Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
081412 - CC Amended Agenda-Combined
PUBLIC NOTICE ADDENDUM T ATASCADERO CITY COUNCILAGENDA THE FOLLOWING ITEM IS HEREBY ADDED TO THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FOR Tuesday, August 14, 2012 Atascadero City Council 6:00 P.M. B. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: 5. Chicago Grade Landfill Contract Renewal STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ) CITY OF ATASCADERO } 1, Lisa Cava, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Atascadero, declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing addendum for the August 14, 2012 Regular Session of the Atascadero City Council was posted on August 10, 2012 at the Atascadero City Hall, 6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422 and was available for public review in the Customer Service Center at that location. Signe this 10`x'day f August, at Atascadero, California. Lia va, Deputy City Clerk City of Atascadero . yl 'a`$ i979CITY OF A TA SCA DERO CITY COUNCIL AMENDED AGENDA Tuesday, August 14, 2012 City Hall Council Chambers 6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero, California City Council Closed Session: 5:00 p.m. City Council Regular Session: 6:00 p.m. Successor Agency to the Community Immediately following the Redevelopment Agency of Atascadero conclusion of the City Council Regular Session CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION: 5:00 P.M. 1. CLOSED SESSION -- PUBLIC COMMENT 2. COUNCIL LEAVES CHAMBERS TO BEGIN CLOSED SESSION 3. CLOSED SESSION -- CALL TO ORDER a. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (Government Code Section 54957) Title: CITY MANAGER 4. CLOSED SESSION -- ADJOURNMENT 5. COUNCIL RETURNS TO CHAMBERS 6. CLOSED SESSION -- REPORT REGULAR SESSION — CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Kelley ROLL CALL: Mayor Kelley Mayor Pro Tem O'Malley Council Member Clay Council Member Fonzi Council Member Sturtevant APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Roll Call PRESENTATIONS: 1. Recognition of Steve Robinson, DVM, for 20 Years of Service to the Charles Paddock Zoo 2. Recognition of Former Parks and Recreation Commissioner Bill Wachtel for Two Years of Service to the City as a Parks and Recreation Commission Member 3. Recognition of Zach Jackson as Reserve Firefighter of the Year 4. Employee Service Awards A. CONSENT CALENDAR: (All items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and non-controversial by City staff and will be approved by one motion if no member of the Council or public wishes to comment or ask questions. If comment or discussion is desired by anyone, the item will be removed from the consent calendar and will be considered in the listed sequence with an opportunity for any member of the public to address the Council concerning the item before action is taken. DRAFT MINUTES: Council meeting draft minutes are listed on the Consent Calendar for approval of the minutes. Should anyone wish to request an amendment to draft minutes, the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and their suggestion will be considered by the City Council. If anyone desires to express their opinion concerning issues included in draft minutes, they should share their opinion during the Community Forum portion of the meeting.) 1. City Council Draft Action Minutes — July 10, 2012 ■ Recommendation: Council approve the City Council Draft Action Minutes of July 10, 2012. [City Clerk] 2. City Council Special Meeting Draft Action Minutes — July 17, 2012 ■ Recommendation: Council approve the City Council Special Meeting Draft Action Minutes of July 17, 2012. [City Clerk] 3. June 2012 Accounts Payable and Payroll ■ Fiscal Impact: $2,488,679.72. ■ Recommendation: Council approve certified City accounts payable, payroll and payroll vendor checks for June 2012. [Administrative Services] 4. June 2012 Investment Report ■ Fiscal Impact: None. ■ Recommendation: Council receive and file the City Treasurer's report for quarter ending June 2012. [Administrative Services] 5. Lease Agreement with Atascadero Historical Society ■ Fiscal Impact: The City will receive $1 .00 per year. The Society has already been paying the City $1 .00 per year since the School District deeded the Creek Reservation to the City in 2007. ■ Recommendation: Council adopt the Draft Resolution authorizing the execution of a Lease Agreement with the Atascadero Historical Society regarding Atascadero Creek Reservation #3 (#3-A1, 3-A2, and 3-B). [City Manager] 6. San Fernando Road Rehabilitation Project Award — City Bid No. 2012- 007 ■ Fiscal Impact: $422,218.48. ■ Recommendations: Council: 1. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Calportland Construction in the amount of $422,218.48 for construction of the San Fernando Road Rehabilitation Project; and, 2. Authorize the Director of Public Works to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder upon satisfactory completion of the project [Public Works] 7. EI Camino Real Barrier Removal Project Award - City Bid No. 2012-006 ■ Fiscal Impact: $108,135.25. ■ Recommendations: Council: 1. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Rockwood General Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $108,135.25 for construction of the EI Camino Real Barrier Removal Project; and, 2. Authorize the Director of Public Works to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder upon satisfactory completion of the project. [Public Works] 8. Purchase of Wastewater Electronic Control and Monitoring System Electronic Components for the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) Phase II Project ■ Fiscal Impact: Approval of this agreement will result in the expenditure of $213,000.00 of previously budgeted for the SCADA Phase II capital improvement project. ■ Recommendation: Council approve the purchase of the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) electronic control equipment for $213,000.00 from TESCO Incorporated. [Public Works] UPDATES FROM THE CITY MANAGER: (The City Manager will give an oral report on any current issues of concern to the City Council.) COMMUNITY FORUM: (This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wanting to address the Council on any matter not on this agenda and over which the Council has jurisdiction. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Please state your name for the record before making your presentation. Comments made during Community Forum will not be a subject of discussion. A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum, unless changed by the Council. Any members of the public who have questions or need information, may contact the City Clerk's Office, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at 470-3400, or mtorgerson(@_atascadero.org.) B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Confirming the Cost of Vegetative Growth and/or Refuse Abatement ■ Ex Parte Communications: ■ Fiscal Impact: The City will receive $123,461.03 from the 2012/2013 property tax rolls in weed abatement/ refuse abatement assessments. ■ Recommendation: Council adopt the Draft Resolution, confirming the cost of vegetative growth (weeds) and/or refuse (rubbish) abatement. [Fire] C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: 1. ARTery Mural and City Sign Code ■ Fiscal Impact: None, with respect to the recommendation to vacate DRC Resolution 2012-005. Staff and attorney time would be incurred with respect to studying possible amendments to the Sign Code. ■ Recommendations: Council: 1. Vacate Administrative Hearing Officer (Design Review Committee) Resolution No. 2012-005 denying PLN 2012-1437 and Administrative Use Permit 2012-0060 to allow for an artistic mural on the wall of the ARTery store located at 5890 Traffic Way; and, 2. Direct staff to study possible amendments to the City's Sign Code (Chapter 9-15) that would clarify the Code's application to noncommercial signs, particularly murals, and provide enhanced design review procedures and guidelines for considering applications for murals and other noncommercial signs; and, 3. Direct that the City take no further action regarding the ARTery mural or PLN 2012-1437. [City Attorney] 2. Promotions Request for Proposals ■ Fiscal Impact: The City Council earmarked $176,000.00 for Promotion activities. The current budget includes $44,880 of that total; the remainder would come from General Fund Reserves. ■ Recommendations: Council: 1. Approve the Promotions Request for Proposals; and, 2. Approve $176,000 for the Promotions Program; appropriating $131 ,120 from General Fund Reserves and reallocating $44,880 from the Transfer to RDA for Tourism Fund account. [City Manager] 3. Potential Hotel Development at Home Depot Center — Request for Deferred Payment of Development Fees ■ Fiscal Impact: As a result of this development, permit fees of approximately $110,000 and development fees of $610,220 will be received. Once the hotel is open, annual increases in General Fund revenue will be significant with annual revenues close to $400,000 being realized. ■ Recommendations: Council: 1. Approve the proposal from Atascadero 101 Associates to defer payment of development fees over a period of five years for construction of a 130-room suites hotel and banquet facility at the Home Depot Center; and, 2. Direct staff to negotiate details and prepare final documents for City Council consideration. [City Manager] 4. Draft Response to Grand Jury Report - "A Vital Function of the Judicial System: Law Enforcement Property and Evidence Rooms" ■ Fiscal Impact: None. ■ Recommendations: Council: approve the Draft Response to the Grand Jury Report Form and authorize the City Manager to execute the document on the City Council's behalf. [City Manager] 5. Chicago Grade Landfill Contract Renewal ■ Fiscal Impact: The new regulations have the potential to increase garbage collection rates to homeowners in the City approximately $0.20 per month, businesses would pay more based on the volume / weight of garbage produced. The landfill rate and consumers garbage collection rate could potentially increase every two years based on the cost of living provisions described above. It is anticipated bi-annual increases would be modest, similar to the $0.20 per month initial increase. City revenues from landfill tipping fees would remain stable at pre-existing levels. ■ Recommendations: Council authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Chicago Grade Landfill, Inc. for exclusive depositing of City waste collections into Chicago Grade Landfill. [Public Works] COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS: (On their own initiative, Council Members may make a brief announcement or a brief report on their own activities. Council Members may ask a question for clarification, make a referral to staff or take action to have staff place a matter of business on a future agenda. The Council may take action on items listed on the Agenda.) D. COMMITTEE REPORTS: (The following represent standing committees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary): Mayor Kelley 1. Atascadero State Hospital Advisory Committee 2. City of Atascadero Design Review Committee 3. City of Atascadero Finance Committee 4. County Mayors Round Table 5. Economic Vitality Corporation, Board of Directors (EVC) 6. Homeless Services Oversight Council 7. Oversight Board for the Successor Agency to the Community Redevelopment Agency of Atascadero Mayor Pro Tem O'Malley 1. City / Schools Committee 2. Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) 3. League of California Cities — CITIPAC Board Member 4. SLO Council of Governments (SLOCOG) 5. SLO Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) Council Member Fonzi 1. Air Pollution Control District 2. City of Atascadero Design Review Committee 3. City of Atascadero Finance Committee 4. SLO Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) - alternate Council Member Sturtevant 1. City / Schools Committee 2. Community Action Partnership of SLO County 3. League of California Cities — Council Liaison E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND / OR ACTION: 1. City Council 2. City Clerk 3. City Treasurer 4. City Attorney 5. City Manager F. ADJOURNMENT TO THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF ATASCADERO Please note: Should anyone challenge any proposed development entitlement listed on this Agenda in court, that person may be limited to raising those issues addressed at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at or prior to this public hearing. Correspondence submitted at this public hearing will be distributed to the Council and available for review in the City Clerk's office. I, Lisa Cava, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Atascadero, declare under the penalty of perjury that the Signed this 10`h day of August, 2012, at Atascadero, California. Lisa Cava, Deputy City Clerk City of Atascadero City of Atascadero WELCOME TO THE A TA SCA DERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING The City Council meets in regular session on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month at 6:00 p.m. unless there is a Community Redevelopment Agency meeting commencing at 6:00 p.m. in which event the Council meeting will commence immediately following the conclusion of the Community Redevelopment Agency meeting. Council meetings will be held at the City Hall Council Chambers, 6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero. Matters are considered by the Council in the order of the printed Agenda. Regular Council meetings are televised live, audio recorded and videotaped for future playback. Charter Communication customers may view the meetings on Charter Cable Channel 20 or via the City's website at www.atascadero.org. Meetings are also broadcast on radio station KPRL AM 1230. Contact the City Clerk for more information (470-3400). 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 and are available for public inspection during City Hall business hours at the Front Counter of City Hall, 6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero, and on our website, www.atascadero.org. An agenda packet is also available for public review at the Atascadero Library, 6850 Morro Road. Contracts, Resolutions and Ordinances will be allocated a number once they are approved by the City Council. The minutes of this meeting will reflect these numbers. All documents submitted by the public during Council meetings that are either read into the record or referred to in their statement will be noted in the minutes and available for review in the City Clerk's office. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting or other services offered by this City, please contact the City Manager's Office or the City Clerk's Office, both at (805) 470-3400. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service. TO SPEAK ON SUBJECTS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA Under Agenda item, "COMMUNITY FORUM", the Mayor will call for anyone from the audience having business with the Council to approach the lectern and be recognized. 1. Give your name for the record (not required) 2. State the nature of your business. 3. All comments are limited to 3 minutes. 4. All comments should be made to the Mayor and Council. 5. No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or negative personal remarks concerning any other individual, absent or present This is the time items not on the Agenda may be brought to the Council's attention. A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum (unless changed by the Council). If you wish to use a computer presentation to support your comments, you must notify the City Clerk's office at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Digital presentations must be brought to the meeting on a USB drive or CD. You are required to submit to the City Clerk a printed copy of your presentation for the record. Please check in with the City Clerk before the meeting begins to announce your presence and turn in the printed copy. TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS (from Title 2, Chapter 1 of the Atascadero Municipal Code) Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. The Mayor will identify the subject, staff will give their report, and the Council will ask questions of staff. The Mayor will announce when the public comment period is open and will request anyone interested to address the Council regarding the matter being considered to step up to the lectern. If you wish to speak for, against or comment in any way: 1. You must approach the lectern and be recognized by the Mayor 2. Give your name (not required) 3. Make your statement 4. All comments should be made to the Mayor and Council 5. No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or negative personal remarks concerning any other individual, absent or present 6. All comments limited to 3 minutes The Mayor will announce when the public comment period is closed, and thereafter, no further public comments will be heard by the Council. ITEM NUMBER: A- 1 DATE: 08/14/12 F1_ ®R F-,l o� 1915 R NOD --- C� ------ CITY OF ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Tuesday, July 10, 2012 City Hall Council Chambers 6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero, California City Council Closed Session: 5:15 P.M. City Council Regular Session: 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION: 5:15 P.M. Mayor Kelley announced at 5:15 p.m. that the Council is going into Closed Session. 1. CLOSED SESSION -- PUBLIC COMMENT — None 2. COUNCIL LEAVES CHAMBERS TO BEGIN CLOSED SESSION 3. CLOSED SESSION -- CALL TO ORDER a. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Govt. Code Sec. 54957.6) Agency designated representatives: Wade McKinney, City Manager Employee Organization- Non-Represented Professional, Management and Confidential Employees b. Conference with Legal Counsel — Anticipated Litigation Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 54956.9 (one potential case) Atascadero City Council Draft Action Minutes July 10,2012 Page 1 of 6 ITEM NUMBER: A- 1 DATE: 08/14/12 4. CLOSED SESSION -- ADJOURNMENT 5. COUNCIL RETURNS TO CHAMBERS 6. CLOSED SESSION -- REPORT City Attorney Pierik announced that there was no reportable action taken. REGULAR SESSION — CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M. Mayor Kelley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and Council Member Sturtevant led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Council Members Clay, Fonzi, Sturtevant, Mayor Pro Tem O'Malley and Mayor Kelley Absent: None Others Present: City Clerk / Assistant to City Manager Marcia McClure Torgerson Staff Present: City Manager Wade McKinney, Public Works Director Russ Thompson, Community Services Director Brady Cherry, Police Chief Jerel Haley, Assistant Planner Alfredo Castillo, and City Attorney Brian Pierik. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION: By Council Member Sturtevant and seconded by Council Member Fonzi to approve the agenda. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. PRESENTATIONS: 1. Recognition of Atascadero Youth for Christ Volunteers for Their Assistance with the Paloma Creek Park Dugout Painting Project Public Works Director Russ Thompson recognized the Atascadero Youth for Christ volunteers for their volunteer work for the City. He introduced Michael Cava who thanked the City for the recognition and stated that special thanks goes to Emily Migliazzo, Mitch Jansen, and Darryl Jansen for coordinating the group's efforts. Atascadero City Council Draft Action Minutes July 10,2012 Page 2 of 6 ITEM NUMBER: A- 1 DATE: 08/14/12 Mayor Kelley provided the Atascadero Youth for Christ group with a Certificate of Appreciation. 2. Recognition of Steve Robinson, DVM, for 20 Years of Service to the Charles Paddock Zoo Dr. Robinson was unable to attend this meeting and will be recognized at a future meeting. 3. Presentation to Glen R. Lewis for the $100,000 Donation from the Thelma Vetter Estate for the Charles Paddock Zoo's Red Panda Exhibit Community Services Director Brady Cherry recognized Glen Lewis for his contribution to the Charles Paddock Zoo on behalf of the Thelma Vetter Estate. Mr. Lewis thanked the City Council and Mr. Cherry for the recognition, and stated that Ms. Vetter had directed that a portion of her estate be involved with animals. A. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. City Council Draft Action Minutes — June 12, 2012 ■ Recommendation: Council approve the City Council Draft Action Minutes of June 12, 2012. [City Clerk] 2. City Council Draft Action Minutes — June 26, 2012 ■ Recommendation: Council approve the City Council Draft Action Minutes of June 26, 2012. [City Clerk] 3. May 2012 Accounts Payable and Payroll ■ Fiscal Impact: $2,494,270.77. ■ Recommendation: Council approve certified City accounts payable, payroll and payroll vendor checks for May 2012. [Administrative Services] 4. Designation of Voting Delegate - League of California Cities' Annual Conference ■ Fiscal Impact: None ■ Recommendation: Council designate Council Member Sturtevant as voting delegate at the Annual Business Meeting of the League of California Cities' Annual Conference in September 2012, and direct the City Clerk to inform the League of the designation [City Manager] Atascadero City Council Draft Action Minutes July 10,2012 Page 3 of 6 ITEM NUMBER: A- 1 DATE: 08/14/12 5. Transit Center Project Award - City Bid No. 2012-002 ■ Fiscal Impact: $673,880.32 for construction of the Atascadero Transit Center Base Bid and Additive Alternate A. ■ Recommendations: Council: 1. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Pickard & Butters Construction in the amount of $623,010.82 for construction of the Transit Center Base Bid Project; and, 2. Award Additive Alternate A in the amount of $50,869.50 and include the additional work in the Base Bid contract with Pickard & Butters Construction; and, 3. Authorize the Public Works Director to intermittently close portions of Capistrano Road and Lewis Avenue during the construction period; and, 4. Authorize the Director of Public Works to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder upon satisfactory completion of the project. [Public Works] 6. Adoption of Ordinances A, B and C — Del Rio Road Commercial Area Specific Plan — PLN 2007-1245 (Walmart) and PLN 2007-1246 (The Annex) — Applicants: EDA Inc. / Omni Design Group — Owners: Walmart Inc. / The Rottman Group / Montecito Bank & Trust ■ Fiscal Impact: The fiscal impact analysis determined the project at build out (Walmart and Annex) will have a net positive annual revenue of $529,637 to the City of Atascadero. The City's proportional share of the interchange mitigation costs is $2,111,901.00, which will be funded out of the City's Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) account. ■ Recommendations: Council: 1. Adopt on second reading by title only Ordinance "A", amending the zoning code text to add Specific Plan Zone 2 (ZCH 2007-0141 and ZCH 2007-0142) based on findings and waiving further reading of the ordinance; and, 2. Adopt on second reading by title only Ordinance "B", approving zoning map amendment (ZCH 2007-0141 and ZCH 2007-0142), including a zoning overlay of the project site to "SP-2" (Specific Plan Zone 2) based on findings and waiving further reading of the ordinance; and, 3. Adopt on second reading by title only Ordinance "C", adopting the Del Rio Road Commercial Area Specific Plan and Appendix documents [Specific Plan Zone 2 (SP 2009-0003)] as a table in the municipal code, based on findings and waiving further reading of the ordinance. [Community Development] Atascadero City Council Draft Action Minutes July 10,2012 Page 4 of 6 ITEM NUMBER: A- 1 DATE: 08/14/12 MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem O'Malley and seconded by Council Member Clay to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. (#A-5: Contract No. 2012- 007, #A-6.1: Ordinance No. 560, #A-6.2: Ordinance No. 561, #A- 6.3: Ordinance No. 562) UPDATES FROM THE CITY MANAGER: City Manager Wade McKinney gave an update on projects and issues within the City. COMMUNITY FORUM: The following citizens spoke during Community Forum: Linda Hendy, Karyn Sturtevant, Mike Anderson, Frannie Falcone, and Constantino Santos. Mayor Kelley closed the COMMUNITY FORUM period. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Placement of Sewer Service Charges on the 2012-2013 Property Tax Rolls ■ Ex Parte Communications: ■ Fiscal Impact: The City will bill $1,728,176.34 in sanitation service charges for Fiscal Year 2012-2013. ■ Recommendation: Council adopt the Draft Resolution placing sewer service charges on the 2012-2013 property tax rolls. [Public Works] Public Works Director Russ Thompson gave the staff report and answered questions from the Council. PUBLIC COMMENT: None MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem O'Malley and seconded by Council member Sturtevant to adopt the Draft Resolution placing sewer service charges on the 2012-2013 property tax rolls. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. (Resolution No. 2012-052) C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: None. Atascadero City Council Draft Action Minutes July 10,2012 Page 5 of 6 ITEM NUMBER: A- 1 DATE: 08/14/12 COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS: The City Council Members made brief announcements. D. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Council Member Sturtevant League of California Cities — Council Liaison — The City of Atascadero is hosting the League's Channel Counties Division dinner at the Pavilion this Friday. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND / OR ACTION: None F. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Kelley adjourned the meeting at 6:29 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED BY: Marcia McClure Torgerson, C.M.C. City Clerk / Assistant to the City Manager Atascadero City Council Draft Action Minutes July 10,2012 Page 6 of 6 ITEM NUMBER: A- 2 DATE: 08/14/12 SPECIAL MEETING Atascadero City Council Roundtable Study Session DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Tuesday, July 17, 2012, at 4:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero Mayor Kelley called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone to the Study Session. ROLL CALL: Present: Council Members Fonzi, Mayor Pro Tem O'Malley and Mayor Kelley Absent: Council Members Clay and Sturtevant Others Present: City Clerk / Assistant to City Manager Marcia McClure Torgerson Staff Present: City Manager Wade McKinney Atascadero City Council Special Meeting July 17,2012 Page 1 of 3 ITEM NUMBER: A- 2 DATE: 08/14/12 Invitees: Steve Martin, Linda Hendy, Pam Lyon, Stacie Jacob, Larry Wysong, Joel Clay, Deana Alexander, Grigger Jones, Tom Lewis, Amanda Collins, Jack Dorris, Natalie Dorris, and Keith Nichols. Promotions City Manager McKinney welcomed everyone and explained the purpose of this Study Session. The City Council had met earlier this year to begin a discussion about what defines Promotion of Atascadero. This Study Session is a continuation of that discussion. Council Members shared their thoughts on promotion of Atascadero. A roundtable discussion of all in attendance was held, sharing their ideas on promotion: • Facilitate RV traffic • Do we survey what types of people are coming to Atascadero? • Do we have a wish list of what types of people we want to attract? • Promotional tools include a visit website and media relationships • City can partner with event coordinators rather than the City hosting all events. • New Consultant should prepare an updated Marketing Plan, including a mission statement. Needs to address internal and external customers. • Be event friendly - Need to make it easy for events to come here; such as car shows. • Need a Brand • Atascadero is an historical planned community • Share the Atascadero experience • Promotions o Branding (our core), o Marketing (get message out about brand), o Public Relations (earned media)(proactive to create perception of the community we want), o Advertising (paid), o Promotions (strategic partnerships, such as Savor) • Conduct market research to determine what visitors want PUBLIC COMMENT: None ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Kelley adjourned the meeting at 5:13 p.m. Atascadero City Council Special Meeting July 17,2012 Page 2 of 3 ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 08/14/12 MINUTES PREPARED BY: Marcia McClure Torgerson, C.M.C. City Clerk / Assistant to the City Manager The following exhibit is available for review in the City Clerk's office: Exhibit A— Handouts from Staff re: Promotions Atascadero City Council Special Meeting July 17,2012 Page 3 of 3 ITEM NUMBER; A -3 DATE: 08/14/12 CAD tascader® City Council Staff Report - Administrative Services Department June 2012 Accounts Payable and Payroll RECOMMENDATION: Council approve certified City accounts payable, payroll and payroll vendor checks for June 2012. DISCUSSION: Attached for City Council review and approval are the following; Payroll Dated 6/7/12 Checks # 29635 - 29661 $ 15,250.30 Direct Deposits 247,162.62 Dated 6/21/12 Checks # 29662- 29697 19,719.58 Direct Deposits 255,119.06 Accounts Payable Dated 6/1/12 - 6/30/12 Checks # 133232 - 133564 & EFTs 1125 - 1136 1,951,428.16 TOTAL AMOUNT $ 2,488,679.72 FISCAL IMPACT: Total expenditures for all funds is $ 2,488,679.72 CERTIFICATION: The undersigned certifies that the attached demands have been released for payment and that funds are available for these demand . Rac el Rickard, Director of Administrative Services ATTACHMENT: June 2012 Eden Warrant Register in the amount of $ 1,951,428.16 City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of June 2012 Check Check Number Date Vendor Description Amount 133232 06/01/2012 A&R CONSTRUCTION Accounts Payable Check 6,500.00 133233 06/01/2012 ADVANCED SEPTIC & SEWER SVC Accounts Payable Check 625.00 133234 06/01/2012 AECOM USA, INC. Accounts Payable Check 14,235.75 133235 06/01/2012 KEITH AGGSON Accounts Payable Check 230.00 133236 06/01/2012 AIR&GAS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Accounts Payable Check 69.82 133237 06/01/2012 AIR-RITE REFRIGERATION Accounts Payable Check 539.32 133238 06/01/2012 A-JAY EXCAVATING, INC. Accounts Payable Check 1,935.00 133239 06/01/2012 ALL SIGNS AND GRAPHICS, LLC Accounts Payable Check 1,272.28 133240 06/01/2012 ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC Accounts Payable Check 319.37 133241 06/01/2012 ALTHOUSE& MEADE, INC. Accounts Payable Check 2,882.35 133242 06/01/2012 AMERICAN WEST TIRE&AUTO INC Accounts Payable Check 1,204.99 133243 06/01/2012 AMI PIPE&SUPPLY Accounts Payable Check 170.95 133244 06/01/2012 AQUAMARK POOL CARE Accounts Payable Check 283.54 133245 06/01/2012 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Accounts Payable Check 690.22 133246 06/01/2012 AT&T Accounts Payable Check 168.75 133247 06/01/2012 AT&T Accounts Payable Check 1,055.20 133248 06/01/2012 ATASCADERO GLASS, INC. Accounts Payable Check 85.00 133249 06/01/2012 ATASCADERO KIWANIS Accounts Payable Check 1,275.00 133250 06/01/2012 ATASCADERO TRAFFIC WAY STORAGE Accounts Payable Check 576.00 133251 06/01/2012 BATTERY SYSTEMS Accounts Payable Check 48.86 133252 06/01/2012 BELL'S PLUMBING REPAIR, INC. Accounts Payable Check 259.00 133253 06/01/2012 BERNARDS Accounts Payable Check 96,001.27 133254 06/01/2012 TOM BIRKENFELD Accounts Payable Check 230.00 133255 06/01/2012 BREZDEN PEST CONTROL, INC. Accounts Payable Check 88.00 133256 06/01/2012 SHIRLEY R. BRUTON Accounts Payable Check 177.00 133257 06/01/2012 CASEY BRYSON Accounts Payable Check 230.00 133258 06/01/2012 CA CODE CHECK, INC. Accounts Payable Check 5,037.50 133259 06/01/2012 CAL-COAST MACHINERY, INC Accounts Payable Check 1.16 133260 06/01/2012 CALPORTLAND Accounts Payable Check 662.49 133261 06/01/2012 BRADY CHERRY Accounts Payable Check 300.00 133262 06/01/2012 CHICAGO GRADE LANDFILL, INC. Accounts Payable Check 80.00 133263 06/01/2012 KATHLEEN J. CINOWALT Accounts Payable Check 220.50 133264 06/01/2012 COAST ELECTRONICS Accounts Payable Check 78.98 133265 06/01/2012 COASTAL REPROGRAPHIC SERVICES Accounts Payable Check 28.96 133266 06/01/2012 CORELOGIC INF. SOLUTIONS, INC. Accounts Payable Check 100.00 133267 06/01/2012 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER Accounts Payable Check 144.84 City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of June 2012 Check Check Number Date Vendor Description Amount 133268 06/01/2012 CUESTACOLLEGE Accounts Payable Check 19.00 133269 06/01/2012 MATTHEW J. CURRY Accounts Payable Check 140.00 133270 06/01/2012 DAKOS LAND SURVEYS, INC. Accounts Payable Check 1,980.00 133271 06/01/2012 BRIAN S. DAVIN,JR, Accounts Payable Check 270.00 133272 06/01/2012 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Accounts Payable Check 827.00 133273 06/01/2012 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Accounts Payable Check 2,103.83 133274 06/01/2012 DIANI BUILDING CORPORATION Accounts Payable Check 372,374.52 133275 06/01/2012 DISH NETWORK, LLC Accounts Payable Check 98.99 133276 06/01/2012 EL CAMINO CAR WASH LLC Accounts Payable Check 50.00 133277 06/01/2012 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SPEC., INC. Accounts Payable Check 20.00 133278 06/01/2012 FARM SUPPLY COMPANY Accounts Payable Check 49.31 133279 06/01/2012 FEDERAL EXPRESS Accounts Payable Check 47.24 133280 06/01/2012 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC. Accounts Payable Check 603.14 133281 06/01/2012 FERRELL'S AUTO REPAIR Accounts Payable Check 1,048.60 133282 D6/0112012 FGL ENVIRONMENTAL Accounts Payable Check 504.00 133283 06/01/2012 BRYAN FINDLAY Accounts Payable Check 179.00 133284 06/01/2012 KEN FORMAN Accounts Payable Check 10.00 133285 06/01/2012 WARREN FRACE Accounts Payable Check 300.00 133286 06/01/2012 DAVID A. GARI BAY Accounts Payable Check 144.00 133287 06/01/2012 GAS COMPANY Accounts Payable Check 120.06 133288 06/01/2012 ANDREW J, GEFTAKYS Accounts Payable Check 114.00 133289 06/01/2012 GEM AUTO PARTS Accounts Payable Check 671.13 133290 06/01/2012 GILBERT'S LANDSCAPES Accounts Payable Check 407.91 133291 06/01/2012 GOLDEN STATE AERIAL SURVEY INC Accounts Payable Check 6,450.00 133292 06/01/2012 H,D. PETERSON Accounts Payable Check 122.84 133293 06/01/2012 HACH COMPANY Accounts Payable Check 11,200.00 133294 06/01/2012 HART IMPRESSIONS PRINT© Accounts Payable Check 239.37 133295 06/01/2012 MELINDA A. HARTMAN Accounts Payable Check 213.00 133296 06/01/2012 HARVEY'S HONEYHUTS Accounts Payable Check 535.36 133297 06/01/2012 NATHAN HASCH Accounts Payable Check 230.00 133298 06/01/2012 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS Accounts Payable Check 229.98 133299 06/01/2012 INDEPENDENT ELECTRIC SUPPLY,IN Accounts Payable Check 7,951.52 133300 06/0112012 EVELYN R. INGRAM Accounts Payable Check 886.68 133301 06/01/2012 INHOUSE SECURITY SERVICE, LLC Accounts Payable Check 605.88 133302 06/01/2012 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF Accounts Payable Check 50.00 133303 06/01/2012 IRRIGATION CONTROL SYSTEMS Accounts Payable Check 750.00 133304 06/01/2012 J. CARROLL CORPORATION Accounts Payable Check 530.13 City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of June 2012 Check Check Number Date Vendor Description Amount 133305 06/01/2012 KARP LAND SURVEYS Accounts Payable Check 2,720.00 133306 06/01/2012 GENE KARR Accounts Payable Check 500.00 133307 06/01/2012 LARRY'S AUTOMOTIVE Accounts Payable Check 298.28 133308 06/01/2012 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC CO. INC Accounts Payable Check 1,428.00 133309 06/01/2012 LEHIGH HANSON Accounts Payable Check 6,044.82 133310 06/01/2012 JAMES R. LEWIS Accounts Payable Check 370.00 133311 06/01/2012 LISA WISE CONSULTING, INC. Accounts Payable Check 1,410.00 133312 06/01/2012 THOMAS LITTLE Accounts Payable Check 230.00 133313 06/01/2012 MADRONE LANDSCAPES, INC. Accounts Payable Check 117.00 133314 06/01/2012 WADE MCKINNEY Accounts Payable Check 500.00 133315 06/01/2012 MEDWORKS MEDICAL CENTER Accounts Payable Check 350.00 133316 06/01/2012 MICHAEL BRANDMAN ASSOCIATES Accounts Payable Check 7,960.54 133317 06/01/2012 MID-COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Accounts Payable Check 2,220.00 133318 06/01/2012 MID-COAST MOWER& SAW, INC. Accounts Payable Check 373.39 133319 06/01/2012 MID-STATE CONCRETE PRODUCTS Accounts Payable Check 2,515.01 133320 06/01/2012 MID-STATE SOLID WASTE& RECYCG Accounts Payable Check 630.34 133321 06/01/2012 MILLENNIUM CONSULTING ASSC. Accounts Payable Check 7,132.59 133322 06/01/2012 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE Accounts Payable Check 479.29 133323 06/01/2012 MATTHEW J. MIRANDA Accounts Payable Check 230.00 133324 06/01/2012 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE Accounts Payable Check 393.98 133325 06/01/2012 NAVAJO ROCK& BLOCK Accounts Payable Check 340.66 133326 06/01/2012 PAUL NETZ Accounts Payable Check 230.00 133327 06/01/2012 NORTH COAST ENGINEERING INC. Accounts Payable Check 60.50 133328 06/01/2012 OCEANO SAND CO. Accounts Payable Check 496.96 133329 06/01/2012 OFFICE DEPOT INC. Accounts Payable Check 512.74 133330 06/01/2012 PACIFIC COAST GYMNASTICS CENTE Accounts Payable Check 326.20 133332 06/01/2012 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC Accounts Payable Check 20,348.19 133333 06/01/2012 PASO ROBLES SAFE& LOCK Accounts Payable Check 145.05 133334 06/01/2012 CASEY J. PATTERSON Accounts Payable Check 405.00 133335 06/01/2012 PERRY'S ELECTRIC MOTORS&CTRL Accounts Payable Check 451.59 133336 06/01/2012 PFEIFFER PARTNERS, INC. Accounts Payable Check 55,116.59 133337 06/01/2012 JASON M. PLATZ Accounts Payable Check 57.00 133338 06/01/2012 DUANE POWELL Accounts Payable Check 244.16 133339 06/01/2012 PROCARE JANITORIAL SUPPLY,INC. Accounts Payable Check 1,020.60 133340 06/01/2012 PRP COMPANIES Accounts Payable Check 198.07 133341 06/01/2012 PRW STEEL SUPPLY, INC. Accounts Payable Check 61.96 133342 06/01/2012 BILL RAINWATER Accounts Payable Check 145.00 City of Atascadero Disbursement Listinq For the Month of June 2012 Check Check Number Date Vendor Description Amount 133343 06/01/2012 RECOGNITION WORKS Accounts Payable Check 96.52 133344 06/01/2012 RACHELLE RICKARD Accounts Payable Check 300.00 133345 06/01/2012 CHRISTOPHER R. ROBINSON Accounts Payable Check 230.00 133346 06/01/2012 ROSSI TRANSPORT SERVICE Accounts Payable Check 316.39 133347 06/01/2012 S.W. MARTIN &ASSOCIATES Accounts Payable Check 11,083.33 133348 06/01/2012 SAN LUIS PERSONNEL INC. Accounts Payable Check 642.80 133349 06/01/2012 SATELLITE SPORTS GROUP Accounts Payable Check 497.00 133350 06/01/2012 SCHIMM'S TREE SERVICE, INC. Accounts Payable Check 400.00 133351 06/01/2012 SCHLEGEL SAND, GRAVEL, & LAND Accounts Payable Check 711.33 133352 06/01/2012 SCOTT O'BRIEN FIRE& SAFETY CO Accounts Payable Check 516.07 133353 06/01/2012 SCOTT T. MURRAY PLUMBING Accounts Payable Check 62,172.00 133354 06/01/2012 JOHN C. SIEMENS Accounts Payable Check 241.50 133355 06/01/2012 SMITH STRUCTURAL GROUP, LLP Accounts Payable Check 4,000.00 133356 06/01/2012 SPECIALTY GEAR&TRANSMISSION Accounts Payable Check 2,519.49 133357 06/01/2012 STANLEY CONVERGENT SECURITY Accounts Payable Check 695.53 133358 06/01/2012 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN Accounts Payable Check 208,16 133359 06/01/2012 STREATOR PIPE& SUPPLY Accounts Payable Check 27.55 133360 06/01/2012 SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO COMM. Accounts Payable Check 31,133.00 133361 06/01/2012 SUPERIOR CRANE&TRANSPORT Accounts Payable Check 264.00 133362 06/01/2012 TAFT ELECTRIC COMPANY Accounts Payable Check 20,062.04 133363 06/01/2012 TARGET Accounts Payable Check 387.48 133364 06/01/2012 TEMPLETON UNIFORMS Accounts Payable Check 119.40 133365 06/01/2012 BUSS THOMPSON Accounts Payable Check 300.00 133366 06/01/2012 TURF STAR, INC. Accounts Payable Check 22.44 133370 06/01/2012 TW TELECOM, INC. Accounts Payable Check 1,232.19 133371 06/01/2012 U.S. POSTMASTER Accounts Payable Check 125.00 133372 06/01/2012 UNION BANK, N.A. Accounts Payable Check 875.00 133373 06/01/2012 UNITED STAFFING ASSOCIATES,LLC Accounts Payable Check 3,960.00 133374 06/01/2012 USA BLUE BOOK Accounts Payable Check 266.96 133375 06/01/2012 VALLEY PACIFIC PETROLEUM SVCS Accounts Payable Check 2,351.60 133376 06/01/2012 IWINA M, VAN BEEK Accounts Payable Check 76.00 133377 06/01/2012 BETTE WARREN Accounts Payable Check 40.00 133378 06/01/2012 NANCY E.WEBBER, PH.D. Accounts Payable Check 325.00 133379 06/01/2012 WINE COUNTRY BALANCE Accounts Payable Check 435.00 133380 06/01/2012 KAREN B.WYKE Accounts Payable Check 211.80 133381 06/04/2012 SDRMA Payroll Vendor Payment 143,903.04 City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of June 2012 Check Check Number Date Vendor Description Amount 1125 06/08/2012 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT Payroll Vendor Payment 856.81 133382 06/08/2012 ALLSTATE WORKPLACE DIVISION Payroll Vendor Payment 3,644.42 133383 06/08/2012 CSAC -EIA Payroll Vendor Payment 1,205.52 133384 06/08/2012 LINCOLN FINANCIAL GROUP Accounts Payable Check 914.42 133385 06/08/2012 MEDICAL EYE SERVICES Payroll Vendor Payment 1,644.44 133386 06/08/2012 PREFERRED BENEFITS INSURANCE Payroll Vendor Payment 9,658.21 133387 06/08/2012 ATASCADERO FIRE EMPLOYEE ASSN. Payroll Vendor Payment 760.00 133388 06/08/2012 ATASCADERO MID MGRS ORG UNION Payroll Vendor Payment 40.00 133389 06/08/2012 ATASCADERO POLICE OFFICERS Payroll Vendor Payment 1,241.75 133390 06/08/2012 FLEX-PLAN SERVICES INC. Payroll Vendor Payment 2,717.07 133391 06/08/2012 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Payroll Vendor Payment 300.00 133392 06/08/2012 HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE Payroll Vendor Payment 9,117.11 133393 06/08/2012 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION Payroll Vendor Payment 440.87 133394 06/08/2012 SEIU LOCAL 620 Payroll Vendor Payment 799.09 133395 06/08/2012 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 106099 Payroll Vendor Payment 311.61 133396 06/08/2012 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSi'R AGT 304633 Payroll Vendor Payment 1,811.20 1126 06/11/2012 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTER Payroll Vendor Payment 41,855.12 1127 06/11/2012 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM Payroll Vendor Payment 56,413.14 1128 06/12/2012 RABOBANK, N.A. Payroll Vendor Payment 46,412,20 1129 06/12/2012 EMPLOYMENT DEV DEPARTMENT Payroll Vendor Payment 12,023.00 1130 06/12/2012 EMPLOYMENT DEV. DEPARTMENT Payroll Vendor Payment 1,219.72 133397 06/15/2012 VOID Accounts Payable Check 0.00 133398 06/15/2012 ACTIVE NETWORK, INC. Accounts Payable Check 128.70 133399 06/15/2012 ADVANCED POWDER COATING Accounts Payable Check 65.00 133400 06/15/2012 AECOM USA, INC. Accounts Payable Check 1,660.50 133401 06/15/2012 AGP VIDEO, INC. Accounts Payable Check 2,607.50 133402 06/15/2012 AIRGAS USA, LLC Accounts Payable Check 117.74 133403 06/15/2012 A-JAY EXCAVATING, INC. Accounts Payable Check 1,794.00 133404 06/15/2012 ALL SIGNS AND GRAPHICS, LLC Accounts Payable Check 357.14 133405 06/15/2012 ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC Accounts Payable Check 176.15 133406 06/15/2012 AL'S SEPTIC PUMPING SVC, INC. Accounts Payable Check 760.00 133407 06/15/2012 AMERICAN WEST TIRE&AUTO INC Accounts Payable Check 3,832.80 133408 06/15/2012 AMI PIPE& SUPPLY Accounts Payable Check 282.22 133409 06/15/2012 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Accounts Payable Check 33.46 133410 06/15/2012 AT&T Accounts Payable Check 102.49 City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of June 2012 Check Check Number Date. Vendor Description Amount 133411 06/15/2012 AT&T Accounts Payable Check 305.95 133412 06/15/2012 AT&T Accounts Payable Check 412.24 133414 06/15/2012 ATASCADERO MUTUAL WATER CO. Accounts Payable Check 10,869.35 133415 06/15/2012 ATASCADERO NEWS Accounts Payable Check 329.60 133416 06/15/2012 ATASCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST Accounts Payable Check 5,055.00 133417 06/15/2012 BLUEPRINTER Accounts Payable Check 63.02 133418 06/15/2012 BREZDEN PEST CONTROL, INC. Accounts Payable Check 80.00 133419 06/15/2012 BURKE,WILLIAMS, & SORENSON LLP Accounts Payable Check 29,992.50 133420 06/15/2012 BURTON'S FIRE, INC. Accounts Payable Check 59.62 133421 06/15/2012 BUTLER BUSINESS MACHINES Accounts Payable Check 138.35 133422 06/15/2012 C3 CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT Accounts Payable Check 2,900.00 133423 06/15/2012 CA MUNICIPAL TREASURERS ASSC. Accounts Payable Check 155.00 133424 06/15/2012 CAL-COAST IRRIGATION, INC Accounts Payable Check 83.28 133425 06/15/2012 CAL-STATE AUTO GLASS Accounts Payable Check 246.24 133426 06/15/2012 CASH Accounts Payable Check 35.00 133427 06/15/2012 CCC-ICC Accounts Payable Check 130.00 133428 06/15/2012 CENTRAL CA ASA Accounts Payable Check 756.00 133429 06/15/2012 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS Accounts Payable Check 997.45 133430 06/15/2012 CHEVRON &TEXACO BUS. CARD Accounts Payable Check 1,501.40 133431 06/15/2012 CHICAGO GRADE LANDFILL, INC. Accounts Payable Check 20.00 133432 06/15/2012 COAST ELECTRONICS Accounts Payable Check 1,085.51 133433 06/15/2012 COASTAL COPY, LP Accounts Payable Check 75.57 133434 06/15/2012 COASTAL REPROGRAPHIC SERVICES Accounts Payable Check 23.33 133435 06/15/2012 COLONYAUTO SERVICE, INC. Accounts Payable Check 172.78 133436 06/15/2012 CREDIT BUREAU Accounts Payable Check 20.00 133437 06/15/2012 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER Accounts Payable Check 80.98 133438 06/15/2012 CULLIGAN/CENTRAL COAST WTR TRT Accounts Payable Check 300.00 133439 06/15/2012 D4 ELECTRIC Accounts Payable Check 320.46 133440 06/15/2012 DARRYUS LOCK AND SAFE Accounts Payable Check 115.00 133441 06/15/2012 BRIAN S. DAVIN,JR. Accounts Payable Check 144.00 133442 06/15/2012 DANIELA. DAVIS Accounts Payable Check 276.50 133443 06/15/2012 DECOU LUMBER COMPANY Accounts Payable Check 155.57 133444 06/15/2012 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Accounts Payable Check 2,206.00 133445 06/15/2012 DISH NETWORK, LLC Accounts Payable Check 98.99 133446 06/15/2012 DOCUTEAM Accounts Payable Check 194.24 133447 06/15/2012 EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC Accounts Payable Check 3,015.00 133448 06/15/2012 ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS Accounts Payable Check 4,542.04 City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of June 2012 Check Check Number Date Vendor Description Amount 133449 06/15/2012 ESCUELA DEL RIO Accounts Payable Check 100.00 133450 06/15/2012 FERRELL'S AUTO REPAIR Accounts Payable Check 371.40 133451 06/15/2012 FGL ENVIRONMENTAL Accounts Payable Check 482.00 133452 06/15/2012 FIRST TRANSIT, INC. Accounts Payable Check 20,260.31 133453 06/15/2012 FLUID RESOURCE MANAGEMENT,INC. Accounts Payable Check 1,176.00 133454 06/15/2012 FOOD FOR LESS Accounts Payable Check 41.14 133455 06/15/2012 FRAZEE INDUSTRIES, INC. Accounts Payable Check 401.93 133456 06/15/2012 THOMAS E. GANDY Accounts Payable Check 179.00 133457 06/15/2012 DAVID A. GARIBAY Accounts Payable Check 234.00 133458 06/15/2012 GAS COMPANY Accounts Payable Check 468.97 133459 06/15/2012 ERIC GATTI Accounts Payable Check 56.00 133460 06/15/2012 GEM AUTO PARTS Accounts Payable Check 417.40 133461 06/15/2012 GIERLICH-MITCHELL, INC. Accounts Payable Check 23,644.34 133462 06/15/2012 GILBERT'S.LANDSCAPES Accounts Payable Check 407.91 133463 06/15/2012 GOLDEN STATE AERIAL SURVEY INC Accounts Payable Check 3,400.00 133464 06/15/2012 GOLDEN STATE STEEL Accounts Payable Check 31,618.80 133465 06/15/2012 GOLDING CONCRETE SAWING Accounts Payable Check 406.25 133466 06/15/2012 GRISANTI HARDWARE Accounts Payable Check 193.30 133467 06/15/2012 HACH COMPANY Accounts Payable Check 1,990.00 133468 06/1512012 BRADLEY A.HACKLEMAN Accounts Payable Check 751.50 133469 06/15/2012 RALPH DOUGLAS HARBOTTLE Accounts.Payable Check 1,176,00 133470 06/15/2012 HART IMPRESSIONS PRINT© Accounts Payable Check 32.50 133471 06/15/2012 HARVEY'S HONEYHUTS Accounts Payable Check 535.36 133472 06/15/2012 HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS Accounts Payable Check 900.00 133473 06/15/2012 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS Accounts Payable Check 255.00 133474 06/15/2012 ZACHARIAH JACKSON Accounts Payable Check 39.00 133475 06/15/2012 CAROL D. JANSSEN Accounts Payable Check 993.60 133476 06/15/2012 JIFFY LUBE Accounts Payable Check 61.63 133477 06/15/2012 JK'S UNLIMITED Accounts Payable Check 7,993.14 133478 06/15/2012 JOEL SWITZER DIESEL REPAIR,INC Accounts Payable Check 327,87 133479 06/15/2012 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES, INC. Accounts Payable Check 965.29 133480 06/15/2012 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER Accounts Payable Check 2,583.00 133481 06/15/2012 KPRL 1230 AM Accounts Payable Check 320.00 133482 06/15/2012 KRITZ EXCAVATING&TRUCKNG INC Accounts Payable Check 821.11 133483 06/15/2012 LANDSCAPES BY STACH Accounts Payable Check 250.00 133484 06/15/2012 LEHIGH HANSON Accounts Payable Check 1,068.11 133485 06/15/2012 LIFE ASSIST, INC. Accounts Payable Check 309.02 City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of June 2012 Check Check Number Date Vendor Description Amount 133486 06/15/2012 LIGHTGUARD SYSTEMS, INC. Accounts Payable Check 3,828.83 133487 06/15/2012 LISA WISE CONSULTING, INC. Accounts Payable Check 1,475.00 133488 06/15/2012 MADRONE LANDSCAPES, INC. Accounts Payable Check 8,228.62 133489 06/15/2012 MAINLINE UTILITY CO. Accounts Payable Check 2,700.00 133490 06/15/2012 DEVON MAY Accounts Payable Check 1,352.00 133491 06/15/2012 MID-COAST MOWER&SAW, INC. Accounts Payable Check 48.03 133492 06/15/2012 MID-STATE SOLID WASTE&RECYCG Accounts Payable Check 1,794.89 133493 06/15/2012 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE Accounts Payable Check 1,022.65 133494 06/15/2012 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE Accounts Payable Check 537.55 133495 06/15/2012 REON C MONSON Accounts Payable Check 111.00 133496 06/15/2012 NATIONAL FIRE FIGHTER WILDLAND Accounts Payable Check 2,918.60 133497 06/15/2012 PAUL NETZ Accounts Payable Check 257.72 133498 06/15/2012 O.C.TANNER Accounts Payable Check 1,174.37 133499 06/15/2012 OFFICE DEPOT INC. Accounts Payable Check 1,420.93 133500 06/15/2012 TARA ORLICK Accounts Payable Check 26.36 133502 06/15/2012 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC Accounts Payable Check 40,717.46 133503 06/15/2012 PASO ROBLES FORD LINCOLN MERC Accounts Payable Check 12.57 133504 06/15/2012 PASO ROBLES SAFE& LOCK Accounts Payable Check 931.97 133505 06/15/2012 PENFIELD&SMITH ENGINEERS INC Accounts Payable Check 5,705.50 133506 06/15/2012 DEAN PERICIC Accounts Payable Check 216.00 133507 06/15/2012 PERRY'S ELECTRIC MOTORS&CTRL Accounts Payable Check 197,54 133508 06/15/2012 PERRY'S PARCEL&COURIER SVC Accounts Payable Check 149.30 133509 06/15/2012 PFEIFFER PARTNERS, INC. Accounts Payable Check 47,344.59 133510 06/15/2012 PH&S PRODUCTS, LLC Accounts Payable Check 168.00 133511 06/15/2012 PROCARE JANITORIAL SUPPLY,INC. Accounts Payable Check 1,112.46 133512 06/15/2012 PRP COMPANIES Accounts Payable Check 2,408.00 133513 06/15/2012 PRP COMPANIES Accounts Payable Check 3,184.21 133514 06/15/2012 RAMINHA CONSTRUCTION, INC. Accounts Payable Check 81,811.40 133515 06/15/2012 RANGE MASTER Accounts Payable Check 18.00 133516 06/15/2012 RECOGNITION WORKS Accounts Payable Check 26.81 133517 06/15/2012 REGAL ELECTRIC Accounts Payable Check 725.00 133518 06/15/2012 ROB DAVIS BACKHOE Accounts Payable Check 5,940.00 133519 06/15/2012 CHRISTOPHER R. ROBINSON Accounts Payable Check 38.00 133520 06/15/2012 MICHELLE R. ROGERS Accounts Payable Check 231.00 133521 06/15/2012 SAN LUIS PERSONNEL INC. Accounts Payable Check 723.15 133522 06/15/2012 SCOTT SATTERTHWAITE Accounts Payable Check 230.00 133523 06/15/2012 SCHIMM'S TREE SERVICE, INC. Accounts Payable Check 3,200.00 City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of June 2012 Check Check Number Date Vendor Description Amount 133524 06/15/2012 ALAN F. SCIOCCHETTI Accounts Payable Check 108.00 133525 06/15/2012 SHELL Accounts Payable Check 694.94 133526 06/15/2012 JOHN C. SIEMENS Accounts Payable Check 497.00 133527 06/15/2012 SCOTT SIMONS Accounts Payable Check 117.96 133528 06/15/2012 SLO CO HEALTH AGENCY Accounts Payable Check 5,532.00 133529 06/15/2012 SLO COUNTY CLERK RECORDER Accounts Payable Check 2,969,00 133530 06/15/2012 SLO COUNTY NEWSPAPERS-TRIBUNE Accounts Payable Check 209.00 133531 06/15/2012 SMITTY'S TOWING SERVICE Accounts Payable Check 220.00 133532 06/15/2012 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN Accounts Payable Check 638.64 133533 06/15/2012 SUNLIGHT JANITORIAL Accounts Payable Check 2,894.00 133534 06/15/2012 SUPERIOR CRANE&TRANSPORT Accounts Payable Check 528.00 133535 06/15/2012 TERRA-TRACK Accounts Payable Check 2,000.00 133536 06/15/2012 TEXAS REFINERY CORP. Accounts Payable Check 213.43 133537 06/15/2012 LESLIE R.THOMPSON Accounts Payable Check 30.00 133538 06/15/2012 TURNOUT MAINTENANCE CO., LLC Accounts Payable Check 440.00 133541 06/15/2012 U.S. BANK Accounts Payable Check 8,833.57 133542 06/15/2012 VALLEY PACIFIC PETROLEUM SVCS Accounts Payable Check 6,116.24 133543 06/15/2012 BRIDGET M. VAN BEEK Accounts Payable Check 18.00 133544 06/15/2012 IWINA M.VAN BEEK Accounts Payable Check 57.00 133545 06/15/2012 VERIZON WIRELESS Accounts Payable Check 1,798.62 133546 06/15/2012 WESTERN JANITOR SUPPLY Accounts Payable Check 524.20 133547 06/15/2012 WRIGHT EXPRESS FSC-76 FLEET Accounts Payable Check 410.10 133548 06/15/2012 WRIGHT EXPRESS FSC-76 UNIVERSL Accounts Payable Check 15,545.00 1131 06/22/2012 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT Payroll Vendor Payment 856.81 1132 06/22/2012 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEP Payroll Vendor Payment 41,120.55 1133 06/22/2012 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEI+ Payroll Vendor Payment 56,776.99 133549 06/22/2012 ATASCADERO FIRE EMPLOYEE ASSN. Payroll Vendor Payment 760.00 133550 06/22/2012 ATASCADERO MID MGRS ORG UNION Payroll Vendor Payment 40.00 133551 06/22/2012 ATASCADERO POLICE OFFICERS Payroll Vendor Payment 1,271.75 133552 06/22/2012 AXA EQUITABLE Payroll Vendor Payment 520.12 133553 06/22/2012 FLEX-PLAN SERVICES INC. Payroll Vendor Payment 2,571.23 133554 06/22/2012 FLEX-PLAN SERVICES INC. Payroll Vendor Payment 167.50 133555 06/22/2012 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Payroll Vendor Payment 300.00 133556 06/22/2012 HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE Payroll Vendor Payment 8,867.11 133557 06/22/2012 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION Payroll Vendor Payment 719.03 133558 06/22/2012 SEIU LOCAL 620 Payroll Vendor Payment 786.49 City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of June 2012 Check Check Number Date Vendor Description Amount 133559 06/22/2012 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 106099 Payroll Vendor Payment 311.61 133560 06/22/2012 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 304633 Payroll Vendor Payment 2,231.20 1134 06/26/2012 RABOBANK, N.A. Payroll Vendor Payment 48,750.75 1135 06/26/2012 EMPLOYMENT DEV DEPARTMENT Payroll Vendor Payment 12,911.24 1136 06/26/2012 EMPLOYMENT DEV. DEPARTMENT Payroll Vendor Payment 1,258.79 133561 06/27/2012 ALLSTATE WORKPLACE DIVISION Payroll Vendor Payment 3,644.42 133562 06/27/2012 MEDICAL EYE SERVICES Payroll Vendor Payment 1,668.36 133563 06/27/2012 PREFERRED BENEFITS INSURANCE Payroll Vendor Payment 9,617.68 133564 06/27/2012 SDRMA Payroll Vendor Payment 149,709.35 $ 1,951,428.16 ITEM NUMBER: A - 4 DATE: 08/14/12 iota' 19791 Atscadero CityCouncil Jure 2012 Staff Report v City Treasurer June 2012 Investment Report RECOMMENDATION: Council receive and file the City Treasurer's report for quarter ending June 2012. REPORT IN BRIEF: Cash and Investments Checking $ 263,720 Zoo Credit Card Deposit Account 30,594 Money Market Accounts - Certificates of Deposit 12,396,000 Government Securities 8,504,031 LAIF 32,222,235 Cash with Fiscal Agents 1,417,647 Cash in Banks at June 30, 2012 $ 54,834,227 Deposits in Transit 16,078 Outstanding Checks (190,043) Cash and Investments at June 30, 2012 $ 54,660,262 Investment Activity Securities Purchased: Purchase Date Description Type Cost Maturity Date 05/02/12 Federal Home Loan Bank gov't security $ 509,790 04/10/17 06/11/12 Fed Home Loan Mtg Corp gov't security 511,245 05/12/17 06/11/12 Federal National Mtg Assn gov't security 508,670 04/27/17 06/29/12 Fed Home Loan Mtg Corp gov't security 511,250 05/12/17 Securities Matured: Maturity Date Description Type Original Cost Amount Matured 04/09/12 Security Federal Bank CD $ 250,000 $ 250,000 05/21/12 American Express Cen Bk CD 97,000 97,000 Page 1 of 13 Investment Activity (continued) Securities Sold/Called Prior to Maturity: Transaction / Original Cost/ Gain/(Loss) Tran Date Description /Type Maturity Sale Price on Call None - Other Reportable Activities: None Page 2 of 13 CITY OF ATASCADERO TREASURER'S REPORT CASH&INVESTMENTS ACTIVITY SUMMARY for the quarter ending June 34, 2012 CHECKING FISCAL ACCOUNTS INVESTMENTS AGENT TOTALS Balance per Banks at April 1, 2012 $ 644,164 $ 48,657,991 $ 1,799,866 51,102,021 Receipts 12,057,324 25,685 37 12,083,046 Disbursements (7,968,584) (382,256) (8,350,840) Transfers In 7,847,365 12,285,955 - 20,133,320 Transfers Out (12 285,955) (7,847,365) - (20,133,320) Balance per Banks at June 30, 2012 $ 294,314 $ 53,122,266 $ 1,417,647 54,834,227 Deposits in Transit 16,078 Outstanding Checks (190,043) Adjusted Treasurer's Balance $ 54,660,262 * This balance includes the balance of the Zoo Credit Card Deposit Account, which is the account established to receive the point of sale credit card transactions from the Zoo Gift Shop, and to disburse fees charged by the credit card processing service. Page 3 of 13 t" N O O cn p� O M N C, a � In kA N oo Ir O 1�n N oppo p t� N � 00o d0; 7 c 10 ko, 10 �+ N N N N e�•I C, N o o N N N til , M �'L try O O 1pn o o a N N N ClP f��! N r1l N U 69 � U M Q o O a o o $ Q ri C 0 C S g g g o o g �0 8 W N ' h CJ N N N N N N N N N 4 M a q o o > e e o• e o e e e: ,e e e O (r "' ' t/1 41 O to h V1 Vl to Vl O N O N CI N N N N 'n N N N N N C! 1.4 M � F< � � o e �p 0 0 0 o e e a e� e• a `� vi h O O to V1 Vi Z [114 M M N C[ N CV Cl [V (V +n N C1 CI t4 (V N L h ro � aci R Q G7 � w � � C] O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tC k= tr in U U V u U U U U V V U U f'tl o o c o g o o o q o o OO M O O p+'• Q O O O Q Q co p a O O O 4c C 4� r c C o in H O > e 'a w zv E rGr a � Q '0 ami mow 'C x in e_.ai b`' a.c °Q W o F u > •'r N C Y !• W � 'd AD 9 Y W � � aW.+ �+'• + � 4 W W i� � t-0 G C sig a z3 w° z Q m x � bra, C7 N N N pyo pN� N N N N_ N 00 00 00 O O O O ^ [� M M 11 V v O M N H b •. M M Q ... ...+ Qi h 17 11 M M Y1 v1 Qe h � � O C> N Vim' N vi f� N h � r i` rvi ri N O O O N p N rq N Q` 4A S CCo O C O kp pOp C O O C C b C OG F O V � � I 1 c 1 1 1 1 Z 2 2 -2-1 c O 4 Q O O O O O G O O O O O O O op op O O O O O C O 6 O Cl O C O C O pO V N N N O O C N O N N N N O S 4 , Q o 0 o e o e \ e o o g e o 0 0 O O O H �n O pp O O 4cc V hl �o .V t� O In O sti N C rn a F 1 O F w f9S �. � .� M v N to�o to�D 1- C v1 O O lox V 7 Cl N C N C H cJ a3 ttl td ttl id cd td c`tl W m \y � N C ti F C O O O O O o o O r y W cai m co cFi 8 a&i Ij g A Q Q Q Am Q G C Q Q W w w w w w w w w �., w w w� w w F 4 0 0 0 o o 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 rn Wa w d iv�yy �v�pp a cqq+ Hwy y a «:� V U y � V $V &U ti C C C ,C r C C a a a a a a v a a ani pV� U pu pu V V V V V U V V U U U !�h LTA O C OO qO O O h O O O O O O O u715 o Q O C Q '�7 0 �I Q Q, -- d �� O O O O C O O 4 Al 15 W 06 Y n^ qcacd� a e y c k m L F%9 0 a o c v w E o E c .'_ o ,S d1 e m 'A P. w v o a v f C ✓ Q ai U a v°� in aa. 3 v C7 �i C7 m C� rn s d Ci A C7 a. F N N N N N f3 N M M M M M M M M Fq s O O Oa O W C, N ol b Op N VIn 1 In It O Q "It. II OD M V O o� h et �O y V ` N M M M M �/T 7 e} v 0i Op D` O� ol lo In h �/1 of h h [� d• x N N �/1 �n G Fe V V M x M d;, V.} x a7 00 oo O O OO� M DD t+j 'T f'1 V V <t V V �. N N N N N N N N G O c c c O 0 00 0 o O O O c o p o Oc, o o O 8 O 0000 O O O N N !c N N N N N N N N N Vl O N o6 kn N N O oo m R w \ m \w cd 4 4 4 7 0 0 0 � 0 0 0 $ o 9 Wn Ln v) WW1 v a v v v v v v C1 N N N N N N N N N N O N N N 69 Q o 0a 0 0 o a o 0 0 o v O O h O O In O h O( C>FT �n O p„f � N fit N N E. W M � � � v'r'i, n c o � � n 000, 0800 o°to Cl m N N N fV W S Id —ld•N •N •N BVI c G o c a a BVI o L' 's A A A � r w w w w w w w w w w w w o O O O O O O O o G O O O r, O O O 4 a c, L U O L Fy •Cci [� QC F a c W G � �'i Z Y "� C V ,�.t Y t yp IL Y = u ?C a. � ❑ p � w � O y �- � �-r w v; `o a � c � a `^'+ r E "' E `^ � vi � c � r• p e ai ca - Z Y q . 3 c ° v > d o vd A w to La. e a c =4 s o A a a o E o $ a ee o °n a� U v, x ci ¢ vlci CS ❑ .aa uu C4 ea [7 w V �. 0 Ggin � pa r: u P y In h n M M co �ov c4 — n o M h h N � n O N 1t4 S A M C, C, .• .+ Q� M N v1 '4 v Ol ai k4 h N N N N N N N N N OM O O O S S SO O S M GQ N M O 0 0 0 o O O S o O o l0 O T 10 r O ul +li In h O M Q` 00 Co O+ d' d' 7 V Q` N V' er 'V' '7 N 7 7 7 N N N N N N N N n O fiq O G O .c iV in m C :0 C <d ca ro —OC G � h a q g g S g o 0 0 0 O O �n vl in W a o g S w v v <r a of v v o U h n N N N N q o 0 0 Qpm e o o e Q�Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 a V O O C S Cl o N A Oo+ P O �. cV N of N cV N C` CV c`I cv It e 0 0 0 e e o O OS [+� a — •^ •� N cV N N N N N cS .-. N ttf c6 a1 N at Pf ttl K id t 1 R `� .-o" �o .w = 'H .rpt .tiW" W v VJ Nw W W w - o 4 w w f% O 0 O O 0 'O W E NK Q N ` O N N N 94 q O O d O O O C O as Y a om Cin H oZ, w > ' CU yU ¢ m E 40 Qit ti i0 3C2 c � z Sv�i c� ❑ vA) �cc� saw ra ¢ vx � U a O O O O O O O O Cl O 0 �D V1 M O N VI b M O M Vl 11 V1 M O N OC V1 M O M O V W n M 'Od' O T V^ l4 00 M Cd n. U 10 �O C o�A N N v u v v p M 69 �D vt 00 O N O V O O M In M O .�. M V1 M km M V' 00 n O+ h �! � 01 1 IA �C 1� 10 00 N0000 O00O 7 <71 ... 7 O O O O O N CN cqN N N W) kA vn 01=o O [v1 o O O o 0 0 0 �n o Abp P O 00 N O O �O O O C O h +G N ry lo rn v' ry et R W O R V O V O Q' <Y O O N 0 � � ~ fi5 !G c d oo cAv c 'o o a ry N o Q N O O O Cl O O O O O O O O O O M O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO pO N r- O nS 'tO tl� O 7 er O O O S P N N N In In Vl aG Q9 C�O O OG AO N N o 6 0 0 N O AIQ O O O 00 O Vl O O N M vl A C Vl V1 O N `7 M M O N N O M CI N � g¢7 fA L' N VS 47 N O O N E OY E E E E Eo ! W e1 ani m o > U u v u c'~. co L M N M O M M O O N 4 h a a cw w w x w V V odkn Z+u5M TRmLwM cCuo��LGQQ w�pu E3 W>> e4 M:�5fiEx_ u °�• o rn o`o `o v 00 0 'o o n n'r c+1 O N M ` N L o o 9 — a a o 0 0 � ± / fA 2 fis tn 7 « \ ( ® « ® z \ K ] « \ � / } ( � 2 ° ^ 2j - b § a \ 2 ® # ol § + 2 t � - 23x � \ \ \ � 0 \ & ( / u / ® \ ) \ \ § » \ cs \ \ Q ■ _ © e �_/\ � 1-4 City of Ataseadero Investments by Type June 2012. Government Securities Cash with Fiscal Agent Certificates 3% of Deposit 23% ^,fro, ^. i 1q^ 'v�.Fa'v,��..Ma�" -•fj� ,. ,��'� =fi LAIF �9% Investment June 2012 LAI'F $ 32,222,235 Certificates of Deposit 12,396,000 Government Securities 8,504,031 Cash with Fiscal Agent 1,417,647 Other - $ 54,539,913 Page 10 of 13 City of Ataseadero Investments by Maturity June 2012 One Month to One Year One to rive Years 90/0 28% Within One Month 2% F. C \ On Demand 61% Investment Jane 2012 On Demand $ 32,222,235 Within One Month 800,000 One Month to One Year 5,034,000 One to Five Years 15,066,031 $ 53,122,266 Page 11 of 13 City of Atascadero Investments by Custodial Agent ,Tune 2012 Union Bank 38% t A F t State of California 59% Custodial Agent June 2012 State of California $ 32,222,235 Other - Union Bank 20,900,431 Bank of New York 1,417,647 $ 54,539,91.3 Page 12 of 13 City of Atascadero Investment Yield vs. 2-Year Treasury Yield For the Quarter Ended .Tune 30,2012 1.60°!° 1.40°i° 1.20% — - 1.00°i° ;. ---_ r' 0.80°!° ilk 0.60°!° 0.40°!° . _—.�— ........_.-...•-•••.. -T e 0.00% ^o �o �o tr�o�o o ego^� `ryR) t�o�� cr�oN� --e--City Yield +2-Yr Treasury Weighted Portfolio Yield i 2-Yr Treasury Weighted Portfolio City Yield Yield June 2010 1.30% 0.84% September 2010 1.42% 0.77% December 2010 1.31% 0.77% March 2010 1.10% 0.82% .lune 2011 1.11% 0.58% September 2011 1.08% 0.44% December 2011 1.08% 0,45% March 2012 1.02% 0,48% June 2012 0.95% 0.43% Page 13 of 13 ITEM NUMBER: A- 5 DATE: 08/14/12 IT 1979 Atascadero City Council Staff Report — City Manager's Office Lease Agreement with Atascadero Historical Society RECOMMENDATION: Council adopt the Draft Resolution authorizing the execution of a Lease Agreement with the Atascadero Historical Society regarding Atascadero Creek Reservation #3 (#3-A1, 3-A2, and 3-13. DISCUSSION: In 1965, the Atascadero Unified School District (School District) owned Atascadero Creek Reservations #2 and #3. The School District allowed the Atascadero Historical Society (Society) to have a Colony Home moved onto Creek Reservation #3, and the two parties entered into a 99-year Lease Agreement, leasing Creek Reservations #2 and #3 to the Society for recreation, park, museum, and historic purposes. Timeline: In 2004, as part of a settlement agreement between Creekside Associates, the City of Atascadero, the School District, and the Society; the School District was required to convey Creek Reservation #3 to the City. Since that time, the City and the Society have had numerous meetings and discussions concerning the future of the Creek Reservations within the Downtown. These discussions have been focused on the future relationship between the City and the Society. In 2007, the School District deeded Creek Reservation #3 to the City. In 2009, the School District deeded Creek Reservations #2 and #5 to the City. ITEM NUMBER: A- 5 DATE: 08/14/12 Current Status: The Society has decided that they only want to lease Creek Reservation #3 from the City, and eliminate Creek Reservation #2, as was previously included in their lease with the School District. The proposed Lease Agreement is for 52 years, which will have the Lease expiring in 2064, the same expiration year of the Society's original lease with the School District. The City continues to work with the Society on our partnership of preserving Atascadero's past and incorporating it into our future by including numerous historical displays throughout the restored City Hall. The Society will also have a docent program at City Hall which will include a docent at the City Hall Front Counter to answer questions and provide tours of the building. FISCAL IMPACT: The City will receive $1.00 per year. The Society has already been paying the City $1.00 per year since the School District deeded the Creek Reservation to the City in 2007. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council may direct staff to negotiate different terms for this Lease Agreement. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Draft Lease Agreement ITEM NUMBER: A- 5 DATE: 08/14/12 Attachment 1 DRAFT RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AND THE ATASCADERO HISTORICAL SOCIETY WHEREAS, the Atascadero Unified School District (AUSD) had leased Creek Reservation#3 to the Atascadero Historical Society(Society) since 1965; and, WHEREAS,the AUSD agreed to have the Society move a Colony Home onto Creek Reservation#3; and, WHEREAS, as part of a settlement agreement in 2004 between Creekside Associates, the City of Atascadero (City), the AUSD, and the Society, the AUSD was required to convey Creek Reservation#3 to the City; and, WHEREAS, the AUSD did deed Creek Reservation#3 to the CITY in 2007; and, WHEREAS, the Society desires to continue to lease Creek Reservation#3 for recreation, park, museum and historic purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA,DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the foregoing is true and correct. 2. That the City Council of the City of Atascadero, California, does hereby approve the Lease Agreement with the Atascadero Historical Society for Creek Reservation#3. 3. That the City Manager for the City of Atascadero, or his/her designee, is hereby authorized to sign said Lease Agreement, a copy of which is on file at the Office of the City Clerk, on behalf of the City of Atascadero, California. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Atascadero, California held on the 14th day of August, 2012. CITY OF ATASCADERO By: Bob Kelley, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: By: Marcia McClure Torgerson, C.M.C., Brian A. Pierik, City Attorney City Clerk LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF ATASCADERO AND THE ATASCADERO HISTORICAL SOCIETY This Lease Agreement is entered into on this day of 2012, by and between the City of Atascadero, a municipal corporation, hereinafter after referred to as "City", and the Atascadero Historical Society, (formerly The Treasure of El Camino Real), a non-profit corporation, hereinafter after referred to as "Society." The City and Society may be referred to collectively as the "Parties." SECTION 1: RECITALS 1. On October 11, 1965, the Atascadero School District, a public corporation, hereinafter called "District", and the Society, entered into a Lease Agreement for Atascadero Creek Reservations #2 & #3 (hereafter "1965 Lease"). 2. In February 2002, the owner of Creekside Lanes filed a lawsuit involving several entities including the District and the City, regarding damages his property received. As a result, all the involved parties entered into the Creekside Settlement Agreement in August 2004. 3. In August 2004, the District conveyed Atascadero Creek Reservation #3 to the City, in compliance with the Creekside Settlement Agreement. 4. In June 2009, the District executed a QuitClaim Deed to the City for Creek Reservation #2. 5. The City is the successor in interest to the District for the 1965 Lease. 6. The Society Board notified the City by a letter dated April 2, 2010 that they are in favor of the following: a) No longer wish to lease Creek Reservation #2 from the City, provided that if the Scout Cabin is determined to be on City property, the Society will be retained to supervise the eventual use and protection of the Cabin. b) Continue to lease Creek Reservation #3 until such time as they have clarification and commitment as to the disposition of the brick building (HVAC), acceptable to the Society Board, and contingent upon an improved East Mall orientation for the Colony House. c) Grant the City the right to work in the creek and adjoining park for the purposes of maintenance and upkeep of the creekbed and improvement to the Creekside Park. 7. The Society has agreed to no longer lease Atascadero Creek Reservation #2 from the City. 8. The Society desires to continue to lease Atascadero Creek Reservation #3, and has agreed to lease said property from the City. 9. The Society acknowledges and agrees that the Colony House and Rose Garden are located entirely on the Atascadero Creek Reservation #3, owned by the City. 10. The City, in consideration of the promises and covenants of Society set forth herein, agrees to lease Creek Reservation #3 to the Society for the purposes listed herein. 11. The Society is interested in preserving the Scout Cabin that is located on School District property. The City supports the preservation of historical structures, and will support the Society in its efforts to make sure the Scout Cabin ultimately is protected, retained, and ultimately under the protection, supervision and use of the Society. SECTION 2: LEASE TERMS 1. The Parties agree that the foregoing Recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The 1965 Lease Agreement is hereby terminated. 3. This Lease Agreement is entered into for the property known as Atascadero Creek Reservation #3 (more fully described as #3-A1, 3-A2, & 3-13). The Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN) for Creek Reservation #3 are as follows: 029-361-003, 029-361-024, & 029-361-025 4. The Society will be accountable to fulfill the lease requirements, which include keeping Creek Reservation #3 in good order and free from all refuse, and shall promptly remove all ashes, garbage and refuse of any kind from the property during the term of this Lease. These are the same terms as the 1965 Lease, the previous lease on this property. 5. Premises. That the City hereby leases unto the Society, and Society hereby leases from the City, the property listed above in Section 2:3, located in the City of Atascadero, State of California. 6. Term. The term of this Lease Agreement, hereinafter referred to as "Lease," shall have a period of fifty-two (52) years beginning on July 1, 2012, and ending on June 30, 2064, unless sooner termination is provided herein. In the event the Society shall continue in possession of the premises after the expiration of the Lease term, such possession shall not be considered a renewal of this Lease, but a month to month agreement which shall be governed by the terms of this Lease and which may be terminated upon 30 days written notice by either Party. Lease Agreement City of Atascadero 1 Atascadero Historical Society Page 2 of 7 7. The Society shall pay the sum of One Dollar and no cents ($1.00) per year payable at the commencement of each Lease year. 8. The Society may use the premises for the following purposes only: recreation, park, museum, rental for events, education and historic purposes only, including allowance for a live-in caretaker. SECTION 3: GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. Lease may not be assigned, sublet or transferred by the Society unless the City first gives its written consent. 2. The City will not be responsible to the Society for any loss of property from said premises, or for any injury, loss or damage to the Colony House or the contents thereof, placed on said real property as provided herein by the Society, however occurring. 3. The City shall have the right to enter said premises, upon reasonable notice to Society, at all reasonable hours to examine the same. 4. The Society hereby waives all claims for damages that may be caused by the City in re-entering and taking possession of the premises as herein provided, and all claims for damages that may result from the destruction of or injury to the premises thereby; and all claims for damages to or loss of such property belonging to the Society as may be in or upon the premises at the time of such re-entering, except for claims for damages arising directly from the gross negligence, wanton recklessness or intentional misconduct of the City. The Society also waives all claims against the City for damages to any property of the Society from any cause arising at any time, except for damages arising directly from the gross negligence, wanton recklessness or intentional misconduct of the City. 5. The City reserves the right at any time to make such reasonable rules and regulations as in its judgment may from time to time be necessary for the safety, care, and cleanliness of the premises, and for the preservation of good order therein. 6. The Society hereby agrees to indemnify and save harmless the City from any and all manner of damages, charges, suits, costs and expenses which it may sustain or be put to by reason of the Society's use of the said premises or by reason of anything relating thereto or by reason of this Lease or any of the provisions hereof, except for damages, charges, suits, costs and expenses arising directly from the gross negligence, wanton recklessness or intentional misconduct of the City. Lease Agreement City of Atascadero!Atascadero Historical Society Page 3 of 7 7. Nothing in this Lease shall obligate to the City the duty to comply with any law, including but not limited to, the American with Disabilities Act, which requires alteration, maintenance, or restoration to the Premises. 8. The City and the Society agree that each of the terms, conditions, and obligations of this Lease shall extend to and bind, or inure to the benefit of the respective parties hereto, and each and every one of their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, successors and assigns. 9. The Society further agrees, prior to the commencement of this Lease, to purchase and maintain adequate insurance coverage in the name of the Society and in the name of the City in the amounts specified in Exhibit A attached to and part of this agreement. 10.The Society shall arrange for and pay for all of the utility hookups to said premises and shall pay all bills for water, gas, electrical service, and other public utility services used in, on or about said premises during the period of this Lease. 11.The Society agrees and promises that it will comply with and observe all applicable statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations of the Federal, State, Municipal, County or other public authority. 12.The City may terminate this Lease if the Society shall fail, neglect or refuse to perform and obey any term or condition set forth in this Lease; within thirty (30) days after the City has given to Society written notice of such a default, unless such failure, neglect or refusal by nature cannot be remedied within thirty (30) days of said notice and the Society has within thirty (30) days of the notice commenced and does thereafter continue diligent efforts to remedy such failure, neglect or refusal. 13.A waiver by the City of any failure or omission by the Society to comply with any of the terms and conditions of this Lease shall not constitute a waiver by the City of any other such failure or omission. 14.The Society shall have the right during the term of this Lease to place on the above described real property the Colony House, which is suitable to carry out the purposes of this Lease set out in Section 2, paragraph 8 herein above. Said building shall be the property of and belong exclusively to the Society, who shall at its own sole cost and expense pay for any and all repairs, maintenance and custodial care in, on and around said building. The Society shall at its own sole cost and expense pay for any and all insurance on said building. 15.The Society agrees to keep said real property in good order and free from all refuse, and shall promptly remove all garbage and refuse of any kind from said real property during the term of this Lease. Lease Agreement City of Atascadero 1 Atascadero Historical Society Page 4of7 16.At the end of this Lease term, or at any sooner termination of this Lease as provided herein, the Society agrees to surrender the above described real property to the City in as good condition as received, reasonable wear and tear excepted. The Society shall at its own sole cost and expense remove from said real property upon said end or termination the building placed thereon by the Society pursuant to this Lease, within sixty (60) days after said end or termination. If the building is not so removed by the Society from said real property by the end of said sixty (60) days, then the City shall have the right either to keep the building on said premises in which case said building shall automatically belong to and become the property of the City or of removing in any manner deemed appropriate to the City said building from said premises at the sole cost and expense of the Society in which event the Society shall pay to the City the cost thereof within sixty (60) days after the mailing by the City to the Society, postage prepaid, of an itemized bill which sets out the cost of said removal. 17.This Lease and exhibit contains the entire agreement with the City and the Society. All previous proposals and communications relative to this Lease, whether oral or written, are hereby superseded except to the extent that they have been incorporated into this Lease. No future waiver of, or exception to any of the terms, conditions, and provisions of this Lease shall be considered valid unless specifically agreed to in writing by all the parties. 18.Any notices, payments or consents required or desired to be served or given by either party upon the other shall be addressed to the respective parties as set forth below: CITY: LEASEE: City of Atascadero Atascadero Historical Society 6907 EI Camino Real 6600 Lewis Ave. Atascadero, CA 93422 Atascadero, CA 93422 ATTN.- Wade McKinney, City Manager ATTN: Jim Wilkins, President IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Lease on the day and year first above written. CITY OF ATASCADERO ATASCADERO HISTORICAL SOCIETY Wade G. McKinney ames Wilkins City Manager President Lease Agreement City of Atascadero/Atascadero Historical Society Page 5 of 7 EXHIBIT A INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR LESSEE Lessee shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the Lessee's operation and use of the leased premises. The cost of such insurance shall be borne by the Lessee. Minimum Scope of Insurance Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001). 2. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability insurance (for lessees with employees). 3. Property insurance against all risks of loss to any tenant improvements or betterments. Minimum Limits of Insurance Lessee shall maintain limits no less than: 1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 2. Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. 3. Property Insurance: Full replacement cost with no coinsurance penalty provision. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Entity. At the option of the Entity, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the Entity, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Lessee shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the Entity guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. Lease Agreement City of Atascadero/Atascadero Historical Society Page 6 of 7 Other Insurance Provisions The general liability policy is to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1. The Entity, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insureds with respect to liability arising out of ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased to the lessee. 2. The Lessee's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Entity, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self- insurance maintained by the Entity, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Lessee's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 3. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled, except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the Entity. Acceptability of Insurers Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII. Verification of Coverage Lessee shall furnish the Entity with original certificates and amendatory endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements should be on forms provided by the Entity or on other than the Entity's forms, provided those endorsements or policies conform to the requirements. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the Entity before work commences. The Entity reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications at any time. Lease Agreement City of Atascadero 1 Atascadero Historical Society Page 7 of 7 ITEM NUMBER: A- 6 DATE: 08/14/12 ��illl�it y 1918 1979 �A��ERo j A tascadero City Council Staff Report — Public Works Department San Fernando Road Rehabilitation Project Award City Bid No. 2012-007 RECOMMENDATIONS: Council: 1. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Calportland Construction in the amount of $422,218.48 for construction of the San Fernando Road Rehabilitation Project; and, 2. Authorize the Director of Public Works to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder upon satisfactory completion of the project. DISCUSSION: Background: The City Council previously allocated General Funds and Local Transportation Funds (LTF) for a road rehabilitation project for the City maintained portion of San Fernando Road. The San Fernando Road Rehabilitation Project will involve asphalt "deep-lift" repairs, drainage improvements, installation of a pavement fabric and a final asphalt overlay to the City Maintained section of San Fernando Road from Graves Creek to Balboa Road. The existing asphalt surface on San Fernando Road is in very poor condition and is considered a high priority for road repair. Failure to initiate appropriate asphalt surface rehabilitation at this time would result in additional deterioration of this road section leading to a more significant and costly reconstruction project. If approved, this proposed road rehabilitation project will take approximately four to six weeks to complete. Analysis: The San Fernando Road Rehabilitation Project was advertised from June 12, 2012 through July 12, 2012. A total of six (6) bids were received for this project. The bids were reviewed for accuracy and compliance with the City of Atascadero bidding requirements. Calportland Construction is the lowest responsive bidder at $404,988.50 for the base bid and $17,229.98 for the alternate for a total of $422,218.48. Conclusion: Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Calportland Construction in the amount of $422,218.48 for construction of the San Fernando Road Rehabilitation Project. FISCAL IMPACT: PROJECTED EXPENDITURES Design @ 5% $ 21,110 Construction 422,219 Inspection / Testing / Construction Administration @ 10% 42,200 Contingency @ 20% 84,400 Total Projected Expenditures: $569,929 AVAILABLE FUNDING SOURCES Local Transportation Funds (LTF) $ 308,750 General Funds 444,160 Total Available Funding Sources: $ 752,910 PROJECTED FUNDING SURPLUS $ 182,981 ALTERNATIVES: 1. Do not award the contract and cancel the project 2. Direct staff to redesign and re-bid the project. ATTACHMENTS: Bid Summary City of Atascader•o Office of the City Clerk Bid Summary TO: Public Works FROM: Lisa Cava,Deputy City Clerk q� BID NO.: 2012-007 tjl OPENED: 7/1212012 SAN FERNANDO ROAD PROJECT: REHABILITATION PROJECT Bids were received and opened today, 6 am follows: \aunt•ul Bidder TOTAL BASE BID PRICE ADD AL 11:R.NA UL CAL PORTLAND `6404,988.50 $17.229.98 F E R RAVANTI $504,843.55 $38,746,nc, R O C K W O O D $506,988.95 $36,887.04 R. B U R K E $569.059.50 $43.656.00 PA P I C H $584.165.00 $100,177.00 J. MADONNA $627,414.75 $49.439.00 ITEM NUMBER: A- 7 DATE: 08/14/12 1918 lmm 1979 Atascadero City Council Staff Report — Public Works Department EI Camino Real Barrier Removal Project Award City Bid No. 2012-006 RECOMMENDATIONS: Council: 1. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Rockwood General Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $108,135.25 for construction of the EI Camino Real Barrier Removal Project; and, 2. Authorize the Director of Public Works to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder upon satisfactory completion of the project. DISCUSSION: Background: The City Council has previously authorized the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for various Barrier Removal projects throughout Atascadero. Projects that remove barriers to wheelchair accessibility, including sidewalk installation, are permitted uses for CDBG funds. The EI Camino Real Barrier Removal Project involves the removal of barriers to wheelchair accessibility on the east side of EI Camino Real from San Jacinto Avenue to Rosario Avenue. The project will replace the two non-compliant ramps at EI Camino Real at San Jacinto Road, and fill the sidewalk gap south of the Water Company property to the south side of the Hawkins Property. The damaged and non-compliant driveway ramps in front of the Stagecoach Liquors will be replaced as well. Analysis: The EI Camino Real Barrier Removal Project will complete an accessible sidewalk on the east side of EI Camino Real between San Anselmo Road to the downtown. ITEM NUMBER: A- 7 DATE: 08/14/12 The project was advertised from May 25, 2012 through July 2, 2012. A total of seven (7) bids were received for this project. Bids ranged in price from $108,135 to $151,274. The bids were reviewed for accuracy and compliance with the City of Atascadero bidding requirements. Rockwood General Contractors, Inc. is the lowest responsive bidder at $108,135.25. Conclusion: Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Rockwood General Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $108,135.25 for construction of the EI Camino Real Barrier Removal Project. FISCAL IMPACT: PROJECTED EXPENDITURES Design @ 10% 10,800.00 Construction 108,135.25 Inspection / Testing / Construction Administration @ 10% 10,800.00 Contingency @ 20% 21,600.00 Total Estimated Expenditure: $151,335.25 AVAILABLE REVENUE Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds $190,000.00 Total Available Revenue: $190,000.00 EXPECTED PROJECT SURPLUS $ 38,664.75 ALTERNATIVES: 1. Do not award the contract and cancel the project 2. Direct staff to redesign and re-bid the project. ATTACHMENT: Bid Summary ITEM NUMBER: A- 7 DATE: 08/14/12 Attachment City of Atascadero Office of'tile City Clerk Bid sllllllllll g V� TO: Public Works FROM: Lisa Cava,Depot'Cit'Clerk ' BID NO.: 2012-006 OPENED: 7/2/2012 HCR-ROSARIO TO SAN JACINTO PROJEC"I': BARRIER REMOVAL PROJF('I' Bids were received and opened today,as follows tiamc of Biddcr 'I'MAL BID-ADDEND[INI 4 BID SHEET ROCKWOOD $108,135.25 V. LOPEZ& SONS $111,805.(x) KIRK CONSTRUCTION $119,116.77 COOKS&SON $124,951,41 R. BURKE CONSTRUCTION $131,308.11) J &P CONSTRUCTION $133,563.60 ARTHURS CONTRACTING $151,274.251 ITEM NUMBER: A- 8 DATE: 8/14/12 1918 � f 19 � A tascadero City Council Staff Report — Public Works Department Purchase of Wastewater Electronic Control and Monitoring System Electronic Components for the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) Phase II Project RECOMMENDATION: Council approve the purchase of the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) electronic control equipment for $213,000.00 from TESCO Incorporated. DISCUSSION: Background: The SCADA Phase II project was bid in June 2012, and two bids were received. All bids were subsequently rejected because of bidding irregularities. Staff has determined that more competitive bids will likely be received if the City purchases and supplies the electronic SCADA equipment to the electrical contractor. Working with Tesco staff has been able to secure a lower price for the equipment. The City purchase will eliminate contractor markup, increase the number of bids, and level the bidding field. Staff believes this will result in a more cost effective project. Analysis: Staff is requesting that the purchase be allowed per City Purchasing Policy III-3.0 which provides for purchases of proprietary software/hardware. In this case, the City has previously evaluated various SCADA control systems and has adopted Tesco's SCADA electronic controls as the proprietary system for the Wastewater Treatment Plant and collection system (lift stations) electronic controls. There is only one distributor of Tesco equipment, therefore this purchase meets the criteria set forth in the purchasing policy. Phase 1 of the project installed Tesco equipment and a master control unit at the Wastewater Treatment Plant, and remote controls at the City's largest lift station at Colony Park (Lift Sta. #5). The proposed Phase 2 project will complete the citywide SCADA project, whereby all City lift stations and the treatment plant will have the same telemetry equipment, with seamless and consistent technology. Using the same manufacturer eliminates the need for integrating dissimilar equipment. ITEM NUMBER: A- 8 DATE: 8/14/12 Once complete all pumps in the system will be able to be monitored, operated and evaluated from the wastewater plant, reducing the need for multiple daily inspections of each site. In anticipation of Council approval, staff has succeeded in negotiating a significant price reduction (approximately $40,000) for the SCADA equipment. The proposed cost includes a 5% discount assuming all the controls are purchased together. Local electrical contractors will now be able to more easily bid and install the equipment without the overhead and mark-up of purchasing, installing and supporting the equipment for the 12-month warranty period. Tesco as part of their proposal will provide start-up, trouble shooting and warranty of the specialized equipment. The equipment will replace existing controllers with new electronic controllers that include radio telemetry at the following lift stations and wastewater facilities: • Pump Station #1 • Pump Station #15 • Pump Station #3 • Treatment Plant Golf Course • Pump Station #4 Well (percolated water is used to • Pump Station #5 water the golf course) • Pump Station #9 • Treatment Plant Influent • Pump Station #11 Flowmeter • Pump Station #13 • Pump Station #14 Conclusion: Staff is requesting that the SCADA Phase II equipment be purchased from Tesco Inc. for $213,000.00. This price reflects the cost of the equipment (includes the 5% reduction), sales tax and shipping. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this agreement will result in the expenditure of $213,000.00 of previously budgeted for the SCADA Phase II capital improvement project. ATTACHMENTS: None ITEM NUMBER: B - 1 DATE: 08/14/12 1918 � f 19 � A tascadero City Council Staff Report — Fire Department Confirming the Cost of Vegetative Growth and/or Refuse Abatement RECOMMENDATION: Council adopt the Draft Resolution, confirming the cost of vegetative growth (weeds) and/or refuse (rubbish) abatement. DISCUSSION: On April 24, 2012 Council adopted Resolution No. 2012-006, declaring vegetative growth and/or refuse a public nuisance, and authorized the Fire Chief to proceed with the abatement process. On April 25, 2012 notices were mailed to property owners, informing them of the City's abatement requirements. An itemized list of the abatement assessments were, by fiscal year, posted with the City Clerk and at the Fire Department — Station #1 on April 25, 2012. A total of 56 parcels were abated. On May 22, 2012 a public hearing was held to hear objections to the vegetative growth & refuse abatement. FISCAL IMPACT: The City will receive $123,461.03 from the 2012/2013 property tax rolls in weed abatement / refuse abatement assessments. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Abatement Assessments FY 11/12 3. Abatement Assessments FY 12/13 ITEM NUMBER: B - 1 DATE: 08/14/12 Attachment 1 DRAFT RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE COST OF VEGETATIVE GROWTH/REFUSE ABATEMENT WHEREAS, the Government Code of the State of California, Section 39500, et seq., provides that cities may declare vegetative growth (weeds) and refuse (rubbish) a public nuisance for the purpose of vegetative growth(weeds) and refuse (rubbish) abatement; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero City Fire Department did abate said nuisances within the provision of the Government Code, Section 39500, et seq.; and WHEREAS, the cost of the work of abatement, including a 150% administrative fee, as shown on the Preliminary Special Tax Listing for 2012/2013 Tax Roll was submitted in accordance with Government Code Section 39574; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Atascadero received the cost report and held a hearing to receive objections of any property owners liable to be assessed for the work of abatement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Atascadero SECTION 1. That the report of abatement costs is confirmed as presented; and SECTION 2. That the costs of abatement constitutes a special assessment against the described parcels and shall be a lien on the property in accordance with Government Code Section 39577; and SECTION 3. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit to the proper officials of the County, a certified copy of the report for filing. ITEM NUMBER: B - 1 DATE: 08/14/12 Attachment 1 On motion by Council Member and seconded by Council Member , the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: CITY OF ATASCADERO By: Bob Kelley,Mayor ATTEST: Marcia McClure Torgerson, C.M.C., City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Brian A. Pierik, City Attorney ITEM NUMBER: B - 1 DATE: 08/14/12 Attachment 2 ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS CITY FY 2011/2012 CO TAX ROLL 2012/2013 Date of Contractor Admin Total Cost of County Total Abatement APN Cost Fee Abatement Fee Assessment Book 28 Total(Book 28) Book 29 06/16/12 029-271-001 $ 880.74 $ 1,321.11 1 $ 2,201.851 $ 2.001 $ 2,203.85 Total(Book 29) $ 880.74 1 $ 1,321.11 1 $ 2,201.85 1 $ 2.00 1 $ 2,203.85 Book 30 6/28/2012 030-261-011 $ 629.10 $ 943.65 $ 1,572.75 $ 2.00 $ 1,574.75 6/11/2012 030-283-007 $ 566.19 $ 849.29 $ 1,415.48 $ 2.00 $ 1,417.48 6/14/2012 030-283-008 $ 1,384.02 $ 2,076.03 $ 3,460.05 $ 2.00 $ 3,462.05 6/21/2012 030-511-001 $ 566.19 $ 849.29 $ 1,415.48 $ 2.00 $ 1,417.48 $ - 1 1 $ - Total(Book 30) $ 3,145.50 $ 4,718.26 $ 7,863.76 $ 8.00 $ 7,871.76 Book 31 6/26/2012 031-082-032 $ 880.74 $ 1,321.11 $ 2,201.85 $ 2.00 $ 2,203.85 6/25/2012 031-114-005 $ 440.37 $ 660.56 $ 1,100.93 $ 2.00 $ 1,102.93 6/25/2012 031-121-001 $ 692.01 $ 1,038.02 $ 1,730.03 $ 2.00 $ 1,732.03 6/27/2012 031-161-044 $ 125.82 $ 188.73 $ 314.55 $ 2.00 $ 316.55 6/27/2012 031-161-045 $ 188.73 $ 283.10 $ 471.83 $ 2.00 $ 473.83 6/27/2012 031-161-046 $ 314.55 $ 471.83 $ 786.38 $ 2.00 $ 788.38 6/27/2012 031-161-047 $ 251.64 $ 377.46 $ 629.10 $ 2.00 $ 631.10 6/27/2012 031-161-048 $ 188.73 $ 283.10 $ 471.83 $ 2.00 $ 473.83 6/27/2012 031-161-049 $ 188.73 $ 283.10 $ 471.83 $ 2.00 $ 473.83 6/27/2012 031-161-050 $ 188.73 $ 283.10 $ 471.83 $ 2.00 $ 473.83 6/27/2012 031-161-051 $ 188.73 $ 283.10 $ 471.83 $ 2.00 $ 473.83 6/13/2012 031-231-028 $ 629.10 $ 943.65 $ 1,572.75 $ 2.00 $ 1,574.75 $ - $ Total(Book 31) $ 4,277.88 $ 61416.86 $ 10,694.74 $ 24.00 $ 10,718.74 Book 45 6/8/2012 045-321-020 $ 1,195.29 $ 1,792.94 $ 2,988.23 $ 2.00 $ 2,990.23 6/9/2012 045-321-021 $ 754.92 $ 1,132.38 $ 1,887.30 $ 2.00 $ 1,889.30 6/9/2012 045-321-022 $ 692.01 $ 1,038.02 $ 1,730.03 $ 2.00 $ 1,732.0y- 6/1612012 045401-003 $ 2,390.58 $ 3,585.87 $ 5,976.45 $ 2.00 $ 5,978.45 6/13/2012 045-401-004 $ 2,013.12 $ 3,019.68 $ 5,032.80 $ 2.00 $ 5,034.80 $ - $ Total(Book 45) $ 7,045.92 $10,568.89 $ 17,614.81 $ 10.00 $ 17,624.81 ITEM NUMBER: B - 1 DATE: 08/14/12 Attachment 2 ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS CITY FY 2011/2012 CO TAX ROLL 2012/2013 Date of Contractor Admin Total Cost of County Total Abatement APN Cost Fee Abatement Fee Assessment Book 49 6/19/20,12 049-131-070 S 2,264.76 S 3,39714 $ 5;661.90 S 2.00 $ 5.663.90 6/29/2012 049-225-019 S 1,006 56 S L509 84 $ 2.51640 S 200 $ 2.518.40 S $ Total (Book 49) S 3.271.32 S 4.906.98 $ 8.178.30 S 4.00 $ 8.182.30 Book 50 6iT2012 050-081-001 S 754.92 S 1.132.38 $ 1,887.30 S 2.00 $ 1.889.30 6/7/2012 050-181-002 $ '1,572.75 S 2;359.13 $ 3;931.88 $ 2.00 $ 3.933.88 6/25/2012 050-312-013 $ 1,824.39 S 21736.59 $ 4,560.98 $ 2.00 $ 4.562.98 6/22/2012 050-312-017 $ 1,321.11 $ 1;981.67 $ 3.302.78 $ 2.00 $ 3.304.78 S Total (Book 50)1 S 5.473.17 S 8.209.77 $ 13.682.94 S 8.00 S 13.690.94 Book 54 6:5!2012 064-043-006 S 2,642.22 S 3,963.33 $ (3;605.55 S 200 $ 6.607.55 6!20!20 12 054-051-068 S 1,384.02 S 2.076.03 $ 3.460.05 S 2.00 $ 3.462.05 S Total (Book 54) S 4.026.24 S 6.039.36 $ 10.065.60 S 4.00 S 10.069.60 Book 56 06/21/2012 056-091-051 S 1,195.29 S 1.792.94 $ 2988.23 S 2.00 $ 2.990.23 6/29/20,12 056-312-007 S 503.28 S 754.92 $ 1.258.20 S 2.00 $ 1.260.20 S Total (Book 56) S 1.698.57 S 2.547.86 $ 4.246.43 S 4.00 $ 4.250.43 S Grand Total $29.819.34 544.729.09 $ 74.548.43 S 64.00 S 74.612.43 ITEM NUMBER: B - 1 DATE: 08/14/12 Attachment 3 ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS CITY FY 2012/2013 CO TAX ROLL 2012/2013 Date of Contractor Admin Total Cost of County Total Abatement APN Cost Fee Abatement Fee Assessment Book 28 07/12/2012 028-271-013 $ 251.64 $ 377.46 $ 629.10 $ 2.00 $ 631.10 07/20/2012 028-292-013 $ 692.01 $ 1,038.02 $ 1,730.03 $ 2.00 $ 1,732.03 Total(Book 28) $ 943.65 $ 1,415.48 $ 2,359.13 $ 4.00 $ 2,363.13 Book 29 07/17/12 029-041-015 $ 377.46 $ 566.19 $ 943.65 $ 2.00 $ 945.65 07/11/12 029-322-024 $ 566.19 $ 849.29 $ 1,415.48 $ 2.00 $ 1,417.48 07/10/12 029-331-003 $ 314.55 $ 471.83 $ 786.38 $ 2.00 $ 788.38 Total(Book 29) $ 1,258.20 $ 1,887.31 1 $ 3,145.51 1 $ 6.00 1 $ 3,151.51 Book 30 7/12/2012 030-172-020 $ 440.37 $ 660.56 $ 1,100.93 $ 2.00 $ 1,102.93 7/6/2012 030-491-001 $ 503.28 $ 754.92 $ 1,258.20 $ 2.00 $ 1,260.20 Total(Book 30) $ 943.65 $ 1,415.48 $ 2,359.13 $ 4.00 $ 2,363.13 Book 31 7/13/2012 031-112-005 $ 188.73 $ 283.10 $ 471.83 $ 2.00 $ 473.83 Total (Book 31) $ 188.73 $ 283.10 $ 471.83 $ 2.00 $ 473.83 Book 49 7/13/2012 049-112-005 $ 2,768.04 $ 4,152.06 $ 6,920.10 $ 2.00 $ 6,922.10 7/12/2012 049-221-052 $ 629.10 $ 943.65 $ 1,572.75 $ 2.00 $ 1,574.75 07/16/12 049-231-005 $ 1,321.11 $ 1,981.67 $ 3,302.78 $ 2.00 $ 3,304.78 Total(Book 49) $ 4,718.25 1 $ 7,077.38 1 $ 11,795.63 1 $ 6.00 $ 11,801.63 Book 50 7/5/2012 050-021-002 $ 692.01 $ 1,038.02 $ 1,730.03 $ 2.00 $ 1,732.03 7/13/2012 050-021-037 $ 440.37 $ 660.56 $ 1,100.93 $ 2.00 $ 1,102.93 7/5/2012 050-091-004 $ 62.91 $ 94.37 $ 157.28 $ 2.00 $ 159.28 7/5/2012 050-091-021 $ 629.10 $ 943.65 $ 1,572.75 $ 2.00 $ 1,574.75 7/2/2012 050-251-015 1 $ 2,768.04 $ 4,152.06 1 $ 6,920.10 1 $ 2-001 $ 6,922.10 7/18/2012 050-331-002 $ 817.83 $ 1,226.75 1 $ 2,044.58 $ 2.00 $ 2,046.58 $ - I I $ - Total(Book 50) $ 5,410.26 1 $ 8,115.41 1 $ 13,525.67 1 $ 12.001 $ 13,537.67 ITEM NUMBER: B - 1 DATE: 08/14/12 Attachment 3 ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS CITY FY 2012/2013 CO TAX ROLL 2012/2013 Date of Contractor Admin Total Cost of County Total Abatement APN Cost Fee Abatement Fee Assessment Book 55 7/9/2012 055-161-031 $ 817.83 $ 1,226.75 $ 2,044.58 $ 2.00 $ 2,046.58 7/9/2012 055-161-032 $ 943.65 $ 1,415.48 $ 2,359.13 $ 2.00 $ 2,361.13 7/7/2012 055-161-038 $ 440.37 $ 660.56 $ 1,100.93 $ 2.00 $ 1,102.93 7/7/2012 055-161-039 $ 503.28 $ 754.92 $ 1,25820 $ 2.00 $ 1,260.20 7/6/2012 055-161-040 $ 817.83 $ 1,226.75 $ 2,044.58 $ 2.00 $ 2,046.58 Total(Book 55) $ 3,522.96 1 $ 5,284.46 $ 8,807.42 $ 10.00 $ 8,817.42 Book 56 $ - $ - 07/18/2012 056-371-045 $ 2,076.03 $ 3,114.05 $ 5,190.08 $ 2.00 $ 5,192.08 07/06/2012 056-381-009 $ 503.28 $ 754.92 $ 1,258.20 $ 2.00 $ 1,260.20 Total(Book 56) $ 2,579.31 $ 3,868.97 $ 6,448.28 $ 4.00 $ 6,452.28 Grand Total 1 $19,565.01 1 $29,347.59 1 $ 48,912.60 $ 48.00 1 $ 48,960.60 ITEM NUMBER: C - 1 DATE: 08/14/12 F_IFm0j�ijj6 n IT 1979 Atascadero City Council Staff Report - City Attorney's Office ARTery Mural and City Sign Code RECOMMENDATIONS: Council: 1. Vacate Administrative Hearing Officer (Design Review Committee) Resolution No. 2012-005 denying PLN 2012-1437 and Administrative Use Permit 2012-0060 to allow for an artistic mural on the wall of the ARTery store located at 5890 Traffic Way; and, 2. Direct staff to study possible amendments to the City's Sign Code (Chapter 9-15) that would clarify the Code's application to noncommercial signs, particularly murals, and provide enhanced design review procedures and guidelines for considering applications for murals and other noncommercial signs; and, 3. Direct that the City take no further action regarding the ARTery mural or PLN 2012-1437. DISCUSSION: On June 21, 2012, the Design Review Committee (DRC) acting as the hearing officer adopted Resolution No. 2012-005 denying an application for an Administrative Use Permit to allow for an artistic mural of a stylized tree ("Mural") painted on the wall of the ARTery store located at 5890 Traffic Way. The application was scheduled for reconsideration by the DRC, but has instead been referred to the City Council due, in part, to the contention of the owners of the ARTery that because the Mural is a work of "art," it is noncommercial speech and therefore it cannot be regulated by the City. They are relying on a 1983 opinion from a California Court of Appeal case involving a mural in the City of Indio in support of their position.' City of Indio v. Arroyo (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 151 ("City of Indio'). ITEM NUMBER: C - 1 DATE: 08/14/12 For the reasons set forth in this report, it is the opinion of our office that the City of Indio case does not reflect the current state of the law with respect to the regulation of signage, and that murals, including noncommercial murals, may be regulated by the City. Nevertheless, some of the defects in the sign ordinance at issue in the City of Indio case underscore the need for well-drafted sign regulations; and because there are some ambiguities in the City's Sign Code with respect to its application to noncommercial murals and the standards by which they are to be regulated, we recommend that the City Council vacate the action by the DRC and refrain taking any further action with respect to the Mural. The Mural, like the written or spoken word, is a form of artistic expression and enjoys protection under the Free Speech Clause of the United States Constitution as well as the comparable provisions of the California Constitution. Since the City of Indio case was decided in 1983, however, a considerable body of case law has developed establishing both a municipality's right to regulate speech in the form of signage, including noncommercial speech, and the parameters of such regulation. Indeed, in the following year the United States Supreme Court upheld a City of Los Angeles ordinance that not only regulated but banned the posting of all signs (including noncommercial political signs) on public property.2 The Supreme Court held that the "problem addressed by this ordinance—the visual assault on the citizens of Los Angeles presented by an accumulation of signs posted on public property—constitutes a significant substantive evil within the City's power to prohibit.,3 The Supreme Court went on to note in the City of Los Angeles case that "the First Amendment does not guarantee the right to employ every conceivable method of communication at all times and in all places.,4 In another subsequent case, the Supreme Court identified the unique issues presented by signs and outlined some of the bases for their regulation by local government: "Unlike oral speech, signs take up space and may obstruct views, distract motorists, displace alternative uses for land, and pose other problems that legitimately call for regulation. It is common ground that governments may regulate the physical characteristics of signs -- just as they can, within reasonable bounds and absent censorial purpose, regulate audible expression in its capacity as noise."5 At present, many cities directly regulate murals as a form of "signage" and those regulations, if properly drafted, have been upheld by the courts.6 For example, the sign regulations at issue in the more recent City of West Hollywood case allow murals only if 2 Members of City Council of City of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent(1984)466 U.S. 789 ("City of Los Angeles"). 3 City of Los Angeles, 466 U.S. at 807. 4 City of Los Angeles, 466 U.S. at 812. 5 City of Ladue v. Gilleo (1991) 512 U.S. 43, 48. 6 See Wag More Dogs, Ltd. v. Cozart(4th Cir. 2012) 680 F.3d 359 [upholding city order requiring business to cover over unpermitted commercial mural]; Davis Glick Partnership v. City of Los Angeles (2006) 2006 WL 772887 (nonpublished) [ upholding order requiring removal of unpermitted mural]; and Beverly Boulevard LLC v. City of West Hollywood(9th Cir. 2007) 238 Fed. Appx. 210 [upholding removal of noncommercial art mural that was erected without a permit or approval] ("City of West Hollywood"). ITEM NUMBER: C - 1 DATE: 08/14/12 approved by that city's fine arts commission or by permit based on specified size and other design criteria. Applying these and other applicable legal precedents to the Mural, the initial question is whether the City's Sign Code specifically regulates noncommercial murals. To begin, we note that the Sign Code does not contain an express definition of or even a reference to "murals." At best, the Sign Code's general definition of "sign" encompasses a "graphic" image, but only to the extent that its purpose is to "advertise, announce the purpose of or identify the purpose of a person or entity, or to communicate information of any kind to the public."8 While this definition is certainly applicable to a mural painted on a wall for commercial advertising (i.e., "commercial speech"), there appears to be some ambiguity as to its application to the subject Mural, which is merely a stylized depiction of a tree. This image should be considered "noncommercial speech" and, if considered a "sign," would be deemed "noncommercial signage."9 Although, as set forth above, the City may regulate both commercial and noncommercial signage provided that it does not favor commercial speech over noncommercial speech,10 the ambiguity in the City's definition of "sign" in terms of its application to noncommercial murals casts some uncertainty as to the application of the Sign Code in this particular matter. Assuming that the regulations of the Sign Code were deemed applicable to noncommercial murals, the second and perhaps more critical issue is what design standards and criteria would apply to guide the review process. Although Section 9- 15.001 (g) of the Sign Code indicates that "noncommercial signage [is permitted] wherever other signage is permitted within Chapter 9-15 subject to the same standards and total maximum allowances for a site of each sign type specified in [the] chapter," it is not clear how such standards would be applied to a noncommercial mural. For example, a sign located in the City's Downtown District is subject to design review "for consistency with the Downtown Design Guidelines."11 These Guidelines, however, are primarily directed at commercial signage. And while the Sign Code does provide that wall signs are to be "consistent with the architectural style and features of the building fapade," this type of generalized guidance could lead to inconsistent results. In order to meet the applicable legal test for a content-neutral time, place and manner regulation of noncommercial speech, the City's Sign Code must contain adequate standards to guide an official's decision.12 Although "perfect clarity and precise guidance have never been required even of regulations that restrict expressive See City of West Hollywood Municipal Code section 19.34.0908.6 [`Murals are prohibited except for tall wall signs in compliance with Section 19.34.080(1), or those approved by the Fine Arts Commission"]. 8 Atascadero Municipal Code § 9-15.002(tt). 9 See Atascadero Municipal Code § 9-15.002(0) "Commercial Speech. Any message, the prevailing thrust of which is to propose a commercial transaction; " (ee) "Noncommercial Speech. Any message which is not determined to be commercial speech as defined herein.;" and (dd)"Noncommercial Signage. Any signage which is not determined to be commercial signage, as defined herein." 10 See Reed v. Town of Gilbert(9th Cir. 2009) 587 F.3d 966, 982 [municipality must refrain from favoring commercial over noncommercial speech]. 11 Atascadero Municipal Code § 9-15.005(b)(2). 12 See Thomas v. Chicago Park Dist. (2002) 534 U.S. 316, 323. ITEM NUMBER: C - 1 DATE: 08/14/12 activity,03 at present, the Sign Code appears to lack sufficient standards and criteria for guiding decisions with respect to noncommercial murals. For the reasons outlined above, our office recommends that the City vacate the action of the DRC with respect to the Mural and refrain from taking any further action until the City has studied possible amendments to the Sign Code that would clarify its scope and application to noncommercial signs, including murals, and provide enhanced design review procedures and guidelines for considering applications for murals and other noncommercial signs. FISCAL IMPACT: None, with respect to the recommendation to vacate DRC Resolution 2012-005. Staff and attorney time would be incurred with respect to studying possible amendments to the Sign Code. ALTERNATIVES: Such other action as the Council may direct. ATTACHMENT: Administrative Hearing Officer (Design Review Committee) Resolution No. 2012-005. 13 ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989)491 U.S. 781, 794. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER APPROVED RESOLUTION 2012-0005 DENIAL OF PLN 2012-14379 JN -' ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT 2012-0060 CITY OF ArASCA KANIIN TO ALLOW AN ARTISTIC WALL MURAL IN THE DOWNTOWN COMMERICAL ZONE (APN 029-322-010) AT 5890 TRAFFIC WAY THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DOES HEREBY RESOLVE THAT: WHEREAS, a request has been received from William Arkfeld, 9135 Santa Margarita Road, Atascadero, CA 93422 (Owner/Applicant)to allow an artistic wall mural in the Downtown Commercial zone, located at 5890 Traffic Way, Atascadero, CA 93422 (APN 029- 322-010); and, WHEREAS, the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15270, Projects Which Are Disapproved; and, WHEREAS,the Design Review Committee acting as the Hearing Officer of the City of Atascadero held a duly noticed Administrative Use Permit Hearing at the City Hall on June 21, 2012; at 3:30 pm; and, NOW, THEREFORE,the Design Review Committee of the city of Atascadero, acting as the hearing officer herby makes the following findings and determinations: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF DENIAL. The Design Review Committee finds that: (i) The Administrative Use Permit does not meet the required findings consistent with 9- 12(d) of the City of Atascadero Municipal Code due to the following: The proposed wall mural is inconsistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood due to the size and location of the wall murals. DENIED SECTION 2. Denial, The Design Review Committee does hereby deny Administrative Use Permit 2012-0060, as shown in Exhibit A and B, wall murals on the structure located on APN 029-211-010 (5890 Traffic Way). The applicant shall repaint the wall(s) to its previous color scheme or an approved color scheme by either City Staff or the Design Review Committee within 30 days of this denial. AYES: Chairperson Fonzi, Vice Chairperson Kelley, Committee Members, (4) Ward and DeCarli NOES: Cooper (1) ABSENT: None (0) ABSTAIN: None (0) ADOPTED: 6-21-12 CITY OF ATASCADERO, CA C Roberta Fonzi, Chair er n of the Design Review Committee Designated Hearing Officer Attest: arren M. Frace Planning Commission Secretary \\cityhall\cdvlpmnt\-12 pins\pin 2012-1437 aup artery mural\resolutiuon 2012-1437.doex Exhibit A: Mural Elevation - Southside PLN 2012-1437/AUP 2012-0060 / DRC 2012-0025 5890 Traffic Way � gin:� r•,, v p r s Area of wall mural to be removed Exhibit B: Mural Elevation -West Side PLN 2012-1437/ AUP 2012-0060 / DRC 2012-0025 5890 Traffic Way w' E AWL Eld f 2 3 x p 1r Area of wall mural to be removed ITEM NUMBER: C - 2 DATE: 08/14/12 191l8 If178 City of Atascadero Staff Report — City Manager's Office Promotions Request for Proposals RECOMMENDATIONS: Council: 1. Approve the Promotions Request for Proposals; and, 2. Approve $176,000 for the Promotions Program; appropriating $131 ,120 from General Fund Reserves and reallocating $44,880 from the Transfer to RDA for Tourism Fund account. DISCUSSION: Background. The City Council has identified Promotions as a Strategic Initiative. The Promotions activities were previously implemented through a coordinated relationship with the Redevelopment Agency. With the elimination of Redevelopment, the City Council has decided to support and expand the program using General Fund resources. The Council approved an interim agreement with S. W. Martin and Associates to continue a set of skeleton programs to keep the effort moving. The City Council held a study session with promotions and marketing experts from around the City and County. This committee discussed and identified a variety of approaches for Atascadero and came to consensus on creating a Request for Proposals (RFP). The RFP would be structured to find a firm or person that can lead the City's promotions program. The RFP includes updating the City's Marketing Plan, creating measurements for success and implementing the Promotions Program. The committee included representatives from the County Visitors and Conference Bureau, local hotels, local restaurants, professional marketing experts, Chamber of Commerce, Main Street and others. John Peschong of Meridian Pacific and Stacie Jacob of the San Luis Obispo Visitors and Conference Bureau assisted in developing the RFP being proposed to the Council. The RFP requires proposals to be submitted by September 13, 2012. The proposals will be screened by a group of marketing professionals, and the top individuals or firms ITEM NUMBER: C - 2 DATE: 08/14/12 will be interviewed before a panel that will include two Council Members. Final selection of a Consultant would be recommended to the full Council. This should allow time to begin a contract relationship in November. The RFP indicates a first year budget of $104,000 (8 months) and anticipates a future year budget of $130,000. These amounts were derived from discussions with representatives from the industry and calculations of the funds set aside by the City Council. We have learned that the "Agency Fees" which are for the consultant's staff time and creativity are approximately 20 to 40% of the total cost; the remaining costs are for implementation (actually creating and placing articles and ads, etc.) and printing materials. As an example, if the budget was expected to be $100,000, we would expect $20,000 to $40,000 to go to Agency fees and the remaining $60,000 to $80,000 to go toward implementing the marketing plan and evaluating its effectiveness. The Council identified $176,000 for the promotions efforts which is broken down below: Total Promotions Budget $176,000 Savor $ 12,000 SLOVCB $ 10,000 Opportunity $ 24,000 Promotions contract $130,000 This budget provides for the annual membership in the San Luis Obispo Visitors and Conference Bureau and participation in Savor the Central Coast. It also provides $24,000 for "opportunities" the Council may direct such as the July 4t" celebration or portable infrastructure. The remaining $130,000 is well within the range for a viable promotions program, as we have learned from the experts. In this first year of the contract, there are eight (8) months remaining which proportionately would be a budget of $104,000, which works with the expenses the City has already committed to such as the interim promotions contract and Savor. FISCAL IMPACT: The City Council earmarked $176,000.00 for Promotion activities. The current budget includes $44,880 of that total; the remainder would come from General Fund Reserves. ATTACHMENT: Draft Request for Proposal for Promotions Services ITEM NUMBER: C - 2 DATE: 08/14/12 Attachment CITY OF ATASCADERO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL Public Relations and Marketing Program The City of Atascadero is currently soliciting proposals for professional public relations and marketing services for a 20-month period, from November 2012 through June 2014, with the possibility of contract renewal. The City of Atascadero's mission is to position, brand and promote Atascadero as a choice destination to live, work, visit and hold events. Proposal respondents should specifically address each and every program element described in the request for proposal; failure to do so without a clearly stated rationale for exception may provide grounds for rejection. If interested and qualified, please submit an electronic copy of your proposal in Microsoft Word and Adobe PDF formats by 4:00 p.m. on September 13, 2012 to the attention of Wade G. McKinney, City Manager, City of Atascadero, at wmckinney@atascadero.org . Please direct all correspondence to his attention at this address. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL 1. All proposals shall be submitted electronically in Microsoft Word and Adobe PDF formats to wmckinney@atascadero.org by 4:00 p.m. on September 13, 2012. Late proposals will not be considered. 2. All correspondence should be directed to the attention of Wade G. McKinney, City Manager, City of Atascadero, at wmckinney@atascadero.org. 3. Costs of preparation of proposals will be borne solely by the proposer. 4. Proposals shall not exceed 15 (fifteen) pages. 5. Selection of qualified proposals will be approved by accepted City of Atascadero procedure for awarding professional contracts. 6. This request for proposal does not constitute an offer of employment or to contract for services. ITEM NUMBER: C -2 DATE: 08/14/12 Attachment 7. City of Atascadero reserves the option to reject any and all proposals, wholly or in part, received as a result of this request for proposal. 8. City of Atascadero reserves the option to retain all proposals, whether selected or rejected. Once submitted, the proposals become the property of City of Atascadero. 9. All proposals shall remain firm for 90 days following closing date for receipt of proposals. 10. City of Atascadero reserves the right to award the contract to the individual or firm whose proposal best accomplishes in the judgment of City of Atascadero the desired results, and shall include, but not be limited to, a consideration of professional service fees. 11. Selection will be made on the basis of proposals as submitted. City of Atascadero retains the right to interview applicants as part of the selection process. 12. Proceedings of the selection committee are confidential. Members of the selection committee are not to be contacted by firms responding to this request for proposal. PROPOSAL SELECTION City of Atascadero is interested in an applicant or firm's ability to both deliver a big picture, strategic perspective and to execute tactical detail needed to meet strategies and objectives in timely fashion and within budget. Winning proposal will include the following elements: goal; objective; strategy; tactics; plan implementation details; timeline; success measurements and detailed budget. PROPOSAL FORMAT 1. Title 2. Applicant or Firm Name, address, phone and email. 3. Applicant and Firm's Qualifications. • Limit to one page and provide two past projects with specific measurable results. • Please also provide five professional references, three of which are current clients. Include name, title, company, phone number and email address. • Please include if your company is currently working for any tourism related businesses or organizations within San Luis Obispo County. 4. Proposal. Proposal will not to exceed 15 pages. • Address all program elements outlined in Project Description. • Describe staffing and list any outside contractors (and qualifications) to be used to fulfill contract. • Provide timeline of tasks to be accomplished once contract is approved. ITEM NUMBER: C -2 DATE: 08/14/12 Attachment • Outline budget (staff time plus out-of-pocket expenses) for each proposal element. The budget should describe Agency Fees and Implementation Costs as separate items. EVALUATION CRITERIA. The selection committee, in its sole discretion, may assign rating weights to the following criteria, and may also consider any other factors that it considers relevant to making its recommendation. • Understanding of the nature of services by City of Atascadero. • Strategic depth and overall creativity of proposal. • Responsiveness to all elements outlined in the request for proposal. • Outline of proposed fees for services and expenses within stated budget. • Experience and results in performing the services desired by City of Atascadero. REQUEST FOR PROPSAL SCHEDULE • Release request for proposal August 15, 2012 • RFP proposal deadline September 13, 2012 • Notify applicants September 24, 2012 • Interview applicants Week of October 1, 2012 • City Council approve contract October 23, 2012 • Effective date of contract November 1, 2012 SCOPE OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL The City of Atascadero is seeking an individual or firm that will research, analyze, gather insight, build a strategy and execute a results-oriented and measurable public relations and marketing plan that will position Atascadero as a choice destination to live, work, visit and hold events. Primary geographic target markets are defined within a 3 to 5 hour driving time radius and include Southern California, San Joaquin Valley and Northern California. Public relations and marketing services anticipated throughout this 20-month program, with the possibility of contract renewal, will include, but are not limited to, the following elements. • Research o Build and collect quantitative and qualitative research data to help understand the approach to visitors. Effective communications all depend on choosing the right words — it's not what you say but how you say it. Database management will help track key audiences. ITEM NUMBER: C -2 DATE: 08/14/12 Attachment • Analysis o Analysis of data and research will lead you to some key findings. Create list of Atascadero-specific trends and develop year-round stories (travel, food, coastal and outdoor activities, and lifestyle experience opportunities) for use as robust content to communicate to key audiences on a proactive, ongoing basis. A well-grounded interpretation of the key findings will help determine the strategy we will have to implement in order to execute a well-branded campaign. • Insight o A thorough understanding of the research will help the City Administration anticipate the insight and tactical approach to attract and retain stakeholders in Atascadero. • Strategy o Our strategy includes a three step approach (1) educate the media, community and key audiences about Atascadero as the optimal destination to visit, live, and work; (2) identify key influencers in Atascadero and San Luis Obispo County who can speak to the benefits of visiting Atascadero; (3) communicate to key audiences in Southern California, San Joaquin Valley and Northern California a persuasive message that will convince them to visit, relocate and invest in Atascadero. • Create o Create a marketing plan based on Research, Insight and Strategy to effectively target tourists well suited for Atascadero. The marketing plan will encompass a variety of elements including, but not limited to: public relations, multi-purpose informational kit, cooperation with the SLOCVCB and other community partners (Main Street and Atascadero Chamber), social media, marketing, etc. • Execute o Execute a plan that includes branding, marketing, promotions, paid media advertising, earned media and new media. For a message to stick, we believe it must be seen or heard eight times. Advertising with print ads, electronic ads and direct mail pieces will primarily focus on Atascadero's attractive outdoor, coastal lifestyle. ITEM NUMBER: C - 2 DATE: 08/14/12 Attachment • Budget. o The estimated overall budget for Atascadero public relations and marketing services in this request for proposal is $104,000 for Agency Fees and Implementation Costs allocated to the first eight months once contract is approved. Budget for following 12 months will be based on the City of Atascadero budget and recommendations from contractor and is targeted to be approximately $130,000. o Proposal should outline budget fees, Agency Fees and Implementation Costs for each proposed program element. • Administration. o Successful individual or firm will provide monthly reports to City of Atascadero, City Manager and at least quarterly meetings (more if programs dictate) in person with City Manager and City staff. o Monthly reports will be produced the last day of the month. Invoices will be submitted on the last day of the month. ITEM NUMBER: C - 3 DATE: 08/14/12 n m 'N ff IF � ,1 lm C AAD 7 A tascadero City Council Staff Report — City Manager's Office Potential Hotel Development at Home Depot Center — Request for Deferred Payment of Development Fees RECOMMENDATIONS: Council: 1. Approve the proposal from Atascadero 101 Associates to defer payment of development fees over a period of five years for construction of a 130-room suites hotel and banquet facility at the Home Depot Center; and, 2. Direct staff to negotiate details and prepare final documents for City Council consideration. DISCUSSION: Background: On March 16, 1999, the Planning Commission approved all of the environmental documentation necessary to construct 239,000 square feet of retail at EI Camino Real and San Ramon Road. On August 3, 1999, the Planning Commission approved an amendment of Phase 1 to include a 128,000 square foot home improvement center, The Home Depot. Phase 1, located on the east side of EI Camino Real has been mostly developed on the site which now includes The Home Depot, Staples, Starbucks, a mattress store and a nail spa. There is still additional space for retail on the site. Phase 2 of the site, located on the west side of EI Camino Real has not been developed. Since this time amendments have been approved for the site to make modifications to the retail buildings, but there has been no interest in developing the site. Both the developer and staff worked to develop Phase 2 for several years. It became apparent as the economy slowed that it would be difficult to find an interested retailer for the site; and, working with the property owner, Westar Associates, staff began to look into other uses. At the same time, tourism to the area was increasing significantly and hotels were being built throughout the North County. The site, based on its proximity to vineyards and tasting rooms, views of the countryside and easy freeway ITEM NUMBER: C - 3 DATE: 08/14/12 access and visibility, provided a great opportunity for a hotel. On January 8, 2008 the City Council adopted an ordinance amending Planned Development Overlay District Number 9, to allow for hotels, motels, and eating and drinking places with drive-through facilities on the site. Since this time, the Office of Economic Development has been aggressively marketing the site for a hotel. Meetings were set up at International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) conferences, marketing materials were developed, consultants, brokers and hotel owners were contacted and meetings continued to be held with the property owner. There were a few times when it appeared a hotel operator was interested and a deal could be put together, but each time the opportunity fell through as a result of the project finances being too tight or financing being unavailable. Despite these setbacks, the City has continued to work to promote the site. Proposed Project Once again a hotel operator is showing strong interest in the site and a tentative package is being put together between the hotel operator, property owner, and the developer, Atascadero 101 Associates. The proposed project includes a four story, 130-room suites hotel that would be operated by an internationally known and publicly traded company. In addition, a banquet facility would be included at the hotel. Construction costs for the building are estimated at $20 million. Once the hotel is built, the developer believes enough interest could be generated to complete the remaining commercial development opportunities at the site. As the economy is still recovering slowly and lending is still difficult, the financing for the project is tight and the developer has sent the City a letter requesting a deferral of payment for development fees. This request is attached (Attachment A). The Proposal The developer is proposing that the City allow the payment of development fees over time to be spread out over five years. Development fees are estimated at $610,220. Permit processing fees of approximately $110,000 would be paid as permits were issued. Specifically, the request is to: • Amortize payments of the development fees of $610,220 over 10 years at 0.98% interest. • The interest rate being suggested is based on the last quarter's (June 2012) yield on the City's investment pool. Staff is recommending that this rate be a variable rate instead of a fixed rate. This would need to be negotiated with Atascadero 101 Associates. • Full payment would be made in five years. Payments would be approximately $65,000 annually, with a balance of $309,279 due at five years. • The note would be secured with a second deed of trust, behind the construction loan. • Permit processing would be expedited. ITEM NUMBER: C - 3 DATE: 08/14/12 While this proposal would result in a delay of payment for development fees, the City would realize increased property taxes of approximately $32,000 annually and increased transient occupancy taxes of approximately $350,000 annually. Sales taxes from visitors' spending money in the community and from potential new businesses in the area could increase the annual revenues to close to $400,000. A specific site plan and details of development are still being pulled together. Once specific deal points are approved by the developer, property owner and hotel operator and project specifics are developed, staff will return to the City Council with documentation for final approval of the fee deferral. FISCAL IMPACT: As a result of this development, permit fees of approximately $110,000 and development fees of $610,220 will be received. Because these fees will be paid over time, the development fees will not be immediately available. Future projects that would benefit from these development fees can be planned as the fees are paid or when the loan is paid off. As a result of the loan, a small amount of interest income would also be realized annually of approximately $5,000. Once the hotel is open, annual increases in General Fund revenue will be significant with annual revenues close to $400,000 being realized. This amount could increase if the shopping center was fully developed as a result of the increased development in the area. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Accept the developer's request for assistance with modifications. 2. Deny the developer's request for assistance. 3. Request more information from the developer and/or staff. ATTACHMENT: Letter of Request from Atascadero 101 Associates ITEM NUMBER: C - 3 DATE: 08/14/12 Attachment ATASCADERO 101 ASSOCIATES 2925 BRISTOL STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 August 3,2012 James R.Lewis,ICMA-CM City of Atascadero 6907 El Camino Real Atascadero,CA 93422 Re: Development Impact Fees Atascadero Dear Jim: As discussed previously with Mayor Kelley,we are negotiating with a hotel developer/operator for a 130-room Suites Hotel that would include a banquet facility. We are trying to entice the developer to choose our site and are trying to make this project economically viable. This hotel would be a great benefit to the City with its bed tax of approximately$350,000 per year and an increase of property taxes,based on improvements,of almost$20 million. It would also hopefully provide a draw to the site which would allow us to attract other retail tenants to the City. We have spent millions of dollars developing this site,constructing infrastructure improvements but have struggled to attract and sustain new retailers. This hotel could hopefully generate other new businesses for the site and finish the entire development. As such,we would like to propose that the City allow us to spread out the payment of the Development Impact Fees,approximately$719,359,for the hotel development. An actual payment of$109,139 would be made as the project progresses and permits were pulled. The remaining$610,220 would be amortized over 10 years at.98%interest with an annual payment of$65,000,with a balance of$309,279 due in 5 years. We would also secure this note with a second deed of trust,behind the construction loan,provided the lender approves the tetras of this proposal. Jim,I think this would be a win-win proposal for both the City of Atascadero and Atascadero 101 Associates. Please let me know if you need anything further from me. Sincerely, ATASCADERO 101 ASSOCIATES 111U3 . Mark D.Hulme Partner/CFO Cc: Peter J.Koetting ITEM NUMBER: C -4 DATE: 08/14/12 r 1978 , �y Atascadero City Council Staff Report - City Manager's Office Draft Response to Grand Jury Report "A Vital Function of the Judicial System: Law Enforcement Property and Evidence Rooms" RECOMMENDATION: Council approve the Draft Response to the Grand Jury Report Form and authorize the City Manager to execute the document on the City Council's behalf. DISCUSSION: In 2011-2012 the San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury decided to examine all law enforcement agency property and evidence rooms within the County to determine compliance with recommended policies of recognized property/evidence organizations, as well as with their own internal policies. The Grand Jury reviewed the current Property and Evidence System Audit Guide published by the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) and other documents produced by both state and national property/evidence associations. The Grand Jury also spoke with consultants specializing in the field of property/evidence room evaluations. Finally the Grand Jury conducted on-site inspections and spoke with representatives from each agency tasked with oversight of their respective property/evidence rooms. In June 2012, the Grand Jury submitted a new report to the City entitled, "A Vital Function of the Judicial System- Law Enforcement Property and Evidence Rooms," and asked for a response from the legislative body. Staff has prepared the attached response for Council's review and approval. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ITEM NUMBER: C -4 DATE: 08/14/12 ALTERNATIVES: The City Council may revise the response to the Grand Jury before approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Response to Grand Jury Report Form 2. San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report ITEM NUMBER: C -4 DATE: 08/14/12 Attachment 1 Response to Grand Jury Report Form Report Title: "A VITAL FUNCTON OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM: LAW ENFORCEMENT PROPERTY AND EVIDENCE ROOMS." Report Date: The Grand Jury Report is undated, but was sent to the City by correspondence from the Grand Jury dated June 5, 2012. Authorized Responder: Mayor Bob Kelley FINDINGS: We agree with the findings numbered: 2 RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendations numbered 1, 9 and 12 have been implemented, a summary is attached. Date: August 14, 2012 Signed: Bob Kelley, Mayor Number of pages attached 1 ITEM NUMBER: C -4 DATE: 08/14/12 Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT TO GRAND JURY REPORT FORM RESPONSE BY CITY OF ATASCADERO Report Title: "A VITAL FUNCTON OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM: LAW ENFORCEMENT PROPERTY AND EVIDENCE ROOMS." RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Recommendation: All law enforcement agencies in the County should adhere to their respective policies relating to property/evidence room inspections. This recommendation relates to Finding No. 2. Response to Recommendation No.1 : The Atascadero Police Department will continue to adhere to policies pertaining to evidence room inspections as it has in the past. The Atascadero Police Department recognizes the findings of the Grand Jury (Finding No. 2) that they are in compliance with this recommendation. The Atascadero Police Department is in the final stages of implementation of the newly adopted Lexipol Policy Manual and will take care to follow the provisions of the manual as it relates to property/evidence room inspections. 9. Recommendation: All personnel assigned to property/evidence rooms in the county should continue their training and/or update their knowledge through professional organizations. It is also highly recommended that they join the county chapter of CAPE. Response to Recommendation No. 9: The Atascadero Police Department Property Specialist currently attends, and will continue to attend, training through the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), California Association for Property and Evidence (CAPE) and other professional associations whose goal it is to educate law enforcement professionals and improve upon current evidence collection and retention methods. ITEM NUMBER: C -4 DATE: 08/14/12 Attachment 1 12. Recommendation: The Grand Jury recommends that the police chiefs and County Sheriff explore the feasibility of a county-wide property/evidence room consolidation, possibly under a joint powers agreement. Response to Recommendation No. 12: On June 13'", 2012 the Sheriff discussed the idea of consolidation with the County Chief's at the Criminal Justice Administrators Association meeting. As a result of that meeting the Sheriff contacted the San Mateo Sheriff's Office. San Mateo Sheriff's office was mentioned in the Grand Jury report as a County that was pursuing consolidation. It was determined that San Mateo County is only attempting to consolidate their property rooms with cities they contract with and they have no plans to consolidate with other agencies. On the surface this appears to be a logical plan, however upon discussion with the Chiefs, this idea would result in significant costs and logistical operational difficulties for Cities and the County. The Chiefs and Sheriff will continue to look for opportunities to collaborate on evidence disposal and evaluate the possibility of the consolidation of the long term storage of refrigerated items of evidence. ITEM NUMBER: C -4 DATE: 08/14/12 Attachment 2 See following pages. ITEM NUMBER: C - 4 LATE: 08114/12 EPL OFT Attachment 2 1 EUn Fkn•'.F 4.pf r R: 9 V � r � m a 04CfF ORN`P GRAND JURY June 5, 2012 CONFIDENTIAL Mayor Bob Kelley ��•''�t 1�;C �♦� City of Atascadero JUN " 5 �� � 6907 El Camino Real Atascadero,CA 93422 Dear Mayor Kelley and Council: The San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury has completed the attached report titled "A Vital Function of the Judicial System: Law Enforcement Property and Evidence Rooms." This copy of the report is being provided to you two days in advance of its public release,_as.-required- by California Penal Code §933.05 (f),which states: A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report. Please check the last page of text of the report for the timing of your response, if any, as required by the Penal Code. Sections 933 through 933.05 of the Penal Code are attached for your reference. Please keep in mind that this report must be kept confidential until its public release by the Grand Jury. Respectfully, 44� Norman A. Baxter,Foreperson. 2011-2012 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Enclosures NAB:sm PHONE: (805) 781-5188 • FAX: (805) 781-1156 F O.Box 4910 • SAN Luis Owspo,CALIFORNIA 93403 A VITAL FUNCTION OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM: LAW ENFORCEMENT PROPERTY AND EVIDENCE ROOMS SUMMARY 'rhe proper collection and retention of evidence is a foundational element of our judicial system. While most commonly attributed to the prosecution of criminal acts, it can also be of vital importance in the exoneration of the innocent. The results of the Grand Jury's review of management and control of property and evidence rooms in law enforcement agencies in San Luis Obispo County varied widely. Some agencies allocated the staff and budget resources needed to meet compliance, while others were not in compliance with their.policies and acknowledged that improvements were needed. ORIGIN The 2011-2012 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury decided to examine all law enforcement agency property and evidence rooms within the county to determine compliance with recommended policies of recognized property/evidence organizations, as well as with their own internal policies. METHOD In order to determine whether the law enforcement agencies in San Luis Obispo County are following the proper procedures for the security and control of property and evidence, the Grand Jury: The Grand Jury has no jurisdiction regarding state agencies,CHP and Cal Poly State University. Page 1 • Requested that agencies complete selected sections of the Property& Evidence System Audit Guide written by the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POSY • Consulted with a representative of POST regarding available traininglcertifications • Interviewed a consultant who specializes in the evaluation of property/evidence rooms throughout California • Reviewed Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA)3 Property and Control Standards • Reviewed International Association for Property and Evidence (IAPE)4 audit policies • Reviewed each agency's internal policies and procedures related to property and evidence room functions and audits • Conducted on-site inspections of each agency's property and evidence room using the POST audit and safety policies • Conducted interviews with the designated property and evidence room representative from each agency Z POST: The State Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training(POST)was established in 1959 to set minimum selection and training standards for California law enforcement. 3 CALEA:A national Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies,Inc.created in 1979 as a credentialing authority.The purpose of this national accreditation program is to improve the delivery of public safety services,primarily by:maintaining a body of standards covering a wide range of up-to-date public safety initiatives;establishing and administering an accreditation process;and recognizing professional excellence. "LA-PE:International Property and Evidence Association is a non-profit organization offering training,certification and resources pertaining to all aspects of the handling,storage,maintenance,and disposal of law enforcement held property and evidence. Page 2 NARRATIVE This report first discusses general property/evidence room management practices and then reviews the results of the Grand Jury's inspection of each agency's property/evidence room. Property/evidence rooms store not only evidence from crimes but also found property, property for safekeeping, contraband, and property for destruction. Evidence must be collected, packaged and properly stored. Often referred to as the "chain of evidence,'' documentation is necessary to show where the evidence is located, who located the evidence and every person who comes in possession of the evidence, from the initial collection through the judicial process. Ultimately, when the item is no longer of evidentiary value, it is returned to its owner, sold at auction or destroyed. Property/Evidence Room Management Audits and inventories should be conducted to ensure the continuity of the custody of property and evidence. POST'S Property and Evidence System Audit Guide, states "It is the responsibility of management to see that a sound system of internal control is developed and implemented."5 The reason for periodic audits and inventories is "Audits and inventories, on an ongoing basis, will enhance the safekeeping of property and evidence and minimize mismanagement which can easily lead to court cases not being filed, loss of public confidence (and that of collateral criminal justice system agencies), personnel problems, litigation, and possible financial loss."6 As stated in the Audit Guide, "An inspection is conducted to determine whether: • the property/evidence room is clean and orderly; • the integrity of the property and evidence is being maintained; • departmental provisions and polices are being followed; • property/evidence is being protected from damage or deterioration; 5 Property&Evidence System audit Guide, p. Intro, V. 6 ibid.,p. Intro, IV. Page 3 • employee health and safety is protected; • property/evidence accountability procedures are being used; and • property having no further value as evidence is being promptly disposed." More than 600 agencies statewide participate in the POST Program and are eligible to receive the Commission's services and benefits, which include training programs and management counseling through its Management Counseling Services Bureau (MCB). All law enforcement agencies in San Luis Obispo County, with the exception of Pismo Beach, adhere to the policies and procedures of POST. Pismo Beach is the only agency accredited by CALEA. I lowever, since POST and CALEA are similar in. nature, Pismo Beach effectively follows POST guidelines. The Grand Jury's review of each agency's policies relating to property/evidence room management revealed that all agencies in the county have adopted or are in final draft review<o policies provided by Lexipol, LLC, a provider of risk management resources for public safety organizations. The company uses a unique, web-based development system with an integrated training component. The Lexipol management system has aided law enforcement, custody and fire agencies in reducing litigation risk, while providing clear and concise policy guidance to public safety organizations and their employees. The Lexipol policy regarding evidence room inspections states: 804.8 Inspections of the Evidence Room (a) On a monthly basis, the supervisor of the evidence custodian shall make an inspection of the evidence storage facilities and practices to ensure adherence to appropriate policies and procedures. (b) Unannounced inspections of evidence storage areas shall be conducted annually as directed by the [Designated Officer]. (c)An annual audit of evidence held by the department shall be conducted by a [Designated Officer] not routinely or directly connected with evidence control. (d) Whenever a change is made in personnel who have access to the evidence room, an inventory of all evidence/property shall be made by an individual(s) not associated to the Page 4 property room or function to ensure that records are correct and all evidence/property is accounted for. The Grand Jury found that management practices within agencies vary widely. Some comply with their policies, others do not. Audits and inventories in some agencies are far from routine, while others exercise strong management practices in this area. To their credit, some agencies recognized the need to address deficiencies prior to the Grand Jury inspections. Other agencies have made or are planning changes as a result of the Grand Jury's inquiries into the management practices of their property/evidence rooms. Staffing and Training It is of vital importance that each Property/Evidence Technician effectively manages the property/evidence room function.to maintain the highest standards. Each law enforcement agency in San Luis Obispo County operates its own property/evidence room and, depending on staffing, incurs considerable expense to conform to its own polices. Based on information provided by the agencies (with the exception of Paso Robles which was unable to provide this information), the yearly salary and benefit expenditures for the property/evidence room function in county law enforcement agencies total nearly $700,000. The Grand Jury learned through its investigation that San Mateo County is considering consolidating individual police property/evidence rooms into one central evidence room. Consolidation could possibly increase the efficiency of operations and reduce costs. To ensure proper operation, each Property/Evidence Technician should receive ongoing training to remain current with evidence case law and new procedures/policies. Most personnel assigned to the property/evidence rooms within the county have had some training either through CAPE (Califonaia Association for Property and Evidence)' or POST. 7 CAPE was formed to promote professionalism in property and evidence gathering,processing and retention. Emphasis is placed on information sharing,training and support. Page 5 POST offers a single course in Property and Evidence and has no certification program for property and evidence. It does,however, provide management guides, such as the Property & Evidence System Audit Guide referenced in this report. The guides are excellent and allow agencies to conduct a self-assessment of their property/evidence management practices. Tracking and Inventory In each agency, documentation of all property/evidence is computer-controlled. The software provides a detailed custody history from the receipt of the item through release or disposal. All property/evidence is labeled with a bar code generated from the evidence tracking software. By scanning the bar code, all information relevant to the evidence, such as case number, item number, type of property, date, officer name, and description of the item, can be examined. All agencies in the county utilize the PsNet software with the exception of the San Luis Obispo Police-Department; which uses Spillman software.$ PurginglDisposal Process Managing a property/evidence room is a formidable task. Each agency has a limited amount of space and staff and management does not know from day-to-day how much evidence may await processing by the Property/Evidence Technician. Certain evidence, such as that from a homicide, is kept indefinitely, while other evidence must be kept under refrigeration, sometimes for years, depending on the case. Other evidence may be discarded after the statute of limitations has elapsed. For certain offenses that have been referred to the District Attorney's Office for prosecution, an order must be issued prior to the return/disposal of evidence. Depending on the nature of the offense, if the conviction is appealed, evidence may be held for years after a conviction. The purge process can be complicated and time-consuming. During the Grand Jury interviews, several agencies reported a delay in obtaining destruction authorization from the District Attorney's Office for evidence held in their property/evidence 8 PsNet and Spillman: Public safety software covering areas of dispatch,records management,mobile digital communications,and web-based applications. Page 6 rooms. The primary concern was storing marijuana occupied excessive space in their property/evidence rooms and requests for disposal were not processed in a timely fashion. During its inspection of the Sheriff's Department, the Grand Jury also viewed carts of evidence (not marijuana) waiting for destruction authorization. The Grand Jury reviewed the topic of evidence destruction with a representative from the District Attorney's Office and found that it does not have a formal policy/procedure governing the purging/disposal of evidence. The Grand Jury found that other counties do have formal policies/guidelines that concisely set out purging/disposal procedures. As an example, a copy of Butte County's policy is attached as Appendix A. Another guideline was developed. in Santa Clara County,' but it was not included as an appendix due to its length(64 pages). The District Attorney's Office provides each agency with monthly Agency Case Disposition Reports: It:is incumbent uponeach agency;with some exceptions, to reviewthe'dis'.osion reports to determine if evidence may be destroyed. The process to determine if evidence can properly be destroyed is complex. If each case is not reviewed properly, prosecution or exoneration of a person may be jeopardized in the event that evidence is improperly destroyed. While not all-inclusive, some of the criteria to be considered for disposal of evidence are: • Statute of limitations • Post conviction a. Plea or no contest b. Convicted by Jury c. Murder case(187 Penal Code) and life sentence cases • Post distnissaUcases not filed a. Dismissed due to lack of evidence or interest of justice • DNA evidence, required length of evidence retention 9 Santa Clara Regional Association for Property and Evidence(SCRAPE) Page 7 • Sexually Violent Predators, required length of evidence retention • Domestic Violence/Elder Abuse/Child Abuse (Evidence Code 1109), length of retention • Drug Diversion Cases • Search Warrant evidence (1136 Penal Code) • Weapons Destruction Order(12028 Penal Code) • Narcotics Destruction Order (11367,11473,11473.5 Health & Safety Code) The District Attorney's Office is in the process of establishing Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with local jurisdictions regarding medical marijuana held as evidence. Once agreement is reached,property/evidence technicians will have guidance regarding the retention, release and/or disposal of medical marijuana only. Some purged items have monetary value and are eligible for auction. All agencies in the county use a service called propertyroom.com. This service collects items of value and performs the auction in accordance with Civil Code Section 2080 et al.id A percentage of the sale is returned to the jurisdictions. Contraband, drugs, guns, and hazardous materials are not auctioned. They are transported to specific disposal sites where law enforcement personnel witness their destruction. The Grand Jury calculated a purge rate for each agency by comparing the number of items taken as evidence in the past five years to the number of items purged/disposed of during the same five year period. A higher percentage reflects a more efficient operation and use of space. Purge rates ranged from 20% to 87%. The following pages summarize the results of the Grand Jury's inspections of the individual agencies. i0 California Civil Code Section 2080 et al.provides regulations for the proper care and disposition of found property. Page 8 Arroyo Grande Police Department Facili : The Arroyo Grande property/evidence room is approximately 247 square feet and contained 3,211 items of evidence (near capacity) at the time the POST audit form was completed. The Support Services Technician indicated that an additional 150 square feet would be beneficial. Personnel access to the room is limited. The Grand Jury found that the items inside the caged, secure area appeared to be packaged properly and were stored in an orderly fashion. Sta 1n : The Support Services Technician has primary control and two other supervisory personnel have authorized access. The Support Services Technician also performs other duties in the agency not related to property/evidence. He estimated approximately 30 hours per week are allocated to the property/evidence function. Based on salary information provided to the Grand Jury, annualized salary with benefits (prorated to 30 hours per week) totals"$77,922. Purging/Disposal: In view of Arroyo Grande's limited space, the purging or disposal of evidence is critical to managing the property/evidence room. In the past five years, a total of 5,234 items of evidence were accepted into property/evidence. During the same time period, 1,042 items were purged/disposed of. The purge rate of 20% was the lowest in the county. Audits/Inventories: The Arroyo Grande Police Department is not in compliance with their stated Lexipol policies: • An annual audit of evidence held by the department shall be conducted by a Division Conunander (as appointed by the Chief of Police) not routinely or directly connected with evidence control. o The last inventory was conducted two years ago. • Whenever a change is made in personnel who have access to the evidence room., an inventory of all evidence/property shall be made by an individual(s) not associated to the property room or function to ensure that records are correct and all evidence property is accounted for. Page 9 o The Evidence Technician has been in that assignment for approximately three years and no inventory was conducted at the time of his initial assigrunent. Safety Policies: The Grand Jury found that the Arroyo Grande Police Department was in compliance with safety policies with the exception of the following: • No ventilation system exists to outside air,required for drug/narcotics storage I • Appropriate storage containers for flammables are not explosion-proof(storage area for flammables is located outside) • Storage area for flammables is not appropriately ventilated • Safety manuals are not provided to employees • No emergency evacuation plan is established Atascadero Police.Department The Atascadero Police Department's property/evidence room is excellent in both management and day-to-day operation. Over the past several years, and during several police administrations, there has been a commitment to continued improvement in the operation of the property/evidence function. It is a model for other agencies to follow. In 2005, the department began auditing and improving its property/evidence room. The Atascadero Police Department is the only agency in the county which contracts with an outside consultant to audit its property/evidence room. The department implemented the consultant's recommendations and another audit was authorized in 2008. The 2008 audit set forth additional recommendations that were also implemented. The consultant's last audit was conducted in June 2010 and the agency received the highest rating, "MEETS STANDARDS++." The consultant commented in his report that in over 60 performance audits he has conducted over 12 years, no other agency has been rated so highly. Consequently, the consultant rates the Atascadero Police Department in the top 10-15% of property/evidence rooms in California. �i A requirement of POST Evidence Management Guide 3-3,66261.4 CCR. Page 10 Facility: At the time of the Grand Jury inspection, the 368 square foot property/evidence room was neat and orderly, and examined evidence appeared to be packaged properly. Data is backed- up and access to the system is limited to authorized police administrators. The evidence area is secure and only the Property/Evidence Specialist has primary access. The Grand Jury members were required to sign an entry log prior to entering the secure area, an excellent security procedure. The size of the property/evidence area is adequate to meet the needs of the agency. Sta i : Atascadero has one Property/Evidence Specialist assigned to the property/evidence room. Additional duties include crime scene investigation. The Specialist has attended training from CAPE, has had five years of in-house training, and additional basic and advanced crime scene investigation training. The position is full-time and total compensation, including benefits, is $92,307. Purging/Disposal: At the time theaudit-survey was-completed;there were 4,154 items in _.. property/evidence. In the past five years, 22,035 items of property/evidence were logged. into the property/evidence room and, during that same period, 19,224 were purged/disposed of. The purge rate is outstanding at 87%. Audits/Inventories: Atascadero Police Department will be adopting the Iaexipol policy. At the time of the Grand Jury inspection, the policy was in "draft" form and had not yet been adopted. At the time of the Grand Jury inspection, the department was in compliance with its existing policy and (as indicated in the consultant's report) it is also in compliance with the following policies: CALEA Property and Control Standards, CAPE, TAPE, California POST, and IACP guidelines (International Association of Chiefs of Police). Safety Policies: Atascadero Police Department complies with nearly all the safety guidelines as outlined in the POST audit. Two exceptions were noted in their survey response: • No appropriate explosion-proof containers are available • A lack of appropriate safety signage Page 11 Grover Beach Police Department Facili : The Grover Beach Police Department property/evidence room is neat and orderly, containing approximately 4,400 items. The room is adequate but is close to or at capacity. The square footage was not provided. The evidence examined by the Grand Jury members was packaged properly, stored neatly and bar coded. The room is secure and the Property Room Technician and the Division Lieutenant are the only people allowed access. An access log is maintained for any other people requesting access to the controlled area. The Grand Jury learned during interviews that the department has tentative plans to convert a larger office space into the property/evidence room because the current evidence room does not have required ventilation and the proposed space is ventilated. Staffing: Currently, there is one Property/Evidence"Technician who is also assigned to the Records Division. The-Technician has received POST training. The.time spent solely-fore-the property/evidence function is estimated at 600 hours per year. The pro-rated salary, plus benefits, for the Property/Evidence Technician totals $19,332 per year. Purging/Disposal: In view of the space constraints, purging/disposal of property/evidence is important in maintaining an orderly property/evidence room. In the past five years, 7,835 items of evidence were placed into evidence and 2,618 items were purged/disposed of during that same period. The purge rate is 33%. Audits/Inventories: The Grand Jury learned through interviews that, prior to 2009, no purging or audits had been conducted for at least 18 to 20 years. However, the administration of the department as well as management of the property/evidence room has improved in the past three years. In April 2011, the Grover Beach Police Department adopted the Lexipol policies for property/evidence room procedures as well as for other functions of the agency. The policy exceptions to property/evidence inspections/audits are: • On a monthly basis, the supervisor of the evidence custodian shall make an inspection of the evidence storage facilities and practices to ensure adherence to appropriate policies and procedures. Page 12 o The Division Lieutenant estimated that monthly inspections occur 75% of the time. • An annual audit of evidence held by the department shall be conducted by a Division Lieutenant(as appointed by the Chief of Police) who is not routinely or directly connected with evidence control. o A full audit of the property/evidence room is currently underway and the estimated completion date is April 2012. The Division Lieutenant who is responsible for evidence control is conducting the audit. Technically, the other Division Lieutenant, who is not connected with evidence control, should conduct the audit. There is no record of any previously conducted audits. • Whenever a change is made in personnel who have access to the evidence room, an inventory of all evidence/property shall be made by an individual(s) not associated with the property room or f mction to ehsure that records are correct and all evidence property-,.::-. is roperty:- is acwunied'for:=:.: o The Fast personnel change occurred in 2009. A full audit is now in progress. Safety Policies: The Grand Jury inspection revealed the following safety issues: • Respirators are not supplied. • The property/evidence room is not ventilated. Morro Bay Police Department Facilit : The Morro Bay Police Department property/evidence room is limited in size with approximately 230 square feet. Additional storage for large items, such as bicycles, is Iocated off-site. The room is neat and orderly, and the evidence inspected was packaged properly. Security was adequate; no entry log is maintained to document who enters the secure area beyond the property/evidence technician. There have been recent improvementsto the property/evidence room. Grant funds were used to purchase new evidence lockers that include a refrigerated locker for perishable evidence. Once removed from the refrigerated evidence locker, items are placed in a larger refrigerator inside the evidence room for long-term storage. Page 13 Sta in : The recently filled Property/Evidence Technician position had been vacant since 2009. The new position is part-time, without benefits, and is funded by a yearly grant in the amount of $17,000. The agency has provided in-house training to the Property/Evidence Technician and further training is being considered through CAPE. Purging/Disposal: The disposal or purge rate of evidence for the past five years exceeds the amount taken in during the same five-year period. Evidence had not been purged in many years, thus 4,099 items were purged and 2,217 were taken in during the same period. Recognizing that the evidence room was disorganized, the Chief of Police authorized a full audit/inventory in 2009 and property/evidence no longer of significance was purged or disposed of Currently, there are 2,217 items of evidence in the property/evidence areas and items are purged when authorized by either the District Attorney's Office or by department policy. Audits/Inventories: The Morro Bay Police Department inspection practice exceeds the Lexipol policy. The Grand Jury was advised that the Police Commander,who is not affiliated with the property/evidence function, conducts monthly inspections. Now, monthly inspections by the Commander focus on adherence to policies, unannounced inspections and monthly audits in lieu of annual audits. The Support Services Manager completed the last full audit/inventory in March 2009 due to a personnel change. Another audit/inventory is planned with the recent hiring of the new,part-time Property/Evidence Technician. Safety Policies: Appropriate safety procedures are in place. The property/evidence room is ventilated and policies are in place for the handling of biohazards, hazardous and flammable items. The Grand Jury noted only one exception: • Respirators are not provided for the evidence technician Paso Robles Police Department Facili : The Paso Robles Police Department is located in a relatively new building (2003) that is also the headquarters for the Department of Emergency Services. The main property/evidence room is located inside the main building. At the time the agency completed the audit form for Page 14 the Grand Jury, a total of 10,570 items were located in the main area as well as in secondary secure, storage areas. The combined property/evidence area totals 898 square feet. While the main evidence area is spacious, items requiring additional security(guns, money and drugs) are located in a separate secure room. Those items were not stored in an orderly fashion. Guns, money and drugs were piled on top of each other; some guns were stored in evidence boxes while others, not boxed, were lying on shelves. Additional space for these items is needed to permit orderly storage. Sta an : A Supervising Lieutenant and two detectives currently staff the property/evidence room. A previous full-time dedicated position was eliminated from.the budget. The staff typically rotates every two to four years. At the time of the Grand Jury inspection, the plan was to trairiAwo dispatchers to-staff the evidence room, in addition to the Supervising Lieutenant and two=detectives;,for a total of.five personnel. The agency was unable to provide1abor-expense°> figures for the property/evidence room operation. Purging/Disposal: The agency uses PsNet tracking software. Unfortunately, data entry errors over a period of time listed items checked out as "Disposed" evidence when in fact they were checked out for court, lab analysis or other valid reasons. The disposition of"Disposed" evidence items was not changed when the item(s) was returned to the property/evidence room. Due to this property/evidence documentation tracking error,the Supervising Lieutenant and two detectives planned a full audit of every item beginning in February 2012. The full inventory was expected to take approximately one month to complete. In view of the PsNet entry error, the purge rate could not be calculated. Of the 10,570 items at the time of survey, 7,916 were taken into evidence in the past five years. Because the number of items purged/disposed of was not available, the purge rate could not be calculated. Audits/,Inventories: The Paso Robles Police Department is in partial compliance with its Lexipol policy pertaining to evidence room inspections: Page 15 ® On a monthly basis, the supervisor of the evidence custodian shall make an inspection of the evidence storage facilities and practices to ensure adherence to appropriate policies and procedures o According to the Supervising Lieutenant, a few evidence items are checked monthly on a random basis The department is not in compliance with its remaining policies. The last partial inventory was completed in June 2011 and pertained to drug evidence only. Prior to that date, an inventory of guns, money and drugs was conducted in 2009. The last full inventory was conducted in 2003. A full audit is planned for 2012. Safety Policies: With regard to health and safety for evidence room personnel, the agency is in compliance with the policy guidelines set forth in the POST audit form, with only two exceptions: Y A,mmunition/blackpowder is not being stored separately from other property - - - • Explosion-proof storage containers are not provided Pismo Beach Police Department The Pismo Beach Police Department is the only agency in the county to receive CALEA accreditation, a process that took several years. After meeting all CALEA proofs of compliance, the department became an accredited agency in 2007. The administration and staff are to be commended for their dedication in obtaining the accreditation. Facili : The property/evidence room is located inside the police department, and is clean and well-organized. The 445 square foot area is secure and only the primary Property/Evidence Technician has routine access. All others requesting access must sign the entry log, document their purpose,and be escorted by the technician or the supervisor of the property/evidence room. During the Grand Jury's inspection, inspected evidence was properly packaged and the labeling was consistent with standard practices. Page 16 Sta Li : The Property/Evidence Room Technician has been employed by the agency for the past nine years and maintains a neat and well-organized evidence room. The technician is also the president of the local property/evidence room association, CAPE. The technician's dedication to her position, as well as promotion of the professionalism of the property/evidence room function throughout the county, is to be commended. The annual expense (salary and benefits) for the full-time Property/Evidence Room Technician totals $82,659. Purging/Disposal: At the time the audit form was completed,there were approximately 11,065 items of evidence. In the past five years, 5,984 items were entered into evidence and 2.586 were purged/disposed of The purge rate is 43%. Audits/Inventories: In addition to using CALEA standards regarding property and evidence control, Pismo Beach relies on Lexipol policies in other areas of operation. CALEA grid Lexipol ..policies are very similar in form dnd content. The=GALEA standard foTLinspections/audits states:12 84.1.6 In order to maintain a high degree of evidentiary integrity over agency-controlled property and evidence, the following documented inspections, inventory, and audits shall be completed: a. An inspection to determine adherence to procedures used for the control of property is conducted semi-annually by the person responsible for the property and evidence control function or his/her designee; b. An inventory of property occurs whenever the property and evidence custodian is assigned to and/or transferred from the position and is conducted jointly by the newly designated property and evidence custodian and a designee of the CEO to ensure that records are correct and property annotated; c. An annual audit of property and evidence held by the agency is conducted by a supervisor not routinely or directly connected with the control of property and evidence; and 12 Commission on Accreditation fpr Lary Enforcement Agencies(CALEA)12 Property and Control,Standards Page 17 d. Unannounced inspections of property storage areas are conducted, as directed by the agency's CEO, at least once a year. The Pismo Beach Police Department is in compliance with all CALEA policies. Their last annual audit was completed in .Tune 2011. Safety Policies: In view of the POST audit pertaining to safety, the following deficiencies were found: • Respirators are not provided • Safe storage for chemicals is not provided • The flammable storage area is not appropriately ventilated • No outside storage for flammables exists • Designated storage containers are not explosion-proof San Luis Obispo Police Department The San Luis Obispo Police Department is the largest municipal police agency in the county. The department tracks all property/evidence through Spillman software. If the system is not accessible, the Evidence Clerk has devised a manual filing system that allows for the retrieval of evidence based on date. This system is unique to the San Luis Obispo Police Department and the Evidence Clerk should be commended for implementing a simple, logical, back-up filing system. Facili : Due to space limitations, property/evidence is stored in several different locations. The combined space totals 1,685 square feet. All areas are properly secured. As a result of the Grand Jury inspection, an entry log for escorted persons will be implemented. The evidence room areas were neat and orderly, with the exception of hand gun storage. Numerous hand guns were piled on a shelf, limiting the orderly removal/examination of a particular firearm. Many agencies in the county place guns in evidence boxes designed for safe storage. It is the preference of the Evidence Clerk to be able to examine the weapon to ensure that it is unloaded and in safe condition prior to acceptance into the property/evidence room. Page 18 The approach is logical. However, if the agency prefers to store handguns without packaging, it should store them individually, in a neat and orderly manner. Staffing.- The primary control of the property/evidence room is assigned to one full-time Property/Evidence Cleric who is responsible for the day-to-day operation. The Property/Evidence Clerk has attended TAPE and CAPE training. The clerk has been in the position for approximately seven years with an annual compensation (salary and benefits) reported to be $100,000 per year. Pur in_IDi.sposal: There were 26,043 items in evidence at the time the audit survey was completed. A total of 38,471 items were logged into evidence during the past five years and 31,524 items were purged/disposed of during that time. The purge rate is an impressive 82%. It is noteworthy that the San. Luis Obispo.Police Department donates unclaimed bicycles to at-risk youth. Auclitllnspections: The San Luis Obispo Police Department is in compliance with its audit/inspection policy. The current policy is that the Property/Evidence Technician, assisted by the Investigation. Sergeant and Investigation Lieutenant, conducts an audit every six months. Audits were conducted in March and October 2011. The audits focused on three areas: firearms, money and drug/narcotics. Per their policy, all firearms and money are examined during the audits, as well as forty randomly selected narcotics cases and forty random pieces of evidence. Audited items are checked for proper sealing, packaging and identification. A report of the findings is forwarded to the Chief of Police, noting any discrepancies. A full inventory of every item is scheduled for March 2012. The San Luis Obispo Police Department is in the process of changing its department polices, and will adopt the Lexipol standard in the near future. The department is currently reviewing each Lexipol policy prior to acceptance and implementation. Some policies may be modified to best suit the needs of the agency. Once the Lexipol polices are adopted, those provisions pertaining to evidence room inspections/audits will be followed. Page 19 Safety Policies: A review of the POST audit forms on safety shows that the department is in compliance with POST standards, with one exception: ® Annual biohazard update training. San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Department Facili : The security of the County Sheriff's property/evidence room is adequate; however, at 2,500 square feet, the building size is not adequate for the volume of property/evidence stored. The property/evidence room currently contains over 75,000 items in a space that is not well designed or orderly. Additionally, the surplus shelving in use does not maximize the current space. While the evidence area is cluttered, the evidence observed was packaged properly and the evidence tracking software is used properly. Sheriff Ian Parkinson described the space as a "disaster"t3 and he has made correcting the property/evidence room deficiencies a top priority. Plans have been approved to move the evidence room to another site approximately twice as large as the current property/evidence room,with additional adjacent space available when needed. Funding has been secured; the new location is expected to be fully operational and compliant with policy and standards by the end of 2012. Staf fin : The agency has two full-time, non-sworn, property technicians who are responsible for the property/evidence room function. Recently, the agency added a part-time employee to assist in managing the high volume of evidence. The total cost of all employees to operate and maintain the property/evidence room, including benefits, is $300,070. Purgin /Disposal: In the past five years, according to property system records, 516,284 items of evidence were logged into evidence; of that number, 242,910 items were purged/disposed of. The purge rate is 47%. The Sheriff's Department is proactive in the management of its available space, but their authority to dispose of certain types of evidence has been slowed awaiting 13C.Lambert,(Top 10 Stories of 2011:No. 10:Parkinson Brings Changes to County Sheriff's Office. The Tribune, December 23,2011 Page 20 approval by the District Attorney's Office. The Grand Jury viewed carts of evidence waiting approval by the District Attorney's Office; some disposal requests date as far back as 2009. Auditllnspections: The Sheriff's Department is not in compliance with its Lexipol policies on audit procedures. The last audit was four years ago. &LeO2 Policies: According to the POST audit forms completed.by the department, only minimal safety equipment is supplied (respirators, gloves and protective clothing). Specific deficiencies include: • No safety manuals • Annual safety training does not take place • Emergency evacuation plans do not exist Page 21 CONCLUSION All agencies use computerized inventory methodology, which, when managed correctly, provides excellent tracking and control of property and evidence. All agencies have adopted, or are about to adopt, the Lexipol property/evidence room polices for audits and inspections. The Lexipol polices are fundamentally consistent with those of other recognized organizations, such as TAPE, CALEA and POST. While all agencies have similar policies, not all agencies comply with their stated policies. There are several independent consulting firms that perform property/evidence room audits on a contract basis. Such firms provide an unbiased perspective on the management and operation of law enforcement agency property/evidence rooms. The City of Ataseadero has utilized such an independent auditor for many years and, as a result, the operation and maintenance of its property/evidence room has continuously improved. Some county agencies could benefit from POST management counseling, which can be requested by any agency. The POST' Management Counseling Services Bureau (MCB) provides many services to local law enforcement agencies to improve the quality of police services at each level of the organization. The authority to provide counseling is pursuant to California Penal Code Section, 13513.f4 Local agencies in San Luis Obispo County can request management counseling services from POST related to the operation of Property/Evidence rooms. For example, POST conducted an exhaustive property/evidence room audit in 2006 for the Berkeley Police Department after the internal theft of drugs." There are several professional organizations that offer standards and training, and promote the proper operation of property/evidence rooms. TAPE, for example, offers a certification. POST 14 California Penal Code section, 13513: Upon the request of a local jurisdiction,the commission shall provide a counseling service to such local jurisdiction for the purpose of improving the administration,management or operations of a police agency and may aid such jurisdiction in implementing improved practices and techniques. is City of Berkeley, Policy Review Commission Police Report,Evidence of Theft within the Berkeley Police Department,October 12,2007. Page 22 offers only guidelines. Given the numerous certificate programs offered by POST, the Grand Jury was surprised to learn that POST does not offer a certificate program for Property/Evidence Technicians. In the purging process,all agencies in the county use propertyroom.com for the auctioning of eligible items. There is one notable exception to this practice. San Luis Obispo Police Department donates its bicycles to the Sheriff's Department for repair prior to being donated to their juvenile delinquency program. This practice benefits the community by providing projects for inmates, as well as benefiting at-risk youth. Several agencies commented that destruction requests to the District Attorney's Office are not processed promptly and the delay reduces available storage space. The Sheriff's Department, for example, has requests dating as far back as 2009 that have had no response. The delay has .._ ..::. adversely affected their ability to properly:manage the property/evidence-room.I The.primary complaint was that they were not receiving disposal authorization for marijuana stored at their facilities. There is a variety of management practices of property/evidence rooms within San Luis Obispo County and property/evidence retention/disposal requirements are complex. However,the county lacks a standardized policy/procedure for all law enforcement agencies in the county. At present,county law enforcement agencies spend approximately$700,000 for property/evidence room employee salaries and benefits. Supervision, material, transportation, and facility costs increase this number and are difficult to quantify. There may be significant cost savings available if the multiple property/evidence rooms in the county were consolidated into one. Page 23 FINDINGS 1. The Police Departments of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and Paso Robles, and the Sheriff's Department are not in full compliance with their respective policies pertaining to evidence room inspections. 2. The Police Departments of Atascadero, Morro Bay, Pismo Beach, and the City of San Luis Obispo are in compliance with their respective policies pertaining to evidence room inspections. 3. The Grover Beach Police Department is currently conducting a full inventory of its evidence room. 4. Morro Bay Police Department advised that it will complete a full inventory of its evidence room with the hiring of a new Property/Evidence Technician. 5. Paso Robles Police Department was unable to advise the number of evidence items purged. due to a data entry error that occurred routinely over a period of time. 6. Paso Robles Police Department has advised the Grand Jury that it will complete a full inventory within the year. 7. Paso Robles Police Department does not store guns, money and drugs in a neat and orderly manner. S. In the Paso Robles Police Department, five people have access to the evidence room and staff rotates every two to four years. 9. Arroyo Grande Police Department and the Grover Beach Police Department do not have ventilated property/evidence rooms for storage of drugs/narcotics- 10. The San Luis Obispo Police Department does not store handguns in a neat and orderly manner. 11. The San Luis Obispo Police Department is planning a full inventory within the year. 12. The Sheriffs Department has advised that it will move its property/evidence room operation to a new facility. 13. The District Attorney's office does not have formai, written property/evidence retention policies. 14. The District Attorney's Office is currently establishing a Memorandum of Understanding with each jurisdiction regarding the retention/destruction of medical marijuana. Page 24 15. As a result of the Grand.fury audit, changes are already being made to improve the property/evidence room function in some of the law enforcement agencies in the county. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. All law enforcement agencies in the County should adhere to their respective policies relating to property/evidence room inspections. 2. The Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach Police Departments should ventilate their evidence rooms containing drugs/narcotics. 3. The Paso Robles Police Department should maintain their property/evidence room in a neat and orderly manner. 4. The Paso Robles Police Department should consider using the services of POST or an independent consulting service to conduct.a full review of its property/evidence room function. 5. To reduce audit-related personnel costs, the Paso Robles Police Department should consider staffing the property/evidence room with a single dedicated Property/Evidence Technician. b. The San Luis Obispo Police Department should store handguns in a safe, neat and orderly manner. 7. The District Attorney's Office should develop a formal property retention policy that will assist each law enforcement agency with the proper retention/destruction of property evidence. 8. The District Attorney's Office should establish a liaison between its off-ice and each law enforcement jurisdiction to regularly review existing and new property/evidence laws and procedures. 9. All personnel assigned to property/evidence rooms in the county should continue their training and/or update their knowledge through professional organizations. It is also highly recommended that they join the county chapter of CAPE. 10. The Grand Jury encourages the county law enforcement agencies to utilize the services of either POST for management assistance or a qualified consultant specializing in property/evidence room management. Page 25 11. The following police departments shall submit evidence of a full property/evidence room audit to the Grand Jury: Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo, and the Sheriff's Department. 12. The Grand Jury recommends that the police chiefs and County Sheriff explore the feasibility of a county-wide property/evidence room consolidation, possibly under a joint powers agreement. 13. While the Grand Jury does not have jurisdiction over a state agency, it would highly recommend that the California POST Commission consider a statewide certification program for Property/Evidence Technicians that establishes minimum training, education and experience requirements. Page 26 COMMENDATIONS The Atascadero Police Department is to be commended for its continued commitment to improving the operation and management of its property/evidence room. Since 2005, the department has retained the services of an independent property/evidence room consultant. Based on the consultant's recommendations and follow-up inspections in 2008 and 2010, continued improvements were made resulting in Atascadero being rated one of the best property/evidence rooms in California. The current Property/Evidence Technician, Ryan Enfantino, as well as his predecessors, are to be commended. The Pismo Beach Police Department has demonstrated its support and dedication to the property/evidence room function through its CALEA certification and adherence to POST standards. Specifically, Property/Evidence Technician Raehelle LaPan is to be commended for her management of the property/evidence room and her contribution as President of'the local CAPE chapter. The San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Department recognized the necessity of moving its property/evidence room to larger facilities and reorganizing the manner in which evidence is stored. The move and reorganization are underway and the new facility should be operational by the end of 2012. Sheriff Ian Parkinson included the auditing of the property/evidence room as a top priority prior to his election as Sheriff. He is to be commended for keeping his pre-election promise. Page 27 REQUIRED RESPONSES The Police Department of Arroyo Grande is required to respond to Findings 1 and 9, and Recommendations 1, 2, 9, 11, and 1.2. The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by September 4, 2012. Please provide a paper copy and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury as well. The Police Department of Ataseadero is required to respond to Recommendations 1., 9 and 12. The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by September 4, 2012. Please provide a paper copy and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury as well. The Police Department of Grover Beach is required to respond to Findings 1, 3 and 9, and Recommendations 1, 2, 9, 11, and 12. The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by September 4, 2012. Please provide a paper copy and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury as well. The Police Department of Morro Bay is required to respond to Finding 4 and Recommendations 1, 9, 11, and 12. The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by September 4, 2012. Please provide a paper copy and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury as well. The Police Department of Paso Robles is required to respond to Findings 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8, and Recommendations 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, and 12. The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by September 4, 2012. Please provide a paper copy and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury as well. The Police Department of Pismo Beach is required to respond to Recommendations 1, 9 and 12. The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by September 4, 2012. Please provide a paper copy and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury as well. Page 28 The Police Department of San Luis Obispo is required to respond to Findings 10 and 11, and Recommendations 1, 6, 9, 11, and 12. The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by September 4, 2012. Please provide a paper copy and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury as well. The San Luis Obispo County Sheriff is required to respond to Findings 1 and 12, and Recommendations, 1, 9, 10, 1 l., and 12. The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by August 6, 2012. Please provide a paper copy and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury as well. The San Luis Obispo County District Attorney is required to respond to Findings 13 and 14, and Recommendations 7 and 8. The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by August 6,2012. Please provide a paper copy and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury as-well. The mailing addresses for delivery are: Presiding,fudge Grand Jury Presiding Judge Barry T. LaBarbera Superior Court of California San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury 1050 Monterey Street P.O. Box 4910 S San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 an Luis Obispo, CA 93402 The e-mail address for the Grand Jury is: Grand3ury(ir),co.slo.ca.us Page 29 APPENDIX A BUTTE COUNTY PROPERTY RETENTION POLICY PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to establish standard criteria for Law Enforcement Agencies with regard to property retention. POLICY This document gives all agencies within the authority to purge all property taken into their possession based on meeting the criteria outlined below. This was created with the input of all'Butte County Law Enforcement Agencies, in conjunction with the Butte County;_ District Attorney's Office. PROCEDURE Evidence Retention Considerations 1) Post conviction 2) Post dismissal 3) Case not filed 4) DNA/Biological evidence 5) Sexually Violent Predators (SVP) cases 6) Domestic Violence/Elder Abuse/Child Abuse 7)Juvenile cases 8) Drug diversion cases 9) Bench warrant vs. arrest warrant 10) Search warrant 11) General purge considerations a) Statute of limitations considerations b) Agency may initiate c) Currency 12) Photograph and release option Attachments 1) Statute of limitations Page 30 2) Warrant purge criteria 3) Return of service order(1536 PC) 4) Weapons destruction order(12028 PC) 5) Narcotics destruction order(11367, 11473, and 11473.5 H&S) Purge criteria Absent a directive by the District Attorney, the following criteria shall apply permitting the purging of property or evidence. 1) Post conviction If case was a plea or no contest, the investigating agency can purge property as soon as they receive the Butte County District Attorney's Evidence Release Memo (hereinafter referred to as Evidence Release Memo). There is no need to hold onto the evidence any longer. if convicted by jury, evidence shall be held for 60 days on misdemeanors and 90 days on felonies for possible appeals. This::time is,-based on.the date of the case adjudication and is for those- cases hose cases in which an Evidence Release Memo is received. In 187 PC and life sentence cases there will not be an Evidence Release Memo sent until the (s) is deceased or released from prison and is on parole.. If the(s) dies while in custody,this information may come to either the DA or the local agency. Once this information is received, it is important that both are made aware of this information. Therefore, always ensure the other party involved has been contacted and is aware of the status. Once the suspect has been released from prison or is deceased, the property can be purged. In order to check on the status of a particular inmate, contact Chico Parole. They will be able to provide you with parole information or a deceased notification on your suspect. 2) Post dismissal The District Attorney's office shall send an Evidence Release Memo for cases that are dismissed due to lack of sufficient evidence or in the interest of justice. These.evidence releases shall state the reason for the dismissal. Once an Evidence Release Memo has been received,the property section will verify the status with their case agent prior to disposal of property. The District Attorney will not move forward with the case unless the case agent has further information. In co-defendant cases, the first Evidence Release Memo will state the fact there is a co- defendant. The subsequent release will state the final release of evidence. Page 31 3) Case not Bled The District Attorney's office shall send an Evidence Release Memo for cases that are either declined due to lack of sufficient evidence,or declined in the interest of justice. These Evidence Release Memos shall state the reason of the case being declined. Once an Evidence Release Memo has been received, the property section will check with their case agent prior to disposal of property. The District Attorney will not move forward with the case unless the case agent has further information. For any cases without an arrest, all property can be purged at statute of limitations. For further information regarding statute of limitations, see Attachment 1. 4) DNA/Biological evidence DNA evidence used to convict must be maintained until the (s) is released from prison, unless authorized bythe District Attorney. The(s)has the right to have the::DNA evidenceiretestedat any in time during their incarceration: However;-if the proper documents have been signed by the(s),the(s) attorney, the DA, and the judge, all property can be purged after conviction. This documentation would accompany any evidence release memo sent by the District Attorney. Each agency shall be held responsible for the retention of evidence when there is a John Doe warrant issued based on DNA. The agency shall verify status of any potential warrants prior to the disposal of DNA evidence at the statute of limitations. 5) Sexually Violent Predators (SVP) cases CART interviews shall be conducted using DVD media and forwarded to the individual agencies. Sexual assault cases have a statute of limitations of ten(10) years. No evidence in such cases, unless unfounded,can be purged prior to the statute of limitations. For the retention of any DNA evidence, refer to the DNA section of this document. 6) Domestic Violence/Elder Abuse/Child Abuse All photos and interviews shall be maintained for a period of ten(10) years from the date of incident on all domestic violence/elder abuse/child abuse convictions. This is pursuant to Page 32 California Evidence Code Section 1109. This is due to the fact that all prior convictions of such a crime are admissible for future cases. This allows the District Attorney to attempt to show a pattern of this behavior for the(s)to include motive, intent, and opportunity. All property, other than photos and interviews, may be purged once the Evidence Release Memo is received from the District Attorney's office. 7) Juvenile cases The District Attorney's office will send and Evidence Release Memo on Juvenile cases based on case adjudication. Property may be purged upon receiving these releases. If an Evidence Release Memo is not received, each agency may look up the case status in HOD. Once the case.shows closed in HOD,the investigating agency may purge the properly. For cages witl�iout a`stxspect property tray be purged based on statute of limitattons"(see Attaclumerif 8) Drug diversion cases All evidence seized in criminal cases that result in drug diversion will be maintained until the suspect completes their diversion process. Once diversion is successfully completed, an Evidence Release Memo will be sent to the investigating agency. If the suspect fails to complete diversion, the evidence will remain active. In all narcotics cases, the evidence will be considered active until an evidence release memo is received by the investigating agency. In cases in which the suspect pleads, an Evidence Release Memo will be sent prior to the completion of drug diversion. The evidence will no longer be needed and can be purged. All agencies are authorized to destroy all needles/syringes taken as evidence of Business and Professions Code Section 4140 after the seizing officer photographs (Xerox is also acceptable) the item and identifies the same with the agency case number. Hypodermic syringes containing suspected controlled substances are subject to the same procedure with the addition that a portion of the contents should be presumptively tested for proper criminal charging. The contents are then to be placed into a vacuum tube(void of preservative) and sent to the lab for analysis. Page 33 9) Bench warrant vs. arrest warrant Bench warrant is issued after a person has appeared in court, but fails to show for additional court appearances. Arrest warrants are issued for persons law enforcement maintains is a(s) in a case,but has yet to arrest with regard to the incident. Firearms taken in cases in which there is an arrest or bench warrant, it can be purged after one year on possession cases only. Law Enforcement must document and photograph the firearm thoroughly,but can purge it as abandoned property after one year. For purge criteria on misdemeanor cases, refer to Attachment 2. This criteria is for those misdemeanor cases over seven (7)years old that have gone to warrant. 10) Search warrant All evidence taken as part of a search warrant must have a court order(1536 PC)prior to the return or purging of any property. if the original warrant service included a return(1536 PC) order, the property can be released by an evidence memo issued by the District Attorney upon case adjudication. All property considered to be stolen/recovered will be photographed and released to the rightful owner, refer to Attachment 3. 11) General purge considerations a) Statute of limitations considerations Purging of property in criminal cases is sometimes based on the statute of limitations. if there has not been an arrest on a case and there is not an outstanding warrant, purging is based on the statute of limitations. For the most part, the statute of limitations runs one (1)year on misdemeanor crimes and three(3) years on felony crimes. However,this is not a set standard. For clarification based on criminal code section, see Attachment 1. An example of crimes that do not meet this basic statute of limitations would be sex crimes or violent crimes against person. Page 34 b) Agency may initiate Individual agencies may have individual purge criteria set up for various non-criminal or civil cases. A list of such cases includes, but is not limited to: 27491 GC, traffic collisions, and cases they deem are unfounded. c) Currency Any currency taken into the dustody of local law enforcement agencies as part of a narcotics sales case will be handled by the District Attorney-Asset Forfeiture Unit. In embezzlement cases, the money may be returned to the victim upon case adjudication. If the victim has filed.aclaim with their insurance company and received compensation, the money would then be released to the insurance company. 12) Photograph and release procedure Stolen/Recovered items will be photographed andieleased to'the (v). There is no need to maintain stolen/recovered property as evidence. Proper documentation(which.includes obtaining and photographing the serial numbers) and photographing of all evidence must occur prior to the release of any property. These photos should include the (v)with the items to be returned. The(v) must also be informed to maintain possession of this property until the criminal case is adjudicated, in case it is needed for prosecution. Page 35 ITEM NUMBER: C - 5 DATE: 08/14/12 CAD - �ROy Atascadero City Council Staff Report — Public Works Department Chicago Grade Landfill Contract Renewal RECOMMENDATION: City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Chicago Grade Landfill, Inc. for exclusive depositing of City waste collections into Chicago Grade Landfill. DISCUSSION: Background: The City of Atascadero entered into an agreement with Chicago Grade Landfill, Inc. for the exclusive depositing of solid waste from properties within City limits into the landfill in 2003, and amended it in 2007. The amendment expired on June 30, 2011 and has been operating on a month-to-month basis since that time. The City and the current owner wish to renew the contract to secure predictable landfill and garbage rates and revenue into the future. The garbage collection, processing, and disposal for properties within the City is provided through three contacts, namely: 1. Atascadero Waste Alternatives (AWA) — waste collection, 2. North San Luis Obispo County Recycling, Inc. (NSLOCR) - recycling 3. Chicago Grade Landfill, Inc. (CGLF) — landfill disposal Approximately 31% of the annual tonnage of trash deposited at the CGLF is generated within the City of Atascadero. This figure does not include the amount of trash hauled directly to the landfill by homeowners, contractors and others from within the City. The City of Atascadero is considered the "anchor tenant" of the landfill operation. Staff considers having a nearby, environmentally safe, and reliable place to recycle and dispose of solid waste for the residents of Atascadero as important. The 2003 contract established the terms and conditions on the landfill in exchange for being designated as the exclusive receiver of City solid waste. The key terms of the contract were: 1 1. The City's waste hauler would deliver compacted solid waste exclusively to CGLF. 2. The term of the initial contract was 8 years. 3. CGLF would provide the City the "lowest disposal rate" of $39.90 per ton. If any other disposer were to receive a lower rate the City would also receive that same rate. 4. CGLF would pay to the City quarterly a "tipping Fee" of $1 per ton (plus an additional fee for any disposal fee less than $39.90 per ton). For example if another user received a disposal rate of $38.90 the City would receive a tipping fee of $2 per ton (in addition to the lower rate of $38.90 per ton). 5. City would pay a rate of $14 per ton to dispose of sludge from the wastewater treatment plant. 6. Standard conditions regarding payment, penalties, reporting and insurance. The 2007 amendment to the contract made only a few significant modifications to the 2003 contract, namely: 1. The disposal fee was raised to $41.00 per ton. 2. CGLF would not charge for sludge disposal. 3. CGLF would provide roadside litter pick-up (Adopt-a-Road program) between Capistrano Ave and Homestead Road at no cost. 4. Minor construction debris and recycling terms and conditions. Current Contract Negotiations: Staff has met with the landfill owner's representative (and co-owner) Mike Hoover on several occasions to discuss landfill operations and negotiate the terms of the new contract. The landfill owners have stated that while the cost of living over the past 10-years has risen 34%, landfill rates have risen only 2.5%. CGLF is concerned that without a rate increase, and other stipulations, they will continue to "fall behind". The landfill is regulated by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and State agencies "CalRecycle" and Air Pollution Control Board (APCD). During the previous contract period CGLF made several facility improvements in response to new regulations and operating condition requirements, and is meeting conditions of their operating permits. The landfill has requested several significant changes to the contract, namely: 1. Non-recyclable materials collected in roll-off containers would be required to be disposed of at CGLF. 2. Increase of $1 .00 to disposal fee (2.5%), from $41.00/ton to $42.00/ton. 3. Bi-annual cost of living increase of 50% of the Southern California Consumer Price Index rate (as used in the AWA contract). 4. Ability to grant "hardship" or "charitable" discount rates or no-cost waivers twice a year per charitable user without triggering the lowest rate provisions of the original contract described above. 5. Maintain landfill records subject to the agreement for a period not less than three years. Additionally, in 2010, Michael Hoover (President of Chicago Grade) advised the City that Chicago Grade had provided a fuel subsidy to San Miguel Garbage due to the distance of travel to the landfill. The fuel subsidy ended in October 2010. Under the terms of the existing Agreement, the question arose of whether there should be a reduction in the rate being 2 charged by Chicago Grade to the City due to the fuel subsidy. For that reason, the proposed Agreement includes the fee payable to the City of $1.00 per ton as the current Agreement provides and the additional payment to the City of $25,498 per year every September 1 during the term of the Agreement. In addition, Chicago Grade will pay to Atascadero Waste Alternatives (AWA) the sum of $103,874 on or before November 27, 2012. Based upon this payment by Chicago Grade, AWA has agreed to reduce their monthly garbage collection rate charged to all Atascadero residents in a one-time rate reduction. The reduced cost to City consumers is intended to be reasonably consistent with the theoretical lower rate that they would have realized if the City received the same rate as San Miguel Garbage. It is anticipated the one-time reduced monthly rate to all rate payers with the City will be approximately $12 per customer. Analysis: Over the past year Staff and the City Attorney have been working through the complex issues surrounding the fuel subsidy and the 2003/2007 contract and amendment provisions regarding lowest rate, tipping fee increases, and penalty provisions with CGLF and their attorney. The resulting agreement by both parties and the terms of the proposed contract renewal fairly compensate the City, its residents and CGLF, and simplify the implementation of solid waste issues in the City. The previous penalty provisions have been eliminated, while the City's preferred and lowest rate, as the landfill's anchor tenant, has been preserved. The following is a discussion of the key points: Roll-Off Disposal: The City does not regulate the disposal of materials collected by the numerous construction debris and green waste recyclers, or "roll-off" companies, operating in the County. This is a function of the Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) and County Board of Supervisors. Therefore the City is unable to direct where roll-off companies dispose of residual materials they may collect. The City's current contract with NSLOCR already requires them to dispose of residual materials (non-recyclable materials / trash) at CGLF already. Disposal Fee Increase. The costs of operating any public or private enterprise have seen significant increases in operating costs due to fuel and energy costs alone over the past three years. It is not clear exactly how, or to what extent the landfill has been affected by these increases. The landfill representatives will present an analysis to the City Council on their operational challenges at the hearing. Staff generally supports the proposed $1.00 per ton increase in disposal costs to account for increased energy and operating costs at the landfill, and the rate is consistent with the rate approved recently by the Board of Supervisors for properties within the unincorporated areas of the North County. The $1 increase represents a modest 2.5% increase. In discussions with AWA the increased disposal fee will result in an approximate increase to residential users within the City of Atascadero of approximately $0.15 to $0.20 per month. 3 Cost of Living Increase: The City current contract with AWA does include the following provision regarding annual cost increases: 8.3 CPI Adiustment Commencing on the one year anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement, and on the same date annually thereafter (the "Adjustment Date"), the rates set forth in this Agreement, as adjusted hereunder, shall be automatically adjusted by a percentage equal to 85% of the annual percent change in the Consumer Price Index("CPI") for All Urban Consumers - All Items, for the Los Angeles - Riverside - Orange County metropolitan area (1982-84 = 100) as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the 12-month period ending September 30. At least thirty (30) days prior to the Adjustment Date, Contractor shall notify City of the CPI adjustment to take effect on the Adjustment Date and shall provide City with its computations therefore. After August 1, 2009, but no more than once every two years, the Contractor may request a base year rate review. If such review is requested by Contractor, Contractor will use the guidelines and approach outlined in the City of San Luis Obispo's "Rate Setting Process and Methodology Manual for Integrated Solid Waste Management Rates". Rates shall be based upon an operating ratio of 92 percent as defined in the Rate Setting Process and Methodology Manual for Integrated Solid Waste Management Rates. It also includes the following terms regarding additional cost increases such as would be imposed if the CGLF were to have an annual fee increase: 8.4 Extraordinary Rate Adiustments The rates set by this Agreement are calculated to pay certain expenses and costs that are of a contingent and uncertain nature. Therefore, in addition to the annual rate adjustment provided by Section 8.3, the rates under this Agreement shall, upon written request of Contractor or City, be further adjusted on an interim basis for increased or decreased expenses associated with performance of the services hereunder due to any one or more of the following causes: (a) material changes in Contractor's costs resulting from a Force Majeure event; (b) chanizes to Contractor's operations or the Franchise Fee or other fees required or initiated by City; (emphasis added) (c) Contractor desires to provide additional new services or the City requests the Contractor to provide any additional new services, or Contractor desires or the City requests the Contractor to change the method of providing, or the technology used to provide, existing services under this Agreement; (d) any increase or decrease in disposal fees or in fees for the processing of Recyclable Materials if such Recyclables Materials are being processed at a third party facility; or (e) any change in law, statute, rule, regulation, ordinance, order or requirement of any federal, state, regional or local government that occurs after the Effective Date of this Agreement. 4 Annual cost increases would not result in stable and predictable garbage rates for the citizens of Atascadero. Staff supports the need for reasonable bi-annual cost increases to account for normal operational cost increases. A provision clarifying this issue is included in the proposed contract as Item 4.1.a (i). Charitable Rates: There are charitable events that occur each year that would lend themselves to the ability to have a charitable rate. For example Creek Clean-Up Day currently pays standard landfill rates. Another example may be a service club activity that generates refuse hauled to the landfill would pay the standard landfill disposal rate. CGLF requested the ability to determine when and how much of a discount either a hardship customer or any charitable customer could receive, up to a 100% discount. Staff supports this request with the provision the City is notified of such discounts, and they are limited to no more than two discounts per year per charity. The "hardship customer" provisions requested by CGLF are less clear cut. The requested provision giving CGLF the ability to determine who qualifies for a financial hardship reads "as determined in the reasonable discretion of Chicago Grade". While community projects have always been encouraged and supported by the City, Staff does not support giving the landfill operators the sole discretion of who, and by how much, a group or individual would be allowed to dispose of materials at the landfill. An example might be a garbage company having financial problems hauling to the landfill, and then receiving a lower disposal rate as an incentive to make the CGLF more attractive for disposal. Staff is recommending the City Council not approve provisions allowing "hardship" discounts as they would be difficult to reasonably control and administer. Records Retention: The current landfill agreement states the CGLF shall keep financial records for services provided under the agreement, but is not specific on the length of time those records be kept. CGLF has requested these records be kept for a minimum of three years. Staff accepts the three year provision as adequate to allow the City to provide regular audits as needed. Other Minor Changes: The contract language was simplified and clarified in several other areas, namely: • Late quarterly tipping fee payment fees from CGLF to the City will be assessed a 10% late fee, plus 10% per annum until paid current. • CGLF will accept ALL non-hazardous sludge generated by the City free of charge. • CGLF will accept all dead deer or other animals as collected within the City by the City's Public Works Operations Division free of charge. • Dispute resolution will be by first through a mediation process, if unproductive a lawsuit may be filed. Term of Proposed Contract: The proposed term of the contract would be eight years, and run from an effective date of September 1, 2012 through September 1, 2019, inclusive. The proposed contract is attached to this report as Attachment A. 5 FISCAL IMPACT: The new regulations have the potential to increase garbage collection rates to homeowners in the City approximately $0.20 per month, businesses would pay more based on the volume / weight of garbage produced. The landfill rate, and consumers garbage collection rate could potentially increase every two years based on the cost of living provisions described above. It is anticipated bi-annual increases would be modest, similar to the $0.20 per month initial increase. City revenues from landfill tipping fees would remain stable at pre-existing levels. ATTACHMENT: 1. Proposed contract 6 Attachment A AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AND CHICAGO GRADE LANDFILL, INC. FOR EXCLUSIVE DEPOSITING OF CITY WASTE COLLECTIONS INTO CHICAGO GRADE LANDFILL This Agreement for Exclusive Depositing of City Waste Collections Into Chicago Grade Landfill (the "Agreement") is made and entered into, effective as of September 1, 2012 (the "Effective Date"), with reference to the facts recited below by and between the CITY OF ATASCADERO, a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of California ("City"), and CHICAGO GRADE LANDFILL, INC., a California corporation ("Chicago Grade") Chicago Grade and the City may be collectively referred to as the "Parties". RECITALS A. Chicago Grade operates a landfill located on Homestead Road in Templeton, California (the "Chicago Grade Landfill"), from which Chicago Grade has provided and is capable of providing solid waste disposal services; B. The Parties previously executed that certain Agreement for Exclusive Depositing of City Waste Collections Into Chicago Grade Landfill executed in or about August 2003 (the "Prior Agreement"),pursuant to which City designated the Chicago Grade Landfill as its exclusive location for the disposal of solid waste collected by City's Franchised Waste Hauler, and Chicago Grade provided solid waste disposal services; C. City has duly adopted Ordinance No. 56 which requires contractors providing solid waste handling services for solid waste generated in the City to dispose of all refuse or garbage and rubbish at a disposal site approved by the San Luis Obispo County Department of Health; D. The Chicago Grade Landfill is approved for solid waste disposal by CalRecycle ; E. Chicago Grade can and will furnish all personnel, equipment, and supplies necessary to accept disposal of solid waste from all premises within the City; F. City is authorized under its agreements with its franchised waste hauler to designate a specific landfill into which waste collected within the City will be deposited; and G. The City Council has determined that the grant of an exclusive agreement for disposal of waste collected within the City into Chicago Grade Landfill is in the public interest. AGREEMENTS: NOW, THEREFORE, CITY AND CHICAGO GRADE DO HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. DESIGNATION OF THE CHICAGO GRADE LANDFILL AS EXCLUSIVE LOCATION FOR THE DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE COLLECTED BY CITY'S FRANCHISED WASTE HAULER. Pursuant to Section 13(H) of its Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement, City designates the Chicago Grade Landfill as the exclusive location for the disposal of compacted solid waste collected within the City of Atascadero by its franchised waste hauler. 1.1 As used herein, the term "compacted solid waste" shall mean municipal solid waste that is collected in the City of Atascadero pursuant to a franchise agreement with the City of Atascadero and delivered in compactor trucks, provided that such term also shall include residual waste generated from all Materials Recovery Facilities under contract with the City. The City shall enforce the provisions of current contracts 7 between the City and any Materials Recovery Facility ("MRF") or other recycling facilities (collectively "Facilities"). The City shall require provisions in all future contracts executed between the City and any MRF" or other Facilities" that (1) all residual waste generated by such Facilities shall be delivered solely to Chicago Grade Landfill; and(2) all such Facilities shall submit to City quarterly written reports describing the quantities of waste delivered to the Facilities by the City's franchised waste hauler, and the overall percentage of residual waste generated by the facility, during the prior quarter, and the manner in which and place where the facility disposed of such residuals; and (3) Chicago Grade is a third party beneficiary of such provision in any such contract. Upon written request from time to time, Chicago Grade may inspect the City's records relating to any Facilities under contract with the City in order to confirm that all residual waste generated at such Facilities is being delivered to Chicago Grade Landfill. For the purposes of this section, the terms "residual waste" and "residuals" shall mean material that cannot be economically recycled and must be sent to a landfill. 1.2 During the term of this Agreement, City shall not designate or approve the disposal of such solid waste at any other landfill. 2. TERM OF AGREEMENT. Subject to Section 12 of this Agreement, the term of this Agreement shall be from September 1, 2012 to September 1, 2019 inclusive. In the event this Agreement is terminated, in accordance with its terms, earlier than September 1, 2019, the status of Chicago Grade Landfill as the exclusive disposal site for compacted solid waste kept, accumulated or generated in the City of Atascadero granted hereby shall terminate as of the date of termination of the Agreement. 3. DEFINITIONS. Unless otherwise defined, or if the use or context clearly requires a different definition, all words, terms and phrases in this Agreement and the derivations thereof shall have the meanings set forth in Section 6-4.01 of the Atascadero Municipal Code. 4. CHARGES AND FEES 4.1 During the term of this Agreement, Chicago Grade shall charge City and City's franchised waste hauler for accepting for disposal in the Chicago Grade Landfill compacted solid waste kept, accumulated, or generated in the City of Atascadero. Charges shall be in the following amounts: (a) During the term of this Agreement, Chicago Grade shall charge a maximum of Forty two Dollars ($42.00)per ton of solid waste kept, accumulated, or generated in the City of Atascadero that Chicago Grade accepts from City's franchised waste hauler for disposal in the Chicago Grade Landfill (such rate, as increased pursuant to Sections 4. 1(a)(i) and(ii),the "Base Rate"). (i) Effective on January 1, 2015, such Base Rate in effect under this Section 4.1(a) shall be increased by fifty percent(50%) of the change in the CPI Index (as defined in Section 4.2(a)(ii),below) from (A) the month of September 2012 (the "Base Month"), to (B) the month of September 2014 (the "Adjustment Month"). Effective on January 1, 2017, such Base Rate in effect under this Section 4.1(a) shall be increased by fifty percent (50%) of the change in the CPI Index (as defined in Section 4.2(a)(ii), below) from(A) the month of September 2014(the "Base Month"),to(B)the month of September 2016 (the "Adjustment Month"). Effective on January 1, 2019, such Base Rate in effect under this Section 4.1(a) shall be increased by fifty percent (50%) of the change in the CPI Index (as defined in Section 4.2(a)(ii), below) from(A) the month of September 2016 (the "Base Month"),to(B)the month of September 2018 (the "Adjustment Month"). Effective on January 1 of very odd numbered year of the extension, if any, of the term of this Agreement beyond the current term,the Base Rate shall be increased by fifty percent(50%) of the change in the CPI Index (as defined in Section 4.2(a)(ii), below)utilizing the same designation for Base Month and Adjustment Month as for the increases permitted on January 1, 2015 and January 1, 2017 and January 1, 2019. 8 For example,the Base Rate increase to effective on January 1,2021 will use September 2018 as the Base Month and September 2020 as the Adjustment Month. On November 1 in advance of any increase in the Base Rate, Chicago Landfill will provide written notice to the City of the proposed amount of the increase and the calculations supporting the increase. (ii) For purposes of this Agreement, the term "CPI Index" means the official Consumer's Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, All Items, for the Los Angeles- Riverside-Orange County, CA area, 1982-1984=100 as published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. If the CPI Index is no longer published in the Adjustment Month, then appropriate reference figures for the CPI Index for the Base Month and the Adjustment Month shall be derived from any successor comparable index mutually agreed upon by the Parties to be authoritative. If the Parties are unable to agree, then the substituted index shall be selected by the then-presiding judge of the Superior Court for San Luis Obispo County, California(the "County")upon application of either City or Chicago Grade. (b) In the event Chicago Grade shall reduce its landfill disposal charges below Forty-two ($42.00) per ton to any customer depositing solid waste at Chicago Grade Landfill, Chicago Grade shall at the same time reduce its landfill disposal charge in a like amount for the solid waste kept, accumulated, or generated in the City of Atascadero that Chicago Grade accepts for disposal in its landfill, except that this subparagraph shall not apply when Chicago Grade,upon prior written notice to City, grants a discounted disposal charge up to 100% of the disposal charge that Chicago Grade is then charging City, to customers that Chicago Grade considers to be charitable cases (`Charity Discount"), provided that Chicago Grade shall not provide a Charity Discount more frequently than two(2)times per year to the same applicant. 4.2 During the term of this Agreement, Chicago Grade shall pay to City fees for the privilege of accepting for disposal in its landfill compacted solid waste kept, accumulated, or generated in the City of Atascadero and delivered to the landfill by City's franchised waste hauler. Fees shall be in the following amounts: (a) Chicago Grade shall pay to the City not less than One Dollar and No Cent ($1.00) per ton of compacted solid waste kept, accumulated, or generated in the City of Atascadero that Chicago Grade accepts for disposal from City's franchised waste hauler at the Chicago Grade Landfill, except that Chicago Grade shall not be required to pay to the City this sum, or any other amount, for solid waste that qualifies for the Charity Discount described above. Chicago Grade shall also pay to the City an annual fee of$25,498 beginning with a first payment on September 1, 2012 and subsequent annual payments every September 1 with the last payment due on September 1, 2018. Chicago Grade shall also pay directly to Atascadero Waste Alternatives a one-time sum of$103,874 on or before November 27, 2012. (b) Except for the annual payments and one-time payment described in Paragraph 4.2(a) above, fee payments shall be paid quarterly and shall be computed and paid on the basis of tonnage of solid waste kept, accumulated, or generated in the City of Atascadero that Chicago Grade accepts for disposal at the Chicago Grade Landfill. (c) Chicago Grade shall transmit all required fees to: Administrative Services Director City of Atascadero 6907 El Camino Real Atascadero, California 93422 4.3 Except for the annual payments and one-time payment described in Paragraph 4.2(a) above, fee payments shall be due and payable on the twentieth (20th) day of the month following the end of each quarter. If fees are not paid by Chicago Grade when due, then in addition to the fees, Chicago Grade shall pay a single late payment penalty for each such unpaid fee in an amount equal to ten percent(10%) of the fee that was 9 not timely paid by Chicago Grade, and Chicago Grade also shall pay interest on the outstanding balance of all unpaid fees at the rate of ten percent(10%)per annum or the maximum legal rate allowed, whichever is less, from the date the fees were due and payable to the date actually paid. If Chicago Grade remits fees by personal delivery to City, such fees shall be deemed timely paid only if delivered on or before the due date. If Chicago Grade remits fees by mail or other delivery service, such fees shall be deemed timely only if(1) the envelope containing the fee payment bears a postmark or receipt showing that the payment was mailed or sent on or before the due date or (2) Chicago Grade submits proof satisfactory to the Administrative Services Director that the fee payment was in fact deposited in the mail or sent on or before the due date. 4.4 In the event Chicago Grade believes that it has paid fees in excess of the fees due to City, Chicago Grade may submit a request for refund to the Administrative Services Director on a form provided by the Director. If proof of overpayment is satisfactory to the Director, the Director shall refund to Chicago Grade any overpayment. Chicago Grade shall not apply any overpayment as a credit against any other amounts payable to City unless specifically so authorized by the Administrative Services Director in writing. All sums due and payable from City to Chicago Grade shall be due and payable monthly. If any sum is not paid by City when due, then in addition to the fees, City shall pay a late fee of ten percent (10%) of the outstanding balance, and City shall also pay interest on the outstanding balance at the rate of ten percent (10%)per annum, or the maximum legal rate of interest, which is less, from the date the fees were due and payable to the date actually paid. 5. DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE 5.1 Chicago Grade shall accept disposal of all solid waste collected or transported by City's franchised waste hauler to Chicago Grade Landfill. Chicago Grade shall, during the term of this Agreement, maintain sufficient landfill capacity to accept disposal of all solid waste collected or transported by City's franchised waste hauler to Chicago Grade landfill. 5.2 During the term of this Agreement, City shall direct all franchised waste haulers permitted to collect solid waste within City to deliver such solid waste to Chicago Grade Landfill. City shall not, during the term of this Agreement, direct that solid waste hauled pursuant to the City's franchise agreement be delivered to a disposal site other than Chicago Grade Landfill. In the event City is currently party to a contract with a contractor to collect and dispose of solid waste kept, accumulated or generated within City, City shall endeavor to immediately amend such contract to specify that the contractor shall deliver solid waste collected under such contract to Chicago Grade Landfill for disposal. 5.3 During the term of this Agreement, Chicago Grade shall accept free of charge (other than pick- up and delivery charges) for disposal (a) all non-hazardous "sludge" generated by City, and (b) all non- hazardous biosolids generated by City's Wastewater Treatment Plant, and (c) free of charge any dead deer or other animals killed on City streets as may be acquired by the City Operations Staff. 6. REPORTS 6.1 Chicago Grade shall submit to City quarterly reports stating the total amount of solid waste that Chicago Grade accepted for disposal from within the City during the reportable quarter; the total weight (in tons) of all other solid waste accepted by Chicago Grade during the reportable quarter; and the total weight and the weight by material category (in tons) of solid waste accepted by Chicago Grade during the reportable quarter. Such quarterly reports shall be prepared in the form required by the City Engineer. Each quarterly report shall be submitted on or before the 15th day of the month following the end of the quarter(i.e., report due April 15 for first quarter of the year)and submitted to: City Engineer City of Atascadero 6907 El Camino Real 10 Atascadero, California 93422 6.2 If the report required under Section 6.1 is not filed by the due date specified above, the report shall be deemed delinquent. If the report remains delinquent for more than five (5) days after Chicago Grade's receipt of a written notice from City, Chicago Grade shall pay to City a delinquent report charge in the amount of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00). If the report remains delinquent for more than forty-five (45) days, Chicago Grade shall pay to City a delinquent report charge in the amount of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00). Such delinquent report charges shall be in addition to any fees or other charges payable by Chicago Grade under this Agreement. 7. CHICAGO GRADE'S RECORDS AND CITY'S RECORDS 7.1 Chicago Grade shall keep and maintain books of account, income statements and supporting documents of all business transactions conducted by Chicago Grade in connection with the solid waste landfill disposal services of Chicago Grade under this Agreement. Such records shall be kept at Chicago Grade's place of business for a period of three (3) years after the end of the calendar year to which such records relate. 7.2 The books of account, income statements and supporting documents shall be made available to City at Chicago Grade's place of business during normal business hours upon request or demand of the City Manager, City Engineer, or other City officer, employee or consultant authorized by any of these officers. The purpose of such inspection and/or audit shall be for verification of the fees paid by Chicago Grade under this Agreement, the accuracy thereof; charges made to others for disposal at the Chicago Grade Landfill and for verification of the amounts of solid waste reported by Chicago Grade pursuant to this Agreement. To the extent authorized by law, Chicago Grade's books of account, incomes statements and other documents accessed by City shall be kept confidential. 7.3 Chicago Grade shall reimburse City for City's costs in performance of an audit if, as a result of the audit it is determined: (a) There was any intentional misrepresentation by Chicago Grade with respect to the amount of fees due to the City; or (b) There is a one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or greater discrepancy in the amount of fees due to the City. Such reimbursement shall be paid by Chicago Grade WITHIN THIRTY (30) days of the date City notifies Chicago Grade in writing of the amount of City's costs. 7.4 City shall keep and maintain books of account, income statements and supporting documents of all business transactions conducted by City and its franchised waste haulers in connection with the solid waste disposal services. Such records shall be kept at City's place of business for a period of three (3) years after the end of the calendar year to which such records relate. 7.5 The waste tonnage records for all solid waste kept, accumulated, or generated in the City of Atascadero shall be made available to Chicago Grade at City's place of business during normal business hours upon request or demand of any representative of Chicago Grade. The purpose of such inspection and/or audit shall be for verification of the solid waste generated and the sums paid by City and its franchised waste hauler under this Agreement, as well as the residual waste generated by any MRF or other recycling facility doing business with City. 8. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Without limiting the indemnification provided in Section 9, Chicago Grade shall obtain and shall maintain throughout the term of this Agreement, at Chicago Grade's sole cost and expense, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the solid waste disposal services provided under this Agreement by Chicago Grade, its agents,representatives, employees or contractors. 11 8.1 MINIMUM SCOPE AND LIMITS OF INSURANCE. Chicago Grade shall maintain at least the following minimum insurance coverages: (a) COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY: $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury,personal injury, and property damage. The Commercial General Liability insurance limit shall apply separately to this Agreement or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. The Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on a "claims made" basis. Following the expiration or termination of this Agreement, Chicago Grade shall include City as an additional insured under the policy for three (3) years to protect City from claims filed after said expiration or termination. In the event that the Chicago Grade Landfill closes during said three-year period, Chicago Grade shall obtain"tail coverage"protecting City from said claims. (b) POLLUTION LEGAL LIABILITY: $10,000,000 per occurrence on a claims-made basis for pollution releases. Following the expiration or termination of this Agreement, Chicago Grade shall include City as an additional insured under the policy for four (4) years to protect City from claims filed after said expiration or termination. In the event that the Chicago Grade Landfill closes during said four (4) year period, Chicago Grade shall obtain "tail coverage" protecting City from said claims for the remainder of such four-year period if commercially available. If four(4)years is not commercially available, then Chicago Grade will maintain such insurance for such period, not to exceed four (4) years, for which such insurance is commercially available. (c) AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY: $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage, and shall include sudden and accidental coverage. (d) WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS LIABILITY: Workers' Compensation statutory limits as required by the California Labor Code and Employers Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. 8.2 DEDUCTIBLES AND SELF-INSURED RETENTIONS. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. At the option of City either: (a) The insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects City,its officers, employees, agents and contractors; or (b) Chicago Grade shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses in an amount specified by City. 8.3 ENDORSEMENTS. The required insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: (a) GENERAL LIABILITY AND AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COVERAGES (i) The City of Atascadero, its officers, elected officials, employees, agents and contractors are to be covered as an additional insured as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by, or on behalf of Chicago Grade; products and completed operations of Chicago Grade; premises owned, leased or used by Chicago Grade; and automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by Chicago Grade. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City, its officers, elected officials, employees and agents and contractors. (ii) Chicago Grade's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects City, its officers, elected officials, employees, agents and contractors. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City, its officers, elected officials, employees, agents or contractors shall be excess of Chicago Grade's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 12 (iii) Coverage shall state that Chicago Grade's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. (b) ALL COVERAGES. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, or reduced in limits except after thirty (30)days'prior written notice has been given to the City. 8.4 PLACEMENT OF INSURANCE. Insurance shall be placed with an insurance company certified to do business in the State of California,with Best's rating A-VII or better. 8.5 PROOF OF INSURANCE. Chicago Grade shall furnish City with certificates of insurance and with original endorsements affecting coverage required by this Agreement. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. Proof of insurance shall be mailed or personally delivered to the following address or to such other address as may be directed in writing by the City: City Engineer City of Atascadero 6907 El Camino Real Atascadero, California 93422 8.6 SUBCONTRACTORS. Chicago Grade shall include all subcontractors as insureds under Chicago Grade's policies or shall obtain separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. 8.7 FAILURE TO PROVIDE INSURANCE. Chicago Grade agrees that if any policy of insurance required by this Agreement is not maintained in full force and effect,the City Manager may, in his sole discretion, suspend this Agreement, immediately, until such time as the required insurance is in effect and the required certificates and endorsements are delivered to the City. 9. INDEMNIFICATION. Chicago Grade shall indemnify the City as follows: 9.1 GENERAL LIABILITY: Chicago Grade, as a condition of this agreement, shall indemnify, defend with counsel approved by City, protect and hold harmless the City, its officers, elected officials, employees and agents,with respect to any loss, liability, injury or damage that arises out of or is in any way related to, the acts or omissions of Chicago Grade, its employees, officers and agents in the performance of any activity, function or duty authorized by, or required under the terms of, this Agreement, or that arises out of or is in any way related to Chicago Grade's operation of its Chicago Grade Landfill, except Chicago Grade shall not be required to indemnify City in connection with the sole negligence or willful acts or omissions of the City, its officers, elected officials, agents or employees. 9.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES INDEMNIFICATION: Chicago Grade shall indemnify, defend with counsel approved by City,protect and hold harmless City, its officers, elected officials, employees, agents, assigns, and any successor or successors to City's interest from and against all claims, actual damages including, but not limited to, special and consequential damages, natural resource damage, punitive damages, injuries, costs, response, remediation, and removal costs, losses, demands, debts, liens, liabilities, causes of action, suits, legal or administrative proceedings, interest, fines, charges, penalties and expenses, attorneys' and expert witness fees and costs incurred in connection with defending against any of the foregoing or in enforcing this indemnity of any kind whatsoever paid, incurred or suffered by, or asserted against City or its officers, elected officials, employees, agents or Chicago Grade arising from or attributable to Chicago Grade's activities under this Agreement, or that arises out of or is in any way related to Chicago Grade's operation of its Chicago Grade Landfill, concerning any hazardous substances or hazardous waste at any place where Chicago Grade stores or disposes of solid or hazardous waste pursuant to this Agreement, or preceding agreements 13 between City and Chicago Grade. The foregoing indemnity is intended to operate as an agreement pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 42 U.S.C. Section 9607(e) and any amendments thereto; California Health and Safety Code Section 25364, to insure, protect, hold harmless, and indemnify City from liability. 9.3 City agrees to give notice to Chicago Grade when the City receives a claim for damages or other liability for which Chicago Grade has provided indemnification under this Section. 10. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW 10.1 Chicago Grade shall perform all solid waste services under this Agreement in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local law, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 10.2 Over the course of the term of this Agreement, Chicago Grade and City agree that the City's ordinances may be amended as necessary to permit the City to comply with changes to federal, state, and local legislative regulatory requirements, which may affect or alter City's solid waste handling obligations or requirements for solid waste management. Chicago Grade agrees to comply with any such amendment of the City's ordinances. 11. PERMITS AND LICENSES. Chicago Grade shall obtain and maintain, at Chicago Grade's sole cost and expense, all permits and licenses applicable to Chicago Grade's operations under the Agreement which are required of Chicago Grade by any governmental agency. 12. TERMINATION 12.1 Upon an Event of Default by Chicago Grade, the City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement. City shall provide written notice of termination setting forth with specificity the event of default upon which the termination is based. The termination shall become effective within ten (10) days of Chicago Grade's receipt of notice unless within said period it serves on City a written demand for binding arbitration as provided in Section 13 herein. As used herein, an"Event of Default" includes the following events: (a) Chicago Grade fails to perform its obligations under this Agreement, or any present or future supplement or amendment to this Agreement, and fails to cure such breach within thirty (30) days of receiving notice from the City specifying the breach; (b) Any representation or disclosure made to City by Chicago Grade in connection with or as an inducement to entering into this Agreement or any future amendment to this Agreement, which proves to be false or misleading in any material respect as of the time such representation or disclosure is made, whether or not any such representation or disclosure appears as part of this Agreement; (c) CalRecycle revokes or otherwise terminates Chicago Grade's permit to operate a sanitary landfill at the Chicago Grade Landfill; (d) There is any termination or suspension of the transaction of business by Chicago Grade, including without limit, due to labor unrest including strike, work stoppage or slowdown, sickout, picketing, or other concerted job action lasting more than two (2)days; (e) Chicago Grade files a voluntary petition for debt relief under any applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, debtor relief or other similar law now or hereafter in effect, or shall consent to the appointment of or taking of possession by a receiver, liquidator, assignee, trustee, custodian, sequestrator (or similar official) of Chicago Grade for any part of Chicago Grade's operating assets or any substantial part of Chicago Grade's property, or shall make any general assignment for the benefit of Chicago Grade's creditors, or shall fail generally to pay Chicago Grade's debts as they become due or shall take any action in furtherance of any of the foregoing; 14 (f) A court having jurisdiction shall enter a decree or order for relief in respect of the Chicago Grade, in any involuntary case brought under any bankruptcy, insolvency, debtor relief, or similar law now or hereafter in effect, or Chicago Grade shall consent to or shall fail to oppose any such proceeding, or any such court shall enter a decree or order appointing a receiver, liquidator, assignee, custodian, trustee, sequestrator (or similar official) of the Chicago Grade or for any part of Chicago Grade's operating equipment or assets, or orders the winding up or liquidation of the affairs of Chicago Grade. 12.2 In the event the Agreement is terminated pursuant to Section 12.1 above or the term of this Agreement expires: (a) Chicago Grade shall remain liable to City for any and all fees that would otherwise be payable by Chicago Grade, for any and all late payment charges and interest assessed pursuant to Section 4 of this Agreement, and for any and all delinquent report charges assessed pursuant to Section 6 of this Agreement. (b) Chicago Grade shall have a continuing obligation to submit to City all reports required by Section 6 of this Agreement which relate to the acceptance of solid waste kept, accumulated or generated in the City of Atascadero by Chicago Grade up to and including the date of termination, suspension, or expiration. (c) Chicago Grade agrees to continue to provide the indemnification required in this Agreement after its suspension or termination. Such indemnification includes, but is not limited to, the hazardous materials indemnification in Section 9. 13. MEDIATION 13.1 Prior to filing any legal action in connection with, or relating in any way to,this Agreement,the Parties agree to submit any dispute to a mediator to be selected by mutual agreement of the Parties. 13.2 The cost of the mediator shall be split evenly between the Parties. 13.3 The rules for the mediation shall be set by the mediator. 13.4 Any party requesting mediation ("Requesting Party") shall do so in writing to the other parry ("Responding Party") with the names of three proposed mediators and the Responding Party shall have ten (10) calendar days to either (1) select one of the mediators to serve as the mediator or (2) propose three different mediators to the Requesting Party. 13.5 If, after the exchange of proposed mediators as provided herein, the Parties are unable to agree upon a mediator and the dispute between the Parties is not otherwise settled, then the Requesting Party shall file a Petition with the San Luis Obispo Superior requesting the Court to appoint a mediator. 13.6 The Parties agree that if mediation is not completed within forty-five (45) days from the date of the written request for mediation by the Requesting Party, the Requesting Party has the right, but not the obligation,to file a lawsuit. 14. ASSIGNMENT. Chicago Grade shall not assign, sell, subcontract, transfer or otherwise delegate its authority to perform any obligations under the Agreement without prior express written consent of the City Council, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. This prohibition includes any transfer of ownership or control of Chicago Grade in any one transaction or series of related transaction (other than (i) transfers among persons who are beneficial owners of Chicago Grade as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, and(ii) transfers from such persons to their heirs upon the death of those persons who are beneficial owners of Chicago Grade as of the Effective Date of this Agreement), or the conveyance of a majority of Chicago Grade's stock to a new controlling interest. In the event City authorizes Chicago Grade to assign, sell, subcontract, transfer or 15 otherwise delegate its authority to perform any obligations under the Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding on the successors and permitted assigns of the Parties. 15. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 15.1 NOTICES. All notices required by this Agreement shall be given (a) by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid and return receipt requested and (b) by email, addressed to the Parties as follows: If to City: If to Chicago Grade: To: Russell S Thompson,PE To: Chicago Grade Landfill, Inc. Director of Public Works Attn: Mike Hoover,President City of Atascadero 2290 Homestead Road 6907 El Camino Real Templeton, California 93465 Atascadero, California 93422 Email: mhoovergchicagogradelandfill.com Email: [rthompson@atascadero.org] With a copy to Susan F. Petrovich With a copy to Brian A. Pierik Email: spetrovich@bhfs.com Email: bpierik&bwslaw.com Notice shall be deemed effective on the date personally served or, if mailed, three (3) days after the date deposited in the mails by certified or registered mail, return of receipt requested, or, if transmitted by email, on the date on which transmitted. 15.2 AMENDMENTS. This Agreement supersedes the Prior Agreement and all other prior agreements and understandings between the Parties and all obligations of the Parties under the Prior Agreement and all other prior agreements and understandings, regarding the subject matter hereof, and may not be modified or terminated orally, and no modification, termination or attempted waiver of any of the provisions hereof shall be binding unless in writing and signed by the party against whom the same is sought to be enforced. 15.3 APPLICABLE LAW. This Agreement and the transactions herein contemplated shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the applicable laws of the State of California and of the United States. 15.4 AUTHORITY. The Parties signing below represent and warrant that they have the requisite authority to bind the entities on whose behalf they are signing. 15.5 SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable,the remaining provisions shall not be affected unless their enforcement under the circumstances would be unreasonable, inequitable or would otherwise frustrate the purposes of this Agreement. 15.6 WAIVER. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any provisions of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any breach or violation of any other provision nor of any subsequent breach of violation of the same or any other provision. The subsequent acceptance by either party of any monies which become due hereunder shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preexisting or concurrent breach or violation by the other party of any provision of this Agreement. 15.7 COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be considered an original and all of which, taken together, shall be one and the same instrument, binding upon each signatory. 16 15.8 SECTION HEADINGS. The section headings in this Agreement are for convenience of reference only and are not intended to be used in the construction of this Agreement nor to alter or affect any of its provisions. 15.9 INTERPRETATION. This Agreement shall be interpreted and construed reasonably and neither for nor against either party,regardless of the degree to which either party participated in its drafting. 15.10 ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement represents the full and entire Agreement between the Parties with respect to the matters covered herein, and supersedes and replaces all prior and contemporaneous understandings and agreements,including the Prior Agreement. [Signatures appear on the following page.] 17 ITEM NUMBER: C - 5 DATE: 08/14/12 WITNESS THE EXECUTION OF THIS AGREEMENT ON THE DATE WRITTEN BELOW EACH SIGNATURE: "CITY" CITY OF ATASCADERO, a Municipal ATTEST Corporation By: Marcia Torgerson, Mayor City Clerk DATE: DATE: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Brian A. Pierik City Attorney DATE: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CHICAGO GRADE LANDFILL,INC., a California Corporation By: Susan F. Petrovich Michael F.Hoover,President Attorney for Chicago Grade Landfill, Inc. DATE: DATE: 18