HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/24/2017 Item 12, Winholtz
Christian, Kevin
From:betty winholtz <winholtz@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Tuesday, October
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:city couoncil agenda item 12
Dear SLO City Council:
The City of Arroyo Grande is making a decision regarding the animal shelter participation
at their meeting tonight. Here is the link to their staff report. It
begins on page 83.
http://www.arroyogrande.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_10242017-
937?packet=true
Rather that let Paso and Atascadero slip away, it is being suggested that Arroyo Grande
write a letter to Paso and Atascadero encouraging them to honor the process of the last
two years of negotiations and stay in with all the county cities. This economically
benefits everyone. I have copied the DRAFT letter below. Being a resident of Morro Bay
I am encouraging my city, and I hope San Luis Obispo City, to consider sending a similar
letter to Paso and Atascadero, both of which do not meet until next week. Grover Beach
and Pismo Beach do not have meetings scheduled, but are waiting to see what happens
in the other cities. Though all cities will be copied when AG takes its final action, I
thought it would be of benefit for the respective city councils to know now what other
cities are considering.
Sincerely,
Betty Winholtz
October 25, 2017
Atascadero Mayor and City Council
City Hall
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
Paso Robles Mayor and City Council
City Hall
1000 Spring Street
Paso Robles, CA 93446
1
Dear Mayor O’Malley, Mayor Martin and Council Members,
After an extensive series of discussions and negotiations spanning the course of over two
years, the County of San Luis Obispo and cities of Atascadero, Arroyo Grande, Grover
Beach, Morro Bay, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach, and San Luis Obispo were successful in
developing an agreement dated February1, 2017 (the “Agreement”) for the allocation of
construction and financing costs for a new animal shelter to be located at 865 Oklahoma
Avenue in San Luis Obispo.
This Agreement represents a significant collaborative and joint effort to ensure the
construction of a new shelter. The new shelter would provide animal care and control
services to residents of the seven cities and the County in a facility that would be
consistent with current humane standards and public expectations. By agreeing to work
together to construct the shelter, all of the agencies benefit from the economies of scale of
sharing both capital and service costs for a new facility, which would not be feasible for
most of the individual agencies.
Under the Agreement, each agency is apportioned a percentage of the estimated costs to
construct the shelter based on the average use of the existing shelter from 2012-2015 by
each agency. Therefore, the City of Arroyo Grande is troubled and concerned to hear that
the cities of Paso Robles and Atascadero are reconsidering their continued participation
in the construction of the shelter. If the cities of Paso Robles and Atascadero withdraw
from the Agreement, the portion of the costs attributed to the withdrawing parties will be
spread among the remaining agencies. Based on the allocation formula set forth in the
Agreement, the City of Paso Robles share comprises 18.81% of the total cost and the City
of Atascadero’s is 14.3%. Together, they represent approximately 33% of the total cost of
the $13.3 million construction project or $4.4 million. Other than the unincorporated
areas of the County (at 37.96%), these two cities bear the largest shares of the allocation.
If Paso Robles and Atascadero withdraw from the Agreement, the resulting impact to the
City of Arroyo Grande’s total costs would be an increase of almost $600,000
Your potential last minute decision to withdraw after two years of honest and fair
negotiations is damaging to your fellow cities in the following ways:
1. Withdrawal by Paso Robles and Atascadero may force the City of Arroyo Grande and
other cities to also withdraw from the Agreement due to an inability to absorb the
increase in costs. Such a decision could threaten the viability of the entire project. Thus
diminishing the ability of all citizens of the County to receive this important service.
Sharing the costs of construction ensures a shelter meeting current industry standards will
be built, which will benefit all of the communities involved. As was pointed out by the
2
Executive Director of Woods Humane Society in her letter to the San Luis Obispo
Tribune dated October 6, 2017, “\[t\]his economy of scale allows the shared usage of a
sheltering facility, field officer response and the assurance that resources are available to
respond to disasters and large-scale seizures. It gives the public a single point of contact
for response and relieves local municipalities from the call volume, concerns and
complaints that can arise related to animal issues.”
2. Your fellow cities now have to make last minute and speculative choices as opposed to
well-reasoned decisions that can identify, analyze, and compare alternatives and find
solutions that improve all the communities in this County.
3. This last minute change of course may also be damaging to future collaborative
regional and countywide efforts. Why should regional partners believe in the future that
your cities will negotiate fairly and not use this tactic in the future? If your quick decision
to withdraw turns out not to be in the best interest of your community, why would the
remaining partners want to let you rejoin the project later?
4. This action is wasteful to taxpayers in general. Two years of staff time, involvement of
lawyers to make the agreement, and hours of public testimony may be jeopardized by
changing course. This potential action is not an example of good governance but just the
opposite.
Your last minute reconsideration of the Agreement leaves us asking, what do you want
that was not addressed in the long process of negotiating this agreement? Is it the price of
the building? Is it that your citizens have to travel too far? If these are the reasons, we
believe that your cities will fare much better staying in the Agreement and working to
find cooperative solutions and not forcing your fellow communities to make quick
decisions and be penalized by cost increases.
The City of Arroyo Grande asks the cities of Paso Robles and Atascadero to stay the
course and not withdraw from the Agreement.
The Agreement is the result of significant efforts by eight public agencies coming
together with the common goal of providing a
new animal shelter to replace the current shelter, which is in poor condition, outdated and
no longer meets current industry standards
for sheltering animals. To withdraw at this point in time will leave the remaining
agencies in jeopardy of being unable to move forward with the project.
Sincerely,
Jim Hill
3
Mayor, City of Arroyo Grande
c: County of San Luis Obispo
City of Grover Beach
City of Morro Bay
City of Paso Robles
City of Pismo Beach
City of San Luis Obispo
4