HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 09/10/1991 (CLIC.FVIEW COPY
PLE6SE DO- f T REMOVE
rROM'C3UNTER
AGENDA
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
6500 PALMA
FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM
SEPTEMBER 10, 1991
7:00 P.M.
This agenda is prepared and posted pursuant to. the require-
ments of Government Code Section 54954.2. By ,listijng a topic on
this agenda, the City Council has expressed its intent to discuss
and act on each item. In addition to any action identified in the
brief general description; of each item, the action that may be tak-
en shall include`: A referral to staff with specific requests for
information; continuance; specific direction to staff concerning
the policy or mission of the item; discontinuance of consideration;
authorization to enter into negotiations and execute agreements
pertaining to the item; adoption or approval; and, disapproval.
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to
each item of business referred to on the agenda are on file in the
office of the City Clerk, available for public inspection during
City Hall business hours. The City Clerk will answer'any questions
regarding the agenda.
RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
* Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda.
A person may speak for five (5) minutes.
* No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to
speak has had an opportunity to do so
* No one may speak more than twice on any item. ' ;
* Council Members may question any speaker; the speaker may
respond but, after the allotted time has expired, may not
initiate further discussion.
* The floor will then be closed to public participation and
open for Council discussion.
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
City Council Comments:
Mid-State Muscle Car Club Recognition
r
CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION: Police Department Annual Olympics
Fire Department Muster Competition
PROCLAMATIONS:
* Declaring September 1991 as "U.S. Constitution
Observance` Month"
* "Ridesharing Week", September 23-27, 1991
* "Good Neighbor Months" - September, October, Novem-
ber and December 1991
COMMUNITY FORUM:
The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and
comments from you, the citizen.`' The Community Forum period is
provided to receive comments from the public on matters other than
scheduled agenda items. To increase the effectiveness of Community
Forum, the following rules will be enforced
* A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum,
unless Council authorizes an extension.
All remarks shall be addressed to Council, as a whole, and
not to any individual member thereof.
* No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or
personal remarks against any Council Member, commissions and
staff.
STATUS REPORT: Cuesta College, North County Site Selection Commit-
tee Henry Engen
A. COMMITTEE REPORTS (The following represent ad hoc or standing
committees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt
necessary. ) :
1. S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council/North Coastal Transit
2. _ Solid/Hazardous Waste Management Committee
3. Recycling Committee
4. Economic Opportunity Commission
5. City/School Committee
6. Traffic Committee
7. Downtown Interim Sign Committee
8. County Water Advisory Board
9. Economic Round Table
10. B.I.A.
11 Colony Roads Committee
12. County-wide Fee Study
B. CONSENT CALENDAR:
All matters listed under Item B Consent Calendair, are consid-
ered to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the form
listed below. There will be no separate discussion On these items.
A member of the Council or public may, by request, have any item
removed from the Consent Calendar, which shall then be reviewed and
acted upon separately after the adoption of the Consent Calendar:
1 FINAL PARCEL MAP 3-89, 4200 OBISPO ROAD Acceptance of final
ParcelMap dividing 6.2 acres into two lots of 3. 1 acres each
(VonDollen/Volbrecht Surveys)
2. FINAL:PARCEL MAP 26-89, 7955 SINALOA'- Creation of a four lot
residential subdivision (Voorhis/Volbrecht Surveys)
3. AWARD OF BID NO. 91-9 FOR PHOTOCOPIER (Cont'd from 8/27/91)
4. RESOLUTION NO. 88-91 - DESIGNATING THE CARLTON HOTEL AS A
LOCAL HISTORIC BUILDING
5. RESOLUTION NO. 87-91 - SETTING A 15--MILE PER HOUR SPEED LIMIT
ON LAKEVIEW DRIVE
6. RESOLUTION NO. 89-91 - DECLARING THE NEED FOR A NON-PROFIT
CORPORATION FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING ITS INCOR-
PORATION AS A TAX-EXEMPT ENTITY
C. HEARINGS APPEARANCES:
None
D. REGULAR BUSINESS:
1. SKATEBOARDING REGULATIONS
2. PAVILION CHANGE ORDERS
3. REVISION TO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT BUDGET E
4. PROPOSED REVISION OF STATE SENATE AND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS
5. AMENDMENT ADDING THE POST-RETIREMENT SURVIVOR BENEFIT TO THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PERS) CONTRACT
A. Ordinance No. 231 - Authorizing an amendmept to the con-
tract between the City of Atascadero andthe Board of
Administration of the California Public Employees Retire-
ment System (Recommend motion to waive reading in full
and approve on first reading by title only)
(cont'd next page)
B. Resolution No. 86-91 - Approving an amendment to the con-
tract between the City of Atascadero and the Board of
Administration of the Public`'E'neployees Retirement System
6. JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION1CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Con-
sideration of setting date for a joint study session.
7. ECONOMIC ROUND TABLE REPORT - Confirmation of date and time.
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND,IOR ACTION:
1. City Council
2. City Attorney
3 City Clerk
4. City ,Treasurer
5. City Manager
* NOTICE: THE COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO A CLOSED SESSION
REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION, PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(c) .
PROCLAMATION
SA PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
DECLARING SEPTEMBER, 1991 AS
U.S . CONSTITUTION OBSERVANCE MONTH
WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States of
America is an inspired document "of the people, by the
people, for the people"; and
WHEREAS, the people ' s freedom of religion, of speech,
of the press, to peaceably assemble, to petition of their own
fre.e will and accord are inspired ideas in their U . S .
Constitution; and
WHEREAS , all employers, employees, citizens and
taxpayers, together with all government employees under the
authority of the U . S . Constitution have invented free
enterprise which produces all the jobs, food, and clothing
and shelter in every community in America; and
WHEREAS, on September 17, 1787, two hundred and four
years ago, George Washington, Chairman of the Constitutional
Convention; Benjamin Franklin; and thirty-seven other great
Americans approved this immortal instrument of government,
the Constitution of the United States of America.
NOW, THEREFORE I , ALDEN SHIERS, MAYOR OF
ATASCADERO' do hereby declare the month of September, 1991,
to be "U.S . CONSTITUTION, OBSERVANCE MONTH" in the City of
Atascadero, "in order to form a more perfect union, establish
justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity";
FURTHER, I urge the community to do its part towards
the advancement of greater understanding, "that this nation
under God; that Government of the people, by the people, for
the people shall not perish from the earth", because "with a
firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we
mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our
sacred honor", under the Constitution of the United States of
America.
ALDEN SHIERS, Mayor
City of Atascadero, California
•
PROCLAMATION
"RIDESHARE WEER"
September 23 - 27, 1991
WHEREAS, the use of ridesharing as a means of transportation
in California has the potential to reduce fuel consumption, air
Pollution, traffic congestion, transportation costs and parking
needs; and
WHEREAS, the public and private business community within an
Luis Obispo County has recognized the importance of ridesharing as
an effective, low-cost solution to many transportation and
environmental issues; and
WHEREAS, cities, counties, and states throughout our nation
have all ridesharing as an effective component in a comprehensive
transportation system that meets the needs of all citizens; and
WHEREAS, it is important for women and men who constitute the
workforce of our County to be aware of the many benefits
ridesharing has to offer to individuals and businesses; and
WHEREAS, during the week of September 23 - 27, 1991, the
California Department of Transportation, San Luis Obispo Regional
Ridesharing and other transportation-related groups throughout our
state will be observing California Rideshare Week;
NOW, THEREFORE I, ALDEN SHIERS, MAYOR OF ATASCADERO, do hereby
proclaim that September 23 -27, 1991 shall be designated as
Rideshare Week in Atascadero and urge all citizens to recognize the
important role which ridesharing plays in ensuring the continued
economic and environmental health of our County.
ALDEN SHIERS, Mayor
City of Atascadero, California
San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council ArrAo Grand,
Grover Cit
and Regional Transportation Planning Agency Pas�le
Pismo Beac!
San Luis Obisp(
- E C r U San Luis Obispo Count,
All G 8 1991
TO: All City Managers CITY MGR.
FROM: Julie Millsap, Area Coordinating Council
DATE: August 24, 1991
SUBJECT: Proclaiming Ridesharing Week, September 23 - 27, 1991
Area Council Staff is encouraging that all jurisdictions officially proclaim Ridesharing Week at their
next City Council Meeting. Ridesharing Week falls on September 23 - 27 this year and will be
promoting alternative transportation modes. Some of the proposed events will include a Carpool
to Work and School Day, a Free Transit Day, and a Bike to Work and School Day. Staff is
encouraging all jurisdictions to promote alternative transportation modes in their work force and
local area. Enclosed is a Sample Resolution to be proposed to the Area Council to proclaim
Ridesharing Week with an official resolution. All jurisdictions are welcome to tailor this resolution
for their own use.
RidesharingWeek has been successful in the past. County Engineering and the Area Council
P tY 9 9
are working together to publicize the benefits of using other modes of transportation besides the
car. A joint effort from all the jurisdictions to get the word out about the upcoming Ridesharing
events would be appreciated. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 549-
5190.
Sincerely,
Julie Millsap
Assistant Planner
•
County Government Centers Sin ,Obl'po, CA 93408 (805) 549-5612
PROCLAMATION
"GOOD NEIGHBOR MONTHS"
September, October, November and December, 1991
WHEREAS, United Way of San Luis Obispo/Neighbors Helping
Neighbors is a voluntary grouping together of donors to provide
financial support to local and national charitable health, welfare,
research, and youth organizations; and
WHEREAS, these representatives, acting as a volunteer Board of
Directors, are responsible for directing United Way of San Luis
Obispo County/Neighbors Helping Neighbors and are to insure that
the wishes of the givers will receive first priority in fund
distributions; and
WHEREAS, United Way of San Luis Obispo County/Neighbors
Helping Neighbors with its low operating cost, provides everyone
with an orderly system of contributing to charitable causes of his
own selection through a single contribution; and
WHEREAS, -United Way of San Luis Obispo County/Nei hbors
Helping Neighbors provides the donor with the knowledge that his
gift is collected, processed, and distributed in the most efficient
way possible; and
WHEREAS, this City Council encourages all citizens who so
desire, and who* findit within their means, to contribute to the
charities of the choice through United Way of San Luis Obispo
County/Neighbors Helping Neighbors.
NOW, THEREFORE I, ALDEN SHIERS, MAYOR OF ATASCADERO, do hereby
proclaim that the months of September, October, November and
December, 1991 be declared as "Good Neighbor Months" in the City of
Atascadero.
ALDEN SHIERS, Mayor
City of Atascadero, California
RECEIVF
in
AUG 3 0
ITY MGR.
August 28, 19 9� United Wayof San Luis Obispo
County/
Neighbors Helping Neighb
Mr. Alden Shiers
Mayor
City of Atascadero Post Office Box 523
6500 Palma Ave San Luis Obispo,California 9340
Atascadero, CA 93422 Phone: 805-541-1234
Dear Mr. Shiers:
As you know, United Way of San Luis Obispo County/
Neighbors-Helping-Neighbors is an independent, nonprofit
organization made up of local volunteers working to meet
the unique and ever-changing reeds cf San Luis Obispo
County. Through our donor network we seek to help local
and national charitable health, welfare, research and
youth organizations which support a variety of services
that directly benefit our community.
During our 1990 campaign we raised more than $867, 000
which is being used to support over 38 different,
worthwhile programs throughout San Luis Obispo County.
This year, we will be setting our goal even higher in an
attempt to meet the needs throughout our area.
In order to accomplish this task, we need your assistance
in facilitating public awareness and participation to
guarantee the success of our 1991 Campaign.
Traditionally, the months of September through December
have been proclaimed as "Good Neighbor" months by cities,
chambers of commerce and the County Board of Supervisors.
We urge you to continue this tradition so that we may help
meet the health and human-care needs of our community.
A community volunteer will be contacting you soon to find
out if you can help us, and if so, when the resolution
will be issued. A sample resolution from last year is
enclosed for your review.
Thank you for your support!
Jan Bradford Dixie Budke
1991-92 Campaign Chair Executive Director
enclosure
cities. ltr
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADBRO Agenda Item: B-1
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manger Neeting Date: 9/10/91
File No: TPM 03-89
From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director }
SUBJECT:
Acceptance of final Parcel Map 03-89 (division of 6. 2 acres into
two lots of 3. 1 acres each) at 4200 Obispo Road - Larry Von
Dollen/Volbrecht Surveys
RECOb24ENDATION:
Acceptance of final Parcel Map 03-89 since all conditions of the
map have been met by the applicant.
BACKGROUND:
On August 22, 1989, the City Council tentatively approved this map,
subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with the recommen-
dation of the Planning Commission.
HE:ps
cc: Larry Von Dollen
Volbrecht Surveys
EXHIBIT A_
CITY OF TPM 03-89
,R. .,.. :.. . ATASCADERO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT General Plan Map
PUBLI I � .
u.oc•aIL
� I
T.•fTK AT
�� ��� �\� TII•iRK .�r�^
0
o
\ ;�+
L
60
L
TY
�o
.TI FAMIL =
/ Q /
:� � / yp DEQ( * D• AQ
}
RE 1 1
s f C I • t
'o/ Q� o
j
0.L♦ ;
J ,
R C M E
MM lAL PA RK a
�rW �
APO-
PO T V. .ems.
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B_2
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 9/10/91
File No: TPM 26-89
From: Henry Engen, Community Development Director }�
SUBJECT:
Acceptance of final Parcel Map 26-89 (creation of a four lot
residential subdivision) at 7955 Sinaloa Avenue - Charles Voorhis/
Volbrecht Surveys
RECOMMENDATION:
Acceptance of final Parcel Map 26-89 since all conditions of the
map have been met by the applicant.
BACKGROUND:
On May 8, 1990, the Cit Council tentatively
subject to certain conditions and in concurrene with the recommeproved this n-
dation dation of the Planning Commission.
HE:ps
cc: Charles Voorhis II
Volbrecht Surveys
EXHIBIT C
i
; CITY OF ATASCADERO ZONING MAP
`� TPM 26-89/ZC 14-89
11� .0�
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
." DEPARTMENT
_ -�RSf
RMF-1'6 '
RM F-
ci
00
I � �� •
-, I �,s,�,1�I
Qj 4 f S FIX
CIA
'Y
`.."�\ '�� % .� do .� � •�� .
1 r•r•st � �i �p� � � v zz
1 + 4
CT
.. .SCA0E
f
IL
•Y �
MEETING AGENDA
DATE 9/?0/g t ITEM#
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Ray Windsor, City Manager
From: Arther R. Montandon, City Attorney
Subject: Purchasing Procedures for Copier Purchase
Date: September 5, 1991
I have reviewed the documents, City ordinances and City proce-
dures regarding the proposed purchase of a copier.
Atascadero Municipal Code Section 2-3. 10 governs this proposed
purchase. This ordinance provides in Subsection (e) that the Coun-
cil may award a bid to the lowest bidder or a higher bidder if it
determines that the "best interests of the City are served" .
This is the type of bid, given the many non-price considera-
tions, that the City Council may award to whomever they feel offers
the best overall product (price, service, equipment, etc. ) . In
fact, the "General Terms and Conditions" of the bid, given to each
bidder, specifically states:
H. Award - Award will be made to the bidder whose bid
is most advantageous to the City.
Given the authority in A.M.C. Section 2-3. 10 and the notice of
the bid terms in the bid documents, the City Council may award the
bid to the bidder who provides the best overall product • and
service. The recommendation of staff is legal and provides infor-
mation to the Council upon which to make this decision.
ARM:cw
t�; 21
M E M O R A N D U M
Date: August 27, 1991
To : Council
Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager
From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director
Subject : Photocopier Bid ( #91-09)
Since the Council item on the above issue was released ,
representatives from More Office Systems have prepared an appeal
to staff ' s recommendation. I have attached a copy of that
appeal .
In response, our bid document allows for flexibility in
selecting the best product . Under Section E of the General Terms
and Conditions, the City reserves the right to "Determine which
is the best bid" and "Reject any or all bids and to waive any
minor irregularity in any bid . " Further , under Section H
the "Award will be made to the bidder whose bid is most
advantageous to the City" . And finally , the specifications are
noted as "Desired" - not mandatory .
With this in mind , specific responses are as follows:
1 . Copy Speed - Although the Canon was faster at 93 copies per
minute (CPM) , the Kodak is actually faster when duplexing
and multicopy jobs are considered . Most of the work-load
will include duplexing ( required as part of our recycling
efforts ) and large numbers of multicopy jobs are expected .
We feel the Kodak -- if not faster is certainly acceptable
to meet our needs.
2. Lack of Enlargement - This is not considered a siq_nificant
item -- it is rarely used at present .
3. Lack of Book Mode - Again, this is not considered a critical
feature.
4 . No 11 X 17 Copy Size - We disagree. The Kodak can handle
this size paper . In addition, one of the Kodak options is a
continuous form feeder , which will allow us to copy lengthy
printouts without separating each page. This will save
substantial staff time .
5. 8 Second first copy speed - Considering the high number of
copies, the 1 second. variance for the first copy is not
critical .
6. Remanufactured Parts - Kodak has offered us the same
warranty as a new machine -- in effect , we are guaranteed
the equivalent of a new machine .
Ultimately, the question is, which copier will be most
advantageous to the City? Staff feels it is the Kodak for the
following reasons:
1 . Durability - The Kodak is rated at 250,000 copies per month .
It is designed to handle heavy workloads. One problem the
City has experienced is buying a machine we too quickly out
grow. This leads to excessive breakdowns , and higher costs.
At present , 100,000 copies/month is our current usage . If
most of our photocopying is transferred to the Kodak , that
number is expected to jump . We do not want to be in a
• situation where the machine is overworked and service delays
occur .
2 . Ease of Operaticn - The Kodak will be used by our
Volunteers . The Kodak is a very straightforward machine to
use. Its control panel offers easy to read instructions and
no stooping is required to access most of the parts. This is
more important , considering who will be operating the
machine, than elaborate features, such as book copying and
enlargements.
3 . Price - Only the Royal 2070 is less in outright purchase
price ( by $128.00) , but it has a much higher maintenance
cost . Even though the Canon Copiers have a slightly lower
maintenance cost than the Kodak , it would still take 3-5
years before the Canon machines catch up with the Kodak .
Furthermore, maintenance costs on the Kodak drops as usage
increases over 100,000 copies per month .
4 . Reliability - A small group of employees, including one of
our Volunteers, observed a Kodak 225S in operation at
Atascadero Unified . We were veru impressed with the
machine, as was the operator at Atascadero Unified School
District . In addition, the same local person servicing our
IBM Model 60 will also service the Kodak , so there will be
very little interruption of service.
5 . Additional Options - We have already mentioned the
continuous form feeder . In addition, the Kodak has an
optional ability to copy in color . This will allow us to
provide even more in-house print capability , which will save
time and money for the City._ -r_
For these reasons, staff strongly recommends the Kodak 225S.
The current IBM Model 60 is simply too worn out and is constantly
requiring service repairs. Indeed , one of the primary questions
the Volunteers ask is, when will the new Copier arrive?
Hopefully, this memo will assist Council in making that decision.
• IIII
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item: B-9
CITY OF ATASCADERO
Through : Ray Windsor , City Manager Meeting Date: 8/27/91
From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT:_ Awarding a bid to Purchase a Photocopier
RECOMMENDATION: By motion, staff recommends Council award the
bid to purchase a photocopier to Eastman Kodak , for the net price
of $14 ,494.63.
BACKGROUND:
The Information Office ( staffed by Volunteers) has been
using the IBM Model 60 copier to make copies for various
departments . This service saves substantial amounts of clerical
time, but the copier it must rely upon is simply worn out . In
• fact , it is the same machine that was replaced three years ago by
the Mita Copier on the second floor .
ANALYSIS-
As a result of a competitive bid , staff received a number of
proposals, summarized on the attached Bid Summary. After careful
review, staff recommends the Ektaprint ( IBM) 255S from Kodak , for
the following reasons:
1 . Although the Royal 2070 is slightly less , its
maintenance cost is almost one-third higher -- thus,
the Kodak machine is actually the least expensive.
2. The Kodak is well known for its reliability and
dependability. In fact , Kodak guarantees the machine
for seven years. Staff has looked at an identical
machine at Atascadero Unified and was very impressed .
Servicing of the Ektraprint 225S will be from the same
firm that currently services our IBM Model 60.
3. The machine will meet the City ' s needs for the
foreseeable future. We requested a heavy-duty machine
capable of handling 100 ,000 copies a month . The 225S
is rated at 2 1 /2 times this amount . In addition, it
offers several optional features , such as a continuous
form feeder ( for printouts ) and multiple-color copies .
FISCAL IMPACT:
The replacement copier was included in the current year
budget with a corresponding increase in our operating
appropriations. Rather than an outright purchase, Staff
recommends a five-year lease, at $448.81 per month . Current
maintenance costs are roughly $400-500 per month . However , we
anticipate the new machine will allow us to handle most print
jobs in-house which will help reduce operating expenses.
a:copier
BID SUMMARY
TO: Cathy Sargent
Finance Department
FROM: Lee Raboin I / v
City Cler
BID NO. : 91-9
OPENED : 8/5/91 2:00 p.m.
PROJECT: Second Floor Copier
The following bids were received and opened today. Seven companies responded with
a total of 13 proposals. Although the list ranges from low to high bid, I point
out that a variety of copiers have been offered with different warranties and
maintenance agreements and careful evaluation by your department is in order to
determine which one best fits the City's needs. I note that each bidder provided
lease options which have not been made part of this summary. A copy of each bid
is attached for your review.
Company Name & City Model Purchase Price Other
Copy Data Royal 2070 $14,63`9.63 2% disc
Santa Maria, CA
,aRtman Kodak IBM 225S 21,494.63 trade-in
Woodland Hills, CA (7,000.00) allowance
14,494.63
Chaparral Bus. Machines Ricoh FT7870 16, 000.35 + 150. 00
Paso Robles, CA delivery
Mission Office Konica 7490 17,803.50
Santa Maria, CA
Copytron Konica 7490 19,213.38
San Luis Obispo, CA
Xerox Xerox 5065 23,766.60 trade-in
Woodland Hills, CA (4,200.00) allowance
19,566.60
More Office Systems Canon NP-8530 24,372.56 2/10 disc
San Luis Obispo, CA
Copytron Minolta EP 8600/ 29,558.10 two
San Luis Obispo, CA Riso RC 5600 machines
Xerox Xerox 1075 34, 153.76 trade-in
odland Hills, CA (4,200.00 allowance
29,953.76 *remanu-
factured
(menti aed) -
Bid No. 91-9 - Second Floor Copier
8/6/91
Page 2
Company Name City Model Purchase Price Other
More Office Systems Canon NP-9800 29,922.75 2/10 disc
San Luis Obispo, CA
Copytron Minolta EP 8601 30,228.41 two
San Luis Obispo, CA Riso RC 5600 machines
Xerox Xerox 1090 56,601.19 trade-in
Woodland Hills, CA (61500.00) allowance
50,501.19
Xerox Xerox 5100 86,336.25 trade-in
Woodland Hills, CA (6,500.00) allowance
79,836.25
Attachments: 13 bids
c: Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director
City of Atascadero
HID RESPONSE FORM
Request for Hid 091-09
FURNISH AND INSTALL ONE HIGH VOLUME COPIER
In 'response to your bid invitation and in accordance with your
conditions, and specifications, we agree to furnish, deliver and
Install a high volume copier, for the bid price quoted below.
------------------------OPTION-1 _
--9uantity-- -Unit_
-----D_2MSrietion Purgbasg Price_----
. __'_-__ - ----
I ea _as --
(Brand-& Madel)- *-L24!!.5-
L9��9 �
Sales Tax 7, S 70
7, Doo Fof- -TSM bo Trade-%4>
EOVCE5 PVfc.k4-5e to �.5� TOTAL s_a11 y 94 . 63
oPTioN z `�� qq y 6 ----------------
�_uantitDescri tion -- �---- -' - - -
---- -- - -- --
-- t__N---------Q-------------
Monthly
Lease No.of Months
-------- -----------------
OPTION Monthly Cost
i ea
OPTION_2� (Brand & Model)
_
W& ��S s SIS. �! 60
nn o L L A (Brand 3 Model)
_ R—!I v o0 1. qS E No (10on Pa .�,etit
To the CITY PURCHASING AGENT: -
In compliance with the above invitation for bid, and subject to
all the conditions thereof, the undersigned offers, and agrees,.
if this bid be accepted within 60 days from the date of the
opening, to furnish any or all of the items upon which prices are
quoted, at the price set opposite each item, delivered at the
point as specified and, unless otherwise specified within fifteen
days after receip of order.
Discount of % will be allowed for payment within 30 days
from date of delivery.
Bidder �45fiw�n ���� �- �eq Swa'XSo'-
�MPOEtr�iMr ITIONc TO BIDDER G
Bids must be sealed and By
addressed to: (auth ri signature)
CITY OF ATASCADERO
City Clerk Title CPS
6500 Palma Avenue Addr -5-Too C&^a m Av< 5..:K (o3
Atascadero, California
Hid PO'#91-09,8/6/91,2:00
Pte' �ste: Q 3 (qf
•
City of Atascadera
Purchasing Agent
6504) Palma Avenue
Atascadero , CA 93422
NOTICE OF HID AWARD
Issue Date
Bid No .
Resolution No .
You are hereby notified tnat the commodities andior services
listed have been awarded to you subject to the terms and
conditions of the bid number shown and to the General Conditions
of this Notice of aid Award :
V
E
N
D
0 R
i'E!l QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTICN PRICE
Purchasing Department
ay ..
Vendor ' s Representative
MEETING AGENDA
DAT 9E 10/91 CTEM/ B-4
RESOLUTION NO. 88-91
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA
DESIGNATING THE CARLTON HOTEL
AS AN HISTORIC BUILDING
WHEREAS, The Carlton Hotel was built in 1930 by the
Atascadero Development Syndicate and originally known as the
"Half-Way Hotel " , and
WHEREAS, the Carlton Hotel represents an important
architectural period in Atascadero ' s history , and
WHEREAS, Designating the Carlton as an Historic Building
will facilitate the renovation and restoration of the building ;
and
WHEREAS, such restoration in `urn can lead to the overall
revitalization of the Atascadero Colony Business District ,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the
City of Atascadero , that the Carlton Hotel is hereby designated
an historic buildinq and shall be afforded all the privileges and
riqhts associated with such a designation.
On motion by Councilperson seconded by,
Couhcilperson the foregoing resolution is hereby
adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote:
AYES :
NOES .
ABSENT :
ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATASCADERO
By
ALDEN F . SHIERS , Mayor
ATTEST:
LEE RAHOIN, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney
M E M O R A N D U M
To: City Council
From: Ray Windsor, City Manager
Subject: Carlton Hotel Renovation Status
Date: , August 30, 1991
I thought you would like to know that the Carlton project has
stalled on two fronts--one over which we have little or no control
and the other which we can help out on.
First and foremost is the question of financing, which I need
hardly tell anyone is fraught with all kinds of difficulties at
this point in time--the major one being the tight money market for
business loans.
The other issue, which also affects cost, is the matter of building
code requirements associated with a building of this type and age.
Without going into detail about such requirements, let me just say
that some concessions can be made if the Council sees fit to desig-
nate the hotel as an historic building. As an aside, we have
learned that further assistance, in the form of either tax credits
and/or eligibility for government loans, can be obtained if we also
seek to have the hotel recognized as an historic building by the
State and federal governments; Mark will pursue this. However, the
point of this memo is to alert you to the fact that the City can
designate the building (see attached).
Assuming you feel comfortable with such action, I would intend to
place this as a consent item on the next agenda.
RW:cw
Attachment
•
1988 EDITION 104-t07
code.Temporary buildings or structures shall be completely removed upon the
expiration of the time limit stated in the permit.
(f) Historic Buildings. Repairs, alterations and additions necessary for the
preservation,restoration,rehabilitation or continued use of a building or structure
may be made without conformance to all the requirements of this code when
authorized by the building official,provided:
1. The building or structure has been designated by official action of the
legally constituted authority of this jurisdiction as having special historical
or architectural significance.
2. Any unsafe conditions as described in this code are corrected.
3. The restored building or structure will be no more hazardous based on life
safety,fin safety and sanitation than the existing building.
Alternate Materials and Methods of Construction 0
Sec.105.The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the use of any
material or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code,
provided any alternate has been approved and its use authorized by the building
official.
The building official may approve any such alternate,provided he finds that the
proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the provisions of this code and
that the material,method or work offered is,for the purpose intended,at least the
equivalent of that prescribed in this code in suitability, strength,effectiveness,
fire resistance,durability,safety and sanitation.
The building official shall require that sufficient evidence or proof be submit-
ted to substantiate any claims that may be made regarding its use.The details of
any action granting approval of an alternate shall be recorded and entered in the
files of the code enforcement agency.
C_ Modlficadons
Sec.106.Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the
provisions of this code,the building official may grant modifications for individ-
ual cases,provided he shall first find that a special individual reason[[takes the
strict letter of this code impractical and that the modification is in conformity with
the intent and purpose of this code and that such modification does not lessen any
fin-protection requirements or any degree of structural integrity.The details of
any action granting modifications shall be recorded and entered in the files of the
` code enforcement agency.
Tests
Sec.107.Whenever then is insufficient evidence of compliance with any of
the provisions of this code or evidence that any material or construction does not
conform to the requirements of this code,the building official may require tests as
proof of compliance to be made at no expense to this jurisdiction.
Test methods shall be as specified by this code or by other recognized te.
standards.If there are no recognized and accepted test methods for the propose
alternate,the building official shall determine test procedures. .
3
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date: 9-10-91
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: B-5
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager
From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT:
Establishment of 15 MPH speed limit on Lakeview Drive from
Portola to Santa Rosa Road.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution 87-91.
DISCUSSION:
Lakeview Drive is heavily used by pedestrians, bicyclists and
citizens who simply wish to enjoy the park. The road is narrow and
winding and sight distance problems are numerous.
The issue of speed and pedestrian safety on Lakeview Drive has
been a recurring topic for the Traffic Committee almost since its
inception. Various possible solutions have been debated including
one-way travel, dividing the road into two cul-de-sacs and thus
eliminating through traffic, installation of speed bumps, etc.
It is the consensus of the Traffic Committee that reducing the
speed on Lakeview from the present 25 MPH to 15 MPH will improve
safety conditions. This reduction is allowed in the California
Vehicle Code for roadways boarding a public park.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The cost of signage for this modification is estimated to be
approximately $100.00.
-
RESOLUTION NO. 87-91
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO ESTABLISHING A 15 MPH SPEED
ON LAKEVIEW DRIVE
WHEREAS, Section 4-2. 501 et. seq. of the Atascadero Municipal
Code establishes that State traffic laws may be applied to City
streets, and:
WHEREAS, the California Vehicle Code allows for the use of a
15 MPH speed limit on streets boarding a public park; and
WHEREAS, The Atascadero Traffic Committee has recommended that
reducing the speed on Lakeview Drive to 15 MPH will improve safety
conditions for both vehicle and pedestrian traffic.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Atascadero
directs the City Traffic Engineer to place and maintain appropriate
signs or markings to indicate a 15 MPH speed limit on Lakeview
Drive from Portola Road to Santa Rosa Road.
On motion by Councilman and seconded
by Councilman the foregoing Resolution is hereby
adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ATTEST: City of Atascadero
LEE RABOIN, City Clerk ALDEN SHIERS, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER MONTANDON
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
GREG LUKE
Director of Public Works
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO AGENDA ITEM: B 6
THROUGH: Ray Windsor, City Manager MEETING DATE: 9/10/91
FROM: Andrew J. Takata, Director,:
Department of Community services
SUBJECT:
RESOLUTION 89-91 - DECLARING THE NEED FOR A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION
FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES, AND AUTHORIZING ITS INCORPORATION AS A TAX-
EXEMPT ENTITY
RECOMMENDATION:
The Parks and Recreation Commission concur with staff's
recommendation to the City Council to approve proposed Resolution
89-91.
BACKGROUND:
On August 27, 1991, Mary Gayle, Assistant City Attorney, and the
City council reviewed the concept of the attached proposed articles
of incorporation and bylaws for the creation of a non-profit
corporation for the City of Atascadero Department of Community
services.
The proposed bylaws and articles of incorporation for "tax exemption
was prepared with the consent of the City Council in order to
accommodate future donations from the public for Charles Paddock
Zoo, park development, recreation activities, and facility
improvements.
The need to formally adopt a policy for public donations was
initiated by the proposed private donation to the City for Charles
Paddock Zoo improvements in the amount of $soo,000.
By setting these bylaws, a special foundation will be created which
will receive a non-profit tax exempt status. This tax exempt
status will encourage donations to the foundation. At present,
donations to the City are not always tax deductible
AJT;kv
;donate
RESOLUTION NO. 89-91
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO DECLARING THE NEED FOR
A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION FOR COMMUNITY
SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING ITS
INCORPORATION AS A TAX-EXEMPT ENTITY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DOES
HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
I. FINDINGS
A. There presently exists in the City of
Atascadero a need for education about, and additions and
improvements to, the Atascadero Zoo, public parks and
recreation facilities, cultural opportunities and other
community services (hereafter, collectively, "'Community
Services"'.
B. The responsibility for providing the
needed education about, and additions and improvements to,
Community Services presents a burden on the finances and
physical resources of the City which can be alleviated by
the establishment of a non-profit, tax-exempt corporation to
which the public will be encouraged to make contributions
for Community Services.
II. RESOLVED
A. That it is in the best interest of the
health safety and general welfare of the public for there to
be established a non-profit corporation to encourage
participation in, and to accept tax-exempt contributions to,
the Community Services.
B. That the City Council does hereby
authorize the City Attorney's office to proceed with the
incorporation of a non-profit, tax-exempt corporation, to be
known as the ATASCADERO COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION, INC. ,
to be organized in substantial conformity with the Articles
of Incorporation attached hereto as Exhibit A and the By-
laws attached hereto as Exhibit B, both of which are
incorporated herein by this reference
MRG/RES23521 Page 1
III. AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE AND CERTIFICATION
The Mayor is authorized to execute this Resolution
and the City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this
Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of
September, 1991.
ALDEN SHIERS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
LEE DAYKA, CITY CLERK
CERTIFICATION
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was
duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Atascadero,
California at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 10th
day of September, 1991, by the following vote of the
Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS
LEE DAYKA, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:
ARTHER R. MONTANDON, CITY ATTORNEY
MRG/RES23521 Page 2
n
EXHIBIT n A
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
OF
ATASCADERO COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION, INC.
I.
The name of this corporation is ATASCADERO COMMUNITY
SERVICES FOUNDATION, INC.
II.
A. This corporation is a nonprofit public benefit
corporation and is not organized for the private gain of any
person. It is organized under the Nonprofit Public Benefit
Corporation Law for charitable purposes.
B. This corporation is formed exclusively for public
and charitable purposes, including the following: to lessen the
burdens of government of the City of Atascadero by promoting
public welfare and education through the acceptance of
contributions for use in the Atascadero Zoo, public City parks,
public City recreational and cultural facilities, and other®
public facilities.
III.
The name and address in the State of California of this
corporation's initial agent for service of process is:
Ray Windsor
City Manager
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, California 93422
IV.
A. This corporation is organized and operated
exclusively for charitable purposes within the meaning of Section
501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
B. No substantial part of the activities of this
corporation shall consist of carrying on propaganda, or otherwise
attempting to influence legislation, and the corporation shall
not participate or intervene in any political campaign (including
the publishing or distribution of statements) on behalf of any
candidate for public office.
1
mrg/INC23521 EXHIBIT "A"
_77
V.
The property of this corporation is irrevocably
dedicated to charitable -purposes and no part of the net income or
assets of this corporation shall ever inure to the benefit of any
director, officer or member thereof or to the benefit of any
private person. Upon the dissolution or winding up of the
corporation, its assets remaining after payment, or provision of
payment, of all debts and liabilities of this corporation shall
be distributed to a nonprofit fund, foundation or corporation
which is organized and operated exclusively for charitable
purposes; and which has established its tax exempt status under
Section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Dated:
MARY REDUS GAYLE, Incorporator
I hereby declare that I am the person who executed the
• foregoing Articles of Incorporation, which execution is my act
and deed.
MARY REDUS GAYLE, Incorporator
2
mrg/INC23521 EXHIBIT RAN
EXHIBIT "B"
BYLAWS FOR THE REGULATION OF
THE ATASCADERO COMMUNITY SERVICES FOUNDATION, INC.
I.
NAME AND ADDRESS
SECTION A. NAME OF ASSOCIATION. The name of this
^'Corporation" shall be the "ATASCADERO COMMUNITY SERVICES
FOUNDATION, INC.", a nonprofit organization incorporated under
the laws of the State of California.
SECTION B. PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICE. The address
of the principal executive office of the Atascadero Community
Services Foundation, Inc. , shall be located at Atascadero City
Hall, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California 93422, or at such
other place as the Board of Directors hereafter may designate.
The City of Atascadero is hereinafter referred to as, the "City".
II.
PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS
SECTION A. GENERAL PURPOSES. The general purpose of•
the corporation shall be to assist in maintaining, enhancing, and
promoting the Atascadero Zoo, Atascadero public parks, recreation
and cultural facilities, and other public facilities which serve
the general public, to familiarize the public with those public
facilities - and their contribution to the growth and welfare of
the United States, the State of California, the County of San
Luis Obispo and the City, and to accumulate and manage such
facilities for the public benefit to the following ends:
1. Personnel - To recruit, train, encourage and
recognize volunteers as docents, guides, hosts, staff support in
maintenance, displays and public functions under the supervision
of the City Director of Community Services, as appropriate;
2. Publicity - To establish a group to promote
on-going use of the public facilities to promote educational,
recreational and historical values and to plan and develop
special events;
3 . Funding - To encourage donations, grants and
corporate gifts for expansion, preservation, improvement and
maintenance of the Atascadero Zoo, Atascadero public parks,
recreational and cultural facilities, and other public facilities
in pursuit of the Corporation's goals.
1
mrg/ART2352 EXHIBIT "B"
_o_
SECTION A. OTHER PURPOSES. The Corporation may
engage in such further and other purposes as may be permitted by
law, provided however, that such purposes are authorized and
approved by the Board of Directors, are in furtherance of the
Corporation's public charitable purposes, and are of the type
permitted to be performed under Section 501(c) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
III.
MEMBERS
MEMBERS PROHIBITED. The Corporation shall not have any
members.
EFFECT OF PROHIBITION. Any action which would otherwise
require approval by a majority of all members or approval by the
members shall require only approval by a majority of the Board of
Directors.
IV.
DIRECTORS AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETINGS
• SECTION A. NUMBER AND REQUIRED DIRECTORS.
(1) The number of Directors of the Atascadero Community
Services Foundation, Inc. shall be not less than seven (7) and
not more than nine (9) . The number of authorized Directors shall
be specified by the Atascadero "City Council" and may be changed
by City Council annually at the time the Annual Report (as
hereinafter defined) is submitted for City Council review. The
Directors shall serve without pay.
(2) Four (4) Members of the Board shall be those
persons holding the positions of City Director of Community
Services, City Director of Community Development, City Director
of Administrative Services, and President of the San Luis Obispo
County Zoological Society, or persons serving in like capacities
as those capacities may be renamed from time to time, and as
those persons may be selected or elected from time to time. The
term of each individual serving in one of the four (4) above-
named capacities shall be co-extensive with the term each such
person serves in the capacity so noted. Any person succeeding to
the title of one of the four (4) above-named capacities shall
automatically become a Director of the Corporation.
2
mrg/ART2352 EXHIBIT nga
SECTION B. APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTORS. All Directors
not required by Section IV.A (1) , above, shall be appointed by
the City Council, as follows:
(1) In the event that the City Council initially
authorizes seven (7) members to the Board of Directors, the three
(3) Directors named initially by the City Council to fill the
seats not designated in Section IV.A(1) , above, shall be
appointed for staggered terms with one (1) Director appointed for
a period of three (3) years, one (1) Director appointed for a
period of two (2) - years and a third appointed for a period of one
(1) .year.
(2) In the event that the City Council initially
authorizes nine (9) members of the Board of Directors, the four
(4) Directors named initially by the City Council to fill the
seats not designated in Section IV.A(1) , above, shall be
appointed for staggered terms with three (3) Directors appointed
for a period of three (3) years, and two (2) Directors appointed
for a period of two (2) years.
(3) In the event that the City Council changes the
number of authorized Directors at any time permitted by these By-
laws, the newly created positions shall be filled for full terms
of three (3) years each. •
(4) The term of each person named for a staggered term
pursuant to Subsection (1) or Subsection (2) , above, shall be
specified in the action of the City Council so naming each of
those Directors.
(5) After the initial terms of the Directors named by
the City Council pursuant to Subsection (1) or Subsection (2) ,
above, the Directors appointed by the City Council shall serve a
three (3) year term.
(6) Directors appointed by the City Council pursuant to
this Section IV.B may be reappointed by the City Council at the
expiration of their terms, without limitation.
SECTION C. EX-OFFICIO DIRECTOR. The City Manager of
the City of Atascadero shall serve as an Ex-officio Director.
Said Ex-officio Director shall have no voting power but may serve
otherwise in all capacities as a Director and may participate in
deliberations and discussions at all meetings of the Directors as
a member of the Board. The Ex-officio Director shall be a
permanent member of the Board and shall not be a Director
additional to the number of Directors authorized pursuant to
3
mrg/ART2352 EXHIBIT ffBN
Section IV, above. Any person succeeding to the capacity of City
Manager shall automatically become an Ex-officio Director of the
Corporation.
SECTION D. PLACE OF MEETINGS. Meetings of the Board
of Directors shall be held at any place within or without the
State of California, which has been stated in the notice of the
meeting, or if not stated in the notice, or if there is no
notice, at Atascadero City Hall, 6500 Palma, Atascadero,
California, 93422, or at such other place as may be designated
for Directors' meetings, from time to time, by resolution of the
Board of Directors.
SECTION E. REGULAR MEETINGS. Regular meetings of
the Board of Directors shall be held on the day and at the hour
or at such other day and time as may be determined by the Board
of Directors. No notice need be given in connection with such
regular meetings, except that notice shall be given to each
Director of any resolution of the Board changing the regular
meeting date or time.
SECTION F. QUORUM REQUIRED FOR ACTION AT MEETINGS.
A majority of the authorized number of Directors present at a
meeting shall constitute a "quorum" of the Board of Directors for
• the transaction of business. For purposes of determining a
quorum, the Ex-officio Director shall not be counted.
SECTION G. SPECIAL MEETINGS. Meetings other than
regular meetings of the Board may be called by the President, and
shall be called by the President upon the request of any two
Directors requesting a special meeting.
SECTION H. REMOVAL OF DIRECTORS. A Director
appointed pursuant to Section IV.B, above, may be removed by
action taken by a majority of the City Council or by a vote of
the majority of the Directors then in office subject to approval
in writing by the City Council.
SECTION I. VACANCIES. A vacancy on the Board of
Directors shall exist upon the occurrence of any of the
following:
(1) The death or resignation of any Director.
(2) The suspension or termination of any Director
pursuant to the provisions of Section IV.H, above.
(3) An increase in the authorized number of Directors
without appointment by the City Council.
4
mrg/ART2352 EXHIBIT "H"
(4) The failure of the City Council to appoint the full
number of authorized Directors to the Board.
A reduction of the authorized number of Directors shall
not operate to remove any Director prior to the expiration of his
or her term of office.
V.
FINANCING
SECTION A. SOLICITATION OF FUNDS. The Corporation's
primary source of funds shall be through solicitation of funds
from the general public through gifts, bequests, trusts, or other
devices and conducting special fundraising events.
SECTION B. BUDGETING. The Board of Directors shall
prepare and submit to the City Council, for approval, an annual
operating budget for the Corporation.
VI.
INDEMNIFICATION OF DIRECTORS OFFICERS
AND OTHER CORPORATE AGENTS
SECTION A. INDEMNIFICATION. The Atascadero •
Community Services Foundation, Inc. shall, to the maximum extent
permitted by California law, indemnify each of its Directors and
Officers and the City of Atascadero, its Council and its officers
and agents, against any expenses, judgments, fines, settlements,
and other amounts actually and reasonably incurred_ in connection
with any proceedings arising by reason of the fact any such
person is or was a Director or Officer of the Atascadero
Community Services Foundation, Inc.
SECTION B. NON-EXCLUSIVITY. The right of
indemnification or advancement of expenses provided herein shall
not be deemed exclusive of any other rights which any Director or
Officer of the Corporation, or any other person seeking
indemnification or advancement of expenses may have, whether by
law or under any agreement, insurance policy, vote of
disinterested Directors, or otherwise.
VII.
OFFICERS
SECTION A. OFFICERS. The Atascadero Community
Services Foundation, Inc. , shall have a President, a Vice-
President, Secretary, Treasurer and such other Officers as may be 0
5
mrg/ART2352 EXHIBIT "B"
designated b the
g y Board of Directors. The Treasurer shall be the
Atascadero Director of Administrative Services. All other
Officers shall be elected by the Board of Directors for a term of
one (1) year. Only Members of the Board of Directors shall be
eligible to serve as Officers of the Corporation. Officers shall
have the powers and duties as specified below, together with such
other duties as may be specified from time to time by resolution
of the Board of Directors. The Officers of the corporation shall
serve without pay.
Powers and Duties of the President.
(1) To act as the Chief Executive Officer
(2) To exercise general supervision over all the affairs of
the Corporation.
(3) To nominate members to committees necessary to carry out
the executive functions.
(4) To propose activities in the best interest of the
Corporation.
(5) To propose policies and legislation of the Board of
Directors.
(6) To propose the budget of the Board of Directors in
conjunction with the Treasurer.
(7) To administer regulations and By-laws.
Powers and Duties of the First Vice President.
(1) To assist the President in carrying out the executive
functions.
(2) To have the power and authority of the President when
the President is absent.
Powers and Duties of the Treasurer.
(1) To maintain all the financial books and records of the
Corporation consistent with generally accepted accounting
principles.
(2) To make regular financial reports to the Board of
Directors at regular business meetings.
6
mrg/ART2352 EXHIBIT "BO
(3) To sign all disbursements of the Corporation which shall
also be cosigned by the President or First Vice-President.
(4) To be responsible for the collection and disbursement of
the Corporation funds.
Powers and Duties of the Secretary.
(1) To keep permanent comprehensive records of the
Corporation's action.
(2) To record the minutes at each and every meeting, and to
prepare the said minutes for presentations and approval at
the next regularly scheduled meeting.
(3) To handle any correspondence at the request of the Board
of Directors or committee members.
(4) To be responsible to the President for all letters and
notices necessary for promotion and execution of the
function of the Corporation and may include a
newsletter/bulletin.
SECTION
A. LIMITED AUTHORITY OF OFFICERS. No
Officer of the Atascadero Community Services Foundation, Inc.
shall have any power or authority, outside of the normal day-to-
day business of the Corporation, to bind the Corporation by any
contract or engagement or to pledge its credit or to render it
liable in connection with any transaction unless 'so authorized by
the Board of Directors.-
VIII.
AMENDMENTS
New By-laws may be adopted or these By-laws may be
amended or repealed by a majority of the Board of Directors.
IX.
FISCAL YEAR
The "fiscal year" of the Corporation shall be the sane
as that of the City.
7
mrg/ART2352 EXHIBIT "Bff
ANNUAL REPORTS
SECTION A. The Board shall cause an "Annual Report^'
to be sent to the City Council and the Directors within 120 days
after the end of the corporation's fiscal year. The Annual
Report shall contain the following information for the fiscal
year, in such detail as is necessary to clearly explain the
fiscal transactions and status of the Corporation for that fiscal
year:
(a) The assets and liabilities, of the Corporation as
of the beginning and the end of the fiscal year.
(b) The principal changes in assets and liabilities
within the fiscal year.
(c) The revenue or receipts of the Corporation, both
unrestricted and restricted to particular purposes.
(d) The expenses or disbursements of the Corporation
for both general and restricted purposes.
(e) Any information required by Section IX.B. ; below.
The Annual Report shall be accompanied by an audit
report of independent accountants or, if there is no such audit
report as permitted by this Section IX.A, by the certificate of
the Treasurer of the Corporation that such statements were
prepared without independent audit from the Corporation's books
and records.
If the Corporation receives less than $25, 000 in gross
receipts during a fiscal year an Annual Report must still be
furnished to the City Council and to all Directors but no audit
report need be prepared by an independent accountant for such a
fiscal year.
SECTION B. As part of the Annual Report to the City
Council, the Corporation shall annually prepare and mail or
deliver to the City Council and furnish to each Director, a
statement of any transaction or indemnification of the following
kind within 120 days after the end of the Corporation's fiscal
year:
(1) Any transaction (i) in which the Corporation, its
parent, or its subsidiary was a party, (ii) in which an
"interested person" had a direct or indirect material
financial interest, and (iii) which involved more than
$50, 000, or was one of a number of transactions by the
• same interested person which, in the aggregate, totalled
8
mrg/ART2352 EXHIBIT "Bff
more than $50,000. For this purpose, an "'interested
person"' shall be any Director or Officer of the
Corporation, its parent, or one of its subsidiaries;
provided, however, that mere common directorship held by a
Director or Officer of the Corporation, its parent, or one
of its subsidiaries with another non-related entity or
person with whom the Corporation contracts shall not be
considered an interested party.
The above-required statement shall include a brief
description of the transaction, the names of interested
persons involved, their relationship to the Corporation,
the nature of their interest in the transaction and, if
practicable, the amount of that interest, provided that if
the transaction was with a partnership in which the
interested person is a partner, only the interest of the
partnership need be stated.
(2) Any indemnifications or advances aggregating more
than $10, 000 paid during the fiscal year to any Officer or
Director of the Corporation under Section VI.A, above.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, these By-laws have been executed as
of this day of , 1991.
PRESIDENT
SECRETARY
•
9
mrg/ART2352 EXHIBIT ffBp
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO AGENDA ITEM n i
THROUGH: Ray Windsor, City Manager MEETING DATE: 9/10/91
FROM: Andrew J. Takata, Director(,
Department of Community Development
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED ORDINANCE 223 - ADDING ARTICLE 16 TO CHAPTER 2 OF TITLE 4
OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED, "REGULATIONS FOR
SKATEBOARDING"
RECOMMENDATION•
The Parks and Recreation Commission and staff recommend the City
Council direct staff to place proposed Ordinance 223 "Regulations
for Skateboarding" on a future City Council agenda for action.
BACKGROUND:
The proposed skateboarding regulation ordinance and development p of
a city skateboard park facility have been items presented to the
City Council and Parks and Recreation Commission for consideration
over the past two years.
At a recent Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting, it was
recommended that the City Council consider proposed Ordinance 223,
which would prohibit skateboarding on any public sidewalk, public
street or public parking lot, in any commercial zoning area, or any
posted private property.
At ,the Capital Improvement Project Budget Hearings for fiscal year
1991/92, the development of a municipal skateboard facility was not
proposed by staff nor approved by the City Council (see
attachment) .
DISCUSSION•
Staff, per City Council and Parks and Recreation Commission
direction, interviewed other municipalities that have skateboard
parks. Cities found that do have municipal skateboard facilities
are Palo Also, Santa Cruz, Davis, and Virginia Beach. It is noted
that Paso Robles is presently investigating the possibility of
creating a skateboard facility. They are in the preliminary stages
of investigation and have not addressed liability insurance as yet.
Attached are various documents and related minutes regarding the
history of this item for your review.
OPTIONS:
1. Do not adopt proposed ordinance 223, and do not authorize the
development of a municipal skateboard facility.
2. Adopt proposed Ordinance 223, and do not authorize the
development of a municipal skateboard facility.
3. Do not adopt proposed Ordinance 223, and authorize the
development of a municipal skateboard facility.
4. Adopt proposed Ordinance 223, and authorize the development of
a municipal skateboard facility.
If the City Council chooses to develop a municipal skateboard
facility, concerns related to liability risk will need to be
addressed.
It is noted that the above cities owning municipal skateboard
facilities are assuming all risks without liability insurance.
Those cities who developed municipal skateboard parks consulted
with an architect who specializes in the development of skateboard
facilities, which help to minimize their liability factor.
Utilization of volunteers in designing a skateboard facility could
expose the City to greater liability concerns.
AJT:kv
ATASCADERO BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION
BOUNDARIES
From the South corner of Morro Road at the Highway 101
over-crossing then in the generally northwest direction
immediately adjacent to Highway 101 , to a point , at the
intersection of E1 Camino Real and Rosario Ave. , then
easterly along Rosario Ave. , to a point at the intersection
of Rosario and Palma Ave. , then easterly along Palma Ave.
to the rear lot line of parcels on the west side of Traffic
Way, then north along said rear lot lines to the rear lot
line of parcels on the south side of 01meda Ave. , then
easterly to the rear lot line of parcels on the west side
of Traffic Way, then north along said rear lot lines to
include Lot 24 of Block LA, of Atascadero , then northerly
along the center line of Traffic Way, to a point , then
easterly to include the presently existing National Guard
Armory Property, then to a point easterly to the intersection
of West Mall and Santa Ysabel Ave_ at the West ?Mall bridge,
then southerly along Santa Ysabel Ave. to a point at the
intersection of the southerly leg of Hospital Drive and
Santa Ysabel Ave. , then easterly from that point to the ex-
tension of proposed :Highway 41 , then southwesterly to the
Morro Doad/Highoaay 101 over-crossing, point of beginning.
The area shall include all businesses located on parcels contiguous to
the Traffic "tray boundary.
11*
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 200989
ITEM 5-B - SUMMER SWIM PROGRAM PROPOSAL:
Staff states that the Parks, Recreation and Zoo Department has
been approached by the Atascadero School District with a proposal
to administer their summer, 1989 swim program at Atascadero High
School and Creston Elementary School . It is clarified that no
formal discussions have transpired as yet.
After reviewing alternatives, staff feels that the Parks,
Recreation and Zoo Department would be interested in pursuing
this proposal . However, due to the late date, it is felt that
formal discussions are needed to provide a quality program,
preferably in the summer of 1990.
MOTION: Commissioner Bench moves to recommend to the
City Council that staff negotiate with the
Atascadero Unified School District to
administer the operation of the District 's
pool program for the summer of 1990;
Commissioner Smart seconds; motion
carries 5-0
ITEM 5-C - PROPOSAL TO RESTRICT SKATEBOARD USE WITHIN ATASCADERO:
The City Council has requested the Parks and Recreation
Commission review the need for an ordinance to restrict
skateboard use in certain areas of Atascadero.
Chairman Harris voices his concerns to ban a means of
transportation (since bicycles are allowed) without efforts to
accommodate skateboarders.
The Commission reviews possible areas to curtail use of
skateboards. It agreed that there is a need to educate students
on skateboard safety (as provided for bicycle safety) , and feel
this can be done jointly between the Atascadero School District
and Police Department.
MOTION: Commissioner Smart moves to acknowledge to the
City Council that the Parks and Recreation
Commission agrees that there is a safety concern
regarding skateboards, and recommend the City
Council begin the process for adoption of an
ordinance restricting use of skateboards in
certain areas of Atascadero and encourage an
education process on skateboard safety ,jointly
School District and Police Department ; seconded
by Commissioner Bench; Motion carries 5/0
M E M O R A N D U M
•
TO: City Manager Ray Windsor and City Council Members
FROM: Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Skateboarders
DATE: March 23, 1989
As the issue of skateboarders was raised during our last Council Meeting of
3-14-89, our P.D. supervisors and I discussed this matter in an effort to
surface a few alternative approaches which might be practical.
Attached for your information and consideration is a memo which Sgt. Jeff
Fredericks submitted relating to skateboarding. Note that during the past
eleven weeks, 63 calls for service have been received regarding skateboarding
problems.
Sgt. Fredericks listed seven alternatives which staff and City Council Members
may wish to consider. One additional area of concern we should address is the
issue of potential liability, both for our City and for private property
owners, merchants and others.
This information is intended to provide a platform for additional discussion
• within the staff and Council forums.
RICHARD H. McHALE
RHM:sb
Attach:
i
• a w
March 20 , 1989Y
L •
To : Chief McHale via the Chain of Command
From: Sgt . Fredericks
Re : Options to the skateboard problem
Over the past few months the city has been plagued with an
increase in the number of complaints from citizens and
businesses, over skateboarders . The problems reported range
from simple trespasses to vandalisms and interference with
businesses .
When asked to suggest options for consideration, I reviewed
our calls received since the first of the year regarding
this problem. Here are my findings; In January APD received
18 calls regarding skateboarders causing disturbances . In
February we received 22 calls , and between March 1st and
18th we received 23 calls . This does not include the
numerous letters and phone calls from business owners
requesting extra patrol and advise . Nor does it include the
officer initiated contacts with skateboarders stemming from
these requests . It is clear that as the weather warms, the
number of complaints will rise .
I have discussed this with officers and supervisors . From
these discussions the following options were derived .
1 . Prohibit use on public sidewalks .
2 . Prohibit use on public sidewalks in business
.districts , as defined by the CVC .
3 . Prohibit use on public sidewalks in specified areas
of the city .
L"A . Prohibit skateboarders from using public sidewalks and
streets; in business districts ; in specified areas .
�5 . Prohibit skateboarders from using posted private
property.
6 . Provide an education program by the SRO regarding the
proper etiquette of using skateboards on public
thoroughfares .
Liz . Prohibit use on school property, and specified public
properties .
,',Page 1
•
February 23, 1988
To: City Council
Via : Mike Shelton, City Manager
From: Bob Best, Parks and Recreation Director--
Subject : Skateboard Report
Background
At the direction of the Council , staff has been preparing
information regarding the feasibility of a skateboard facility in
the City of Atascadero. Staff has contacted several agencies
regarding facilities, as well as having collected information
from our insurance company relating to coverage for this type of
facility. This information is included as part of this report .
Findings - _
A call was made to the California Parks and Recreation
Society in Sacramento, which is the organization which represents
virtually every parks and recreation agency in the state as well
as most of the professional staff . They have a Technical Clearing
House - Information program, and provided Staff with a list of
agencies who have either considered developing a facility, have
developed one , or are knowledgeable about skateboard facilities .
According to CPRS, insurance problems have closed down all
skateboarding facilities in California which were publicly owned.
The results of the survey staff made from the resources provided
by CPRS:
Orange County- There are no skateboarding facilities in the
county because of liability. According to Mr. Kurt Brittain from
Orange County Parks and Recreation, he felt one was needed but no
one can afford the cost of liability insurance. Orange County has
a "no skateboarding in any County Regional Park" Ordinance . The
reason for this is that not long ago a boy was killed in a park
on a skateboard.
City of Montebello— Several years ago there was a privately owned
skateboarding facility, but nothing currently exists due to lack
of interest . There is currently no ordinance regarding
• skateboarding, but due to business owners concerns consideration
is being given to a possible ordinance which would address
concerns about kids riding boards on sidewalks and in the
shopping malls .
-1-
Southgate Recreation and Park District (Sacramento County)- this
district attempted to have a skateboarding facility about 8-9
Years ago, but because of liability insurance costs they decided
not to do it . They referred us to the Sacramento City Clerk, as
Sacramento has an ordinance regarding skateboarding. A section of
the ordinance is attached to this report .
Tahoe City Public Utility District- A skateboard facility was
built on private property by private individuals but has since
been torn down. Because of liability and traffic problems the
home owners and the county asked that the facilities be torn
down. The city would not consider having a skateboarding activity
on city property.
Ann Arbor, Michigan- according to Mr. .Chet Hill , the city had a
facility built in 1987. They charge an 'annual registration fee of
$15 plus a parent consent form must be on file . Participants are
charged each time they use the facility. Insurance is very hard
to find, and is very costly. Recommended we talk to Golden Eagle
Insurance Company in San Diego. In Ann Arbor, the facility was
built because of complaints by business people about kids
skateboarding on sidewalks and in the malls .
The City of Ann Arbor has the only public skateboard
facility in the state of Michigan . Attached to this report is
information obtained from Ann Arbor. Some items of interest in
the report include :
--The youth of the community had primary responsibility for
leadership in making the project happen.
--Original cost estimates for the facility was $40, 000, but with
volunteer labor the actual cost was under $20, 000 .
--The facility charges were designed to pay for supervision costs
only, and did not include insurance considerations or
maintenance .
--Per the Assistant City Attorney, a review of these types of
facilities in other cities indicate that an accident classified
as "major" happens an average of once every six to eight weeks .
--Ann Arbor' s insurance protects the City against the cost of
judgment or settlements for amounts over $500, 000 and less than
$2, 000,000. The Attorney' s office did not recommend installing
the facility without a separate insurance policy on the facility.
--From information obtained by Financial Guardian Insurance
Company, the coverage available for this type of facility is
available through a specialty market , and costs are so
Prohibitive that it would not be possible to operate in the
black.
City of Westminster- had a facility in a park for about one •
Year. They offered special programs on Saturdays and after
school . Safety equipment was required at all times . The facility
was supervised by a Recreation Leader. The facility was closed
due to lack of liability insurance ._Their recommendation was not
-2-
5. Responses to observing damage to your property from skateboarders was 29
(53X) yes and 26 (47X) no. Of those that said yes, 29 ( I OOX) said it was
reported to them. Comments to this question were:
a. I have seen them trying to jump and do other tricks from planters etc... with
predictable results- damage.
b. Skateboarding marks on my walls,and jumping across my plants.
c. Ceramic ti les on sides of the building were broken off and knocked loose.
d. Skateboarders used a plastic sign stored in back of the center as a ramp to ride on. They broke the
plastic and left the pieces scattered all over the parking lot when done.
e. Skateboarders were using a wooden bench outside the business as a platform for some kind of stunt.
As a result, paint was scrapped off the bench. I had to personally chase them away,
f. Skateboarders ride on the outside of my office. They have knocked things of my shelves and desk
'inside the office from it as well. I even had a glass painting fall down and brake to pieces from it.
6. 37 (67X) answered Yes they felt that an ordinance restricting the use of
skateboards in the downtown area needs to be adopted. 13 (24X) did not. 5 Mo)
did not comment. The type of restrictions they feel should be enforced are.-
a. Keep off sidewalks - away from open businesses.
b. Considering skateboarders have no respect for other people and their property, they should be
banned from an community. They should be banned - period.
c. The skateboarders need a place to ride. Pre-teen and Teens have nothing in Atascadero, California.
d. A speed limit, no congregating and going back and forth in same area, ride away from doorways.
e. They are a danger for older people who come to our establishment. Ban them from our plaza.
f. All private property should be off limits because of the potential and real dangers.
g. Do not damage property and building,stay away from "quite businesses" such as doctor offices.
h. Pedestrian safety. Mestrict skateboarding to portions of the sidewalk along street, away from store
doorways.
i. Downtown is not a place for youth recreation unless it is inside a controlled environment like a
skateboard park.
7. If an ordinance was to be inacted these are the following areas they would like
to see 1t in:
A. In all Public areas 19 (s5;70) C. in only the °B.I.A" area 13 (23 0)
b. In all cornmereial Zzones 223 (420"o) D. Other
Comments from those ciiryeye(J:
I. To think that children like this are going to "police themselves"is so naive as to border on stupidity.
requests in the past for the children to ma.e any changes in their behavior has met only rudeness and non-
compliance. To think that these same cnoidren are now going to be so responsible is ludicrous. The
commercial area isjljst that, playgrouncs should be some where else, perhaps next door to board
men�bars?
2 If they could use common sense and be courteous to others,and don't ride fast next to doorways. How
about giving them a place to ride like a skateboard park.
-77
They need to Stay Off StrF JtS and sidew { i" �i ;an n T.-
a ks der ,g tus n ss d heavy traffic n_,�.rs ,ey ?e0 tC ha,e
a place to ride, furnished by th,$ ity, County or private enterprise. By doing this you can eliminate the
p; _biems. This town has nothin:" ro offer young people.
-4 'Is a form of'.ransportat'On, ! f=ell a skateboarcer h.as a right, the Same.as a oeceslrian. To get from
here to there. What i find irritating is when they go back and forth in the same area because th, Terrain
erovid,s an interesting obstacle. They do like to congregate, so i believe if there were eesignated are?s that
the skateboarders would go there for r.ne sake of competition and "showing off skills."
D. in my Opinion City money should Ce found and Recreation should have the same priority as funds for
Fire and Police. What is more important th an our young people? Consider it an investment.
6. ! do not want the kids banned from skateboard riding. However, they should not damage prcperty or
create excessive noise during business hours. We have noticed an improved behavior of skateboards and
and we will support them in anyway possible.
7. Parents should be more concerned with what their chi idren are doing, and if they can't be, stiff fines
might open their eyes,
8. Skateboarding is not a crime!! HOWEVER, destruction of public and private property is. Some of
them also have no regard for cars in shopping centers. PLEASE give them a place to ride, Lets do
something nice for our kids and Grandkids and give them a chance- Don't keep telling them N0.
9. Skateboards themseives are not at fault. I skateboarded when I was younger without harassing other
people and causing property damage. These kids are running together like a pack or gang, the skateboard is
just a flag for teem to carry, like a Harley Davidson to a Hells Angel.
10. An addition to Skateboarders' Etiquette should be, For the safety of pedestrians and cars from out of
control skatebcares! SkatQboar cers are dangerous and reckless.
11, We don't ailow baseball tames on the streets and parking lots of downtown. Parks hav? teen built for
baseball. Burly a skate board facility for these young people.
12. Skateboards belong on private property which they have been given pzrmission to use-only. They are
not vehicles whic�, are licensed for use on roads. They are not bicycies which are licensed ano must obey
all rules as definee oy the Di 1y. ;;kateooards are a hazard and distraction to motorists.
13. it is a plain fact that skateocarders can not be consicerate of other people and property.
14. Skateboarding is in the same category as Golf, Tennis, and Go Carts. The city would not allow golfers
to hit balls in the Sunken Gardens, tennis players to hit tails against the City Hall walls,or go carts to
drive down the middle of cl Camir;o real. The mentioned recreations all have rights. The right to go to the
golf course, tennis court, and go cart track and thereby not mfr Inge on the legal rights of ethers by causing
harmful, ',azarc-ous situations in public areas specifically mace for walking.
15. Sidewalks Frere sc,cifioally made for people who walk or are in wheel chairs. '4-31kers rights should
come first..
16. Whoever wrote these rules forgot the most important factor that skatebcarc'ers are teenacers and
below in aye, A= a result ti',ey are too immature to matte the Judgmental deCiSlonS Called fur in this
d�cumert.
An adult would me mature enough to know they couldn't ride on someone eise's wail, it should be.common
Sense to stag out of n-la'ters, b?ncreS or tables. What 8 to i 'r year Old is coing to keep from skating off and
tell someone of damage done? It wi i i never happen.
r
17. Have you ever seen SKateboarCers on their hands and knee-,getting scuff marks and scratches out of
sidewalks before they leave?A85URD. Never in my lifetime will I ever observe a skateboarder picking up
their board when close to pedestrians.
18. These skateboarders are still in the growing up stage of life. They don't have the self discipline which
is necessary to make mature i udgmental decisions. any violation of a city ordinance on skateboarding
should require the parent or guarcian to pay a minimum $25.00 fine.
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: RAY WINDSOR, City Manager
FROM: ANDY TAKATA, Director of Parks, Recreation
and Zoo
SUBJECT: ATASCADERO SKATEBOARD ASSOCIATION
DATED: JUNE 23, 1989
As per the City Council ' s direction, the Skateboard Sub-
Committee has worked with the skateboarders with regard to
the Skateboard Ordinance in the downtown area. The Sub-
Committee has met with the Mudhole Skateboard Association
which came up with the attached "Rules of Skateboard
Etiquette . "
These rules, that were developed by the Association, were
from many meetings held by 40-50 skateboarders . The goal of
the Association is to police themselves for the enforcement
of the rules and to create fund raising for the repair of
properties that have been damaged by the skateboarders and/or
the development of a skateboard park.
Caleb Plowman is the President of the Association and Art •
Lindsey, the Vice President . Karen Rigss and Kathy Clark are
two parents who have been working with the Association
At the City Council meeting of April 11, 1989, the City
Council requested status reports with regard to the
Skateboard Association' s progress . In order to get an
overall picture of the Skateboarders ' Rules of Etiquette,
staff will institute a survey in July of the business owners
in the downtown area . This survey—will be done every two
months for the next year to determine the progress of the
Skateboarders ' Rules of Etiquette and to help determine if'
the City Council should consider an ordinance .
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call .
• SKATEBOARDERS' RULES OF ETIQUETTE
To avoid vandalism:
1 . No wall riding except of walls approved by property
owners .
2 . No skating on planters, benches or tables that may
be damaged.
3 . Stay out of landscaping.
4. Notify owner of property, if damage occurs .
5 . Leave skating areas as clean or cleaner than when
you started.
For safety of pedestrians :
1 . Give pedestrians the right of way.
2 . Avoid busy sidewalks .
3 . Don' t skate in front of doorways .
• 4. Pick upour skateboard when n close to pedestrians .
5 . Be polite .
For safety of skaters and cars :
1 . Don ' t ride in the street unless it is safe and there
is no sidewalks .
hiA
p�� AGENDA
ITEM f
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: May 16, 1989
TO: Ray Windsor
City Manager
FROM: Andrew J. Takata, Director
Department of Parks, Recrea io and Zoo
SUBJECT: PROPOSED SKATEBOARD ORDINANCE
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting of March 28, 1989, the City Council requested the
Parks and Recreation Commission to examine the possibility of an
ordinance regulating the use of skateboards in Atascadero .
On April 20, 1989, the Parks and Recreation Commission endorsed
the concept of a skateboard ordinance, but did not make any
recommendation as to what restrictions should be incorporated or •
specific areas to be affected .
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
Staff has attached a proposed ordinance which the City Council
may wish to utilize in the preparation of an ordinance.
The proposed ordinance would restrict the riding and parking of
skate- boards within the boundaries of the Business Improvement
Association area of the downtown section of the city. In
addition, it would also prohibit the use of skateboards on
private parking lots within the city limits of Atascadero that
are posted by the owner .
The reason for the proposed ordinance is due to the increasing
number of complaints that have been received from the community
concerning skateboards.
RECOMMENDATION:
Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council utilize the
attached proposed ordinance as a working document to implement an
ordinance to regulate the use of skateboards within the
boundaries of the Business Improvement Area of the downtown •
section of the City of Atascadero and posted private parking
lots within the city limits of Atascadero .
AJTskv
Filet akate3 -,�.
A review of this list shows several options . While the
options are similar, each has its own advantages and
disadvantages . Option 1 , is all sweeping, in that it
prohibits skateboarding in more areas than are having
problems . It will also have a tendency to push the kids into
the streets which could cause an increase in the accident
rate . Option 2 , would generally have the same problems as
Option 1 . Option 3. would allow area targeting, but again
would push kids into the street . Option 4, would generally
follow suit with options 1 - 3, with the advantage of
keeping the skateboarders out of the street . Option 5 ,
would require property owners to post their property. This
would require that a posting standard be established.
Option 6 , has been tried during the bicycle safety
presentations made to all the schools . It seems to be
effective for one or two weeks, then the problems return.
Option 7, would require the cooperation of city and school
officials to establish posting and enforcement requirements .
From my sampling of the disturbance calls, it seems that
the majority of the calls are concentrated in the downtown
area . The second problem areas are the schools .
Short of banning skateboards within the city limits, I would
recommend that a blending of the listed options be adopted .
• I feel we could curtail the largest number of complaints by
prohibiting the use of skateboards on public sidewalks and
streets along E1 Camino Real , Entrada, Lewis Ave . , Palma,
East Mall , and West Mall between Rosario and Curbaril . In
addition skateboard use should be prohibited on posted
private property, schools, and specified public properties ,
ie . City Hall and AFD Station #1 . This solution_ , while not
a panacea appears to be the most livable . It allows
businesses to keep their areas open to their customers . It
keeps the skateboarders from the busiest area of the city,
while at the same time allowing the kids to enjoy their
sport .
`j ,Pace" 2
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE NUMBER
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
ADDING ARTICLE . 16 TO CHAPTER 2 OF TITLE 4
OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE
ENTITLED
REGULATIONS FOR SKATEBOARDS
The Council of the City of Atascadero ordains as follows:
Section 1 . Article 16 is added to Chapter 2 of Title 4 of
the Atascadero Municipal Code to read as follows:
ARTICLE 16. REGULATIONS FOR SKATEBOARDS
Section 4-2. 1601 . Effect of Regulations
(a) The parent of any child or guardian of any
ward shall not authorize or knowingly permit
any such child or ward to violate any of the
provisions of this article.
Section 4-2. 1602. Riding Restrictions
(a) No person shall use, ride, or operate any
skateboard upon any sidewalk , public street ,
or publicly owned parking lot , or in
violation of any of the provisions of the
Vehicle Code. The provisions of Section
4-2. 1602a shall apply to the Downtown
Parking and Business Improvement area only,
as specified in Title 3, Chapter 11 ,
Section 3-11 .02 of this Code.
(b ) No person shall use, ride or operate any
skateboard upon any private parking lot
within the city limits of Atascadero, when
such private parking lot is posted by the
owner . Posting shall consist of a sign not
less than 17 by 22 inches in size, with
lettering not less than one inch in height ,
prohibiting skateboard riding on the property
displayed at all entrances to the property.
Sectior 4-2. 1603 Parking Restrictions
No person shall park or leave any skateboard upon
any street or sidewalk in such a manner as to
obstruct or hinder the free passage of pedestrians
or other vehicles permitted to use the same.
♦ J s,
Ordinance Number Page 2
Section 2. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this
ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its
passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation,
printed, published and circulated in this City in accordance with
Government Code Section 36933 ; shall certify the adoption of this
ordinance; and shall cause this ordinance and certification to be
entered in the Book of Ordinances of this City.
Section 3 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into
effect and be in full force and effect at 12: 01 a.m. on the thirty-
first (31st) day after its passage.
On motion by Council member
seconded by Council member and
the
foregoing ordinance is hereby adopted in its entirety by the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
• DATE ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA
By
BONITA BORGESON, Mayor
City of Atascadero
ATTEST:
BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
PAY UrMSOR,-City Manager
A A r
f
.:� �T �»i. ::�: ..w., ...... ....ri a:.. . �•. •.r.• �"V. . ...a.is
•'r:
w•
L :.6� .Vii:•.
Y�
'iw kS.•
t ... ..::. :::.
1 r.7>t p
O .... ......
ILI
x.
%�:� �
Z t �• � � ;�::•..._:.:>:ka:�)�: +may � Fi R ,►
t1Juj
:� Ej`rf�'t i f It ,: iii lrw t�lr t�, -f•t •1 �.i 2
::Ni;: ,.,Io,�iiJ. :I•i::•>::..::►i!•�:•>:�.�::•>:;<•::::•^:J[:'L•:.;<i; i:;`:;1. :• I Z
''.+`�.i,•,;> ;}ilii w.:•::•:s. .,i�.r::. � �
• Fid, L,tcy " f ..r.+.��t .+ �• �.sr :<
�. ,'1• ��'fie`•` .'►..�.-I J �'' -":'.': •'• Ic
cc: 7 L £
Q „vIc
w •
ui
ryLN�
°
jut
LU
T '• ~ J J
7tiA X151
O v
PA .
X.
4 t .•
f
.3
10
It
PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES DATE:
ITEM 6-D - SKATEBOARD PARR - FEASIBILITY:
The City Council has requested the Parks and Recreation Commission
to investigate possible City-owned property that could be utilized
as a Skateboard Park.
To date, staff has not located a liability insurance that would
cover this type of activity.
Investigations into the construction of a formal skateboard park
approximated development costs to be between $50, 000 to $100, 000.
Staff concluded that the most preferred locations for a skateboard
facility would be either Traffic Way Park or Atascadero Lake Park.
® Traffic Way Park is within walking distance of the downtown area,
provides an adequate buffer zone between other activities in the
area, and an area behind the existing ball fields that could
accommodate the activity.
Atascadero Lake Park spillway, adjacent to Alvord Field is a
naturally usable area, but there are joint usage conflicts.
Commissioner Meyer feels that the location at Traffic Way Park, if
developed as horseshoe pits, would be more preferable to a
skateboard facility.
It is noted that Paloma Creek Park does have space available for a
skateboard park, but is not centrally located.
After discussion, the Commission requests staff to investigate the
city-owned meridian area on Atascadero Mall, adjacent to Atascadero
High School as a possible site.
Staff notes that a private skateboard organization recently held a
special event at Paloma Creek Park parking lot, which had
approximately 100-200 spectators and participants. It is noted
that the organization is .only able to obtain one-day special event
liability insurance.
After discussion, the Commission requests staff to investigate the
meridian area of Atascadero Mall, adjacent to Atascadero High
School, which is City-owned, as a possible skateboard site, and
report back to the Commission.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: MAY 16, 1990
TO: ANDREW J. TAKATA
DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION AND ZOO
FROM: GEOFF ENGLISH, RECREATION SUPERVISOR
SUBJECT: SKATEBOARD PARK FEASIBILITY - CONTINUED
As per your request, I have made additional contacts
regarding liability insurance for- the proposed skateboard
park and have made recommendations regarding a location for
the proposed facility.
LIABILITY INSURANCE CARRIERS
As the City has discovered in the past, insurance
carriers are unwilling to write liability policies for
skateboard parks in California due to the nature of
Califurnia liability laws. I was unable, through my efforts,
to locate a company to write a policy for our proposed
facility. Below is a brief description of the contacts I
made.
1 . California Skateboard Leaaue
Contact: Sonia Catillano, telephone (714) B83-6176
The Skateboard League sponsors one-day
competitions throughout California generally on flat parking
lots provided by private businesses. The League does provide
one-day liability insurance through R. F. Lyons, but does not
have un-going insurance.
2. Siurenza Insurance
Contact: Guy Siorenza, telephone (815) *962-6621
This company does write liability insurance
for skateboard parks in a few Mid-West states which have
favorable liability laws. He was not aware of any company
willing to write in California.
-1- .
3. Ocean City, Maryland Skateboard Park
Contact: Carole Eberhart, telephone (301 ) 250-0125
Ocean City operates a skateboard park and has
liability coverage by Hartford Insurance which is the cities
general policy holder. Hartford did not write an exception
for their skateboard park , largely due to favorable state
laws regarding liability.
4. National Recreation and Parks Association
Contact: Jonathon Howard, telephone (703) 820-4940
Due to the increased interest in developing
skateboard facilities. N. R. P.A. has developed a manual
regarding skateboarding issues. A copy has been forwarded to
US.
5. Webster Grove, Missouri - Skateboard Park
. Contact: Kyrel Board, telephone (314) 532-8085
The City of Webster Grove in conjunction with
a retail marketer, Splash, Inc. , operates a skateboard park
on the site of a winter skating rink . Splash, Inc. is the
facility operator and provides a liability insurance policy.
At this point, I am waiting to hear back from Splash, Inc. as
to who their carrier is.
Findings
There still appears to be no liability insurance
carriers willing to write for skateboard facilities located
in California. This situation exists due to the nature of
California State Liability Laws.
Until California law is changed. The situation with
regard to liability insurance will no doubt remain the same.
FACILITY LOCATION
Two locations have been identified a possible locations
for the proposed skateboard facility The criteria used in
establishing these locations were:
1 . City owned property to reduce the cost of
development of the facility.
2. Relative close proximity to the residential /downtown
area to increase the probability of regular use by the city' s
skateboarder population.
-2-
r
3. Adequate buffer zones from local businesses and
pedestrian areas to minimize potential accidents and
conflicts.
4. Size of location must be large enough to accommodate
this type of activity.
Recommended Site #1
Traffic Way Park - On the east side of Traffic
Way Fields, an area exists between the ball field, leaching
pit and the adjacent business that can be expanded and
developed into a skateboard park.
Advantages
-This site is within walking distance from the
downtown/residential areas yet far enough
removed as to draw skateboarders away from the
pedestrian areas of downtown.
-Minimal conflict with other park users due to
its location being removed from the center of
the park .
-Bathroom facilities already exist in close
proximity to the propused location.
Disadvantages
-Size of the proposed area is less than the
desired amount of space for a skateboard park .
-Inadequate parking .at this location.
Recommended Site #2
Atascadero Lake Park - Directly behind Alvord
Field, around the bridge crossing the Lake spillway, there is
a triangle of space that c:uuld be developed into a skateboard
facility. In addition, the spillway could be paved for a
slalom type course as well as a small area on the North side
of Alvord Field for additional space.
Advantages
-This site is already being used by skaters
despite posted signs. The number of users at
this location would most likely be high.
-Bathroom facilities are already located at
this site.
-Adequate parking exists with this site.
-Due to the natural design of the site
construction crust may be reduced.
Disadvantages
-Due to the wide variety of park use.
Skateboarding may cause conflict with other
types of park use. ( i . e. walking, joggers,
picnickers, etc. ) .
-Due to the close proximity to the tut-lot
there may be accidents caused by flying
• skateboards ur children wandering into the
skate area, (This might be solved by some form
Of -Fencing. )
Additiunal programming at a park that is
already congested, will put additional strains
on the facility including added maintenance
and lower park user enjoyment.
/i t
M E M O R A N D U M
Date: April 5, 1990
To : Andy Takata, Director of Parks, Recreation and Zoo
From: Mark Joseph , Administrative Services Directo
Subject : Skateboard Park
In reviewing our files on skateboard parks, I found the
attached 1987 letter from our insurance broker . I recently
confirmed the same findings over the phone with Dale McPherson of
Sedgwick James .
Although our current insurance provider will not cover a
skateboard park , Dale mentioned that there may be an insurance
company in Oklahoma that will provide coverage. However , the
firm is not well rated , and our broker does not recommend using
this firm.
There is the option of self-insurance, but such an approach
runs the risk of endangering our General Fund Reserves , in the
event of a serious accident .
Looking beyond liability insurance, there remains questions
of initial capital investment and operating costs . To the extent
that a skateboard park should be self-supporting , the fees that
would be needed might discourage so many youth that it could make
the project cost-prohibitive.
I know, this isn ' t very encouraging but the liability issue
is a major stumbling block , one that does not appear to be
improving within the foreseeable future.
cc : Ray Windsor , City Manager
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: C-1
CITY OF ATASCADERO
THROUGH: Ray Windsor , City Manager MEETING DATE: 3/13/90
FROM: Andrew Takata, Director
Parks, Recreation and Zoo Department
SUBJECT:
SKATEBOARDING - PROPOSED REGULATING ORDINANCE
RECOMMENDATION:
® Direct staff to r-r-eate a skateboard regulating ordinance that
wGUI' d eliminate sKat2boarditny^ Within the Business imp'- . v2:nant
Area boundaries . 2xceot be tweed the f?oUrs of %:0a . m . c3 ' 1ri
am and 3 :.J() p . m . to 4 :'Jr� b . m . , i'londay thrOUQh =1- idav ; ano � rt0
skateboarding allowed on �3aturday and Sunday .
BACKGROUND:
Hs pe the City Council ' s request , staff has worked "'lith the
Skateboard Association and performer sever-ai info:mai >urveys of
the busi '7,ess Ccmmurity to dete-mine F 3 k3';ebOar'b pr= it^:ante iS
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
In order to more effectively determine the reed fcr a skateboard
ordinance, the staff initiated two survevs and wnrr: ed with t."e
'Ekateboard Association to ~?eip alleviate t e -. Cer-Is -)f the
bus _.-)ess communi Lv. Wh . le work o :J. ~ '4.e _. ateboard
Hssociaticn ( ;'2Terence In Exhibit H ) the s,. at2toar-ber s _:revised
a rule of etiquette for use o Skateboards . -'Uri; Q thl's time .
staff informally surveyed the businesses f-jthin the Susiness
Improvement Area before and after efforts mere made with �tne
Skateboard Association to mitigate concerns , wit17 the roiiowing
t"esuIts :
FIRST SECOND
SURVEY SURVEY QUESTION RESULTS
59% 57% Observed damage to property by skateboards
67% 63% In favor of an ordinance restricting skate-
board use
35% 47% In favor of restricting skateboarding in all
public areas
42% 30% In favor of restricting skateboarding in all
commercial areas
23% 23% In favor of restricting skateboarding only in
the Business Improvement Area boundaries
65% 47% Business ' receiving comments on concerns of
skateboarding activities from their customers
Since there has not been any substantial improvement ; staff is
recommending the creation of a regulating skateboard ordinance.
AJTckv
;skateB
•
Exhibit 'A'
Skateboard Survey Results
The skateboard survey was designed to get information and comments from
business owners concerning skateboarders conduct in agreement with the Mudhole
Skateboard Association's progress of the "Rues of Skateboard Etiquette". A total
of 125 surveys were passed out in the Business Improvement Area and various
downtown shopping centers. 55 (441") were returned. The City of Atascadero
Parks, Recreation and Zoo Department hand delivered these surveys to the areas
mentioned above. The area was determined by using a City Planning Map of the
Business Improvement Area.
The Survey consisted of a background, a 1 ist of the Skateboarders' Rules of
Etiquette, 5 close-ended and 3 open-ended auestion,s. In addition, 4 questions
allowed for any comments and descriptions as need d.
A meeting to discuss these matters will be held between the Recreation
Staff and the Mudhole Association on Tuesday, Aug 29 at 1:�Opm at the Recreation
off ice.
Results by Question
1. 53 (9690 are aware of skateboarding in the downtown area, and 2(49) are not.
2. 38 (699) are aware of the discussions between the City Council and the
Skateboard Association, and 17 (319) are not.
3. Of those surveyed, 22 (409) noticed areas of their property that receive
skateboard use free of debris. 33 (609) did not.
4. 19 (359) of the businesses surveyed responded that customers nave not
commented on skateboarders outside of their establishment. Of the 36 (659)
that answered Yes, here are some of the conirrients,
a. "I am fearful of being run over and hit while`.4alKing in or out of your ei.tablishment "
b. "Those skateboarders are foolish, r°cyless, and inconsloerate."
c. "The noise of the skateboar;s is disruptive and i have almost hit them while parking or backing out
of your parking spaces."
d. "Skatencarcers are not careful or courteous."
e. "Thee frighten me by their speed. It is not safe for them or me."
f. "It is danGereus for them to skateboard on the sidewalks of this mall. They don't lrok c:.it for anyone
or any door that might swing open?."
g. "I can not believe the way skateboarders do not look out for cars one pit."
h. "They are very hostile and rude to elder peooIe"
ORDINANCE NUMBER 223
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
ADDING ARTICLE 16 TO CHAPTER 2 OF TITLE 4
OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE
ENTITLED
"REGULATIONS FOR SKATEBOARDING"
The City Council of Atascadero ordains as follows:
-SECTION 1. Article 16 is added to Chapter 2 of Title 4 of
the Atascadero Municipal Code to read as follows:
ARTICLE 16. REGULATIONS FOR SKATEBOARDING
Section 4-2. 1601. Effect of Regulations
(a) The parent of any child or guardian of any
ward shall not authorize or knowingly permit
any such child or ward to violate any of the
provisions of this article.
Section 4-2 . 1602. Riding Restrictions
(a) No person shall use, ride, or operate any
skateboard upon any public sidewalk, public
street, or public owned parking lot, or in
violation of any of the provisions of the
Vehicle Code in any Commercial Zoning area, or
in front of any commercial legal non-conf irming
use, as specified in Title 9 of this Code.
(b) No person shall use, ride or operate any skate-
board upon any private property within
the city limits of Atascadero, when such
private property is posted by the owner.
Posting shall consist of a sign not less
than 17 by 22 inches in size, with lettering
not less than one inch in height, prohibiting
skateboard riding on the property displayed at
all entrances to the property.
Section 4-2. 1603 Parking Restrictions
No person shall park or leave any skateboard upon
any street or sidewalk in such a manner as to
obstruct or hinder the free passage of pedestrians
or other vehicles permitted to use the same.
i
Ordinance 223
Page Tvo
Section 2 Publication - The City Clerk shall cause this
ordinance to be published once within fifteen (1.5) days after its
passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation,
printed, published,and circulated in this City in accordance with
Government Code Section 36933; shall certify the adoption of this
ordinance; and shall cause this ordinance and certification to be
entered in the Book or Ordinances of this City.
Section 3 - Effective Date - This ordinance shall go into
effect and be in full force and effect at 12 :01 a.m. on the thirty-
first (31st) day after its passage.
On Motion by Councilmember , and
seconded by Councilmember the
foregoing ordinance is hereby adopted in its entirety by the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
0 ADOPTED:
CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA
By
ROBERT LILLEY, Mayor
City of Atascadero
ATTEST:
LEE DAYKA, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ART MONTANDON, City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: .
ANDREW J. TAKATA, Director
Department of Community Development
PARKS AND RECREATION MINUTES - MAY 16, 1991
DRAFT - (These minutes have not been reviewed and approved by the
Parks and Recreation Commission)
Per Commission's request, at the May 2, 1991, meeting, the 1989
proposed ordinance has been modified and re-presented for
additional review. The ordinance area was expanded from just the
Business Improvement Area to all commercial zoning areas within the
city limits.
At the May 2nd meeting, the Commission had a consensus that there
would be no allowed time that skateboard usage would be permitted
in the commercial zoning areas.
In 1990, the City Council requested a recommendation from staff as
to the feasibility of a skateboard park on city property. Staff
determined that there was no known company that would offer
liability insurance related to such a facility, and that Traffic
Way Park (though not a preferred site) would be the best City-owned
property for such a facility.
Commissioner Bench summarized the previous survey of local
businesses regarding skateboarders in the downtown area. Many
responses echoed frustration with the Police Department not being
able to react to their concerns, as there was no skateboarding
regulating ordinance.
MOTION: Commissioner Schulte moves the Parks and Recreation
Commission recommends the City Council adopt the
revised proposed "Regulations for Skateboarding"
ordinance, restricting skateboard usage in all
commercially zoned areas of the City of Atascadero;
commissioner smart seconds; Motion carries 5-0
Prepared by:
Karen Vaughan
Secretary to the Parks and Recreation Commission
REPORT TO PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ITEM: 7-A
FROM: Andrew J. Takata, Director DATE: May 13, 1991
Department of Community Services
SUBJECT:
SKATEBOARDS - RECONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED REGULATORY ORDINANCE
RECOMMENDATION:
The Parks and Recreation Commission recommend to the City Council
the approval of the proposed skateboard regulatory ordinance, and
requests the City Attorney to review the document for legal
correctness prior to Council consideration.
BACKGROUND:
Per the Parks and Recreation Commission's initial consideration of
this item on May 2, staff was directed to make amendments to a
preliminary draft ordinance, which was initially prepared in 1989.
DISCUSSION:
On May 2, 1991, the Parks and Recreation Commission discussed the
continuing skateboard usage downtown, concerns for the safety of
children on skateboards, and continuing vandalism to private
property by the improper use of skateboards in the commercial areas
of town.
The Commission requested staff to amend the 1989 draft ordinance to
prohibit skateboarding in all commercial areas of Atascadero at all
times, and any private property, when posted.
Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes - Approved
May 2, 1991
ITEM 6-B - SKATEBOARDS - RECONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED REGIILATORY
ORDINANCE:
Commissioner Schulte requested this item to be re-considered by the
Commission due to continued vandalism to property by skateboards
and a concern for the safety of the skateboarders and public
through their interaction.
Presently there is no skateboard regulatory ordinance and the
® Police Department is extremely limited in enforcement due to an
ordinance not being in place.
Commissioner Schulte feels that due the age group of the majority
of skateboarders, it should not be expected that they monitor
themselves. It is apparent from the previous trial self-
enforcement period that it was not effective.
The Commission reviewed the past history on this subject in that an
ordinance was proposed, a six-month self-monitor period failed, no
City facility was determined to be an excellent site for a
skateboard facility (but the best City-owned location would be
Traffic Way Park) , and that government liability insurance for this
usage is not available.
It is determined by the Commission that the 1989 proposed ordinance
is acceptable, but the boundaries should be expanded from just the
"Business Improvement Area" to all commercially zoned locations and
other private property if posted by the owner, and that there
should not be any designated usage times allowed.
MOTION: Commissioner Schulte moves to continue this item
to the May 16, 1991 Commission Meeting, with
revisions to boundaries and usage time frames
removed; Commissioner Cooper seconds; Motion
carries 5-0.
REPORT TO PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ITEM: 6-B
FROM: Andrew J. Takata, Director DATE: 5/2/91
Department of Community Services
SUBJECT:
SKATEBOARDS - RE-CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED REGULATING ORDINANCE
IN CERTAIN AREAS OF ATASCADERO
BACKGROUND:
In 1989, staff initiated two informal surveys of local businesses
in the Business Improvement Area, which resulted in the majority of
the business owners supporting the need for a regulating ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
• Commissioner Schulte has requested this item be re-presented to the
Commission for additional review of the issue and re-consideration
of a regulating ordinance prohibiting the use of skateboards in
certain areas of the city.
Attached is various historical documentation on this subject over
the past several years to provide the Commission with a summarized
history of this subject. To date, no formal action was taken by
the City regarding regulating the use of skateboards within the
city limits.
Also attached is a memorandum, dated March 13, 1990, in 'which
staff proposed the elimination of skateboarding within the Business
Improvement Area boundaries, except between the hours of 7: 00 a.m.
to 8:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and
no skateboarding at any time Saturday and Sunday.
AJT;kv
;skate
Attachments - various historical documentation
_77
PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES
ITEM 5-B - SKATEBOARD FEASIBILITY:
A brief history of this item is given, beginning in June, 1989,
with direction from the City Council to the Commission regarding
consideration of a skateboard controlling ordinance. Later, the
City Council directed the Commission to consider usage of City-
owned property for a possible skateboard facility.
Staff's recommendation for a skateboard facility location owned by
the City is Traffic Way Park.
Mr. Gary Pierce, resident, previously interested in developing
horseshoe pits at Traffic Way Park, has recently determined that
Paloma Creek Park would be a superior location.
Staff felt the proposed East Mall location for a skateboard
facility is not appropriate due to it's close proximity to traffic.
Staff has been unable to locate an insurance company that will
provide liability coverage to the City for skateboard activities on
an ongoing basis.
Commissioner Schulte opposes the development of a skateboard
facility due to usage uninsurability, the amount of funds required
to develop it, and a small user group. She feels that funds put
towards the development of a youth center would better serve. a
wider user group. If a skateboard facility is to be pursued, she
feels it should be on private property.
Commissioner Meyers agrees that the estimated $50, 000 - $100, 000
for development of a skateboard facility is too much.
Commissioner Smart feels that Traffic Way Park is not the most
ideal location for such a facility, but is the best City owned
property available.
MOTION: Commissioner Schulte moves to recommend to the City
Council that Traffic Way Park would be the most
appropriate City-owned property for a skateboard
facility, but the Commission does not support the
development of a skateboard park due to liability,
development Costs, and minimal use/interest range;
Commissioner Smart seconds; Motion carries 4/0
(Commissioner Cooper absent)
REPORT TO PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM: 5-B
CITY OF ATASCADERO
FROM: Andrew Takata, Dirctor MEETING DATE: 9/20/90
Department of Parks Recreation and Zoo
SUBJECT:
SKATEBOARD PARK FEASIBILITY
RECOMMENDED SKATEBOARD SITE:
Traffic Way Park - Staff recommends Traffic Way Park as the most
preferable City-owned property for a municipal skateboard facility
location.
BACKGROUND/HISTORY:
Per the Park and Recreation Commission's request of August 23,
1990, staff has reviewed the grass median strip on Atascadero Mall,
adjacent to Atascadero High School as a possible skateboard park
location
As per the City Council's request, staff has made additional
contacts regarding liability insurance for a proposed municipal
skateboard park and has investigated areas where the proposed site
could be located.
Staff has contacted Mr. Ken Wormhoudt, Landscape Architect,
specializing in skateboard parks, who states there is one municipal
skateboard park in Santa Cruz and two being proposed in Palo Alto
and Eureka. These cities are presently self-insured. The cost for
a formal skateboard park (construction and architect fees, not
land) ranges from $50, 000 to $100, 000.
The locations identified as possible locations for a proposed
skateboard facility. The criteria used in establishing these
locations were:
1. Use City-owned property to reduce development costs.
2. Relative close proximity to the residential/downtown area to
increase the probability of regular use by the City's skateboarder
population.
3 . Adequate buffer zones from local businesses and pedestrian
areas to minimize potential accidents and conflicts.
4. Size of location must be large enough to accommodate this type
of activity.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS*
As the City has previously discovered, insurance carriers are
unwilling to write liability policies for skateboard parks in
California due to the nature of California liability laws. Staff
was unable to locate a company to write a policy for our proposed
facility. Below is a brief description of the contacts made:
1. California Skateboard League -
Contact: Sonia Catillano (714) 993-6176
The Skateboard League sponsor one-day competitions throughout
California, generally on flat parking lots provided by private
businesses. The League receives one-day liability insurance
through R.F. Lyons, but does not have on-going insurance.
2 . Siorenza Insurance -
Contact: Guy Siorenza (815) 962-6621
This company does write liability insurance for skateboard parks in
a few midwest states which have favorable liability laws. He was
not aware of- any company willing to write in California.
3 . Ocean City, Maryland Skateboard Park
Contact: Carole Eberhart, (301) 250-0125
Ocean City operates a skateboard park and has liability coverage by
Hartford Insurance, the City fs general policy holder. Hartford did
not write an exception for their skateboard park, largely due to
favorable State laws regarding liability.
4 . National Recreation and Parks Association
Contact: Jonathan Howard (703) 820-4940
Due to the increased interest in developing skateboard facilities,
N.R.P.A. has developed a manual regarding skateboarding issues,
which has been forwarded to us.
5. Webster Grove, Missouri - Skateboard Park
Contact: Kyrel Board, (314) 532-8085
The City of Webster Grove, in conjunction with a retail marketer,
Splash, Inc. , operates a skateboard park on the site of a winter
skating rink. splash, Inc. is the facility operator and provides
a liability insurance policy. At this point, I am waiting to hear
back from Splash, Inc. as to who their carrier is.
There still appears to be no liability insurance carriers willing
to provide liability policies for skateboard facilities located in
California due to State Liability Laws. Until California law is
changed. The situation with regard to liability insurance will no
doubt remain the same,
ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS:
TRAFFIC WAY PARR
On the east side of Traffic Way Park, an area exists between the
ball field, leaching pit, and adjacent business that could be
expanded and developed into a skateboard park.
Advantages:
1. This site is within walking distance from the
downtown/residential areas yet far enough removed as to draw
skateboarders away from the pedestrian areas of downtown.
2. Minimal conflict with other park users due to its location
being removed from the center of the park.
3 . Bathroom facilities already exist in close proximity to the
proposed location.
Disadvantages:
. 1. Size of- the proposed area is less than the desired amount of
space for a skateboard park.
2 . Inadequate parking at this specific location.
ATASCADERO LAKE PARR:
A location exists behind Alvord Field, adjacent to the bridge
crossing the spillway, there is a triangle of space that could be
developed into a skateboard facility. In addition, the spillway
could be paved for a slalom type course as well as a small area on
the north side of Alvord Field for additional space.
Advantages:
1. This site is already being used by skaters, despite posted
signs. The number- of users at this location would most likely be
high.
2 . Bathroom facilities are already located at this site.
3 . Adequate parking exists adjacent to this site.
4. Due to the natural design of the site, construction cost may
be reduced.
Disadvantages:
1. Due to the wide variety of park usage, skateboarding may cause
conflict with other types of park uses (i.e. walking, joggers,
picnickers, etc. ) .
2 . Due to the close proximity to the tot-lot, there may be
accidents caused by flying skateboards or children wandering into
the skate area (this might be solved by some form of fencing. )
3 . Additional programming at a park that is already congested
will 'put additional strains on the facility, including added
maintenance and lower park use enjoyment.
4. Area is not centrally located.
ATASCADERO MALL MEDIAN:
Advantages:
1. Close proximity to downtown
2. City-owned property
Disadvantages:
1. Safety concerns related to the property boundary being in
close proximity to Atascadero Mall.
AJT:kv
;skate9
to have the City develop and operate a facility- let a private
group do it on their own commercial property.
City of Anaheim- no skateboarding is allowed in any city park.
City of Morro Bay- they are currently proposing a city ordinance
which prohibits skateboarding on certain public properties. They
do not have a skateboard facility, and are not proposing one . A
copy of the proposed ordinance is attached.
City of Reedley- they have an ordinance regarding the use of
skateboards in the City. A copy of the ordinance is attached to
this report .
Conclusions
It is apparent from discussions with California Parks and
Recreation Society and numerous agencies around the state that
skateboarding facilities are not in favor with
public agencies .
Liability problems are the number one concern for every public
agency surveyed, and no one is recommending the city develop any
type of facility for skateboarding.
• According to Mike Simmons of Fred James and Company, the
City of Atascadero ' s liability policyan or
( Y other municipal
liability policy) would specifically exclude skateboard parks
owned or operated by the City. To his knowledge, there are no
carriers willing to insure skateboard parks . In summary, if the
City of Atascadero elected to develop a facility, it would not be
covered for liability insurance .
Skateboarding is popular in Atascadero, but due to insurance
Problems it is not wise for the City to develop a public
facility. This type of facility may best be handled by private
enterprise, and if someone desires to build one and operate it
Privately, this appears to be the best solution. However, based
on the information obtained, it is unlikely a private operator
would be willing to take the risk to develop and operate a
facility. It is simply not a profitable venture, so private
enterprise is staying away from these facilities . As such, they
have become extremely rare in the United States .
Recommendation
The City should not actively pursue developing a skateboard
facility due to insurance problems .
The City may also wish to complete a feasibility study on
the possible adoption of a skateboard ordinance .
Alternatives
Council could decide they wish to continue pursuit of a
Public facility, with the understanding the City would probably
have to be self insured.
-3-
Jarrws
FRED. S. JAMES & CO. OF CALIFORNIA 151 Union Street, Suite 600, San Francisco 94111-9917 415/433-1440
November 12, 1987
Mr. David Jorgensen
Director of Administrative Services
City of Atascadero
P.O. Box 747
Atascadero, CA 93423
YOUR LETTER -- NOVEMBER 6, 1987
Dear David:
Thank you for your very thorough letter requesting information on these three
important issues. Although I will plan to address each issue in another letter
with back-up documentation, I wanted to respond with some general thoughts while
looking through my files for information which may assist you.
Issue Number 1 - Skateboard Park or Facility:
Skateboard parks have become an increasingly difficult issue to address from a
liability standpoint. This is because, in the absence of a park or facility,
skateboarders typically find a good revine that meets their needs. Typically, •
these revines are owned by the city and potential liability still exists.
The bottom line is that the City of Atascadero's liability policy (or any other
municipal liability policy) would specifically exclude skateboard parks owned or
operated by you, the insured. This is, of course, if they know of their
existence. But after building a park, and answering the liability questionnaire
on renewal, it is doubtful that the carrier would not be aware of this exposure.
If a skateboard park did exist in the city, in all probability, the carrier
would have to respond if a loss occurred, since there is no specific exclusion
in your policies that addresses this issue.
To my knowledge, there are no carriers willing to insure skateboard parks. I
have some information in my files that I will be sending to you. This has been
passed on to me from other cities interested in resolving skateboarding issues.
You may wish to speak with Forrest Henderson, Assistant City Administrator, City
of Morro Bay (772-1214) .
I notice in your attachment memo from Bob Best, that he also indicates off-road
dirt bikes. In a recent situation with the City of Lompoc, the city closed off
an area that was being used by dirt bike riders. Although the carrier did not
issue an exclusion, they would have, had the city not reduced access to this
open area and posted the area to prevent further use by moto-cross riders.
The City of Atascadero may still elect to sponsor/operate these types of events/
facilities. If they do, they would be doing so with no insurance to protect
them if a loss occurs. Although I personally feel this is not prudent, I image
that there are many cities that continue to offer facilities without adequate
insurance protection.
C/Z5663/1
Fax 415 956-1941 Insurance Brokers Since 1858 Telex 910 372-6132
Jalm]Eb
�ED.S.JAMES&CO.OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. David Jorgensen
November 12, 1987
Page Two
Issue Number 2 -- Colonial Days Celebration:
It surprises me that the Atascadero Chamber of Commerce cannot purchase
insurance for the Colonial Days Celebration this year. In the past few years,
coverage was very difficult to obtain, and many cities waived their requirement
for insurance to allow the event to continue. Other cities have assumed the
liability by indemnifying the event sponsorer.
I am sure that we can obtain insurance for the chamber of commerce and the
Colonial Days Celebration, given adequate time and detailed information. I
cannot tell you the cost will be cheap, but most of the events we have recently
secured coverage for have indicated that the pricing was not higher than
anticipated. Coverage would be for a $1,000,000 limit of liability and would
add the City of Atascadero as an additional insured. Please feel free to have
the Chamber of Commerce contact Diane Won at 415-765-8296 for additional
information.
In answer to your question, the City of Atascadero's insurance policy could no
cover the Atascadero Chamber of Commerce. If the City of Atascadero sponsored
this celebration, then the city's insurance would respond excess of the city's
$100,000 self-insured retention.
Issue Number 3 -- School District's Coinsurance:
It is not unusal for school district to require you to name them as an
additional insured if, in fact, you are using their facilities for recreation
programs.
We are checking the files to determine if, in fact, a certificate request was
submitted to us and if a certificate has been issued. If it has not, I believe
the documentation which you have provided is sufficient for us to issue the
certificate. It will be mailed directly to the school with a copy to you.
David, if you call me on the phone I can go into much more detail and provide
you with some examples of liability that better illustrate my concerns on these
exposures.
Sincerely,
V, Mkde�Immon
Vice President
Public Entity Group
• cc: Michael Shelton, City Manager
Robert Mack, President CCCSIF
C/Z5663/2
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Meeting Date: 9-10-91
CITY OF ATASCADERO - Agenda Item: D-2
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager
From: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT:
Lake Park Pavilion Change Orders
RECOMMENDATION:
Council receive this report and direct staff as necessary.
BACKGROUND:
Construction on the Lake Park Pavilion has reached its half-
way point. Until recently the construction program has progressed
smoothly. However, as can be expected with any large project,
several problems have arisen which need to be brought to the
attention of the Council.
DISCUSSION:
1. As was discussed in an earlier memo, when the framing above
the front entrance was complete, it was discovered
insufficient room was available to run the ducting for the air
conditioning and heating system. A change order is being
prepared which will identify the exact cost of making the
necessary alterations. I expect this correction will cost an
extra $2,000 to 4, 000.
2. A more serious problem has arisen with the HVAC (heating,
ventilation, air conditioning) design. The architect, the
mechanical engineer, and the HVAC equipment supplier have been
questioning the appropriateness of the original design. A
building of the size and open space of the Pavilion is
difficult to properly equip with HVAC. After considerable
discussion, all members of the project team agree that the
original design must be modified to function properly.
This change is not expected to result in an increased cost.
However, because of the long lead time to fabricate this
equipment, completion of the building will be delayed by an
additional 30 days. This delay raises the question of whether
the City may be due some compensation for being denied the use
of the building beyond the scheduled completion date. If the
Council wishes to discuss the issue of recovering damages for
the delay, staff recommends the item be handled in a closed
session.
REPORT TO COUNCIL Meeting Date: 9/10/91
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: D-3
THROUGH: Ray Windsor, City Manager
VIA: Greg Luke, Director of Public Works
FROM: Mark Markwort, Chief of Wastewater Operations
SUBJECT:
Wastewater Division 1991-92 Fiscal Capital Facilities Budget
Revision Request
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve revision of the Wastewater Divisions 1991-92 budget to
reflect the addition of the capital projects scheduled for this
fiscal year as part of the Wastewater Division's 5 year Facilities
improvement plan.
BACKGROUND:
On June 25, 1991, the Atascadero City Council approved a
Wastewater Division fiscal year 1991-92 Capital Improvement budget
of $883, 000. Please note that $683, 000 of this budget was for
improvements to the City's wastewater collection system.
On August 14, 1991 the Atascadero City Council approved the
Wastewater Division's Five Year Capital Improvement Plan. This Five
Year Plan included projects which require a $460,000 addition to
the Wastewater Divisions 1991-92 Capital Improvement budget.
Since the approval of the fiscal year 1991-92 Capital
Improvement budget, an alternate route has been developed to
direct flow away from an undersized portion of line which required
replacement. This alternate route should result in a $289,400
reduction in the cost of collection system improvements.
These savings, if applied to this budget revision request of
$460, 000, would reduce the fiscal impact of this request to
$170, 600.
DISCUSSION•
Discussion of each project is presented in attachment "A" on
pages 1-5.
FISCAL IMPACT•
These projects will increase the Wastewater Divisions 1991-92
budget by $460, 000.
$175, 000. of this amount is needed to sewer Cease and Desist
area "F" and will be repaid to the City over a 15 year period by
those benefitting property owners through a special assessment.
ATTACHMENT
"All All
CITY OF ATASCADERO WASTEWATER DIVISION
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
BUDGET REVISION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR 1991-92
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT: Wastewater Collection System for Cease and
Desist Area "F"
ESTIMATED COST: $175,000.00
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The installation of wastewater collection lines and construction of
a pumping station for the remaining unsewered portion of Cease and
Desist Area "F" (south-eastern Atascadero Lake region) .
BACKGROUND
In 1981 the Regional Water Quality Control Board identified this
area as being a septic tank problem area and recommended that this
area, along with six others, be sewered as rapidly as possible.
Most of this area has been sewered but one remaining section
remains unsewered. This July 11 the RWQCB requested that the City
prepare a report explaining why all of the six designated Cease and
Desist areas have not been sewered.
DISCUSSION
The Regional Water Quality Board has been surprisingly lenient by
having already given the City ten years to sewer this area. Further
delay will no doubt result in enforcement action, by the RWQCB,
against the City.
FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated cost of construction for this system is $175,000.00
which will initially be paid out of the Wastewater Operating Fund.
Upon completion, an assessment will be levied against all
benefitting property owners and the total sum will be repaid over
a period of 15 years at 6% interest.
1
CITY OF ATASCADERO WASTEWATER DIVISION
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
BUDGET REVISION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR 1991-92
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT: Water Reclamation Feasibility Study
ESTIMATED COST: $75,000.00
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A hydrologic study will be conducted in order to gather data on the
migration patterns of the City's treated wastewater which is
discharged into basins where it percolates into the substrate and
blends with the ambient groundwater. This study will evaluate the
feasibility of recovering this reclaimed water from below the
City's percolation ponds.
BACKGROUND
The City of Atascadero presently treats approximately 1.2 million
gallons of wastewater per day at its treatment facility. A portion
of this treated water is used to irrigate the Chalk Mountain Golf
Course. The remainder of the treated water is discharged to
percolation ponds where it percolates into the substrate and
presumably blends with the ambient groundwater.
The wastewater treatment facility lacks a final filtration
treatment process, restricting the use of its reclaimed water.
The Regional Water Quality Control Board is concerned that wells
down gradient of Atascadero's wastewater disposal ponds are being
degraded by. salts which are present in the treated wastewater which
is percolated into the ambient groundwater.
DISCUSSION
The knowledge gained from this study will be used to better manage
the City's reclaimed water resource, to allow for its expanded use,
and to explore increased water reclamation as a means of protecting
the groundwater basin from elevated total dissolved solids
concentrations which are present in the treated wastewater
currently being percolated into Atascadero's groundwater basin.
This information is necessary for the City to enjoy the benefits of
increased water reclamation coupled with groundwater resource
protection.
FISCAL IMPACT
The impact on this years fiscal budget will be $75, 000.00 which
will be appropriated from the Wastewater Operating Fund.
/ 2
CITY OF ATASCADERO WASTEWATER DIVISION
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
BUDGET REVISION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR 1991-92
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT: Water Reclamation Facilities
ESTIMATED COST: $150,000.00
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A network of shallow extraction wells will be developed to recover
percolated effluent from below the City's treated wastewater
disposal ponds.
BACKGROUND
The City of Atascadero presently treats approximately 1.2 million
gallons of wastewater per day at its treatment facility. A portion
of this treated water is used to irrigate the Chalk Mountain Golf
Course. The remainder of the treated water is discharged to
percolation ponds where it percolates into the substrate and
presumably blends with the ambient groundwater.
The wastewater treatment facility lacks a final filtration
treatment process, restricting the use of its reclaimed water.
The Regional Water Quality Control Board is concerned that wells
down gradient of Atascadero's wastewater disposal ponds are being
degraded by salts which are present in the treated wastewater which
is percolated into the ambient groundwater.
DISCUSSION
The development of an network of shallow extraction wells to
recover water from below the City's treated wastewater percolation
ponds is the second phase of a water reclamation project. This
project will allow the City to obtain the maximum benefit from it's
reclaimed water resource while providing additional protection to
domestic water production wells located down gradient of the City's
wastewater treatment facility.
FISCAL IMPACT
The impact on this years fiscal budget is estimated to be
$150, 000.00 dependent upon study findings. This money will be
appropriated from the Wastewater Operating fund.
3
CITY OF ATASCADERO WASTEWATER DIVISION
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
BUDGET REVISION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR 1991-92
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT: Initiate Final Design Phase Of
Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade
ESTIMATED COST: $50,000.00
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Retain the services of an engineering firm to begin the final
facility design of Atascadero's wastewater treatment plant upgrade.
BACKGROUND
In June of 1991 the long awaited conclusion of the "Long-Range
Plan" for the City's wastewater treatment facility was completed by
the Engineering consultant firm Kennedy/Jenks. The completion of
this study was delayed by the occurrence of an "upset" of the
current wastewater treatment process which diverted the focus of
the study in order that the immediate problem at the treatment
facility be rectified. The "upset" resulted in enforcement action
being taken against the City by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board and emphasized the need for improvements to the existing
wastewater treatment facility.
DISCUSSION
The conclusion of the engineering consultant firm of Kennedy/Jenks
in the "Long-Range Plan" is that immediate improvements to
Atascadero's wastewater treatment facility are needed to provide
enhanced treatment and reliability in order to insure consistent
compliance to State discharge requirements and to prevent treatment
process "upsets". To construct the immediately needed facility
improvements, the Kennedy/Jenks study makes the cost estimate of
$2 , 000, 000. 00.
Although construction is not expected to begin during this fiscal
year it is important to continue the present momentum toward the
upgrade by selecting an engineering firm for the final upgrade
design. The fund expenditure requested should provide the means
whereby a selected firm can begin work on the next phase of this
necessary project.
FISCAL IMPACT
The impact on this years fiscal budget will be $50, 000.00 which
will be appropriated from the Wastewater Operating Fund.
4
CITY OF ATASCADERO WASTEWATER DIVISION
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
BUDGET REVISION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR 1991-92
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT: Computerized Mapping of Atascadero's
Wastewater Collection system
ESTIMATED COST: $10,000.00
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A local firm will be contracted with to enter an up-to-date map of
the City's wastewater collection system onto a computer disk.
BACKGROUND
Presently the City's collection system, which consists of over
thirty-seven miles of wastewater pipeline, can be viewed only in
small sections at a time because the system has not been reproduced
on a single map. Over the years, numerous sewer main extensions
have been added to the system but have not been recorded on any map
but exist only in a file, and are difficult to access.
DISCUSSION
As the City's wastewater collection system grows, little by little,
piece by piece, the problem of keeping track of what lies under the
ground becomes more and more difficult. The importance of keeping
track of wastewater collection lines is obvious. Without up-to-date
accurate records line maintenance, repair, and additions can become
a nightmare. Incomplete and/or inaccurate records can result in
damaged and broken lines resulting from construction equipment
digging in areas which contain lines that have not been properly
recorded.
The computerized (CAD) mapping of the City's streets, property
lines, and wastewater collection lines would allow the City the
means whereby existing facilities could be rapidly located and new
facilities could be easily recorded in their proper location
ensuring the availability of accurate, up-to-date information.
FISCAL IMPACT
The impact on this years fiscal budget will be $10,000.00 which
will be appropriated from the Wastewater Operating Fund.
5
ti 2e i t't� Aat-'moi"-D-4
DATE-6/10/91. Mayo ran e
San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council Atascadero
Grover City
Morro Bay
raind Regional Transportation Planning Agency Paso Robles
Pismo Beach
San Luis:Obispo
- San Luis Obispo County
August 20, 1991
All City Administrators
Subject: State Senate and Congressional Redistricting
Dear City Administrator,
As you know, as a result of the 1990 Census, California is now engaged in
the process of redistricting the state. In an effort to affect the result
of this process so that our region can be more effectively represented,
the Board of Supervisors recently sent a letter to Senator Milton Marks
asking that actions be taken for San Luis Obispo County to be included in
coastal oriented State Senate and Congressional districts. At its August
14th meeting the Area Council approved the attached letter to further lend
support to this effort. The Area Council also felt it would be valuable
for each jurisdiction to support their action. Staff were directed to
forward its letter to you for endorsement. Please bring the issue before
your City Council at the earliest opportunity. If you have any questions,
feel free to call Mike Harmon at 549-5724.
Sincerely,
Ron DeCarli
Executive Director
Mike Harmon
Associate Transportation Planner
Attachment
cc. Chris Christenson, Arroyo Grande
Ray Windsor, Atascadero
Penny Culbreth, Grover City
Gary Napper, Morro Bay
Bob Orogen, Paso Robles
Richard Kirkwood, Pismo Beach
John Dunn, San Luis Obispo
County Government Center, San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 (805) 549-5612
San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council Arroyo ade o
AtaGrover City
Morro Bay
rand Regional Transportation Planning Agency Paso R
Pismo Be
San Luis Obispo
- San Luis Obispo County
August 14, 1991
Honorable Milton Marks, Senator
5035 Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: State Senate and Congressional Redistricting
Dear Senator Marks:
The San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council and Regional Transportation
Planning Agency would like to voice its the strong support for including
amnion geographic interests as a factor revising our State Senate and
Congressional Districts. San Luis Obispo county is now included with
areas in the San Joaquin Valley that face significantly different issues
and problems than those facing our county. San Luis Obispo County is now
part of Senator Maddy's sprawling 14th State Senatorial District, which
includes Madera, Mariposa, Merced Counties and portions of Fresno,
Monterey and Santa Barbara Counties. The county is also divided between
two Congressional Districts: William Thomas' 20th District includes most
of San Luis Obispo County and most of Kern County as well; Leon Panetta's
16th District includes the northwestern portion of the county, plus San
Benito and Monterey Counties and a part of Santa Cruz County.
Most coastal counties face problems that lend themselves to common
solutions, and many are directly related to coastal development,
transportation planning and regional growth management. In order to
adequately address these and other problems, it is critical to create new
State and Congressional Districts that include all of San Luis Obispo
county together with Santa Barbara and Monterey counties, excluding areas
in the San Joaquin Valley. This structure will help to assure that the
shared interests and concerns of the residents of all these areas are more
adequately recognized and dealt with. We strongly urge that actions be
taken to include San Iuis Obispo County with other counties of similar
geographic interests in future State Senate and Congressional Districts.
Thank you for your consideration. If there are any other ways in which we
can support you in this effort, please feel free to call Ron DeCarli,
Executive Director, at (805) 549-5714.
Sincerely,
Rose Marie Sheetz, President
County Government Center, San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 (805) 549-5612
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: D-5 (A&B)
Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date:O9/10/91
From: Alicia Lara, Personnel Coordinatol .
SUBJECT: Amendment adding the Post-Retirement Survivor Benefit to
the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) contract.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council adopt the attached
Resolution and Ordinance amending the PERS contract, to include the
Post-Retirement Survivor Benefit for Miscellaneous employees.
BACKGROUND: This contract amendment is in keeping with the
conditions of the current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between
the City and the SEIU Local 817 Bargaining Units (which include
General Services and Clerical employees) . In June of 1990, Council
authorized a three year MOU for these bargaining units, which
includes a provision for the addition of the Post-Retirement
Survivor Benefit.
DISCUSSION: As a condition of our agreement with PERS, two groups
are recognized when implementing changes in benefits, Miscellaneous
and Safety. Any changes to a group (either Miscellaneous or
Safety) must affect the entire group. Any current position
considered Miscellaneous will receive this benefit as well as the
SEIU groups.
FISCAL IMPACT: Council adoption the Resolution and Ordinance will
result in a cost increase of 1.091% to the employer portion of the
contribution rate. The 1.091% increase will take effect July 1,
1993. The actual dollar figure cost increase will be based on the
Miscellaneous payroll for June 30, 1993. Based on today' s salaries
the cost is an additional $999. 11 per payroll, which would be
approximately $11,989.32 for a full year.
Attachments: Resolution 86-91
Ordinance 231
ORDINANCE NO. 231
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT
TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
The City Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as
follows:
Section 1.
Than an amendment to the Contract between the City Council
of the City of Atascadero and the Board of Administration, Cali-
fornia Public Employees' Retirement System is hereby authorized.
A copy of said amendment is attached hereto, marked "Exhibit A",
and by such reference made a part hereof.
Section 2. Authority
The Mayor of the City of Atascadero is hereby authorized,
empowered, and directed to execute said amendment for and on
behalf of the City of Atascadero.
Section 3. Publication.
The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published
once within fifteen ( 15) days after its passage in the Atascadero
News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and
circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the
Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this
ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification
together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of
Ordinances of the City.
Section 4. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall go into effect in full force at 12: 01
a.m. on the 31st day after its passage.
On motion by and seconded by
the foregoing Ordinance is approved
by the following role call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ORDINANCE NO. 231
EXHIBIT A
AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE �Qf►
BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION
OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
AND THE
CITY COUNCIL ,eel.11P.
OF THE 011�
CITY OF ATASCADERO
The Board of Administration, Public Employees' Retirement System, hereinafter referred to as Board,
and the governing body of above public agency, hereinafter referred to as Public Agency, having entered
into a contract effective April 19, 1980, and witnessed March 19, 1980, and as amended effective July
1, 1980, April 30, 1983, January 7, 1984 and July 14, 1990, which provides for participation of Public
Agency in said System, Board and Public Agency hereby agree as follows:
A. Paragraphs 1 through 13 are hereby stricken from said contract as executed effective July 14,
1990, and hereby replaced by the following paragraphs numbered 1 through 13 inclusive:
1. All words and terms used herein which are defined in the Public Employees' Retirement
Law shall have the meaning as defined therein unless otherwise specifically provided.
"Normal retirement age" shall mean age 60 for local miscellaneous members and age 50
for local safety members.
2. Public Agency shall participate in the Public Employees' Retirement System from and
after April 19, 1980 making its employees as hereinafter provided, members of said
System subject to all provisions of the Public Employees' Retirement Law except such
as apply only on election of a contracting agency and are not provided for herein and to
all amendments to said Law hereafter enacted except those, which by express provisions
thereof, apply only on the election of a contracting agency.
3. Employees of Public Agency in the following classes shall become members of said
Retirement System except such in each such class as are excluded by law or this
agreement:
a. Local Fire Fighters (herein referred to as local safety members);
b. Local Police Officers (herein referred to as local safety members);
C. Employees other than local safety members (herein referred to as local
miscellaneous members).
4. In addition to the classes of employees excluded from membership by
said Retirement Law, the following classes of employees shall not
become members of said Retirement System:
NO ADDITIONAL EXCLUSIONS
Ordinance No. 230
Page 2
DATE ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO
By:
•ALDEN F. SHIERS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LEE RABOIN, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ART MONTANDON, City Attorney
•
r
SASE D4 NOT SIGN "EXHIBIT ONLY"
5. This contract shall be a continuation of the benefits of the contract of the Atascadero Fire
Protection District, hereinafter referred to as "Former Agency", pursuant to Section
20567.2 of the Government Code, Former Agency having ceased to exist and having
been required by law to be succeeded by Public Agency on July 1, 1980. Public
Agency, by this contract, assumes the accumulated contributions and assets derived
therefrom and liability for prior and current service under Former Agency's contract with
respect to the Former Agency's employees. Legislation repealed said Section effective
January 1, 1988.
a. Service performed for the former agency prior to July 1, 1980 shall be subject
to the terms and conditions of the former agency's contract as it was in effect at
that time. Service performed after July 1, 1980 shall be subject to the terms and
conditions of this contract. For purposes of computing retirement allowances,
separate calculations shall be made for service performed under each contract.
6. The percentage of final compensation to'be provided for each year of credited prior and
current service as a local miscellaneous member shall be determined in accordance with
Section 21251.13 of said Retirement Law (2% at age 60 Full).
7. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and
current service as a local safety member shall be determined in accordance with Section
21252.01 of said Retirement Law (2% at age 50 Full).
8. Public Agency elected to be subject to the following optional provisions:
a. Sections_21380=21387 (1959 Survivor Benefits) including Section 21382.2
(Increased 1959 Survivor Benefits) for local safety members only.
b. Sections 21263, 21263.1 and 21263.3 (Post-Retirement Survivor Allowance) for
local miscellaneous members only.
9. Public Agency, in accordance with Government Code Section 20759, shall not be
considered an "employer" for purposes of the Public Employees' Retirement Law.
Contributions of the Public Agency shall be fixed and determined as provided in
Government Code Section 20759, and such contributions hereafter made shall be held by
the Board as provided in Government Code Section 20759.
10. Public Agency shall contribute to said Retirement System the contributions determined
by actuarial valuations of prior and future service liability with respect to local
miscellaneous members and local safety members of said Retirement System.
11. Public Agency shall also contribute to said Retirement System as follows:
a. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment within
60 days of date of contract to cover the costs of administering said System as it
affects the employees of Public Agency, not including the costs of special
valuations or of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law.
b. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment as the
occasions arise, to cover the costs of special valuations on account of employees
of Public Agency, and costs of the periodic investigation and valuations required
by law.
12. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be subject to adjustment
by Board on account of amendments to the Public Employees' Retirement Law, and on
account of the experience under the Retirement System as determined by the periodic
investigation and valuation required by said Retirement Law.
13. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be paid by Public
Agency to the Retirement System within fifteen days after the end of the period to which
said contributions refer or as may be prescribed by Board regulation. If more or less
than the correct amount of contributions is paid for any period, proper adjustment shall
be made in connection with subsequent remittances. Adjustments on account of errors
in contributions required of any employee may be made by direct payments between the
employee and the Board. ,
B. This amendment shall be eff�c �e on the day of
\"
BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIRFiNT SYSTEM OF THE Al
�� CITY OF ATASCADE$I&^ •
�A� d
BY BY �
CHIEF, CONT SERVICES DIVISION Presiding Oir
PUBLIC EMP EES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
Witness
Atte
Clerk
PERS-CON-702 (AMENDMENT)
(Rev. 3/91)
RESOLUTION NO. 86-91
A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION
OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the Public Employees' Retirement Law permits the
participation of public agencies and their employees in the Public
Employees' Retirement System by the execution of a contract, and
sets forth the procedure by which said public agencies may elect to
subject themselves and their employees to amendments to said Law;
and
WHEREAS, one of the steps in the procedures to amend this
contract is the adoption by the governing body of the public agency
of a resolution giving notice of its intention to approve an
amendment to said contract, which resolution shall contain a
summary of the change proposed in said contract; and
• WHEREAS, the following is a statement of thero osed change:
P P g
To provide Sections 21263, 21263. 1 and 21263.3 (Post-
Retirement Survivor Allowance) for local miscellaneous
members, including an extension of the funding period of
the year 2011.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Atascadero City Council
does hereby give notice of intention to approve an amendment to the
contract between the City Council and the Board of Administration
of the Public Employees' Retirement System, a copy of said
amendment being attached hereto, as "Exhibit A" and by this
reference made a part hereof.
On motion by Councilmember , seconded by
Councilmember , the foregoing resolution is hereby
adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Resolution -
No. 86 91
Page 2
ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO
ATTEST: By:
ALDEN SHIERS, Mayor
LEE RABOIN, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 86-91
EXHIBIT A
AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT 1b
BETWEEN THE +0l
BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION
OF THE �'�✓ ��
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
AND THE ��
CITY COUNCIL �f
OF THE O'y
CITY OF ATASCADERO
The Board of Administration, Public Employees' Retirement System, hereinafter referred to as Board,
and the governing body of above public agency, hereinafter referred to as Public Agency, having entered
into a contract effective April 19, 1980, and witnessed March 19, 1980, and as amended effective July
1, 1980, April 30, 1983, January 7, 1984 and July 14, 1990, which provides for participation of Public
Agency in said System, Board and Public Agency hereby agree as follows:
A. Paragraphs 1 through 13 are hereby stricken from said contract as executed effective July 14,
1990, and hereby replaced by the following paragraphs numbered 1 through 13 inclusive:
1. All words and terms used herein which are defined in the Public Employees' Retirement
Law shall have the meaning as defined therein unless otherwise specifically provided.
"Normal retirement age" shall mean age 60 for local miscellaneous members and age 50
for local safety members.
2. Public Agency shall participate in the Public Employees' Retirement System from and
after April 19, 1980 making its employees as hereinafter provided, members of said
System subject to all provisions of the Public Employees' Retirement Law except such
as apply only on election of a contracting agency and are not provided for herein and to
all amendments to said Law hereafter enacted except those, which by express provisions
thereof, apply only on the election of a contracting agency.
3. Employees of Public Agency in the following classes shall become members of said
Retirement System except such in each such class as are excluded by law or this
agreement: .
a. Local Fire Fighters (herein referred to as local safety members);
b. Local Police Officers (herein referred to as local safety members);
C. Employees other than local safety members (herein referred to as local
miscellaneous members).
4. In addition to the classes of employees excluded from membership by
said Retirement Law, the following classes of employees shall not
become members of said Retirement System:
NO ADDITIONAL EXCLUSIONS
,
' EASE DQ NOT SIGN "EXHIBIT ONLY'
5. This contract shall be a continuation of the benefits of the contract of the Atascadero Fire
Protection District, hereinafter referred to as "Former Agency", pursuant to Section
20567.2 of the Government Code, Former Agency having ceased to exist and having
been required by law to be succeeded by Public Agency on July 1, 1980. Public
Agency, by this contract, assumes the accumulated contributions and assets derived
therefrom and liability for prior and current service under Former Agency's contract with
respect to the Former Agency's employees. Legislation repealed said Section effective
January 1, 1988.
a. Service performed for the former agency prior to July 1, 1980 shall be subject
to the terms and conditions of the former agency's contract as it was in effect at
that time. Service performed after July 1, 1980 shall be subject to the terms and
conditions of this contract. For purposes of computing retirement allowances,
separate calculations shall be made for service performed under each contract.
6. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and
current service as a local miscellaneous member shall be determined in accordance with
Section 21251.13 of said Retirement Law (2% at age 60 Full).
7. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and
current service as a local safety member shall be determined in accordance with Section
21252.01 of said Retirement Law (2% at age 50 Full).
8. Public Agency elected to be subject to the following optional provisions:
a. Sections-2138'0=21387 (1959 Survivor Benefits) including Section 21382.2 •
(Increased 195Survivor Benefits) for local safety members only.
b. Sections 21263, 21263.1 and 21263.3 (Post-Retirement Survivor Allowance) for
local miscellaneous members only.
9. Public Agency, in accordance with Government Code Section 20759, shall not be
considered an "employer" for purposes of the Public Employees' Retirement Law.
Contributions of the Public Agency shall be fixed and determined as provided in
Government Code Section 20759, and such contributions hereafter made shall be held by
the Board as provided in Government Code Section 20759.
10. Public Agency shall contribute to said Retirement System the contributions determined
by actuarial valuations of prior and future service liability with respect to local
miscellaneous members and local safety members of said Retirement System.
11. Public Agency shall also contribute to said Retirement System as follows:
a. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment within
60 days of date of contract to cover the costs of administering said System as it
affects the employees of Public Agency, not including the costs of special
valuations or of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law.
b. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment as the
occasions arise, to cover the costs of special valuations on account of employees
of Public Agency, and costs of the periodic investigation and valuations required
by law.
12. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be subject to adjustment
by Board on account of amendments to the Public Employees' Retirement Law, and on
account of the experience under the Retirement System as determined by the periodic
investigation and valuation required by said Retirement Law.
13. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be paid by Public
Agency to the Retirement System within fifteen days after the end of the period to which
said contributions refer or as may be prescribed by Board regulation. If more or less
than the correct amount of contributions is paid for any period, proper adjustment shall
be made in connection with subsequent remittances. Adjustments on account of errors
in contributions required of any employee may be made by direct payments between the
employee and the Board.
B. This amendment shall be eff cl a on the day of
BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION 'a CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIR*NT SYSTEM OF THE
� CITY OF ATASCADEk�
s� f3
BY 1 BY
CHIEF, CONTR SERVICES DIVISION Presiding (:iOr
PUBLIC EMP EES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
Witness
Atte
Clerk
PERS-CON-702 (AMENDMENT)
(Rev. 3/91)
MEETING AGENDA
DATE 8/27/91 ITEM# A-9
MEETING AGENDA
DAT 9 10 91 ITEM# .D-?
Atascadero Economic Round Table
Committee Report
To: City Council Members
From: Ray Johnson, Acting Chairman
Subject: Status Report
Date: August 22, 1991
At its meeting of August 21st, the Economic Round Table
expressed the desire to meet with the City Council to provide a
status report and overview of its work to date and the focus of its
interest for the future. The suggestion was that the Council be
asked to address this matter as part of one of your regular meet-
ings but, hopefully, prior to the normal agenda.
In light of the fact that Councilman Nimmo will be out of town
at your first meeting in September, and the Economic Round Table
would like to be able to address the full Council, the suggestion
is that this meeting take place at 6:00 p.m. on September 24th.
•