HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/15/1999, 2 - PLANNING FEE COST RECOVERY j aGEnaa Report
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Bill Statler,Director of Finance
SUBJECT: PLANNING FEE COST RECOVERY
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution amending planning fees and generally setting cost recovery at 45%.
DISCUSSION
Background
The Preliminary 1999-01 Financial Plan recommends increasing the level of cost recovery for
planning processing services from 25% to 40%. This would generate about $140,000 in
additional General Fund revenue annually, and is an essential component in achieving a balanced
budget as initially presented by the CAO.
At its June 1, 1999 meeting, the Council conceptually approved increasing the level of planning
fee cost recovery up to 50% in order to fund a new firefighter position. At 45%, the proposed
cost recovery goal will generate new revenues of about $185,000, or $45,000 more than the
previously proposed level. This will be sufficient to fund an additional firefighter position.
Current policy. The City's current user fee policy calls for 25%cost recovery for most planning
services(cost recovery for other development review services such as infrastructure,building and
fire plan check and inspection is set at 100%); for some planning services(most notably appeals),
the City's cost recovery policy is zero. Prior to 1995, the City's policy called for 100% cost
recovery for most planning services. Notable exceptions were ARC review fees, which were set
at 50%cost recovery; and appeal fees, for which there was no fee.
The change in policy in 1995 was based on the principle that the City's planning process
primarily benefits the community at-large, and as such, most of the cost should be born through
general purpose tax revenues. While this principle would continue to be reflected in the
proposed fees—general purpose tax revenues would continue to fund most of the cost for
planning services—the subsidy would be decreased from 75%to 55%.
Why Should We Increase Planning Fees?
An example. As recommended in the Preliminary Financial Plan, the City will incur$60,000 in
direct contract planning costs to process the Orcutt Area Specific Plan request, as well as other
significant indirect costs. However, under our current 25% cost recovery policy, we have only
received about $15,000 in revenue to cover this cost. Under the proposed policy, there would
Council Agenda Report—Planning Fee Cost Recovery
Page 2
still be a significant General Fund subsidy: 55% ($33,000 in this example) of the cost would
continue to be subsidized by the community at-large. However, the applicant would pay a higher
share of the cost($12,000 in this example).
In short, we believe that a higher cost recovery in these circumstances is warranted under the
guidelines set forth in the City's general user fee cost recovery policy (Exhibit A). Additionally,
General Fund subsidies for these services take resources away from other high-priority services
(like public safety and street maintenance) that do not have significant cost recovery
opportunities.
Proposed Fees
A comparison of current and proposed planning fees is provided in Exhibit B. As reflected in
this schedule, current fees are increased across the board from a 25% to a 45% cost recovery
level. We formed an internal review team composed of the Assistant CAO, Director of Finance,
Development Review Manager, Long Range Planning Manager and Revenue Manager to
evaluate the concept of setting different cost recovery levels for various fee categories. Based on
the difficulty in developing a consistent rationale for doing so, we concluded that setting all
planning fees at the same cost recovery level (except as noted below)was the best approach.
Exceptions to 45% cost recovery. As noted above,recommended planning fees are generally set
at a 45% cost recovery level. The underlying basis for this is the comprehensive cost of services
study prepared in 1995, and updated annually by changes in the consumer.price index since then.
However, consistent with past Council policy, no fees are proposed for processing appeals and
recording bonds. On the other hand, continuing to set environmental impact report fees at the
contract cost plus 30%is intended to provide full cost recovery for this service.
Proposed rate structure changes'. Two minor changes are proposed to the current planning fee
rate structure:
• Time extensions. Based on a review of the effort required to process time extension
requests,we recommend reducing this fee from 50%to 25%of the filing fee.
• Modifications. The current fee schedule does not set fees for reviewing modifications to
approved plans. However, this is a service we commonly provide. As such,we recommend
establishing this fee, and setting it at the same rate as time extensions: 25% of the current
filing fee.
Notice Procednres and Effective Date
In accordance with AB 1600 which establishes comprehensive procedures for setting and
adopting development review fees, notice regarding this proposed increase has been sent to all
those who have requested to be so notified(Exhibit Q. Additionally, the proposed new fees will
not go into effect until 60 days after adoption of the attached resolution as required by AB 1600.
2-Z
METING AGENDA
DA. 674229 ITEM # -:2
Council Agenda Report—Planning Fee Cost Recovery
Page 3
• CONCURRENCES
The Community Development Department concurs with the proposed fee schedule.
FISCAL IMPACT
As noted above, increasing the cost recovery from planning fees from 25% to 45% is an
important component in achieving a balanced budget for the next two years, including the
firefighter position added by the Council. Without this increase, there will be a General Fund
budget gap of about $370,000 over the next two years. Closing this gap without the proposed
new revenues will require reducing expenditures by this amount, or taking fund balance below
policy levels.
ALTERNATIVES
• Continue setting planning fees at a 25% cost recovery level. Based on the Preliminary
Financial Plan as conceptually amended by the Council, this would result in a $370,000
budget gap over the next two years. Additionally, we believe that a higher cost recovery
level is appropriate under our general user fee cost recovery policy. As such, we do not
recommend continuing to set planning fees at the current 25%cost recovery level.
• • Increase planning fee cost recovery. At 45%, the proposed cost recovery level is consistent
with our previous that general purpose revenues pay for most of the cost for planning
services. Additionally, while increasing cost recovery to 50% would reduce the use of
beginning fund balance,the budget is balanced(and fund balance maintained at the minimum
policy level) at the proposed cost recovery level. As such, no further recovery beyond the
proposed 45% level is recommended at this time.
ATTACHMENT
Resolution amending planning fees and generally setting cost recovery at 45%
EXHIBITS
A. User fee cost recovery policy(excerpt from Preliminary Financial Plan)
B. Comparison of current and proposed planning fees
C. User fee notification list
G:Budget Folders/1999-01 Financial Plan/Agenda Reports/Planning Fees
•
2-3
RESOLUTION NO. (1999 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING PLANNING FEES AND GENERALLY SETTING COST RECOVERY AT 45%
WHEREAS, in accordance with its adopted user fee cost recovery policy the City
currently sets most of its development review fees such as infrastructure, building and fire plan
check and inspections at a 100% cost recovery level, but sets most planning fees at a 25% cost
recovery level; and
WHEREAS, prior to 1995 the City set most of its planning fees at a 100% cost recovery
level,but revised this to 25% as part of the 1995-97 Financial Plan process; and
WHEREAS, as part of the 1999-01 Financial Plan process,the Council considered setting
most planning fees at a 45%cost recovery level.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that
the attached planning fee schedule is hereby adopted effective August 15, 1999.
On motion of , seconded by ,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOTE:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of June, 1999.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED:
Jeffrey G. Jorgensen,City Attorney
2-�
a
PLANNING SERVICES FEE SCHEDULE
Cost Recovery Goal Fee as of August 15, 1999
ZONING SERVICES
Sidewalk Sales Permit 45% $86.00
Home Occupation Permit 45% 97.00
Administrative Use Permit 45% 452.00
Planning Commission Use Permit 45% 1,577.00
Downtown Housing Conversion Permit 45% 2,677.00
Variance 45% 540.00
Planned Development
Rezoning 45% 4,342.00
Plan Amendment 45% 1,051.00
Rezoning
Map Amendment 45% 3,634.00
Text Amendment 45% 45%of full cost of time&materials
Time ExtensionlModification 45% 25%of current filing fee
SUBDIVISION SERVICES
Lot Line Adjustment 45% 743.00
Tentative Subdivision Map
4 or less lots 45% 4,932.00
5 or mon:lots 45% 4,932.00 plus 164.00 per lot
Certificate of Compliance 45% 1,028.00
Time Extension/Modification 45% 25%of current filing fee
OTHER PLANNING SERVICES
Environmental Impact Determination 45% 1,177.00
Environmental Impact Report 100% Consultant contract plus 30%for
administrative&review services
Architectural Review
Signs 45% 743.00
Development Projects 45% 1,339.00
Minor-Incidental 45% 416.00
Plan Revision 45% 808.00
Time Extension/Modification 45% 25%of current filing fee
Christmas Tree/Pumpkin Lot Permit 45% 38.00
Fence Height Exception 45% 157.00
Voluntary Merger 45% 155.00
Agreements 45% 158.00
Bonds 0% No Charge
Street Name Change 45% 45%of full cost of time&materials
Street Abandonment 45% 45%of full cost of time&materials
Condominium Conversion 45% 2,660.00
Appeals 0% No Charge
GENERAL AND SPECIFIC PLANS
General Plan Amendment
Map(includes rezoning) 45% 45%of full cost of time&materials
Text 45% 45%of full cost of time&materials
Specific Plan Amendment 45% 45%of full cost of time&materials
ANNEXATIONS 45% 45%of full cost of time&materials
AO fees indude ones for applicable notification requirements to adjacent property owners. Public art and affordable
housing are exempt from all planning fees.
2 S'
A r
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES Exhibit
IUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
borrowings, which are usually made f B. User Fee Cost Recovery Levels r
temporary cash flow reasons, and are t
In setting user fees and cost recovery levels, the
intended to result in a transfer of finaz
following factors will be considered:
resources by the end of the fiscal year. In
summary, interfimd transfers result m a c ge
in fiord equity; interfund borrowmgs do ot, as 1. Community-Wide Versus Special Benefit
The level of user fee cost recovery should
the intent is to repay in the loan in the term. consider the community-wide versus special
service nature of the program or activity.
From time-to-time, irate thesfimmde
borro gs may The use of general purpose revenues is
be appropriate;however,these are bject to the appropriate for community-wide services,
following criteria in ensuring tha the fiduciary �° for services
purpose of the fund is met while user fees are refitappropriatet
that are of special benefit to easily identified
1. The Director of Finan is authorized to
individuals or groups.
approve temporary m d borrowings for
cash flow Purposes henever the cash 2. Service Recipient Versus Service Driver.
be resolved within After considering community-wide versus
shortfall is expected st common use of special benefit of the service,the concept of
45 days. service recipient versus service driver
interfimd burcircumstance ro under this ci cstance should also be considered. For example, it
is for grant Pro bice the Community could be argued that the applicant is not the
Development B k Grant, where costs are
incurred bef drawdowns are initiated and beneficiary of the Cit}rs development
review efforts: the community is the
received. H ever, receipt of fiords are beneficiary. However, the
rk any ed shortly after the request pay
for y ds been made applicant is the driver of development
review costs, and as such, cost recovery
2. Any o mterfimd borrowings for cash from the applicant is appropriate.
flow other purposes requite case-bye 3. Effed of pricing on the Demand for
aPPro by the Counucil. Services. The level of cost recovery and
transfers between funds where related pricing of services can significantly
3.
utsemeat is not expected within one affect the demand and subsequent level of
year shall not be recorded as interfind services provided. At full cost recovery,
this has the specific advantage of ensuring
wings; they shall be recorded as service
that the City is providing s for which f
interfund .operating transfers that affect there is genuinely a market that is not
equity by moving financial resources from overly-stimulated by artificially low prices. {
one fiord to another. Conversely, high levels of cost recovery f
will negatively impact on the delivery of
USER FEE COST RECOVERY GOALS services to lower income groups.
'
negative feature is especially Provo
Review and works agamst public policy to low
if the
A- ongoing Review are specifically targeted
Fees will be reviewed and updated on an income groups'
ongoing basis to ensure that they keep Pace with 4. Feasibility of Collection and Recovery-
changes in the cost-of-living as well as changes Although it may be determined that a high
in methods or levels of service delivery.
POLICIES AND OBJEC .'ES
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
level of cost recovery may be appropriate scale licenses and permits might fall into
for specific services, it may be impractical this category.
or too costly to establish a system to
identify and charge the user. Accordingly, D. Factors Favoring High Cost Recovery Levels
the feasibility of assessing and collecting
charges should also be considered in The use of service charges as a major source of
developing user fees, especially if finding service levels is especially appropriate
significant program costs are intended to be under the following circumstances:
financed from that source.
1. The service is similar to services provided
C. Factors Favoring Low Cost Recovery Levels through the private sector.
Very low cost recovery levels are appropriate 2. Other private or public sector alternatives
under the following circumstances: could or do exist for the delivery of the
service.
I. There is no intended relationship between
the amount paid and the benefit received. 3. For equity or demand management
Almost all "social service" programs fall purposes,it is intended that there be a direct
into this category as it is expected that one relationship between the amount paid and
group will subsidize another. the level and cost of the service received.
2. Collecting fees is not cost-effective or will 4. The use of the service is specifically
significantly impact the efficient delivery of discouraged. Police responses to
the service. disturbances or false alarms might fall into
this category.
3. There is no intent to limit the use of (or
entitlement to) the service. Again, most 5. The service is regulatory in nature and
"social service" programs fit into this voluntary compliance is not expected to be
category as well as many public safety the primary method of detecting failure to
i
(police and fire) emergency response meet regulatory requirements. Building
services. historically, access to permit,plan checks, and subdivision review
neighborhood and community parks would fees for.large projects would fall into this i
also fit into this category. category.
4. The service is non-recurring, generally E. General Concepts Regarding the Use of
delivered on a"peak demand" or emergency Service Charges
basis, cannot reasonably be planned for on
an individual basis, and is not readily , The following general concepts will be used in
available from a private sector source. developing and implementing service charges:
Many public safety services also fall into
this category. 1. Revenues should not exceed the reasonable
5. Collecting fees would discourage cost of providing the service.
compliance with regulatory requirements
and adherence is primarily self-identified, 2. Cost recovery goals should be based on the
and as such, failure to comply would not be total cost of delivering the service,
readily detected by the City. Many small- including direct costs, departmental
administration costs, and organization-wide
B-7
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
support costs such as accounting,personnel, 1. Cost recovery for activities directed to
data processing, vehicle maintenance, and adults should be relatively high.
insurance.
2. Cost recovery for activities directed to
3. The method of assessing and collecting fees youth and seniors should be relatively low.
should be as simple as possible in order to In those circumstances where services are
reduce the administrative cost of collection. similar to those provided in the private
sector, cost recovery levels should be
4. Rate structures should be sensitive to the higher.
"market" for similar services as well as to
smaller,infrequent users of the service. Although ability to pay may not be a
concern for all youth and senior
5. A unified approach should be used in participants, these are desired program
determining cost recovery levels for various activities, and the cost of determining need
programs based on the factors discussed may be greater than the cost of providing a
above. uniform service fee structure to all
participants. Further, there is a community-
F. Low Cost-Recovery Services wide benefit in encouraging high-levels of
participation in youth and senior recreation
Based on the criteria discussed above, the activities regardless of financial status.
following types of services should have very
low cost recovery goals. In selected 3. Cost recovery goals for specific recreation i
circumstances, there may be specific activities activities are set as follows: i
within the broad scope of services provided that
should have user charges associated with them. Sigh Renege Cost Recovery Activities
However, the primary source of fimding for the (67%to 80%)
operation as a whole should be general purpose a. Classes(Adult&Youth) 80%
revenues,not user fees. b. Day care services 75%
c. Adult athletics(volleyball,
1. Delivering public safety emergency basketball,softball,
response services such as police patrol lap swim) 67%
services and fire suppression. d. Facility rentals(Jack House,
other in-door facilities except
2. Maintaining and developing public facilities the City/County Library) 67%
that are provided on a uniform, community-
wide basis such as streets, parks, and
general purpose buildings.
3. Providing social service programs and
economic development activities. t
G. Recreation Programs F
The following cost recovery policies apply to
the City's recreation programs: t
f
B-8
2-�
POLICIES AND OBJ ECI ..ES
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
Mid--Range Cost Recovery Activities H. Development Review Programs
(30%to 50%)
The following cost recovery policies apply to
e. City/County Library the development review programs:
room rentals 50%
f. Special events(triathlon, 1. Services provided under this category
other City-sponsored include:
special events) 50%
g. Youth track 40% a. Planning(planned development permits,
h. Minor league baseball 30% tentative tract and parcel maps,
i. Youth basketball 30% rezonings, gang plan amendments,
j. Swim lessons 30% variances,use permits).
k. Outdoor facility and
equipment rentals 30% b. Building and safety (building permits,
structural plan checks,inspections).
Low-Range Cost Recovery Activities c. Engineering (public improvement plan
(0 to 2540) checks, inspections, subdivision
1. Public swim 25% requirements,encroachments).
in. Special swim classes 15% d. Fire plan check.
n. Community garden 100/0
o. Youth STAR 00/0
2. Cost recovery for these services should
p. Teen services 00/0
generally be very high. hl most instances,
q. Senior services 0% the City's cost recovery goal should be
100%. Exceptions to this standard include
4. For cost recovery activities of less than plug services, as this review process is
100%, there should be a differential in rates clearly untended to serve the broader
between residents and non-residents. community as well as the applicant. In this
case,the general level of cost recovery is set
5. Charges will be assessed for use of rooms, at c, except for appeals, where no fee is
pools, gymnasiums, ball fields, special-use charged.
areas, and recreation equipment for 4 °b
activities not sponsored or co-sponsored by 3. However, in charging high cost recovery
the City. Such charges will generally levels, the City needs to clearly establish
conform to the fee guidelines described and articulate standards for its performance
above. in reviewing developer applications to
ensure that there is"value for cost".
6. A-vendorcharge of at least 10 percent of
gross income will be assessed from I. Comparability With Other Communities
individuals or organizations using City
facilities for money-making activities. In setting user fees, the City will consider fees
charged by other agencies.in accordance with'
7. The Parks & Recreation Department will the following criteria:
consider waiving fees only when the City
Administrative Officer determines in 1. Surveying the comparability of the City's
writing that an undue hardship exists. fees to other communities provides useful
B-9
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES N
background information in setting fees for operations, capital outlay, and debt servic
several reasons: the following enterprise programs: water, se
and parking.
a. They reflect the "market" for these fees
and can assist in assessing the B. Golf. Golf program fees and rates should ly
reasonableness of San Luis Obispo's cover direct operating costs. Because f the
fees. nine-hole nature of the golf course with i focus
on youth and seniors, subsidies m the
b. If prudently analyzed, they can serve as General Fund to cover indirect costs capital
a benchmark for how cost-effectively improvements may be considere by the
San Luis Obispo provides its services. Council as part of the Financial Plan ocess.
2. However, fee surveys should never be the C. Transit. As set forth in the Short- ge Transit N
sole or primary criteria in setting City fees Plan, the City will_strive to cover t least thirty
as there are many factors that affect how percent of transit operating c is with fare
and why other communities have set their revenues. N
fees at their levels. For example:
D. Ongoing Rate Review. The City will review
a. What level of cost recovery is their fee and adjust enterprise fees an rate structures as
intended to achieve compared with our required to ensure that they appropriate
cost recovery objectives? and equitable.
b. What costs have been considered in E. Franchise and In-Lien ees. In accordance
computing the fees? with long-standing prac ces, City will treat the
c. When was the last time that their fees water and sewer fiords • the same manner as if
were comprehensively evaluated? they were privately and operated. In
d. What level of service do they provide addition to setting at levels necessary to
compared with our service or fully cover the cost f providing water service,
performance standards? this means asses ' reasonable franchise and
property tax in-lie fees.
e. Is their rate structure significantly
different than ours and what is it 1. Franchise f are based on the state-wide
intended to achieve? standard f public utilities like electricity
and gas: % of gross revenues from
These can be very difficult questions to operati . The appropriateness of charging
address in fairly evaluating fees among the wa fiord a reasonable franchise fee for
different communities. As such, the the use f City streets is further supported
comparability of our fees to other by the is of recent studies in Arizona,
communities should be one factor among Calif 'a, Ohio and Vermont which
many that is considered in setting City fees. conc ded that the leading cause for street
cing and reconstruction is street cuts
MUERPRISE FUND FEES AND RA an trenching for utilities.
2. operty tax in-lieu fees are established
A. Water, Sewer Parlung. The City will set der the same methodology used in
fees tes at levels which fully cover the assessing property tax in-lieu fees to the
tetff direct and indirect costs—including Housing Authority under our 1976
B-10
Exhibit .
PLANNING SERVICES FEE SCHEDULE
As of July 1, 1999 Proposed:
ZONING SERVICES
Sidewalk Sales Permit $48.00 $86.00
Home Occupation Permit 54.00 97.00
Administrative Use Permit 251.00 452.00
Planning Commission Use Permit 876.00 1,577.00
Downtown Housing Conversion Permit 1,487.00 2,677.00
Variance 300.00 540.00
Planned Development
Rezoning 2,412.00 4,342.00
Plan Amendment 584.00 1,051.00
Rezoning
Map Amendment 2,019.00 3,634.00
Text Amendment 25%of full cost of time&materials 45%of full cost of time&materials
Time Extension/Modification• 50%of current filing fee 25%of current filing fee
SUBDIVISION SERVICES
Lot Line Adjustment 413.00 743.00
Tentative Subdivision Map
4 or less lots 2,740.00 4,932.00
5 or more lots 2,740.00 plus 91.00 per lot 4,932.00 plus 164.00 per lot
Certificate of Compliance 571.00 1,028.00
Time Extension/Modification• 50%of current filing fee 25%of current filing fee
OTHER PLANNING SERVICES
Environmental Impact Determination 654.00 1,177.00
Environmental Impact Report Consultant contract plus 30%for Consultant contract plus 30%for
administrative&review services administrative&review services
Architectural Review
Signs 413.00 743.00
Development Projects 744.00 1,339.00
Minor4ncldental 231.00 416.00
Plan Revision 449.00 808.00
Time Extension/Modification• 50%of current filing fee 25%of current filing fee
Christmas Tree/Pumpkin Lot Permit 21.00 38.00
Fence Height Exception 87.00 157.00
Voluntary Merger 86.00 155.00
Agreements 88.00 158.00
Bonds No Charge No Charge
Street Name Change 25%of full cost of time&materials 45%of full cost of time&materials
Street Abandonmerrt 25%of full cost of time&materials 45%of full cost of time&materials
Condominium Conversion 1,478.00 2,660.00
Appeals No Charge No Charge
GENERAL AND SPECIFIC PLANS
General Plan Amendment
Map(includes rezoning) 25%of full cost of time&materials 45%of full cost of time&materials
Text 25%of full cost of time&materials 45%of full cost of time&materials
Specific Plan Amendment 25%of full cost of time&materials 45°k of full cost of time&materials
ANNEXATIONS 25%of full cost of time&materials 45%of full cost of time&materials
Modification'is anew fee category.
All fees include costs fir appricable notification requirements to adjacent property owners. Public art and affordable
housing are exempt from ag planning fees.
Exhibit
Downtown Association Building Industry Association Business Coalition
1108 Garden Street of the Central Coast 846 Higuera Street
S 15 Post Office Box 6180 Suite 2
& .us Obispo,CA 93401 Santa Maria,CA 93456 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Chamber of Commerce ECOSLO Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
Director of Governmental Affairs Post Office Box 1014 c/o Ray Nordquist
1039 Chorro Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 750 Pasatiempo Drive
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
RRM Design Group SLO Association of Manufacti rers& SLO Board of Realtors Association
3026 South Higuera Street Distributors 443 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 c/o Barnett&Cox San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
979 Osos Street,Suite F
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
SLO Property Owners Association Sierra Chub Chorro Neighborhood Group
Post Office Box 12924 clo Pat Veesart c/o Carol Tangernan
San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 1446 Monro Street 806 Murray Avenue
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
Don Smith SLO County Builders Exchange SLO Housing Authority
1111 Vista Lago 3563 Sueldo Street,Suite G Attention: Executive Director
San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Post Office Box 1289
San Luis Obispo,CA 93406
San Luis Coastal Unified School District Assignment Editor The Tnbune
Attn:Assistant Supt for Business Services KSBY TV Attention Mike Stover
1499 San Luis Drive 467 Hill Avenue Post Office Box 112
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-3099 San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 San Luis Obispo,CA 93406
News Director CSU Cal Poly
KGLO Radio Administrative Services
Post Office Box 170 One Grand Avenue
Arroyo Grande,CA 93421 San Luis Obispo,CA 93407
G ListsTee Notifications
Z-/z
"SETING AGENDA
�'-ITEM #
THEMEAL ESTATE CROUP OF S!O, 11`IC
983 MILL STREET
• SAKI LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 ffoAAUDNIAOCIL VINR
(805) 541-3888 FINE ❑FIRE CI'.:cr'
AT40RNEY ❑PW DIR
Rti:ERKIORIG 0 POLICE CHF
RECEIVED ❑MGMT TEAM ❑REC DIR
❑ ❑UTIL DIR
❑,__ O PERS DIR Q
JUN 1 4 1999 �AX COVER S rI r r�j
SLO CITY CLERKC
TO: //1G��lIJ� �'�fle Gi� WTD-cL{I DATE 6 ,1q
,1q _ ql
COMPANY
FAX#
FROM: 2112 Wrncy,Firt l (Fax #805 - 541-0390)
NUMBER OF PAGES TO FOLLOW:
• REMARKS:
W t l( jc2 Q WE �� �ut�n G,il.�,� you- �w !T-c,.L
C�S'1- re[aw �s r,ecumn.cHo�cr� � 6u�• �.�>��� G z,�.. ,fin✓
7 'T mow• ^"( U-1- /A- Tia v-
Lc,-� 6✓�-fo( t..�.tl� S�- �u�- 'fib � k....cB �x f�..�e
6 sem- - ywy,1 PR
Gley �,M.e- iS �T 6.2�T Y�r►�Z-e 27' t s _�r�<<(�cc�.�Z�
�ls'J&-LQ'�o r ��e �c.9s..S �,,.oL �s GvtU /er
Lyn-
�rr �cl�r CSn'!S t�.-mac•-- _.
LbA% u LS-fv 1 Lj� 'ra fi u KAEhN-5 4^ d— YLAa,1G,/