuing progress on the TIF items. Leni was going to schedule a reoccurring check-in meeting for the TIF effort to keep all appraised as things continue to move along. Also, I was assigned a task by Matt Horn (via Brian Nelson) to explore creation of a “Right-of-Way Use Fee” for encroachment projects in the downtown. Thanks, Luke Schwartz, PE Transportation Manager Public Works Transportation Planning/Engineering 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E LSchwartz@slocity.org T 805.781.7190 slocity.org From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 9:59 AM To: Leni Zarate <Leni@financedta.com>; Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org>; Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org>; Richard Ruiz <richard@financedta.com> Subject: RE: SLO Transportation DIF 156 Hi everyone, Unfortunately I won’t be able to make this meeting, I have a last minute conflict with our Leadership Team and Brent is OOO. I will follow up with Luke and Leni/Richard. Thank you, Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications -----Original Appointment----- From: Leni Zarate <Leni@financedta.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 9:06 AM To: Leni Zarate; Bernstorff, Rebecca; Taylor, Brent; Schwartz, Luke; Richard Ruiz Subject: SLO Transportation DIF When: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 10:00 AM-11:00 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada). Where: Microsoft Teams Meeting This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Review information provided. ________________________________________________________________________________ Microsoft Teams meeting Join on your computer, mobile app or room device Click here to join the meeting Meeting Download Teams | Join on the web Learn More | Meeting options ________________________________________________________________________________ 157 Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website. 159 From:Keller, Erin Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 3:40 PM To:Loew, Michael Subject:FW: Fire and Building Models Attachments:Building & Safety User Fee Model FY24 10.3.23 - 1st draft.xlsx; Building & Safety User Fee Model FY24 10.3.23 - 1st draft.xlsx; Fire User Fee Model FY241st Draft 10.4.23.xlsx Erin Keller pronouns she/her/hers Senior Business Analyst Community Development E EKeller@slocity.org T 805.781.7296 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 3:00 PM To: Keller, Erin <EKeller@slocity.org> Cc: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com>; Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: Fire and Building Models This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Erin, Jamie asked me to send you the final fee schedule design for fire and building. I don't have a file that just shows us the final fee schedule design but the design in in the models attached. Let me know if this helps or if you are looking for something else. Both building and fire provided me with annual volumes in their respective files. Ruben Rivas 160 Manager 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 831.227.3911 Email: rrivas@mgtconsulting.com 162 From:Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com> Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 3:30 PM To:Bernstorff, Rebecca Cc:Cindy Sconce Subject:Fw: [EXTERNAL]RE: 1st Draft - Building and Safety Attachments:Building & Safety User Fee Model FY24 10.3.23 - 1st draft.xlsx Rebecca attached is the rough 1st draft. Here's my availability: Weds - 9am-10am, 11am-12pm, 3pm-5pm Thurs - 9am-12pm, 1pm-4pm Fri - 10am-3pm Ruben Rivas Manager 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 831.227.3911 Email: rrivas@mgtconsulting.com From: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 1:08 PM To: Vert, Nicole <nvert@slocity.org>; Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org> Cc: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]RE: 1st Draft - Building and Safety I'm so sorry Nicole. This meeting was intended for Building. I will cancel and add you to the Fire email chain. Mike, can you let me if any of the availability below works for you to review the 1 st draft results: Tuesday - 3pm-5pm Weds - 9am-10am, 11am-12pm, 3pm-5pm Thurs - 9am-12pm, 3pm-5pm Fri - 10am-3pm Ruben Rivas Manager 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 831.227.3911 Email: rrivas@mgtconsulting.com From: Vert, Nicole <nvert@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 12:32 PM 163 To: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com>; Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org> Cc: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: 1st Draft - Building and Safety To clarify, I am with the Fire Dept. Is this meeting for Building? From: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 12:09 PM To: Vert, Nicole <nvert@slocity.org>; Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org> Cc: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]RE: 1st Draft - Building and Safety Rodger has his own model with his own results. I have requested a meeting with him as well. I will send out an invite for Thursday at 1:30pm. Ruben Rivas Manager 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 831.227.3911 Email: rrivas@mgtconsulting.com From: Vert, Nicole <nvert@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 10:58 AM To: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com>; Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org> Cc: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: 1st Draft - Building and Safety Hi, I am available anytime Tuesday, Wednesday afternoon and any time Thursday or Friday. Do we want to include Rodger? Thank you, CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 164 From: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 4:51 PM To: Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org>; Vert, Nicole <nvert@slocity.org> Cc: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: 1st Draft - Building and Safety This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Good afternoon, everyone. I am pleased to present you with the Building and Safety 1 st draft results. Still a few items we need to discuss, and I'd like to set up a meeting to discuss. I'm out on PTO Thursday/Friday but here's my availability for next week. Monday, October 9th - All booked Tuesday, October 10th - 8am - 2pm Weds, October 11th 8am-10am, 12pm-4pm Thursday, October 12th - 12pm-3pm Friday, October 13th - 12pm-4pm Let me know what times work best and I'll send out a Teams invite. Below are some of the items we need to discuss: General items: Assignable hours - Training/Meetings/Admin hours to back out? Building Revenues - I need help identifying building revenues from the file provided by Finance. Results items: Table 2 - Building Flat fees. Review MGT's notes based on results. 165 Table 1 - o This table is driven by the edits we make to table 2. Therefore, I don't want to get too into the results of this table just yet. Thanks again for all your help on this. HUGE progress. Looking forward to fine tune and upate some of the items listed above. Don't be too alarmed if some of this is confusing, we will discuss over our call next week. Ruben Rivas Manager 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 831.227.3911 Email: rrivas@mgtconsulting.com 167 From:Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com> Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 1:34 PM To:Vert, Nicole; Maggio, Rodger; Tuggle, Todd Cc:Cindy Sconce; Bernstorff, Rebecca Subject:Re: [EXTERNAL]RE: Fire - Rough 1st Draft Attachments:Fire User Fee Model FY241st Draft 10.4.23.xlsx Here you go, Nicole. Ruben Rivas Manager 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 831.227.3911 Email: rrivas@mgtconsulting.com From: Vert, Nicole <nvert@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 1:24 PM To: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com>; Maggio, Rodger <rmaggio@slocity.org>; Tuggle, Todd <ttuggle@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: Fire - Rough 1st Draft Thank you Ruban, will you please fwd the Fire 1st draft? It appears to have been dropped along the way. From: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 1:11 PM To: Maggio, Rodger <rmaggio@slocity.org>; Tuggle, Todd <ttuggle@slocity.org>; Vert, Nicole <nvert@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Fire - Rough 1st Draft This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Adding Nicole to the email. Good afternoon, all, just wanted to follow up regarding my email from last Wednesday. Please see that email below. I have produced a rough 1st draft and wanted to schedule a meeting to review together. My schedule has changed since my original email. Below is my availablity for this week for a 1 hour meeting to review this draft. Tuesday - 3pm-5pm CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 168 Weds - 9am-10am, 11am-12pm, 3pm-5pm Thurs - 9am-12pm, 3pm-5pm Fri - 10am-3pm Let me know what time works best for you and i'll send out the invitation. Ruben Rivas Manager 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 831.227.3911 Email: rrivas@mgtconsulting.com Ruben Rivas Manager 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 831.227.3911 Email: rrivas@mgtconsulting.com From: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 1:09 PM To: Maggio, Rodger <rmaggio@slocity.org>; Tuggle, Todd <ttuggle@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: Fw: Fire - Rough 1st Draft Good morning Rodger, just wanted to follow up regarding my email from last Wednesday. Please see that email below. I have produced a rough 1st draft and wanted to schedule a meeting to review together. My schedule has changed since my original email. Below is my availablity for this week for a 1 hour meeting to review this draft. Tuesday - 3pm-5pm Weds - 9am-10am, 11am-12pm, 3pm-5pm Thurs - 9am-12pm, 3pm-5pm Fri - 10am-3pm Let me know what time works best for you and i'll send out the invitation. Ruben Rivas Manager 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 831.227.3911 Email: rrivas@mgtconsulting.com From: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 10:00 AM 169 To: Maggio, Rodger <rmaggio@slocity.org>; Tuggle, Todd <ttuggle@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: Fire - Rough 1st Draft Rodger, Thanks for the information you provided. I was able to provide a rough 1 st draft. See attached. I'd like to schedule a call to discuss these results and a few items that need to be looked at for us to get a cleaner 1st draft. During that call we will review/discuss: My comments on table1 that start on row 123 My comments for tables 2 & 3 on column V that need to be addressed. I'm still waiting on the comparison fees. You can select 5 fees for me to compare via our comparison survey. Review revenue file provided by finance. I'm out tomorrow and Friday but here's my availability for us to review this together next week: Tuesday, October 10th - 8am-11am, 3pm-5pm Wednesday, October 11th - 9am-5pm Thursday, October 12th 8am-11am, 1pm-5pm Friday, October 13th - 9am-3pm Let me know if any of these times work for you and I'll send out a team's invite. Ruben Rivas Manager 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 831.227.3911 Email: rrivas@mgtconsulting.com 170 From:Schwartz, Luke Sent:Friday, October 6, 2023 4:33 PM To:Cindy Sconce; Bernstorff, Rebecca Cc:Jerry Wolf Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO Transportation DIF Thanks Cindy. I’m out on vacation all week as well. If your team is able to confirm a time with Rebecca while I’m out, Rebecca should be able to coordinate with our admin staff to find an open spot on my calendar to book for when I return. We’ll figure it out. Thanks, Luke Schwartz, PE Transportation Manager Public Works Transportation Planning/Engineering 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E LSchwartz@slocity.org T 805.781.7190 slocity.org Note: Upcoming vacaƟon 10/9 – 10/13 From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Friday, October 6, 2023 4:30 PM To: Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Cc: Jerry Wolf <jwolf@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO Transportation DIF Thanks Luke. Let me see what Jerry’s schedule looks like the following week. I know he is busy 10/16-10/18. I’ll check with Rebecca on her schedule when I meet with her Monday. I have a vacation coming up as well so I might have to have Jerry meet with you and have Ruben or Jamie attend in my absence. Cindy Sconce (she/her/hers) Director, Performance Solutions Group 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 916.276.8807 Email: csconce@mgtconsulting.com The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. 171 From: Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, October 6, 2023 4:23 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Cc: Jerry Wolf <jwolf@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO Transportation DIF Thanks Cindy. I’ve been reviewing examples from other cities and also trying to get a handle on exactly how we want to structure this fee to accomplish our intended goals. I’m out of office all next week, but if you could suggest a few times the following week that work for you and Jerry, hopefully we can confirm a time that Rebecca and I can join you for a call to discuss next steps. Best, Luke Schwartz, PE Transportation Manager Public Works Transportation Planning/Engineering 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E LSchwartz@slocity.org T 805.781.7190 slocity.org Note: Upcoming vacaƟon 10/9 – 10/13 From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Friday, October 6, 2023 4:01 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org> Cc: Jerry Wolf <jwolf@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO Transportation DIF Hi Rebecca I spoke with Jerry Wolf, our Director that handles the right of way and in lieu fee calculations. It might be easier if we spoke with Luke to see what type of fees he was looking for and then we could provide a scope and pricing. For these types of fees, the methodology can vary depending on where these are located, if there is a loss in revenue, time of day of the closure, length of the closure (i.e. a day, a week, 30 days etc). These fees are considered public inconvenience fees, use of public right of ways, and there is a little bit of labor just to issue, review the request and if there is an inspection piece to it. Often these fees will involve us contacting the County Assessors department to assess land values as well. As you can imagine, this is a bit time consuming so these types of fees are typically their own studies and can run 100 hours or more to complete. Here are a few common fees that fall under this category: Pedestrian Walkway closure Street Closure Travel lane closure (lanes dedicated for use from bicycles) Parking lane closure CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 172 Alley Closure Happy to set up a call with Jerry, you, me and Luke to provide a little more information if you would like. Sorry it isn’t a simpler answer. Cindy Sconce (she/her/hers) Director, Performance Solutions Group 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 916.276.8807 Email: csconce@mgtconsulting.com The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 10:52 AM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO Transportation DIF Hi Cindy, I completely understand and recognize this was unexpected. I have a meeting with our Assistant City Manager and Finance Director on Monday regarding council meeting dates and additional fee study items. Would it be possible to provide me with a very brief scope, cost and time estimate on this request and how it would impact our current work effort so that I can share it at a the meeting? Happy to talk through as well. As always, thanks so much Cindy. Rebecca Get Outlook for iOS From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 7:02 PM To: Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO Transportation DIF Hi Rebecca Yes it is common to charge right of way (ROW) fees but it is a different type of calculation from an impact fee or user fee. As the link describes, these are a little different than user fees since there is no direct labor involved and it is a public inconv enience fee and not a fee for service as the link describes. There are a variety of ways to calculate these types of fees de pending on what the CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 173 obstruction is. If the obstruction blocks parking meters for instance, then it is common to base the fee on lost revenue for those parking spaces. If it is sidewalk and street closures it is a different calculation. We are already well past the design phase and we did not anticipate the additional time for adding in ROW fees for analysis. Let’s discuss and see wat our options to move forward. Cindy Sconce (she/her/hers) Director, Performance Solutions Group 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 916.276.8807 Email: csconce@mgtconsulting.com The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. From: Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 5:26 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO Transportation DIF Thanks Rebecca. Cindy – Here’s an example from Washington DC, who has a similar fee schedule already in place https://ddot.dc.gov/publication/public-inconvenience-fee-faqs Luke Schwartz, PE Transportation Manager Public Works Transportation Planning/Engineering 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E LSchwartz@slocity.org T 805.781.7190 slocity.org Note: Upcoming vacation 10/9 – 10/13 From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 4:25 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 174 To: Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: SLO Transportation DIF Hi Luke, Thank you for the update; please let me know if there’s anything I can do to help. I’ve cc’d Cindy from the user fee side who has been instrumental in any of the questions we’ve had for new fees or how to capture them. Cindy, what do you think about Luke’s inquiry below? Thanks! Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 11:13 AM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: SLO Transportation DIF Thanks Bebecca. I had a good discussion with the DTA staff and we’ll be continuing progress on the TIF items. Leni was going to schedule a reoccurring check-in meeting for the TIF effort to keep all appraised as things continue to move along. Also, I was assigned a task by Matt Horn (via Brian Nelson) to explore creation of a “Right-of-Way Use Fee” for encroachment projects in the downtown. Thanks, Luke Schwartz, PE Transportation Manager 175 Public Works Transportation Planning/Engineering 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E LSchwartz@slocity.org T 805.781.7190 slocity.org From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 9:59 AM To: Leni Zarate <Leni@financedta.com>; Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org>; Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org>; Richard Ruiz <richard@financedta.com> Subject: RE: SLO Transportation DIF Hi everyone, Unfortunately I won’t be able to make this meeting, I have a last minute conflict with our Leadership Team and Brent is OOO. I will follow up with Luke and Leni/Richard. Thank you, Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications -----Original Appointment----- From: Leni Zarate <Leni@financedta.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 9:06 AM To: Leni Zarate; Bernstorff, Rebecca; Taylor, Brent; Schwartz, Luke; Richard Ruiz Subject: SLO Transportation DIF When: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 10:00 AM-11:00 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada). Where: Microsoft Teams Meeting This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Review information provided. 176 ________________________________________________________________________________ Microsoft Teams meeting Join on your computer, mobile app or room device Click here to join the meeting Meeting ID: Download Teams | Join on the web Learn More | Meeting options ________________________________________________________________________________ Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website. 214 From:Keller, Erin Sent:Thursday, October 5, 2023 10:38 AM To:Kazemi, Neema Cc:Bernstorff, Rebecca Subject:Fee Study - Volume Information Importance:High Morning, I just got off the phone with the Fee Study (User Fee Side) consultants, and they are going to send me the spreadsheet of “Fee Service Names” that we will need to provide volumes for as soon as possible. Right now, these are just going to be associated with Planning but Building and Safety will be next. The initial volumes are lacking some information and only account for 15/20% of the time lacking the details for 100% which is the goal. I have set up a meeting for us to discuss this at 2 p.m. As you suggested because EnerGov is down. Appreciate your assistance with this as time is of the essence on this project. Respectfully, Erin Keller pronouns she/her/hers Senior Business Analyst Community Development E EKeller@slocity.org T 805.781.7296 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 215 From:Laura Blaul <lblaul@aptriton.com> Sent:Thursday, October 5, 2023 10:13 AM To:Vert, Nicole Subject:Data Request from Triton This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Nicole, Were you able to find the previous fee study and a copy of the last few AB 1205 reports on status of mandated inspections for Council? Thanks! Laura Blaul Senior Associate AP Triton Consulting 949.599.6281 Trabuco Canyon, CA www.aptriton.com 216 From:Daniel Clancy <eids.fa.sender@workflow.mail.us6.oraclecloud.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 4, 2023 10:07 PM To:Panchal, Krishna Subject:FYI: Document (Purchase Order) 617737 (Requisition 34955) Implemented Attachments:PO_300000001480008_617737_0.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Access this task in the Workspace Application Document (Purchase Order) 617737 (Requisition 34955) Implemented Details Assignee Daniel Clancy Krishna Panchal From Daniel Clancy Assigned Date 10/04/2023 10:06 PM Expiration Date 11/03/2023 10:06 PM Task Number 1951843 Sold-to Legal Entity City of San Luis Obispo Order 617737 Procurement BU City of San Luis Obispo Buyer Daniel Clancy Ordered 37,239.84 USD Nonrecoverable Tax 0.00 USD Justification Order Details Supplier MGT of American Consulting, LLC Supplier Site Main 4320 W Ken Ship-to Location Parks and Recreation Supplier Order Description User and Impact Fee Study - FY 23 Note to Supplier PO for attached contract for - User and Impact Fee Study - FY 23 Requisitioning BU City of San Luis Obispo Requisition 34955 Requester Krishna Panchal Cost Center 1009 Attachments PO_300000001480008_617737_0.pdf DRAFTPurchase Order 617737 Order Date 05-OCT-2023 Change Order 0 Change Order Date 05-OCT-2023 Revision 0 Ordered 37,239.84 USD INCLUDE PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER ON ALL INVOICES & CORRESPONDENCE SEND ALL INVOICES TO AP@SLOCITY.ORG INCLUDE DELIVER TO CITY STAFF CONTACT NAME ON ALL INVOICES Sold To City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 Supplier MGT of American Consulting, LLC 4320 W Kennedy Blvd., Suite 200 TAMPA, FL 33609HILLSBOROUGH Bill To City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401SAN LUIS OBISPO UNITED STATES Ship To 1341 Nipomo Street SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401SAN LUIS OBISPO UNITED STATES Notes USD = US Dollar PO for attached contract for - User and Impact Fee Study - FY 23 Customer Account Number Supplier Number Payment Terms Freight Terms FOB Shipping Method 12088 Net 30 Destination Confirm To Deliver To Contact Daniel Clancy Krishna Panchal Phone 1-805-781-7510 Line Item Price Quantity UOM Ordered Taxable 1 User and Impact Fee Study - FY 23 37,239.84 Promised 37,239.84 10/09/2023 Requested 10/10/2023 Requested and Promised Dates correspond to the date of arrival at the Ship-to Location. Line Total 37,239.84 Total 37,239.84 1 Purchase Order 617737 2 Purchase Order 617737 Proprietary and Confidential Contract Terms and Conditions Purchase Order Terms and Conditions Standard Purchase Order Terms & Conditions 1.Acceptance.By delivering the ordered goods or commencing performance under this Purchase Order,("Order")supplier agrees to the general terms,specifications,and conditions in or referenced by this document.If supplier and The City of San Luis Obispo ("City")have entered into a contract outside of this Order,the terms and conditions set forth in the contract shall prevail.Supplier's additional or different terms and conditions are expressly excluded from this Order and the City does not agree to such terms or conditions,unless such agreement is made expressly,in writing by the City's authorized representative,or a contract has been signed outside of this Order between the Supplier and The City. 2.Business License &Tax.Supplier must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business tax certificate prior to the execution of the contract.Additional information regarding the City's business tax program may be obtained by calling (805)781-7134. 3.Abilityto Perform.Supplier 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. 4.Warranties.Supplier warrants that all goods delivered will be free from defects in workmanship,material,and manufacture;are new (not refurbished or reconditioned)unless otherwise stated in this Order;are of merchantable quality and fit for the purpose intended by the City to the extent that purpose has been disclosed to Supplier;complies with the requirements of this Order;and complies with all applicable laws and regulations.Supplier also warrants that all services performed under this Order shall be rendered in a good and workmanlike manner by skilled personnel in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. 5.Changes.No change or modification in terms may be made without express authorization,in writing by the City's authorized representative. 6.Delivery.Supplier agrees that time is of the essence to delivery and any other performance required under this Order.No charge for delivery,parcel post,packing,cartage,insurance,license fees, permits,or any other purpose will be paid by the City unless it is expressly included on the face of this Order.Supplier must arrange for the lowest-cost transportation and prepay and add freight to its invoice.If delivery is made by a carrier,an itemized delivery ticket must be attached to the outside of the package.Each container or package must be marked with the Order number. 7.Laws to be Observed.Supplier 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. 8.Paymentof Taxes.The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that Supplier is required to pay. 9.Permits and Licenses.Supplier shall procure all permits and licenses,pay all charges and fees,and give all notices necessary. 10.Safety Provisions.Supplier shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety established by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety Public and Employee Safety.Whenever Supplier'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. 11.Preservation of City Property.Supplier 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 as a result of Supplier's operations,it shall be replaced or restored at Supplier's expense.The facilities shall be replaced or restored to a condition as good as when the Supplier began work 12.ImmigrationAct of 1986.Supplier warrants on behalf of itself and all sub-suppliers 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. 13.Supplier Non-Discrimination.In the performance of this work,Supplier agrees that it will not engage in,nor permit such sub-suppliers as it may employ,to engage in discrimination in the employment of persons because of age,race,color,sex,national origin or ancestry,sexual orientation,or religion of such persons. 14.Work Delays.Should Supplier 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 Supplier. 15.PaymentTerms.The City's payment terms are 30 days from the receipt of an original invoice and acceptance by the City of the services provided by Supplier (Net 30). 16.Inspection.Supplier shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain that the services of Supplier 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 Supplier of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract requirements. 17.Audit.The City shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all records and other written materials used by Supplier in preparing its invoices to City as a condition precedent to any payment to Supplier. 18.Interestsof Supplier.Supplier covenants that it presently has no interest,and shall not acquire any interest direct or indirect or otherwise,which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the work hereunder.Supplier further covenants that,in the performance of this work,no sub-Supplier or person having such an interest shall be employed.Supplier 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,Supplier shall at all times be deemed an independent Supplier and not an agent or employee of the City. 19.Hold Harmless and Indemnification. (a)Non-design,non-construction Professional Services:To the fullest extent permitted by law (including,but not limited to California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8),Consultant shall indemnify, defend,and hold harmless the City,and its elected officials,officers,employees,volunteers,and agents ("City Indemnitees"),from and against any and all causes of action,claims,liabilities,obligations, judgments,or damages,including reasonable legal counsels'fees and costs of litigation ("claims"),arising out of the Consultant's performance or Consultant's failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement or out of the operations conducted by Consultant,including the City's active or passive negligence,except for such loss or damage arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the 3 Purchase Order 617737 Proprietary and Confidential City.In the event the City Indemnitees are made a party to any action,lawsuit,or other adversarial proceeding arising from Consultant's performance of this Agreement,the Consultant shall provide a defense to the City Indemnitees or at the City's option,reimburse the City Indemnitees their costs of defense,including reasonable legal fees,incurred in defense of such claims. (b)Non-design,construction Professional Services:To the extent the Scope of Services involve a "construction contract"as that phrase is used in Civil Code Section 2783,this paragraph shall apply in place of paragraph A.To the fullest extent permitted by law (including,but not limited to California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8),Consultant shall indemnify,defend,and hold harmless the City, and its elected officials,officers,employees,volunteers,and agents ("City Indemnitees"),from and against any and all causes of action,claims,liabilities,obligations,judgments,or damages,including reasonable legal counsels'fees and costs of litigation ("claims"),arising out of the Consultant's performance or Consultant's failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement or out of the operations conducted by Consultant,except for such loss or damage arising from the active negligence,sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City.In the event the City Indemnitees are made a party to any action,lawsuit,or other adversarial proceeding arising from Consultant's performance of this Agreement,the Consultant shall provide a defense to the City Indemnitees or at the City's option,reimburse the City Indemnitees their costs of defense,including reasonable legal fees,incurred in defense of such claims. (c)Design Professional Services:In the event Consultant is a "design professional",and the Scope of Services require Consultant to provide "design professional services"as those phrases are used in Civil Code Section 2782.8,this paragraph shall apply in place of paragraphs A or B.To the fullest extent permitted by law (including,but not limited to California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8) Consultant shall indemnify,defend and hold harmless the City and its elected officials,officers,employees,volunteers and agents ("City Indemnitees"),from and against all claims,damages,injuries, losses,and expenses including costs,attorney fees,expert consultant and expert witness fees arising out of,pertaining to or relating to,the negligence,recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant, except to the extent caused by the sole negligence,active negligence or willful misconduct of the City.Negligence,recklessness or willful misconduct of any subcontractor employed by Consultant shall be conclusively deemed to be the negligence,recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant unless adequately corrected by Consultant.In the event the City Indemnitees are made a party to any action, lawsuit,or other adversarial proceeding arising from Consultant's performance of this Agreement,the Consultant shall provide a defense to the City Indemnitees or at the City's option,reimburse the City Indemnitees their costs of defense,including reasonable legal fees,incurred in defense of such claims.In no event shall the cost to defend charged to Consultant under this paragraph exceed Consultant's proportionate percentage of fault.However,notwithstanding the previous sentence,in the event one or more defendants are unable to pay its share of defense costs due to bankruptcy or dissolution of the business,Consultant shall meet and confer with other parties regarding unpaid defense costs. (d)The review,acceptance or approval of the Consultant's work or work product by any indemnified party shall not affect,relieve or reduce the Consultant's indemnification or defense obligations.This Section survives completion of the services or the termination of this contract.The provisions of this Section are not limited by and do not affect the provisions of this contract relating to insurance. 20.Contract Assignment.Supplier 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. 21.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. 22.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 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 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 Contractor be entitled to receive in excess of the compensation quoted in its proposal. 23.Ownership of Materials.All original drawings,plan documents and other materials prepared by or in possession of Supplier 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. 24.Release of Reports and Information.Any reports,information,data,or other material is given to,prepared by or assembled by Supplier 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 Supplier without the prior written approval of the City. 25.Copies of Reports and Information.If the City requests additional copies of reports,drawings,specifications,or any other material in addition to what Supplier is required to furnish in limited quantities as part of the work or services under these specifications,Supplier shall provide such additional copies as are requested,and City shall compensate Supplier for the costs of duplicating of such copies at the Supplier's direct expense. 26.Insurance.Supplier shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Order insurance that is sufficient in scope and amount to permit Supplier to pay in the ordinary course of business against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by Supplier,its agents,representatives,employees or sub-contractors. Supplier will maintain Workers Compensation insurance at statutory levels covering all employees who perform work under this Order. Additional Public Works Construction Purchase Order Terms & Conditions 1.Compensation for Authorized Additional Expenses.To receive compensation for additional expenses outside the scope of the project work,the Supplier shall obtain prior written authoriza-tion from the City to incur those expenses.Compensa-tion for these addition-al expenses shall include time and materials. 2.Payment Terms.The supplier may request one progress payment each month for work satisfactorily completed and accepted by the City.The City shall issue payment within 30 days.The City shall withhold 10 percent of each progress payment as retention to ensure resolution of any stop notices or liens.The City shall release this retention 35 days after filing a notice of completion. 3.Faithful Performance Bond.The supplier shall furnish a surety bond in the amount of 125 percent of the contract price guaranteeing the faithful performance of the contract,including any attorney's fees or other collection costs. 4.Work in the Right-of-Way or on City Property.For work on City managed property,the supplier/consultant shall obtain a no-fee encroachment permit.A Traffic Control Plan and Water Pollution Control Plan shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of the permit unless determined by the City not to be required. 5.Prevailing Wage.The supplier and any subcontractors are required to pay prevailing wage and must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Section 1725.5 of the Labor Code. 6.Insurance.The supplier shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or dam-ages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the supplier,its agents,representatives,employees or subs. Minimum Scope of Insurance.Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 4 Purchase Order 617737 Proprietary and Confidential a.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). b.Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed.1/87)covering Automobile Liability,code 1 (any auto). c.Workers'Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. Minimum Limits of Insurance.The supplier shall maintain limits no less than: a.General Liability:$1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury,personal injury and property damage.If Commercial General Liability or other forms 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. b.Automobile Liability:$1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. c.Employer's Liability:$1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. d.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 supplier 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 provi-sions: a.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 supplier;products and completed operations of the supplier;premises owned,occupied or used by the supplier;or automobiles owned leased,hired or borrowed by the supplier.The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City,its officers,officials,employees,agents or volunteers. b.For any claims related to this project,the supplier's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City,its officers,officials,employees,agents,and volunteers.Any insur-ance or self- insurance maintained by the City,its officers,offi-cials,employees,agents or volunteers shall be excess of the supplier's insurance and shall not contribute with it. c.Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City,its officers,officials,employees,agents or volunteers. d.The supplier'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. e.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. 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.The supplier shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing required coverage.Original endorse-ments affecting general liability and automobile liability coverage are also required by this clause.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. Subcontractors.The supplier shall include all subcontractors as insured under its policies or shall furnish separate certifi-cates and endorsements for each subcontractor.All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein. 5 217 From:Daniel Clancy <eids.fa.sender@workflow.mail.us6.oraclecloud.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 4, 2023 10:07 PM To:Clancy, Daniel Subject:FYI: Document (Purchase Order) 617737 (Requisition 34955) Implemented Attachments:PO_300000001480008_617737_0.pdf Access this task in the Workspace Application Document (Purchase Order) 617737 (Requisition 34955) Implemented Details Assignee Daniel Clancy Krishna Panchal From Daniel Clancy Assigned Date 10/04/2023 10:06 PM Expiration Date 11/03/2023 10:06 PM Task Number 1951843 Sold-to Legal Entity City of San Luis Obispo Order 617737 Procurement BU City of San Luis Obispo Buyer Daniel Clancy Ordered 37,239.84 USD Nonrecoverable Tax 0.00 USD Justification Order Details Supplier MGT of American Consulting, LLC Supplier Site Main 4320 W Ken Ship-to Location Parks and Recreation Supplier Order Description User and Impact Fee Study - FY 23 Note to Supplier PO for attached contract for - User and Impact Fee Study - FY 23 Requisitioning BU City of San Luis Obispo Requisition 34955 Requester Krishna Panchal Cost Center 1009 Attachments PO_300000001480008_617737_0.pdf 218 From:Daniel Clancy <eids.fa.sender@workflow.mail.us6.oraclecloud.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 4, 2023 9:44 PM To:Clancy, Daniel Subject:Action Required: Approve Purchase Order 617737 Attachments:PO_300000001480008_617737_0.pdf; PO_617737_0_Deviations.pdf Access this task in the Workspace Application 219 Purchase Order Approval $37,239.84 MGT of American Consulting, LLC User and Impact Fee Study - FY 23 Approve Reject Request Info Buyer Daniel Clancy Requester Krishna Panchal Requisition 34955 Description User and Impact Fee Study - FY 23 Purchase Order 617737 Lines User and Impact Fee Study - FY 23 Requester: Panchal, Krishna Requisition: 34955 Charge Account: 101.1009.61013.000000.000000.000 $37,239.84 Approvals Applications Development Framework Application Identity for Procurement Daniel Clancy 10/04/2023 9:43 PM Assigned to Daniel Clancy 10/04/2023 9:43 PM Submitted by Daniel Clancy PO_300000001480008_617737_0.pdf PO_617737_0_Deviations.pdf 220 Approve Reject Request Info View Order Task Details Contract Standards Deviations Standard Purchase Order 617737, 0 Proprietary and Confidential 1 Standard Purchase Order 617737, 0: Contract Standards Deviations - 05-Oct-2023 Supplier MGT of American Consulting, LLC Supplier Site Main 4320 W Ken Buyer Clancy, Daniel "Dan"Amount 37,239.84 USD Business Unit City of San Luis Obispo Contract Template Standard Purchase Order Terms and Conditions Contract Standards Deviations Standard Purchase Order 617737, 0 Proprietary and Confidential 2 Deviation Summary Clause Deviations Category Deviation Section Clause Title No clause deviations. 221 From:Krishna Panchal <eids.fa.sender@workflow.mail.us6.oraclecloud.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 4, 2023 3:10 PM To:Panchal, Krishna Subject:FYI: Requisition 34955 Approved Attachments:34955.pdf Access this task in the Workspace Application Requisition 34955 Approved Details Assignee Krishna Panchal From Krishna Panchal Assigned Date 10/04/2023 3:10 PM Expiration Date 11/03/2023 3:10 PM Task Number 1951694 Requisitioning BU City of San Luis Obispo Entered By Krishna Panchal Requisition Amount 37,239.84 USD Nonrecoverable Tax 0.00 USD Approval Amount 37,239.84 USD Funds Status Reserved Description User and Impact Fee Study - FY 23 Justification Requisition Lines Line Item Description Suggested Supplier Cost Center 1 User and Impact Fee Study - FY 23 MGT of American Consulting, LLC 1009 View Requisition Details View Document History Comments No data to display Attachments 34955.pdf History Updated By Action Performed Assignee Updated Time 222 Krishna Panchal Assigned Krishna Panchal 10/04/2023 11:13 AM workflowsystem Assigned Krishna Panchal 10/04/2023 3:10 PM Krishna Panchal Assigned Devin Hyfield 10/04/2023 11:13 AM workflowsystem Withdrawn Devin Hyfield 10/04/2023 1:54 PM Krishna Panchal Assigned Brendan Pringle 10/04/2023 11:13 AM Brendan Pringle Approved Brendan Pringle 10/04/2023 1:54 PM workflowsystem Approved 10/04/2023 1:54 PM workflowsystem Approved 10/04/2023 1:54 PM workflowsystem Assigned Gregory Avakian 10/04/2023 1:54 PM Gregory Avakian Approved Gregory Avakian 10/04/2023 3:10 PM workflowsystem Task Completed - Approved 10/04/2023 3:10 PM workflowsystem Completed 10/04/2023 3:10 PM Requisition 34955 (37,239.84 USD)Report Date 10/03/2023 5:11 PM GMT+00:00 Page 1 of 1 Requisitioning BU City of San Luis Obispo Requisition Amount 37,239.84 USD Entered By Krishna Panchal Approval Amount 37,239.84 USD Status Pending approval Procurement Card Description User and Impact Fee Study - FY 23 Justification Emergency Requisition No Funds Status Not reserved Lines Line Item Description Category Name Quantity UOM Price Amount (USD) Status Funds Status 1 User and Impact Fee Study - FY 23 Fees (If Not otherwise Classified) USD 37,239.84 Pending approval Not reserved Requester Krishna Panchal Supplier MGT of American Consulting, LLC Urgent No New Supplier No Requested Delivery Date 10/10/2023 Supplier Site Main 4320 W Ken Deliver-to Location Type Internal Supplier Contact Deliver-to Location Parks and Recreation Contact Phone Deliver-to Address 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, San Luis Obispo, United States Supplier Item Destination Type Expense Note to Supplier Subinventory Note to Receiver Note to Buyer Attachments Title File Name or URL Description Notification of Bank Change_MG Notification of Bank Change_MGT (2). pdf MGT Consulting Inv 53714. pdf MGT Consulting Inv 53714.pdf Distributions Distribution Charge Account Budget Date Percentage Quantity Amount (USD) Funds Status 1 101.1009.61013.000000.0 00000.000 10/03/2023 100 0 37,239.84 Not reserved End of Report 223 From:Panchal, Krishna Sent:Wednesday, October 4, 2023 1:28 PM To:Pringle, Brendan Subject:RE: Action Required: Approve Requisition 34955 It was returned because the contract was not attached. From: Pringle, Brendan <bpringle@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 1:26 PM To: Panchal, Krishna <kpanchal@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Action Required: Approve Requisition 34955 Hi Krishna, I thought I processed this yesterday? Brendan Pringle Business Analyst Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bpringle@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Krishna Panchal <eids.fa.sender@workflow.mail.us6.oraclecloud.com > Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 11:14 AM To: Pringle, Brendan <bpringle@slocity.org> Subject: Action Required: Approve Requisition 34955 224 Requisition Approval $37,239.84 Panchal, Krishna User and Impact Fee Study - FY 23 Approve Reject Request Info Requisition 34955 Lines User and Impact Fee Study - FY 23 $37,239.84 Charge Account: 101.1009.61013.000000.000000.000 Approval History Gregory Avakian 10/04/2023 11:13 AM Assigned to Brendan Pringle 10/04/2023 11:13 AM Assigned to Devin Hyfield 10/04/2023 11:13 AM Submitted by Krishna Panchal 34955.pdf Approve Reject Request Info Task Details 241 From:Johnson, Derek Sent:Tuesday, October 3, 2023 9:23 PM To:Stewart, Erica A Subject:RE: Don't we have a fee study coming up? Yes, spring 2024. From: Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 9:12 PM To: Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org> Subject: Don't we have a fee study coming up? Erica A. Stewart pronouns she/her/hers Mayor Office of the City Council 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E estewart@slocity.org T 805.783.7838 C 805.540.1154 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 242 From:Purrington, Teresa Sent:Tuesday, October 3, 2023 9:14 PM To:Stewart, Erica A Subject:RE: Don't we have a fee study coming up? Sometime after the new year. From: Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 9:14 PM To: Purrington, Teresa <TPurring@slocity.org> Subject: Don't we have a fee study coming up? Erica A. Stewart pronouns she/her/hers Mayor Office of the City Council 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E estewart@slocity.org T 805.783.7838 C 805.540.1154 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 243 From:Stewart, Erica A Sent:Tuesday, October 3, 2023 9:14 PM To:Purrington, Teresa Subject:Don't we have a fee study coming up? Erica A. Stewart pronouns she/her/hers Mayor Office of the City Council 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E estewart@slocity.org T 805.783.7838 C 805.540.1154 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 244 From:Stewart, Erica A Sent:Tuesday, October 3, 2023 9:12 PM To:Johnson, Derek Subject:Don't we have a fee study coming up? Erica A. Stewart pronouns she/her/hers Mayor Office of the City Council 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E estewart@slocity.org T 805.783.7838 C 805.540.1154 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 245 From:Clancy, Daniel Sent:Tuesday, October 3, 2023 7:37 PM To:Panchal, Krishna Subject:MGT contract Attachments:Contract_Fee Study_FINAL.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Hi Krishna, Please attach to the MGT requisition. Please include all contracts with requisitions so we have complete file in Oracle for the contract/purchase. Thanks, Daniel Clancy Financial Analyst Finance Finance Operations 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E DClancy@slocity.org T 805.781.7510 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 246 From:Daniel Clancy <eids.fa.sender@workflow.mail.us6.oraclecloud.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 3, 2023 7:37 PM To:Panchal, Krishna Subject:FYI: Requisition 34955 Returned by Buyer Access this task in the Workspace Application Requisition 34955 Returned by Buyer Details Assignee Krishna Panchal From Daniel Clancy Assigned Date 10/03/2023 7:36 PM Task Number 1951216 Requisitioning BU City of San Luis Obispo Description User and Impact Fee Study - FY 23 Entered By Krishna Panchal Creation Date 10/03/2023 Return Reason Sorry to return. Please attach the underlying contract to the requisition Recommended Actions Review the requisition details, edit, and resubmit if necessary. Requisition Lines Line Item Description Category Name Quantity UOM Name Price 1 User and Impact Fee Study - FY 23 Fees (If Not otherwise Classified) View Requisition Details 247 From:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Sent:Tuesday, October 3, 2023 6:16 PM To:Bernstorff, Rebecca Subject:RE: Scheduling a meeting Yes, if I can join that it would be great! Thanks! Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 1:21 PM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Scheduling a meeting Hey! We actually have a meeting in one week at 11am with this team to do a fee study check-in. Do you want to come to that meeting? Or do we need an additional separate hour for your items too? To answer your original question - 4pm meetings are totally fine. Michelle tries to protect my calendar (god bless her). RB Get Outlook for iOS From: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 3:15:07 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: Scheduling a meeting Hi! I am trying to schedule a meeting with you, me, Whitney, and Emily to talk about some fee related things that came up during my budget meeting. The most likely time for us to all meet is at 4 pm one day – I see that you have a hold on 4 pm times so I wanted to get your permission to schedule something – let me know if there are off-limit days, etc. Thanks! 248 Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 256 From:Krishna Panchal <eids.fa.sender@workflow.mail.us6.oraclecloud.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 3, 2023 5:50 PM To:Panchal, Krishna Subject:FYI: Requisition 34955 Approved Attachments:34955.pdf Access this task in the Workspace Application Requisition 34955 Approved Details Assignee Krishna Panchal From Krishna Panchal Assigned Date 10/03/2023 5:49 PM Expiration Date 11/02/2023 5:49 PM Task Number 1950451 Requisitioning BU City of San Luis Obispo Entered By Krishna Panchal Requisition Amount 37,239.84 USD Nonrecoverable Tax 0.00 USD Approval Amount 37,239.84 USD Funds Status Reserved Description User and Impact Fee Study - FY 23 Justification Requisition Lines Line Item Description Suggested Supplier Cost Center 1 User and Impact Fee Study - FY 23 MGT of American Consulting, LLC 1009 View Requisition Details View Document History Comments No data to display Attachments 34955.pdf History Updated By Action Performed Assignee Updated Time 257 Krishna Panchal Assigned Krishna Panchal 10/03/2023 10:11 AM workflowsystem Assigned Krishna Panchal 10/03/2023 5:49 PM Krishna Panchal Assigned Devin Hyfield 10/03/2023 10:11 AM workflowsystem Withdrawn Devin Hyfield 10/03/2023 10:57 AM Krishna Panchal Assigned Brendan Pringle 10/03/2023 10:11 AM Brendan Pringle Approved Brendan Pringle 10/03/2023 10:57 AM workflowsystem Approved 10/03/2023 10:57 AM workflowsystem Approved 10/03/2023 10:57 AM workflowsystem Assigned Gregory Avakian 10/03/2023 10:57 AM Gregory Avakian Approved Gregory Avakian 10/03/2023 5:49 PM workflowsystem Task Completed - Approved 10/03/2023 5:49 PM workflowsystem Completed 10/03/2023 5:49 PM 260 From:Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 3, 2023 11:31 AM To:Bernstorff, Rebecca; Schwartz, Luke Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO Transportation DIF Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Cindy From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 10:52 AM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO Transportation DIF Hi Cindy, I completely understand and recognize this was unexpected. I have a meeting with our Assistant City Manager and Finance Director on Monday regarding council meeting dates and additional fee study items. Would it be possible to provide me with a very brief scope, cost and time estimate on this request and how it would impact our current work effort so that I can share it at a the meeting? Happy to talk through as well. As always, thanks so much Cindy. Rebecca Get Outlook for iOS From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 7:02 PM To: Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO Transportation DIF Hi Rebecca Yes it is common to charge right of way (ROW) fees but it is a different type of calculation from an impact fee or user fee. As the link describes, these are a little different than user fees since there is no direct labor involved and it is a public inconvenience fee and not a fee for service as the link describes. There are a variety of ways to calculate these types of fees depending on wh at the obstruction is. If the obstruction blocks parking meters for instance, then it is common to base the fee on lost revenue for those parking spaces. If it is sidewalk and street closures it is a different calculation. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 261 We are already well past the design phase and we did not anticipate the additional time for adding in ROW fees for analysis. Let’s discuss and see wat our options to move forward. Cindy Sconce (she/her/hers) Director, Performance Solutions Group 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 916.276.8807 Email: csconce@mgtconsulting.com The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. From: Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 5:26 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO Transportation DIF Thanks Rebecca. Cindy – Here’s an example from Washington DC, who has a similar fee schedule already in place https://ddot.dc.gov/publication/public-inconvenience-fee-faqs Luke Schwartz, PE Transportation Manager Public Works Transportation Planning/Engineering 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E LSchwartz@slocity.org T 805.781.7190 slocity.org Note: Upcoming vacation 10/9 – 10/13 From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 4:25 PM To: Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 262 Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: SLO Transportation DIF Hi Luke, Thank you for the update; please let me know if there’s anything I can do to help. I’ve cc’d Cindy from the user fee side who has been instrumental in any of the questions we’ve had for new fees or how to capture them. Cindy, what do you think about Luke’s inquiry below? Thanks! Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 11:13 AM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: SLO Transportation DIF Thanks Bebecca. I had a good discussion with the DTA staff and we’ll be continuing progress on the TIF items. Leni was going to schedule a reoccurring check-in meeting for the TIF effort to keep all appraised as things continue to move along. Also, I was assigned a task by Matt Horn (via Brian Nelson) to explore creation of a “Right-of-Way Use Fee” for encroachment projects in the downtown. Thanks, Luke Schwartz, PE Transportation Manager 263 Public Works Transportation Planning/Engineering 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E LSchwartz@slocity.org T 805.781.7190 slocity.org From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 9:59 AM To: Leni Zarate <Leni@financedta.com>; Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org>; Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org>; Richard Ruiz <richard@financedta.com> Subject: RE: SLO Transportation DIF Hi everyone, Unfortunately I won’t be able to make this meeting, I have a last minute conflict with our Leadership Team and Brent is OOO. I will follow up with Luke and Leni/Richard. Thank you, Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications -----Original Appointment----- From: Leni Zarate <Leni@financedta.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 9:06 AM To: Leni Zarate; Bernstorff, Rebecca; Taylor, Brent; Schwartz, Luke; Richard Ruiz Subject: SLO Transportation DIF When: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 10:00 AM-11:00 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada). Where: Microsoft Teams Meeting This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Review information provided. 264 ________________________________________________________________________________ Microsoft Teams meeting Join on your computer, mobile app or room device Click here to join the meeting Meeting ID: Download Teams | Join on the web Learn More | Meeting options ________________________________________________________________________________ Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website. 265 From:Avakian, Greg Sent:Tuesday, October 3, 2023 11:19 AM To:Pringle, Brendan Subject:RE: Action Required: Approve Requisition 34955 Phew!!!!! Greg Avakian pronouns he/him/his Director of Parks and Recreation Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E gavakian@slocity.org T 805.781.7120 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Pringle, Brendan <bpringle@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 11:18 AM To: Avakian, Greg <gavakian@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Action Required: Approve Requisition 34955 No, it’s from CSG Admin budget (this is for one phase of the project, not the whole budget). Since RB had me process, it automatically defaulted to you approving. Sorry for any confusion. 뇤눎눐눑눒눏 Brendan Pringle Business Analyst Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bpringle@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Avakian, Greg <gavakian@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 11:16 AM To: Pringle, Brendan <bpringle@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Action Required: Approve Requisition 34955 BP: Are we really contributing over $37K for the fee study from P&R? 266 Greg Avakian pronouns he/him/his Director of Parks and Recreation Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E gavakian@slocity.org T 805.781.7120 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: workflowsystem <eids.fa.sender@workflow.mail.us6.oraclecloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 10:57 AM To: Avakian, Greg <gavakian@slocity.org> Subject: Action Required: Approve Requisition 34955 267 Requisition Approval $37,239.84 Panchal, Krishna User and Impact Fee Study - FY 23 Approve Reject Request Info Requisition 34955 Lines User and Impact Fee Study - FY 23 $37,239.84 Charge Account: 101.1009.61013.000000.000000.000 Approval History 10/03/2023 10:57 AM Assigned to Gregory Avakian 10/03/2023 10:57 AM Approved by Brendan Pringle 10/03/2023 10:11 AM Submitted by Krishna Panchal 34955.pdf Approve Reject Request Info Task Details 275 From:Krishna Panchal <eids.fa.sender@workflow.mail.us6.oraclecloud.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 3, 2023 10:11 AM To:Panchal, Krishna Subject:FYI: Approve Requisition 34955 Attachments:34955.pdf 276 Requisition Approval $37,239.84 Panchal, Krishna User and Impact Fee Study - FY 23 Requisition 34955 Lines User and Impact Fee Study - FY 23 $37,239.84 Charge Account: 101.1009.61013.000000.000000.000 Approval History Gregory Avakian 10/03/2023 10:11 AM Assigned to Brendan Pringle 10/03/2023 10:11 AM Assigned to Devin Hyfield 10/03/2023 10:11 AM Submitted by Krishna Panchal 34955.pdf Task Details 307 From:Johnson, Derek Sent:Monday, October 2, 2023 8:08 PM To:Johnson, Derek Cc:Jennings, Amy Subject:04. October 2023 Council Monthly Attachments:04. October 2023 Council Monthly.docx Good Evening, Please see the attached October 2023 Council update. Please be in touch if you have any questions. Derek BCC: CC 6 Community Services Group & Assistant City Manager Core Services Update Citywide User and Impact Fee Study • City staff are avidly working with the City's fee consultant MGT (user fees) and DTA (impact fees). MGT has completed time and volume estimates and will begin working on methodology and calculations. DTA is continuing to meet with impact fee subject matter experts to gain inventory and data collection for specific fees and has produced a draft impact fee schedule for the information they have received thus far. Concurrently, overcommunication both internally and externally is being prepared as we continue through project milestones. Staff are also preparing a timeline for information to be brought before the City Council via a Study Session towards the end of the year. 308 From:Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com> Sent:Monday, October 2, 2023 4:00 PM To:Loew, Michael; Bernstorff, Rebecca; LaFreniere, Matt; Cindy Sconce Subject:Re: [EXTERNAL]RE: Building - Table 1 data Mike, Thanks for that explanation. That's a start. Ruben Rivas Manager 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 831.227.3911 Email: rrivas@mgtconsulting.com From: Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 11:47 AM To: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org>; Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Building - Table 1 data Mike Loew Deputy Director Chief Building Official Community Development CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 309 E Mloew@slocity.org T 805.781.7157 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 11:00 AM To: Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org>; Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]RE: Building - Table 1 data Sounds good Mike. Re: Paper Plan Disposal Ruben Rivas Manager 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 831.227.3911 Email: rrivas@mgtconsulting.com From: Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 9:03 AM To: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org>; Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Building - Table 1 data Ruben, any of the 5 should work. Mike Loew Deputy Director Chief Building Official CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 310 Community Development E Mloew@slocity.org T 805.781.7157 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 8:58 AM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org>; LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org>; Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]RE: Building - Table 1 data Rebecca, I'm not sure what's it's intended to recover. If I can get an explanation as to what this intended to recover, I may be able to provide more guidance. However, I can't cost something out if I don't have a time estimate. If staff isn't comfortable providing a estimate we can always charge as "actual cost, per hour". Mike, If I'm understanding correctly, you provided 44 different projects. Our scope of work limits us to 5 projects. Do you want me to pick the 5 out of that pool of 44? Let me know on this. Ruben Rivas Manager 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 831.227.3911 Email: rrivas@mgtconsulting.com From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2023 5:29 PM To: Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org>; Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com>; LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Building - Table 1 data Good question, Mike, I can’t seem to find reference to it in the 2017 Fee Study. @LaFreniere, Matt do you by any chance know what #15 is below? Thanks for your help! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 311 Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 7:51 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Building - Table 1 data Please see the attached spreadsheets. I added a tab to include 5 prototypes of each work class (or all from the category). I think this should cover the prototypes that Ruben requested, and the missing data from table 1. Most of the annual demand is also populated for the flat fees; however, I added a question mark where the report I had did not include a count when I know we regularly used the fee. Otherwise, all blank fields in that column equal 0 as far as I know. Rebecca, I do need some help with two items. I do not know what the “construction tax fee” is. I do not have a record of when it was las used. Is there some information on this from the last fee study? Also, I do not know how to calculate or estimate the cost of disposing plans. 26 – Don’t know what this is, we don’t currently use it. - Do you want to remove? Keep it at the current fee amount? I don’t know. 312 46, 107, 109 – These are fees that are in addition to a base amount and should be calculated after the base amount is established. This is something staff needs help with from you. - Mike, what I'm noticing for these fees is that the base doesn't indicate what the threshold is. Typically, a base fee indicates that the base is "up to X" and anything beyond that is then charged at a cost per each additional. So first we must define what that base is. Let's say that for #46 that base is for the first 50 ln.ft. The way we would then calculate the each additional is by looking at how long a 50 ln.ft. project takes vs a 100 (it could be something else but must be more than 50) ln.ft/ project. That's all I would need from you. Once I have those two-time estimates (one for the base and one that exceeds the base) it's just simple math on my end. Let me know if this makes sense to you. Updated (46 deleted, 107 is now 109, and 109 is now 111) 122, 123 – I don’t believe these fees are associated with staff time. Ok, what are those for? Should those be left as is? Removed? Cannot remove, SMIP fees are established by and paid to the State: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/smi/program 153 – I suppose there is staff time associated with it but left blank until we can come up with a way to calculate incurred costs. If we want to cost this out we'll need an estimate. I know it's hard since it's a new fee but if I don't get an estimate then I can't calculate. I don’t know how to calculate the cost. 64 – same fee as lines 11, 12, and 13. Those lines all have different estimates. Which one should I use? Updated to reflect what I meant. Added lines 65 and 66 We did not have any projects under the Alt/Addition – Mixed-use category last fiscal year. It is probably rare that we do have one. This is because even if there was an alteration to one of these buildings, unless it was substantial, it would be captured under the Alt/addition commercial or multifamily fee. - Got it. I’ll see if I can pull some samples as you described below. - Thanks Mike Loew Deputy Director Chief Building Official Community Development E Mloew@slocity.org T 805.781.7157 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 5:01 PM To: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com>; Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Building - Table 1 data I’m sorry if I missed a response for this, but I just wanted to check in and see if any clarification was needed a meeting to cover anything? Thanks! 313 Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 2:58 PM To: Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]RE: Building - Table 1 data Thanks for the quick response, Mike. 26 – Don’t know what this is, we don’t currently use it. - Do you want to remove? Keep it at the current fee amount? 46, 107, 109 – These are fees that are in addition to a base amount and should be calculated after the base amount is established. This is something staff needs help with from you. - Mike, what I'm noticing for these fees is that the base doesn't indicate what the threshold is. Typically, a base fee indicates that the base is "up to X" and anything beyond that is then charged at a cost per each additional. So first we must define what that base is. Let's say that for #46 that base is for the first 50 ln.ft. The way we would then calculate the each additional is by looking at how long a 50 ln.ft. project takes vs a 100 (it could be something else but must be more than 50) ln.ft/ project. That's all I would need from you. Once I have those two-time estimates (one for the base and one that exceeds the base) it's just simple math on my end. Let me know if this makes sense to you. 122, 123 – I don’t believe these fees are associated with staff time. Ok, what are those for? Should those be left as is? Removed? 153 – I suppose there is staff time associated with it but left blank until we can come up with a way to calculate incurred costs. If we want to cost this out we'll need an estimate. I know it's hard since it's a new fee but if I don't get an estimate then I can't calculate. 64 – same fee as lines 11, 12, and 13. Those lines all have different estimates. Which one should I use? We did not have any projects under the Alt/Addition – Mixed-use category last fiscal year. It is probably rare that we do have one. This is because even if there was an alteration to one of these buildings, unless it was substantial, it would be captured under the Alt/addition commercial or multifamily fee. - Got it. I’ll see if I can pull some samples as you described below. - Thanks 314 Ruben Rivas Manager 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 831.227.3911 Email: rrivas@mgtconsulting.com From: Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 1:04 PM To: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Building - Table 1 data Ruben, I reviewed the fees you listed and confirmed that we have gotten as far as we can with those. 26 – Don’t know what this is, we don’t currently use it. 46, 107, 109 – These are fees that are in addition to a base amount and should be calculated after the base amount is established. This is something staff needs help with from you. 122, 123 – I don’t believe these fees are associated with staff time. 153 – I suppose there is staff time associated with it but left blank until we can come up with a way to calculate incurred costs. 64 – same fee as lines 11, 12, and 13. We did not have any projects under the Alt/Addition – Mixed-use category last fiscal year. It is probably rare that we do have one. This is because even if there was an alteration to one of these buildings, unless it was substantial, it would be captured under the Alt/addition commercial or multifamily fee. I’ll see if I can pull some samples as you described below. Thanks, Mike Loew Deputy Director Chief Building Official Community Development E Mloew@slocity.org T 805.781.7157 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 12:09 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 315 To: Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]RE: Building - Table 1 data Table 2 - Building flat fees: We're missing time estimates for a few fees. o Which are you referring to? - Table 2 rows 26, 46, 64, 107, 109, 122, 123, 153. Annual volume is missing o Working with IT on this - Perfect, thank you. Table 1 - Construction permits It looks like the construction categories changed compared to what you have on your current fee schedule. Just want to confirm. Is fire also on-board with these categories? They want to follow the same methodology. o I spoke with Rebecca about this on Friday and it is the direction we need to go. I don’t believe Fire will have any issue with this. - Ok great. Alt/Addition - Mixed Use - this category does not have any projects but there's percentages allocated to it. Will need to discuss this one. o It should be zeroed out. - Ok. Did you simply not have any projects in that category? We will have to discuss an alternative to cost this category out. Cindy recently had this happen in the City of Santa Rosa. I'll talk to her today and get back to you on this. Typical square feet on row 65 is missing. All I need here is just the square footage of a sample project within each category. On Row 70, I would then need the plan review and inspection fees you would currently charge for that project. This is only needed to show what your current fees look like compared to what our model is proposing. o I provided the total number of projects. I divided the total square foot by the total number of the projects, will an average work? o Need to work with IT on total fees. o I think there's a misunderstand on what I'm asking for here. What you provided helps us calculate the per square foot cost. All good there. What I'm asking for is just a single sample project and the fees associated with it. This will help us compare what you currently charge to what the model is proposing. See the SLO Co model attached. Column C & D is their residential single-family category. For this category, they provided us with a project that was 1907 sq ft - They then told us that for that 1907 sq ft project under the res. single family category they currently charge $1,648.59 for plan review and $2,214.68 for inspection. All I need from you is a single sample project's square footage for each category listed on table 1 (this goes on row 65) and the plan review/inspection fees the City would charge for a project of that size (this goes on row 70). Again, this sounds more complicated than what it actually is. If it still doesn't make sense, I'd be more than happy to jump on a quick call to explain and walk you through the example. General item: Can I get a revenue for building fees for last FY? I have also not received this. Ruben Rivas Manager 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 831.227.3911 Email: rrivas@mgtconsulting.com From: Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 11:34 AM To: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> 316 Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: Building - Table 1 data Ruben, please see my responses below. I am good to meet during either of the times tomorrow. Table 2 - Building flat fees: We're missing time estimates for a few fees. o Which are you referring to? Annual volume is missing o Working with IT on this Table 1 - Construction permits It looks like the construction categories changed compared to what you have on your current fee schedule. Just want to confirm. Is fire also on-board with these categories? They want to follow the same methodology. o I spoke with Rebecca about this on Friday and it is the direction we need to go. I don’t believe Fire will have any issue with this. Alt/Addition - Mixed Use - this category does not have any projects but there's percentages allocated to it. Will need to discuss this one. o It should be zeroed out. Typical square feet on row 65 is missing. All I need here is just the square footage of a sample project within each category. On Row 70, I would then need the plan review and inspection fees you would currently charge for that project. This is only needed to show what your current fees look like compared to what our model is proposing. o I provided the total number of projects. I divided the total square foot by the total number of the projects, will an average work? o Need to work with IT on total fees. General item: Can I get a revenue for building fees for last FY? I have also not received this. Overall, this is HUGE progress. But now we have to focus on resolving outstanding issues/items due. I recommend that we schedule a 30-minute meeting to discuss the items listed above. Here's my availability for this week: Tuesday - 8am-9am or 11pm-1pm Weds - 8am-9am or 2pm-5pm Thurs - 1pm-5pm Let me know a time that works best for a 30min call. Mike Loew Deputy Director Chief Building Official CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 317 Community Development E Mloew@slocity.org T 805.781.7157 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 10:46 AM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: Building - Table 1 data This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Good morning, First off, thank you for sending over the building data. After reviewing the document here are my initial comments: Table 2 - Building flat fees: We're missing time estimates for a few fees. Annual volume is missing Table 1 - Construction permits It looks like the construction categories changed compared to what you have on your current fee schedule. Just want to confirm. Is fire also on-board with these categories? They want to follow the same methodology. Alt/Addition - Mixed Use - this category does not have any projects but there's percentages allocated to it. Will need to discuss this one. Typical square feet on row 65 is missing. All I need here is just the square footage of a sample project within each category. On Row 70, I would then need the plan review and inspection fees you would currently charge for that project. This is only needed to show what your current fees look like compared to what our model is proposing. General item: Can I get a revenue for building fees for last FY? I have also not received this. Overall, this is HUGE progress. But now we have to focus on resolving outstanding issues/items due. I recommend that we schedule a 30-minute meeting to discuss the items listed above. Here's my availability for this week: Tuesday - 8am-9am or 11pm-1pm Weds - 8am-9am or 2pm-5pm Thurs - 1pm-5pm Let me know a time that works best for a 30min call. Ruben Rivas Manager 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 831.227.3911 318 Email: rrivas@mgtconsulting.com 324 From:Bernstorff, Rebecca Sent:Monday, October 2, 2023 1:21 PM To:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Subject:Re: Scheduling a meeting Hey! We actually have a meeting in one week at 11am with this team to do a fee study check-in. Do you want to come to that meeting? Or do we need an additional separate hour for your items too? To answer your original question - 4pm meetings are totally fine. Michelle tries to protect my calendar (god bless her). RB Get Outlook for iOS From: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 3:15:07 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: Scheduling a meeting Hi! I am trying to schedule a meeting with you, me, Whitney, and Emily to talk about some fee related things that came up during my budget meeting. The most likely time for us to all meet is at 4 pm one day – I see that you have a hold on 4 pm times so I wanted to get your permission to schedule something – let me know if there are off-limit days, etc. Thanks! Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 375 From:Pringle, Brendan Sent:Monday, October 2, 2023 8:23 AM To:Panchal, Krishna Subject:FW: MGT Invoice 53714 for City of San Luis Obispo Attachments:MGT of America Consulting, LLC 952915533 ACH & Wire Transaction Routing Instructions (1) (1).pdf; Notification of Bank Change_MGT (2).pdf; INV_53714.pdf Hi Krishna, Can you process today? Please note the attachments about the payment details. Thanks, Brendan Pringle Business Analyst Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bpringle@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 5:06 AM To: Pringle, Brendan <bpringle@slocity.org> Subject: Fwd: MGT Invoice 53714 for City of San Luis Obispo Hi Brendan, Can you please process? RB Get Outlook for iOS From: Lee Lein Onn <lonn@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2023 11:52:13 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Cc: arinv <arinv@mgtconsulting.com>; Threisy Paredes <tparedes@mgtconsulting.com>; Derrick Sheng <dsheng@mgtconsulting.com>; Patrick Dyer <PDyer@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: MGT Invoice 53714 for City of San Luis Obispo This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. 376 Hello, We hope that you are doing well. Please find attached invoice 53714 for professional services rendered to your organization. Please note our remit to address and bank details have changed. See the attached communication and bank letter for further information. We ask that you update your records accordingly going forward. If you’d like further details or have any questions, please reach out to myself as well as the project manager Patrick Dyer at pdyer@mgtconsulting.com Thanks. Kind regards, Lee Lein, OON AR Specialist 4320 West Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33609 Email: lonn@mgtconsulting.com Invoice 53714 Date:09/28/2023 Payment Terms:Net 30 Due Date:10/28/2023 PO number: Bill To:Please remit electronic payments to: City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ACH Routing Number: SWIFT Code: Account Number: Account Name: MGT of America Consulting, LLC Bank Name: JPMorgan Chase Bank Address: New York, NY 10017 Project: FSG | FY23 | City of San Luis Obispo | User and Impact Fee Stud | CA Description Quantity Rate Amount Project Management 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 MGT - User Fee Analysis 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 MGT - User Fee Peer Price Comparison 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 DTA - Impact Fee Study (subcontractor)1 $18,239.84 $18,239.84 SubTotal:$37,239.84 Tax:$0.00 Total:$37,239.84 Company Confidential Remit To:Overnight Courier Remit To: P.O. Box 735759 Chicago, IL 60673-5759 813-327-4717 arinv@mgtconsulting.com JPMorgan Chase Attn: MGT OF AMERICA CONSULTING LLC & 735759 131 S Dearborn, 6th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 IMPORTANT INFORMATION: J.P. Morgan and Chase are marketing names for certain businesses of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (“JPMC”) and its subsidiaries worldwide. Products and services may be provided by banking affiliates, securities affiliates or other JPMC affiliates or entities. Any examples used are generic, hypothetical and for illustration purposes only. Prior to making any financial or investment decisions, a client or prospect (“Client” or “you” as the context may require) should seek individualized advice from financial, legal, tax and other professional advisors that take into account all of the particular facts and circumstances of the Client’s own situation. In no event shall JPMC or any of its directors, officers, employees or agents be liable for any use of, for any decision made or action taken in reliance upon or for any inaccuracies or errors in, or omissions from information in this content. We are not acting as any Client’s agent, fiduciary or advisor, including, without limitation, as a Municipal Advisor under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. JPMC assumes no responsibility or liability whatsoever to any Client with respect to such matters, and nothing herein shall amend or override the terms and conditions in the agreement(s) between JPMC and any Client or other person. ©2022 JPMorgan Chase & Co. All rights reserved. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Member FDIC. All services are subject to applicable laws and regulations and service terms. ABOUT THIS MESSAGE This letter gives you updates and information about your JPMC relationship. September 9, 2023 MGT of America Consulting, LLC 4230 W KENNEDY BLVD STE 200 TAMPA, FL, USA, 336092231 IMPORTANT | Transaction Routing Instructions (ACH and Wire) Thank you for your request for account and bank routing number information for MGT of America Consulting, LLC. Please provide the below routing instructions to remitters who send ACH or Wire transactions to the company account. For accurate and timely processing of transactions, it is very important that remitters correctly identify the company account number and the applicable routing number. For ACH Delivery: Primary Bank Routing Number: For Wire Transfers: Bank Routing Number: Thank you for your business and the opportunity to serve you. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Please note, we do not verify funds availability, provide account statuses or other account information to third parties. 4320 West Kennedy Blvd. | Tampa, FL 33609 | 813.321.1400 | mgtconsulting.com Dear Valued Customer: We are writing to inform you that effective September 15, 2023, MGT of America Consulting, LLC has changed bank accounts. If you would please update your records to ensure all future payments are remitted to our new account, we would be very appreciative. For ACH delivery: Bank Routing Number: For Wire Transfers: Bank Routing Number: Our preferred method of payment is electronically via ACH or wire. If you are unable to remit payment electronically, the remittance address has also changed. The new remittance address is: For delivery via regular US postal service: Lockbox Name: MGT of America Consulting, LLC Lockbox Address: P.O. Box 735759 Chicago, IL 60673-5759 For delivery via overnight courier service: Lockbox Name: JPMorgan Chase Lockbox Address: Attn: MGT of America Consulting LLC & 735759 131 S. Dearborn, 6th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 Attached, you will find our account and lockbox verification letter. Additionally, you can confirm these details on your current invoice. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Jaclyn Klauka at 813-327-4717 or arinv@mgtconsulting.com. Thank you for your prompt assistance. Best regards, Lindsay Huebler VP, Controller 388 From:Vert, Nicole Sent:Friday, September 29, 2023 12:01 PM To:Frank Blackley Subject:RE: Fee Schedule Attachments:Comprehensive Fee Schedule-3.pdf Hi Frank, Attached is the city’s fee schedule. Fire fees are pages 16-25. Have a great weekend! Nicole Vert pronouns she/her/hers Business Analyst Fire Department 2160 Santa Barbara Avenue, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-5240 E nvert@slocity.org T 805.781.7184 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Frank Blackley <fblackley@aptriton.com> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 11:28 AM To: Vert, Nicole <nvert@slocity.org> Subject: Fee Schedule This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Nicole, Can you send me the fire department’s fee schedule? Frank Blackley Fire and Life Safety Business Unit Leader Comprehensive FEE SCHEDULE Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Planning Services…………………………………………………………... 2 Engineering Services……………………………………………………….. 6 Public Works Services……………………………………………………... 11 Cannabis Fees…………………………………………………………….....13 General Government……………………………………………………... 14 Fire Development Fees…………………………………………………......16 Other Fire Fees……………………………………………………..............22 Utilities Services…………………………………………………………… 26 Building Plan Check Fees………………………………………………… 27 Building Inspection Fees………………………………………………….. 30 Impact Fees………………………………………………….......................33 35 37 Parks & Recreation Fees…………………………………………………… Police Department Fees…………………………………………………….. The City' s adopted fee schedule is adjusted by 7.9% which reflects the All Urban Consumer Price Index, Los Angeles area — based on the change from April 2021 – April 2022. (Resolution No. 11017, Section 4) A 3.05% Information Technology Surcharge is included in fees associated with work in the EnerGov Computer System. Impact fees are adjusted annually by the CCCI rate, California Construction Cost Index. 44 Additional Building Fees…………………………………………………… 1 Fee Number FootnoteFee Description FY 2022-23 Application Fee It Surcharge* (if applicable) First Payment (Application Fee + IT Surcharge FY 2022-23 Completion Fee (if applicable) Total Fee (Aplication, Completion, and IT Surcharge) 1 Sidewalk Sales Permit $329.71 $10.06 $339.77 $0.00 $339.77 2 Home Occupation Permit $191.35 $5.84 $197.19 $0.00 $197.19 3 Minor Use Permit (Admin)$1,244.60 $111.73 $1,356.33 $2,418.66 $3,774.99 4 Conditional Use Permit (Planning Commission) $2,867.29 $232.54 $3,099.83 $4,757.07 $7,856.90 5 Variance $1,315.55 $106.62 $1,422.17 $2,180.34 $3,602.51 [1]Planned Development 6 Rezoning $18,886.32 $576.03 $19,462.35 $0.00 $19,462.35 7 Plan Amendment $5,243.75 $159.93 $5,403.68 $0.00 $5,403.68 [1]Rezoning 8 Map Amendment $14,143.73 $431.38 $14,575.11 $0.00 $14,575.11 9 Text Amendment $10,043.95 $306.34 $10,350.29 $0.00 $10,350.29 10 Time Extension 25% of Filing Fee 11 Non-profit Special Event Fee $253.68 $7.74 $261.42 $0.00 $261.42 12 Affordable Housing Incentive Request $539.21 $44.28 $583.49 $912.66 $1,496.15 Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Plan Review Fee 13 Reviews Requiring ALUC Hearing $2,185.53 $101.37 $2,286.90 $1,138.11 $3,425.01 Subdivision Services 14 Lot Line Adjustment $3,626.56 $110.61 $3,737.17 $0.00 $3,737.17 Tentative Subdivision Map 15 1-4 Lots $7,649.98 $233.32 $7,883.30 $0.00 $7,883.30 16 5-10 Lots $13,263.32 $404.53 $13,667.85 $0.00 $13,667.85 17 11-20 lots $17,772.03 $542.05 $18,314.08 $0.00 $18,314.08 18 [1] 21+ lots (deposit of $20,000)$29,739.45 $907.05 $30,646.50 $0.00 $30,646.50 19 Certificate of Compliance $2,773.34 $84.59 $2,857.93 $0.00 $2,857.93 20 [2] Environmental Impact Determination $7,377.98 $225.03 $7,603.01 $0.00 $7,603.01 21 [1,2] Initial Study/Environmental Impact Report 30% + Contract Cost PLANNING FEES Planning Fees Continued on next page 2 Fee Number FootnoteFee Description FY 2022-23 Application Fee It Surcharge* (if applicable) First Payment (Application Fee + IT Surcharge FY 2022-23 Completion Fee (if applicable) Total Fee (Aplication, Completion, and IT Surcharge) Architectural Review 22 Signs $2,512.28 $179.13 $2,691.41 $3,360.90 $6,052.31 23 Conceptual Review $2,632.91 $213.52 $2,846.43 $4,367.65 $7,214.08 24 Development Projects - Moderate $5,368.34 $439.03 $5,807.37 $9,026.05 $14,833.42 25 Development Projects - Major $7,283.11 $586.72 $7,869.83 $11,953.72 $19,823.55 26 Development Project - Minor $1,942.60 $151.20 $2,093.80 $3,014.86 $5,108.66 27 Plan Revision $2,280.47 $171.49 $2,451.96 $3,342.17 $5,794.13 28 Time Extension/Modification 25% of Filing Fee 29 Christmas Tree/Pumpkin Lot Permit $430.23 $13.12 $443.35 $0.00 $443.35 30 Fence Height Exception $681.07 $20.77 $701.84 $0.00 $701.84 31 Voluntary Merger $928.91 $28.33 $957.24 $0.00 $957.24 32 Agreements $1,019.24 $31.09 $1,050.33 $0.00 $1,050.33 33 Bonds/Guarantees (voluntary)$1,019.24 $31.09 $1,050.33 $0.00 $1,050.33 34 Change of Address $296.99 $9.06 $306.04 $0.00 $306.04 35 Street Name Change $5,638.51 $171.97 $5,810.48 $0.00 $5,810.48 36 Street Abandonment $15,911.90 $485.31 $16,397.21 $0.00 $16,397.21 37 Condominium Conversion $17,842.87 $544.21 $18,387.08 $0.00 $18,387.08 PLANNING FEES Planning Fees Continued on next page 3 Fee Number FootnoteFee Description FY 2022-23 Application Fee It Surcharge* (if applicable) First Payment (Application Fee + IT Surcharge FY 2022-23 Completion Fee (if applicable) Total Fee (Aplication, Completion, and IT Surcharge) Appeals 38 Tier 1: e.g. Appeals to the City Council - Applicant $1,862.77 $56.81 $1,919.58 $0.00 $1,919.58 39 Tier 1 Appeal - Non Applicant $745.35 $22.73 $768.08 $0.00 $768.08 40 Tier 2: e.g. Minor/Incidental Arch Review, Administrative $1,034.87 $31.56 $1,066.43 $0.00 $1,066.43 41 Tier 2 Appeal - Non Applicant $413.95 $12.63 $426.58 $0.00 $426.58 42 Tier 3: e.g. Fence Height Exception, Administrative $362.51 $11.06 $373.57 $0.00 $373.57 43 Tier 3 Appeal - Non Applicant $362.51 $11.06 $373.57 $0.00 $373.57 44 Tier 4: e.g. Home Occupation permit, Non-Profit Special Event - Applicant $155.53 $4.74 $160.27 $0.00 $160.27 45 Tier 4 Appeal - Non Applicant $155.53 $4.74 $160.28 $0.00 $160.28 46 Mills Act Participation Application $1,700.96 $51.88 $1,752.84 $0.00 $1,752.84 47 Director's Action Applications $1,005.75 $30.68 $1,036.43 $0.00 $1,036.43 48 Land Use Documentation Request $509.62 $15.54 $525.16 $0.00 $525.16 General Plan Amendment 49 [1] Map (includes rezoning), Deposit $20,026.57 $610.81 $20,637.38 $0.00 $20,637.38 50 Text $19,428.57 $592.57 $20,021.14 $0.00 $20,021.14 51 [1] Specific Plan Amendment, Deposit $19,196.97 $585.51 $19,782.48 $0.00 $19,782.48 52 [1] Annexation, Deposit $26,390.82 $804.92 $27,195.74 $0.00 $27,195.74 PLANNING FEES Planning Fees Continued on next page 4 Fee Number FootnoteFee Description FY 2022-23 Application Fee It Surcharge* (if applicable) First Payment (Application Fee + IT Surcharge FY 2022-23 Completion Fee (if applicable) Total Fee (Aplication, Completion, and IT Surcharge) Sidewalk Cafes 53 Sidewalk Café User Permit $979.92 $29.89 $1,009.81 $0.00 $1,009.81 54 **Sidewalk Café Use Fee per square foot per month $6.48 $0.20 $6.68 $0.00 $6.68 55 Pre-Application $1,079.11 $32.91 $1,112.02 $0.00 $1,112.02 56 With site visit $1,355.31 $41.34 $1,396.65 $0.00 $1,396.65 57 [3] Blue Card Inspection $318.45 $9.71 $328.16 $0.00 $328.16 58 [1] Development Agreement Application Fee $17,969.14 $548.06 $18,517.20 $0.00 $18,517.20 59 [1] Reimbursement Agreement $17,969.14 $548.06 $18,517.20 $0.00 $18,517.20 Building Permit Review - Planning Residential 60 Minor $213.29 $6.51 $219.80 $0.00 $219.80 61 Moderate $426.57 $13.01 $439.58 $0.00 $439.58 62 [1] Major $1,065.66 $32.50 $1,098.16 $0.00 $1,098.16 Commercial 63 Minor $319.93 $9.76 $329.68 $0.00 $329.68 64 Moderate $533.22 $16.26 $549.48 $0.00 $549.48 65 [1] Major $1,065.66 $32.50 $1,098.16 $0.00 $1,098.16 Planning Consultation 66 Planning Consultation $173 Per Hour $173 Per Hour * Fee is subject to a 3.05% It Surcharge ** Update to this fee going to Council on 7/5/22 [1] Fees will be set on a Deposit basis and debited by the amount of staff time [2] Separate Fish and Game fees may apply, as set by the State of California [3] See Final Inspection Approval/Bluecard Signoff. PLANNING FEES 5 Fee Number Fee Description FootnoteFY 2022- 23 Rate *IT Surcharge (if applicable)Total 1 Plan check fees are based on Estimated Construction Cost (ECC) $10,000 flat fee $1,870.13 $57.04 $1,927.17 each add'l $10,000 $1,367.20 $41.70 $1,408.90 $100,000 base fee $14,175.03 $432.34 $14,607.37 each add'l $10,000 $141.23 $4.31 $145.53 $500,000 base fee $19,823.66 $604.62 $20,428.28 each add'l $10,000 $170.98 $5.21 $176.19 $1,000,000 base fee $28,372.59 $865.36 $29,237.95 each add'l $10,000 $75.06 $2.29 $77.35 $3,000,000 base fee $43,841.72 $1,337.17 $45,178.89 each add'l $10,000 $146.12 $4.46 $150.58 2 Inspection fees are based on Estimated Construction Cost (ECC) $10,000 flat fee $658.78 N/A $658.78 each add'l $10,000 $1,092.88 N/A $1,092.88 $100,000 base fee $10,705.23 N/A $10,705.23 each add'l $10,000 $765.91 N/A $765.91 $500,000 base fee $41,997.46 N/A $41,997.46 each add'l $10,000 $338.61 N/A $338.61 $1,000,000 base fee $59,290.52 N/A $59,290.52 each add'l $10,000 $322.49 N/A $322.49 $3,000,000 base fee $125,168.87 N/A $125,168.87 each add'l $10,000 $408.78 N/A $408.78 ENGINEERING FEES Improvement Plan Check Construction Inspection Engineering Fees Continued on Next Page 6 Fee Number Fee Description FootnoteFY 2022- 23 Rate *IT Surcharge (if applicable)Total 3 Parcel Map - (up to 4 parcels)$7,674.61 $234.08 $7,908.69 4 Parcel Map - Commercial Zone (5 or more parcels) $11,114.27 $338.99 $11,453.26 Plus per parcel or common interest unit $58.52 $1.78 $60.31 5 Tract Map (base fee)$16,853.14 $514.02 $17,367.16 Plus per lot or common interest unit $181.77 $5.54 $187.32 6 Lot Line Adjustments $3,326.86 $101.47 $3,428.33 7 Certificates of Compliance $831.72 $25.37 $857.09 Additional Document Review/Certificates of Correction $332.69 $10.15 $342.84 8 Curb and Gutter (base fee)$806.14 $24.59 $830.73 plus per linear foot $11.67 $0.36 $12.03 9 Sidewalk (base fee)$723.81 $22.08 $745.89 plus per linear foot $6.48 $0.20 $6.68 10 Driveway Approach/Curb Ramp (base fee) $1,053.21 $32.12 $1,085.33 plus per linear foot $11.32 $0.35 $11.66 11 Water Service/Recycled Service(base fee) $836.12 $25.50 $861.62 plus per linear foot $22.60 $0.69 $23.29 12 Sewer (base fee)$669.56 $20.42 $689.98 plus per linear foot (Bore)$11.32 $0.35 $11.66 plus per linear foot (Trench)$11.32 $0.35 $11.66 13 Fire Lateral/Hydrant/Water and Recycled Main Extension (base fee) $1,835.46 $55.98 $1,891.44 plus per linear foot $27.44 $0.84 $28.28 14 Other/Dry Utilities (base fee)$752.85 $22.96 $775.81 plus per linear foot (Bore)$6.48 $0.20 $6.68 plus per linear foot (Trench)$11.32 $0.35 $11.66 15 Monitoring Well $250.67 $7.65 $258.31 ENGINEERING FEES Final Maps Certificate of Compliance or Final Lot Encroachment Permits Trenched or Bored Excavation (base Engineering Fees Continued on Next Page 7 Fee Number Fee Description FootnoteFY 2022- 23 Rate *IT Surcharge (if applicable)Total 16 Other Minor Encroachment Permits not Listed $250.67 $7.65 $258.31 17 Time Extension for Encroachment Permit $168.22 $5.13 $173.35 18 Unpermitted Encroachments $839.46 $25.60 $865.06 19 Encroachment Permit - Plan Review fee (if required) $336.45 $10.26 $346.71 20 Annual Encroachment Permit for Utility Companies $10,545.05 $321.62 $10,866.67 21 Single Trip Permit $16.00 N/A $16.00 22 Annual Permit $90.00 N/A $90.00 Maximum fee amount established by Department of Transportation and is not subject to CPI increases 23 Fiber Infrastructure Protection Fee (per Call) $323.69 $9.87 $333.57 24 Minor $214.19 $6.53 $220.73 25 Moderate $347.35 $10.59 $357.95 26 Major $613.26 $18.70 $631.97 27 Minor - first day $82.41 $2.51 $84.92 each additional day $82.41 $2.51 $84.92 28 Moderate - first day $164.80 $5.03 $169.83 each additional day $82.41 $2.51 $84.92 29 Major - first day [1]$329.63 $10.05 $339.68 each additional day $82.41 $2.51 $84.92 30 Public Improvement Plans $1,732.65 $52.85 $1,785.49 31 Building Plans $412.69 $12.59 $425.27 32 Maps / Additional Documents $474.18 $14.46 $488.64 33 Design Exception $330.81 $10.09 $340.90 ENGINEERING FEES Transportation Permit Traffic Control Plan Review 4th and subsequent plan review (per Traffic Control Plan Inspection Engineering Fees Continued on Next Page 8 Fee Number Fee Description FootnoteFY 2022- 23 Rate *IT Surcharge (if applicable)Total 34 0-2499 $337.51 $10.29 $347.80 2500-4999 $506.25 $15.44 $521.69 5000-14999 $843.76 $25.73 $869.49 15000-21999 $1,350.00 $41.17 $1,391.17 22000-43559 $1,687.51 $51.47 $1,738.97 43560+$2,025.01 $61.76 $2,086.77 35 Single Family Residential 0-2500 $337.51 $10.29 $347.80 2501+$1,012.51 $30.88 $1,043.39 36 Square Footage of Site Disturbance: Non-Single Family Residential 0-2499 $168.75 $5.15 $173.89 2500-4999 $168.75 $5.15 $173.89 5000-14999 $168.75 $5.15 $173.89 15000-21999 $337.50 $10.29 $347.80 22000-43559 $506.25 $15.44 $521.69 43560+$675.01 $20.59 $695.60 37 Single Family Residential 0-2500 $168.75 $5.15 $173.90 2501+$337.50 $10.29 $347.80 ENGINEERING FEES Final Inspection Approval / Bluecard Site Improvements - This includes Engineering Fees Continued on Next Page 9 Fee Number Fee Description FootnoteFY 2022- 23 Rate *IT Surcharge (if applicable)Total Flood Zone Analysis 38 Minor - Verification only $168.37 $5.14 $173.51 39 Major - New/Substantial Remodel Analysis/Documentation $673.49 $20.54 $694.03 Impervious Square Footage: 40 Non-Single Family Residential 0-2499 $168.75 $5.15 $173.90 2500-4999 $337.50 $10.29 $347.80 5000-14999 $675.00 $20.59 $695.59 15000-21999 $675.00 $20.59 $695.59 22000-43559 $1,012.50 $30.88 $1,043.39 43560+$1,350.01 $41.18 $1,391.18 41 0-2500 $168.75 $5.15 $173.90 2501+$675.01 $20.59 $695.60 42 Minor $337.50 $10.29 $347.80 43 Major $843.76 $25.73 $869.49 * Fee is subject to a 3.05% It Surcharge ENGINEERING FEES [1] Fees will be set on a Deposit basis and debited by the amount of staff time and other materials required to provide services or Consultant Fee plus 30% Admin Fee . Post Construction Requirements / Single Family Residential Drainage Report/Flood Study - Breadth 10 1 Tree/Shrub Hazardous Abatement Actual Cost 2 Commemorative Tree Planting $344.41 N/A $344.41 3 Tree Removal Permit $175.69 N/A $175.69 Final Inspection Approval / Bluecard Signoff Square Footage of Site Disturbance: Non-Single Family Residential 4 0-2499 $278.57 $8.50 $287.07 5 2500-4999 $278.57 $8.50 $287.07 6 5000-14999 $278.57 $8.50 $287.07 7 15000-21999 $442.33 $13.49 $455.82 8 22000-43559 $606.09 $18.49 $624.58 9 43560+$769.86 $23.48 $793.34 Single Family Residential 10 0-2500 $278.57 $8.50 $287.07 11 2501+$278.57 $8.50 $287.07 12 Review of Mitigation Measures, Conditions, and TIFs $270.07 $8.24 $278.31 Parking in-Lieu Fees [1] New Construction: 13 Standard (Fee Per Space)$29,667.02 N/A $29,667.02 14 Community Partners (50% Reduction)$14,831.37 N/A $14,831.37 15 Additions to Existing Buildings: 16 Standard (Fee Per Space)$29,667.02 N/A $29,667.02 17 Community Partners (50% Reduction)$14,831.37 N/A $14,831.37 Change in Occupancy Requiring Additional Parking: [1] 18 Standard (Fee Per Space)$7,416.40 N/A $7,416.40 19 Community Partners (50% Reduction)$3,709.63 N/A $3,709.63 Fee Number Fee Description Public Works Fees FY 2022-23 Rate IT Surcharge* (if applicable)Total 11 Parking Fees 10-Hour Meter Permit 20 Monthly Rate $60.00 N/A $60.00 21 Quarterly Rate $180.00 N/A $180.00 22 Residential 10-hour Meter Permit $20.00 N/A $20.00 23 Residential Parking District Permit $20.00 N/A $20.00 24 Replacement Fee, Initial $20.00 N/A $20.00 25 Replacement Fee, Subsequent $30.00 N/A $30.00 26 Commercial Loading Zone Permit $60.00 N/A $60.00 27 Parking Garage Access Card (Billed Quarterly) $255.00 N/A $255.00 28 Downtown Residential Overnight Parking Program Parking Garage Access Card (Billed Quarterly) $375.00 N/A $375.00 29 Parking Garage Hourly Rate $1.62 N/A $1.62 30 Parking Garage Max Daily Rate $6.47 N/A $6.47 31 Parking Garage Overnight Rate $15.00 N/A $15.00 32 Parking Garage Lost Ticket Rate $6.47 N/A $6.47 33 Parking Garage Validation Program Hourly Rate $1.08 N/A $1.08 Electric Vehicle Charging Hourly Rate 34 1st four hours $1.50 N/A $1.50 35 Any additional time thereafter $4.00 N/A $4.00 36 Reserved Parking Space Program Rate $20.00 N/A $20.00 Fees are subject to a 3.05% It Surcharge [1] Per vehicle space required by zoning regulations and not otherwise provided. The number of spaces required by the change shall be the difference between the number required by the new use and the number required by the previous occupancy. Fee Number Fee Description Public Works Fees FY 2022-23 Rate IT Surcharge* (if applicable)Total 12 Fee Number Fee Description FY 2022-23 Rate One Time Application Fee 1 Total One Time Application Fees $26,698.87 All Commercial Cannabis Business Applicants 2 Initial Application Fee $5,687.08 3 Final Application fee when permit issues $21,011.78 Cannabis Yearly License Fee [1] 4 Retail $44,309.53 5 Manufacturing $44,309.53 6 Cultivation $44,309.53 7 Other Business $44,309.53 [1] Prorated on Fiscal Year Cannabis Fees 13 General Government Fees Fee Number Fee Description FY 2022-23 Rate GENERAL GOVERNMENT Photo Copies 1 Two sided copies should be charged as two pages. 2 Standard or legal $0.45 3 11" x 17"$0.79 Microfiche Copies 4 Standard $0.61 5 11'' x 17''$3.12 6 18'' x 24''$3.78 7 Photographs $6.48 Audio Recordings 8 CD $8.40 9 Tape $16.81 10 Video Recordings $34.81 11 Faxes $3.60 Electronic Documents These are PDF documents, which the City intends to publish. Via the City's Web Site of e-mail 12 CD-Counter Pickup $4.81 13 CD-Mail $4.81 14 Late Fee (or 1.5%, whichever is greater)$16.95 Appeals to Advisory Bodies Following Administrative (non- Planning) Decisions 15 Tree Committee $135.64 16 Construction Board of Appeals $1,290.53 17 Administrative Review Board $337.31 18 All Other Appeals $337.31 19 Community Service Worker Registration Fee $63.06 Finance Front Counter Fees continued on next page 14 General Government Fees Fee Number Fee Description FY 2022-23 Rate FINANCE DEPARTMENT New Business License Processing Fee 20 Application $65.30 21 Zoning Fee $125.04 22 Annual Business License Renewal Processing Fee [1]$54.85 Home Occupancy Business 23 Renewal or New Application [3] $39.18 24 Business License & Tax Certificate Replacement Fee $13.06 Change of Location Only [1] 25 Zoning Fee $125.04 Returned Check Fee 26 Initial returned check $25.00 27 Each subsequent returned check $35.00 28 Annual Business Minimum Tax Fee $25.00 or 0.5%, whichever is greater 28 Annual Downtown Assessment -for locations within Downtown $150.00 or 0.5%, whichever is greater 29 SB1186 State Fee - Disability Access [2]$4.00 CREEK & FLOOD PROTECTION Stormwater Connection Fee 30 Single Property $25.10 31 Larger Developments $65.74 [1] Businesses within the City of San Luis Obispo [2] Added to new licenses and renewals ‐ does not increase [3] Consult Planning Fee table for additional Home Occupation Permit fee 15 Square Footage: 1 500 (base cost) $1,113.96 $33.98 $1,147.94 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.33 $0.01 $0.34 2 5,000 (base cost) $2,570.69 $78.41 $2,649.10 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.30 $0.01 $0.31 3 10,000 (base cost) $4,113.09 $125.45 $4,238.54 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.08 $0.00 $0.08 4 50,000 (base cost) $7,454.99 $227.38 $7,682.37 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.07 $0.00 $0.07 5 100,000 (base cost) $10,625.50 $324.08 $10,949.58 per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.10 $0.00 $0.10 Square Footage: 6 500 (base cost) $1,113.96 $33.98 $1,147.94 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.33 $0.01 $0.34 7 5,000 (base cost) $2,570.69 $78.41 $2,649.10 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.30 $0.01 $0.31 8 10,000 (base cost) $4,113.09 $125.45 $4,238.54 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.08 $0.00 $0.08 9 50,000 (base cost) $7,454.99 $227.38 $7,682.37 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.07 $0.00 $0.07 10 100,000 (base cost) $10,625.50 $324.08 $10,949.58 per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.10 $0.00 $0.10 Fire- Developmental Fee Number Fire Development Fees continued on next page... Fee Description FY 2022-23 Rate IT Surcharge* (if applicable) Total NEW CONSTRUCTION, ADDITIONS, AND MAJOR REMODELS Commercial Uses - Structural (All newly constructed, added, or structurally remodeled space for non-residential occupancies classified as CBC Group A, B, E, F, H, I, M, or other commercial occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule) Commercial Residential and Multifamily Residential Uses - (All newly constructed, added, or structurally remodeled space for residential occupancies classified as CBC Group R (except R-3), or other residential occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule) 16 Square Footage: 11 500 (base cost) $428.45 $13.07 $441.52 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.09 $0.00 $0.09 12 5,000 (base cost) $856.89 $26.14 $883.03 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.14 $0.00 $0.14 13 10,000 (base cost) $1,542.41 $47.04 $1,589.46 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.03 $0.00 $0.03 14 50,000 (base cost) $2,999.13 $91.47 $3,090.60 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.05 $0.00 $0.05 15 100,000 (base cost) $5,141.37 $156.81 $5,298.18 per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.06 $0.00 $0.06 Square Footage: 16 500 (base cost) $942.59 $28.75 $971.34 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.28 $0.01 $0.29 17 5,000 (base cost) $2,227.92 $67.95 $2,295.88 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.10 $0.00 $0.10 18 10,000 (base cost) $2,742.06 $83.63 $2,825.69 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.03 $0.00 $0.03 19 50,000 (base cost) $4,027.41 $122.84 $4,150.24 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.03 $0.00 $0.03 20 100,000 (base cost) $5,826.89 $177.72 $6,004.61 per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.06 $0.00 $0.06 Square Footage: 21 200 (base cost) $428.45 $13.07 $441.52 per s.f between tiers (increment) 22 400 (base cost) $428.45 $13.07 $441.52 per s.f between tiers (increment) 23 600 (base cost) $428.45 $13.07 $441.52 per s.f between tiers (increment) 24 1,000 (base cost) $428.45 $13.07 $441.52 per s.f between tiers (increment) 25 3,000 (base cost) $428.45 $13.07 $441.52 per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.15 $0.00 $0.15 Fire- Developmental Fee DescriptionFee Number FY 2022-23 Rate IT Surcharge* (if applicable) Total Attached Accessory and Utility Uses - (All newly constructed, added, or structurally remodeled space for utility and accessory occupancies classified as CBC Group U, or other utility and accessory occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule) Fire Development Fees continued on next page... Duplicate Floor Plan Review - Commercial Residential and Multifamily Residential Uses Low and Moderate Hazard Storage - (All newly constructed, added, or structurally remodeled space for storage occupancies classified as CBC Group S, or other storage occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule) 17 Square Footage: 26 200 (base cost) $428.45 $13.07 $441.52 per s.f between tiers (increment) 27 400 (base cost) $428.45 $13.07 $441.52 per s.f between tiers (increment) 28 600 (base cost) $428.45 $13.07 $441.52 per s.f between tiers (increment) 29 1,000 (base cost) $428.45 $13.07 $441.52 per s.f between tiers (increment) 30 3,000 (base cost) $428.45 $13.07 $441.52 per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.15 $0.00 $0.15 Square Footage: 31 500 (base cost) $1,113.96 $33.98 $1,147.94 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.33 $0.01 $0.34 32 5,000 (base cost) $2,570.69 $78.41 $2,649.10 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.14 $0.00 $0.14 33 10,000 (base cost) $3,256.20 $99.31 $3,355.51 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.03 $0.00 $0.03 34 50,000 (base cost) $4,712.93 $143.74 $4,856.67 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.02 $0.00 $0.02 35 100,000 (base cost) $5,826.89 $177.72 $6,004.61 per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.06 $0.00 $0.06 Square Footage: 36 500 (base cost) $599.82 $18.29 $618.12 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.36 $0.01 $0.37 37 5,000 (base cost) $2,227.92 $67.95 $2,295.88 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.24 $0.01 $0.24 38 10,000 (base cost) $3,427.58 $104.54 $3,532.12 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.05 $0.00 $0.05 39 50,000 (base cost) $5,055.68 $154.20 $5,209.88 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.07 $0.00 $0.07 40 100,000 (base cost) $8,226.20 $250.90 $8,477.10 per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.08 $0.00 $0.08 Fire- Developmental Detached Accessory and Utility Uses - (All newly constructed, added, or structurally remodeled space for utility and accessory occupancies classified as CBC Group U, or other utility and accessory occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule) Shell Buildings for all Commercial Uses - (The enclosure for all newly constructed, added, or structurally remodeled space for non-residential occupancies classified as CBC Group A, B, E, F, H, I, M, or other commercial occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule where the interior is not completed or occupiable) Commercial Tenant Improvement - Non Structural - (Non-structurally remodeled space for non-residential occupancies classified as CBC Group A, B, E, F, H, I, M, or other commercial occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule where the structure is not altered) Fire Development Fees continued on next page... Fee Description FY 2022-23 Rate IT Surcharge* (if applicable) TotalFee Number 18 Square Footage: 41 500 (base cost) $599.82 $18.29 $618.12 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.36 $0.01 $0.37 42 5,000 (base cost) $2,227.92 $67.95 $2,295.88 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.24 $0.01 $0.24 43 10,000 (base cost) $3,427.58 $104.54 $3,532.12 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.05 $0.00 $0.05 44 50,000 (base cost) $5,055.68 $154.20 $5,209.88 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.07 $0.00 $0.07 45 100,000 (base cost) $8,226.20 $250.90 $8,477.10 per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.08 $0.00 $0.08 Square Footage: 46 1,000 (base cost) $428.45 $13.07 $441.52 per s.f between tiers (increment) 47 2,500 (base cost) $428.45 $13.07 $441.52 per s.f between tiers (increment) 48 4,000 (base cost) $428.45 $13.07 $441.52 per s.f between tiers (increment) 49 6,000 (base cost) $428.45 $13.07 $441.52 per s.f between tiers (increment) 50 8,000 (base cost) $428.45 $13.07 $441.52 per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.06 $0.00 $0.06 Square Footage: 51 1,000 (base cost) $342.75 $10.45 $353.21 per s.f between tiers (increment) 52 2,500 (base cost) $342.75 $10.45 $353.21 per s.f between tiers (increment) 53 4,000 (base cost) $342.75 $10.45 $353.21 per s.f between tiers (increment) 54 6,000 (base cost) $342.75 $10.45 $353.21 per s.f between tiers (increment) 55 8,000 (base cost) $342.75 $10.45 $353.21 per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.05 $0.00 $0.05 Fire- Developmental Commercial Residential and Multifamily Residential Remodels - Non Structural - (Non-Structurally remodeled space for residential occupancies classified as CBC Group R (except R-3), or other residential occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule) Fee Description Fire Development Fees continued on next page... Fee Number Single Family Dwellings and Duplexes - (All newly constructed space for residential occupancies classified as CBC Group R-3, including custom builds and model homes for tract master plans, or other similar residential occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule) Duplicate Floor Plan Review - Single Family Dwellings and Duplexes FY 2022-23 Rate IT Surcharge* (if applicable) Total 19 Square Footage: 56 200 (base cost) $342.75 $10.45 $353.21 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00 $0.00 57 400 (base cost) $342.75 $10.45 $353.21 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00 $0.00 58 600 (base cost) $342.75 $10.45 $353.21 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00 $0.00 59 1,000 (base cost) $428.45 $13.07 $441.52 per s.f between tiers (increment) 60 3,000 (base cost) $428.45 $13.07 $441.52 per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.15 $0.00 $0.15 Square Footage: 61 0-2499 $428.45 $13.07 $441.52 62 2500-4999 $428.45 $13.07 $441.52 63 5000-14999 $771.21 $23.52 $794.73 64 15000-21999 $855.81 $26.10 $881.91 65 22000-43559 $1,069.77 $32.63 $1,102.40 66 43560+$1,454.89 $44.37 $1,499.27 (Issued by Building and Safety) 67 1-25 Heads $1,113.96 $33.98 $1,147.94 68 26-50 Heads $1,542.41 $47.04 $1,589.46 69 51-100 Heads $1,713.79 $52.27 $1,766.06 70 101-200 Heads $2,313.62 $70.57 $2,384.19 71 Every 200 Heads above 200 $685.52 $20.91 $706.43 Fire- Developmental Fire Development Fees continued on next page... Fee Number Fee Description Duplicate Floor Plan Review - Attached or Detached Accessory and Utility Uses Site Improvements - This includes substantial development of private parking lots which are processed separate of the structure and include any combination of the following: Underground utilities, parking lot lighting, accessible path of travel analysis, grading, drainage and compliance with the City's parking and driveway standards. Total FIRE SPRINKLER AND SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS Fire Sprinkler Systems (New Installation) FY 2022-23 Rate IT Surcharge* (if applicable) 20 Fire Alarm System (New Installation) 72 1-50 Devices $1,113.96 $33.98 $1,147.94 73 51-100 Devices $1,885.17 $57.50 $1,942.67 74 Every 50 Devices above 100 $685.52 $20.91 $706.43 75 Sprinkler Monitoring System $428.45 $13.07 $441.52 Fire Sprinkler Systems (Tenant Improvement) 76 1-25 Heads $599.82 $18.29 $618.12 77 26-50 Heads $771.21 $23.52 $794.73 78 51-100 Heads $1,199.66 $36.59 $1,236.25 79 101-200 Heads $1,542.41 $47.04 $1,589.46 80 Every 200 Heads above 200 $685.52 $20.91 $706.43 Fire Alarm System (Tenant Improvement) 81 1-50 Devices $1,113.96 $33.98 $1,147.94 82 51-100 Devices $1,885.17 $57.50 $1,942.67 83 Every 50 Devices above 100 $771.21 $23.52 $794.73 84 Sprinkler Monitoring System $428.45 $13.07 $441.52 Other Suppression Systems 85 Insert Gas Systems $1,199.66 $36.59 $1,236.25 86 Dry Chemical Systems $685.52 $20.91 $706.43 87 Wet Chemical/Kitchen Hood $514.14 $15.68 $529.82 88 Foam Systems $2,142.24 $65.34 $2,207.58 89 Paint Spray Booth $771.21 $23.52 $794.73 OTHER MISCELLANEOUS FEES 90 Alternative Method and Material Review $685.52 $20.91 $706.43 91 Expedited Plan Review Fee $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 * Fee is subject to a 3.05% It Surcharge Fee Number Fee Description Fire- Developmental FY 2022-23 Rate IT Surcharge* (if applicable) Total 21 Other Fire Fees Hazardous Occupancy Permits [1] 1 Aircraft Refueling Vehicles $169.08 2 Aircraft Repair Hangar $338.15 3 Automobile Wrecking Yard $422.69 4 Bonfire or Rubbish Fires $169.08 5 Burning in Public Place $169.08 6 Candles or Open-Flames in Assembly Areas $169.08 7 Combustible Fiber Storage (handle/store over 100 cu ft)$422.69 8 Compressed Gases $169.08 9 Cryogens $338.15 10 Dry Cleaning Plant $338.15 11 Dust Producing Operation $338.15 12 Explosives or Blasting Agents $676.30 13 Fireworks $676.30 14 Flammable or Combustible Liquids (Unless in the CUPA Program)$338.15 15 Fruit Ripening - Ethylene Gas Fogging $338.15 16 Garages - Repair $338.15 17 Hazardous Chemicals (Unless in the CUPA Program):$422.69 18 High-Piled Combustible Stock - exceeding 2500 sq ft $422.69 19 Junk Yards $422.69 20 Liquefied Petroleum Gas $253.61 21 Lumberyard - Storage in excess of 100,000 board feet $422.69 22 Magnesium Working - Process more than 10 lbs daily $338.15 23 Mall (covered)$422.69 24 Organic Coatings - manufacture over 1 gallon a day $422.69 25 Ovens - Industrial, Baking and Drying $169.08 26 Places of Assembly $338.15 27 Refrigeration Equipment - Mechanical refrigeration (see UFC for most common refrigerants) $507.23 28 Spraying or Dipping $338.15 29 Tents and Air-supported Structures - excess of 200 sq ft $338.15 30 Tire Re-capping $338.15 31 Waste Material Plant $422.69 32 Welding and Cutting Operations - Any Occupancy $253.61 33 Additional Permitted Use (per permit) [1]$84.54 Fee Number FY 2022-23 Rate Other Fire Fees continued on next page… Fee Description 22 Other Fire Fees NON-MANDATED / REQUIRED INSPECTIONS Commercial Business Inspections (Up to 3 stories) 0 – 5,000 sq. ft. 5,001 – 40,000 sq. ft. 40,001 – 120,000 sq. ft. 120,001 – 150,000 sq. ft. 150,001 – or more sq. ft. Mid Rise Inspections (4 -6 stories) New Business Inspection FIRE FALSE ALARM FEES Initial Permit and Renewal Registrations - see Police False fire alarms shall be considered excessive when they meet or exceed the following number: Two false alarms in any thirty-day period Three false alarms in any three-hundred-sixty day period 34 False alarms exceeding these numbers $656.29 CERTIFIED UNIFIED PARTICIPATING AGENCY FEES Hazardous Materials Handlers 35 Remote utility (1-time fee)$649.48 36 1 - 4 Materials handled $373.89 37 5 - 10 Materials handled $426.55 38 11+ Materials handled $510.81 Waste Generators 39 1 Waste stream (professional or medical)$251.01 40 1 - 5 Waste streams (all others)$373.89 41 6+ Waste streams $503.79 42 Waste Stream (DeMinimus)$121.12 Tiered Permitting 43 CE $793.42 44 CA $1,249.82 45 PBR $2,952.52 Underground Storage Tanks (general model) 46 First tank $2,157.33 47 Each additional tank 48 Tank installation $7,040.74 49 Tank removal $5,450.39 50 Minor Modification $2,043.24 51 Major Modification $6,357.90 Above Ground Storage Tanks 52 One Tank $236.98 53 Two Tanks $473.95 54 Three Tanks $566.98 CALARP 55 New Stationary Source Facility $3,110.49 56 Existing Annual Facility Inspection $484.48 57 Site Remediation Oversight $242.24 Fee Number Fee Description FY 2022-23 Rate Other Fire Fees continued on next page… 23 Other Fire Fees 58 Soil Remediation $242.24 59 Temporary Closure Permit $2,023.93 Closures 60 Temporary Closure $2,157.33 61 Closure in Place $2,726.07 Late Fee Annual permit fees received 31-60 days after original invoice day Annual permit fees received 61 + days after original invoice day FIRE EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL STAND-BY FEES 62 Fire Engine/Ladder Truck $488.18 63 Squad or Light Rescue Equipment $304.09 64 Third & Subsequent Fire Inspection Fee $201.87 Additional Site Inspection Fee (one hour min.) Fire Investigation/Fire Preventions Firefighter Standby Administrative/Clerical Multi-Dwelling Fire and Life Safety Inspection Fee Schedule [2] [3] Administrative Fee [4] 70 Processing per facility $100.93 71 Each Additional Owner $11.98 Apartment Houses Fees are waived for units that are built, owned and managed by the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, other government agencies or not-for-profit housing organizations 72 Up to 10 units $403.73 73 11 - 20 Units $605.60 74 21 - 50 Units $807.46 75 51 - 100 Units $1,009.33 76 101 - 200 Units $1,614.93 77 Every additional 100 Units over 200 $403.73 Hotels, Motels, Lodging Houses, Bed & Breakfast Facilities, Youth Hostel Facilities, Senior Facilities, Sororities, Fraternities and Other Congregate Residences Hotel, Motel, Bed & Breakfast 78 1 - 20 Units $403.73 79 21 - 50 Units $605.60 80 51 - 100 Units $1,009.33 81 101 - 200 Units $1,614.93 82 Sorority and Fraternity $807.46 Condominiums 83 Up to 10 Units $403.73 84 11 - 20 Units $605.60 85 21 - 50 Units $807.46 86 51 - 500 Units $1,211.20 Other Fire Fees continued on next page… Fee Number Fee Description FY 2022-23 Rate 24 Other Fire Fees OTHER FIRE FEES 87 Hydrant Flow Test (First Hydrant)$201.87 88 Hydrant Flow Test (Each Additional Hydrant)$100.93 89 Reinspection Fee (construction)$201.87 90 Board of Appeals $201.87 91 Emergency Call-Out (Non-Scheduled)$786.90 92 After Hours Call-Out (Scheduled)$196.72 [4] Administrative fee applies to both Apt Houses and Hotels, Motels, etc. Total processing fee calculated will be divided equally amongst all owners. [3] These fees are applicable to all multi‐dwelling units in the City based on the definitions set forth in the 2007 California Building Code [2] Fees are waived for units that are built, owned and managed by the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, other government agencies or not‐for‐profit housing organizations. [1] For Locations with multiple required permits, fee is calculated at highest permit fee, plus 1/2 hour of inspection per additional permitted use. Fee Number Fee Description FY 2022-23 Rate 25 Fee Number Fee Description FY 2022-23 Rate IT Surcharge* (If applicable)Total Meter Services 1 Water Meter Cost (.75")$198.00 $6.04 $198.00 2 Water Meter Cost (1")$216.00 $6.59 $216.00 3 Water Meter Cost (1.5")$566.00 $17.26 $566.00 4 Water Meter Cost (2")$715.00 $21.81 $715.00 1 Install Water Meter (3/4" - 1")$153.44 $4.68 $153.44 2 Install Water Meter (1.5" - 2")$306.88 $9.36 $306.88 3 Install Water Meter (larger than 2")Time & Materials 4 Remove Water Meter (5/8" - 1")$153.44 $4.68 $153.44 5 Remove Water Meter (1.5" - 2")$306.88 $9.36 $306.88 6 Remove Water Meter (larger than 2")Time & Materials 7 Adapter Cost (1" Service/.58"x.75" Meter)$30.00 $0.92 $30.00 8 Adapter Cost (1" Service/.75" Meter)$17.80 $0.54 $17.80 9 Adapter Cost (1.5" Service/1" Meter)$174.00 $5.31 $174.00 10 Adapter Cost (2" Service/1" Meter)$134.00 $4.09 $134.00 11 Adapter Cost (2" Service/1.5" Meter)$256.00 $7.81 $256.00 12 Adapter Cost (2" /1" + 1"/.75" Combo Meter)$201.00 $6.13 $201.00 7 Retirement of Service $920.65 N/A $920.65 8 Retirement of Service (larger than 2")$920.65 N/A $920.65 9 Account Set-up $42.30 N/A $42.30 10 Account Set-up After Hours/Weekends 11 Minimum 2 hours service fee $358.45 N/A $358.45 12 Each Additional Hour $173.44 N/A $173.44 13 Disconnect Service for Non-Payment $50.16 N/A $50.16 14 Lateral Installation $613.77 $18.72 $632.49 15 Lateral Abandonment $613.77 $18.72 $632.49 Per Plan Review Submittal 16 New Meter, trash enclosures, landscape plans $613.77 $18.72 $632.49 17 RH20 $613.77 $18.72 $632.49 18 C&D Recycling $76.73 $2.34 $79.07 19 Class I (ex: Automotive Repair, Photo processors)$380.48 N/A $380.48 20 Class II (ex: Restaurant, Bakery)$204.87 N/A $204.87 21 Significant Industrial User (ex: Chemical Manufacturing, Electro-plating)$1,983.43 N/A $1,983.43 22 Industrial User Re-Inspection $92.30 N/A $92.30 * Fee is subject to a 3.05% It Surcharge Utilities Fees 26 base addtl base addtl base addtl 1-399 $830.83 $1.88 $692.15 $1.58 $553.48 $1.22 400-599 $1,207.25 $1.74 $1,006.66 $1.45 $806.07 $1.13 600-999 $1,560.13 $0.38 $1,300.11 $0.33 $1,040.10 $0.25 1,000-2,999 $1,716.15 $0.30 $1,430.13 $0.26 $1,144.10 $0.20 3,000-Unlimited $2,340.21 $0.78 $1,950.18 $0.64 $1,560.13 $0.50 1-4,999 $1,956.37 $1.29 $1,630.71 $1.08 $1,303.83 $0.84 5,000-9,999 $7,829.16 $0.38 $6,524.10 $0.33 $5,219.03 $0.25 10,000-49,999 $9,785.53 $0.15 $8,154.81 $0.11 $6,524.10 $0.09 50,000-99,999 $15,657.09 $0.08 $13,048.19 $0.06 $10,438.06 $0.03 100,000-Unlimited $19,571.05 $0.20 $16,309.63 $0.16 $13,048.19 $0.11 1-4,999 $1,630.71 $1.08 $1,358.31 $0.89 $1,087.15 $0.71 5,000-9,999 $6,524.10 $1.73 $5,436.96 $0.26 $4,348.57 $0.21 10,000-49,999 $8,154.81 $0.62 $6,795.26 $0.09 $5,436.96 $0.08 50,000-99,999 $13,048.19 $0.35 $10,873.91 $0.05 $8,698.38 $0.03 100,000-Unlimited $16,309.63 $0.86 $13,590.53 $0.12 $10,873.91 $0.10 1-4,999 $3,261.43 $2.16 $2,717.86 $1.81 $2,174.29 $1.40 5,000-9,999 $13,048.19 $0.64 $10,873.91 $0.53 $8,698.38 $0.42 10,000-49,999 $16,309.63 $0.24 $13,590.53 $0.20 $10,873.91 $0.16 50,000-99,999 $26,096.38 $0.12 $21,746.57 $0.10 $17,396.76 $0.08 100,000-Unlimited $32,620.48 $0.33 $27,183.53 $0.26 $21,746.57 $0.21 1-4,999 $1,696.34 $1.13 $1,414.03 $0.92 $1,131.71 $0.75 5,000-9,999 $6,791.54 $0.34 $5,658.59 $0.27 $4,526.88 $0.23 10,000-49,999 $8,489.13 $0.11 $7,073.86 $0.10 $5,658.59 $0.08 50,000-99,999 $13,581.86 $0.06 $11,318.42 $0.05 $9,054.98 $0.03 100,000-Unlimited $16,978.25 $0.17 $14,147.72 $0.12 $11,318.42 $0.10 1-4,999 $3,588.32 $2.39 $2,990.26 $1.98 $2,392.22 $1.54 5,000-9,999 $14,352.02 $0.72 $11,961.05 $0.60 $9,568.84 $0.46 10,000-49,999 $17,940.34 $0.26 $14,950.08 $0.23 $11,961.05 $0.17 50,000-99,999 $28,705.28 $0.15 $23,920.86 $0.11 $19,136.44 $0.09 100,000-Unlimited $35,883.15 $0.35 $29,902.63 $0.29 $23,920.86 $0.23 Building Plan Check Fees Attached Accessory/Utility Uses Commercial Shell Commercial Tenant Improvements Commercial Uses Commercial/Multi-Family Residential Remodel - Non-Structural Commercial/Multi-Family Residential Uses FY 2022-23 Rate IA, IB IIA, IIIA, VA IIB, IIIB, VB, IV 27 base addtl base addtl base addtl 1-399 $830.83 $1.88 $692.15 $1.58 $553.48 $1.22 400-599 $1,207.25 $1.74 $1,006.66 $1.45 $806.07 $1.13 600-999 $1,560.13 $0.38 $1,300.11 $0.33 $1,040.10 $0.25 1,000-2,999 $1,716.15 $0.30 $1,430.13 $0.26 $1,144.10 $0.20 3,000-Unlimited $2,340.21 $0.78 $1,950.18 $0.64 $1,560.13 $0.50 1-399 $248.87 $0.55 $208.02 $0.47 $165.92 $0.37 400-599 $361.55 $0.52 $300.88 $0.43 $241.44 $0.35 600-999 $466.80 $0.11 $388.79 $0.09 $310.79 $0.08 1,000-2,999 $515.09 $0.09 $428.42 $0.08 $342.98 $0.05 3,000-Unlimited $702.06 $0.24 $585.67 $0.20 $466.80 $0.16 1-4,999 $2,367.45 $0.52 $1,973.69 $0.43 $1,578.71 $0.34 5,000-9,999 $4,736.13 $0.18 $3,946.16 $0.16 $3,157.42 $0.11 10,000-49,999 $5,683.36 $0.02 $4,736.13 $0.02 $3,788.90 $0.01 50,000-99,999 $7,103.58 $0.03 $5,921.09 $0.03 $4,736.13 $0.02 100,000-Unlimited $9,472.26 $0.09 $7,893.55 $0.08 $6,314.84 $0.05 1-2,499 $1,255.54 $0.83 $1,046.29 $0.70 $837.02 $0.55 2,500-3,999 $2,512.31 $0.16 $2,093.80 $0.12 $1,675.29 $0.10 4,000-5,999 $2,764.91 $0.18 $2,304.30 $0.16 $1,842.45 $0.11 6,000-7,999 $3,140.09 $0.30 $2,617.56 $0.26 $2,093.80 $0.21 8,000-Unlimited $3,770.33 $0.47 $3,140.09 $0.38 $2,512.31 $0.30 1-4,999 $3,261.43 $2.16 $2,717.86 $1.81 $2,174.29 $1.40 5,000-9,999 $13,048.19 $0.64 $10,873.91 $0.53 $8,698.38 $0.42 10,000-49,999 $16,309.63 $0.24 $13,590.53 $0.20 $10,873.91 $0.16 50,000-99,999 $26,096.38 $0.12 $21,746.57 $0.10 $17,396.76 $0.08 100,000-Unlimited $32,620.48 $0.33 $27,183.53 $0.26 $21,746.57 $0.21 1-499 $766.45 $0.53 $640.16 $0.45 $511.38 $0.35 500-999 $984.37 $1.71 $819.69 $1.42 $656.24 $1.14 1,000-1,499 $1,842.45 $0.36 $1,534.13 $0.29 $1,227.06 $0.24 1,500-1,999 $2,025.70 $0.36 $1,687.67 $0.29 $1,350.88 $0.24 2,000-Unlimited $2,210.19 $1.10 $1,842.45 $0.91 $1,473.47 $0.73 Duplicate Commercial/Multi-Family Residential Duplicate Single-Family/Duplex Residential Building Plan Check Fees Low & Moderate Hazard Storage Residential Remodel/Addition - Non- Structural Detached Accessory/Utility Uses Duplicate Accessory/Utility FY 2022-23 Rate IA, IB IIA, IIIA, VA IIB, IIIB, VB, IV 28 base addtl base addtl base addtl 1-499 $1,068.57 $2.57 $891.51 $2.14 $711.96 $1.71 500-999 $2,098.75 $4.19 $1,748.34 $3.49 $1,399.17 $2.78 1,000-1,499 $4,198.75 $0.83 $3,499.16 $0.70 $2,799.58 $0.55 1,500-1,999 $4,618.50 $0.83 $3,848.34 $0.70 $3,078.18 $0.55 2,000-Unlimited $5,038.25 $2.51 $4,198.75 $2.09 $3,358.01 $1.67 1-2,499 $3,887.96 $2.15 $3,240.38 $2.15 $2,591.56 $1.72 2,500-3,999 $7,777.16 $0.43 $6,480.76 $0.43 $5,185.60 $0.34 4,000-5,999 $8,554.75 $0.48 $7,129.58 $0.48 $5,703.17 $0.37 6,000-7,999 $9,721.14 $0.80 $8,101.56 $0.80 $6,480.76 $0.63 8,000-Unlimited $11,666.35 $1.20 $9,721.14 $1.20 $7,777.16 $0.97 1-4,999 $1,099.52 $0.73 $916.27 $0.61 $733.01 $0.48 5,000-9,999 $4,400.58 $0.21 $3,666.33 $0.18 $2,933.30 $0.15 10,000-49,999 $5,500.10 $0.08 $4,582.60 $0.06 $3,332.00 $0.05 50,000-99,999 $8,799.92 $0.03 $7,332.64 $0.02 $5,867.85 $0.02 100,000-Unlimited $11,000.21 $0.10 $9,167.66 $0.09 $7,332.64 $0.06 Building Plan Check Fees Site Improvements Residential Remodel/Addition - Structural Single-Family/Duplex Residential IA, IB IIA, IIIA, VA IIB, IIIB, VB, IV FY 2022-23 Rate 29 base addtl base addtl base addtl 1-399 $2,050.46 $0.66 $1,708.72 $0.83 $1,366.98 $0.66 400-599 $2,249.81 $3.67 $1,874.64 $4.58 $1,500.71 $3.67 600-999 $3,350.58 $1.10 $2,792.15 $1.37 $2,233.72 $1.10 1,000-2,999 $4,009.31 $0.88 $3,341.91 $1.11 $2,673.28 $0.88 3,000-Unlimited $6,675.16 $1.49 $5,562.01 $1.86 $4,450.11 $1.49 1-4,999 $1,682.72 $1.02 $1,402.89 $0.86 $1,121.81 $0.68 5,000-9,999 $6,302.46 $0.95 $5,252.46 $0.79 $4,201.22 $0.63 10,000-49,999 $11,029.92 $0.12 $9,191.19 $0.10 $7,352.45 $0.08 50,000-99,999 $15,756.15 $0.12 $13,129.91 $0.10 $10,503.68 $0.08 100,000-Unlimited $22,058.61 $0.23 $18,382.38 $0.18 $14,706.14 $0.16 1-4,999 $1,248.11 $0.89 $1,040.10 $0.74 $832.07 $0.60 5,000-9,999 $5,252.46 $0.79 $4,377.05 $0.65 $3,501.64 $0.52 10,000-49,999 $9,191.19 $0.10 $7,659.52 $0.09 $6,126.63 $0.06 50,000-99,999 $13,129.91 $0.10 $10,942.01 $0.09 $8,754.10 $0.08 100,000-Unlimited $18,382.38 $0.18 $15,319.06 $0.15 $12,254.50 $0.11 1-4,999 $2,624.99 $1.74 $2,187.91 $1.45 $1,750.82 $1.13 5,000-9,999 $10,503.68 $1.58 $8,754.10 $1.32 $7,002.04 $1.02 10,000-49,999 $18,382.38 $0.20 $15,319.06 $0.17 $12,254.50 $0.12 50,000-99,999 $26,259.83 $0.21 $21,884.02 $0.17 $17,506.97 $0.12 100,000-Unlimited $36,764.75 $0.36 $30,636.88 $0.30 $24,510.25 $0.24 1-4,999 $1,260.49 $0.84 $1,051.24 $0.71 $840.74 $0.55 5,000-9,999 $5,040.72 $0.75 $4,199.98 $0.63 $3,361.72 $0.51 10,000-49,999 $8,822.20 $0.09 $7,351.21 $0.08 $5,881.47 $0.06 50,000-99,999 $12,602.44 $0.10 $10,502.45 $0.08 $8,402.45 $0.06 100,000-Unlimited $17,643.17 $0.18 $14,702.43 $0.15 $11,761.70 $0.11 1-4,999 $3,939.97 $2.62 $3,282.47 $2.20 $2,624.99 $1.70 5,000-9,999 $15,756.15 $2.36 $13,131.15 $1.97 $10,503.68 $1.53 10,000-49,999 $27,573.56 $0.29 $22,977.35 $0.25 $18,382.38 $1.53 50,000-99,999 $39,390.98 $0.30 $32,824.79 $0.26 $26,259.83 $0.21 100,000-Unlimited $55,147.13 $0.55 $45,955.94 $0.46 $36,764.75 $0.36 Attached Accessory/Utility Uses Commercial Shell Commercial Tenant Improvements Commercial Uses Commercial/Multi-Family Residential Remodel - Non-Structural Building Inspection Fees Commercial/Multi-Family Residential Uses FY 2022-23 Rate IA, IB IIA, IIIA, VA IIB, IIIB, VB, IV 30 base addtl base addtl base addtl 1-399 $1,879.60 $0.78 $1,566.32 $0.64 $1,253.06 $0.52 400-599 $2,035.60 $5.17 $1,695.10 $4.31 $1,357.07 $3.46 600-999 $3,068.27 $1.53 $2,556.89 $1.28 $2,045.51 $1.02 1,000-2,999 $3,682.42 $1.24 $3,068.27 $1.02 $2,454.12 $0.82 3,000-Unlimited $6,137.78 $2.08 $5,115.02 $1.70 $4,091.03 $1.36 1-399 $1,879.60 $0.78 $1,566.32 $0.64 $1,253.06 $0.52 400-599 $2,035.60 $5.17 $1,695.10 $4.31 $1,357.07 $3.46 600-999 $3,069.51 $1.53 $2,556.89 $1.28 $2,045.51 $1.02 1,000-2,999 $3,682.42 $1.24 $3,069.51 $1.02 $2,454.12 $0.82 3,000-Unlimited $6,137.78 $2.06 $5,115.02 $1.70 $4,091.03 $1.36 1-4,999 $2,368.69 $0.53 $1,973.69 $0.45 $1,578.71 $1.70 5,000-9,999 $4,736.13 $0.20 $3,947.39 $0.16 $3,157.42 $1.53 10,000-49,999 $5,684.59 $0.03 $4,736.13 $0.02 $3,788.90 $0.20 50,000-99,999 $7,104.82 $0.05 $5,921.09 $0.03 $4,736.13 $0.21 100,000-Unlimited $9,473.49 $0.09 $7,893.55 $0.08 $6,314.84 $0.36 1-2,499 $3,938.73 $2.62 $3,282.47 $2.20 $2,624.99 $1.74 2,500-3,999 $7,874.98 $1.32 $6,563.72 $1.09 $5,251.22 $0.87 4,000-5,999 $9,844.95 $2.96 $8,203.10 $2.47 $6,563.72 $1.97 6,000-7,999 $15,752.43 $3.94 $13,126.20 $3.28 $10,501.21 $2.62 8,000-Unlimited $23,627.41 $2.96 $19,691.16 $2.47 $15,752.43 $1.97 1-4,999 $2,626.23 $1.74 $2,187.91 $1.46 $1,578.71 $1.70 5,000-9,999 $10,503.68 $1.58 $8,754.10 $1.32 $3,157.42 $1.53 10,000-49,999 $18,382.38 $0.20 $15,319.06 $0.16 $3,788.90 $0.20 50,000-99,999 $26,261.07 $0.21 $21,884.02 $0.17 $4,736.13 $0.21 100,000-Unlimited $36,764.75 $0.37 $30,636.88 $0.30 $6,314.84 $0.36 1-499 $1,417.75 $3.55 $1,181.24 $2.96 $945.99 $2.36 500-999 $2,835.49 $2.84 $2,362.50 $2.36 $1,889.50 $1.89 1,000-1,499 $4,253.23 $2.84 $3,543.74 $2.36 $2,835.49 $1.89 1,500-1,999 $5,669.74 $2.84 $4,726.22 $2.36 $3,780.23 $1.89 2,000-Unlimited $7,087.48 $3.55 $5,907.47 $2.96 $4,726.22 $2.36 1-499 $1,557.66 $3.56 $1,298.88 $2.97 $1,038.86 $2.38 500-999 $2,981.59 $2.98 $2,483.83 $2.49 $1,987.31 $1.98 1,000-1,499 $4,471.16 $2.98 $3,726.99 $2.49 $2,981.59 $1.98 1,500-1,999 $5,961.95 $2.98 $4,968.92 $2.49 $3,974.64 $1.98 2,000-Unlimited $7,453.99 $3.73 $6,210.83 $3.10 $4,968.92 $2.49 Duplicate Commercial/Multi-Family Residential Duplicate Single-Family/Duplex Residential Low & Moderate Hazard Storage Residential Remodel/Addition - Non- Structural Residential Remodel/Addition - Structural Detached Accessory/Utility Uses Duplicate Accessory/Utility Building Inspection Fees FY 2022-23 Rate IA, IB IIA, IIIA, VA IIB, IIIB, VB, IV 31 base addtl base addtl base addtl 1-2,499 $3,938.73 $2.62 $3,282.47 $2.20 $2,624.99 $1.74 2,500-3,999 $7,874.98 $1.32 $6,563.72 $1.09 $5,251.22 $0.87 4,000-5,999 $9,844.95 $2.96 $8,203.10 $2.47 $6,563.72 $1.97 6,000-7,999 $15,752.43 $3.94 $13,126.20 $3.28 $10,501.21 $2.62 8,000-Unlimited $23,627.41 $2.96 $19,691.16 $2.47 $15,752.43 $1.97 1-4,999 $870.46 $0.59 $870.46 $0.59 $579.48 $0.38 5,000-9,999 $3,479.35 $0.52 $3,479.35 $0.52 $2,319.16 $0.35 10,000-49,999 $6,089.49 $0.06 $6,089.49 $0.06 $4,058.84 $0.03 50,000-99,999 $8,699.62 $0.06 $8,699.62 $0.06 $5,799.75 $0.05 100,000-Unlimited $12,178.97 $0.11 $12,178.97 $0.11 $8,118.90 $0.08 Single-Family/Duplex Residential Site Improvements Building Inspection Fees IA, IB IIA, IIIA, VA IIB, IIIB, VB, IV FY 2022-23 Rate 32 Parkland Fees Quimby Act Parkland In-Lieu Fee Parkland Impact Fee Park Improvement Impact Fee Parkland Development Fees (Orcutt Area) Residential Subdivision Single Family (per Dwelling Unit)n/a $4,571.04 $4,177.91 $10,022.76 Multifamily Condominium (per Dwelling unit)n/a $3,291.55 $3,008.67 $7,456.26 Residential, No Subdivision Single Family (per Dwelling Unit)n/a $4,571.04 $4,177.90 Multifamily Apartment (per Dwelling unit)n/a $2,113.61 $3,008.68 $7,456.26 Land Use Category Water Development Impact Fee(Citywide) Wastewater Development Impact Fee (Citywide) Single Family & Multifamily (per Dwelling Unit Size) ≥ 1,201 sq. ft. (fees are per unit)$17,142.70 $15,921.10 801 to 1,200 sq. ft. (fees are per unit)$13,714.16 $12,811.66 451 to 800 sq. ft. (fees are per unit)$11,999.89 $11,211.11 ≤ 450 sq. ft. (fees are per unit)$5,172.89 $4,775.18 Mobile/Manufactured Home (per Dwelling Unit) Mobile/Manufactured Home $10,345.76 $9,553.24 Non-Residential (by Meter Size) 3/4" meter $17,242.93 $15,921.10 1" meter $29,312.41 $27,065.58 1.5" meter $58,626.29 $54,131.17 2" meter $93,112.18 $85,973.38 3" meter $183,426.23 $170,355.50 4" meter $286,282.38 $265,882.11 6" meter $572,566.20 $531,764.23 Police (Citywide) Fire (Citywide) Residential Single Family Per unit $989.48 $842.83 Multifamily Per unit $712.48 $607.31 Non-Residential Office (fees are per sq. ft.)$0.65 $0.56 Service (fees are per sq. ft.)$0.35 $0.31 Retail (fees are per sq. ft.)$0.35 $0.31 Industrial (fees are per sq. ft.)$0.27 $0.22 Institutional (fees are per sq. ft.)$0.35 $0.34 Lodging (fees are per room)$197.00 $167.39 Specialty (fees are per ADT) (2) Requires Calculation Requires Calculation Land Use Category FY 2022-23 Rate FY 2022-23 Rate Emergency Services Impact Fees FY 2022-23 Rate 33 Transportation (Citywide)(1)Transportation (San Luis Ranch Subarea)Transportation (LOVR Subarea)Citywide Transportation (Orcutt Specific Plan Area Vested) Prior to 7/1/2018Transportation (LOVR Add on Fee- Avila Ranch)Transportation (LOVR Add on Fee- All other Areas) [4]Citywide Transportation (Orcutt Specific Plan Area Add on) After 7/1/2018Transportation (Orcutt Specific Plan Area Add on) [1]Transportation (Orcutt Specific Plan Area Add on Vested) Prior to 7/1/2018 [1]ResidentialSingle Family≥ 1,400 sq. ft. (fees are per unit)$15,036.69 $11,686.66 $13,637.12 $5,509.79 $3,195.25 $3,049.61 $12,219.16 $23,496.82 $24,914.72700 to 1,399 sq. ft. (fees are per sq. ft.)$10.75$8.34$9.74N/A N/A N/A $7.87N/AN/A≤ 699 sq. ft. (fees are per unit)$7,518.35$5,843.33$6,818.56 $5,509.79 $3,195.25 $3,049.61 $6,109.59 $23,496.82 $24,914.72Multifamily ≥ 1,100 sq. ft. (fees are per unit)$11,682.63$9,079.87$10,595.24 $4,894.60 $1,500.06 $2,042.96 $11,821.42 $16,414.57 $17,404.78550 to 1,099 sq. ft. (fees are per sq. ft.)$10.62$8.26$9.64N/A N/A N/A $7.79N/AN/A≤ 549 sq. ft. (fees are per unit)$5,841.32$4,539.92$5,297.61 $4,894.60 $1,500.06 $2,057.11 $5,910.71 $16,414.57 $17,404.78Non-ResidentialOffice (fees are per sq. ft.)$14.51$11.28$13.16 $11.06 $4.33 $4.33 $11.80N/AN/AService (fees are per sq. ft.)$14.51$11.28$13.16$4.33 $4.33 $4.33 $11.80N/AN/ARetail (fees are per sq. ft.) [2]$21.09$15.52$19.12 $11.61 $34.16 $27.14 $17.13N/AN/AIndustrial (fees are per sq. ft.)$8.44$6.93$8.09$2.41 $2.41 $6.86N/AN/AInstitutional (fees are per sq. ft.)$17.08$13.28$15.48$1.86 $1.86 $13.87N/AN/ALodging (fees are per room)$6,066.66$4,715.05$5,501.97$1,860.59 $1,860.59 $4,929.90N/AN/ASpecialty (fees are per ADT) (2)$924.90$718.41$838.46 $513.38 $3,049.61 $3,049.61 $751.60 $2,584.89 $2,740.88Per PM Trip Per PM Trip[1] The Orcutt Area Specific Plan Transportation Fee is in addition to Citywide Transportation Impact Fees. See Council Agenda Report dated 10‐16‐2018[2] All OASP retail Transportation "Add On" fees are paid for via residential land uses (There is no OASP fee for retail). However, Retail is responsible for paying "Citywide" transpoartion ees as well as safety impact fees. Office is shown in Work/Live units are porposed within the [3] Fees shown are subject to an addiional 1.75% administrative charge when special calculations are required.[4] The LOVR interchange Fee is in adition to the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee. The last update of the fee occurred in 2019. See Council Agenda Report dated 7‐2‐21019Transportation Impact FeesFY 2022-23 Rate34 Police Fees Fee Number Fee Description FY 2022-23 Rate POLICE DEPARTMENT 1 Processing charge for return of property taken for safekeeping $11.00 2 Clearance Letters $25.00 3 Civil SDT $15.00 4 Criminal SDT $0.00 5 Civil Subpoena $275.00 Concealed Weapons Permit (set by penal code 26190) 6 Investigative costs and permit processing $100.00 7 Renewal $25.00 8 Massage Facility Permit $360.93 9 Massage Technician Initial Permit $249.83 10 Massage Technician Permit Renewal $219.59 11 Local Record Information $25.00 12 Impound Vehicle Release (30-day impound)$173.26 13 Vehicle Tow Release Fee $96.17 14 Record sealing Determined by Finance Director Property Damage-Only Collisions Investigations 15 Per party per non-injury traffic collision investigation report $138.54 16 Administrative Investigations Determined by Finance Director Administrative Citations (Noise Violation, UIP, Open Alcohol Container) 17 First citation for each such violation (except open container)$350.00 18 First citation (open container)$100.00 19 Second citation for each such violation $700.00 20 Third citation for each such violation $1,000.00 35 Police Fees Fee Number Fee Description FY 2022-23 Rate Cost Recovery Programs 21 DUI Cost recovery Determined by Finance Director 22 Nuisance abatement Determined by Finance Director False Alarms and Alarm Permits 23 Permit $46.30 24 Renewal $46.30 25 Excessive alarms $0.00 26 Third $100.64 27 Fourth $168.14 28 Fifth $277.38 29 Sixth $498.29 30 Seventh & More $759.71 31 Second Response Cost Recovery Determined by Finance Director Taxi Permit 32 Pedicab Fee $129.17 33 Pedicab Renewal Fee $65.58 34 Permit fee $266.86 35 Permit Renewal fee $272.76 36 Electronic Game Center Permit $504.87 37 Public Dance Permit $120.77 38 Tobacco License Fee - per location $851.03 39 Mobile Food Vendor License $189.21 PLANNING SUPPORT 40 Administrative Use Permit (bars/nightclubs)$333.05 36 Fee Number FY 2022-23 Rate Youth Services Sun-N-Fun 1 Registration Fee 70.00$ 2 School Year - hourly option 5.60$ Teacher Work Day 3 Teacher Work Day 64.00$ 4 Late Reg TWD Spring Break Camp 5 Weekly Option 195.00$ 6 Late Reg Spring Break Weekly 7 Daily Option 60.00$ 8 Late Reg Spring Break Daily Summer Camp 9 Registration Fee 6.25$ 10 Full week Care Option 185.00$ 11 Summer School Package* 12 Day Rate Option 50.00$ 13 Field Trip Sign Ups 14 Late Registration Fee 10.00$ 15 Youth Services Special Events *Fluctuates per school district schedule Fee Description Parks and Recreation Fees 37 Fee Number FY 2022-23 Rate Aquatics Lap Swim 16 Adult per use*3.50$ 17 Adult Monthly*60.00$ 18 Youth/Senior per*3.50$ 19 Youth/Senior monthly*52.50$ Recreational Swim 20 Adult per use*4.50$ 21 Youth/Senior per*4.00$ Swim Script 21 Adult per use*36.00$ 22 Youth/Senior per*31.50$ Recreational Swim Script Adult per use*40.50$ Youth/Senior per*36.00$ Lessons 23 Lessons 114.00$ 24 Private Lessons 197.00$ Special Classes 25 Lifeguard 248.00$ 26 Warm Water Exercise*50.00$ 27 Facility Use $64/day +$22/LG 28 Junior Lifeguard Program $240.00 Recreational Sports Adult Softball 29 Teams (15 per team)640.00$ *Fees to increase following summer session. Effective August 15th Parks and Recreation Fees Fee Description 38 Fee Number FY 2022-23 Rate Instructional Classes Instructional Classes * 30 Adult/Senior $8.00-$153.00 31 Youth $4.00-$424.00 Spectial Events Triathlon 32 Individual n/a 33 Team n/a P&R Events 34 Parks and Recreation Sponsored Events $0-$69.00 Special Application Fees 35 Special Event Application $118/$188 36 Banner Permit Application/Installation 243.00$ Film Application Fee 37 Still Photography 118.50$ 38 Commercial 151.00$ 39 Non-Profit 47.25$ 40 Destination Marketing Permit Fee 41 Permit Processing Fee 17.75$ 42 Full Park Use 554.00$ 43 Half Park Use 277.00$ Mission Plaza 44 Full Plaza $673.00 45 Full Plaza (Non-Profit/Communtiy Event)$564.00 * Fees vary depending on class and class frequency Parks and Recreation Fees Fee Description 39 Fee Number FY 2022-23 Rate Indoor Facilities Ludwick Community Center 46 Assembly Room (Non-Profit)33.75$ 47 Assembly Room (For-Profit)71.00$ 48 Gymnasium (Non-Profit)43.00$ 49 Gymnasium (For-Profit)75.75$ 50 Kitchen (Non-Profit)14.75$ 51 Kitchen (For-Profit) 52 Floor Covers 90.50$ 53 Full Facility Use (14 Hours)1,760.00$ Senior Center 54 Main Room (Non-Profit)33.75$ 55 Main Room (For-Profit)71.00$ 56 Conference Room (Non-Profit)18.25$ 57 Conference Room (For-Profit)23.50$ Meadow Park Building 58 Non-Profit 18.25$ 59 For-Profit 23.50$ City/County Library 60 Community Room (Non-Profit)33.75$ 61 Community Room (For-Profit)71.00$ 62 Conference Room (Non-Profit)18.25$ 63 Conference Room (For-Profit)23.50$ Parks and Recreation Fees Fee Description 40 Fee Number FY 2022-23 Rate Outdoor Facilities 64 Outdoor Seating Areas 79.75$ Jack House Gardens 65 Wedding and Reception 66 Full Day WEEKEND (Resident)3,400.00$ 67 Full Day WEEKEND (non-resident)3,853.00$ 68 Full Day WEEKDAY (Resident)3,173.00$ 69 Full Day WEEKDAY (non-resident)3,400.00$ 70 Party (1-50) Attendance (4 hour) 71 Under 50 Per Hour 116.50$ 72 Under 50 Per Hour (Non-Profit)52.25$ 73 50-100 Per Hour 233.00$ 74 50-100 Per Hour (Non-Profit)104.50$ 75 100+ Per Hour 349.50$ 76 100+ Per Hour (Non-Profit)157.50$ 77 Security Deposit 582.00$ 78 Table/Chair Rental Softball Fields 79 Hourly Field Use 28.50$ 80 Light Fee 26.00$ Multi-Use Courts 81 Hourly Use 6.50$ 82 Light Fee 12.75$ Tennis & Volleyball Courts 83 Full Use Facility (Hour)10.25$ Parks and Recreation Fees Fee Description 41 Fee Number FY 2022-23 Rate Damon-Garcia 84 Full Use Facility (Day)527.00$ 85 Full Use Facility (Hour)85.00$ 86 Full Use Light Fee (Hour)51.25$ 87 Maintenance Fee 28.50$ 88 Concession Stand Rental 142.25$ 89 Lower Fields Facility Use (Day)350.50$ 90 Lower Fields Facility Use (Hour)57.00$ 91 Lower Fields Light Fee 26.00$ 92 Single Field Facility Use (Day)179.00$ 93 Single Field Facility Use (Hour)28.50$ 94 Single Field Light Fee 26.00$ Baseball Stadium 95 Hourly Field Use 28.50$ 96 Lights 26.00$ 97 Press box Rental 19.00$ 98 Field prep 48.50$ 99 Concession Stand Rental 27.00$ Mission Plaza 100 Full Plaza 673.00$ 101 Full Plaza (Non-Profit/Communtiy Event)563.75$ Other 102 Bounce House 38.25$ 103 Portable BBQ 38.25$ Community Gardens 104 Community Gardens $34/year + .03 per square ft Fee Description Parks and Recreation Fees 42 Fee Number FY 2022-23 Rate Ranger Service Junior Ranger Camp 105 Junior Ranger Camp 161.00$ Golf Course Laguna Lake Golf Course 106 Cart Rental 10.50/Person 107 Pull Carts 5.25/Cart 108 Club Rentals (Regular)6.25$ 109 Club Rentals (SnrYth/Stu/Mil)4.25$ 110 Alternative Programming Uses 10.75$ 111 Spectator Fee*5.00$ Tournament Use 112 Shotgun Fee 269.00$ 113 Daily Use for 39 or Under 12.75$ 114 Daily Use for 40 or Over 10.75$ Rounds 115 Monday-Thursday (Regular)*14.00$ 116 Monday-Thursday (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil)*11.00$ 117 Friday-Sunday (Regular)*15.00$ 118 Friday-Sunday (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil)*12.00$ 119 Replay*8.00$ 120 Off Peak (M-Th 12-3 PM) (Regular)*11.00$ 121 Off Peak (M-Th 12-3 PM) (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil)*11.00$ 122 Twilight (after 3 PM)*10.00$ 123 Family Rate*27.00$ 124 Super Twilight*7.00$ 125 10-Play Cards (Regular)130.00$ 126 10-Play Cards (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil)100.00$ *Fees to increase following summer session. Effective August 1st Parks and Recreation Fees Fee Description 43 Additional Building Fees Fee Number Fee Description FY 2022-23 Rate 1 A/C Residential - BLDG $85.45 2 After Hours Call Out (Building) - BLDG $516.45 3 Air Handler - BLDG $64.40 4 Antenna/Tower w/ Equipment Shelter - BLDG $761.68 5 Appeal of Building Official Decision - BLDG $1,290.52 6 Awning/Canopy - BLDG $440.90 7 Boiler - BLDG $107.76 8 Building Sewer - BLDG $85.45 9 Balcony/Porch/Deck - BLDG (increases with Sq. ft)$1,252.95 9 Cell Tower/Antenna - BLDG $1,028.97 10 Cell Tower/Antenna - BLDG - add on $112.16 11 Chiller - BLDG $107.76 12 Code Enforcement Fee $412.51 12 Commercial Access Upgrade - Site work - BLDG $1,364.83 13 Commercial Access Upgrade - Upgrades - BLDG $1,092.36 14 Commercial Coach Installation - BLDG $1,813.17 15 Construction Tax - BLDG $177.19 16 Deferred Submittal (Building)$257.61 17 Demolit - Interior or Garage/Utility Build - BLDG $516.46 18 Demolition - Entire Building - BLDG $904.11 19 Doors/Windows- Box Structural $657.14 20 Doors/Windows- Box Non-Structural $445.04 21 Drain Vent Repair/Replace - BLDG $64.40 22 Driveway $213.08 23 Dry Rot / Termite Repair - BLDG $268.76 24 Duct Work Only - BLDG $64.40 25 Electric Car Charging System -BLDG $139.95 26 Electric Service Upgrade (up to 200 amp) -BLDG $139.95 27 Electrical Volume & Current Fee Analysis - BLDG $79.26 28 Evaporative Cooler - BLDG $64.40 29 Exhaust Hood - Type I - BLDG $130.05 30 Exhaust Hood - Type II - BLDG $85.45 31 Exhaust Hood & Duct - Residential - BLDG $64.40 32 Fence or Non-Engineered Wall - BLDG $777.78 33 Fire Permit Handling Fee - BLDG $516.45 34 Fireplace Insert Upgrade -BLDG $372.80 35 Fireplace Retrofit / Chimney Repair - BLDG $743.10 Additional Building Fees Continued on Next Page 44 Additional Building Fees Fee Number Fee Description FY 2022-23 Rate 36 Fireplace: Masonry $640.48 37 Fixtures - BLDG $64.40 38 Flag, Light, or Sign Pole - BLDG $925.16 39 Foundation New/Replace - BLDG $1,550.61 40 Foundation Repair Only - BLDG $774.07 41 Furnace/Heater Replacement -BLDG $139.95 42 Furnaces - BLDG $85.45 43 Gas System Repair/Replace/Extend - BLDG $61.37 44 Generator Installation - BLDG $99.08 45 Graywater Systems - BLDG $172.16 46 Graywater/Rainwater Harvesting System -BLDG $85.45 47 Grease Trap - BLDG $64.40 48 Guest Quarters Permit $1,334.83 49 Handicap Board of Appeals - BLDG $1,290.52 50 Heat Pump - BLDG $64.40 51 Heater - BLDG $64.40 52 Heater - Wall - BLDG $85.45 53 Inert Gas Systems $1,199.94 54 Inspection Fee $218.54 55 Insulation/Energy Upgrade -BLDG $134.99 56 Make-Up Air System - BLDG $64.40 57 Manufactured Homes $973.37 58 Mechanical Volume & Current Fee Analysis - BLDG $79.26 59 Minor Code Corrections - BLDG $268.75 60 Minor Lease Space Improvements - BLDG $1,550.61 61 Minor Repairs - up to 2 inspections - BLDG $354.21 62 Misc Electrical Items NOS - BLDG $85.46 63 Misc Mechanical Items NOS - BLDG $85.45 64 Misc Plumbing Items NOS - BLDG $85.46 65 New/Altered Circuits - 15 or 20 amp - BLDG $64.40 66 New/Altered Circuits - 200+ amps - BLDG $64.40 67 New/Altered Circuits - 25 to 40 amp - BLDG $43.35 68 New/Altered Circuits - 50 to 175 amp - BLDG $52.01 69 Other Electrical Inspections - BLDG $257.61 70 Other Mechanical Inspections - BLDG $257.61 71 Other Plumbing & Gas Inspections - BLDG $257.61 72 Paint Booth - BLDG $1,162.95 73 Partition- BLDG (Per Project)$850.97 74 Patio - Enclosed - BLDG $1,356.16 75 Patio Cover - Open - BLDG $777.78 76 Permit Issuance - BLDG $278.66 77 Photovoltaic Systems (residential roof mount)$183.10 78 Photovoltaic Unit Installation - Residential $79.11 79 Plumbing Volume & Current Fee Analysis - BLDG $78.02 80 Pool/Spa Commercial - BLDG $1,290.52 81 Preliminary Project Consult/Code Analysis - BLDG $257.61 82 Refrigeration Compressor/Condenser - BLDG $107.76 83 Re-Roof Residential - BLDG $268.76 84 Re-roof with Added Ventilation -BLDG $134.99 85 Residential Photovoltaic System $193.21 86 Residential Pool/Spa - Site Built - BLDG $1,032.91 87 Retaining Wall Engineered 1-100 Linear Feet $1,398.39 88 Retaining Wall Engineered each additional linear foot $1.26 89 Retaining Wall Non-Engineered - BLDG $906.58 90 Roof Structure Replacement - BLDG $1,100.52 90 School Tenant Permit $1,031.25 Additional Building Fees Continued on Next Page 45 Additional Building Fees Fee Number Fee Description FY 2022-23 Rate 91 Secondary Dwelling Units $1,409.30 92 Seismic Strengthening of URM Bldg $53.15 93 Shear Wall / Steel Support Column - BLDG $1,032.91 94 Site Work- Grading 1-1000 Cubic Yards $889.98 95 Each Additional 10,000 Cubic Yards $254.80 96 Sign - Monument or free standing - BLDG $689.84 97 Sign - Wall - BLDG $396.80 98 Skylight $349.58 99 SMIP (Commercial)$31.30 100 SMIP (Residential)$14.53 101 Solar / PV System - Commercial -BLDG $928.89 102 Solar Photovoltaic - Commercial/Multifamily - BLDG $904.10 103 Solar Water System Fixtures - BLDG $85.45 104 Stairs - Repair/Replace - BLDG $1,162.95 105 Stand Alone Electrical Plan Check - BLDG $260.09 106 Stand Alone Mechanical Plan Check - BLDG $130.05 107 Stand Alone Plumbing Plan check - BLDG $257.61 108 Store Front / Facade Alterations: Minor - BLDG $1,162.95 109 Stormwater - Major Project - BLDG $4,520.54 110 Stormwater - Minor Project - BLDG $338.12 111 Stormwater - Moderate Project - BLDG $2,131.48 112 Stucco/Siding - BLDG $490.45 113 Supplemental Inspection (Building) - BLDG $257.61 114 Supplemental Plan Check (Building) - BLDG $257.61 115 T-Bar Ceiling - BLDG $774.07 116 Temporary Service - BLDG $64.40 117 Trash Enclosure - BLDG $1,290.52 118 URM Seismic Strengthening - BLDG $47.26 119 Vapor Recovery - BLDG $646.51 120 Vent Fan (Single Duct) - BLDG $64.40 121 Water Heater - BLDG $84.12 122 Water Heater - BLDG - additional $21.94 123 Water Heater Replacement -BLDG $137.77 124 Walk-in Box/Refrigerator Coil - BLDG $85.45 125 Water Pipe Repair/Replace - BLDG $64.40 126 Window Retrofits (non-structural) -BLDG $225.40 127 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $961.35 *Fees may be subject to a 3.05% IT Surcharge 46 399 From:Maggio, Rodger Sent:Friday, September 29, 2023 10:45 AM To:Bernstorff, Rebecca; Ruben Rivas; Cindy Sconce Cc:Loew, Michael Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Fire - Time Estimates Meeting Attachments:Copy of Fire User Fee Model FY24 7.31.23.xlsx Please see Fire edits for Table 1. Rodger From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 9:41 AM To: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com>; Maggio, Rodger <rmaggio@slocity.org>; Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Fire - Time Estimates Meeting Hi Ruben, Thanks for the information and approach. Mike Loew sent over B&S information this morning (attached). Please let me know if you need anything else. Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 8:57 AM To: Maggio, Rodger <rmaggio@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Tuggle, Todd <ttuggle@slocity.org>; Vert, Nicole <nvert@slocity.org>; Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]RE: Fire - Time Estimates Meeting Rodger, 400 Rebecca gave me and updated this morning that Building is filling out the table 1 percentages and is providing by Monday 9/25. I think an internal conversation between fire/building should happen this week so that Fire can get some guidance as to how to fill out the table. When that conversation takes place, let me know how you feel about the task at hand. If you still think that filling out table 1 will not be possible, we have a couple of alternative options. Ruben Rivas Manager 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 831.227.3911 Email: rrivas@mgtconsulting.com From: Maggio, Rodger <rmaggio@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2023 2:35 PM To: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Tuggle, Todd <ttuggle@slocity.org>; Vert, Nicole <nvert@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Fire - Time Estimates Meeting Hi Ruben, I can provide you with the 2016 time estimates for Fire’s review and inspection of building plans/permits, but the descriptions may differ from B&S. Still waiting on their template. Rodger From: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2023 2:00 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Maggio, Rodger <rmaggio@slocity.org>; Tuggle, Todd <ttuggle@slocity.org>; Vert, Nicole <nvert@slocity.org> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]RE: Fire - Time Estimates Meeting Good afternoon, all, Doing another round of check-ins. As of today, I don't have any data on table 1 of the model. Any update on this? The due date on this data was 8/25. Rodger did send me a good amount of data on 9/1 related to fixed fees but I'm still waiting on data for table 1. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 401 Let me know if we need another call to further discuss this. Have a great weekend. Ruben Rivas Manager 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 831.227.3911 Email: rrivas@mgtconsulting.com From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 3:39 PM To: Maggio, Rodger <rmaggio@slocity.org>; Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com>; Tuggle, Todd <ttuggle@slocity.org>; Vert, Nicole <nvert@slocity.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: Fire - Time Estimates Meeting Thanks for the update Rodger, checking in with B&S now on their worksheet to see where we are at. Have a great weekend! Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Maggio, Rodger <rmaggio@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 1, 2023 3:36 PM To: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com>; Tuggle, Todd <ttuggle@slocity.org>; Vert, Nicole <nvert@slocity.org> Cc: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Fire - Time Estimates Meeting Hi Ruben, CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 402 I met with Building on Wednesday and still waiting for their template so we are speaking the same language. Rodger From: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Friday, September 1, 2023 3:30 PM To: Maggio, Rodger <rmaggio@slocity.org>; Tuggle, Todd <ttuggle@slocity.org>; Vert, Nicole <nvert@slocity.org> Cc: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: Fw: Fire - Time Estimates Meeting This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Good morning, everyone, hope all is well. I wanted to do a friendly reminder that I'm still waiting for a response regarding my email below from 8/16. Any update on this? Let me know if you have any questions. Happy to set up another call to discuss. Thank again for your help with this. I really appreciate it. Have a wonderful three-day weekend. Ruben Rivas Manager 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 831.227.3911 Email: rrivas@mgtconsulting.com From: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 10:25 AM To: Maggio, Rodger <rmaggio@slocity.org>; Tuggle, Todd <ttuggle@slocity.org>; Vert, Nicole <nvert@slocity.org> Cc: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: Fire - Time Estimates Meeting Hello again, thank you for your time this morning. Very productive and informative meeting. Here are our next steps: MGT: Input all the flat fee time estimates Rodger sent into my master model - Done. 403 Fire Staff: Talk to building regarding table 1 to see if providing percentages of annual efforts for staff and total annual square footages for each construction category will be possible. They are currently working on this same process. Provide annual volume/revenue data. At the most granular level possible. If you can provide this information by fee category, that is the best option. But send what you can easily pull, and I'll take a look at it. In the 'EXP' tab of the attachment, please identify the divisions that we can for sure exclude from this analysis because they simply do not touch any fee related activities. If possible, I would like this information back by 8/25. Let me know if you have any questions. We can always set up a follow-up meeting to discuss. The good news is that Rodger has provided most of the time estimates and that's big progress. Ruben Rivas Manager 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 831.227.3911 Email: rrivas@mgtconsulting.com 437 From:Bernstorff, Rebecca Sent:Thursday, September 28, 2023 5:03 PM To:Ruben Rivas; Loew, Michael; Maggio, Rodger Cc:Cindy Sconce Subject:RE: Fee Study - Comparison Study Hi Mike and Rodger, Just a friendly reminder this is due tomorrow and am here to help with it if there are any questions. After talking through it with Ruben, it may seem daunting, but MGT is just looking for fees you’d like to include in the comparison survey they are doing as a part of the study. Thanks again for your help, support and prioritization of this! Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 9:20 AM To: Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org>; Maggio, Rodger <rmaggio@slocity.org> Cc: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: Fee Study - Comparison Study This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi all, I know you are working on other data for us at the moment, but I didn't want to prolong this additional request (much simpler and much less effort than what you are currently working on). As part of MGT’s study, we are conducting a comparison survey with peer agencies. Please let me know what fees from your respective divisions/departments you would like us to include in t he comparison. You can select up to five (5) fees each (5 fees from the fire fee schedule and 5 fees from the building fee schedule). Please respond with your selections no later than September 29. 438 For building only: instead of providing me with 5 flat fees, you can provide me with 5 building project prototypes. We've found that this is a much more valuable exercise for building fees. For example, this can be one of your prototypes: Prototype 1: New construction, 2,000 sq ft, Res Single Family Current Inspection Fee - $5,700 Current Plan Check Fee - $5,300 Building Construction Valuation amount - $450,000 The numbers for the example above are made up, you'll need to provide me with the actual data. We know that there are other fees associated with these project prototypes but the focus here is only the inspection and plan review fees. I would also need the construction valuation as not all the comparison agencies charge by square foot. I may have made this sound more complicated than it actually is but it's quite simple. Pick 5 building projects and provide the following: Project type, square footage, inspection fee, plan check fee, building construction valuation. Let me know if either Buidling or Fire has any questions on this, otherwise were hoping to receive this information by the end of the week. Thank you! Ruben Rivas Manager 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 831.227.3911 Email: rrivas@mgtconsulting.com 441 From:Bernstorff, Rebecca Sent:Thursday, September 28, 2023 4:21 PM To:Ellsworth, Melissa Cc:Taylor, Brent Subject:RE: Fee Study Hi Melissa, Great question, we are hoping in the next couple weeks. Of course, your review and the Leadership Team’s before it goes to Council is a part of the process, thank you for the reminder and prompt. The recommendations on the cost recovery percentage will be really helpful. We did receive a draft of the impact fees, but Brent and I are working through some methodology questions before we share. Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 9:48 AM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: Fee Study Hi Rebecca, Do you know when we’ll get a final list of fees from the consultant (MGT) so that we can have internal discussions with our department head before this goes to Council? Our department head my have some recommendations on some fees that may need to be less than 100% cost recovery, etc. Thanks- Melissa Melissa Ellsworth Senior Business Analyst Police Department 442 1042 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2729 E mellswor@slocity.org T 805.781.7019 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, protected, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. 451 From:Floyd, Aaron Sent:Thursday, September 28, 2023 1:28 PM To:Paris, Rachelle Subject:RE: County of SLO Thanks Rachelle! From: Paris, Rachelle <RParis@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 1:27 PM To: Floyd, Aaron <afloyd@slocity.org> Subject: RE: County of SLO Yes, consent item approved. Hearing date is set for October 31. Then Peter will take it to the IWMA Executive Board meeting on November 8. Thanks, Rachelle Paris Solid Waste and Recycling Coordinator Public Utilities 879 Morro, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E RParis@slocity.org T 805.783.7734 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Floyd, Aaron <afloyd@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 12:30 PM To: Paris, Rachelle <RParis@slocity.org> Subject: FW: County of SLO Hi Rachelle – Do we happen to know what happened with this item at the Board of Supervisors? Thanks Aaron From: Jan Marx <janmarx@alumni.stanford.edu> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 1:45 PM To: Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org> Cc: Floyd, Aaron <afloyd@slocity.org> Subject: Fwd: County of SLO This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. 452 Progress Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Peter Cron <pcron@iwma.com> Date: September 20, 2023 at 11:22:04 AM PDT To: Jan Marx < Subject: County of SLO Hello Jan, The County Board of Supervisors Agenda for Sept 26 has as Item 2, a public hearing to adopt a Solid Waste Management Fee. In the staff report the two options are join the IWMA and adopted the IWMA Solid Waste Management Fee or adopt the 8.1% fee recommended by the MSW fee study. This public hearing will close at the October 31st Board of Supervisors meeting where if the Board chooses to join the IWMA, will sign the Joinder Agreement. I have attached the staff report for your review. Let me know if you have any concerns or questions. Peter Cron Executive Director 870 Osos St San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: 805-781-5952 Connect with us! Website | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | Pinterest | Newsletter 455 From:Floyd, Aaron Sent:Thursday, September 28, 2023 12:30 PM To:Paris, Rachelle Subject:FW: County of SLO Attachments:Item 2.pdf Hi Rachelle – Do we happen to know what happened with this item at the Board of Supervisors? Thanks Aaron From: Jan Marx <janmarx@alumni.stanford.edu> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 1:45 PM To: Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org> Cc: Floyd, Aaron <afloyd@slocity.org> Subject: Fwd: County of SLO This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Progress Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Peter Cron <pcron@iwma.com> Date: September 20, 2023 at 11:22:04 AM PDT To: Jan Marx < Subject: County of SLO Hello Jan, The County Board of Supervisors Agenda for Sept 26 has as Item 2, a public hearing to adopt a Solid Waste Management Fee. In the staff report the two options are join the IWMA and adopted the IWMA Solid Waste Management Fee or adopt the 8.1% fee recommended by the MSW fee study. This public hearing will close at the October 31st Board of Supervisors meeting where if the Board chooses to join the IWMA, will sign the Joinder Agreement. I have attached the staff report for your review. Let me know if you have any concerns or questions. Peter Cron Executive Director 870 Osos St San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: 805-781-5952 Connect with us! Website | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | Pinterest | Newsletter 456 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL Page 1 of 5 (1) DEPARTMENT Public Works (2) MEETING DATE 9/26/2023 (3) CONTACT/PHONE Mladen Bandov Solid Waste Division Manager (805) 781-5116 (4) SUBJECT Setting of a public hearing to increase the Solid Waste Management Fee for solid waste collection customers within the County solid waste jurisdiction. Hearing date set for October 31, 2023. (5) RECOMMENDED ACTION It is recommended that the Board: 1. Schedule a public hearing for October 31, 2023 to increase the Solid Waste Management Fee for solid waste collection customers in accordance with Government Code Section 66016; 2. Authorize the Director of Public Works or designee(s) to mail notice of said hearing to any interested party who filed a written request in a manner consistent with applicable law; and 3. Direct the Clerk of the Board to publish notice of said hearing in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in San Luis Obispo County once a week for two successive weeks prior to the date of the hearing in accordance with Section 6062a of the Government Code. (6) FUNDING SOURCE(S) Solid Waste Management (7) CURRENT YEAR FINANCIAL IMPACT N/A (8) ANNUAL FINANCIAL IMPACT N/A (9) BUDGETED? no (10) AGENDA PLACEMENT {X} Consent { } Presentation { } Hearing (Time Est. _______) { } Board Business (Time Est.______) (11) EXECUTED DOCUMENTS { } Resolutions { } Contracts { } Ordinances {X} N/A (12) OUTLINE AGREEMENT REQUISITION NUMBER (OAR) N/A (13) BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUIRED? BAR ID Number: N/A { } 4/5th's Vote Required {X} N/A (14) LOCATION MAP N/A (15) BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT? No (16) AGENDA ITEM HISTORY { } N/A Date: 3/21/23 #37 (17) ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REVIEW Lisa M. Howe (18) SUPERVISOR DISTRICT(S) Reference: 23.139 Page 2 of 5 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Public Works Mladen Bandov, Solid Waste Division Manager VIA: John Diodati, Director DATE: 9/26/2023 SUBJECT: Setting of a public hearing to increase the Solid Waste Management Fee for solid waste collection customers within the County solid waste jurisdiction. Hearing date set for October 31, 2023. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Board: 1. Schedule a public hearing for October 31, 2023 to increase the Solid Waste Management Fee for solid waste collection customers in accordance with Government Code Section 66016; 2. Authorize the Director of Public Works or designee(s) to mail notice of said hearing to any interested party who filed a written request in a manner consistent with applicable law; and 3. Direct the Clerk of the Board to publish notice of said hearing in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in San Luis Obispo County once a week for two successive weeks prior to the date of the hearing in accordance with Section 6062a of the Government Code. DISCUSSION On January 24, 2023, during the review of the FY 2023-24 Budget Goals and Policies, the Board provided direction to staff to bring an evaluation of what it would take to achieve full cost recovery for compliance with State solid waste mandates and the feasibility of rejoining the San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA). On March 21, 2023, the Board received a presentation on a fee study for solid waste compliance activities. The Solid Waste Compliance Fee Study prepared by MSW Consultants, dated March 3, 2023 (Attachment 1) indicated that a proposed increase of the Solid Waste Management Fee to 8.1% for all residential and commercial customers would be necessary and reasonable to provide the revenue1 needed 1 In addition to the Solid Waste Management Fee, the County receives revenue from the Landfill Tipping Fee Surcharge in the amount of $3 per ton for solid waste generated from the County solid waste jurisdiction. Page 3 of 5 for the County to directly provide solid waste compliance activities required under State mandates without relying upon General Fund contributions if the County remained out of the IWMA. At that time, the Board directed staff to pursue the steps below regarding the County rejoining IWMA: 1. Submit letter of intent and authorize/delegate discussions with IWMA o Staff submitted a letter of intent to IWMA representatives and initiated discussions to develop an understanding of the processes, conditions, and requirements that would be needed to rejoin IWMA. 2. Initiate processes for the solid waste management fee increase o As a condition of rejoining, the County’s fee would need to match the fees that IWMA sets for its participating agencies. 3. Prepare documents to be executed o IWMA provided to staff the County Joinder Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Joint Powers Agreement document. o The County and a majority of other IWMA Members would need to execute the County Joinder Amendment to enable the County to rejoin as a member of IWMA. 4. Return to the Board for approvals o Staff anticipates returning to the Board on October 31, 2023, to approve and sign the County Joinder Amendment. o Additional requests for authorizations and delegation will be included to facilitate the County rejoining IWMA. Today’s item would authorize notification of a public hearing to consider increasing the Solid Waste Management Fee2. The public hearing would be scheduled on the same day as, and immediately following, the proposed Board agenda item to consider approving the County Joinder Amendment. The appropriate fee would be established based on the decision to rejoin the IWMA or not, as discussed below. Solid Waste Management Fee The Solid Waste Management Fee is collected by waste haulers and remitted to the County to be used for State mandated compliance activities including but is not limited to developing and implementing programs under the following legislation: • Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939); • Mandatory Commercial Recycling (AB 341); • Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling (AB 1826); and • Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction (SB 1383). 2 On November 16, 2021, the Board adopted Resolution No. 2021-263 continuing the collection of the Solid Waste Management Fee for County residents. Page 4 of 5 The Solid Waste Management Fee for solid waste collection customers within the County solid waste jurisdiction is currently structured as follows: • $0.30 per month to residential customers charged less than $50 per month; and • 2% of the gross revenue to all commercial customers and to residential customers that are charged $50 per month or more. Based on the Solid Waste Compliance Fee Study, a proposed increase of the Solid Waste Management Fee to 8.1% for all residential and commercial customers would be required for the County to directly provide solid waste compliance activities required under State mandates without relying upon General Fund contributions. If the County rejoins IWMA, the County’s Solid Waste Management Fee would need to match IWMA’s fee amount and structure. Currently, the permanent IWMA Solid Waste Management Fee is 5.4% for all residential and commercial customers in accordance with IWMA Resolution No. 2022-03-04. For FY 2023- 2024, the IWMA Board of Directors temporarily reduced the fee for all residential and commercial customers to 4.4% in accordance with IWMA Resolution No. 2023-06-03. The estimated impact of the proposed fee increases to solid waste collection customers within the County areas is shown in the following table for the typical range of monthly rates for residential curbside service and the corresponding current and proposed Solid Waste Management Fees: Container Size Monthly Rate3 Current 2% Fee4 Not Joining IWMA 8.1% Fee Joining IWMA Permanent 5.4% Fee FY 2023-2024 Temporary Reduced 4.4% Fee Typical Range for Residential Curbside Service within County Solid Waste Jurisdiction 32 Gallon $20 - $50 $0.30 - $1.00 $1.62 - $4.05 $1.08 - $2.70 $0.88 - $2.20 64 Gallon $30 - $70 $0.30 - $1.40 $2.43 - $5.67 $1.62 - $3.78 $1.32 - $3.08 96 Gallon $40 - $80 $0.30 - $1.60 $3.24 - $6.48 $2.16 - $4.32 $1.76 - $3.52 Public Hearing to Consider Changes to the Solid Waste Management Fee The public hearing to establish the changes in the structure and amount of the Solid Waste Management Fee will afford interested parties an opportunity to present oral and written presentations concerning the following proposed changes: • Eliminate the $0.30 per month fee for residential customers charged less than $50 per month ; • If the County decides not to rejoin IWMA and achieve full cost recovery for compliance activities, increase the fee amount to 8.1% for all residential and commercial customers; and • If the County decides to rejoin IWMA, decrease the permanent fee amount of 8.1% to 5.4% for all residential and commercial customers and temporarily reduce the fee amount to 4.4% to match IWMA’s current fee structure for FY 2023-2024. 3 Monthly rates vary based on the rate schedules for each of the County’s six franchise waste haulers. 4 For residential customers charged less than $50 per month, the fee is $0.30 per month. Page 5 of 5 OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT/IMPACT The County Clerk of the Board publishes the Notice of Hearing. The IWMA is the regional agency formed under a joint power agreement for the purpose of providing solid waste compliance services to its participating agencies, including all seven cities and twelve special districts with solid waste powers countywide. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Any increase in the Solid Waste Management Fee would increase the revenues used in the Fund Center (FC) 335 – Solid Waste Management FY 2023-24 Budget that supports the County’s compliance with State solid waste laws and regulations. The revenue amount will depend on what fee percentage is selected and whether or not the County rejoins IWMA. If the County rejoins IWMA, revenues from Solid Waste Management Fees, Landfill Tipping Fee Surcharges, and General Fund contributions to the FC 335 – Solid Waste Management FY 2023-24 Budget will be significantly reduced in proportion to costs that are reduced for staffing and expenditures used to directly provide solid waste compliance. RESULTS The recommended action to set and notice the public hearing will provide an opportunity to involve the community in the Board’s consideration to increase the Solid Waste Management Fee that supports the County’s compliance with State mandates, thereby contributing to a livable and well-governed community. ATTACHMENTS 1 Solid Waste Compliance Fee Study prepared by MSW Consultants dated March 3, 2023 File: 755.500.10.01 Reference: 23.139 L:\Solid Waste\2023\September\BOS\Solid Waste Management Fee\23.139 brd ltr.docxMBsb 457 From:Ellsworth, Melissa Sent:Thursday, September 28, 2023 9:48 AM To:Bernstorff, Rebecca Subject:Fee Study Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Hi Rebecca, Do you know when we’ll get a final list of fees from the consultant (MGT) so that we can have internal discussions with our department head before this goes to Council? Our department head my have some recommendations on some fees that may need to be less than 100% cost recovery, etc. Thanks- Melissa Melissa Ellsworth Senior Business Analyst Police Department 1042 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2729 E mellswor@slocity.org T 805.781.7019 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, protected, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. 475 From:Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 26, 2023 5:45 PM To:Schwartz, Luke; Lindner, Nicole Cc:Jamie Radcliff Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Public Works Cross Support to Engineering Thanks Luke! I’ve sent this over to Jamie, who is the MGT Consultant working with both Engineering and Planning. She is also going to compare this against the Ɵme provided in the last fee study. I’ve asked her to reach out to you directly with any quesƟons she may have. Cindy Sconce (she/her/hers) Director, Performance Solutions Group 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 916.276.8807 Email: csconce@mgtconsulting.com The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. From: Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 2:18 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Lindner, Nicole <NLindner@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Public Works Cross Support to Engineering Hi Cindy, Attached are my best estimates of hours from my team (PW – Transportation) for these fees. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like to walk through these via virtual meeting. Thanks, Luke Schwartz, PE Transportation Manager Public Works Transportation Planning/Engineering CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 476 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E LSchwartz@slocity.org T 805.781.7190 slocity.org From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 9:23 AM To: Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org>; Lindner, Nicole <NLindner@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Public Works Cross Support to Engineering Thanks Luke!! Cindy Sconce (she/her/hers) Director, Performance Solutions Group 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 916.276.8807 Email: csconce@mgtconsulting.com The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. From: Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 9:19 AM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Lindner, Nicole <NLindner@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Public Works Cross Support to Engineering Hi Cindy, Sorry for the delay. I will have these to you tomorrow. Thanks, Luke Schwartz, PE Transportation Manager Public Works Transportation Planning/Engineering 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E LSchwartz@slocity.org T 805.781.7190 slocity.org CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 477 From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 11:10 AM To: Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org>; Lindner, Nicole <NLindner@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Public Works Cross Support to Engineering Hi Luke I wanted to follow up and see if you were able to go through the Ɵme esƟmates from the Planning and Engineering fees. Do you have an esƟmate for when you might be able to provide that informaƟon? There is a big push to get these in so I’m hoping we can receive the informaƟon as soon as possible. I’m also happy to jump on a call and walk through them with you if you think that would help 뇤눎눐눑눒눏 Thank you Luke for your help on this. Cindy Sconce (she/her/hers) Director, Performance Solutions Group 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 916.276.8807 Email: csconce@mgtconsulting.com The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. From: Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 2:33 PM To: Lindner, Nicole <NLindner@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: Public Works Cross Support to Engineering That would be our team. I have the spreadsheet that Cindy sent last week and am trying to find some time to populate it with estimates of hours per permit by the 20th, as requested. If Traffic Control Plan review is a line item on a different spreadsheet, please provide that and we’ll update with an estimate of hours. Thanks, Luke Schwartz, PE Transportation Manager Public Works Transportation Planning/Engineering 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E LSchwartz@slocity.org CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 478 T 805.781.7190 slocity.org From: Lindner, Nicole <NLindner@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 1:26 PM To: Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: FW: Public Works Cross Support to Engineering Luke, Any insight on who takes care of the traffic control public improvement plans? Nicole Lindner Business Analyst Public Works 805.781.7031 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E NLindner@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 8:28 AM To: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com>; Lindner, Nicole <NLindner@slocity.org>; Nelson, Brian <BNelson@slocity.org>; Cleary, Greg <gcleary@slocity.org>; Guzman, Manuel <mguzman@slocity.org>; Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Public Works Cross Support to Engineering This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Jamie I have the cross support on the encroachment permits for you and I’ll send that your way soon. Some of the fees indicated, PW does not work on, so I’ll note those and work with Nicole and the remaining fees listed. Nicole, we will need to reach out to Traffic Control and whomever does the public improvement plan review to see if they have Ɵme spent on those. Cindy Sconce (she/her/hers) Director, Performance Solutions Group 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 916.276.8807 Email: csconce@mgtconsulting.com The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. 479 From: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 7:39 AM To: Lindner, Nicole <NLindner@slocity.org>; bnelson@slocity.org; gcleary@slocity.org; mguzman@slocity.org; lschwart@slocity.org Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; rbernstorff@slocity.org Subject: Public Works Cross Support to Engineering Good Morning! I have gathered informaƟon from Engineering, and they report that mulƟple posiƟons in Public Works have Ɵme involved in their fee and permiƫng process. Pease review the aƩached list of Engineering fees. Engineering noted an “X” on the permits with your involvement. Please replace the “X” with the Ɵme Public Works spends on the permit for EACH POSITION listed. You may use hours or minutes. Engineering has listed some Ɵme esƟmates already for your Inspectors. Review these and ensure they are correct. You may update if you need to. Please complete and return to me by COB on Wednesday, September 20th. If you have any quesƟons, please let me know. Thank you! Thank you! Jamie Radcliff Manager Performance SoluƟons Group 432-208-8194 jradcliff@mgtconsulƟng.com Impacting Communities for Good The informaƟon contained in this electronic communicaƟon is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidenƟal communicaƟon. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby noƟfied that you have received this transmiƩal in error; any review, disseminaƟon, distribuƟon, or copying of this transmiƩal is strictly prohibited. 480 From:Cruce, Greg Sent:Tuesday, September 26, 2023 10:17 AM To:Cohen, Rachel Cc:Whipple, Anthony Subject:RE: Hours for certain Tree tasks - Needed ASAP Hi Rachael, Sorry for the late response. For the Commemorative Grove planting, it takes 38 hours of staff time to get the tree established along with a fee of $237.03 to plant a 15-gallon tree. Moving forward, I feel it will be a collaborative effort for this task since PW will be responsible for the Com Grove planting and CDD for the other items. If the consultant has specifics questions, feel free to send them our way. Thanks, Greg Cruce Deputy Director - Maintenance Operations Public Works Department 805.781.7264 gcruce@slocity.org From: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 1:31 PM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org>; Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Hours for certain Tree tasks - Needed ASAP Thank you Anthony. Rachel Cohen pronouns she/her/hers Senior Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 1:21 PM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org>; Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Hours for certain Tree tasks - Needed ASAP 481 Hi Rachel, I have added number to the cells minus the Comm. Grove trees as they are going to need input from Greg. Trees Hours Tree/Shrub Hazardous Abatement 2.5 Commemorative Tree Planting Greg will have more info Tree Removal Permit (Site visit, noticing and review of the permit) 3 Tree Committee (Staff report, meeting, wrap up letter for the Director, etc.) 6 Please contact me with any additional questions Respectfully, Anthony Anthony Whipple City Arborist/Urban Forest Services Supervisor Public Works Urban Forest Services 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7314 E awhipple@slocity.org T 805.781.7021 C 805.431.0398 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 : Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 4:21 PM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org>; Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org> Subject: Hours for certain Tree tasks - Needed ASAP Importance: High Hi Anthony and Greg- The City is currently going through a fee study and we have to estimate how much staff time is provided for certain tasks. Below is a list of tasks related to Trees that the consultant added to our list. I need to know two things, 1) Is the a task that will fall under CDD with the new Urban Forest Coordinator or is it a task that will reside with the tree crew in PW and 2) How many hours would you estimate you work to complete each listed task below? 482 Trees Hours Tree/Shrub Hazardous Abatement Commemorative Tree Planting Tree Removal Permit (Site visit, noticing and review of the permit) Tree Committee (Staff report, meeting, wrap up letter for the Director, etc.) We need this information as soon as possible to keep on the timeline for everything to get complete by the consultants and then go to council. I appreciate your attention to this. Thank you, Rachel Cohen pronouns she/her/hers Senior Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 483 From:Richard Ruiz <richard@financedta.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 26, 2023 9:58 AM To:Bernstorff, Rebecca Cc:Leni Zarate Subject:Re: SLO Question on Water and Wastewater fee study Thank you Richard Ruiz Jr Manager P: 800-969-4DTA x 213 18201 Von Karman # 220 Irvine, CA 92612 richard@financedta.com Did we meet your expectations? To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.1 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.2 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.3 From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 8:24 AM To: Richard Ruiz <richard@financedta.com> Cc: Leni Zarate <Leni@financedta.com> Subject: RE: SLO Question on Water and Wastewater fee study Hi Richard, Attached is the 2013 study. Please let me know if you need anything else. Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 484 Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Richard Ruiz <richard@financedta.com> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 6:01 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Cc: Leni Zarate <Leni@financedta.com> Subject: SLO Question on Water and Wastewater fee study This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Rebecca I am reviewing the methodologies presented in the 2017 Water and Wastewater fee Study. In it, it refers to the 2013 water study several times. Could you please provide us with the 2013 water study Thank you Regards Richard Ruiz Jr Manager 485 P: 800-969-4DTA x 213 18201 Von Karman # 220 Irvine, CA 92612 richard@financedta.com Did we meet your expectations? Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website. Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website. 492 From:Bernstorff, Rebecca Sent:Tuesday, September 26, 2023 8:24 AM To:Richard Ruiz Cc:Leni Zarate Subject:RE: SLO Question on Water and Wastewater fee study Attachments:2013 Development Impact Fee Study_Final.pdf Hi Richard, Attached is the 2013 study. Please let me know if you need anything else. Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Richard Ruiz <richard@financedta.com> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 6:01 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Cc: Leni Zarate <Leni@financedta.com> Subject: SLO Question on Water and Wastewater fee study This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Rebecca I am reviewing the methodologies presented in the 2017 Water and Wastewater fee Study. In it, it refers to the 2013 water study several times. Could you please provide us with the 2013 water study 493 Thank you Regards Richard Ruiz Jr Manager P: 800-969-4DTA x 213 18201 Von Karman # 220 Irvine, CA 92612 richard@financedta.com Did we meet your expectations? Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website. Water Treatment Plant. Nacimiento Reservoir. Tank Farm Lift Station. 2013 Water & Wastewater Development Impact Fees 2013 Water &Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study i Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Study Organization .................................................................................................................................... 4 Section 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 5 1.2 Requirements under California State Law .................................................................................... 6 1.3 Proposition 218 and Development Impact Fees ........................................................................... 7 Section 2: Growth Projections and Demand Forecast .................................................................................. 9 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9 2.2 Existing and Future Demographics ............................................................................................. 10 2.3 Study Area, Time Frame, and Area of Benefit ............................................................................ 11 2.4 Demand Variables and Impact Factors ....................................................................................... 11 2.5 Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) Concept .................................................................................... 13 2.6 Calculating Existing and Future EDUs ......................................................................................... 14 Section 3: Water Supply and System Facilities ........................................................................................... 17 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 17 3.2 Water Supply Requirements for Existing and Future Development ........................................... 17 3.3 Cost of the Water Supply for the Area of Benefit ....................................................................... 18 3.4 Allocation of Cost of Water Supply between Existing Users and Future Development ............. 18 3.5 Water Supply Development Impact Fee ..................................................................................... 20 3.6 Existing Facilities and the Cost of Required Facilities for the Area of Benefit ............................ 21 3.7 Water Facilities Development Impact Fee .................................................................................. 23 3.8 Water Development Impact Fees Totals .................................................................................. 24 Section 4: Wastewater Facilities ................................................................................................................. 25 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 25 4.2 Wastewater Flow Generation ..................................................................................................... 26 4.3 Citywide Treatment Development Impact Fee Calculation ........................................................ 27 4.4 Wastewater Facility Improvements by Catchment Area ............................................................ 28 Section 5: References .................................................................................................................................. 31 Appendix A: Ten Year Running Average Per Capita Water Use .................................................................. 33 Appendix B: Catchment Areas and Flow Data ............................................................................................ 35 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study ii List of Tables Table 1: Water Development Impact Fees ................................................................................................... 3 Table 2: Wastewater Development Impact Fees .......................................................................................... 3 Table 3: AB 1600 Nexus ................................................................................................................................ 8 Table 4: Existing and Future City Population .............................................................................................. 11 Table 5: Wastewater Generation Factors ................................................................................................... 13 Table 6: Equivalency Factors for Residential Unit Types ............................................................................ 13 Table 7: Future Residential EDU ................................................................................................................. 14 Table 8: Non-Residential EDU Ratios Based on Meter Size ........................................................................ 15 Table 9: Existing and Future Equivalent Dwelling Units ............................................................................. 15 Table 10: Water Supply Resource Availability ............................................................................................ 17 Table 11: Water Supply Summary at Build-out........................................................................................... 18 Table 12: Cost of Water Supply................................................................................................................... 18 Table 13: Allocation of Water Supply Requirements .................................................................................. 19 Table 14: Water Supply Cost Allocation Between Existing Users & Future Development ......................... 20 Table 15: Residential Water Supply Impact Fee Schedule .......................................................................... 20 Table 16: Non-residential Water Supply Impact Fee Schedule .................................................................. 21 Table 17: Water Facility Costs ..................................................................................................................... 22 Table 18: Residential Water Facilities Development Impact Fee ............................................................... 23 Table 19: Non-Residential Water Facilities Development Impact Fee ....................................................... 23 Table 20: Water Development Impact Fees Totals .................................................................................. 24 Table 21: Existing and Future Wastewater Generation .............................................................................. 26 Table 22: Water Reclamation Master Plan Improvements Costs ............................................................... 27 Table 23: Citywide Wastewater Residential Development Impact Fee ...................................................... 27 Table 24: Citywide Non-Residential Development Impact Fee .................................................................. 28 Table 25: Planning Areas and Catchment Areas ......................................................................................... 28 Table 26: Catchment Area Existing and Future Flows ................................................................................ 29 Table 27: Facility Costs by Catchment Area ................................................................................................ 30 Table 28: Wastewater Impact Fee Totals................................................................................................. 30 1 2013 Water & Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study Executive Summary Development impact fees are one-time charges imposed when new development creates an impact on /or wastewater systems. These fees are designed to recover the portion of the capital investments required to provide sufficient system capacity to serve new users. The City Council first assessed these fees in 1991. System expansions are often large capital improvement projects which are constructed in advance of the need for added capacity. As a result, revenues generated through the assessment of development impact fees can be used to repay debt issued to finance water supply, water treatment, and wastewater treatment capacity Previous Studies The City conducted previous development impact fee studies in compliance with City ordinance numbers 1200 and 1256, adopted on September 3, 1991 and April 5, 1994, respectively, for the purpose of relieving the impact of future development adopted the Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study and the Water Development Impact Fee, Supply Component in order to establish the current fee program accounting for known facility changes, water supply costs, and wastewater collection improvements at that time. Similar to other City fees, the Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fees are increased annually by the consumer price index (CPI). 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study The City prepared the 2013 Study in order to identify and/or update the public facilities and costs associated with providing capacity for future development. This study complies with Section 66000 et seq. of the Government Code, enacted by the State of California in 1987, by identifying the additional water and wastewater facilities required by future development through build out and determining the level of fees that may be imposed to pay the costs of these future facilities. The 2013 Study reflects the following changes that influence the Water Development Impact Fee and the Wastewater Development Impact Fee since the adoption of the current fees in 2004. 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 2 Changes influencing the Water Development Impact Fee: 1. Changes in Water and Wastewater Management Element (2010). 2. Changes in water demand and the factors used to project future water demand. 3. the Genera 4. Updated projections of equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) for future residential and non-residential development including updated water meter size equivalency factors with American Water Works Association standards. 5. Updated actual capital costs for additional water supplies. 6. Elimination of the Water Area-Specific add-on fee for the Airport and Margarita Areas. Changes influencing the Wastewater Development Impact Fee: 1. Changes in existing and projected wastewater generation rates. 2. Updated projections of equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) for future residential and non-residential development. 3. Updated actual and forecasted wastewater capital facility costs with actual and forecasted capital costs for facilities from the 2013-15 Financial Plan, along with costs from the 2010 Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) Master Plan, and City project financing resources as documented throughout the report. 4. - certain wastewater lift station facilities. 5. Elimination of the 3.5 percent adjustment in the citywide non-residential fee related to higher discharge strengths. Changes Included in the Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee: 1. The Fees include a new fee class for secondary dwelling units (studio units less than 450 square feet) that is 30 percent of one equivalent dwelling unit based on water demand and wastewater generation for similar units. This unit type was previously charged the fee for a multi-family residential unit. 2. The Fees also include an updated multi-family unit development impact fee that is 70 percent of one equivalent dwelling unit based on water demand and wastewater generation for similar units. The fee for a multi- family unit was previously 80 percent one equivalent dwelling unit based on water demand and wastewater generation for similar units. 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 3 Table 1: W ate r Development Impac t Fe es Land Use Type Water Facilities Fee Water Supply Fee Total Citywide Fee Residential Unit Residential, Single Family $1,650 $9,124 $10,775 Residential, Multi Family $1,155 $6,387 $7,542 Mobile Home $990 $5,474 $6,465 Studio Unit (450 sf or less) $495 $2,737 $3,232 Non-residential (Meter Size) $1,650 $9,124 $10,775 $2,806 $15,511 $18,317 $5,611 $31,022 $36,633 $8,912 $49,270 $58,182 $17,659 $97,628 $115,287 $27,561 $152,373 $179,934 $55,123 $304,746 $359,869 Tab le 2: Was tewater D eve lopment Imp act Fees Margarita Tank Farm Silver City Calle Joaquin Laguna Residential, Single Family 3,729$ 2,745$ 3,630$ 1,356$ 1,829$ 490$ Residential, Multi Family 2,610$ 1,922$ 2,541$ 949$ 1,280$ 343$ Mobile Home 2,237$ 1,647$ 2,178$ 814$ 1,097$ 294$ Studio Unit (450 sf or less) 1,119$ 824$ 1,089$ 407$ 549$ 147$ 5/8" to 3/4"3,729$ 2,745$ 3,630$ 1,356$ 1,829$ 490$ 1" $ 6,339 $ 4,667 $ 6,171 $ 2,305 $ 3,109 $ 833 1-1/2" $ 12,678 $ 9,059 $ 11,979 $ 4,475 $ 6,036 $ 1,617 2" $ 20,135 $ 14,549 $ 19,239 $ 7,187 $ 9,694 $ 2,597 3" $ 39,897 $ 29,372 $ 38,841 $ 14,509 $ 19,570 $ 5,243 4" $ 62,274 $ 45,842 $ 60,621 $ 22,645 $ 30,544 $ 8,183 6" $ 124,540 $ 91,409 $ 120,879 $ 45,155 $ 60,906 $ 16,317 Land Use Type Citywide Fee Residential Unit Non-Residential (Meter Size) Additional Catchment Area Charges 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 4 Study Organization Section 1, Introduction, provides an introduction to the Fee Study, including brief discussion on existing City policies that impact the Fee Study, background on past efforts to set impact fees and the legal requirements for implementing and collecting development impact fees. Section 2, Demographics and Methodology, includes a description of the methodology for calculating fees to pay for water supply, wastewater treatment capacity at the Water Reclamation Facility, and the water and wastewater facility capital improvements. It also discusses the area of benefit, demographics and Equivalent Dwelling Units determinations. Section 3, Water Supply and System Facilities, includes a description of the costs for public water supply and facilities necessary to serve future development in the City, and the methodology for calculating water development impact fees. Section 4, Wastewater Facilities, includes a description of the costs for Water Reclamation Facility improvements and wastewater facilities necessary to serve future development in the City, and the methodology for calculating the fees. Section 5, References, provides a list of documents and studies that are referenced throughout the fee study. 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 5 Section 1: Introduction 1.1 Introduction Pursuant to the General Plan (Land Use Element, Policy 1.13 Costs of Growth): Th evelopment impact fees are based on future growth under used in conjunction with capital improvement planning to ensure adequate water supply, water treatment, wastewater collection infrastructure, and wastewater treatment capacity. These fees are based on a methodology that applies facility cost and location, and types and size of anticipated development. The fees collected are used to finance improvements to the benefit of future development. Previous Studies The City conducted previous Development Impact Fee Studies in compliance with City ordinance numbers 1200 and 1256, adopted on September 3, 1991 and April 5, 1994, respectively, for the purpose of relieving the impact of future development In 2004, the City Utilities Department adopted the Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study and the Water Development Impact Fee, Supply Component in order to establish the current fee program which applied existing City policy and accounted for known facility changes, water supply costs, and wastewater collection improvements at that time. 2013 Study The 2013 Development Impact Fee Study reflects the following changes subsequent to the current fee adoption: Changes influencing the Water Development Impact Fee: 1. Management Element (2010). 2. Changes in water demand and the factors used to project future water demand. 3. US Census Bureau (2010) and data from the Genera 4. Updated projections of equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) for future residential and non-residential development including updated water meter size equivalency factors with American Water Works Association standards. 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 6 5. Updated actual capital costs for additional water supplies. 6. Elimination of the Water Area-Specific add-on fee for the Airport and Margarita Areas. Changes influencing the Wastewater Development Impact Fee: 1. Changes in existing and projected wastewater generation rates. 2. Updated projections of equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) for future residential and non-residential development. 3. Updated actual and forecasted wastewater capital facility costs with actual and forecasted capital costs for facilities from the 2013-15 Financial Plan, along with costs from the 2010 Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) Master Plan, and City project financing resources as documented throughout the report. 4. - certain wastewater lift station facilities. 5. Elimination of the 3.5 percent adjustment in the citywide non-residential fee related to higher discharge strengths. Changes Included in the Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee: 1. The Fees include a new fee class for secondary dwelling units (studio units less than 450 square feet) that is 30 percent of one equivalent dwelling unit based on water demand and wastewater generation for similar units. This unit type was previously charged the fee for a multi-family residential unit. 2. The Fees also include an updated multi-family unit development impact fee that is 70 percent of one equivalent dwelling unit based on water demand and wastewater generation for similar units. The fee for a multi- family unit was previously 80 percent one equivalent dwelling unit based on water demand and wastewater generation for similar units. 1.2 Requirements under California State Law This study complies with the guidelines set forth in Assembly Bill (AB) 1600, codified in Section 66000 et seq. (GC § 66000) of the California Government Code, which defines a fee as: Government Code, Section 66000). Enacted by the State in 1987, this code outlines the relationship, or , between projected development within City limits and proposed annexation areas, and the necessary capital improvements to ility Standard for an increased service population. Fee payment occurs prior to new building construction or expansion of an existing building. Fees are often levied at 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 7 final map recordation, issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or at building permit issuance (as done in the City). To impose a fee as a condition for a development project, a public agency must do the following: Identify the purpose of the fee; Identify the use to which the fee is to be put (if the use is financing public facilities, the facilities must be identified); use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for a public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is being imposed; and Determine the reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility attributed to the development on which the fee is imposed. Identifying these items will enable a fee to meet the nexus and proportionality requirements established by previous court cases. Current State financing and fee assessment requirements only allow new development to pay for its fair share of existing development must be funded through other sources. Therefore, a key element to establish legal impact fees is to determine what share of the benefit or cost of a particular improvement can be equitably assigned to existing development, even if that improvement has not yet been constructed. Table 3 presents the finding necessary to establish development impact fees in accordance with AB 1600. 1.3 Proposition 218 and Development Impact Fees In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 218, which required that the imposition of certain fees and assessments by municipal governments require a vote of the people to change or increase the fee of assessment. Of interest in the 2013 Study is the applicability of Proposition 218 to the establishment of development impact fees for the City of San Luis Obispo. In , 95 Cal. App. 4th 1227 (3rd Dist. 2002), the Third City Court of Appeals held that sewer connection fees and development fees (in general) are not subject to the procedural or substantive requirements of Proposition 218 and that the fee can be enacted by either ordinance or resolution, based on the local equity requirement. 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 8 T able 3: A B 1 600 Nex us Conditions 1 Findings 2 Identify purpose of fee The purpose of the development impact fees recommended in this study is to fund water and wastewater facilities necessary to General Plan. Identify use of fee Water and wastewater development impact fees generated by future development within the City will be used to fund the facilities and improvements outlined in this Study. use and type of development New residential and non-residential development in the City will create demand for additional water supply and treatment and generate additional wastewater to be treated. Fees collected from new development will be used to fund those facilities necessary to accommodate this new development. Relationship between need for facility and the type of project will create demand for additional water and generate additional wastewater flow and thus require water and wastewater systems. The need for increased capacity creates a condition in which the City will be required to upgrade existing facilities and/or construct additional water and wastewater facilities, such as wastewater lift stations or water storage tanks. Relationship between amount of fee and cost of facility This Study identifies the water and wastewater improvements necessary to serve future development in the City. The cost of the facilities outlined in this Study will be used to calculate the fees attributed to new development. Such future development will not be responsible for paying the cost for any current deficiencies in the water and wastewater system. Sources: 1. Assembly Bill 1600, codified in Section 66000 et seq. of the California Government Code. 2. City of San Luis Obispo, 2013. 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 9 Section 2: Growth Projections and Demand Forecast 2.1 Introduction In preparing the 2013 Study, the City reviewed available data and considered various methods of projecting future development and demand for services. Some improvements are needed entirely to serve future development, while others serve the needs of both existing and future development. Thus, it was necessary to evaluate each improvement to determine the share of its cost to be attributed to future development. In order to recover both the cost of existing available system capacity and planned additional capacity, the City utilized a combined approach that addresses system buy-in and capacity expansion. A System Buy-In Approach is based on existing facilities and costs. Under this to existing system facilities at a rate that reflects the prior investment per unit of capacity (i.e. capacity buy-in). Cost of System Investment ÷ System Capacity = Cost per Unit of Capacity A Capacity Expansion Approach is based on the projection of capacity enhancing capital improvements planned for the system during the planning horizon. A master plan, facility plan or other capital plan serves as the basis for this information. The projected capacity costs are then divided by the projected growth units during the planning period to determine the development fees per unit of growth. Future Capacity Costs ÷ Growth Units to be served = Cost per unit of Growth Combining both methodologies addresses the determination of available capacity in the existing system as well as apportionment of future capital costs between existing users and new development. The buy-in or reimbursement fee component is determined by dividing the value of available capacity in the existing system by the estimated growth units to build out of the City. The improvement fee component is determined by dividing the value of future capacity costs by the estimated growth units (equivalent dwelling units or EDUs). The methodology General Plan pays its fair share of the water supply, water and wastewater treatment capacity, and the water and wastewater facility capital improvements from which they will benefit. The sequential steps used to calculate the fees for both water and wastewater facilities are: 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 10 1. Define the area of benefit (such as citywide or area specific). 2. Determine existing and future demographics of the area of benefit. 3. Determine the residential and non-residential Equivalent Dwelling Units used to calculate the development impact fee(s). In addition, the calculation of the water development impact fee includes: 1. Determine the water supply requirements for existing users and future development and allocate the supplies according to policies in the 2010 Water and Wastewater Management Element. 2. Determine the cost of the water supplies and required facilities and improvements for the area of benefit. 3. Allocate the costs of the water supply, required facilities and improvements to existing and future development. 4. Calculate development impact fee. Similarly, the calculation of the wastewater development impact fee includes: 1. Determine existing and future wastewater generation (flow). 2. Determine the cost of the required facilities and improvements for the area of benefit. 3. Allocate the cost of the required facilities and improvements to existing and future development (based on flow). 4. Calculate development impact fee. 2.2 Existing and Future Demographics oth existing and planned development are addressed as part of the nexus analysis. This section of the study organizes information on existing and planned development to provide a framework for the impact fee analysis. The information forms a basis for analyzing facility needs and allocating the cost of water supplies, water treatment, and capital facilities for wastewater collection and treatment between existing and future development and among types of new development. Land use and development data is General Plan and information ommunity Development Department and GIS Division. Demographic data is based on 2010 data from the US Census Bureau. Data on existing and planned development used in this study represent the best available estimate of existing and planned development as of April 2013. Based on data from the US Census Bureau (2010), the 2010 population of the City was 45,119, with 20,553 total housing units and an average of 2.21 persons per household. The projects the build-out of 3,432 additional housing units of which 1,476 are single family units and 1,956 are multi-family units (City of San Luis Obispo, General Plan, Housing Element, Table M, 2010). Previously, the General Plan forecast a build-out population of 57,200 people, based on 2.3 persons per household (City of San Luis Obispo, General Plan, Land Use Element, Table 2). Using the 2010 rate of persons per household of 2.21 (US 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 11 Census Bureau, 2010), population of the City would reach 53,700 residents at build-out. Table 4 provides the percentage breakdown between existing and estimated future population growth. Table 4: Existing and Future C ity Populatio n City Population Percent of Total City Population Existing (2010) 45,418 1 85% Future (Build out) 8,282 15% Total 53,700 Sources: 1. US Census Bureau (2010), City of San Luis Obispo population data. 2. US Census Bureau (2010), household size data for the City of San Luis Obispo and City of San Luis Obispo, General Plan, Housing Element, 2010, Appendix 1, Table M; per the formula below. 8,282 Future Population = 3,432 Additional Housing Units x 2.21 Persons Per Household 2.3 Study Area, Time Frame, and Area of Benefit The City of San Luis Obispo is positioned for growth through intensification/infill development, development in the Margarita, Airport and Orcutt Specific Plan areas, including areas annexed, and future development in unincorporated areas that are . The area addressed in this study includes the City and its sphere of influence. The planning horizon for this analysis extends to build-out of all undeveloped land within this area. - currently undeveloped or underdeveloped land in the study area has be developed as indicated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. That condition is used to establish the potential for additional service demand related to future development. The time required for build-out depends on the rate at which development occurs. This study does not project a target date for build-out, because of the uncertainty involved in making such projections for long periods. 2.4 Demand Variables and Impact Factors Capacity needs for different components of the water and wastewater systems are determined using different measures of water demand and flow generation (e.g., per capita water use or peak flow to the Water Reclamation Facility). The most common way of summarizing the impact of development on these systems is in terms of average daily demand. Consequently, the demand variable used in this analysis is average water demand per unit of development in gallons per day (GPD), which can be also aggregated into millions of gallons per day (MGD). 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 12 In this Study, quantities of existing and future development are measured in terms of certain units of development, water use factors to estimate wastewater flow generation, or per capita water use. Those units are discussed below. Per Capita Water Use Per capita water use is the amount of water used in gallons per person per day. It is calculated by dividing the amount of treated water produced at the Water Treatment Facility study it is used to forecast water consumption for future development. Wastewater Generation Factors Wastewater generation factors are used to estimate residential and non- residential wastewater flows as shown in Table 5. These factors are estimated by reviewing similar indoor water use rates for residential uses and water consumption for non-residential land use classifications and the associated building square footage. Acreage Land area is a fundamental attribute of all types of development. Net acreage, representing the useable acreage of a development site after dedication of street right-of-way, is used in this study as the standard unit of development for non-residential land use categories. Building Area For non-residential development, building area in square feet is used to represent non-residential development in some situations. However, acreage is used as the standard unit of development for non-residential development. In some cases, data is converted from one type of development unit to another. Some types of factors used in those conversions are discussed below. Floor Area Ratio Floor area ratio (FAR) is a factor that represents the relationship between building area and site area for non-residential development. For example, a FAR of 0.24:1 (or more commonly just 0.24) indicates that building area is 24 percent of site area. At a FAR of 0.24, each acre (43,560 square feet) of site area would convert to 10,454 (43,560 x 0.24) square feet or 10.45 KSF of building area. Dwelling Units The dwelling unit (DU) is the most commonly-used measure of residential development, and is the standard unit of development for residential development in this study. 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 13 Tab le 5: Was tewate r Ge neration Fac to rs Land Use Type Unit Factor Average Daily Flow in Gallons Per Day (gpd) Residential, Single Family Dwelling 1 Dwelling Unit 150 Residential, Multi Family Dwelling 1 Dwelling Unit 105 Residential, Second Unit Dwelling Unit 45 Non-Residential, Retail 1,000 SF of Floor Area 60 Non-Residential, Business Park 1,000 SF of Floor Area 54 Non-Residential, Service/Manufacturing 1,000 SF of Floor Area 54 Sources: 1. City of San Luis Obispo, Utilities Department, Monthly Utility Billing data (calculated from customer average winter water consumption data), 2013. 2. City of San Luis Obispo, Utilities Department, Monthly Utility Billing data (calculated from non- residential consumption data), 2013. 2.5 Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) Concept Equivalent Dwelling Units, or EDUs, are the units of measure that standardize land use categories to the level of demand created by one single-family dwelling unit. EDUs are used to calculate development impact fees for both water and wastewater in accordance with the probable demand that a user places on the water or wastewater systems by assignment of an equivalency factor relative to single- family dwelling. The quantity of water associated with an EDU is system specific based on water demand. For San Luis Obispo in 2012, the equivalency factor for a multi-family residential unit is equal to its average annual water consumption (0.12 acre feet per year) divided by average annual water consumption for a single family residential unit (0.17 acre feet per year), or 0.70 (70 percent). For mobile homes this rate is 60 percent or 0.6, and for Studio/Secondary Dwelling Unit 30 percent or 0.3. Table 6: Equ ivalenc y F actors for Res idential Un it Type s Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Utility Billing Data, 2012. Residential Unit Type Average Annual Water Consumption in 2012 (in acre feet/year) Equivalency Factor Single-family residential unit 0.17 1.0 Multi-family residential unit 0.12 0.70 Mobile Home 0.10 0.60 Studio unit (450 square feet or less) 0.05 0.30 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 14 To establish a rational nexus for non-residential land uses, this study uses the capacity requirements by meter size. Industry standards (American Water Works Association AWWA) indicate the average and maximum available water supply in gallons per minute of flow by meter size. The ¾-inch meter size is utilized in this fee study to represent one non-residential EDU. Water meter flow rates (in gallons per minute) based on the AWWA C712-10 specifications for cold water, single jet type meters are used to calculate the ratios and impact fees for water meters larger than ¾-inch. 2.6 Calculating Existing and Future EDUs Based on data from Table M of the s Housing Element (2010), 3,432 single and multi-family residential 2013 and build-out. It is estimated that of this amount 1,476 will be single-family units and 1,956 will be multi-family units (including mobile homes and studio/secondary units). Since the water demand of a multi-family unit is equal to 70 percent of one single-family dwelling unit (0.70 EDU), the total of future residential EDUs 2,845 as shown in Table 7. Table 7: Futu re R esidential ED U Residential Unit Type Future Housing Units Equivalency Factor Future Residential EDUs Single-family residential unit 1,476 1.0 1,476 Multi-family residential unit 1,956 0.70 1,369 Total 3,432 Units 2,845 EDUs Note: Includes future mobile homes and studio units. Source: City of San Luis Obispo, General Plan, Housing Element, Table M, 2010. The water demand of non-residential development varies, therefore non-residential EDUs are established using a ratio from the American Water Works Association (AWWA) specifications C7 12-10 for cold water single-jet type meters is based on demand. Table 8 displays the meter size, flow rate, and EDU ratio for each meter size as well as the assignment of an equivalency factor to each meter size, as determined by the capacity of the water meter. For example, a four inch meter has a flow rate of 500 gpm and an equivalency factor of 16.7 (500/30 = 16.7 EDU). 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 15 Tab le 8: Non-Residential ED U Ratios Bas ed on Me ter S ize Meter Size (in Inches) Flow Rate in Gallons per Minute Equivalency Factor ¾ 30 1 1 50 1.7 1.5 100 3.4 2 160 5.4 3 320 10.7 4 500 16.7 6 1,000 33.4 Source: American Water Works Association, rounded to one decimal. In order to determine the number of non-residential EDUs, this Study divides the Water Reclamation Facility Master Plan projected capacity of 5.55 MGD less the Cal Poly capacity interest of 0.471 MGD to derive a balance of 5.08 million gallons per day. This total was divided by the average daily flow one EDU of 150 gallons per day to calculate the total future EDUs (6,927 EDU). Non-residential EDUs are then determined by subtracting the estimated number of future residential EDU (2,845) from the total future EDUs to arrive at the future non-residential EDUs (4,082). Table 9 shows the existing and future breakdown and totals for residential and non- residential EDUs. Non-Residential EDU = Total EDU - Residential EDU Table 9: Ex isting and F uture Eq uivale nt Dwe lling Un its Existing EDUs Future EDUs Total EDUs Residential EDUs 18,105 2,845 1 20,950 Non-residential EDUs 8,828 4,082 12,916 Total 26,933 6,927 2 33,860 Source: 1. City of San Luis Obispo, General Plan, Housing Element, Table M, 2010. 2. Water Reclamation Facility Master Plan (May, 2011) projected capacity of 5.55 MGD less Cal Poly capacity interest of 0.471 MGD for a total of 5.079 MGD. This total was divided by the average daily flow generated by one EDU of 150 gallons per day for a total of 6,927 EDU. 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 16 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 17 Section 3: Water Supply and System Facilities 3.1 Introduction The City Department provides water service to City residents and businesses within the City limits and to the County Airport and California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly). Cal Poly does, however, provide its own source of supply, onsite storage, and distribution facilities to meet its on-campus water demands. If an area outside the City limits wants to receive water service, that area must be annexed to the City, with the exception being customers who have made prior agreements with the City. Raw water is treated at the Stenner Canyon Water Treatment Plant, with subsequent conveyance of potable water via the water distribution system. The existing water distribution system is divided into pressure zones across the service area and incorporates pump stations and pressure-reducing valves that interconnect pressure zones for the mutual benefit of improving delivery pressures, flow capacities, fire flow, and storage to the entire water system. For this reason, the service area for determining water impact fees for future development is a composite of the planning areas and infill development. There are two components of the Water Development Impact Fee, Water Supply and Water System Facilities. 3.2 Water Supply Requirements for Existing and Future Development When the City added recycled water to its water supply portfolio in 2006 it was the Nacimiento Pipeline Project in 2010, Nacimiento Reservoir became the newest City water supply. Today, the City has four primary water sources, Salinas, Whale Rock and Nacimiento Reservoirs and recycled water. Accounting for siltation, total Water Resource Availability is 9,980 acre feet, as provided in Table 10. Tab le 10: Water S upply Re s ource Ava ilability Water Supply Acre Feet Description Salinas & Whale Rock Reservoirs 6,940 Safe Annual Yield Nacimiento Reservoir 3,380 Contractual Limit Recycled Water 160 2011 Annual Usage Siltation (to 2060) 1 (500) WWME Policy A 4.2.2 Total 9,980 2 Source: 1. City of San Luis Obispo, Utilities Department, Water Resources Status Report, 2012. Notes: 1. City of San Luis Obispo, General Plan, Water and Wastewater Management Element, policy A4.2.4, 2010. 2. City of San Luis Obispo, Water Resource Status Report, 2012. 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 18 Existing and future population is used to calculate the allocation of water supplies and costs between existing users and future development. Table 11 summarizes water supply demand between existing users and future development. Tab le 11: Wate r S upply S um mary at Build -out Existing Demand (AFY) Future Demand (AFY) Total (AFY) Primary Water Supply 1 6,049 1,103 7,152 Secondary Water Supply 2 1,182 216 1,398 Reliability Reserve 3 1,210 221 1,430 Total 8,441 1,539 9,980 Sources: 1. City of San Luis Obispo, General Plan, Water and Wastewater Management Element, policy A5.2.2, 2010. 2. City of San Luis Obispo, General Plan, Water and Wastewater Management Element, policy A5.2.3, 2010. 3. City of San Luis Obispo, General Plan, Water and Wastewater Management Element, policy A5.2.4, 2010. 3.3 Cost of the Water Supply for the Area of Benefit Two sources are included in the cost calculation for the water supply development impact fee; recycled water and the Nacimiento Pipeline Project since the added water supply of these projects enables the City to meet the General Plan build-out goals. Table 12 provides the costs of these projects, including their financing costs. Table 12: Co s t o f Water Supp ly Project Project Cost Financing Cost (Interest) Total Cost Water Reuse Project $9,308,343 1 $2,223,757 2 $11,532,100 Nacimiento Pipeline Project $83,740,000 3 $66,139,8283 $149,879,829 Total $161,411,929 Sources: 1. City of San Luis Obispo, FinancePlus System, funding for Project 99124 less $2.9 million grant, 2006. 2. , 2007. 3. County of San Luis Obispo, 2010. share of the approximately $362.5 million Nacimiento Pipeline project. 3.4 Allocation of Cost of Water Supply between Existing Users and Future Development As presented in Table 10, the availability and cost of the recycled water and Nacimiento Pipeline Projects are allocated to existing users and future development 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 19 by General Plan, Water and Wastewater Management Element policies A5.2.2 through A5.2.4 which state: A 5.2.1 Water Use Rate The City will calculate the per capita water use rate based on a ten- A 5.2.2 Primary Water Supply The City shall establish the amount of water needed for General Plan build-out using the water use rate established in Policy A 5.2.1 multiplied by the projected General Plan build-out population identified in the Land Use Element. A 5.2.3 Reliability Reserve The City will establish a reliability reserve that is 20-percent of the water use rate established in Policy A 5.2.1 multiplied by the current population. The water supply designated as the reliability reserve may not be used to serve future development. A 5.2.4 Secondary Water Supply After accounting for primary water supply and a reliability reserve, any remaining water supplies shall be utilized for meeting short-term water supply shortages or peak water demands. The data used to calculate the ten-year running average of per capita water use (118.9 gpd) for 2003 through 2012 is included in Appendix A. Table 12 provides the methodology to allocate the water supply requirements in Table 10 (minus the existing primary water supplies for existing users) proportionately in order to allocate the costs of these water supplies between existing users and future development. T able 13: A llo c atio n o f Wate r Supp ly Require ments (in Acre Feet) Existing Future Total Primary Water Supplies 0 * 1,103 1,103 Secondary Water Supplies 1,182 216 1,398 Reliability Reserve 1,210 221 1,430 Total 2,392 1,539 3,931 Percent 61% 39% Note: The Primary Water Supply component for existing development was satisfied by water supplies New water supplies provide secondary water supply and a reliability reserve to both existing and future development. Only the cost of new water supplies (in Table 9) is attributed here as the City does not carry any cost/debt from prior water supplies (Whale Rock and Salinas reservoirs). Source: City of San Luis Obispo, General Plan, Water and Wastewater Management Element, 2010. 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 21 Table 16 includes the water supply impact fees for non-residential development based on meter size per the American Water Works Association ratio discussed in Section 2. Table 16:Non-residential Water Supp ly Impact Fee S c hedule Meter Size Equivalency Factor Water Supply Fee 1.0 $9,124 1.7 $15,511 3.4 $31,022 5.4 $49,270 10.7 $97,628 16.7 $152,373 33.4 $304,746 Source:The equivalency factor is based on the AWWA C712-10 specifications for cold water single-jet type meters. Further information is provided in Section 2 of this Study. Notes:The calculation of the non-residential water supply development impact fee uses the equivalency factors for future non-residential development from Table 8, the portion of the Water Supply Costs allocated to future development ($63,201,035) from Table 14, and the total future EDU (6,927 EDU) from Table 9; per the formula below. Water Supply Development Impact Fee = Equivalency Factor x Total Water Supply Future Cost /Total Future EDU 3.6 Existing Facilities and the Cost of Required Facilities for the Area of Benefit Raw water supplied by the Nacimiento Reservoir pipeline, Whale Rock and Salinas Reservoirs; Stenner Canyon water treatment plant; Distribution mains delivering treated water Water service lines and meters Storage tanks Pump stations Transmission mains that deliver the raw water to the water treatment plant, and Groundwater wells. with a total nominal capacity of about 26.25 million gallons, 10 booster pumping stations, 20 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 22 pressure regulating stations, and approximately 183 miles of pipeline to deliver nd non-residential development. The 2000 Water System Master Plan identifies water treatment facilities required to accommodate future development in the City. These include: New 3.0 million gallon clearwell at the water treatment plant; New processes at the water treatment plant; and Other water treatment plant upgrades and expansions. Also included in the cost for future development is the Bishop Tank project. The allocation of the costs are based on the percentage breakdown between existing and estimated future population growth from Table 4 (85 percent to existing, 15 percent to future) with the exception of the Sedimentation Process which is allocated 50 percent to existing users and 50 percent to future development based on the water quality requirements and need to use this process when treating Salinas and Nacimiento Reservoirs water. Table 17 summarizes the costs for the water treatment and facilities attributed to future development. Table 17:Wate r F ac ilit y Co s ts Description Project Cost Financing Cost (Interest) Total Cost Allocated to Existing Allocated to Future 2006 Water Treatment Plant Improvements 1 $13,346,800 $11,495,700 $24,842,500 $21,005,111 $3,831,389 Sedimentation Process 2 $3,972,300 $3,804,400 $7,776,700 $3,888,350 $3,888,350 2007 Bishop Tank $1,502,100 - $1,502,100 $1,270,435 $231,665 1994 Water Treatment Plant Upgrade $10,890,000 $11,676,900 $22,566,900 $19,086,470 $3,480,430 Total $29,711,200 $26,977,000 $56,688,200 $45,256,367 $11,431,833 Source:City of San Luis Obispo, Utilities Department, 2013. Notes: 1. The 2006 Water Treatment Plant Improvements project was completed in 2008, at a cost of $32,619,200, funded as follows: 2006 Water Revenue Bonds (based on principal amount of $15,464,900 and financing costs of $15,300,100), and; $1,854,200 paid in cash. 2. The Sedimentation Process was a component of the 2006 Water Treatment Plant Improvement project. The costs for this component were allocated equally between existing and future development (50% existing, 50% future) based on the water quality requirements and need to use this process when treating Salinas and Nacimiento Reservoirs water. 3. The Bishop Water Tank was completed in 2007, at a cost of $1,489,400, paid for with cash. 4. The Water Treatment Plant Upgrade project was completed in 1994, at a cost of $22,566,900, funded as follows: 1993 Water Revenue Bond refunded in 2002 (based on original principal amount of $10,890,000 and financing costs of $11,676,900) September 2009 - principal and interest balance outstanding: $9,650,200. 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 23 3.7 Water Facilities Development Impact Fee The cost of water facilities attributable to future development, ($11,431,833 from Table 14) future development in the City (6,927 EDU from Table 9) to determine the cost per EDU. The equivalency factors for other residential categories are then applied to this unit cost to determine the residential fees per dwelling unit. Table 18 summarizes the residential water supply portion of the water development impact fee. Table 19 provides the non-residential development impact fee schedule based on meter size. Table 18: Residential W a ter Fac ilit ies F ee Equivalency Factor Water Facility Fee Single-family residential unit 1.0 $1,650 Multi-family residential unit 0.70 $1,155 Mobile Home 0.60 $990 Studio 450 sq. ft. or less 0.30 $495 Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Utilities Department, 2013. Note: The calculation of the residential water facilities development impact fee uses the equivalency factors for future residential development from Table 9, the portion of the Water Facilities Costs allocated to future development ($11,431,833) from Table 17, and the total future EDU (6,927 EDU) from Table 9; per the formula below. Water Facility Development Impact Fee = Equivalency Factor x Total Water Facility Future Cost / Total Future EDU Table 19: N o n-Residential Wate r Fac ilit ies F ee Water Meter Size Equivalency Factor Water Facility Fee 1.0 $1,650 1.7 $2,806 3.4 $5,611 5.4 $8,912 10.7 $17,659 16.7 $27,561 33.4 $55,123 Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Utilities Department, 2013. Note: The calculation of the non-residential water facilities development impact fee uses the equivalency factors for future non- residential development from Table 8, the portion of the Water Facilities Costs allocated to future development ($11,431,833) from Table 17, and the total future EDU (6,927 EDU) from Table 9; per the formula below. 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 24 Water Facility Development Impact Fee = Equivalency Factor x Total Water Facility Future Cost / Total Future EDU 3.8 Water Development Impact Fees Totals Table 20 provides a summary of the water supply and facilities development impact fees. Tab le 20: Water D evelo pment Impact F ees To ta ls Residential Unit Unit Type Equivalency Factor Water Facilities Fee Water Supply Fee Total Citywide Fee Single-family unit 1 $1,650 $9,124 $ 10,775 Multi-family unit 0.7 $1,155 $6,387 $7,542 Mobile Home 0.6 $990 $5,474 $6,465 Studio Unit < 450 sq. ft. 0.3 $495 $2,737 $3,232 Non-Residential Unit Meter Size Equivalency Factor Water Facilities Fee Water Supply Fee Total Citywide Fee 1 $1,650 $9,124 $10,775 1 1.7 $2,806 $15,511 $18,317 3.4 $5,611 $31,022 $36,633 5.4 $8,912 $49,270 $58,182 10.7 $17,659 $97,628 $115,287 16.7 $27,561 $152,373 $179,934 33.4 $55,123 $304,746 $359,869 Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Utilities Department, 2013. Note: Totals from Tables 15, 16, 18, and 19. 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 25 Section 4: Wastewater Facilities 4.1 Introduction The City provides wastewater collection and treatment service for residents and businesses located within the City, as well as the County Airport and Cal Poly1. The collection system contains more than 136 miles of sewer lines and nine lift stations. One additional lift station is planned in the future to serve the southernmost portion lity (WRF), located on Prado Road near Highway 101, provides tertiary wastewater treatment. The WRF was last upgraded in 1993 to meet various treatment requirements. In 2013, the WRF has an average dry weather flow capacity of 5.1 million gallons per day (MGD) and a peak wet weather flow capacity of 22 MGD. An upgrade of the WRF is planned in response to stricter discharge limits required by the Central Coast Water Board (CCW population at General Plan build-out, and to replace existing aged facilities at the end of their service life. The Water Reclamation Facility Master Plan was prepared to identify these upgrades and associated costs. Study and design phases of these improvements is scheduled to begin in 2013-14, with construction anticipated in 2016-17. In additional to the upgrade of the WRF, the City has constructed and anticipates additional necessary catchment-area specific improvements to accommodate future development within the City. These catchment areas (see Appendix B) are regions with wastewater mains, lift stations, and force mains that collect wastewater from identified areas of the City. Each catchment area varies in the amount of flow contributions to the WRF, due to its applicable topography and land uses. The wastewater catchment areas are as follows: 1. Margarita 2. Tank Farm 3. Silver City 4. Calle Joaquin 5. Laguna , and Orcutt Specific Plan areas, do not coincide with wastewater catchment area boundaries. The cost of wastewater improvements are allocated to future development based on the fair share of flow generation in the catchment areas. Detailed data on the existing and future development within each catchment area is included in Appendix B. This data includes the existing and future average daily flow in gallons for each of the catchment areas. 1 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 26 4.2 Wastewater Flow Generation To establish the existing baseline wastewater generation at the WRF, the City utilized the average daily influent flow records for the past 13 years (2000 through 2012). This data showed that average flows to the WRF totaled 4.39 MGD. In order to identify the baseline wastewater flows generated by the City, Cal wastewater flow of 0.350 MGD was subtracted from the overall flow. Therefore, the is 4.04 MGD. Total Existing Flow 4.39 MGD - Cal Poly Existing Flow 0.350 MGD = City Existing Flow 4.040 MGD Future wastewater generation is calculated by subtracting the baseline wastewater generation of 4.04 MGD from the estimated capacity identified in the Water Reclamation Facility Master Plan (minus Cal Poly contracted capacity of 0.471 MGD) of 5.079 MGD. Total Future Flow 5.55 MGD - Cal Poly Capacity Interest 0.471 MGD = City Future Flow 5.079 MGD Table 21 summarizes of the existing and future flows to the WRF. The identified percentages will be used to calculate the allocation of costs for the WRF upgrades between existing users and all future development in the City regardless of whether future development is within a catchment area served by a lift station or the wastewater flows by gravity to the WRF. Tab le 21: Exis ting a nd Future Was tewa ter Gene ration Existing Wastewater Generation 1 Additional Future Wastewater Generation Future Wastewater Generation 4.040 MGD 1.039 MGD 5.079 MGD 79.5% 20.5% Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Utilities Department, Water Reclamation Facility Master Plan, Brown and Caldwell, May 2011. Note: 1. Existing average daily flow to the WRF for 2000 through 2012, less Cal Poly average wastewater flow, where the average was taken over eight years. 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 27 The allocation of the costs for the Water Reclamation Facility Master Plan improvements is based on the percentage breakdown between existing and estimated future wastewater flows shown in Table 21. Table 22 summarizes the cost allocation between existing users and future development. T able 22: Water Rec lamation Master Plan I mpro veme nts Co s ts Master Plan Improvement Cost Financing Cost (Interest) Total Cost Existing (79.5%) 4 Future (20.5%) 4 Studies $150,000 1 $60,515 3 $210,516 $ 167,418 $ 43,097 Design $3,500,000 1 $1,412,034 3 $4,912,034 $ 3,906,420 $ 1,005,613 Construction- Infrastructure $15,590,000 1 $6,289,603 3 $21,879,603 $ 17,400,314 $ 4,479,288 Construction- Nutrient Removal $39,460,0001 $15,919,675 3 $55,379,675 $ 44,042,103 $ 11,337,571 Construction Management $4,500,000 1 $1,815,4723 $6,315,472 $ 5,022,540 $ 1,292,931 Unit #32 $15,463,200 $5,675,800 $21,139,000 $ 16,811,330 $ 4,327,669 Unit #42 $12,332,800 $4,085,800 $16,418,600 $ 13,057,311 $ 3,361,288 Total $90,996,000 $35,258,900 $126,254,900 $100,407,440 $25,847,460 Sources: 1. City of San Luis Obispo, 2013-15 Financial Plan, Capital Improvement Plan. 2. State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loans, 1991 Water Reclamation Facility Upgrade 3. City of San Luis Obispo, Utilities Department, 2013. 4. Cost apportionment from Table 21. 4.3 Citywide Treatment Development Impact Fee Calculation The net cost of the Water Reclamation Facility Master Plan facilities attributable to future development ($25,847,460) was divided by the total EDUs anticipated as a result of development within the area of benefit (6,927 EDUs) to calculate the unit cost per EDU. The EDU equivalency factors for other residential categories were then applied to this unit cost to determine the residential fees per EDU. Table 23 summarizes the residential portion of the citywide Wastewater Development Impact Fee. Table 24 provides the non-residential impact schedule based on meter size. Table 23: Citywide Wastewater Re s idential Deve lopme nt Impact Fee Residential Unit Type Equivalency Factor Impact Fee Single-family unit 1.0 $3,729 Multi-family unit 0.7 $2,610 Mobile Home 0.6 $2,237 Studio Unit (450 sq. ft. or less) 0.3 $1,119 Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Utilities Department, 2013. 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 28 Table 24:Citywide Non-Residential De ve lo pment I mpact Fe e Meter Size Equivalency Factor Impact Fee 1.0 $3,729 1.7 $6,339 3.4 $12,678 5.4 $20,135 10.7 $39,897 16.7 $62,270 33.4 $124,540 Source:City of San Luis Obispo, Utilities Department, 2013. NOTE: all non-residential uses. Non-residential uses include manufacturing and processing operations which may produce higher strength wastewater discharges to the City's sanitary sewer system. As discharge strength varies considerably between non-residential uses, the City has elected to eliminate this surcharge. The City continues to require manufacturing, processing, institutional, commercial businesses or any operation where the wastewater discharged includes significant quantities of waste of non-human origin to be permitted as part of the pretreatment program. 4.4 Wastewater Facility Improvements by Catchment Area In the 2004 Fee Study,dd on fees were attributed to each of Planning Areas served by particular wastewater facilities. In this study, the Planning Areas are assigned more specifically to the catchment area served by lift stations. The 2004 Fee Study included the Edna Islay planning area which is built out in 2013. Portions of the Margarita Planning Area flow to the Margarita, Silver City, and Tank Farm catchment areas. In order to project future wastewater flow in each catchment area, the five catchment areas were mapped in the hic information system (see figures in Appendix B) and existing water consumption data from Utility Billing System was analyzed for each catchment area. For the purposes of this Study, parcels with existing water consumption (available from monthly water meter reads) were considered developed and parcels with no water consumption were considered undeveloped. January 2012 water consumption data for each address was used to represent existing wastewater flow as it most closely reflects indoor water usage only. Table 25:Planning Are as and Catc hment Are as Planning Area 1,2 Catchment Area 3 Airport Tank Farm Lift Station Margarita Margarita Lift Station Silver City Lift Station Tank Farm Lift Station Dalidio Laguna Lift Station Madonna Laguna Lift Station McBride Calle Joaquin Lift Station Irish Hills Calle Joaquin Lift Station Orcutt Tank Farm Lift Station Sources: 1. City of San Luis Obispo, Wastewater Master Plan Update, Brown and Caldwell, October 2000. 2. City of San Luis Obispo, Wastewater Master Plan Update (Airport Area), Brown and Caldwell, October 2009. 3. City of San Luis Obispo, Utilities Department, 2013. 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 29 base was used to identify the acreage and land use for each General Plan, Housing Element (Appendix B, Table M, Summary of Residential Capacity by Parcel, by Subarea) was used to identify the number of future residential units for residentially zoned property. For non-residential land uses, a floor area ratio was assigned to each land use to identify the square footage of future development on each parcel. Based on this square footage, the future wastewater flow was projected based on the wastewater generation factor for the different land use types from Table 5. To allocate the costs to the specific areas of benefit, the number of future residential dwelling units or non-residential square feet in each wastewater catchment area multiplied by the number of gallons per day of wastewater flow estimated for that particular land use type. The wastewater flow rates for each land use type is then summed to determine the average daily flow rate that is anticipated for each respective catchment area. The total wastewater flows for both existing and future development in each catchment area are summed in order to determine the percentage contributions, and thus, the percentage of catchment area facility costs, from existing and future development. Finally, the cost allocated to future development for each catchment area is then divided by the total flows from future development to determine the cost per gallon per day for each catchment area. To calculate the cost per EDU for each catchment area, the cost per gallon is multiplied by 150 (gallons per EDU). Both the Silver City and Calle Joaquin lift station deliver wastewater to the Laguna lift station, the calculations for determining existing and future wastewater flow for the Laguna catchment area include the demographics (and thus, total wastewater flows) for the Silver City and Calle Joaquin catchment areas. Table 26 provides flow data for existing and future development in each catchment area to support the cost allocation for the proposed catchment area-specific improvements. See Appendix B for detailed flow data. Table 26:Catchment Area Ex ist ing and Future Flows Wastewater Flow (gpd)% Margarita Catchment Area Existing Flow 26,529 49% Future Flow 28,110 51% Total Flow 54,639 Calle Joaquin Catchment Area Existing Flow 120,827 72% Future Flow 47,124 28% Total Flow 167,951 Silver City Catchment Area Existing Flow 122,971 71% Future Flow 50,427 29% Total Flow 173,398 Laguna Catchment Area Existing Flow 753,688 79% Future Flow 202,351 21% Total Flow 956,039 Tank Farm Catchment Area Existing Flow 330,092 42% Future Flow 460,001 58% Total Flow 790,093 Note:Future wastewater flows are based on the wastewater generation factors in Table 5. Source:City of San Luis Obispo, Utilities Department, 2013. 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 30 Table 27 includes the cost for facility improvements serving each catchment area. The total unit costs were then calculated for each of the five catchment areas. This calculation takes into account the allocated cost to future development for both the local (catchment area-specific) collection systems and the citywide costs. All fees for the various non-residential land uses in each catchment are determined by multiplying the single- family residential wastewater fee for such catchment area by its applicable EDU factor. Table 28 provides the citywide fee and summarizes the add-on fees for each catchment area for both residential and non-residential development. Table 28:Waste wate r Impact Fe e Totals Margarita Tank Farm Silver City Calle Joaquin Laguna Residential, Single Family 3,729$ 2,745$ 3,630$ 1,356$ 1,829$ 490$ Residential, Multi Family 2,610$ 1,922$ 2,541$ 949$ 1,280$ 343$ Mobile Home 2,237$ 1,647$ 2,178$ 814$ 1,097$ 294$ Studio Unit (450 sf or less) 1,119$ 824$ 1,089$ 407$ 549$ 147$ Margarita Tank Farm Silver City Calle Joaquin Laguna 5/8" to 3/4"3,729$ 2,745$ 3,630$ 1,356$ 1,829$ 490$ 1" $ 6,339 $ 4,667 $ 6,171 $ 2,305 $ 3,109 $ 833 1-1/2" $ 12,306 $ 9,059 $ 11,979 $ 4,475 $ 6,036 $ 1,617 2" $ 19,764 $ 14,549 $ 19,239 $ 7,187 $ 9,694 $ 2,597 3" $ 39,900 $ 29,372 $ 38,841 $ 14,509 $ 19,570 $ 5,243 4" $ 62,274 $ 45,842 $ 60,621 $ 22,645 $ 30,544 $ 8,183 6" $ 124,176 $ 91,409 $ 120,879 $ 45,155 $ 60,906 $ 16,317 Citywide Fee Meter Size Additional Catchment Area Charges Land Use Type Citywide Fee Residential Unit Non-Residential Additional Catchment Area Charges Source:City of San Luis Obispo, Utilities Department, 2013. Table 27:Fac ilit y Costs by Catchment A rea Catchment Area Improvement Cost 1,2 Margarita $ 1,000,000 Calle Joaquin $ 1,500,000 Silver City $ 1,000,000 Laguna $3,121,300 Tank Farm $ 19,118,800 Notes: 1.Upgrades serving the Tank Farm and Laguna Catchment Areas were completed in 2009 and 2013 respectively. 2.An upgrade serving the Calle Joaquin Catchment Area is slated for construction in 2014. Sources: 1.City of San Luis Obispo, 2013-15 Financial Plan, Capital Improvement Plan. 2.City of San Luis Obispo, Utilities Department, 2013. 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 31 Section 5: References American Water Works Association, Water Basics for Decision Makers: Local Officials Guide to Water and Wastewater Systems 2009. CA Department of Finance, Table E-1. Available online at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/view.php City of San Luis Obispo, General Plan, Housing Element, April 2010. City of San Luis Obispo, General Plan, Water and Wastewater Management Element, July 2010. Water System Master Plan, City of San Luis Obispo, Boyle Engineering Corporation, October 2000. City of San Luis Obispo, Airport Area Specific Plan, August 2005. City of San Luis Obispo, General Plan, Land Use Element, June 2010. City of San Luis Obispo, Finance and Information Technology Department, GIS Division database (catchment area, acreage and zoning data), 2013. City of San Luis Obispo, Margarita Area Specific Plan, October 2004. City of San Luis Obispo, Orcutt Area Specific Plan, March 2010. City of San Luis Obispo, Utilities Department, Utility Billing Data on Water Consumption, 2012. City of San Luis Obispo, Wastewater Master Plan Update, Brown and Caldwell, October 2000. City of San Luis Obispo, Wastewater Master Plan Update (Airport Area), Brown and Caldwell, October 2009. City of San Luis Obispo, Water Reclamation Facility Master Plan Brown and Caldwell, May 2011. City of San Luis Obispo, Water and Wastewater AB1600 Fee Study Update, David Taussig & Associates, Inc. March 2002 US Bureau of the Census (2010). Available online at: http://www.census.gov/2010census Wastewater Development Impact Fees, Utilities Department, City of San Luis Obispo, June 2004. Water Development Impact Fees, Water Supply Component, City of San Luis Obispo, May 2012 (Appendix A). 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 32 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 33 Appendix A: Ten-Year Running Average Per Capita Water Use Water Source of Supply Impact Fee Assumptions: Table A1: 10-year Running Average In Gallons per Capita per Day (GPCD) Year Population 1 Water Production (in acre feet) 2 GPCD 2003 44,357 6,497.57 120 2004 44,298 6,802.10 126 2005 44,687 6,620.36 122 2006 44,559 6,507.08 120 2007 44,433 7,045.70 130 2008 44,579 6,974.42 127 2009 44,829 6728.75 122 2010 44,948 5,488.86 109 2011 45,418 5,284.56 104 2012 45,308 5,540.91 109 10-year Running Average 118.9 Sources: 1. CA Department of Finance, Table E-1. Available online at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/view.php 2. City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department, 2013. Note: 10-year Running Average water usage is based on policies in the City of San Luis General Plan, Water and Wastewater Management Element, adopted in 2010. 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 34 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 35 Appendix B: Catchment Areas and Flow Data Wastewater Flow (Gallons Per Day) % Facility Cost Apportionment Cost per EDU Existing Flow 26,529 49%485,532$ Future Flow 28,110 51%514,468$ 2,745$ Total Flow 54,639 1,000,000$ Existing Flow 120,827 72% 1,079,127$ Future Flow 47,124 28%420,873$ 1,829$ Total Flow 167,951 1,500,000$ Existing Flow 122,971 71%709,184$ Future Flow 50,427 29%290,816$ 1,355$ Total Flow 173,398 1,000,000$ Existing Flow 753,688 79% 2,460,660$ Future Flow 202,351 21%660,640$ 490$ Total Flow 956,039 3,121,300$ Tank Farm Catchment Area Existing Flow 330,092 42% 7,987,625$ Future Flow 460,001 58% 11,131,175$ 3,630$ Total Flow 790,093 19,118,800$ 788,012 72% 311,988 28% 1,100,000 NOTES: Margarita Catchment Area Calle Joaquin Catchment Area Silver City Catchment Area Laguna Catchment Area * The Laguna Catchment Area future flow Includes future flow from the Silver City and Calle Joaquin catchment areas. All Catchment Areas: Outside Catchment Areas: FUTURE WASTEWATER FLOW TOTALS (Gallons per Day): Future Additional WRF Capacity: 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study 36 LAWTONGARIBALDIPARKERESPERANZALEONADAVENPORT CREEKSHORTHORIZONEXPOSITIONTHREADBUSHNELLLOMPOCSYCAMOREOLD WINDMILLCRESTVIEWSANTA FE SHORT SHORT LOMPOCCAMBRIANOJOQUILOMPOC PARKERSHORT GARIBALDIFERNWOODSHORTTHREAD 494 From:Bernstorff, Rebecca Sent:Tuesday, September 26, 2023 8:24 AM To:Aiello, Antonio; Whittington, Shane Subject:RE: SLO Question on Water and Wastewater fee study Thank you!! Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Aiello, Antonio <AAiello@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 8:08 AM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Whittington, Shane <swhittin@slocity.org> Subject: RE: SLO Question on Water and Wastewater fee study RB, This should be what you are looking for. Let me know if anything else is needed! Kindly, Antonio Aiello, MBA Financial Analyst Public Utilities E: aaiello@slocity.org T: (805) 783-7806 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 7:33 PM 495 To: Aiello, Antonio <AAiello@slocity.org>; Whittington, Shane <swhittin@slocity.org> Subject: FW: SLO Question on Water and Wastewater fee study Hi Antonio and Shane, Do you know where the 2013 fee study for water and wastewater may be? I’m going to check our files but wanted to see if you had it on hand quicker. Thanks, Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Richard Ruiz <richard@financedta.com> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 6:01 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Cc: Leni Zarate <Leni@financedta.com> Subject: SLO Question on Water and Wastewater fee study This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Rebecca I am reviewing the methodologies presented in the 2017 Water and Wastewater fee Study. In it, it refers to the 2013 water study several times. Could you please provide us with the 2013 water study Thank you 496 Regards Richard Ruiz Jr Manager P: 800-969-4DTA x 213 18201 Von Karman # 220 Irvine, CA 92612 richard@financedta.com Did we meet your expectations? Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website. 497 From:Aiello, Antonio Sent:Tuesday, September 26, 2023 8:08 AM To:Bernstorff, Rebecca; Whittington, Shane Subject:RE: SLO Question on Water and Wastewater fee study Attachments:2013 Development Impact Fee Study_Final.pdf RB, This should be what you are looking for. Let me know if anything else is needed! Kindly, Antonio Aiello, MBA Financial Analyst Public Utilities E: aaiello@slocity.org T: (805) 783-7806 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 7:33 PM To: Aiello, Antonio <AAiello@slocity.org>; Whittington, Shane <swhittin@slocity.org> Subject: FW: SLO Question on Water and Wastewater fee study Hi Antonio and Shane, Do you know where the 2013 fee study for water and wastewater may be? I’m going to check our files but wanted to see if you had it on hand quicker. Thanks, Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 498 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Richard Ruiz <richard@financedta.com> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 6:01 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Cc: Leni Zarate <Leni@financedta.com> Subject: SLO Question on Water and Wastewater fee study This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Rebecca I am reviewing the methodologies presented in the 2017 Water and Wastewater fee Study. In it, it refers to the 2013 water study several times. Could you please provide us with the 2013 water study Thank you Regards Richard Ruiz Jr Manager P: 800-969-4DTA x 213 18201 Von Karman # 220 Irvine, CA 92612 richard@financedta.com 499 Did we meet your expectations? Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website. 500 From:Aiello, Antonio Sent:Tuesday, September 26, 2023 7:48 AM To:Bernstorff, Rebecca; Whittington, Shane Subject:RE: SLO Question on Water and Wastewater fee study Good morning, Rebecca, I will begin searching for it. My assumption would be that it is somewhere in the G Drive. Antonio Aiello, MBA Financial Analyst Public Utilities E: aaiello@slocity.org T: (805) 783-7806 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 7:33 PM To: Aiello, Antonio <AAiello@slocity.org>; Whittington, Shane <swhittin@slocity.org> Subject: FW: SLO Question on Water and Wastewater fee study Hi Antonio and Shane, Do you know where the 2013 fee study for water and wastewater may be? I’m going to check our files but wanted to see if you had it on hand quicker. Thanks, Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 501 From: Richard Ruiz <richard@financedta.com> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 6:01 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Cc: Leni Zarate <Leni@financedta.com> Subject: SLO Question on Water and Wastewater fee study This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Rebecca I am reviewing the methodologies presented in the 2017 Water and Wastewater fee Study. In it, it refers to the 2013 water study several times. Could you please provide us with the 2013 water study Thank you Regards Richard Ruiz Jr Manager P: 800-969-4DTA x 213 18201 Von Karman # 220 Irvine, CA 92612 richard@financedta.com Did we meet your expectations? 502 Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website. 517 From:Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com> Sent:Monday, September 25, 2023 12:09 PM To:Loew, Michael; Bernstorff, Rebecca Cc:Cindy Sconce Subject:Re: [EXTERNAL]RE: Building - Table 1 data Attachments:Copy of Building Safety User Fee Model FY24 9.25.23 DATA.xlsx; ca slo county_building_UF21 _FInal.xlsx Table 2 - Building flat fees: We're missing time estimates for a few fees. o Which are you referring to? - Table 2 rows 26, 46, 64, 107, 109, 122, 123, 153. Annual volume is missing o Working with IT on this - Perfect, thank you. Table 1 - Construction permits It looks like the construction categories changed compared to what you have on your current fee schedule. Just want to confirm. Is fire also on-board with these categories? They want to follow the same methodology. o I spoke with Rebecca about this on Friday and it is the direction we need to go. I don’t believe Fire will have any issue with this. - Ok great. Alt/Addition - Mixed Use - this category does not have any projects but there's percentages allocated to it. Will need to discuss this one. o It should be zeroed out. - Ok. Did you simply not have any projects in that category? We will have to discuss an alternative to cost this category out. Cindy recently had this happen in the City of Santa Rosa. I'll talk to her today and get back to you on this. Typical square feet on row 65 is missing. All I need here is just the square footage of a sample project within each category. On Row 70, I would then need the plan review and inspection fees you would currently charge for that project. This is only needed to show what your current fees look like compared to what our model is proposing. o I provided the total number of projects. I divided the total square foot by the total number of the projects, will an average work? o Need to work with IT on total fees. o I think there's a misunderstand on what I'm asking for here. What you provided helps us calculate the per square foot cost. All good there. What I'm asking for is just a single sample project and the fees associated with it. This will help us compare what you currently charge to what the model is proposing. See the SLO Co model attached. Column C & D is their residential single-family category. For this category, they provided us with a project that was 1907 sq ft - They then told us that for that 1907 sq ft project under the res. single family category they currently charge $1,648.59 for plan review and $2,214.68 for inspection. All I need from you is a single sample project's square footage for each category listed on table 1 (this goes on row 65) and the plan review/inspection fees the City would charge for a project of that size (this goes on row 70). Again, this sounds more complicated than what it actually is. If it still doesn't make sense, I'd be more than happy to jump on a quick call to explain and walk you through the example. General item: Can I get a revenue for building fees for last FY? I have also not received this. Ruben Rivas Manager 518 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 831.227.3911 Email: rrivas@mgtconsulting.com From: Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 11:34 AM To: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: Building - Table 1 data Ruben, please see my responses below. I am good to meet during either of the times tomorrow. Table 2 - Building flat fees: We're missing time estimates for a few fees. o Which are you referring to? Annual volume is missing o Working with IT on this Table 1 - Construction permits It looks like the construction categories changed compared to what you have on your current fee schedule. Just want to confirm. Is fire also on-board with these categories? They want to follow the same methodology. o I spoke with Rebecca about this on Friday and it is the direction we need to go. I don’t believe Fire will have any issue with this. Alt/Addition - Mixed Use - this category does not have any projects but there's percentages allocated to it. Will need to discuss this one. o It should be zeroed out. Typical square feet on row 65 is missing. All I need here is just the square footage of a sample project within each category. On Row 70, I would then need the plan review and inspection fees you would currently charge for that project. This is only needed to show what your current fees look like compared to what our model is proposing. o I provided the total number of projects. I divided the total square foot by the total number of the projects, will an average work? o Need to work with IT on total fees. General item: Can I get a revenue for building fees for last FY? I have also not received this. Overall, this is HUGE progress. But now we have to focus on resolving outstanding issues/items due. I recommend that we schedule a 30-minute meeting to discuss the items listed above. Here's my availability for this week: Tuesday - 8am-9am or 11pm-1pm Weds - 8am-9am or 2pm-5pm Thurs - 1pm-5pm CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 519 Let me know a time that works best for a 30min call. Mike Loew Deputy Director Chief Building Official Community Development E Mloew@slocity.org T 805.781.7157 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 10:46 AM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: Building - Table 1 data This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Good morning, First off, thank you for sending over the building data. After reviewing the document here are my initial comments: Table 2 - Building flat fees: We're missing time estimates for a few fees. Annual volume is missing Table 1 - Construction permits It looks like the construction categories changed compared to what you have on your current fee schedule. Just want to confirm. Is fire also on-board with these categories? They want to follow the same methodology. Alt/Addition - Mixed Use - this category does not have any projects but there's percentages allocated to it. Will need to discuss this one. Typical square feet on row 65 is missing. All I need here is just the square footage of a sample project within each category. On Row 70, I would then need the plan review and inspection fees you would currently charge for that project. This is only needed to show what your current fees look like compared to what our model is proposing. General item: Can I get a revenue for building fees for last FY? I have also not received this. Overall, this is HUGE progress. But now we have to focus on resolving outstanding issues/items due. I recommend that we schedule a 30-minute meeting to discuss the items listed above. 520 Here's my availability for this week: Tuesday - 8am-9am or 11pm-1pm Weds - 8am-9am or 2pm-5pm Thurs - 1pm-5pm Let me know a time that works best for a 30min call. Ruben Rivas Manager 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 831.227.3911 Email: rrivas@mgtconsulting.com County of San Luis Obispo Table 1 Construction Permits Planning & Building: Building fees FY 21-22 Budget Fee Study Source FY 2021 Appropriation $5,940,784 Hourly Rate Analysis Less cost of fixed price permit services TABLE 2 Mechanical $50,463 TABLE 3 Plumbing/Gas Permits $232,407 TABLE 4 Electrical $216,265 TABLE 5 Miscellaneous building permits $1,189,381 TABLE 6 Other building permit fees $121,440 Residual cost for Construction permits $4,130,829 = Total County Cost of Construction Permits $4,130,829 Cost to allocate $4,130,829 Inflation adjustment (CPI)0.0%<---- Enter target inflation rate for future year adjustments County Cost adjusted for inflation $4,130,829 copyright 2021 MGT Consulting Group, LLC Table 1 Construction Permits Occupancy Types in category Job Title Plan Review Inspection Plan Review Inspection Plan Review Inspection Plan Review Inspection Plan Review Inspection Building Division Supervisor Don Moore 23%12%2%1%5% Building Division Supervisor Michelle Freeman 21%5%5%1%5% Building Division Supervisor Mike Stoker 20%10%5%0%5% Division Manager - Building Cheryl Journey Environmental Health Specialist Michael Byrd 39%9%10%5%5%5%1%1%10%5% Inspector George Schriefer 23%15%2%1%10% Inspector John Robles 60%5%3%1%5% Inspector Juan Wade 49%18%3%0%5% Inspector Keith Ybaben 43%17%5%0%5% Inspector Kevin Method 80%20% Inspector Temo Flores 80%20% Inspector Todd Adams 28%20%2%0%3% Land Use Technician Angela McCormick 42%21%4%1%5% Land Use Technician Lane Sutherland 40%25%4%1%5% Land Use Technician Lizzy Trott 27%18%0%0%10% Land Use Technician Monica Hollenbeck 30%25%0%0%5% Plans Examiner Charles Riha 90%10% Plans Examiner Elizabeth Szwabowski 27%26%2%0%5% Plans Examiner Jim Albano 90%10% Plans Examiner Lauren Burrus 65%35% Plans Examiner Matt Varvel 23%21%4%1%5% Plans Examiner Sylvia Aldana 25%20%0% Program Manager II Anthony Schuetze 40%12%10%5%2%2%1%1%12%5% Raw percent 581%405%253%130%28% 27% 6% 5% 67% 43% Percent of Total 28%20%12%6%1% 1% 0% 0% 3% 2% Cost to allocate (see above) Alllocated cost 1,173,313$ 816,876$ 509,917$ 261,522$ 56,545$ 54,526$ 12,117$ 10,097$ 135,305$ 86,837$ Square feet of projects Cost per square foot, total $1.21 $0.84 $2.39 $1.23 $1.33 $1.28 $1.61 $1.34 $1.72 $1.11 Typical square feet 1907 1200 10000 4600 4000 PROPOSED FEE COST $2,309.17 $1,607.68 $2,869.74 $1,471.81 $13,282.56 $12,808.19 $7,391.25 $6,159.37 $6,891.95 $4,423.19 PLAN-REVIEW+INSPECTION $3,916.85 $4,341.54 $26,090.75 $13,550.62 $11,315.15 FEE SELECTED TO COMPARE dwellin, custom ag bldg/garage apartment bldg assmbly, lrg market CURRENT FEE AMOUNT $1,648.59 $2,214.68 $697.18 $755.78 $3,934.00 $5,742.00 $4,121.82 $2,708.56 $2,427.40 $2,784.60 PLAN-REVIEW+INSPECTION $3,863.27 $1,452.96 $9,676.00 $6,830.38 $5,212.00 B, M Percent of Time per Occupancy Type per Department 968,966 213,225 42,571 Residential (single family)Residential Accessory Structure Residential Assembly, High Hazard, Institutional Business, Mercantile 7,541 78,529 R-3 Residential accessory structure - U R-1, R-2, R-4 (multifamily)A, H, E, I, L copyright 2021 MGT Consulting Group, LLC copyright 2021 MGT Consulting Group, LLC Plan Review Inspection Plan Review Inspection Plan Review Inspection Plan Review Inspection Plan Review Inspection Plan Review Inspection Plan Review Inspection Plan Review Inspection Grand Total 5%5%1%5%5%5%2%70% 0% 70% 4%5%1%5%4%4%1% 0% 61% 61% 5%5%0%5%5%5%5%70% 0% 70% 0% 0%0% 5% 5%70% 30% 100% 10%5%1%10%10%10%3% 0% 100% 100% 5%5%0%5%5%5%1% 0% 100% 100% 5%5%0%5%5%5%0% 100% 100% 10%3%0%5%5%5%2% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% 5%10%0%10%10%10%3% 0% 100% 100% 5%5%1%5%5%5%1%100% 0% 100% 5%5%0%5%5%5%100% 0% 100% 5%10%0%10%10%10%0%100% 0% 100% 5%5%0%10%10%10%0%100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 10%10%0%10%5%5%100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 10%5%1%10%10%5%5%100% 0% 100% 45% 0% 45% 5% 5%70% 30% 100% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%0% 50% 39% 50% 33% 3% 2% 60% 40% 55% 39% 60% 49% 13% 10% 1225% 821% 2046% 2% 2%2% 2% 0% 0% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 1% 0% 60% 40% 4,130,829$ 100,974$ 78,759$ 100,974$ 66,643$ 5,049$ 3,029$ 121,168$ 80,779$ 111,071$ 78,759$ 121,168$ 98,954$ 26,253$ 20,195$ 4,130,829$ 905,879 $0.50 $0.39 $1.08 $0.72 $4.29 $2.57 $1.25 $0.83 $2.38 $1.69 $1.16 $0.95 $1.31 $1.01 10000 2000 1178 1500 1500 4000 5000 $5,020.01 $3,915.61 $2,167.00 $1,430.22 $5,048.68 $3,029.21 $1,869.82 $1,246.55 $3,573.56 $2,533.98 $4,630.22 $3,781.35 $6,563.28 $5,048.68 $8,935.62 $3,597.22 $8,077.89 $3,116.37 $6,107.53 $8,411.57 $11,611.96 ind/mfc/fctry comml green TI, A, Major TI, B TI, F shell $2,740.00 $1,887.50 $1,161.00 $1,165.00 $1,487.26 $1,314.72 $874.50 $878.50 $1,645.00 $657.45 $1,923.60 $1,119.40 $1,161.00 $1,165.00 $4,627.50 $2,326.00 $2,801.98 $1,753.00 $2,302.45 $3,043.00 $2,326.00 104,676 20,000 201,142 93,192 1,178 97,203 46,622 F, S U (commercial)TI for A, H, E, I B, M F, S Shell Factory and Industrial, Storage Utility & Misc (commercial accessory structure) Tenant Improvement Tenant Improvement Tenant Improvement Shell Cannabis Greenhouse Percent of Time per Occupancy Type per Department Total copyright 2021 MGT Consulting Group, LLC 521 From:White, Kelly Sent:Monday, September 25, 2023 11:13 AM To:Jamie Radcliff Cc:Rachel King Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF Study- G.G. Fees Time and Design It may be they are trying to resolve the issue of some CBOA issues being more complex and time intensive for staff than others. If he means to replace the single fee with a tiered fee for that reason, awesome. The single line we were looking at the other day can go away. Kelly White Senior Legal Analyst City Attorney's Office E kwhite@slocity.org T 805.781.7060 From: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 10:56 AM To: White, Kelly <kwhite@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF Study- G.G. Fees Time and Design Thanks, Kelly- This does help! However … Michael says the CBOA is under AddiƟonal Building Fees and they are working on a new Ɵered fee structure. We need to clarify whose Ɵme we are trying to capture under the General Government Fee because it seems like the process is listed on several fee schedules. Thoughts? Jamie Radcliff Manager Performance SoluƟons Group 432-208-8194 jradcliff@mgtconsulƟng.com Impacting Communities for Good The informaƟon contained in this electronic communicaƟon is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidenƟal communicaƟon. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby noƟfied that you have received this transmiƩal in error; any review, disseminaƟon, distribuƟon, or copying of this transmiƩal is strictly prohibited. From: White, Kelly <kwhite@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2023 4:22 PM 522 To: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF Study- G.G. Fees Time and Design Jamie – As you mentioned, the appeal tiers pictured are to contest planning decisions (and not administrative citations). At one point there were descriptions (or at least examples) of what falls within those tiers pictured. If it helps, the staff report for the 2017 fee study (posted here) went into it in detail starting on the bottom of page 2: Kelly White Senior Legal Analyst City Attorney's Office E kwhite@slocity.org T 805.781.7060 From: Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2023 1:42 PM To: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; White, Kelly <kwhite@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF Study- G.G. Fees Time and Design Hi Jamie, the Construction Board of Appeals fees are currently found under Additional Building Fees of our master fee schedule. Currently listed as Appeal of Building Official Decision, and Handicap Board of Appeals. There is a CBOA fee that is also listed under General Government Fees line item 16, but it is a flat fee. The fee that you have highlighted is not something I am familiar with for the CBOA. I am working on creating a tiered system for the CBOA as part of my current fee assessment assignment. I should have it wrapped up this weekend. Thanks, Mike Loew Deputy Director CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 523 Chief Building Official Community Development E Mloew@slocity.org T 805.781.7157 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2023 11:07 AM To: Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; White, Kelly <kwhite@slocity.org> Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF Study- G.G. Fees Time and Design Hi Michael: We have some quesƟons about the appeals fees on the General Government Fee Schedule. We have discussed the administraƟve appeals with Kelly in the aƩorney’s office, and she pointed me your direcƟon to discuss the construcƟon board of appeals. I reviewed the last study conducted and couldn’t see the exact name “ConstrucƟon Board of Appeals,” but I did see Appeals in four Ɵers under Planning. 524 Could you please outline what needs to be added below to encompass the construcƟon appeal process? Include processing steps, the posiƟon, and the review Ɵme. Kelly has already outlined the administraƟve appeal process below. I don’t want this to be difficult for you, so if it is easier to hop on a call we can do that! Let me know your preference. Thank you! Jamie Radcliff Manager Performance SoluƟons Group 432-208-8194 jradcliff@mgtconsulƟng.com Impacting Communities for Good The informaƟon contained in this electronic communicaƟon is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidenƟal communicaƟon. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby noƟfied that you have received this transmiƩal in error; any review, disseminaƟon, distribuƟon, or copying of this transmiƩal is strictly prohibited. 525 From: White, Kelly <kwhite@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 2:58 PM To: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com>; Purrington, Teresa <TPurring@slocity.org>; Nunez, Jacob <jnunez@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF Study- G.G. Fees Time and Design Jamie – Sorry again for being late this morning. I looked back and found the time study I did in 2018 and updated it. See below. It’s pretty much what I described in the meeting but with a little more thought to the numbers and order of the steps. It was initially color coded to drive the discussion of a potential Hearing Officer Review fee. I think knowing how much time is spent on that is important even if Council, from a policy perspective, choose not to charge it. Chart Color Meaning Identical step required for appeals heard by a Hearing Officer Similar step involving less people or formality required for appeals heard by a Hearing Officer Step only applies to the Administrative Review Board Processing Steps Done by Administrative Review Board Time Hearing Officer Review Time Appeal received by Clerk’s Office, logged and scanned to file Deputy City Clerk or Admin Assistant 5 min 5 min Appeal file established, data collected from appeal and reviewed by City Attorney’s Office staff, with appeal then being either: 1. Rejected as late or in some way invalid 2. Returned to appellant as incomplete with the possibility to correct 3. Routed to City staff in the citing department for collection of the administrative record Legal Assistant 15 min 15 min Administrative record collected by staff in the appropriate department and saved to the appeal file Various* 30 min 30 min Legal Assistant coordinates with ARB members to confirm a hearing date; issues a formal Notice of Hearing to the appellant Legal Assistant 45 min 20 min CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 526 Only scheduling with Hearing Officer Staff in the appropriate department draft a report for inclusion in the ARB agenda Various* 120 min NA Legal Assistant prepares and posts the agenda for first meeting (Hearing) Legal Assistant 30 min NA ARB members with questions about the upcoming hearing will pose them to Counsel who will need to analyze and respond Attorney 60 min NA Hearing held. Attended by: Three ARB members (unpaid volunteers) Counsel to the ARB (Attorney) Staff Liaison to the ARB (Legal Analyst) City staff member(s) presents their report (Various*) Counsel to staff (Deputy City Attorney) Recording Secretary (Legal Assistant) See list at left 60 min 20 min Only Legal Assistant attends; Hearing Officer is an unpaid volunterr Counsel to the ARB drafts a resolution capturing the decision of the Board Asst. City Attorney 120 min NA Minutes drafted Legal Assistant 45 min NA Legal Assistant prepares and posts the agenda for second meeting (review of resolution) Legal Assistant 30 min NA ARB members with feedback on the draft resolution pose them to Counsel who will analyze and respond; potentially drafting agenda correspondence Assist. City Attorney 30 min NA Second meeting held to review the resolution and to vote on its adoption. Attended by: Three ARB members (unpaid volunteers) Counsel to the ARB presents the draft resolution (Asst. City Attorney) Staff Liaison to the ARB (Legal Analyst) City staff member(s) (Various*) Counsel to staff (Deputy City Attorney) Recording Secretary (Legal Assistant) See list at left 20 min NA The adopted resolution is finalized by Legal Assistant for signature of the ARB Chair. Legal Assistant 15 min NA Notice of Decision issued Legal Assistant 20 min 20 min Minutes drafted Legal Assistant 45 min NA Records maintained for possible further appeal and, later, proper destruction Legal Assistant 15 min 15 min Additional questions from appellants will arrive throughout the process, usually by phone call Legal Assistant 10 min 10 min * Which City staff member issued the administrative citation determines which department/division holds the documents that make up the administrative record. For the ARB, the most common staff involved is Code Enforcement. If the Hearing Officer Review fee is studied, the staff collecting the records would most often be in Finance and the Police Department. 527 Kelly White Senior Legal Analyst City Attorney's Office E kwhite@slocity.org T 805.781.7060 -----Original Appointment----- From: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 2:07 PM To: Jamie Radcliff; White, Kelly; Purrington, Teresa; Nunez, Jacob Cc: Rachel King Subject: SLO UF Study- G.G. Fees Time and Design When: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 11:00 AM-12:00 PM (UTC-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada). Where: Microsoft Teams Meeting ________________________________________________________________________________ Microsoft Teams meeting Join on your computer, mobile app or room device Click here to join the meeting Meeting ID: Download Teams | Join on the web Learn More | Meeting options ________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________ From: White, Kelly <kwhite@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 2:29 PM To: Harnett, Natalie <nharnett@slocity.org>; Purrington, Teresa <TPurring@slocity.org>; Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com>; Nunez, Jacob <jnunez@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: General Government Fee Design Wednesday or Thursday (all times) also works for me. Kelly White Senior Legal Analyst City Attorney's Office CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 528 E kwhite@slocity.org T 805.781.7060 From: Harnett, Natalie <nharnett@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 12:14 PM To: Purrington, Teresa <TPurring@slocity.org>; Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com>; Nunez, Jacob <jnunez@slocity.org>; White, Kelly <kwhite@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: General Government Fee Design Hi Jamie, I don’t think I need to be involved in this anymore as I have changed positions, but I can be available for support if necessary. Either Wednesday or Thursday (all times) would work for Jacob and I. Thanks, Natalie From: Purrington, Teresa <TPurring@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 9:50 AM To: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com>; Nunez, Jacob <jnunez@slocity.org>; Harnett, Natalie <nharnett@slocity.org>; White, Kelly <kwhite@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: General Government Fee Design I’m available Monday Sept. 18 - 9:00 – 10:00 or 10:00 – 11:00 Wednesday Sept 20 - all times Thursday Sept 21 – all times Teresa From: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 8:34 AM To: Purrington, Teresa <TPurring@slocity.org>; Nunez, Jacob <jnunez@slocity.org>; Harnett, Natalie <nharnett@slocity.org>; White, Kelly <kwhite@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: General Government Fee Design This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Good Morning Everyone: Just following up to the email sent last week regarding the final design of the Gen. Government Fees 뇤눎눐눑눒눏 We have goƩen significantly behind schedule. To keep momentum going we must set aside some Ɵme to review the design and enter Ɵme esƟmates. AddiƟonally, some concerns were brought to my aƩenƟon regarding a large discrepancy between the ConstrucƟon Board of Appeals and AdministraƟve Review Board fee. Let’s review these processes. Rachel and I have the following availability: 529 Monday September 18th 8:00 am – 9:00 am 9:00 am – 10:00 am 10:00 am – 11:00 am Tuesday, September 19th 8:00 am – 9:00 am 9:00 am – 10:00 am 10:00 am – 11:00 am Wednesday, September 20th 9:00 am – 10:00 am 10:30 am – 11:30 am Thursday, September 21st 8:00 am – 9:00 am 9:00 am – 10:00 am 10:00 am – 11:00 am Friday, September 22nd 8:00 am – 9:00 am 9:00 am – 10:00 am 10:00 am – 11:00 am Let us know what works best. Look forward to speaking with you! Jamie Radcliff Manager Performance SoluƟons Group 432-208-8194 jradcliff@mgtconsulƟng.com Impacting Communities for Good The informaƟon contained in this electronic communicaƟon is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidenƟal communicaƟon. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby noƟfied that you have received this transmiƩal in error; any review, disseminaƟon, distribuƟon, or copying of this transmiƩal is strictly prohibited. From: Jamie Radcliff Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 4:07 PM To: Purrington, Teresa <tpurring@slocity.org>; Nunez, Jacob <jnunez@slocity.org>; Harnett, Natalie <nharnett@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: General Government Fee Design Good AŌernoon everyone: AŌer much discussion all the fees that were pending placement have been finalized by the leadership team. I realize that many of the fees on this schedule you don’t use at all anymore, but the recommendaƟon was to keep them there for now. 530 If there are not any other issues at this Ɵme, would you please review and approve the design? Thank you so much for your paƟence. Jamie Radcliff Manager Performance SoluƟons Group 432-208-8194 jradcliff@mgtconsulƟng.com Impacting Communities for Good The informaƟon contained in this electronic communicaƟon is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidenƟal communicaƟon. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby noƟfied that you have received this transmiƩal in error; any review, disseminaƟon, distribuƟon, or copying of this transmiƩal is strictly prohibited. 557 From:Keller, Erin Sent:Monday, September 25, 2023 9:46 AM To:Corey, Tyler Subject:RE: Reports out of EnerGov Let me know which ones. BUT That report comes directly from the software. So maybe share that as well with Jaime. EK Erin Keller pronouns she/her/hers Senior Business Analyst Community Development E EKeller@slocity.org T 805.781.7296 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 9:36 AM To: Keller, Erin <EKeller@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Reports out of EnerGov I just want to cross out certain line items that are not planning applications. From: Keller, Erin <EKeller@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 9:13 AM To: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Reports out of EnerGov Morning, That report is a canned EnerGov report. I was just trying to finish this assignment because I know we are trying to meet deadlines for the fee study. Here is how I pulled the report: (I am not certain I can modify the data) Once exported into excel we can. EnerGov Global – System Wide Reports Report Area – Plan Reports - Select Planning Activity Report - RUN 558 559 Erin Keller pronouns she/her/hers Senior Business Analyst Community Development E EKeller@slocity.org T 805.781.7296 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 9:00 AM To: Keller, Erin <EKeller@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Reports out of EnerGov 560 Thanks you for pulling this information together. I reviewed the reports and we need to remove some of the categories since they are not all planning applications. Let me know if you have a minute to review. Thanks From: Keller, Erin <EKeller@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 4:10 PM To: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Subject: Reports out of EnerGov Hi, EnerGov does not pull information by fiscal year but by calendar year. Erin Keller pronouns she/her/hers Senior Business Analyst Community Development E EKeller@slocity.org T 805.781.7296 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 598 From:Fuchs, Alex Sent:Thursday, September 21, 2023 9:24 AM To:Rachel King; Leveille, Brian Cc:Jamie Radcliff Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Schedule Follow Up Meeting for SLO UF Study- Cannabis Fee Time Estimates Attachments:R-11066 amending the City's Master Fee Schedule with updated User and Regulatory Fees for various Commercial Cannabis Business activities.pdf; Item 12 - Cannabis Business Program and Regulation Updates 12-3-2019.pdf; Item 09 - Cannabis Business Program and Regulation Updates - 1-19-2021.pdf; R-11213 amending the Master Fee Schedule with updated User and Regulatory Fees for various commercial cannabis business activities.pdf Good morning, Rachel. We held a cannabis application review kick-off meeting last Thursday the 14 th with staff. I instructed them to track time and to use the spreadsheet you provided for time spent reviewing and scoring applications. I gave reviewers until the end of October to complete reviews but I will be checking in with them in 2 weeks to assess progress. If most reviewers are done by that time, then we will look to meet mid-October to finalize the scoring and ranking. I believe at our last meeting; I would provide previous Council actions related to the cannabis application and renewal fees. Attached are the agenda reports and adopted resolutions establishing the various fees. I do not think our meeting this afternoon is needed given our application review meeting just happened last week and I have provided the history of cannabis fees to you. But I will hold the time on my calendar in case you would still like to meet. Thank you, Alex Fuchs Mobility Services Business Manager Public Works 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E afuchs@slocity.org T 805.783.7877 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 1:39 PM To: Leveille, Brian <bleveill@slocity.org>; Fuchs, Alex <afuchs@slocity.org> Cc: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Schedule Follow Up Meeting for SLO UF Study- Cannabis Fee Time Estimates All, 599 I just sent a Teams invitaƟon for 9/21 from 2:00-2:25 Pacific Time. Please let me know if you have any quesƟons or did not receive the invitaƟon. Thanks! Kind Regards, Rachel King (she/her) Analyst Columbia, SC Email: rking@mgtconsulting.com The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. From: Leveille, Brian <bleveill@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 4:24 PM To: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Fuchs, Alex <afuchs@slocity.org> Cc: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: Schedule Follow Up Meeting for SLO UF Study- Cannabis Fee Time Estimates Hi Rachel, For me the 20th-22 are open. Thanks Brian Leveille Senior Planner Community Development Long Range Planning 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bleveille@slocity.org T 805.781.7166 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 1:01 PM To: Fuchs, Alex <afuchs@slocity.org>; Leveille, Brian <bleveill@slocity.org> Cc: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: Schedule Follow Up Meeting for SLO UF Study- Cannabis Fee Time Estimates CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 600 Hi Alex and Brian, Thanks again for meeƟng with us today. We’d like to go ahead and schedule our check-in meeƟng 1 month from now, the week of September 18th. Please let me know if you have a Ɵme you prefer to meet and if any of the days that week don’t work. Thanks! Kind Regards, Rachel King (she/her) Analyst Columbia, SC Email: rking@mgtconsulting.com The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. From: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 3:53 PM To: Fuchs, Alex <afuchs@slocity.org>; Leveille, Brian <bleveill@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Cannabis and Planning Meetings for Time Estimates Hi Alex: See my responses below in blue. Thank you! Jamie Radcliff Manager Performance SoluƟons Group 432-208-8194 jradcliff@mgtconsulƟng.com Impacting Communities for Good The informaƟon contained in this electronic communicaƟon is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidenƟal communicaƟon. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby noƟfied that you have received this transmiƩal in error; any review, disseminaƟon, distribuƟon, or copying of this transmiƩal is strictly prohibited. From: Fuchs, Alex <afuchs@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 2:12 PM To: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com>; Leveille, Brian <bleveill@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Cannabis and Planning Meetings for Time Estimates 601 Jamie, I am not going to be out next week but this was just given to me, so I do not have the time today or tomorrow to gather and report my time estimates. I will work on it next week and let you know by next Friday the 11 th if I think I need more time. It would help in preparing the information if I can have you answer a few clarifying questions. 1. There are more City staff involved in the administration of the Cannabis program than those shown on the table. Should I add columns for the other staff? Yes. Please add other positions (or departments) that are involved in each permit process. 2. Am I responsible for entering time for positions / departments other than my own? I was not instructed to keep track of anyone else’s time for the administration of the Cannabis program, so that information is not readily available. No we can discuss time estimates for other departments with them directly . 3. I was told administration of the Cannabis program is supposed to be 100% cost recoverable. If that is still the case, then how should I account for time spent on administrative activities like updating applicable code, answering permit holder questions, advisory body presentations, etc.? Should that time be included in the annual license renewal time estimates? The administration will be 100% recoverable. Any annual hours remaining after the time estimates will be considered administrative and added as overhead. We can discuss this further in our time estimate meeting. Thank you, Alex Fuchs Mobility Services Business Manager Public Works 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E afuchs@slocity.org T 805.783.7877 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 11:45 AM To: Fuchs, Alex <afuchs@slocity.org>; Leveille, Brian <bleveill@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Cannabis and Planning Meetings for Time Estimates Hi Alex: We can work with Ɵming as you need, but keep in mind the study is on a preƩy Ɵght schedule. If you are going to be out for a week, would the week of August 14-18th be reasonable for you? We could set up a quick 30 min meeƟng at the end of that week to review your comments. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 602 Let me know what works best. Jamie Radcliff Manager Performance SoluƟons Group 432-208-8194 jradcliff@mgtconsulƟng.com Impacting Communities for Good The informaƟon contained in this electronic communicaƟon is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidenƟal communicaƟon. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby noƟfied that you have received this transmiƩal in error; any review, disseminaƟon, distribuƟon, or copying of this transmiƩal is strictly prohibited. From: Fuchs, Alex <afuchs@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 1:19 PM To: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com>; Leveille, Brian <bleveill@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Cannabis and Planning Meetings for Time Estimates Hi, Jamie. When are you expecting this to be completed and returned to you? Alex Fuchs Mobility Services Business Manager Public Works 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E afuchs@slocity.org T 805.783.7877 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 9:36 AM To: Leveille, Brian <bleveill@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Fuchs, Alex <afuchs@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Cannabis and Planning Meetings for Time Estimates Hi Brian: I can go over the file with you, and Alex can put in his Ɵme esƟmates. I created a list of items I will need below. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 603 EssenƟally, I need to know the process for each fee, and the Ɵme it takes the employees to complete the task. If Alex can provide the total process of the applicaƟon fee (and the Ɵme it takes to complete the task) and then the processes for the Annual License Fees (all four, and the Ɵme to complete the task), we should be in great shape. I will also need to know the other departments that are involved in the process so I can include their Ɵme on the fees. To DO: 1. Process for each fee 2. Time spent on each fee by posiƟon (preferably in minutes or hours) 3. Other departments that spend Ɵme on the fee/s 4. It would be great if you have volumes for each fee from the last fiscal year. If you want to discuss this with him today, we can review tomorrow and get the model updated. What Ɵme do you want to meet tomorrow? 9 am or 10 am? Thanks Brian! Jamie Radcliff Manager Performance SoluƟons Group 432-208-8194 jradcliff@mgtconsulƟng.com Impacting Communities for Good The informaƟon contained in this electronic communicaƟon is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidenƟal communicaƟon. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby noƟfied that you have received this transmiƩal in error; any review, disseminaƟon, distribuƟon, or copying of this transmiƩal is strictly prohibited. From: Leveille, Brian <bleveill@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 11:13 AM To: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Fuchs, Alex <afuchs@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Cannabis and Planning Meetings for Time Estimates Hi Jamie, Sure. I’m in tomorrow but Alex is out. Maybe I can touch base with him briefly today to get up to speed. Do you have any questions you can think of in advance we should discuss so I can be ready tomorrow? Thanks From: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 9:03 AM To: Leveille, Brian <bleveill@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Fuchs, Alex <afuchs@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Cannabis and Planning Meetings for Time Estimates Hi Brian: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 604 I apologize I am just geƫng this back to you. Is there anyway we can meet tomorrow so I can prep? Are you available tomorrow at 9 am or 10 am? Thank you. Jamie Radcliff Manager Performance SoluƟons Group 432-208-8194 jradcliff@mgtconsulƟng.com Impacting Communities for Good The informaƟon contained in this electronic communicaƟon is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidenƟal communicaƟon. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby noƟfied that you have received this transmiƩal in error; any review, disseminaƟon, distribuƟon, or copying of this transmiƩal is strictly prohibited. From: Leveille, Brian <bleveill@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 4:48 PM To: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com>; Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Fuchs, Alex <afuchs@slocity.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: Cannabis and Planning Meetings for Time Estimates Hi Jamie, I’m out next week and Tyler’s schedule is pretty full the rest of the week. Tyler was Ok with just us meeting on the cannabis stuff. I’m also going to try to get Alex Fuchs, who has taken another position but is still covering most of the Cannabis Business Coordinator duties. He is the true expert on this stuff. 10:00-10:30 works for us tomorrow. Thanks From: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 5:52 PM To: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org>; Leveille, Brian <bleveill@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: Cannabis and Planning Meetings for Time Estimates This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Good Evening Everyone: Wanted to reach out and get a meeƟng scheduled on the calendar for Ɵme esƟmates. I realize we are sƟll discussing the placement of a few fees, but I am hoping that will get seƩled this week. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 605 From here we can get together and discuss the process and personnel Ɵme esƟmates of each fee. Below is our availability the next couple weeks. We can schedule Cannabis Fees first if you don’t mind. Then Planning fees, in hopes to have all fees placed on the appropriate schedule this week. Please let us know a Ɵme for Cannabis and another later Ɵme for Planning. If we need another week of availability, I can send that. Just let me know. Thanks! Thursday, August 3, 2023 10:00 am – 11:00 am 11:30 am – 12:30 pm 12:30 pm – 1:30 pm Friday, August 4, 2023 9:00 am – 10:00 am 10:00 am – 11:00 am Monday, August 7, 2023 9:00 am – 10:00 am 10:00 am – 11:00 am 11:00 am – 12:00 pm 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm Tuesday, August 8, 2023 9:00 am – 10:00 am 10:00 am – 11:00 am 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm Wednesday, August 9, 2023 9:00 am – 10:00 am 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm Thursday, August 10, 2023 9:00 am – 10:00 am 10:00 am – 11:00 am 11:00 am – 12:00 pm 12:00 pm – 1:00 pm 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm Friday, August 11, 2023 9:00 am – 10:00 am 10:00 am – 11:00 am Jamie Radcliff Manager Performance SoluƟons Group 432-208-8194 jradcliff@mgtconsulƟng.com Impacting Communities for Good 606 The informaƟon contained in this electronic communicaƟon is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidenƟal communicaƟon. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby noƟfied that you have received this transmiƩal in error; any review, disseminaƟon, distribuƟon, or copying of this transmiƩal is strictly prohibited. Item 9 t x ofi Council- d. Report ti ttjs o Department Name: Cost Center: For Agenda of: Placement: Estimated Time: FROM: Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager Prepared By: Georgina Bailey, Management Fellow Administration 1001 January 19, 2021 Public Hearing 30 minutes SUBJECT: CANNABIS BUSINESS PROGRAM AND REGULATION UPDATES RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive an update on the City's Cannabis Business Program; and 2. Adopt a Resolution that updates the Cannabis Fee Schedule (Attachment A); and 3. Introduce and adopt an Ordinance amending Municipal Codes Section 9.10 and 5.10 Attachment C) that renews all operator permits at the beginning of the fiscal year. 4. Adopt a Resolution that waives the operator permit renewal fee for a cannabis business being annexed into the City of San Luis Obispo from the date of annexation to July 1, 2021 Attachment D). REPORT -IN -BRIEF The City of San Luis Obispo adopted regulations to implement a Cannabis Business Program after the passage of Proposition 64 that were informed through public engagement, industry outreach and City Council direction. The initial regulations were adopted by the City Council on November 27, 2018. Staff returned on December 3, 2019, a year after the regulations were adopted to provide a cannabis program update and City Council adopted recommended changes to application fees and cannabis regulations. City Council directed staff to return with an update regarding the implementation of the Cannabis Business Program and potential updates to the regulations in the next year. This staff report intends to inform and recommend to the City Council updates to the Cannabis Business Program based on the City's experience over the last year. During that time, the City has opened two rounds of cannabis business application periods: 1) January 15 — February 18, 2020, and 2) July 1-31, 2020. In parallel, staff worked to continually develop the administrative and operational guidelines necessary to fully implement the Cannabis Business Program. Staff has continued to follow the City's process to comply with State mandates allowing operators licensed outside of the City to deliver into the City, while enforcing compliance with the City's Business License and Tax Ordinance. Staff has conducted analysis, research and outreach to businesses on the operator permit renewal fee and is recommending a change to the operator permit fee paid by all applicants. Staff is also recommending waiving the operator permit renewal fee of a cannabis business being annexed into the City from the time of annexation to the start of the next fiscal year. Packet Page 89 Item 9 Informed by staff s experience and community feedback with operator permit renewals and operator permit activations within the current Municipal Code 9. 10 and 5.10, staff is recommending changes to both sections of the Municipal Code that place all operators on an operator permit renewal cycle in line with the fiscal year. DISCUSSION Background Cannabis Business Program Update Following the passage of Proposition 64 in 2016 with 57% Statewide voter approval, the initiative to legalize cannabis in the state of California became law on November 9, 2016, allowing for recreational cannabis sales as of January 1, 2018. Following the passage of the City's Cannabis Business Tax on November 6, 2018, on November 27, 2018 the City Council approved the fee structure, application criteria and zoning regulations to allow for cannabis businesses to operate in the City. Since the City Council has adopted the cannabis business program, staff has provided an annual update with recommendations for improvements. Application Update In order to choose the most qualified operators, the City Council established an application and approval process for applicants wanting to operate cannabis businesses in the City. In 2020, based on feedback from businesses, staff improved that process by creating a completeness check for all non-competitive applications. This process provides an independent review of the application to determine if any required information is missing prior to scoring. The applicant is provided with a list of any missing information and an opportunity to submit before the application is deemed complete and scored. This process was added to better support non- competitive applicants move through the City's application process and receive operating permits. The process has been successful in both application periods in 2020, with two applicants being issued contingent operator permits out of three total applications. Both of those operators are currently moving through the background investigation process to receive final operator permits. In December, the City prevailed in a lawsuit filed by an unsuccessful retail applicant challenging the City's rejection of its application for providing false information in the application process. The favorable conclusion of that lawsuit ends any uncertainty related to the City's review process or the status of the three retail cannabis permits that were issued to other businesses in that selection process. Business Update On November 25, 2019, the City's first cannabis non -storefront retail opened and has since been operating. On August 1, 2020, the City's first cannabis retail storefront opened. Cannabis was deemed by the State of California to be an essential service during the initial COVID-19 Statewide Stay at Home Order which went into effect on March 19, 2020. As such, operators in the City have been able to stay open throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Packet Page 90 Item 9 The State and City have also provided an avenue for cannabis operators to conduct curbside pickup, however, retailers are also able to continue in person shopping in compliance with public health guidelines. The remaining two retail storefront operators are at various stages of the permitting process. One retail storefront has completed the land use permitting process and is expected to open by April 2021. The other retail storefront operator is working through the land use permit process. The City's first microbusiness is expected to be open by June of 2021. The below table summarizes the status of businesses who have been granted permits by the City. Business Business Status Retail Storefront Megan's Organic Market Open and operating in the City. Natural Healing Center Received a Commercial Cannabis Operator Permit on October 22, 2019. Received a Conditional Use Permit on November 13, 2019 The businesses operator permit requires the business be open by April 2021. SLO Cal Roots Received a Commercial Cannabis Operator Permit on March 23, 2020 and is now completing the land use permit process. Manufacturing, Distribution and Retail Non -Storefront) Coastal Delivery SLO Open and operating in the City. Element 7 Received a Commercial Cannabis Operator Permit on December 6, 2019. Received a Conditional Use Permit on August 24, 2020. The businesses operator permit requires the business be open by June 2021. Cali Direct Received a Contingent Commercial Cannabis Operator Permit on May 19, 2020 and is currently completing the background check process. Pure SL Received a Contingent Commercial Cannabis Operator Permit on November 2, 2020 and is currently completing the background check process. Mobile Deliveries from Outside of the City The State Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) has implemented rules that mandate cities to allow delivery within their jurisdiction from licensed operators outside of the City, consistent with Section 5416 (d) of the BCC' s cannabis regulations which states: d) A delivery employee may deliver to any jurisdiction within the State of California provided that such delivery is conducted in compliance with all delivery provisions of this division." Packet Page 91 Item 9 In 2019, the City developed a process to both bring licensed delivery businesses into compliance with City business license and tax provisions and to enforce City and State laws against unlicensed and illegal businesses delivering in the City. The City continued these efforts in 2020 and as a result of education and enforcement, several businesses outside of the City have come into compliance and have been remitting taxes. The City has also been successful in receiving back taxes from businesses operating in the City prior to coming into compliance and has been successful in reporting illegal and out of compliance businesses to the BCC. Since the start of this program the City has registered 11 of these businesses and has received over $100,000 in cannabis taxes from these businesses. The City remains one of the only cities in the State and only city in the County that has been successful in bringing these businesses into compliance. Staff will continue this process as resources and staff time allow in 2021. Annexation of a Cannabis Business into the City City staff learned after City Council approved the Fiero Lane Annexation at the November 19, 2019 City Council meeting that one of the businesses being annexed into the City was a non - storefront retail and small-scale manufacturing cannabis business currently permitted by the County of San Luis Obispo (County). As a licensed cannabis business by the County and BCC the business is eligible to continue its business operations in the City once the annexation occurs. This is the first existing cannabis business being annexed into the City, and the current cannabis regulations, Chapters 9.10, 5.10 and Section 17.86.080, do not provide explicit direction for cannabis business annexations. To this end, Section 9. 10.250 of the City' s cannabis ordinance authorizes the City Manager to determine any administrative regulations necessary to implement the requirements and fulfill the purposes and policies of the City's cannabis regulations. Working within the Municipal Code, informed by other municipalities best practices, BCC policies, internal multi -department staff teams and the direction of the City Manager, the City created a process within the administrative guidelines to bring annexed cannabis businesses under the City's cannabis regulations. Cannabis businesses annexed into the City are not required to complete the new cannabis business application process or pay any application fees, as the existing land use related approvals must be honored by the City. The City does, however, require cannabis businesses conform to the regulatory standards of Municipal Code 9.10 and 5.10, along with all other general annexation regulations in Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code. Likewise, the cannabis business must complete a background check based on the BCC's background check requirements and requires businesses to submit their Security Plan approved by their previous jurisdiction and BCC for the City's records. Annexed cannabis businesses must also pay the operator permit renewal fee for a cannabis operator permit in the City at the rate set by the City Council as the business will be operating in the City under a City issued operator permit. City staff met with the business multiple times to discuss the annexation process and the City's proposed approach to bring the business under the City's cannabis regulations. Through meeting with the business on June 22, 2020, and a follow up meeting on September 24, 2020, the City developed the approach outlined above and shared that with the business. The business did express significant concerns regarding the operator permit renewal fee. The City understands the concerns given the business structure was based on County operating permit fees. Packet Page 92 Item 9 As such, staff is recommending the City Council adopt a resolution that will waive the business' operator permit renewal fee obligation from the time of annexation to July 1, 2021 in order to support the successful transition and continued operation of the existing business in the City's jurisdiction, while still being issued a commercial cannabis operator permit to operate in the City during that time (Attachment D). The recommendation to waive the operator permit renewal fee for the annexed cannabis business for six months is in intended to provide the business time to make any adjustments to the business structure and/or determine other options with goal of retaining the business in the City. The City Cannabis Business Tax would still be remitted during this time period. Cannabis Operator Permit Renewal Fee On November 27, 2018, the City Council approved both application and operating license fees for the Cannabis Business Program. These fees were based on estimated staff time and other costs required to administer the adopted regulations and were developed by a consultant with specific experience including work with other California cities in developing similar fees. On December 3, 2019, the City Council approved a change to the cannabis application fees that allowed all operators to pay an initial application fee and a secondary fee once the contingent operator permit was granted, thus lowering the initial application fee. Staff also committed to bring back an analysis of operator license fees after one full year of operations to collect information on actual time spent compared to the assumptions used in developing the original fees. Regulatory fees must be based on an assessment of the reasonable costs incurred to provide the regulatory service. To accomplish this, staff worked with a consultant, HdL, to conduct a new fee study that analyzed staff time spent on operator permits of cannabis businesses within the City which includes all the necessary time to implement and oversee the City's cannabis regulations for each business and the overall program. Furthermore, the fee study examined the complexity of the regulatory roles, the frequency of the duties, the appropriate level of the staff and/or contractors involved and the legal restrictions in implementing the cannabis program in the City. The fee study captures the total costs involved in the administration of the Cannabis Business Program to ensure the City is recovering costs for the staff time, contractors, and other expenses required to manage the program. Staff also recommends that the operating permit fee be consistent across all cannabis business types. This recommendation is based on the results of the fee study which revealed staff spent approximately the same amount of time for oversight and regulation for each cannabis business permitted in the City regardless of the type of cannabis business. This is also consistent with fee structures of other cities in California including Watsonville, Goleta, Salinas, Modesto, Placerville, Vista, Redwood City and Los Angeles. Packet Page 93 Item 9 The current and proposed fees are listed in the chart below. Business Type Current Fees Proposed Fees Retail 96,074.11 39,638.38 Manufacturing 76,407.43 39,638.38 Cultivation 76,629.12 39,638.38 Other Businesses 69,890.40 39,638.38 Staff also recommends that the two operators who have already paid their operator permit renewal fee for the current year are reimbursed the difference between the proposed and current fees. This approach is consistent with the requirement of fees assessed by the City to only cover the reasonable costs associated with the fee for service. While initial efforts to establish the program and get businesses operational and compliant, was significant, staff believes the adjusted fees are reflective of ongoing costs of program administration. Fee Comparison with Other Jurisdictions The following table summarizes the proposed operator permit renewal fee for various business types that are allowed in the City, as compared with other jurisdictions that have adopted similar fee schedules. In general cannabis business permit fees will vary depending on the level of oversight of the business operations, city policies on cost recovery and amount of regulations that need to be administered. The range of regulatory permit fees statewide is about $1,028 to $143,000 and in most cases larger markets have higher fees to address more complexities more commonly impacting larger cities. Below is a table that provides several annual license renewal fees for retail businesses in California cities. Cities whose retail annual license renewal fee is the same for all types of businesses have a "*" symbol. Retail Operator Permit Renewal Fee Santa Cruz No Annual Fee Monterey County* 1,028 Watsonville* 2,800 San Francisco 4,354 San Luis Obispo County* 3,728 or $6,836 Santa Barbara 6,945 Vallejo 8,288 Los Angeles* 8,486 or $9,735 Salinas* 9,854 Goleta* 11, 879 Oakland 15,151 Grover Beach 20,000 Sacramento 20,800 Modesto* 21,740 Placerville* 22,841 Vista* 28,001 Packet Page 94 Item 9 Redwood City* 29,530 San Luis Obispo* 39, 638 Davis 42,359 San Jose 143,333 The City's recommended fees are higher than many jurisdictions, but a major contributing factor is the level of cost recovery associated with the fees. The City is one of the few jurisdictions to establish a 100% cost recovery goal for cannabis business fees, which creates a higher fee when compared with cities with a lower cost recovery goal. Operator Permit Renewal Timing Staff also recommends a minor ordinance amendment to Chapter 9.10 and Chapter 5.10 of the Municipal Code that requires all operators to renew their operator permit on the City's Fiscal Year, starting July lst and ending June 30th of each year (Attachment C). This recommendation is consistent with how all other types of Business Licenses and Tax Certificates under Municipal Code Chapter 3 are currently renewed in the City of San Luis Obispo. For businesses that activate their operator permit outside of the start of the fiscal year, the fee will be prorated from their activation date and will renew on July I". This recommendation will create a more efficient and consistent process for processing renewals, thereby minimizing unnecessary administrative time that could drive additional costs. Policy Context The updates to the cannabis regulations are consistent with overall goals of the Cannabis Business Program, the City's 2020-2021 Meta Major City Goal and the applicable sections of the Municipal Code. The updates are also consistent with Chapters 9.10 and 5.10 of the Municipal Code and Section 17.86.080 of the Zoning Code, which outline that the provisions of each code are guided by principles to protect, the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City. Furthermore, it is the general best practice for the City to provide the most clear and concise regulations to benefit the community, businesses, staff, and the City Council. It is also a general best practice for economic development to lower the operator permit renewal fee when it is appropriate to support businesses and business sustainability. The recommended amendments will not only provide more clarity for cannabis operators during operator permit renewals but will also streamline the process administratively for both businesses and staff. Likewise, the reduced cost of the operator permit renewal fee will benefit businesses, while not sacrificing the City Council's fiscal responsibility goals for full cost-recoveryl. 1 Financial Plan Policies: Section 2. D. Factors Favoring High -Cost Recovery Levels The use of service charges as a major source of funding service levels is especially appropriate under the following circumstances: 1. The service is similar to services provided through the private sector. 2. Other private or public sector alternatives could or do exist for the delivery of the service. 3. For equity or demand management purposes, it is intended that there be a direct relationship between the amount paid and the level and cost of the service received. 4. The use of the service is specifically discouraged. Police responses to disturbances or false alarms might fall into this category. Packet Page 95 Item 9 Public Engagement The current ordinance and resolutions were considered and adopted City Council on May 15, 2018, October 16, 2018, November 27, 2018, and December 3, 2019. Since that time, staff have been in regular communication with applicants, business operators and industry representatives, receiving feedback on a wide range of issues related to the implementation of the Cannabis Business Program. In addition, the information contained in this report was shared in advance with businesses that have received permits from the City. The Council has recently received request for policy modifications in anticipation of hearing this item. Should Council want to proceed with any changes, staff would recommend a study session to explore each of the policy areas and receive specific direction about any changes as the current regulatory framework is an outcome of intensive public outreach and public hearings. CONCURRENCE A Steering Committee and Cannabis Team of City staff members including Administration staff, City Attorney, the Community Development Director and staff, Finance Director and staff, and Police Chief and staff, was convened to guide the process of developing updates and regulations for consideration by the City Council. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended actions in this report, because none of the actions constitute a "Project" under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15378. FISCAL IMPACT Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2021 Funding Identified: Yes Fiscal Analysis: Funding Sources Current Budgeted Fees Revised Budgeted Fees Change in Budgeted Fees Annual Ongoing Cost General Fund 320,937 220,402 100,535 0 State Federal Fees Other: Total 320,937 220,402 100,535 1 $0 5. The service is regulatory in nature and voluntary compliance is not expected to be the primary method of detecting failure to meet regulatory requirements. Building permit, plan checks, and subdivision review fees for large projects would fall into this category. Packet Page 96 Item 9 On June 2, 2020 City Council adopted fee revenues for the cannabis program for Fiscal Year 2020-21 of $320,937 based on the fees collected from applications and operator permits. Because staff proposes to reimburse operators the difference, there will be a budget shortfall for Fiscal Year 2020-21 in the actual fees collected. However, staff is confident that the amounts collected in Cannabis tax will exceed the budgeted $400,000 and eliminate most if not all of the fee shortfall. Staff will provide an update on revenue levels at mid -year and incorporate the new fees into the revenue assumptions for the 2021-23 Financial Plan. ALTERNATIVES 1. Do not adopt staff recommendations. The recommendations proposed represent the changes necessary to maintain the direction provided by the City Council to this point. For requested modifications, the Council should provide guidance on specific changes desired. 2. Modify and Direct the Proposed for the Cannabis Business Annexation. The City Council has the latitude to make modifications to the proposed action for the cannabis business annexed into the City. The Council has the policy direction to adjust the proposal for the cannabis business and Staff will be prepared to offer any ideas for any adjustments. 3. Modify and Direct the Proposed Fee Recommendation. The City Council has the latitude to make modifications to the Cannabis Fee Schedule. The Council has the policy discretion to adjust fees and Staff will be prepared to offer any ideas for any adjustments. 4. Modify and Direct the Proposed Ordinance Amendments. The City Council has the latitude to make modifications to the 9.10 and 5.10 Municipal Code Ordinance Amendments. The Council has the policy discretion to adjust the Operator Permit Renewals and Staff will be prepared to offer any ideas for any adjustments. Attachments: a - Draft Resolution - Amendments to Cannabis Master Fee Schedule b - Cannabis Fee Study Executive Summary c - Draft Ordinance d - Draft Resolution - Waive Papa Bear Farms Yearly License Renewal Fee for FY 20-21 Packet Page 97 Department Name: Administration Cost Center: For Agenda of: December 3, 2019 Placement: Public Hearing Estimated Time: 60 minutes FROM: Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager Prepared By: Charlene Rosales, Economic Development Manager Georgina Bailey, Management Fellow SUBJECT: CANNABIS BUSINESS PROGRAM AND REGULATION UPDATES RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive an update on the City’s Cannabis Business Program; and 2. Adopt a resolution that updates the one-time application fee (Attachment A); and 3. Adopt a resolution that updates the merit criteria to be used in the evaluation of applications for cannabis business operator permits and adopts a 70% of total available points minimum threshold which applicants must score to be eligible for a contingent operator permit Attachment B); and 4. Introduce and adopt an ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 9.10 (Attachment D) clarifying unsuccessful applicants’ ability to apply during separate application periods in the same year. REPORT-IN-BRIEF The City of San Luis Obispo adopted regulations to implement a Cannabis Business Program after the passage of Proposition 64 that were informed through public engagement, industry outreach and Council direction. The initial regulations were adopted by the City Council on November 27, 2018. After the adoption of the initial regulations, Council directed staff to return with an update regarding the implementation of the Cannabis Business Program and potential updates to the regulations in the next year. This staff report intends to inform and recommend to the Council updates to the Cannabis Business Program based on the experience over the last year. During that time, the City has opened two rounds of cannabis business application periods;1) January 7-29, 2019, and 2) July 1-31, 2019. In parallel, staff worked to develop the administration and operational guidelines necessary to fully implement the Cannabis Business Program. Staff has created a process to comply with State mandates allowing operators licensed outside of the City to deliver into the City, while enforcing compliance with the City’s Business License and Tax Ordinance. Staff has conducted initial analysis on the application fees and is recommending a change to one-time application fees paid by all applicants. In addition to other outreach and research, staff researched Cottage Industry Programs (fee structures and regulations that would support a cottage industry in a city or county). Staff found no established city programs throughout the State of California and, as such, does not recommend the City of San Luis Obispo pilot a Packet Page 189 Item 12 Cannabis Cottage Industry Program at this time. Informed from two application scoring rounds and staff’s experience implementing Cannabis Regulations, staff recommends adoption of an ordinance updating Municipal Code Section 9.10.070 to include an additional clarification that an unsuccessful applicant is allowed to apply for cannabis operator permits during subsequent application periods in the same year. Staff is also recommending minor updates and clarifications in the Cannabis Scoring Worksheet, which will impact all types of cannabis applications, except storefront retail applications. DISCUSSION Background Cannabis Business Program Update Following the passage of Proposition 64 in 2016 with 57% Statewide voter approval, the initiative to legalize cannabis in the state of California became law on November 9, 2016, allowing for recreational cannabis sales as of January 1, 2018. Following the passage of the City’s Cannabis Business Tax on November 6, 2018, by 80% of the City’s residents, on November 27, 2018 the City Council approved the fee structure, application criteria and zoning regulations to allow for cannabis businesses to operate in the City. In order to choose the most qualified operators, the City Council established an application and approval process for applicants wanting to operate cannabis businesses in the City. The City received 12 applications from interested parties during the first application period from January 7-29, 2019 and issued five contingent operator permits on March 28, 2019. Three of the contingent permits are for retail storefronts, one is for a delivery service and one is for a microbusiness. Those businesses then began moving through the background investigation process to receive final operator permits . On September 5, 2019, the first two final operator permits were granted. One permit was granted for a retail storefront business and the other operator permit was granted for a non-retail storefront delivery business. On October 22, 2019, a second retail storefront business permit was issued. The remaining contingent operator permit for a retail storefront business issued in March did not receive final approval. As a result, the applicant with the fourth highest score from the first application period was granted a contingent operator permit. The microbusiness from the first application period was granted an operator permit the last week of November and is now in the processes of being granted a land use permit. During the second application window, July 1 to July 31, 2019, one operator applied for a retail non-storefront delivery business permit. Because there were no other applicants, there was no ability to set a 70% scoring threshold of the highest scoring applicant. As such, the applicant was held to a 70% threshold of total available points, which was not met, and a contingent operator permit was not granted. Packet Page 190 Item 12 On November 13, 2019, two retail storefront applicants received the required conditional use permits from the Planning Commission to complete their land use approvals process. Both operators have applied for and are now in the process for a State license from the Bureau of Cannabis Control. That process may take anywhere from two weeks to six months to issue, depending on volume and completeness of applications. The applicants expect their businesses to be open at the end of March and beginning of July respectively. The regulations adopted on November 27, 2018, grant the City Manager the authority to adjust application periods and to open new application periods on an as needed basis, in addition to the annual application period of July 1 through July 31 of each calendar year. Following City Manager direction, staff will open the next round of cannabis operator permit applications for all business types, except Retail Storefront, from January 15, to February 15, 2020. Administrative and Operational Guidelines The goal for implementation of the regulations for cannabis related businesses is to ensure consumer access, realistic and equitable expectations of business owners, standardized compliance measurements and enforcement procedures, legitimization of the industry and support for business success while ensuring the continued safety of the public and protection of quality of life. To this end, Section 9.10.250 of the City’s cannabis ordinance authorizes the City Manager to determine any administrative regulations necessary to implement the requirements and fulfill the purposes and policies of the City’s cannabis regulations. Throughout the implementation of the program, several administrative and operational guidelines have been developed to support the goals of the Cannabis Business Program and clarify processes outlined in the Municipal Code. Those have included standards for security plans, background investigation workflows and the development of other administrative process documents. These guidelines and processes are updated as needed and are informed by other municipalities’ best practices, internal multi-department staff teams and the direction of the City Manager. Mobile Deliveries from Outside of the City The State Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) has implemented rules that mandate cities to allow delivery within their jurisdiction from licensed operators outside of the City, consistent with Section 5416 (d) of the BCC’s cannabis regulations which states: d) A delivery employee may deliver to any jurisdiction within the State of California provided that such delivery is conducted in compliance with all delivery provisions of this division.” In spring 2019, the City began to develop a plan to both bring licensed delivery businesses into compliance with City business license and tax provisions and to enforce City and State laws against unlicensed and illegal businesses delivering in the City. Two rounds of “Notice to Comply” letters were sent to out to City delivery operators in July and August 2019. Packet Page 191 Item 12 The “Notice to Comply” letters included educational materials on City policies and regulations regarding current cannabis delivery regulations and included instructions on becoming a compliant delivery operator in the City. Cannabis delivery services can deliver in the City, even if their business is not located within the City, provided they possess a valid California driver’s license and satisfy the following conditions: 1. The cannabis delivery service has proof of a commercial cannabis business license from another city or county; 2. The cannabis delivery service has proof of a license from the State of California; issued by the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC). The cannabis delivery service must then apply for and receive a valid business license and cannabis tax certificate from the City of San Luis Obispo and remit applicable taxes to the City for transactions that occur within the City. To date, four businesses have come into compliance and the City continues to work on various enforcement approaches for those operating outside of applicable regulations. Application Fees On November 11, 2018, City Council approved both application and operating license fees for the Cannabis Business Program. These fees were based on estimated staff time and other costs required to administer the adopted regulations and were developed by a consultant with specific experience including work with other California cities in developing similar fees. The one-time application fee for new cannabis businesses is $23,262 and includes costs associated with the review of applications and subsequent background investigations. The fees were based on assumptions for staff time and resources needed to recover the specific and reasonable costs related to the review and evaluation of application and background information. As was discussed during the adoption of the original fees, staff would track actual hours spent against assumptions made to develop fees and updates would be recommended accordingly. In addition, fees may also be updated to reflect process streamlining or other efficiencies gained through experience implementing the regulations. Staff has completed an analysis of original assumptions of staff hours compared to the actual hours from the first application period until the present. Staff found that time dedicated to the overall application process was significantly over the initial assumptions. This, however, is not unusual as this was the City’s initial implementation of the program and additional time was required to develop new procedures, create workflows and processes and other policies and guidelines. Staff believes that the discrepancy between assumed and actual hours will be reduced and will meet initial assumptions in subsequent application periods as processes become more streamlined and staff have more experience working through applications and background investigations. As such, no changes are recommended for the total application fee at this time. Staff will continue tracking time and costs associated with the full implementation of the Cannabis Business Program and return with recommended changes as warranted. Packet Page 192 Item 12 Staff does, however, recommend changes to the timing of payments of the application fee. Staff recommends reducing the initial fee to $4,995 due at time of application. Currently, all businesses other than retail are required to pay 33% of the total application fee, or $7,431, at the time of application submittal. The balance of the fee is due and payable for the business to receive a contingent operator permit. Retail applicants are required to pay the full application fee at the time of submittal. As previously stated, application fees consist of the costs associated with application review and background investigations. Staff recommends that all future applicants pay an initial fee at the time of application submittal associated with costs of reviewing the application and, if offered a contingent operator permit, be required to pay the remaining balance which would cover costs associated with the background investigation and permitting process. This change would result in the following application fees in 2020: Initial Application Fee: $4,955 Fee due when Contingent Operator Permit is Granted: $18,307 Total One Time Application Fees: $23,262 Staff also recommends that this approach to the application fee be consistent across all cannabis business types for consistency and clarity. As such, the changes noted in Attachment A are recommended to include retail businesses, as well as all other businesses. No changes are currently recommended for annual operating license fees as the City needs to complete one full year of operations, starting from the date the businesses open and fees are due, to collect information on actual time spent and compare that to assumptions. Staff will bring that information forward along any recommended changes as needed which may vary, as different cannabis business types have different fees and planned opening dates. Cottage Industry Regulations City Council gave staff direction at the November 28, 2018 meeting to investigate an additional set of lower fees to support cottage industry businesses. A cannabis cottage permit is defined by the California Department of Food and Agriculture as an outdoor, indoor, or mixed lighting cultivation site that can hold up to 25 mature plants for an outdoor permit, 500 sq. ft. of cultivation for an indoor permit or up to 2,500 sq. ft. for a mixed light permit. Staff has investigated and researched cottage permits and industries in other municipalities in the State of California. Staff has not identified any cottage industry programs in other municipalities, however, there are a limited number of cottage industry programs in some counties. Staff researched cottage permits in relation to the City of San Luis Obispo’s comparable cities which are: Davis, Monterey, Napa, Paso Robles, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz. Davis, Monterey, Napa, Paso Robles, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz; none currently have cottage industry programs, regulations, permits, or fees in their cannabis ordinances or regulations. In addition to the City’s comparable cities, other surrounding municipalities with cannabis programs , such as Grover Beach and Morro Bay, do not currently have cottage industry programs or fees. The City of San Luis Obispo would be the first city in the county and potentially the first in the state to pilot a cottage industry program and fee structure. Piloting a cottage industry in the City of San Luis Obispo would require significant staff time and additional resources to develop a fee structure, additional application, regulations and operations guide needed to support the success of such a program. Packet Page 193 Item 12 Staff recommends Council move forward with one year of Cannabis Business Program implementation and then consider available resources to develop a cottage industry program in the City. Application Changes Staff recommends Council adopt a resolution (Attachment B) to make minor updates and clarifications to the merit criteria to be used in the evaluation of applications for cannabis business operator permits. The recommended changes are identified and incorporated into the updated Cannabis Scoring Worksheet (Attachment C). In addition to maintaining Council’s initial direction and decision from November 28, 2018 staff is proposing minor updates and clarifications to certain sections of the application criteria that are informed through feedback from two application periods from the cannabis review panel, internal multi-department staff teams, consultant recommendations and best practices from other municipalities. The proposed changes will change the Cannabis Scoring Worksheet for all cannabis applications, except Retail Storefront, and will apply to all following cannabis application periods. Staff would recommend an additional, separate review of all Retail Storefront criteria in advance of opening an application period for that business type which is not anticipated at this time. In the Manufacturing, Distribution and Non-Storefront Retail Evaluation Criteria Worksheet changes are recommended to the Community Benefit and Equity and Labor Merit Criteria as summarized below and in Attachment C. a. Community Benefit i. Section 1.1B has been changed to remove the word “over” as it relates to 10-20 hours per month of community services to make clear that the two points available will be given to commitments in that range. Five points are available for commitment over 20 hours per month. ii. Section 1.3B has been changed to clarify what “a history of supporting local community programs” means, which has been defined as “the past one year.” iii. The maximum score for section Community Benefit B has been changed to 15 points to correct a previous typographical error. b. Equity and Labor i. Section 2.4 has been eliminated as State laws surrounding “labor peace agreements” are already triggered for businesses with 20 employees; meaning operational businesses will already have this component of their business plan via state law and do not need to be scored on merit. ii. The elimination of Section 2.4 results in the maximum score for Equity and Labor changing to 18 points. The total maximum points for Manufacturing, Distribution and Non-Storefront Retail applications is now 83 points. In the Cultivation Criteria Worksheet (Attachment C) the same changes are recommended to the Community Benefit and Equity and Labor merit criteria. No additional changes are recommended and the total maximum points for a Cultivation Application are now 113 points. Packet Page 194 Item 12 Staff also recommends in the Merit Criteria Resolution (Attachment B), that a criteria be adopted that requires all applicants to achieve a 70% scoring threshold from the total available points to qualify for contingent operator permits. The clause would be included on the first page in Attachment C, as rule 12, and will read: For an applicant to qualify for a contingent operator permit, the applicant must score at or above 70% of the of total available points on the application from an average of all scorers. The previous scoring threshold required applicants to score at least 70% of total points scored from the highest scoring applicant within that business type, which assumes multiple applicants. The amended language is recommended to avoid any ambiguity when only one application from a business type is received during an application period, as was experienced in the last application period. In addition, having a 70% threshold of total available points enhances consistency across all application periods and does not rely on the strength of any particular applicant pool to establish minimum thresholds. Subsequent Applications by Unsuccessful Applicants Currently the City’s Municipal Code could be interpreted to disallow an unsuccessful cannabis applicant to re-apply for the same cannabis license type more than once in a one-year period. Municipal Code Section 9.10.070 currently provides: B. Application Submittal Timeframe. A person may only submit one application for a commercial cannabis operator permit during the annual application period designated by resolution of the City Council. In the interest of economic development and equitable practices of the cannabis applications, staff recommends Council adopts language for section 9.10.70 under Item A “Application” and Item B “Application Submittal Timeframe” that clarifies that an applicant is not limited to submitting an application only during the annual application period, but if any other application period(s) are opened by the City Manager, the same applicant, previously not recommended for a permit, may submit another application for a contingent operator permit (Attachment Ordinance X Exhibit A Chapter 9.10). Policy Analysis The updates to the cannabis regulations are consistent with overall goals of cannabis regulations in the Fiscal Health Response Plan, the City’s 2019-2021 Major City Goals and the applicable sections of the Municipal Code. Cannabis regulations and fees are an important piece of the Fiscal Health Response Plan and Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility Major City Goal, which seeks to bring in new revenue while sustaining economic development in the City, and the updates to the fees and regulations support these goals. Likewise, the updates to the cannabis regulations are consistent with Chapter 9.10 of the Municipal Code and Section 17.86.080 of the Zoning Code, which outline that the provisions of each code are guided by principles to protect, the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City. Furthermore, it is the general best practice for the City to provide the most clear and concise regulations to benefit the community, businesses, staff, and the City Council. Staff believes the recommended amendments will not only provide more clarity to those applying for cannabis operator permits, but also potentially bring more applicants with a different fee payment process and updated applications. Packet Page 195 Item 12 Public Engagement The current Ordinance and resolutions were considered and adopted City Council on May 15, 2018; October 16, 2018; and November 27, 2018. Since that time, staff have been in regular communication with applicants, business operators and industry representatives, receiving feedback on a wide range of issues related to the implementation of the Cannabis Business Program. Staff has also met with applicants and operators to obtain input on the application and permitting process in order to continuously improve the program. CONCURRENCE A Steering Committee of City staff members including Administration staff, City Attorney, the Community Development Director, Finance Director, Fire Marshal, and Police Chief, was convened to guide the process of developing updates and regulations for consideration by the City Council. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW No updates staff are proposing for Cannabis Updates require a CEQA component and is exempt from environmental review as a Statutory Exemption under Section 15262 of the CEQA Guidelines, feasibility and planning studies. FISCAL IMPACT Fiscal Analysis: Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: Ongoing Funding Identified: Yes Fiscal Analysis: Funding Sources Current FY Cost Annualized On-going Cost Total Project Cost General Fund State Federal Fees Other: Total n/a n/a n/a Packet Page 196 Item 12 In November 27, 2018, City Council was informed that tax revenues from cannabis businesses were anticipated to generate up to $1,500,000 through full implementation of the program. Cannabis business tax revenue estimates were included in the City’s Fiscal Health Response Plan presented to Council on April 17, 2018. Due to various delays associated with the implementation of the new Cannabis Business Program it is expected the revenue projections for 2019-2020 will need to be adjusted as actual tax remittances will not reflect the original assumptions. At this time, staff believes the initial long-term assumptions of $1,500,000 in tax revenue through the next several years as businesses mature is still an accurate forecast of tax revenue. Updated projections on Cannabis Business Tax revenue will be presented to the City Council at the Mid-Year Budget Update on February 18, 2019. ALTERNATIVES 1. Do not adopt staff recommendations. This is not recommended as it does not align with the City Council’s overall intention to enhance clarity and cost effectiveness in the application process and Cannabis Regulations. Likewise, this is not recommended as it does not align with the City Council’s overall intention to obtain qualified cannabis business operators in the City. 2. Modify and Direct the Proposed Fee Recommendation and Application Criteria. The City Council has the latitude to make modifications to the Cannabis Operator Permit Application Requirements and Ranking Criteria and the proposed Fee Schedule. The Council has the policy discretion to adjust fees and Staff will be prepared to offer any ideas for any adjustments. Attachments: a - Draft Resolution Amended Fee Payment b - Draft Resolution Merit Criteria c - Exhibit A to Draft Resolution - Cannabis Scoring Worksheet d - Draft Ordinance Amendment e - Exhibit A to Draft Ordinance Packet Page 197 Item 12 RESOLUTION NO. 11066 (2019 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE CITY'S MASTER FEE SCHEDULE WITH UPDATED USER AND REGULATORY FEES FOR VARIOUS COMMERCIAL CANNABIS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WHEREAS, it is the City's policy (User Fee Recovery Goals -Financial Plan Section H) to assess service charges based on specific policies for cost recovery of services provided; and WHEREAS, on May 15, 2018, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1647 (2018 Series) establishing a comprehensive regulatory program for the evaluation and permitting of commercial cannabis business operations within the City; and WHEREAS, Section 9.10.050 of the Municipal Code says that the City Council shall adopt fees necessary to implement the regulations in relation to Commercial Cannabis Operator Permits; and WHEREAS, the City has contracted with a consultant, MuniServices, to prepare cost and resource allocation worksheets for the purpose of identifying appropriate fees to assess for various activities and applications associated with the reviewing, ranking, permitting, and regulation of commercial cannabis businesses in the City of San Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, the City has completed two Cannabis application windows from January 2019 to December 2019, upon which staffhas concluded it is necessary to adjust the way in which Cannabis Applicant's for all application types pay for their one-time application fee; WHEREAS, public outreach was conducted through outreach by staff members to ( interested parties and through publication of the proposed fee schedule on the City's website in advance of the City Council's consideration of the newly proposed fees; and WHEREAS, on November 27, 2018, the City Council adopted a fee schedule; and WHEREAS, on December 3, 2019, the City Council held a public hearing to review and discuss the updated proposed fee schedule, receive public input, and consider the recommendations of its staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: R 11066 Resolution No. 11066 (2019 Series) Page 2 SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council makes the following findings: 1. That the above recitals are true and correct. 2. That the proposed user and regulatory fees are consistent with the City's cost recovery goals (Financial Plan Section H), and that the established fees do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service or performing the activity for which the fee is imposed. SECTION 2. Action. The City Council takes the following actions: 1. The City's Master Fee Schedule is hereby amended to include updated user and regulatory fees for cannabis business operator applications and annual licenses as provided in Exhibit A attached hereto. 2. This resolution supersedes Resolution 10965 (2018 Series) to the extent inconsistent herewith. Upon motion of Council Member Christianson, seconded by Council Member Pease, and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Council Member Christianson, Pease, Stewart, Vice Mayor Gomez and Mayor Harmon None None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 3rd day of December 2019. ATTEST: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this l ~n+ day of ·e. 2-0 \ 4 R 11066 Resolution No. 11066 (2019 Series) EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Cannabis Fee Schedule One Time Application Fees All Commercial Cannabis Business Applicants: Initial Application Fee Final Application Fee when permit issues Total One Time Application Fees : Yearly License Renewal Fees Retail Businesses Manufacturing Businesses Cultivation Other Business 4,955 18,307 23,262 93,564 74,411 74,627 68,064 Page 3 R 11066 R 11213 RESOLUTION NO. 11213 (2021 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE CITY’S MASTER FEE SCHEDULE WITH UPDATED USER AND REGULATORY FEES FOR VARIOUS COMMERCIAL CANNABIS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WHEREAS, it is the City’s policy (User Fee Recovery Goals - Financial Plan Section H) to assess service charges based on specific policies for cost recovery of services provided; and WHEREAS, on May 15, 2018, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1647 ( 2018 Series) establishing a comprehensive regulatory program for the evaluation and permitting of commercial cannabis business operations within the City; and WHEREAS, on November 27, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution 10965 (2018 Series) which updated the City’s Master Fee Schedule to include the one-time application fees and yearly license renewal fees; and WHEREAS, on December 2, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution 11066 (2019 Series) which updated the City’s Master Fee Schedule that updated the one-time cannabis application fee for all types of cannabis businesses permitted within the City; and WHEREAS, Section 9.10.050 of the Municipal Code says that the City Council shall adopt fees necessary to implement the regulations in relation to Commercial Cannabis Operator Permits; and WHEREAS, the City has contracted with a consultant, HdL, to prepare a fee study for the purpose of identifying appropriate fees to assess for various activities associated with implementing and overseeing the City’s cannabis regulations for each business in the City of San Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, the City has completed one full year of operations to collect information on actual time spent compared to the initial cannabis yearly license renewal fees City Council adopted through Resolution 10965 (2018 Series), upon which staff has concluded it necessary to adjust the yearly license renewal fees for all types of cannabis businesses permitted within the City; and WHEREAS, public outreach was conducted through outreach by staff members to cannabis businesses impacted by the newly proposed fees and through publication of the proposed fee schedule on the City’s website in advance of the City Council’s consideration of the newly proposed fees; and WHEREAS, on November 27, 2018, the City Council adopted a fee schedule; and WHEREAS, on December 3, 2019 City Council adopted an updated fee schedule; and Resolution No. 11213 (2021 Series) Page 2 R 11213 WHEREAS, on January 19, 2021 the City Council held a public hearing to review and discuss the updated proposed fee schedule, receive public input, and consider the recommendations of its staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council makes the following findings: 1. That the above recitals are true and correct. 2. That the proposed user and regulatory fees are consistent with the City’s cost recovery goals (Financial Plan Section H), and that the established fees do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service or performing the activity for which the fee is imposed. Resolution No. 11213 (2021 Series) Page 3 R 11213 SECTION 2. Action. The City Council takes the following actions: 1. The City’ s Master Fee Schedule is hereby amended to include updated user and regulatory fees for cannabis business operator applications and annual operator permit licenses as provided in Exhibit A attached hereto. 2. The City will reimburse operators through the Finance Department who have already paid their 2020-2021 yearly license renewal fees the difference of what the operators paid based on the City’s 2020-2021 Master Fees and the newly proposed fees in Exhibit A attached hereto. 3. This resolution supersedes Resolution 11066 (2019 Series) to the extent inconsistent herewith. Upon motion of Council Member Christianson, seconded by Council Member Pease, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member Christianson, Marx, Pease, Vice Mayor Stewart, and Mayor Harmon NOES: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 19th day of January 2021. Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: Teresa Purrington 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, on ___________________________. Teresa Purrington, City Clerk Resolution No. 11213 (2021 Series) Page 4 R 11213 EXHIBIT A CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Cannabis Fee Schedule One Time Application Fees All Commercial Cannabis Business Applicants: Initial Application Fee $5,087.79 Final Application Fee when permit issues $18,797.63 Total One Time Application Fees $23,885.55 Yearly License Renewal Fees All types of Cannabis Businesses permitted within the City $39,638.38 636 From:Keller, Erin Sent:Wednesday, September 20, 2023 7:56 AM To:Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Stowe, Lala Cc:Bernstorff, Rebecca Subject:Update for Wed. morning Leadership Meeting - 9.20.23 Good morning, I cannot make the CDD weekly leadership meeting this morning. I am a part of the Budget 101 presentation team, scheduled at the same time out at the corporate yard. Here are my updates: Spreadsheet is updated as of yesterday: CDD Monthly Budget Review.xlsx o Both Expenses and Revenue as of yesterday o Added a new tab with thresholds we are going to be watching ( CDD Revenues Avg. Thresholds) o I need to fix graphs to include FY24 (work in progress) Fee study- I owe consultants contract totals for 4006, and Tyler a report on volume of permits. CMR routed: Amendment for Tyler Tech. ACFR Assignment from Traci due Oct. 11: FY 23 Indicators.xlsx Ask SLO – Responsibility Matrix – new oversight assignment for me Working on a salary savings report with all of our vacancies Mid-year budget will be due right before Christmas Vacation – I am going to put on our calendar now some meetings to make sure we meet the deadlines. Newest CMR - CAPSLO $40K unanticipated expenses (V&C Request) – Drafting I hope we can get in touch soon; I know it has been a while since I met you. Respectfully, Erin Keller pronouns she/her/hers Senior Business Analyst Community Development E EKeller@slocity.org T 805.781.7296 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 637 From:Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 19, 2023 2:03 PM To:Corey, Tyler Cc:Jamie Radcliff; Leveille, Brian; Cohen, Rachel Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Volumes and Comparison Survey Fees - User Fee Study Request Tyler, Thank you! I appreciate you also including the line-item number. 뇤뇱뇲뇳뇴뇵뇶 I’ll get started on this ASAP. Kind Regards, From: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 4:46 PM To: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com>; Leveille, Brian <bleveill@slocity.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: Volumes and Comparison Survey Fees - User Fee Study Request Hi Rachel, To answer question one below here are the three application types I would recommend for the comparison survey: 1) Minor Use Permit – Line item 3 of Master Fee Schedule 2) Tentative Tract Map – 5 plus lots, which is the average of line items 15-18 of fee schedule. 3) Development Review – Moderate. Line item 24. We are working on a more detailed report for volumes that would include the number of applications by permit type per fiscal year going back a few years. Thanks and let me know if you have any questions, Tyler Corey Deputy Director of Community Development CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 638 Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E tcorey@slocity.org T 805.781.7169 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 6:33 AM To: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org>; Leveille, Brian <bleveill@slocity.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Cc: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: Volumes and Comparison Survey Fees - User Fee Study Request This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Good Morning, I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to kindly request some specific information regarding the User Fee Study. At your convenience, can you please provide us with the following: 1. Please identify 2-3 fees you would like us to use in our comparison survey. (Peers selected for the survey are: San Luis Obispo County, Santa Barbara City, Ventura City, & Monterey City) 2. Please send us your volume data If you could kindly share the requested information by Wednesday, September 20th, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks and let me know if you have any questions. Kind Regards, 641 From:Kazemi, Neema Sent:Tuesday, September 19, 2023 8:55 AM To:Taylor, Brent; Bernstorff, Rebecca; Nichols, Vanessa Subject:RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Attachments:Allpermitsafter2018StFtTab.xlsx Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed My mistake, Brent. After reviewing this morning it looks like I wasn’t pulling proper fields. Try this report with the Square Feet tab being pulled. Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 4:33 PM To: Taylor, Brent <BTaylor@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) I’m not sure what else can be done on my end, garbage in equals garbage out. If no one is entering the fields, we can’t pull information on fields that haven’t been filled. Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 4:29 PM 642 To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Neema – unfortunately, this data is not providing what we are looking for. Still seeing 4023 permits on this report with no square footages listed and other fields provided to try and capture the missing data is either “0” or “NULL” or just not usable as the figure provided does not seem to make sense in context of what we are seeking. I would expect some of the work classes to have zero square foot such as the ones below, but that is only accounting for 337 of the 4023 permits with 0 listed. - Block/ retaining wall - Re-Roof - Foundation only - Alt/Addition where property owner added no sq footage (those would have to be manually sorted through to determine if sq ft was added) Not seeing a way to use these alternate fields on this report to capture the square footage data that is being requested. Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 11:01 AM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org>; Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Brent, This report should have everything you’ve requested from that tab. The database names are relatively straight forward so let me know if you have any trouble associating a field name to the additional info field on the permit. Let me know if I need to add anything else. Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 643 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 8:04 AM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Taylor, Brent <BTaylor@slocity.org>; Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Good morning, I’ll update the fields of the report and have it sent over by this afternoon. Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 4:43 PM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org>; Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Importance: High Hi Neema, Just following up on this request. I think it’s also going to help make progress in the user fee side of the fee study as well, so we are really excited to get this report! Thanks so much! Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org 644 Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 4:49 PM To: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) @Kazemi, Neema, can we try the report based on Vanessa’s suggestions below. I think everything is same as you previously pulled, except for the square footage data which Vanessa indicated can be pulled from the Square Feet tab under Additional Info. Screenshot below… Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst 645 Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:17 PM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi, So, yes you can pull the square footages from the square footage tab which also has it by construction type. The Number of Units would come from the Dwelling Units field on the general tab. Permit Number, Issue Date and Work Class are just fields to add to report. You will have to do the average of square footage after you get number of units and total square footage. Happy to help by showing which fields I am referencing. Let me know if you have any other questions. Vanessa Nichols Building Permit Services Supervisor Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E vnichols@slocity.org T 805.781.7588 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 8:14 AM To: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Vanessa – Thanks for the clarification and information. The data that we are trying to gather for impact fee consultant is: ALL Permits in last 5 years (1/1/2018 – current). Data points for those permits need to include the following: - Permit Number - Issue Date - Type of Construction/ Work Class (SFR, MFR, Commercial, etc) - Square Footage - Number of Units - Multifamily Permits – Average Square Footage per unit 646 Final data point for the Multifamily properties is to calculate the average sq ft of each unit, so will need to manually apply calculation (square footage/ # of units) to produce the average for those. The issue we are having with the reports that Neema helped generate is that for a lot of the Multifamily units, the square footage is “0” and therefore unable to calculate the average square footage per unit. Any ideas or suggestions on alternate fields from Energov that we could try in capturing this data would be appreciated as we are currently unable to provide the data needed to calculate impact fees. Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 8:14 AM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org>; Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Rebecca, Currently I would say most of our impact fees are based off square footages. The only ones that I can think of that aren’t are Park Improvement, Park Impact, Fire Citywide, Police Citywide and the Transportation add-on fees for specific areas, which are all on per unit basis. Commercial Water/Wastewater Impact fee is based off Water Meter size currently. Square footages are captured in several different areas in Energov. It depends on the data you are trying to obtain as to where the square footages should be pulled from. The square footage field located in “Detail” workflow tab is one area that square footage is captured and if appropriate for scope of work we do try to make sure this square footage field is completed. I would say that this field is completed most of the time (there was a window of time when this field was not keeping the data). All the fees are calculated on the back end but for fees to populate a manual input must happen. The square footage field is not connected to fee generation, so by human error it can be missed. However, only for new single-family residences would this square footage field generate accurate information. If you ran a report for only single-family residence and included permit number and this square footage field any that produced zero in the square footage field on the report could be easily corrected so report was complete. Pulling square footage from this field for Mixed-Use and Multi-Family projects is not as straightforward as residence and commercial square footages are combined. We also currently capture square footages (in ranges) through the Water, Wastewater and Transportation Citywide impact fees that are charged. You could get number of units, by workclass within each square footage range. Commercial impact fees can be capture through square footage inputs by type on the Transportation tab and the water meter sizes under the Water/Wastewater tab under Commercial. I do believe we have square footage inputs in Energov that would be helpful in your information gathering. I am happy to assistance in figuring out the best avenue of getting the information you are seeking out of Energov. Nothing about Energov or our current fee is straightforward. Hope this long explanation was at least a little helpful! 647 Vanessa Nichols Building Permit Services Supervisor Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E vnichols@slocity.org T 805.781.7588 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 10:25 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org>; Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Thanks for stopping by earlier this week, Vanessa. Talking through with Brent I now recall why sqft is something we need to capture, and may not have been capturing before because we usually only care about units. As a part of the Fee Study, we are working to be in compliance with AB 602, a new law requiring that nexus studies adopted after July 1, 2022 must calculate the amount of fees based on square footage of proposed units of the housing development project. Is this sqft info something that we have been inputting into Energov? If not, I totally understand why but wondering if/how we do capture that data going forward… Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 648 From: Bernstorff, Rebecca Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 10:27 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org>; Taylor, Brent <BTaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Thanks for pulling this together, Neema. Why would 0 be getting put in? I’m having a hard time following why this would happen and how we get the data to the fee study consultant when it now doesn’t exist in Energov? In the future, can we have this field be required to include the sqft at the time of adding in the permit to Energov?? Such as a mandatory number that can’t be 0? Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 9:12 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Brent, This report has the added School fee square footage listed as SQFTInfoNewResidential and SQFTInfoNewCommercial. If anything, it just creates more questions. But, let me know if that helps! Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 649 From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 9:03 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Issue date looks good now but questioning the Sq Ft field again. I see lots of “0” listed. Even on Multifamily where there is 13 units, still showing 0 sq footage. I checked a few permits and square footage is not input to the “Details” screen, but is showing on the “additional details” screen under school fees section. This is what I was talking about before, where the square footage is not consistently input to the details screen and not capturing the data needed. I see it on all types of permits – multifamily, SFR, etc. Example below. 650 Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 8:38 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Sorry, forgot to format on excel after exporting. This should be better! Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 8:32 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Neema, the issue date is not pulling correctly, can you fix that? Otherwise looks good. Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org 651 Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 8:25 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hey Brent, Try this out! Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 4:15 PM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Importance: High Hi Neema – can you please provide ETA for this report adding in the Dwelling Units (i.e. # of units for each permit). Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 11:14 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report 652 Hi Neema – our consultant is requesting additional field be added to this report. Need to provide the number of units associated with each Permit. Thinking we can use the “Dwelling Units” field on the Additional Info Screen to capture and add this to report you previously created. Let me know if this is something we can do. Thanks. Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 11:25 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Hi Brent, 653 I did a quick audit of like ten permits with 0 sq footage and they were all for window retrofits or door replacements. One was a commercial which was for a hood replacement. It looks like I misspoke, seems like our users in the front are pretty good about entering square footage if its applicable. Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 9:37 AM To: Taylor, Brent <BTaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Permits have the SQ footage as a default field on the main details, so it totally depends on users filling it out during input. But, there may be SQ footage fields in the additional info that we may fill out as well. Let me see what we got! Best. Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 8:51 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Hi Neema – no other data needed at this time. Looks good as is, except the blank sq ft fields. Is there any other Sq Ft fields in Energov which we can try to see if it will capture the ones showing 0 sq. ft.? I know it defaults to using this one, but front counter doesn’t always input to that field. 654 Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 8:14 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Hi Brent, Getting a report with those data points took a few minutes, but is there any fee data you’d like added? Or currently, there is no address information either. I can probably get this finished this morning. For now, the only filters I have are BLDG permit and issuedate after 1/1/2018. Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:42 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: Building Permit Report Hi Neema, hoping you can help me with putting together a report out of Energov for data that is needed for the Impact Fee Study project which will update our impact fee amounts. Consultant is requesting a report on building permits for time range of 1/1/2018 – current. Main data points needed are issue date, type of construction (SFR, MFR, etc) and the square footage. This would be for building permits only. Is this something you would be able to help me with? Would like to provide the report by Friday if possible. 655 Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 671 From:Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 19, 2023 8:53 AM To:Bernstorff, Rebecca Cc:Cindy Sconce Subject:Re: [EXTERNAL]FW: Fee Study Update Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Rebecca, That's great news. Totally fine to cancel. I'd like to give Building the opportunity to provide us with the data. I'm wondering if Mike/Building has spoken with Fire? Fire was waiting to see if Building was going to be able to provide percentages. Can you ask Mike if he's had a chance to talk with Fire? We need to see how Rodger in Fire feels about providing this data because up to this point, he said he can't and would wait to hear as to how Building did it. Can you push to have them meet internally? If fire still can't figure out how to fill it out after speaking with Building then we may need to go with one of the alternatives we mentioned yesterday. Thanks again for helping us move this along. Ruben Rivas Manager 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 831.227.3911 Email: rrivas@mgtconsulting.com From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 8:42 AM To: Ruben Rivas <RRivas@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]FW: Fee Study Update Hi Ruben, CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 672 I’m going to cancel Wednesday’s meeting but the detailed information below from Mike does reassure me that he will have everything to you by Monday… If you feel differently we can keep the meeting and chat with Rodger but Mike won’t be able to make it… Thanks! Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 6:24 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Cc: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Fee Study Update Rebecca, First, please keep being assertive and applying pressure until you get what you need and want out of us. And please do not feel obligated to apologize for trying to make your project successful. I think you’re doing great. I am just communicating my capacity to set expectations that are realistic for myself and my team. I am delegating the bulk of this to Trevor and Vanessa. I will be meeting with them on Thursday afternoon after the front counter is closed. I have asked them to anticipate working on the spreadsheets Thursday afternoon or Friday morning. I plan to review them at 1pm on Friday and should be able to complete our assigned tasks shortly after. We can schedule a check-in for 3pm on Friday if you would like, but I do not believe we need anymore help for this stage. Thanks, Mike Loew Deputy Director Chief Building Official Community Development E Mloew@slocity.org T 805.781.7157 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 673 From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 6:10 PM To: Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org> Cc: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Fee Study Update Hi Mike, I understand; when would be the best time to schedule the meeting? My intent was to help solve any questions in a meeting setting to save you time; apologies if it didn’t come across that way. Thanks, Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 6:08 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Cc: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: Fee Study Update Hi Rebecca, I am not going to have anything new to provide as an update for the fee study on Wednesday afternoon. I already have a full schedule on Wednesday and will not have time to complete our assessments until Friday since Neema does not anticipate being able to get us the data we need until Wednesday morning. Thanks for understanding, Mike Loew Deputy Director Chief Building Official Community Development E Mloew@slocity.org T 805.781.7157 674 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 675 From:Bernstorff, Rebecca Sent:Tuesday, September 19, 2023 8:44 AM To:Loew, Michael Cc:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Subject:RE: Fee Study Update Thank you very much for the detailed plan of attack, and again I appreciate your prioritization of this extra work effort. I know you and your team have a lot going on. I’ll let MGT they should get everything from you by early next week, no need to meet. Thanks! RB Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 6:24 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Cc: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Fee Study Update Rebecca, First, please keep being assertive and applying pressure until you get what you need and want out of us. And please do not feel obligated to apologize for trying to make your project successful. I think you’re doing great. I am just communicating my capacity to set expectations that are realistic for myself and my team. I am delegating the bulk of this to Trevor and Vanessa. I will be meeting with them on Thursday afternoon after the front counter is closed. I have asked them to anticipate working on the spreadsheets Thursday afternoon or Friday morning. I plan to review them at 1pm on Friday and should be able to complete our assigned tasks shortly after. We can schedule a check-in for 3pm on Friday if you would like, but I do not believe we need anymore help for this stage. Thanks, Mike Loew Deputy Director 676 Chief Building Official Community Development E Mloew@slocity.org T 805.781.7157 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 6:10 PM To: Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org> Cc: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Fee Study Update Hi Mike, I understand; when would be the best time to schedule the meeting? My intent was to help solve any questions in a meeting setting to save you time; apologies if it didn’t come across that way. Thanks, Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 6:08 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Cc: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: Fee Study Update Hi Rebecca, I am not going to have anything new to provide as an update for the fee study on Wednesday afternoon. I already have a full schedule on Wednesday and will not have time to complete our assessments until Friday since Neema does not anticipate being able to get us the data we need until Wednesday morning. Thanks for understanding, 677 Mike Loew Deputy Director Chief Building Official Community Development E Mloew@slocity.org T 805.781.7157 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications