HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC_2016-12-13_Agenda Packet
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
City Hall Council Chambers, 4th floor
6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California
(Entrance on Lewis Ave.)
REGULAR SESSION – CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Kelley
ROLL CALL: Mayor O’Malley
Mayor Pro Tem Moreno
Council Member Fonzi
Council Member Kelley
Council Member Sturtevant
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Roll Call
Recommendation: Council:
1. Approve this agenda; and
2. Waive the reading in full of all ordinances appearing on this agenda, and the
titles of the ordinances will be read aloud by the City Clerk at the first reading,
after the motion and before the City Council votes.
City Council Regular Session: 6:00 P.M.
City Council Closed Session: Immediately following
adjournment of Regular
Session
Page 1
PRESENTATIONS: None.
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 – November 8 and November 17, 2016
Recommendation: Council approve the City Council Draft Action Minutes
of the November 8 and November 17, 2016 City Council meetings. [City
Clerk]
2. City Council 2016 Meeting Schedule
Fiscal Impact: None.
Recommendation: Council approve the City Council meeting schedule for
2017. [City Manager]
3. Reciting the Fact of the General Municipal Election Held on November 8,
2016
Fiscal Impact: None.
Recommendation: Council adopt the Draft Resolution, reciting the fact of
the General Municipal Election held on November 8, 2016, declaring the
result and such other matters as provided by law. [City Clerk]
4. October 2016 Accounts Payable and Payroll
Fiscal Impact: $2,051,263.57
Recommendation: Council approve certified City accounts payable,
payroll and payrol l vendor checks for October 2016. [Administrative
Services]
OATHS OF OFFICE:
1. Administration of Oaths of Office
Mayor Tom O’Malley and Council Members Roberta Fonzi and Charles
Bourbeau will be sworn in by City Clerk Marcia McClure Torgerson.
PRESENTATION:
1. Presentation to Outgoing City Council Member Bob Kelley
Page 2
CITY COUNCIL REORGANIZATION:
1. Council Appointment of Mayor Pro Tem.
Accept nominations from the Council Members and appoint a Mayor Pro
Tem for a two-year term ending December 2018.
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 conta ct the City Clerk’s Office, between the hours of 8:30 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. at 470-3400, or cityclerk@atascadero.org.)
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Measure F-14 – Voter Approved Appointive City Clerk
Ex-Parte Communications:
Fiscal Impact: Estimated savings in the amount of $14,800.
Recommendation: Council introduce, for first reading by title only, the
Draft Ordinance Amending Title 2, Chapters 6, 14 and 20 of the
Atascadero Municipal Code by Stating the City Clerk is Appointive and
Authorizing the City Manager to Appoint the City Clerk. [City Clerk]
2. 2016 Community Development Block Grants - Draft Recommendations
Ex-Parte Communications:
Fiscal Impact: The 2017 allocation is estimated to be $220,528.
Recommendation: Council develop and adopt draft funding
recommendations for the 2017 Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds. [Public Works]
C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS:
1. Tentative Settlement Agreement with PG&E regarding proposed closure
of Diablo Canyon Power Plant.
Fiscal Impact: None.
Recommendation: Council approve the proposed Settlement Agreement
with PG&E regarding future closure of Diablo Canyon Power Plant and
authorize the City Manager to execute the Settlement Agreement. [City
Attorney]
Page 3
2. Purchase of City Permit System Software
Fiscal Impact: This action will result in the expenditure of a contra ct
amount of $434,818 in budgeted funds.
Recommendation: Council authorize the City Manager to execute a
contract with SunGard Public Sector in the amount of $424,818 plus travel
expenses not to exceed $10,000, for purchase, implementation and
training for a new permitting software system. [Information Technology]
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 O’Malley
1. City / Schools Committee
2. County Mayors Round Table
3. SLO Council of Governments (SLOCOG)
4. SLO Regional Transit Authority (RTA)
Mayor Pro Tem Moreno
1. California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) Board
2. City of Atascadero Finance Committee (Chair)
3. Economic Vitality Corporation, Board of Directors (EVC)
Council Member Fonzi
1. Air Pollution Control District
2. Oversight Board for Successor Agency to the Community Redevelopment
Agency of Atascadero
3. SLO Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo)
4. City of Atascadero Design Review Committee
5. SLO County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC)
6. Water Issues Liaison
Council Member Sturtevant
1. City / Schools Committee
2. 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
Page 4
I, Amanda Muther, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Atascadero, declare under the penalty of perjury that
the foregoing agenda for the November 8, 2016 Regular Session of the Atascadero City Council was
posted on December 6, 2016, at the Atascadero City Hall, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422
and was available for public review at that location.
Signed this 6th day of December, 2016, at Atascadero, California.
Amanda Muther, Deputy City Clerk
City of Atascadero
F. ADJOURN REGULAR MEETING TO CLOSED SESSION
CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION: Immediately following adjournment of
Regular Session.
1. CLOSED SESSION -- PUBLIC COMMENT
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: Rachelle Rickard, City Manager
Employee Organizations: Atascadero Firefighters Bargaining Unit
4. CLOSED SESSION – ADJOURNMENT
5. COUNCIL RETURNS TO CHAMBERS
6. CLOSED SESSION – REPORT
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.
Page 5
City of Atascadero
WELCOME TO THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
The City Council meets in regular session on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month at 6:00 p.m. Council
meetings will be held at the City Hall Council Chambers, 6500 Palma Avenue, 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, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, and on our website, www.atascadero.org. 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.
Page 6
ITEM NUMBER: A-1
DATE: 12/13/16
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT MINUTES
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
City Hall Council Chambers, 4th floor
6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California
REGULAR SESSION – CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M.
Mayor O’Malley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and Council Member Fonzi led
the Pledge of Allegiance.
City Council Regular Session: 6:00 P.M.
City Council Closed Session: Immediately Following
Regular Session
Successor Agency to the Community
Redevelopment Agency of Atascadero
Special Closed Session: Immediately Following
Regular Session
Page 7
Atascadero City Council
November 8, 2016
Page 2 of 5
ROLL CALL:
Present: Council Members Kelley, Fonzi, Sturtevant, Mayor Pro Tem
Moreno, and Mayor O’Malley
Absent: None
Others Present: City Clerk Marcia McClure Torgerson and City Treasurer Gere
Sibbach
Staff Present: City Manager Rachelle Rickard, Administrative Services Director
Jeri Rangel, Community Development Director Phil Dunsmore,
Public Works Director Nick DeBar, Police Chief Jerel Haley, City
Attorney Brian Pierik, and Deputy City Manager Lara Christensen.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Recommendation: Council:
1. Approve this agenda; and
2. Waive the reading in full of all ordinances appearing on this agenda, and the
titles of the ordinances will be read aloud by the City Clerk at the first reading,
after the motion and before the City Council votes.
MOTION: By Council Member Sturtevant and seconded by Council
Member Fonzi to:
1. Approve this agenda; and,
2. Waive the reading in full of all ordinances appearing on this
agenda, and the titles of the ordinances will be read aloud
by the City Clerk at the first reading, after the motion and
before the City Council votes.
Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote.
PRESENTATIONS:
1. Commendation to the Knights of Columbus.
The City Council presented the Commendation to Grand Knight Donald Brown, Sr. of
the Santa Lucia Council #3648.
2. Commendation to the Atascadero Kiwanis.
The City Council presented the Commendation to Albert Almodova and several other
members of the Atascadero Kiwanis.
Page 8
Atascadero City Council
November 8, 2016
Page 3 of 5
3. Commendation to Rick Evans of Another Rick Evans Photo.
The City Council presented the Commendation to Rick Evans for his many photo
contributions to the community.
4. Proclamation Recognizing the Charles Paddock Zoo for 25 years of
AZA Accreditation.
The City Council presented the Proclamation to Zoo Director Alan Baker.
5. Presentation by Atascadero Unified School District – Attendance
Awareness Month.
Principal Chris Balogh shared a presentation with the City Council updating them on
school attendance and how it affects funding.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. City Council Draft Action Minutes – October 25, 2016
Recommendation: Council approve the City Council Draft Action Minutes
of the October 25, 2016 City Council meeting. [City Clerk]
2. September 2016 Treasurer’s Report
Recommendation: Council receive and file the City Treasurer’s Report for
quarter ending September 2016. [Administrative Services]
3. ATBID Board Appointment
Fiscal Impact: None.
Recommendation:
The ATBID Board recommends:
Council appoint Tianna Speth to fill the vacant ATBID Board term to expire
June 30, 2017. [City Manager]
MOTION: By Council Member Fonzi and seconded by Council Member
Sturtevant to approve the Consent Calendar.
Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote.
UPDATES FROM THE CITY MANAGER:
City Manager Rachelle Rickard gave an update on projects and issues within the City.
Page 9
Atascadero City Council
November 8, 2016
Page 4 of 5
COMMUNITY FORUM: None
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: None
COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS: None
D. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Council Member Fonzi
1. SLO County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) – They had a
presentation on retention of water to replenish the ground water below. There
are grants available for this, and they will be hearing more about this at a
future meeting.
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND / OR ACTION: None
F. ADJOURN REGULAR MEETING TO CLOSED SESSION
Mayor O’Malley adjourned the meeting to Closed Session at 7:00 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION:
Mayor O’Malley announced at 7:00 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: Rachelle Rickard, City Manager
Employee Organizations: Atascadero Firefighters Bargaining Unit
Page 10
Atascadero City Council
November 8, 2016
Page 5 of 5
b. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation
Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9
California PUC Applications of Pacific Gas and Electric Nos. 15-09-001
and 16-08-006
4. CLOSED SESSION – ADJOURNMENT
5. COUNCIL RETURNS TO CHAMBERS
6. CLOSED SESSION – REPORT
The City Attorney reported that there was no reportable action.
ADJOURNMENT:
Mayor O’Malley adjourned the meeting at 7:22 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED BY:
______________________________________
Marcia McClure Torgerson, C.M.C.
City Clerk
Page 11
SPECIAL MEETING
CITY OF ATASCADERO
CITY COUNCIL
Thursday, November 17, 2016
4:30 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers, 4th Floor
6500 Palma Ave, Atascadero, California
(Enter from Lewis Ave.)
DRAFT MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION: 4:30 P.M.
Mayor O’Malley announced at 4:32 p.m. that the Council is going into Closed Session.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Council Members Kelley, Fonzi, Mayor Pro Tem Moreno, and
Mayor O’Malley
Absent: None
Staff Present: City Manager Rachelle Rickard and Deputy City Manager/Assistant
City Clerk Lara Christensen.
1. CLOSED SESSION -- PUBLIC COMMENT - None
2. COUNCIL LEAVES CHAMBERS TO BEGIN CLOSED SESSION
3. CLOSED SESSION -- CALL TO ORDER
a. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation
Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9
California PUC Applications of Pacific Gas and Electric Nos. 15-09-001
and 16-08-006
4. CLOSED SESSION -- ADJOURNMENT
ITEM NUMBER: A-1
DATE: 12/13/16
Page 12
5. COUNCIL RETURNS TO CHAMBERS
6. CLOSED SESSION – REPORT
There was no reportable action.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor O’Malley adjourned the meeting at 5:09 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED BY:
______________________________________
Lara K. Christensen
Deputy City Manager / Assistant City Clerk
Page 13
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 12/13/16
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report – City Manager’s Office
City Council 2017 Meeting Schedule
RECOMMENDATION:
Council approve the City Council meeting schedule for 2017.
DISCUSSION:
The City Council, pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 1.01 of the Atascadero Municipal
Code, meets the second and fourth Tuesday of each month. On occasion, the Council
will hold special study sessions and/or joint meetings with one or both of the
Commissions on a fifth Tuesday. Generally, in the summer months, the Council meets
once a month and avoids conflicts with major holidays. Staff has prepared the at tached
schedule for the year 2017 to help in the coordination of these meetings with personal
schedules.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
ATTACHMENT:
1. City Council 2017 Meeting Schedule
Page 14
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 1
City of Atascadero
Office of the City Clerk
Atascadero City Council 2017 Meeting Schedule
MEETING DATE TYPE OF MEETING
January 10
January 24
Regular
Regular
February 14
February 28
Regular
Regular
March 14
March 28
Regular
Regular
April 11
April 25
Regular
Regular
May 9
May 23
Regular
Regular
June 13
June 27
Regular
Regular
July 11
Regular
August 8
Regular
September 12
September 26
Regular
Regular
October 10
October 24
Regular
Regular
November 14
November 28
Regular
Regular
December 12
Regular
Meetings are held at 6:00 p.m.
6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422
(805) 470-3400
Page 15
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 12/13/16
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report - City Clerk
Reciting the Fact of the General Municipal Election
Held on November 8, 2016
RECOMMENDATION:
Council adopt the Draft Resolution, reciting the fact of the General Municipal Election
held on November 8, 2016, declaring the result and such other matters as provided by
law.
DISCUSSION:
The General Municipal Election was held on November 8, 2016. California Elections
Code §10262 states that the City Council shall meet to declare the result s of the
election upon certification of results by the County Election Department. The California
Elections Code §10262 & 10264 also states that the Council shall adopt a resolution
reciting the fact of the election, including a statement of the results.
Total voter registration for the City of Atascadero was 18,055, which is 2,024 more than
the total voter registration for the year 20 14. 14,323 (79.3% of registered voters) voted
in this election.
Atascadero voters were asked to vote for a Mayor, two Council Members and Ballot
Measures F-16 & G-16. The final official results are attached to this report.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Final Official Results
2. Draft Resolution, with County Clerk Certificate of Results
3. Certificate of Election and Statement of Votes Cast
Page 16
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 1
City of Atascadero
Office of the City Clerk
FINAL - ELECTION RESULTS
(as of 12/02/16)
NAME VOTES % of VOTES
ATASCADERO MAYOR
Mayor – Two Year Term
Tom O’Malley 8387 60.52%
Nicholas Mattson 4554 32.86%
Ann Ketcherside 855 6.17%
Write-in Votes 63 0.45%
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
City Council - Four Year Term – 2 seats
Roberta Fonzi 7723 38.21%
Charles Bourbeau 6464 31.98%
Daniel J. Eister 3006 14.87%
Bret Heineman 2891 14.30%
Write-in Votes 130 0.64%
BALLOT MEASURE #F-16 – Appointed City Clerk
Yes 6597 50.43%
No 6484 49.57%
BALLOT MEASURE #G-16 – Appointed City Treasurer
No 6772 51.75%
Yes 6315 48.25%
THIS IS THE FINAL TOTAL COUNT.
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER
CERTIFIED THE RESULTS ON DECEMBER 5, 2016, AND
THE NEW OFFICIALS WILL BE SWORN IN AT
THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON DECEMBER 13, 2016.
Page 17
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 2
DRAFT RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA
RECITING THE FACT OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
HELD ON NOVEMBER 8, 2016, DECLARING THE RESULT
AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW
WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election was held and conducted in the City of
Atascadero, California, on Tuesday, November 8, 2016, as required by law; and,
WHEREAS, notice of the election was given in time, form and manner as provided by
law; that voting precincts were properly established; that election officers were appointed and
that in all respects the election was held and conducted and the votes were cast, rec eived and
canvassed and the returns made and declared in time, form and manner as required by the
provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California for the holding of elections in general
law cities; and,
WHEREAS, the County Election Department canvassed the returns of the election and
has certified the results to this City Council, the results are received, attached and made a part
hereof as “Exhibit A.”
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO,
CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the whole number of ballots cast in the precincts except vote by mail
voter ballots and provisional ballots was 4680.
That the whole number of vote by mail voter ballots cast in the City was 10,459, making
a total of 15,139 ballots cast in the City.
SECTION 2. That the names of persons voted for at the election for Mayor are as
follows:
Tom O’Malley, Ann Ketcherside and Nicholas Mattson
That the names of the persons voted for at the election for Member of the City Council are as
follows:
Bret Heineman, Daniel J. Eister, Roberta Fonzi and Charles Bourbeau
Page 18
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 2
That the measures voted upon at the election are as follows:
BALLOT MEASURE #F-16
Shall the office of City Clerk be appointive?
Yes
No
BALLOT MEASURE #G-16
Shall the office of City Treasurer be appointive?
Yes
No
SECTION 3. That the number of votes given at each precinct and the number of votes
given in the City to each of the persons above named for the respective offices for which the
persons were candidates and for and against the measures were as listed in Exhibit “A” attached.
SECTION 4. The City Council does declare and determine that: Tom O’Malley was
elected as Mayor for the full term of two years; Roberta Fonzi was elected as Member of the City
Council for the full term of four years; and Charles Bourbeau was elected as Member of the City
Council for the full term of four years.
That as a result of the election, a majority of the voters vot ing on Measure #F-16 relating
to the office of the City Clerk being appointive, did vote in favor of them, and that the measure
was carried, and shall be deemed adopted and ratified.
That as a result of the election, a majority of the voters voting on Mea sure #G-16 relating
to the office of the City Treasurer being appointive, did not vote in favor of it, and that the
measure was defeated, and shall not be deemed adopted and ratified.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall enter on the records of the City Counc il of the City, a
statement of the result of the election, showing: (1) The whole number of ballots cast in the
City; (2) The names of the persons voted for; (3) The measures voted upon; (4) For what office
each person was voted for; (5) The number of vot es given at each precinct to each person, and
for and against each measure ; (6) The total number of votes given to each person, and for and
against each measure.
SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall immediately make and deliver to each of the
persons so elected a Certificate of Election signed by the City Clerk and authenticated; that the
City Clerk shall also administer to each person elected the Oath of Office prescribed in the
Constitution of the State of California and shall have them subscribe to it and file it in the office
of the City Clerk. Each and all of the persons so elected shall then be inducted into the
respective office to which they have been elected.
SECTION 7. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
Page 19
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 2
On Motion by Council Member _______________and seconded by Council
Member_______________, the foregoing Resolution was adopted on the following roll-call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED: December 13, 2016
CITY OF ATASCADERO:
Tom O’Malley, Mayor
ATTEST:
__
Marcia McClure Torgerson, C.M.C., City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__
Brian A. Pierik, City Attorney
Page 20
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 21
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 22
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 3
Page 23
Statement of Votes Cast2016 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTIONSOVC For CITY OF ATASCADERO, All Counters, CITIESFINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTSDate:12/05/16Time:16:07:27Page:1 of 28Jurisdiction Wide CON 501-65 Polling VBM Total CON 502-65 Polling VBM Total CON 503-66 Polling VBM Total CON 504-66 Polling VBM Total CON 505-66 Polling VBM Total CON 506-66 Polling VBM Total CON 507-67 Polling VBM Total CON 508-65 Polling VBM Total CON 509-65 Polling VBM Total CON 510-68 Polling VBM Total CON 511-68Reg. VotersBallots Cast% TurnoutTURN OUT135733624.76%135788265.00%1357121889.76%147831921.58%147895464.55%1478127386.13%139033023.74%139090064.75%1390123088.49%85825029.14%85848156.06%85873185.20%158140925.87%158190757.37%1581131683.24%87524127.54%87548755.66%87572883.20%88326930.46%88345451.42%88372381.88%103424323.50%103462560.44%103486883.95%101827727.21%101858657.56%101886384.77%95126527.87%95154056.78%95180584.65%ITEM NUMBER: A-3DATE: 12/13/16ATTACHMENT: 3Page 24
Statement of Votes Cast2016 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTIONSOVC For CITY OF ATASCADERO, All Counters, CITIESFINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTSDate:12/05/16Time:16:07:27Page:2 of 28 Polling VBM Total CON 512-69 Polling VBM Total CON 513-69 Polling VBM Total CON 514-67 Polling VBM Total CON 515-70 Polling VBM Total CON 516-71 Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalCONGRESSIONAL 24TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalSENATE 17TH SENATORIAL DISTRICT Polling VBMReg. VotersBallots Cast% TurnoutTURN OUT94825526.90%94852355.17%94877882.07%95627428.66%95649651.88%95677080.54%104225724.66%104255553.26%104281277.93%104832230.73%104857755.06%104889985.78%114423120.19%114468259.62%114491379.81%149240226.94%149281054.29%1492121281.23%18055468025.92%180551045957.93%180551513983.85%18055468025.92%180551045957.93%180551513983.85%18055468025.92%180551045957.93%180551513983.85%18055468025.92%180551045957.93%ITEM NUMBER: A-3DATE: 12/13/16ATTACHMENT: 3Page 25
Statement of Votes Cast2016 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTIONSOVC For CITY OF ATASCADERO, All Counters, CITIESFINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTSDate:12/05/16Time:16:07:27Page:3 of 28 Total Total Polling VBM TotalASSEMBLY 35TH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalBOARD OF EQUALIZATION STATE BOARD OF EQUAL DIST 2 Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalSUPERVISOR/COMMISSIONER 5TH SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalCITIES CITY OF ATASCADERO Polling VBM Total TotalReg. VotersBallots Cast% TurnoutTURN OUT180551513983.85%18055468025.92%180551045957.93%180551513983.85%18055468025.92%180551045957.93%180551513983.85%18055468025.92%180551045957.93%180551513983.85%18055468025.92%180551045957.93%180551513983.85%18055468025.92%180551045957.93%180551513983.85%18055468025.92%180551045957.93%180551513983.85%18055468025.92%180551045957.93%180551513983.85%18055468025.92%180551045957.93%180551513983.85%ITEM NUMBER: A-3DATE: 12/13/16ATTACHMENT: 3Page 26
Statement of Votes Cast2016 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTIONSOVC For CITY OF ATASCADERO, All Counters, CITIESFINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTSDate:12/05/16Time:16:07:27Page:4 of 28 Polling VBM TotalReg. VotersBallots Cast% TurnoutTURN OUT18055468025.92%180551045957.93%180551513983.85%ITEM NUMBER: A-3DATE: 12/13/16ATTACHMENT: 3Page 27
Statement of Votes Cast2016 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTIONSOVC For CITY OF ATASCADERO, All Counters, CITIESFINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTSDate:12/05/16Time:16:07:27Page:5 of 28Jurisdiction Wide CON 501-65 Polling VBM Total CON 502-65 Polling VBM Total CON 503-66 Polling VBM Total CON 504-66 Polling VBM Total CON 505-66 Polling VBM Total CON 506-66 Polling VBM Total CON 507-67 Polling VBM Total CON 508-65 Polling VBM Total CON 509-65 Polling VBM Total CON 510-68 Polling VBM Total CON 511-68Reg. VotersVote ForBallots CastTotal VotesTimes Blank VotedTimes Over VotedNumber Of Under VotesTOM O'MALLEYANN KETCHERSIDECITY OF ATASCADERO MAYOR13571336304320018059.21%92.96%13571882802800049261.35%577.11%13572121811061120067260.76%665.97%14781319301180017056.48%185.98%14781954885690052258.98%546.10%1478212731186870069258.35%726.07%13901330303270016855.45%134.29%13901900822780052864.23%334.01%13902123011251050069661.87%464.09%8581250240100016568.75%104.17%8581481455260027560.44%214.62%8582731695360044063.31%314.46%15811409372370020154.03%184.84%15811907840670049058.33%404.76%15812131612121040069157.01%584.79%8751241227140012052.86%177.49%8751487446410027661.88%265.83%8752728673550039658.84%436.39%8831269246230014157.32%124.88%8831454411430024559.61%317.54%8832723657660038658.75%436.54%10341243219240014566.21%156.85%10341625576490036363.02%305.21%10342868795730050863.90%455.66%10181277259180015158.30%197.34%10181586548380032659.49%376.75%10182863807560047759.11%566.94%9511265243220014358.85%156.17%9511540493461029960.65%183.65%9512805736681044260.05%334.48%ITEM NUMBER: A-3DATE: 12/13/16ATTACHMENT: 3Page 28
Statement of Votes Cast2016 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTIONSOVC For CITY OF ATASCADERO, All Counters, CITIESFINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTSDate:12/05/16Time:16:07:27Page:6 of 28 Polling VBM Total CON 512-69 Polling VBM Total CON 513-69 Polling VBM Total CON 514-67 Polling VBM Total CON 515-70 Polling VBM Total CON 516-71 Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalCONGRESSIONAL 24TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalSENATE 17TH SENATORIAL DISTRICT Polling VBMReg. VotersVote ForBallots CastTotal VotesTimes Blank VotedTimes Over VotedNumber Of Under VotesTOM O'MALLEYANN KETCHERSIDECITY OF ATASCADERO MAYOR9481255229260012253.28%177.42%9481523480430029361.04%316.46%9482778709690041558.53%486.77%9561274250240014256.80%187.20%9561496450460026859.56%286.22%9562770700700041058.57%466.57%10421257238190014360.08%197.98%10421555511440030158.90%428.22%10422812749630044459.28%618.14%10481322282400017361.35%289.93%10481577529480033362.95%213.97%10482899811880050662.39%496.04%11441231210210012459.05%2913.81%11441682619630038862.68%518.24%11442913829840051261.76%809.65%14921402353490022062.32%329.07%14921810716931048067.04%466.42%14922121210691421070065.48%787.30%18055164680427640400250858.65%2896.76%180551610459958387420587961.35%5665.91%18055321513913859127820838760.52%8556.17%18055164680427640400250858.65%2896.76%180551610459958387420587961.35%5665.91%18055321513913859127820838760.52%8556.17%18055164680427640400250858.65%2896.76%180551610459958387420587961.35%5665.91%18055321513913859127820838760.52%8556.17%18055164680427640400250858.65%2896.76%180551610459958387420587961.35%5665.91%ITEM NUMBER: A-3DATE: 12/13/16ATTACHMENT: 3Page 29
Statement of Votes Cast2016 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTIONSOVC For CITY OF ATASCADERO, All Counters, CITIESFINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTSDate:12/05/16Time:16:07:27Page:7 of 28 Total Total Polling VBM TotalASSEMBLY 35TH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalBOARD OF EQUALIZATION STATE BOARD OF EQUAL DIST 2 Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalSUPERVISOR/COMMISSIONER 5TH SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalCITIES CITY OF ATASCADERO Polling VBM Total TotalReg. VotersVote ForBallots CastTotal VotesTimes Blank VotedTimes Over VotedNumber Of Under VotesTOM O'MALLEYANN KETCHERSIDECITY OF ATASCADERO MAYOR18055321513913859127820838760.52%8556.17%18055164680427640400250858.65%2896.76%180551610459958387420587961.35%5665.91%18055321513913859127820838760.52%8556.17%18055164680427640400250858.65%2896.76%180551610459958387420587961.35%5665.91%18055321513913859127820838760.52%8556.17%18055164680427640400250858.65%2896.76%180551610459958387420587961.35%5665.91%18055321513913859127820838760.52%8556.17%18055164680427640400250858.65%2896.76%180551610459958387420587961.35%5665.91%18055321513913859127820838760.52%8556.17%18055164680427640400250858.65%2896.76%180551610459958387420587961.35%5665.91%18055321513913859127820838760.52%8556.17%18055164680427640400250858.65%2896.76%180551610459958387420587961.35%5665.91%18055321513913859127820838760.52%8556.17%18055164680427640400250858.65%2896.76%180551610459958387420587961.35%5665.91%18055321513913859127820838760.52%8556.17%18055164680427640400250858.65%2896.76%180551610459958387420587961.35%5665.91%18055321513913859127820838760.52%8556.17%ITEM NUMBER: A-3DATE: 12/13/16ATTACHMENT: 3Page 30
Statement of Votes Cast2016 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTIONSOVC For CITY OF ATASCADERO, All Counters, CITIESFINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTSDate:12/05/16Time:16:07:27Page:8 of 28 Polling VBM TotalReg. VotersVote ForBallots CastTotal VotesTimes Blank VotedTimes Over VotedNumber Of Under VotesTOM O'MALLEYANN KETCHERSIDECITY OF ATASCADERO MAYOR18055164680427640400250858.65%2896.76%180551610459958387420587961.35%5665.91%18055321513913859127820838760.52%8556.17%ITEM NUMBER: A-3DATE: 12/13/16ATTACHMENT: 3Page 31
Statement of Votes Cast2016 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTIONSOVC For CITY OF ATASCADERO, All Counters, CITIESFINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTSDate:12/05/16Time:16:07:27Page:9 of 28Jurisdiction Wide CON 501-65 Polling VBM Total CON 502-65 Polling VBM Total CON 503-66 Polling VBM Total CON 504-66 Polling VBM Total CON 505-66 Polling VBM Total CON 506-66 Polling VBM Total CON 507-67 Polling VBM Total CON 508-65 Polling VBM Total CON 509-65 Polling VBM Total CON 510-68 Polling VBM Total CON 511-68NICHOLAS MATTSONWrite-In VotesCITY OF ATASCADERO MAYOR11437.50%10.33%25031.17%30.37%36432.91%40.36%11237.21%10.33%30434.35%50.56%41635.08%60.51%12139.93%10.33%25931.51%20.24%38033.78%30.27%6527.08%00.00%15834.73%10.22%22332.09%10.14%15240.86%10.27%30336.07%70.83%45537.54%80.66%8939.21%10.44%14231.84%20.45%23134.32%30.45%9237.40%10.41%13432.60%10.24%22634.40%20.30%5826.48%10.46%18131.42%20.35%23930.06%30.38%8833.98%10.39%17932.66%61.09%26733.09%70.87%8434.57%10.41%17435.29%20.41%25835.05%30.41%ITEM NUMBER: A-3DATE: 12/13/16ATTACHMENT: 3Page 32
Statement of Votes Cast2016 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTIONSOVC For CITY OF ATASCADERO, All Counters, CITIESFINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTSDate:12/05/16Time:16:07:27Page:10 of 28 Polling VBM Total CON 512-69 Polling VBM Total CON 513-69 Polling VBM Total CON 514-67 Polling VBM Total CON 515-70 Polling VBM Total CON 516-71 Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalCONGRESSIONAL 24TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalSENATE 17TH SENATORIAL DISTRICT Polling VBMNICHOLAS MATTSONWrite-In VotesCITY OF ATASCADERO MAYOR8737.99%31.31%15432.08%20.42%24133.99%50.71%8835.20%20.80%15334.00%10.22%24134.43%30.43%7531.51%10.42%16732.68%10.20%24232.31%20.27%8028.37%10.35%17232.51%30.57%25231.07%40.49%5626.67%10.48%17928.92%10.16%23528.35%20.24%10028.33%10.28%18425.70%60.84%28426.57%70.65%146134.17%180.42%309332.28%450.47%455432.86%630.45%146134.17%180.42%309332.28%450.47%455432.86%630.45%146134.17%180.42%309332.28%450.47%455432.86%630.45%146134.17%180.42%309332.28%450.47%ITEM NUMBER: A-3DATE: 12/13/16ATTACHMENT: 3Page 33
Statement of Votes Cast2016 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTIONSOVC For CITY OF ATASCADERO, All Counters, CITIESFINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTSDate:12/05/16Time:16:07:27Page:11 of 28 Total Total Polling VBM TotalASSEMBLY 35TH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalBOARD OF EQUALIZATION STATE BOARD OF EQUAL DIST 2 Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalSUPERVISOR/COMMISSIONER 5TH SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalCITIES CITY OF ATASCADERO Polling VBM Total TotalNICHOLAS MATTSONWrite-In VotesCITY OF ATASCADERO MAYOR455432.86%630.45%146134.17%180.42%309332.28%450.47%455432.86%630.45%146134.17%180.42%309332.28%450.47%455432.86%630.45%146134.17%180.42%309332.28%450.47%455432.86%630.45%146134.17%180.42%309332.28%450.47%455432.86%630.45%146134.17%180.42%309332.28%450.47%455432.86%630.45%146134.17%180.42%309332.28%450.47%455432.86%630.45%146134.17%180.42%309332.28%450.47%455432.86%630.45%146134.17%180.42%309332.28%450.47%455432.86%630.45%ITEM NUMBER: A-3DATE: 12/13/16ATTACHMENT: 3Page 34
Statement of Votes Cast2016 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTIONSOVC For CITY OF ATASCADERO, All Counters, CITIESFINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTSDate:12/05/16Time:16:07:27Page:12 of 28 Polling VBM TotalNICHOLAS MATTSONWrite-In VotesCITY OF ATASCADERO MAYOR146134.17%180.42%309332.28%450.47%455432.86%630.45%ITEM NUMBER: A-3DATE: 12/13/16ATTACHMENT: 3Page 35
Statement of Votes Cast2016 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTIONSOVC For CITY OF ATASCADERO, All Counters, CITIESFINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTSDate:12/05/16Time:16:07:27Page:13 of 28Jurisdiction Wide CON 501-65 Polling VBM Total CON 502-65 Polling VBM Total CON 503-66 Polling VBM Total CON 504-66 Polling VBM Total CON 505-66 Polling VBM Total CON 506-66 Polling VBM Total CON 507-67 Polling VBM Total CON 508-65 Polling VBM Total CON 509-65 Polling VBM Total CON 510-68 Polling VBM Total CON 511-68Reg. VotersVote ForBallots CastTotal VotesTimes Blank VotedTimes Over VotedNumber Of Under VotesCHARLES BOURBEAUBRET HEINEMANNCITY OF ATASCADERO COUNCILMEMBER1357233642669010814233.33%5713.38%135728821186155126645138.03%15813.32%1357412181612224137459336.79%21513.34%1478231943549110313731.49%6915.86%147829541319146329147536.01%17413.19%1478412731754195439461234.89%24313.85%1390233045351010514431.79%6714.79%139029001244145026646537.38%14711.82%1390412301697196037160935.89%21412.61%85822503323609610832.53%4012.05%858248166167515721532.53%8212.41%8584731993103525332332.53%12212.29%1581240952074214616531.73%8716.73%158129071225147129342434.61%16613.55%1581413161745221343958933.75%25314.50%87522413253209310933.54%3912.00%875248767677114224335.95%9514.05%87547281001109123535235.16%13413.39%8832269335520999127.16%5817.31%883245459678115419833.22%8514.26%8834723931130125328931.04%14315.36%10342243320390889730.31%3912.19%10342625849114117129134.28%10412.25%103448681169153125938833.19%14312.23%101822773724309610327.69%8121.77%1018258682386117524429.65%12314.95%101848631195129127134729.04%20417.07%95122653405308410430.59%5115.00%951254074881017024332.49%11715.64%95148051088134025434731.89%16815.44%ITEM NUMBER: A-3DATE: 12/13/16ATTACHMENT: 3Page 36
Statement of Votes Cast2016 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTIONSOVC For CITY OF ATASCADERO, All Counters, CITIESFINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTSDate:12/05/16Time:16:07:27Page:14 of 28 Polling VBM Total CON 512-69 Polling VBM Total CON 513-69 Polling VBM Total CON 514-67 Polling VBM Total CON 515-70 Polling VBM Total CON 516-71 Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalCONGRESSIONAL 24TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalSENATE 17TH SENATORIAL DISTRICT Polling VBMReg. VotersVote ForBallots CastTotal VotesTimes Blank VotedTimes Over VotedNumber Of Under VotesCHARLES BOURBEAUBRET HEINEMANNCITY OF ATASCADERO COUNCILMEMBER94822553214809311034.27%4313.40%948252375665016023631.22%12316.27%94847781077113025334632.13%16615.41%9562274338542989929.29%5215.38%956249665089016418428.31%10516.15%9564770988143226228328.64%15715.89%10422257323451998426.01%5617.34%1042255572486121219627.07%10814.92%104248121047131231128026.74%16415.66%1048232238673111011128.76%5915.28%10482577768103117823630.73%9712.63%104848991154176228834730.07%15613.52%11442231301410797725.58%4916.28%11442682924114320624025.97%14315.48%114449131225155328531725.88%19215.67%1492240248585114713327.42%7515.46%149228101053181319930929.34%14213.49%1492412121538266434644228.74%21714.11%18055324680601284481644181430.17%92215.34%180553210459142021734223204465032.74%196913.86%180556415139202142578304848646431.98%289114.30%18055324680601284481644181430.17%92215.34%180553210459142021734223204465032.74%196913.86%180556415139202142578304848646431.98%289114.30%18055324680601284481644181430.17%92215.34%180553210459142021734223204465032.74%196913.86%180556415139202142578304848646431.98%289114.30%18055324680601284481644181430.17%92215.34%180553210459142021734223204465032.74%196913.86%ITEM NUMBER: A-3DATE: 12/13/16ATTACHMENT: 3Page 37
Statement of Votes Cast2016 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTIONSOVC For CITY OF ATASCADERO, All Counters, CITIESFINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTSDate:12/05/16Time:16:07:27Page:15 of 28 Total Total Polling VBM TotalASSEMBLY 35TH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalBOARD OF EQUALIZATION STATE BOARD OF EQUAL DIST 2 Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalSUPERVISOR/COMMISSIONER 5TH SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalCITIES CITY OF ATASCADERO Polling VBM Total TotalReg. VotersVote ForBallots CastTotal VotesTimes Blank VotedTimes Over VotedNumber Of Under VotesCHARLES BOURBEAUBRET HEINEMANNCITY OF ATASCADERO COUNCILMEMBER180556415139202142578304848646431.98%289114.30%18055324680601284481644181430.17%92215.34%180553210459142021734223204465032.74%196913.86%180556415139202142578304848646431.98%289114.30%18055324680601284481644181430.17%92215.34%180553210459142021734223204465032.74%196913.86%180556415139202142578304848646431.98%289114.30%18055324680601284481644181430.17%92215.34%180553210459142021734223204465032.74%196913.86%180556415139202142578304848646431.98%289114.30%18055324680601284481644181430.17%92215.34%180553210459142021734223204465032.74%196913.86%180556415139202142578304848646431.98%289114.30%18055324680601284481644181430.17%92215.34%180553210459142021734223204465032.74%196913.86%180556415139202142578304848646431.98%289114.30%18055324680601284481644181430.17%92215.34%180553210459142021734223204465032.74%196913.86%180556415139202142578304848646431.98%289114.30%18055324680601284481644181430.17%92215.34%180553210459142021734223204465032.74%196913.86%180556415139202142578304848646431.98%289114.30%18055324680601284481644181430.17%92215.34%180553210459142021734223204465032.74%196913.86%180556415139202142578304848646431.98%289114.30%ITEM NUMBER: A-3DATE: 12/13/16ATTACHMENT: 3Page 38
Statement of Votes Cast2016 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTIONSOVC For CITY OF ATASCADERO, All Counters, CITIESFINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTSDate:12/05/16Time:16:07:27Page:16 of 28 Polling VBM TotalReg. VotersVote ForBallots CastTotal VotesTimes Blank VotedTimes Over VotedNumber Of Under VotesCHARLES BOURBEAUBRET HEINEMANNCITY OF ATASCADERO COUNCILMEMBER18055324680601284481644181430.17%92215.34%180553210459142021734223204465032.74%196913.86%180556415139202142578304848646431.98%289114.30%ITEM NUMBER: A-3DATE: 12/13/16ATTACHMENT: 3Page 39
Statement of Votes Cast2016 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTIONSOVC For CITY OF ATASCADERO, All Counters, CITIESFINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTSDate:12/05/16Time:16:07:27Page:17 of 28Jurisdiction Wide CON 501-65 Polling VBM Total CON 502-65 Polling VBM Total CON 503-66 Polling VBM Total CON 504-66 Polling VBM Total CON 505-66 Polling VBM Total CON 506-66 Polling VBM Total CON 507-67 Polling VBM Total CON 508-65 Polling VBM Total CON 509-65 Polling VBM Total CON 510-68 Polling VBM Total CON 511-68DANIEL J. EISTERROBERTA FONZIWrite-In VotesCITY OF ATASCADERO COUNCILMEMBER5111.97%17440.85%20.47%13211.13%44037.10%50.42%18311.35%61438.09%70.43%5913.56%17039.08%00.00%16412.43%49937.83%70.53%22312.71%66938.14%70.40%6013.25%17939.51%30.66%15012.06%47538.18%70.56%21012.37%65438.54%100.59%4012.05%14242.77%20.60%9414.22%26439.94%60.91%13413.49%40640.89%80.81%8315.96%17834.23%71.35%16313.31%46838.20%40.33%24614.10%64637.02%110.63%5516.92%12237.54%00.00%8111.98%25437.57%30.44%13613.59%37637.56%30.30%5416.12%13038.81%20.60%8614.43%22537.75%20.34%14015.04%35538.13%40.43%4012.50%14043.75%41.25%11413.43%33339.22%70.82%15413.17%47340.46%110.94%7018.82%11831.72%00.00%12515.19%33140.22%00.00%19516.32%44937.57%00.00%5616.47%12637.06%30.88%10113.50%28237.70%50.67%15714.43%40837.50%80.74%ITEM NUMBER: A-3DATE: 12/13/16ATTACHMENT: 3Page 40
Statement of Votes Cast2016 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTIONSOVC For CITY OF ATASCADERO, All Counters, CITIESFINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTSDate:12/05/16Time:16:07:27Page:18 of 28 Polling VBM Total CON 512-69 Polling VBM Total CON 513-69 Polling VBM Total CON 514-67 Polling VBM Total CON 515-70 Polling VBM Total CON 516-71 Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalCONGRESSIONAL 24TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalSENATE 17TH SENATORIAL DISTRICT Polling VBMDANIEL J. EISTERROBERTA FONZIWrite-In VotesCITY OF ATASCADERO COUNCILMEMBER5617.45%11034.27%20.62%12316.27%26735.32%70.93%17916.62%37735.00%90.84%6318.64%12135.80%30.89%9714.92%25939.85%50.77%16016.19%38038.46%80.81%6018.58%12338.08%00.00%12016.57%29440.61%60.83%18017.19%41739.83%60.57%6917.88%14437.31%30.78%11715.23%30940.23%91.17%18616.12%45339.25%121.04%7123.59%10133.55%31.00%19020.56%34637.45%50.54%26121.31%44736.49%80.65%9118.76%18337.73%30.62%17116.24%41639.51%151.42%26217.04%59938.95%181.17%97816.27%226137.61%370.62%202814.28%546238.46%930.65%300614.87%772338.21%1300.64%97816.27%226137.61%370.62%202814.28%546238.46%930.65%300614.87%772338.21%1300.64%97816.27%226137.61%370.62%202814.28%546238.46%930.65%300614.87%772338.21%1300.64%97816.27%226137.61%370.62%202814.28%546238.46%930.65%ITEM NUMBER: A-3DATE: 12/13/16ATTACHMENT: 3Page 41
Statement of Votes Cast2016 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTIONSOVC For CITY OF ATASCADERO, All Counters, CITIESFINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTSDate:12/05/16Time:16:07:28Page:19 of 28 Total Total Polling VBM TotalASSEMBLY 35TH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalBOARD OF EQUALIZATION STATE BOARD OF EQUAL DIST 2 Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalSUPERVISOR/COMMISSIONER 5TH SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalCITIES CITY OF ATASCADERO Polling VBM Total TotalDANIEL J. EISTERROBERTA FONZIWrite-In VotesCITY OF ATASCADERO COUNCILMEMBER300614.87%772338.21%1300.64%97816.27%226137.61%370.62%202814.28%546238.46%930.65%300614.87%772338.21%1300.64%97816.27%226137.61%370.62%202814.28%546238.46%930.65%300614.87%772338.21%1300.64%97816.27%226137.61%370.62%202814.28%546238.46%930.65%300614.87%772338.21%1300.64%97816.27%226137.61%370.62%202814.28%546238.46%930.65%300614.87%772338.21%1300.64%97816.27%226137.61%370.62%202814.28%546238.46%930.65%300614.87%772338.21%1300.64%97816.27%226137.61%370.62%202814.28%546238.46%930.65%300614.87%772338.21%1300.64%97816.27%226137.61%370.62%202814.28%546238.46%930.65%300614.87%772338.21%1300.64%97816.27%226137.61%370.62%202814.28%546238.46%930.65%300614.87%772338.21%1300.64%ITEM NUMBER: A-3DATE: 12/13/16ATTACHMENT: 3Page 42
Statement of Votes Cast2016 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTIONSOVC For CITY OF ATASCADERO, All Counters, CITIESFINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTSDate:12/05/16Time:16:07:28Page:20 of 28 Polling VBM TotalDANIEL J. EISTERROBERTA FONZIWrite-In VotesCITY OF ATASCADERO COUNCILMEMBER97816.27%226137.61%370.62%202814.28%546238.46%930.65%300614.87%772338.21%1300.64%ITEM NUMBER: A-3DATE: 12/13/16ATTACHMENT: 3Page 43
Statement of Votes Cast2016 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTIONSOVC For CITY OF ATASCADERO, All Counters, CITIESFINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTSDate:12/05/16Time:16:07:28Page:21 of 28Jurisdiction Wide CON 501-65 Polling VBM Total CON 502-65 Polling VBM Total CON 503-66 Polling VBM Total CON 504-66 Polling VBM Total CON 505-66 Polling VBM Total CON 506-66 Polling VBM Total CON 507-67 Polling VBM Total CON 508-65 Polling VBM Total CON 509-65 Polling VBM Total CON 510-68 Polling VBM Total CON 511-68Reg. VotersVote ForBallots CastTotal VotesTimes Blank VotedTimes Over VotedNumber Of Under VotesYESNOF-16 CITY OF ATASCADERO CITY CLERK (50%+1)13571336292440013445.89%15854.11%135718827661151036647.78%40052.22%13572121810581591050047.26%55852.74%14781319280381013548.21%14551.79%147819548431110042650.53%41749.47%14782127311231491056149.96%56250.04%13901330277530013348.01%14451.99%139019008001000045456.75%34643.25%13902123010771530058754.50%49045.50%8581250222280011150.00%11150.00%8581481428530020848.60%22051.40%8582731650810031949.08%33150.92%15811409345640017350.14%17249.86%158119077781290041753.60%36146.40%15812131611231930059052.54%53347.46%8751241207340010450.24%10349.76%8751487411751023757.66%17442.34%87527286181091034155.18%27744.82%8831269226430012253.98%10446.02%8831454397570020150.63%19649.37%88327236231000032351.85%30048.15%10341243208341010650.96%10249.04%10341625540850027951.67%26148.33%103428687481191038551.47%36348.53%10181277233431011448.93%11951.07%10181586518680023845.95%28054.05%101828637511111035246.87%39953.13%9511265226390011550.88%11149.12%9511540472671021445.34%25854.66%95128056981061032947.13%36952.87%ITEM NUMBER: A-3DATE: 12/13/16ATTACHMENT: 3Page 44
Statement of Votes Cast2016 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTIONSOVC For CITY OF ATASCADERO, All Counters, CITIESFINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTSDate:12/05/16Time:16:07:28Page:22 of 28 Polling VBM Total CON 512-69 Polling VBM Total CON 513-69 Polling VBM Total CON 514-67 Polling VBM Total CON 515-70 Polling VBM Total CON 516-71 Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalCONGRESSIONAL 24TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalSENATE 17TH SENATORIAL DISTRICT Polling VBMReg. VotersVote ForBallots CastTotal VotesTimes Blank VotedTimes Over VotedNumber Of Under VotesYESNOF-16 CITY OF ATASCADERO CITY CLERK (50%+1)9481255219351013260.27%8739.73%9481523467560022548.18%24251.82%9482778686911035752.04%32947.96%9561274222520011652.25%10647.75%9561496431650021850.58%21349.42%95627706531170033451.15%31948.85%10421257218390010146.33%11753.67%10421555483720024149.90%24250.10%104228127011110034248.79%35951.21%10481322267550012346.07%14453.93%10481577497800021643.46%28156.54%104828997641350033944.37%42555.63%11441231193380011056.99%8343.01%11441682587941029049.40%29750.60%114429137801321040051.28%38048.72%14921402324780017052.47%15447.53%149218107041060036852.27%33647.73%14922121210281840053852.33%49047.67%18055164680395971740199950.49%196049.51%1805516104599122133340459850.41%452449.59%18055321513913081205080659750.43%648449.57%18055164680395971740199950.49%196049.51%1805516104599122133340459850.41%452449.59%18055321513913081205080659750.43%648449.57%18055164680395971740199950.49%196049.51%1805516104599122133340459850.41%452449.59%18055321513913081205080659750.43%648449.57%18055164680395971740199950.49%196049.51%1805516104599122133340459850.41%452449.59%ITEM NUMBER: A-3DATE: 12/13/16ATTACHMENT: 3Page 45
Statement of Votes Cast2016 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTIONSOVC For CITY OF ATASCADERO, All Counters, CITIESFINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTSDate:12/05/16Time:16:07:28Page:23 of 28 Total Total Polling VBM TotalASSEMBLY 35TH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalBOARD OF EQUALIZATION STATE BOARD OF EQUAL DIST 2 Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalSUPERVISOR/COMMISSIONER 5TH SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalCITIES CITY OF ATASCADERO Polling VBM Total TotalReg. VotersVote ForBallots CastTotal VotesTimes Blank VotedTimes Over VotedNumber Of Under VotesYESNOF-16 CITY OF ATASCADERO CITY CLERK (50%+1)18055321513913081205080659750.43%648449.57%18055164680395971740199950.49%196049.51%1805516104599122133340459850.41%452449.59%18055321513913081205080659750.43%648449.57%18055164680395971740199950.49%196049.51%1805516104599122133340459850.41%452449.59%18055321513913081205080659750.43%648449.57%18055164680395971740199950.49%196049.51%1805516104599122133340459850.41%452449.59%18055321513913081205080659750.43%648449.57%18055164680395971740199950.49%196049.51%1805516104599122133340459850.41%452449.59%18055321513913081205080659750.43%648449.57%18055164680395971740199950.49%196049.51%1805516104599122133340459850.41%452449.59%18055321513913081205080659750.43%648449.57%18055164680395971740199950.49%196049.51%1805516104599122133340459850.41%452449.59%18055321513913081205080659750.43%648449.57%18055164680395971740199950.49%196049.51%1805516104599122133340459850.41%452449.59%18055321513913081205080659750.43%648449.57%18055164680395971740199950.49%196049.51%1805516104599122133340459850.41%452449.59%18055321513913081205080659750.43%648449.57%ITEM NUMBER: A-3DATE: 12/13/16ATTACHMENT: 3Page 46
Statement of Votes Cast2016 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTIONSOVC For CITY OF ATASCADERO, All Counters, CITIESFINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTSDate:12/05/16Time:16:07:28Page:24 of 28 Polling VBM TotalReg. VotersVote ForBallots CastTotal VotesTimes Blank VotedTimes Over VotedNumber Of Under VotesYESNOF-16 CITY OF ATASCADERO CITY CLERK (50%+1)18055164680395971740199950.49%196049.51%1805516104599122133340459850.41%452449.59%18055321513913081205080659750.43%648449.57%ITEM NUMBER: A-3DATE: 12/13/16ATTACHMENT: 3Page 47
Statement of Votes Cast2016 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTIONSOVC For CITY OF ATASCADERO, All Counters, CITIESFINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTSDate:12/05/16Time:16:07:28Page:25 of 28Jurisdiction Wide CON 501-65 Polling VBM Total CON 502-65 Polling VBM Total CON 503-66 Polling VBM Total CON 504-66 Polling VBM Total CON 505-66 Polling VBM Total CON 506-66 Polling VBM Total CON 507-67 Polling VBM Total CON 508-65 Polling VBM Total CON 509-65 Polling VBM Total CON 510-68 Polling VBM Total CON 511-68Reg. VotersVote ForBallots CastTotal VotesTimes Blank VotedTimes Over VotedNumber Of Under VotesYESNOG-16 CITY OF ATASCADERO CITY TREASURER (50%+1)13571336293430012843.69%16556.31%135718827691130034144.34%42855.66%13572121810621560046944.16%59355.84%14781319281380012444.13%15755.87%147819548421120039847.27%44452.73%14782127311231500052246.48%60153.52%13901330277530013348.01%14451.99%139019007981020043654.64%36245.36%13902123010751550056952.93%50647.07%8581250222280010446.85%11853.15%8581481426550019646.01%23053.99%8582731648830030046.30%34853.70%15811409348610015745.11%19154.89%158119077791280039951.22%38048.78%15812131611271890055649.33%57150.67%8751241208330010048.08%10851.92%8751487412750023055.83%18244.17%87527286201080033053.23%29046.77%8831269227420012555.07%10244.93%8831454397570019950.13%19849.87%8832723624990032451.92%30048.08%1034124321032109947.14%11152.86%10341625537880027551.21%26248.79%103428687471201037450.07%37349.93%10181277234430011147.44%12352.56%10181586518680022743.82%29156.18%101828637521110033844.95%41455.05%9511265224410011049.11%11450.89%9511540470691020042.55%27057.45%95128056941101031044.67%38455.33%ITEM NUMBER: A-3DATE: 12/13/16ATTACHMENT: 3Page 48
Statement of Votes Cast2016 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTIONSOVC For CITY OF ATASCADERO, All Counters, CITIESFINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTSDate:12/05/16Time:16:07:28Page:26 of 28 Polling VBM Total CON 512-69 Polling VBM Total CON 513-69 Polling VBM Total CON 514-67 Polling VBM Total CON 515-70 Polling VBM Total CON 516-71 Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalCONGRESSIONAL 24TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalSENATE 17TH SENATORIAL DISTRICT Polling VBMReg. VotersVote ForBallots CastTotal VotesTimes Blank VotedTimes Over VotedNumber Of Under VotesYESNOG-16 CITY OF ATASCADERO CITY TREASURER (50%+1)9481255218370012758.26%9141.74%9481523466570021846.78%24853.22%9482778684940034550.44%33949.56%9561274225490011350.22%11249.78%9561496430660021149.07%21950.93%95627706551150032449.47%33150.53%10421257217400010046.08%11753.92%10421555483720023849.28%24550.72%104228127001120033848.29%36251.71%10481322269530012245.35%14754.65%10481577495820021343.03%28256.97%104828997641350033543.85%42956.15%1144123119437009649.48%9850.52%11441682591901029349.58%29850.42%114429137851271038949.55%39650.45%14921402323790014243.96%18156.04%149218107041060035049.72%35450.28%14922121210271850049247.91%53552.09%18055164680397070910189147.63%207952.37%1805516104599117134020442448.52%469351.48%18055321513913087204930631548.25%677251.75%18055164680397070910189147.63%207952.37%1805516104599117134020442448.52%469351.48%18055321513913087204930631548.25%677251.75%18055164680397070910189147.63%207952.37%1805516104599117134020442448.52%469351.48%18055321513913087204930631548.25%677251.75%18055164680397070910189147.63%207952.37%1805516104599117134020442448.52%469351.48%ITEM NUMBER: A-3DATE: 12/13/16ATTACHMENT: 3Page 49
Statement of Votes Cast2016 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTIONSOVC For CITY OF ATASCADERO, All Counters, CITIESFINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTSDate:12/05/16Time:16:07:28Page:27 of 28 Total Total Polling VBM TotalASSEMBLY 35TH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalBOARD OF EQUALIZATION STATE BOARD OF EQUAL DIST 2 Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalSUPERVISOR/COMMISSIONER 5TH SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalCITIES CITY OF ATASCADERO Polling VBM Total TotalReg. VotersVote ForBallots CastTotal VotesTimes Blank VotedTimes Over VotedNumber Of Under VotesYESNOG-16 CITY OF ATASCADERO CITY TREASURER (50%+1)18055321513913087204930631548.25%677251.75%18055164680397070910189147.63%207952.37%1805516104599117134020442448.52%469351.48%18055321513913087204930631548.25%677251.75%18055164680397070910189147.63%207952.37%1805516104599117134020442448.52%469351.48%18055321513913087204930631548.25%677251.75%18055164680397070910189147.63%207952.37%1805516104599117134020442448.52%469351.48%18055321513913087204930631548.25%677251.75%18055164680397070910189147.63%207952.37%1805516104599117134020442448.52%469351.48%18055321513913087204930631548.25%677251.75%18055164680397070910189147.63%207952.37%1805516104599117134020442448.52%469351.48%18055321513913087204930631548.25%677251.75%18055164680397070910189147.63%207952.37%1805516104599117134020442448.52%469351.48%18055321513913087204930631548.25%677251.75%18055164680397070910189147.63%207952.37%1805516104599117134020442448.52%469351.48%18055321513913087204930631548.25%677251.75%18055164680397070910189147.63%207952.37%1805516104599117134020442448.52%469351.48%18055321513913087204930631548.25%677251.75%ITEM NUMBER: A-3DATE: 12/13/16ATTACHMENT: 3Page 50
Statement of Votes Cast2016 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTIONSOVC For CITY OF ATASCADERO, All Counters, CITIESFINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTSDate:12/05/16Time:16:07:28Page:28 of 28 Polling VBM TotalReg. VotersVote ForBallots CastTotal VotesTimes Blank VotedTimes Over VotedNumber Of Under VotesYESNOG-16 CITY OF ATASCADERO CITY TREASURER (50%+1)18055164680397070910189147.63%207952.37%1805516104599117134020442448.52%469351.48%18055321513913087204930631548.25%677251.75%ITEM NUMBER: A-3DATE: 12/13/16ATTACHMENT: 3Page 51
Statement of Votes Cast2016 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTIONSOVC For CITY OF ATASCADERO, All Counters, CITIESFINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTSDate:12/05/16Time:16:07:28Page:27 of 28 Total Total Polling VBM TotalASSEMBLY 35TH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalBOARD OF EQUALIZATION STATE BOARD OF EQUAL DIST 2 Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalSUPERVISOR/COMMISSIONER 5TH SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT Polling VBM Total Total Polling VBM TotalCITIES CITY OF ATASCADERO Polling VBM Total TotalReg. VotersVote ForBallots CastTotal VotesTimes Blank VotedTimes Over VotedNumber Of Under VotesYESNOG-16 CITY OF ATASCADERO CITY TREASURER (50%+1)18055321513913087204930631548.25%677251.75%18055164680397070910189147.63%207952.37%1805516104599117134020442448.52%469351.48%18055321513913087204930631548.25%677251.75%18055164680397070910189147.63%207952.37%1805516104599117134020442448.52%469351.48%18055321513913087204930631548.25%677251.75%18055164680397070910189147.63%207952.37%1805516104599117134020442448.52%469351.48%18055321513913087204930631548.25%677251.75%18055164680397070910189147.63%207952.37%1805516104599117134020442448.52%469351.48%18055321513913087204930631548.25%677251.75%18055164680397070910189147.63%207952.37%1805516104599117134020442448.52%469351.48%18055321513913087204930631548.25%677251.75%18055164680397070910189147.63%207952.37%1805516104599117134020442448.52%469351.48%18055321513913087204930631548.25%677251.75%18055164680397070910189147.63%207952.37%1805516104599117134020442448.52%469351.48%18055321513913087204930631548.25%677251.75%18055164680397070910189147.63%207952.37%1805516104599117134020442448.52%469351.48%18055321513913087204930631548.25%677251.75%Page 52
Statement of Votes Cast2016 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTIONSOVC For CITY OF ATASCADERO, All Counters, CITIESFINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTSDate:12/05/16Time:16:07:28Page:28 of 28 Polling VBM TotalReg. VotersVote ForBallots CastTotal VotesTimes Blank VotedTimes Over VotedNumber Of Under VotesYESNOG-16 CITY OF ATASCADERO CITY TREASURER (50%+1)18055164680397070910189147.63%207952.37%1805516104599117134020442448.52%469351.48%18055321513913087204930631548.25%677251.75%Page 53
ITEM NUMBER: A-4
DATE: 12/13/16
Page 54
Check
Number
Check
Date Vendor Description Amount
City of Atascadero
Disbursement Listing
For the Month of October 2016
150664 10/06/2016 40.00Payroll Vendor PaymentATASCADERO MID MGRS ORG UNION
150665 10/06/2016 1,186.25Payroll Vendor PaymentATASCADERO POLICE OFFICERS
150666 10/06/2016 864.25Payroll Vendor PaymentATASCADERO PROF. FIREFIGHTERS
150667 10/06/2016 6,458.50Payroll Vendor PaymentHARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE
150668 10/06/2016 900.30Payroll Vendor PaymentNATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION
150669 10/06/2016 1,576.28Payroll Vendor PaymentNAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS
150670 10/06/2016 968.05Payroll Vendor PaymentSEIU LOCAL 620
150671 10/06/2016 329.05Payroll Vendor PaymentVANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 106099
150672 10/06/2016 3,122.30Payroll Vendor PaymentVANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 304633
2387 10/07/2016 335.08Payroll Vendor PaymentSTATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT
2388 10/07/2016 5,863.01Payroll Vendor PaymentHEALTHEQUITY, INC.
2389 10/07/2016 23,662.16Payroll Vendor PaymentCALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM
2390 10/07/2016 38,841.02Payroll Vendor PaymentCALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM
2391 10/07/2016 2,063.31Payroll Vendor PaymentCALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM
2392 10/07/2016 2,274.95Payroll Vendor PaymentCALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM
2393 10/07/2016 1,885.56Payroll Vendor PaymentCALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM
2394 10/07/2016 2,620.28Payroll Vendor PaymentCALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM
2395 10/07/2016 6,162.26Payroll Vendor PaymentCALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM
2396 10/11/2016 54,516.27Payroll Vendor PaymentRABOBANK, N.A.
2397 10/11/2016 14,327.96Payroll Vendor PaymentEMPLOYMENT DEV DEPARTMENT
2398 10/11/2016 1,928.79Payroll Vendor PaymentEMPLOYMENT DEV. DEPARTMENT
150673 10/11/2016 911.17Accounts Payable CheckCHEVRON & TEXACO BUS. CARD
ITEM NUMBER: A-4
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 55
Check
Number
Check
Date Vendor Description Amount
City of Atascadero
Disbursement Listing
For the Month of October 2016
150674 10/11/2016 943.13Accounts Payable CheckSHELL
150675 10/11/2016 12,948.60Accounts Payable CheckWEX BANK - 76 UNIVERSL
150676 10/12/2016 2,522.19Payroll Vendor PaymentALLSTATE WORKPLACE DIVISION
150677 10/12/2016 144,708.71Payroll Vendor PaymentANTHEM BLUE CROSS HEALTH
150678 10/12/2016 1,463.30Payroll Vendor PaymentLINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INS CO
150679 10/12/2016 1,763.27Payroll Vendor PaymentMEDICAL EYE SERVICES
150680 10/12/2016 9,492.10Payroll Vendor PaymentPREFERRED BENEFITS INSURANCE
150681 10/14/2016 5,373.00Accounts Payable CheckA & R CONSTRUCTION
150682 10/14/2016 600.00Accounts Payable CheckA & T ARBORISTS & VEGETATION
150683 10/14/2016 509.00Accounts Payable CheckACCESS PUBLISHING
150684 10/14/2016 6,922.50Accounts Payable CheckAGP VIDEO, INC.
150685 10/14/2016 256.70Accounts Payable CheckAIRFLOW FILTER SERVICE, INC.
150686 10/14/2016 194.35Accounts Payable CheckAIRGAS USA, LLC
150687 10/14/2016 563.76Accounts Payable CheckALL SIGNS AND GRAPHICS, LLC
150688 10/14/2016 314.00Accounts Payable CheckALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC
150689 10/14/2016 482.25Accounts Payable CheckAMERICAN MARBORG
150690 10/14/2016 271.89Accounts Payable CheckANTECH DIAGNOSTICS
150691 10/14/2016 0.00Accounts Payable CheckVOID
150692 10/14/2016 302.40Accounts Payable CheckA-STITCH EMBROIDERY
150693 10/14/2016 232.94Accounts Payable CheckAT&T
150694 10/14/2016 1,384.84Accounts Payable CheckATASCADERO HAY & FEED
150696 10/14/2016 22,042.50Accounts Payable CheckATASCADERO MUTUAL WATER CO.
150697 10/14/2016 388.13Accounts Payable CheckAW DIRECT, INC.
ITEM NUMBER: A-4
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 56
Check
Number
Check
Date Vendor Description Amount
City of Atascadero
Disbursement Listing
For the Month of October 2016
150698 10/14/2016 75.60Accounts Payable CheckTERRIE BANISH
150699 10/14/2016 553.93Accounts Payable CheckBASSETT'S CRICKET RANCH,INC.
150700 10/14/2016 175.00Accounts Payable CheckBELL'S PLUMBING REPAIR, INC.
150701 10/14/2016 910.15Accounts Payable CheckBERRY MAN, INC.
150702 10/14/2016 2,500.00Accounts Payable CheckBIG RED MARKETING, INC.
150703 10/14/2016 63.00Accounts Payable CheckDEBRA R. BREWER
150704 10/14/2016 71.50Accounts Payable CheckTORI BROWN-HEILMANN
150705 10/14/2016 1,047.90Accounts Payable CheckSHIRLEY R. BRUTON
150706 10/14/2016 46,989.63Accounts Payable CheckBURKE,WILLIAMS, & SORENSON LLP
150707 10/14/2016 562.87Accounts Payable CheckBURT INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY
150708 10/14/2016 123.12Accounts Payable CheckBUTLER BUSINESS MACHINES
150709 10/14/2016 108.00Accounts Payable CheckCA BUILDING STANDARDS COMM.
150710 10/14/2016 5,547.79Accounts Payable CheckCA CODE CHECK, INC.
150711 10/14/2016 2,461.78Accounts Payable CheckCALPORTLAND COMPANY
150712 10/14/2016 50.00Accounts Payable CheckCCC-ICC
150713 10/14/2016 406.06Accounts Payable CheckCDCE, INC.
150714 10/14/2016 34.46Accounts Payable CheckCENTRAL COAST PLUMBING SUPPLY
150715 10/14/2016 60.19Accounts Payable CheckCHARTER COMMUNICATIONS
150716 10/14/2016 249.62Accounts Payable CheckKATHLEEN J. CINOWALT
150717 10/14/2016 1,181.25Accounts Payable CheckCLAY'S SEPTIC & JETTING, INC.
150718 10/14/2016 430.20Accounts Payable CheckCOAST LINE DISTRIBUTING
150719 10/14/2016 60.00Accounts Payable CheckCIMON J. CORMIER
150720 10/14/2016 102.60Accounts Payable CheckCRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER
ITEM NUMBER: A-4
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 57
Check
Number
Check
Date Vendor Description Amount
City of Atascadero
Disbursement Listing
For the Month of October 2016
150721 10/14/2016 70.00Accounts Payable CheckCULLIGAN/CENTRAL COAST WTR TRT
150722 10/14/2016 22.00Accounts Payable CheckDALLAS ZOO MANAGEMENT, INC.
150723 10/14/2016 135.00Accounts Payable CheckDAN BIDDLE PEST CONTROL SERVIC
150724 10/14/2016 179.00Accounts Payable CheckCALEB M. DAVIS
150725 10/14/2016 369.00Accounts Payable CheckTRAVIS W. DAWES
150726 10/14/2016 300.00Accounts Payable CheckNICHOLAS DEBAR
150727 10/14/2016 20.75Accounts Payable CheckPATRICIA DEIRMENJIAN
150728 10/14/2016 256.40Accounts Payable CheckDELTA LIQUID ENERGY
150729 10/14/2016 775.36Accounts Payable CheckDEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
150730 10/14/2016 550.00Accounts Payable CheckDEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
150731 10/14/2016 10,301.25Accounts Payable CheckDIVERSIFIED PROJECT SERVICES
150732 10/14/2016 32.10Accounts Payable CheckDIVISION OF STATE ARCHITECT
150733 10/14/2016 519.12Accounts Payable CheckDRIVE CUSTOMS
150734 10/14/2016 300.00Accounts Payable CheckPHILIP DUNSMORE
150735 10/14/2016 2,610.00Accounts Payable CheckEIKHOF DESIGN GROUP, INC.
150736 10/14/2016 294.00Accounts Payable CheckELECTRICRAFT, INC.
150737 10/14/2016 660.00Accounts Payable CheckESCUELA DEL RIO
150738 10/14/2016 498.78Accounts Payable CheckDANIEL JAKE FANNING
150739 10/14/2016 78.05Accounts Payable CheckFARM SUPPLY COMPANY
150740 10/14/2016 102.92Accounts Payable CheckFARWEST LINE SPECIALTIES
150741 10/14/2016 6,876.81Accounts Payable CheckFERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC.
150742 10/14/2016 1,057.00Accounts Payable CheckFGL ENVIRONMENTAL
150743 10/14/2016 706.71Accounts Payable CheckFIRE ETC
ITEM NUMBER: A-4
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 58
Check
Number
Check
Date Vendor Description Amount
City of Atascadero
Disbursement Listing
For the Month of October 2016
150744 10/14/2016 531.83Accounts Payable CheckGAS COMPANY
150745 10/14/2016 60.00Accounts Payable CheckANDREW J. GEFTAKYS
150746 10/14/2016 161.62Accounts Payable CheckGEM AUTO PARTS
150747 10/14/2016 64.79Accounts Payable CheckBARRY HARDY
150748 10/14/2016 158.46Accounts Payable CheckHART IMPRESSIONS PRINTING
150749 10/14/2016 154.36Accounts Payable CheckHEIMAN FIRE EQUIPMENT
150750 10/14/2016 307.80Accounts Payable CheckIMPACT ABSORBENTS, INC.
150751 10/14/2016 4,272.48Accounts Payable CheckINTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL
150752 10/14/2016 120.25Accounts Payable CheckINTOXIMETERS
150753 10/14/2016 557.57Accounts Payable CheckJ. CARROLL CORPORATION
150754 10/14/2016 48.90Accounts Payable CheckJIFFY LUBE
150755 10/14/2016 3,000.00Accounts Payable CheckJOE A. GONSALVES & SON
150756 10/14/2016 320.00Accounts Payable CheckKPRL 1230 AM
150757 10/14/2016 3,600.00Accounts Payable CheckKW CONSTRUCTION
150758 10/14/2016 107.31Accounts Payable CheckL.N. CURTIS & SONS
150759 10/14/2016 267.75Accounts Payable CheckLANTERN PRESS
150760 10/14/2016 2,740.47Accounts Payable CheckLEE WILSON ELECTRIC CO. INC
150761 10/14/2016 299.28Accounts Payable CheckLIFE ASSIST, INC.
150762 10/14/2016 60.00Accounts Payable CheckCRAIG C. LOWRIE
150763 10/14/2016 161.45Accounts Payable CheckMADRONE LANDSCAPES, INC.
150764 10/14/2016 40.55Accounts Payable CheckBECKY MAXWELL
150765 10/14/2016 200.00Accounts Payable CheckSAMUEL HENRY MCMILLAN, JR.
150766 10/14/2016 80.00Accounts Payable CheckSAMUEL H. MCMILLAN, SR.
ITEM NUMBER: A-4
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 59
Check
Number
Check
Date Vendor Description Amount
City of Atascadero
Disbursement Listing
For the Month of October 2016
150767 10/14/2016 180.26Accounts Payable CheckMID-COAST MOWER & SAW, INC.
150768 10/14/2016 981.08Accounts Payable CheckMINER'S ACE HARDWARE
150769 10/14/2016 379.94Accounts Payable CheckMISSION UNIFORM SERVICE
150770 10/14/2016 113.78Accounts Payable CheckMOUNTAIN CORPORATION
150771 10/14/2016 6,267.32Accounts Payable CheckNBS
150772 10/14/2016 9,006.66Accounts Payable CheckNORTH COAST ENGINEERING INC.
150773 10/14/2016 753.37Accounts Payable CheckOFFICE DEPOT INC.
150774 10/14/2016 21,184.23Accounts Payable CheckPACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
150775 10/14/2016 59.39Accounts Payable CheckFLAVIA PAROTTI
150776 10/14/2016 207.20Accounts Payable CheckPASO ROBLES ICE COMPANY
150777 10/14/2016 30.00Accounts Payable CheckSHANE PAYTON
150778 10/14/2016 520.28Accounts Payable CheckPCM-G
150779 10/14/2016 80.00Accounts Payable CheckROBIN K. PENDLEY
150780 10/14/2016 250.00Accounts Payable CheckPERSONNEL EVALUATION, INC.
150781 10/14/2016 573.97Accounts Payable CheckPETERSON U-CART
150782 10/14/2016 847.70Accounts Payable CheckPHYSIO-CONTROL, INC.
150783 10/14/2016 50.00Accounts Payable CheckPLEASANTON FITNESS, LLC
150784 10/14/2016 512.76Accounts Payable CheckPROCARE JANITORIAL SUPPLY,INC.
150785 10/14/2016 1,191.33Accounts Payable CheckQUALITY CODE PUBLISHING
150786 10/14/2016 300.00Accounts Payable CheckJERI RANGEL
150787 10/14/2016 529.73Accounts Payable CheckRACHELLE RICKARD
150788 10/14/2016 1,670.12Accounts Payable CheckSAN LUIS POWERHOUSE, INC.
150789 10/14/2016 99.50Accounts Payable CheckSANTA MONICA SEAFOOD
ITEM NUMBER: A-4
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 60
Check
Number
Check
Date Vendor Description Amount
City of Atascadero
Disbursement Listing
For the Month of October 2016
150790 10/14/2016 2,000.00Accounts Payable CheckSERVICE SYSTEMS ASSC, INC.
150791 10/14/2016 42.36Accounts Payable CheckTHE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY
150792 10/14/2016 280.00Accounts Payable CheckSHORIN-RYU KARATE
150793 10/14/2016 65.92Accounts Payable CheckSLO COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR
150794 10/14/2016 186.09Accounts Payable CheckSMART AND FINAL
150795 10/14/2016 6,848.03Accounts Payable CheckSOUTH COAST EMERGENCY VEH SVC
150796 10/14/2016 904.82Accounts Payable CheckSTANLEY CONVERGENT SECURITY
150797 10/14/2016 315.13Accounts Payable CheckSTAPLES CREDIT PLAN
150798 10/14/2016 1,908.63Accounts Payable CheckSTATEWIDE TRAFFIC SAFETY&SIGNS
150799 10/14/2016 26.00Accounts Payable CheckKRISTY SUDERMAN
150800 10/14/2016 74.87Accounts Payable CheckTEMPLETON UNIFORMS
150801 10/14/2016 126.35Accounts Payable CheckSTEVE TIROTTA
150802 10/14/2016 703.17Accounts Payable CheckULTREX BUSINESS PRODUCTS
150803 10/14/2016 2,854.69Accounts Payable CheckUNITED RENTALS (NORTH AM), INC
150804 10/14/2016 875.16Accounts Payable CheckUNITED STAFFING ASSC., INC.
150805 10/14/2016 10,253.11Accounts Payable CheckUNIVAR USA, INC.
150806 10/14/2016 140.00Accounts Payable CheckIWINA M. VAN BEEK
150807 10/14/2016 1,048.17Accounts Payable CheckVERIZON WIRELESS
150808 10/14/2016 763.84Accounts Payable CheckVISITOR TELEVISION LLC
150809 10/14/2016 1,079.62Accounts Payable CheckWEST COAST AUTO & TOWING, INC.
150810 10/14/2016 251.22Accounts Payable CheckWESTERN JANITOR SUPPLY
150811 10/14/2016 2,112.50Accounts Payable CheckWHITLOCK & WEINBERGER TRANS.
150812 10/14/2016 720.60Accounts Payable CheckKAREN B. WYKE
ITEM NUMBER: A-4
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 61
Check
Number
Check
Date Vendor Description Amount
City of Atascadero
Disbursement Listing
For the Month of October 2016
150813 10/14/2016 165.78Accounts Payable CheckZEE MEDICAL SERVICES CO.
150814 10/20/2016 40.00Payroll Vendor PaymentATASCADERO MID MGRS ORG UNION
150815 10/20/2016 1,186.25Payroll Vendor PaymentATASCADERO POLICE OFFICERS
150816 10/20/2016 864.25Payroll Vendor PaymentATASCADERO PROF. FIREFIGHTERS
150817 10/20/2016 3,008.00Payroll Vendor PaymentEMPLOYMENT DEV. DEPARTMENT
150818 10/20/2016 6,458.50Payroll Vendor PaymentHARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE
150819 10/20/2016 250.00Payroll Vendor PaymentICMA-RC
150820 10/20/2016 846.09Payroll Vendor PaymentNATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION
150821 10/20/2016 1,576.28Payroll Vendor PaymentNAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS
150822 10/20/2016 65.00Payroll Vendor PaymentNAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS
150823 10/20/2016 973.72Payroll Vendor PaymentSEIU LOCAL 620
150824 10/20/2016 329.05Payroll Vendor PaymentVANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 106099
150825 10/20/2016 3,112.30Payroll Vendor PaymentVANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 304633
150826 10/20/2016 450.00Accounts Payable CheckGUY R. COOPER
150831 10/20/2016 37,318.28Accounts Payable CheckU.S. BANK
2399 10/21/2016 335.08Payroll Vendor PaymentSTATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT
2400 10/21/2016 5,563.01Payroll Vendor PaymentHEALTHEQUITY, INC.
2401 10/21/2016 23,587.94Payroll Vendor PaymentCALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM
2402 10/21/2016 37,900.08Payroll Vendor PaymentCALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM
2403 10/21/2016 1,816.99Payroll Vendor PaymentCALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM
2404 10/21/2016 2,274.95Payroll Vendor PaymentCALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM
2405 10/21/2016 1,872.70Payroll Vendor PaymentCALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM
ITEM NUMBER: A-4
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 62
Check
Number
Check
Date Vendor Description Amount
City of Atascadero
Disbursement Listing
For the Month of October 2016
2406 10/21/2016 2,253.71Payroll Vendor PaymentCALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM
2407 10/21/2016 6,423.42Payroll Vendor PaymentCALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM
2408 10/25/2016 60,131.39Payroll Vendor PaymentRABOBANK, N.A.
2409 10/25/2016 16,338.95Payroll Vendor PaymentEMPLOYMENT DEV DEPARTMENT
2410 10/25/2016 1,968.80Payroll Vendor PaymentEMPLOYMENT DEV. DEPARTMENT
150832 10/28/2016 303.00Accounts Payable CheckA & R CONSTRUCTION
150833 10/28/2016 2,334.00Accounts Payable CheckACCESS PUBLISHING
150834 10/28/2016 42.00Accounts Payable CheckASHLEY ADAMS
150835 10/28/2016 735.00Accounts Payable CheckAGM CALIFORNIA, INC.
150836 10/28/2016 77.63Accounts Payable CheckAIRFLOW FILTER SERVICE, INC.
150837 10/28/2016 1,856.81Accounts Payable CheckAIR-RITE REFRIGERATION
150838 10/28/2016 3,308.58Accounts Payable CheckALL SIGNS AND GRAPHICS, LLC
150839 10/28/2016 248.16Accounts Payable CheckJOE ALLEN
150840 10/28/2016 407.37Accounts Payable CheckALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC
150841 10/28/2016 731.25Accounts Payable CheckALTHOUSE & MEADE, INC.
150842 10/28/2016 282.25Accounts Payable CheckAMERICAN MARBORG
150843 10/28/2016 2,384.17Accounts Payable CheckAMERICAN WEST TIRE & AUTO INC
150844 10/28/2016 224.56Accounts Payable CheckANTECH DIAGNOSTICS
150845 10/28/2016 1,251.73Accounts Payable CheckAPPLIED EARTHWORKS, INC.
150846 10/28/2016 414.28Accounts Payable CheckAT&T
150847 10/28/2016 884.49Accounts Payable CheckAT&T
150848 10/28/2016 1,518.08Accounts Payable CheckATASCADERO HAY & FEED
150849 10/28/2016 1,951.30Accounts Payable CheckATASCADERO NEWS
ITEM NUMBER: A-4
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 63
Check
Number
Check
Date Vendor Description Amount
City of Atascadero
Disbursement Listing
For the Month of October 2016
150850 10/28/2016 384,824.52Accounts Payable CheckATLANTIC MACHINERY, INC.
150851 10/28/2016 63.72Accounts Payable CheckTERRIE BANISH
150852 10/28/2016 1,975.00Accounts Payable CheckBANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
150853 10/28/2016 232.62Accounts Payable CheckBASSETT'S CRICKET RANCH,INC.
150854 10/28/2016 821.25Accounts Payable CheckKEITH R. BERGHER
150855 10/28/2016 411.25Accounts Payable CheckBERRY MAN, INC.
150856 10/28/2016 432.10Accounts Payable CheckBURT INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY
150857 10/28/2016 4,102.51Accounts Payable CheckCA CODE CHECK, INC.
150858 10/28/2016 300.00Accounts Payable CheckCARLTON HOTEL
150859 10/28/2016 69.98Accounts Payable CheckCHARTER COMMUNICATIONS
150860 10/28/2016 1,728.13Accounts Payable CheckCITIG, INC.
150861 10/28/2016 341.00Accounts Payable CheckCITY OF FRESNO-POLICE DEPT.
150862 10/28/2016 2,211.25Accounts Payable CheckCLASSIC COACH WERKS
150863 10/28/2016 7,000.00Accounts Payable CheckCLEVER CONCEPTS, INC.
150864 10/28/2016 1,513.00Accounts Payable CheckCO OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SART PRG
150865 10/28/2016 200.07Accounts Payable CheckCOAST ELECTRONICS
150866 10/28/2016 189.81Accounts Payable CheckCOASTAL COPY, LP
150867 10/28/2016 99.14Accounts Payable CheckCOASTAL REPROGRAPHIC SERVICES
150868 10/28/2016 60.00Accounts Payable CheckMIGUEL A. CORDERO
150869 10/28/2016 125.00Accounts Payable CheckCORELOGIC SOLUTIONS, LLC.
150870 10/28/2016 258.40Accounts Payable CheckCRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER
150871 10/28/2016 16.20Accounts Payable CheckDARRYL'S LOCK AND SAFE
150872 10/28/2016 0.00Accounts Payable CheckVOID
ITEM NUMBER: A-4
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 64
Check
Number
Check
Date Vendor Description Amount
City of Atascadero
Disbursement Listing
For the Month of October 2016
150873 10/28/2016 135.00Accounts Payable CheckDEEP BLUE INTEGRATION, INC.
150874 10/28/2016 552.00Accounts Payable CheckDEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
150875 10/28/2016 35.64Accounts Payable CheckCHARLES DICKEY
150876 10/28/2016 4,456.25Accounts Payable CheckDIVERSIFIED PROJECT SERVICES
150877 10/28/2016 128.25Accounts Payable CheckDOCUTEAM
150878 10/28/2016 2,366.22Accounts Payable CheckDOOLEY ENTERPRISES INC
150879 10/28/2016 4,329.44Accounts Payable CheckENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS
150880 10/28/2016 660.00Accounts Payable CheckESCUELA DEL RIO
150881 10/28/2016 53.16Accounts Payable CheckCHRISTOPHER G. & ANNA M. FERREE
150882 10/28/2016 51.70Accounts Payable CheckFERRELL'S AUTO REPAIR
150883 10/28/2016 395.00Accounts Payable CheckFIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO
150884 10/28/2016 11.00Accounts Payable CheckCHRIS FISHER
150885 10/28/2016 37.92Accounts Payable CheckFOOD FOR LESS
150886 10/28/2016 239.02Accounts Payable CheckGAS COMPANY
150887 10/28/2016 40.00Accounts Payable CheckANDREW J. GEFTAKYS
150888 10/28/2016 387.63Accounts Payable CheckGEM AUTO PARTS
150889 10/28/2016 632.91Accounts Payable CheckGILBERT'S LANDSCAPES
150890 10/28/2016 284.35Accounts Payable CheckGRAINGER
150891 10/28/2016 163.86Accounts Payable CheckHART IMPRESSIONS PRINTING
150892 10/28/2016 25.00Accounts Payable CheckRYAN HAYES
150893 10/28/2016 17,158.24Accounts Payable CheckHELIXSTORM, INC.
150894 10/28/2016 25.00Accounts Payable CheckANN HOCHSTETLER
150895 10/28/2016 172.79Accounts Payable CheckRYAN HOFSTETTER
ITEM NUMBER: A-4
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 65
Check
Number
Check
Date Vendor Description Amount
City of Atascadero
Disbursement Listing
For the Month of October 2016
150896 10/28/2016 2,499.84Accounts Payable CheckHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
150897 10/28/2016 1,141.21Accounts Payable CheckINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
150898 10/28/2016 756.00Accounts Payable CheckEVELYN R. INGRAM
150899 10/28/2016 395.56Accounts Payable CheckTHE INK CO.
150900 10/28/2016 207.26Accounts Payable CheckINTERSTATE BATTERIES OF
150901 10/28/2016 42.00Accounts Payable CheckAMANDA JAMES
150902 10/28/2016 46.70Accounts Payable CheckJIFFY LUBE
150903 10/28/2016 3,363.08Accounts Payable CheckK PENCE CONSULTING
150904 10/28/2016 1,953.00Accounts Payable CheckKIDZ LOVE SOCCER
150905 10/28/2016 2,238.00Accounts Payable CheckLEADS ONLINE, LLC
150906 10/28/2016 29.87Accounts Payable CheckLIFE ASSIST, INC.
150907 10/28/2016 40.00Accounts Payable CheckCRAIG C. LOWRIE
150908 10/28/2016 231.12Accounts Payable CheckANDREW M. LUCAS
150909 10/28/2016 945.00Accounts Payable CheckMADRONE LANDSCAPES, INC.
150910 10/28/2016 160.00Accounts Payable CheckSAMUEL HENRY MCMILLAN, JR.
150911 10/28/2016 100.00Accounts Payable CheckSAMUEL H. MCMILLAN, SR.
150912 10/28/2016 40.00Accounts Payable CheckMEDPOST URGENT CARE-PASO ROBLE
150913 10/28/2016 6,834.90Accounts Payable CheckMICHAEL K. NUNLEY & ASSC, INC.
150914 10/28/2016 31.70Accounts Payable CheckMID-COAST MOWER & SAW, INC.
150917 10/28/2016 2,520.10Accounts Payable CheckMINER'S ACE HARDWARE
150918 10/28/2016 288.98Accounts Payable CheckMISSION UNIFORM SERVICE
150919 10/28/2016 8,850.00Accounts Payable CheckMITCH FREDERICK SEALCOATING
150920 10/28/2016 62.00Accounts Payable CheckKATIE MULDER
ITEM NUMBER: A-4
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 66
Check
Number
Check
Date Vendor Description Amount
City of Atascadero
Disbursement Listing
For the Month of October 2016
150921 10/28/2016 12,306.41Accounts Payable CheckMV TRANSPORTATION, INC.
150922 10/28/2016 30,325.70Accounts Payable CheckNORTH COAST ENGINEERING INC.
150923 10/28/2016 2,106.58Accounts Payable CheckOFFICE DEPOT INC.
150924 10/28/2016 58.85Accounts Payable CheckONTRAC
150925 10/28/2016 20,123.90Accounts Payable CheckPACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
150926 10/28/2016 80.00Accounts Payable CheckROBIN K. PENDLEY
150927 10/28/2016 166.58Accounts Payable CheckPERRY'S PARCEL & GIFT
150928 10/28/2016 285.53Accounts Payable CheckPAUL PORTER
150929 10/28/2016 29.42Accounts Payable CheckPRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION, INC.
150930 10/28/2016 1,462.25Accounts Payable CheckPROCARE JANITORIAL SUPPLY,INC.
150931 10/28/2016 240.73Accounts Payable CheckPROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVE
150932 10/28/2016 3,002.40Accounts Payable CheckRANGE MASTER
150933 10/28/2016 125.00Accounts Payable CheckROTARY CLUB OF ATASCADERO
150934 10/28/2016 199.00Accounts Payable CheckSANTA MONICA SEAFOOD
150935 10/28/2016 2,000.00Accounts Payable CheckSERVICE SYSTEMS ASSC, INC.
150936 10/28/2016 56,491.25Accounts Payable CheckSLO COUNTY HEALTH AGENCY
150937 10/28/2016 206.40Accounts Payable CheckMARY P. SMITH
150938 10/28/2016 672.37Accounts Payable CheckSPEAKWRITE, LLC.
150939 10/28/2016 97.19Accounts Payable CheckBRUCE ST. JOHN
150940 10/28/2016 845.00Accounts Payable CheckSTATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
150941 10/28/2016 200.00Accounts Payable CheckSTATE WATER RES CONTROL BOARD
150942 10/28/2016 4,712.69Accounts Payable CheckSTATEWIDE TRAFFIC SAFETY&SIGNS
150943 10/28/2016 169.00Accounts Payable CheckJEAN M. STEEL
ITEM NUMBER: A-4
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 67
Check
Number
Check
Date Vendor Description Amount
City of Atascadero
Disbursement Listing
For the Month of October 2016
150944 10/28/2016 323.69Accounts Payable CheckBRIAN STURTEVANT
150945 10/28/2016 1,700.00Accounts Payable CheckSUNLIGHT JANITORIAL, INC.
150946 10/28/2016 17.28Accounts Payable CheckCALLIE TAYLOR
150947 10/28/2016 918.00Accounts Payable CheckT-MOBILE USA, INC.
150948 10/28/2016 258.00Accounts Payable CheckAYLA TOMAC
150949 10/28/2016 6,020.14Accounts Payable CheckTRIBUNE
150950 10/28/2016 1,391.68Accounts Payable CheckUNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
150951 10/28/2016 3,664.76Accounts Payable CheckUNITED STAFFING ASSC., INC.
150952 10/28/2016 220.47Accounts Payable CheckUSA BLUE BOOK
150953 10/28/2016 160.00Accounts Payable CheckIWINA M. VAN BEEK
150954 10/28/2016 8,507.03Accounts Payable CheckVERDIN
150955 10/28/2016 1,422.80Accounts Payable CheckVERIZON WIRELESS
150956 10/28/2016 640.00Accounts Payable CheckVISITOR TELEVISION LLC
150957 10/28/2016 4,996.00Accounts Payable CheckVOICE PRINT INTERNATIONAL, LLC
150958 10/28/2016 10,289.95Accounts Payable CheckWALLACE GROUP
150959 10/28/2016 1,730.81Accounts Payable CheckWEST COAST AUTO & TOWING, INC.
150960 10/28/2016 182.00Accounts Payable CheckWOOLERY, JONATHAN
150961 10/28/2016 1,465.36Accounts Payable CheckWULFING'S BACKGROUND & POLYGR
150962 10/28/2016 775.98Accounts Payable CheckYESTERDAYS SPORTSWEAR
$1,460,426.06
ITEM NUMBER: A-4
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 1
Page 68
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 12/13/16
Atascadero City Council
Office of the City Clerk
Ordinance to Amend Atascadero Municipal Code to Reflect
Decision of Voters on November 2016 Ballot Measure F-16
Regarding Appointive City Clerk
RECOMMENDATION:
Council i ntroduce for first reading, by title only, the Draft Ordinance Amending Title 2,
Chapters 4, 6, 14 and 20 of the Atascadero Municipal Code, Stating the City Clerk is
Appointive and Authorizing the City Manager to Appoint the City Clerk.
DISCUSSION:
Background: At the April 26, 2016 Council meeting, the City Clerk recommended that
the City Council consider placing a ballot measure on the ballot for the November 2016
election, asking the voters if the City Clerk and the City Treasurer should be appointed.
After some discussion, the City Council directed the City Clerk to return to the City
Council in June 2016, when she presents the election Resolutions, and include in those
Resolutions the ballot measures regarding the City Clerk and City Treasurer.
At the June 14, 2016 Council meeting, the City Council adopted the election
Resolutions, including the placement of ballot measures asking the voters if the City
Clerk and City Treasurer should be appointive. The City Clerk explained that if the
ballot measures were successful, she would return to the City Council with an
Ordinance to amend the Municipal Code to reflect the outcome of the election.
The following is the results from the election:
Ballot Measure F-16: Shall the office of the City Clerk be appointi ve?
YES / NO Number of votes Percentage of voters
YES 6597 50.43%
NO 6484 49.57%
Page 69
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 12/13/16
Ballot Measure G-16: Shall the office of the City Treasurer be appointive?
YES / NO Number of votes Percentage of voters
NO 6772 51.75%
YES 6315 48.25%
These results show that the majority of the voters (50.43%) want the City Clerk to be
appointive. These results also show that the majority of the voters (51.7 5%) want the
City Treasurer to remain elected. The City Treasurer position will remain elected and
the term of the position will remain the same, 4 years expiring in December 2018. The
City Clerk position will remain elected until the end of the current term which is also
December 2018, unless an earlier vacancy occurs. Once the City Clerk position is
vacant, either by vacancy or end of term, the position will then be appointive.
If a majority of voters approve making an elected position appointive, Government Code
§36510 provides that the City Council may, by ordinance, delegate its appointment
authority to the City Manager:
Government Code §36510:
If a majority of the votes cast on the proposition is for it, the city council shall
appoint such officers at the expiration of the terms of the officers then in office,
and on a vacancy in any such office. Such officers shall hold office during the
pleasure of the city council and, notwithstanding Section 36502 to the contrary,
are not required to be residents or electors in the city. The city council may by
ordinance vest in the city manager its a uthority to appoint such officers.
(Amended by Stats. 1963, Ch. 509.)
Delegating appointment authority to the City Manager is recommended for the following
reasons:
1. Selection of the next City Clerk would be handled with the same selection
process already used for other positions in the City to ensure a qualified
candidate is hired.
2. Since the City Clerk is responsible for coordinating and conducting elections and
processing possible recalls, potential conflict situations that can occur when the
City Clerk is appointed by the City Council would be avoided.
3. Supervision and performance evaluation would be provided most effectively
since most day to day direction and oversight is provided by the City Manager.
The other cities in San Luis Obispo County address the appointment issue as follows:
CITY CLERK ELECTED or APPOINTED BY
Arroyo Grande Appointed by City Manager
Grover Beach Appointed by City Manager
Morro Bay Appointed by City Manager
Paso Robles Elected
Pismo Beach Appointed by City Manager
San Luis Obispo Appointed by City Manager
Page 70
ITEM NUMBER: B-1
DATE: 12/13/16
Of particular note, the City of San Luis Obispo originally had the City Clerk appointed by
the City Council. Several years ago, they transferred appointment of the City Clerk from
the City Council to the City Manager th rough a Charter Amendment measure on the
ballot.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact on this recommendation.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance
Page 71
ITEM #: B-1
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 1
DRAFT ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 2, CHAPTER S 4, 6, 14
AND 20 OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE, STATING THE
CITY CLERK IS APPOINTIVE AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO APPOINT THE CITY CLERK
The City Council hereby finds and declares as follows:
WHEREAS, the office of the City Clerk has been an elected position since the City of
Atascadero’s incorporation in 1979; and,
WHEREAS, the California Government Code 36508 states that the City Council may
submit to the electors the question whether the elective officers, except Council Members, shall
be appointed; and,
WHEREAS, the Atascadero City Council placed on the November 2016 election ballot,
a ballot measure asking the voters if the City Clerk position should be appointive; and,
WHEREAS, a majority of the voters in Atascadero voted at the November 8, 2016
election to have the office of the C ity Clerk to be appointive.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO
HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 2-4.27 of the Atascadero Municipal Code shall be added as follows:
2-4.27 Delegation of Authority to Appoint City Clerk.
As a result of the November 2016 General Election, the voters decided to have the office of the
City Clerk appointed. The position will re main elected until the end of term, December 2018, or
sooner if there is a vacancy. Once a vacancy occurs, the City Council authorizes the City
Manager to appoint the City Clerk, pursuant to Government Code §36510.
SECTION 2. Section 2-6.01(a) of the Atascadero Municipal Code shall be amended as follows:
2-6.01 Creation and functions.
(a) The office of the City Clerk is established as provided by Section 36501 of the Government
Code of the State. The office shall be elected. As a result of the November 2016 General
Election, the voters decided to have the office of the City Clerk appointed. The position will
remain elected until the end of term, December 2018, or sooner if there is a vacancy. The
City Clerk shall have all of the powers, duties, and responsibilities granted to or imposed
upon the office of the City Clerk by the provisions of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 3 of
Title 4 of the Government Code of the State (Sections 40801 and 4080 4), other general laws
of the State, the provisions of this Code, and the ordinances and resolutions of the Council;
provided, however, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 40805.5 and 37209 of the
Government Code of the State, the financial and accounting duties imposed upon the City
Page 72
ITEM #: B-1
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 1
Clerk by Sections 40802 through 40805 and 37201 through 37208 of the Government Code
of the State shall be performed by the Finance Director; and, further provided, that the ex
officio assessor duties provided by Government Code Section 40810 shall be performed by
County officers.
SECTION 3. Section 2-6.04 of the Atascadero Municipal Code shall be amended as follows:
2-6.04 Compensation.
The City Clerk shall receive a salary of two hundred dollars ($200.00) a month through
December 31, 2016. The City Clerk shall receive a salary of four hundred dollars ($400.00) per
calendar month commencing on January 1, 2017 and thereafter. As a result of the November
2016 General Election, the voters decided to have the office of the City Clerk appointed. The
position will remain elected until the end of term, December 2018, or sooner if there is a
vacancy. Once the position is appointive, the four hundred dollars ($400.00) monthly salary will
end.
SECTION 4. Section 2-14.02 of the Atascadero Municipal Code shall be amended as follows:
2-14.02 Elected positions.
(a) The electors shall elect a Mayor, four (4) City Councilmembers, and a City Treasurer and
a City Clerk.
(b) The term of office of the Mayor shall be two (2) years. The term of the office of the
Councilmembers, and the Treasurer and Clerk shall be four (4) years
SECTION 5. Section 2-20.01 of the Atascadero Municipal Code shall be amended as follows:
2-20.01 Elected officials designated.
Elected officials in the City of Atascadero are the Mayor, City Councilmembers, and City
Treasurer and City Clerk.
SECTION 6. A summary of this ordinance shall be published twice: at least five days prior to
its final passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper published and circulated in the City of
Atascadero, and; before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its final passage, in the
Atascadero News, a newspaper published and circulate in the City of Atascadero. A copy of the
full text of this o rdinance shall be on file in the City Clerk’s Office on and after the date
following introduction and passage and shall be available to any interested member of the public.
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council held on December 13, 2016, and
PASSED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Atascadero, State of California, on
January 10, 2017, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Page 73
ITEM #: B-1
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 1
ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO
______________________________ ______________________________
Marcia McClure Torgerson, C.M.C., Tom O’Malley, Mayor
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Brian A. Pierik, City Attorney
Page 74
ITEM NUMBER: B-2
DATE: 12/13/16
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report – Public Works Department
2017 Community Development Block Grant
Draft Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION:
Council develop and adopt draft funding recommendations for the 2017 Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds.
DISCUSSION:
Background: The 2017 CDBG award process began in the fall of 2016. W orkshops
were held throughout the County to solicit public comment on community needs. The
County published a request for CDBG proposals and the City received 5 applications.
Total available funding for the 2017 cycle, based on previous levels, is anticipated to be
approximately $154,788. Final funding amounts are anticipated to be released by the
Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD) in early 2017.
The City will also receive $65,740 from the City of Morro Bay’s CDBG allocation for a
combined total of $220,528. In 2016 the City of Atascadero reallocated $236,420 to
Morro Bay to complete a shovel ready project. The City of Morro Bay will allocate their
annual CDBG funding to Atascadero on a dollar-per-dollar repayment basis beginning
with the 2017 CDBG year until the balance is paid in full .
CDBG funds are available for community development activities, which meet at least
one of the three national objectives:
1. A benefit to low and moderate-income persons;
2. Aid in the prevention or elimi nation of blight;
3. Address urgent needs that pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or
welfare of the community.
In order for a program to qualify under the low and moderate income objective, at least
51% of the persons benefiting from the project or program must earn no more than 80%
of the area median. Additionally, at least 70% of the CDBG funds must be spent toward
this objective.
Page 75
ITEM NUMBER: B-2
DATE: 12/13/16
The following criteria should also be used to guide selection of CDBG programs:
1. The proposal is consistent with the national objectives and eligibility criteria of
the HUD CDBG program;
2. The proposal is consistent with the Urban County Consolidated Plan;
3. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and other City
codes/ordinances.
4. The proposal will achieve multiple community development objectives;
5. The proposal can be implemented in a timely manner, without significant
environmental, policy, procedural, legal, or fiscal obstacles to overcome; and
6. The project is not financially feasible without CDBG funding.
The City received the following applications for the 201 7 funding cycle:
Public Facilities- $166,352 Available (includes $65,740 from Morro Bay)
City of Atascadero – Handicapped Accessibility - Barrier Removal Project $250,000
Public Services – Limited to 15% of 2017 Allocation ($23,218)
Atascadero Loaves and Fishes – Operation of Food Pantry 10,000
City of Atascadero – Youth Activity Scholarships 10,000
El Camino Homeless Organization – Operation of Homeless Shelter 18,590
Lifesteps Foundation– Senior Homemaker Program* 3,000
Administration – Limited to 20% of 2017 Allocation ($30,958)
City Program Administration Costs 10,835
County Program Administration Costs 20,123
Total Funds Requested $322,548
2017 Estimated Allocation $220,528
*An Award to Lifesteps Foundation would require a cumulative award of $8,000 Countywide.
Applications received exceed the anticipated funding amount. In addition, there are
limits related to categories of funding as described below. As part of the CDBG
process, Council must develop a draft recommendation for the 2017 grant year that
meets the funding criteria while adhering to the categorical limits.
There is a minimum award thre shold of $8,000 per project, meaning the City can only
allocate less than $8,000 for a particular public service activity if another agency in the
County commits to programming the remainder to equal a Countywide cumulative total
of at least $8,000.
There are four applicants this year for the public services funding with all requests
totaling $41,590 – which exceeds the estimated limit of $23,218 . A copy of all
applications, funding regulations and a summary of past awards has been provided with
your agenda packet. Copies have also been provided in the lobby and the library for
public review.
Page 76
ITEM NUMBER: B-2
DATE: 12/13/16
Upon approval, the draft funding recommendations will be forwarded to the County for
publishing along with recommendations from all participating agencies. A minimum of
30 days after publication, a second workshop will be held to allow questions from
applicants regarding the draft recommendations , after which the draft allocations will be
forwarded to City Council, with comments from the workshop, for final approval and
forwarding to the County Board of Supervisors. The following is a brief explanation of
the funding groups and applications within each:
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Public Facilities are defined as activities relating to real property, including the
acquisition, construction, rehabilitation or inst allation of public improvements. These
activities can be carried out by a grantee, subrecipient or other nonprofit.
City of Atascadero – City Facilities and Infrastructure – Barrier Removal
Funds Requested: $250,000
The intersection of Traffic Way and El Camino Real warrants improvements to increase
accessibility for the traveling public. This project proposes to remove and replace
approximately 550 linear feet of currently non -ADA compliant sidewalk, driveway
approaches and curb ramps at the southeast and southwest corners of El Camino Real
and Traffic Way in downtown Atascadero. The infrastructure improvements provid ing
wheelchair ramps and ADA compliant sidewalks will aid those with mobility
impairments. Additional improvements include upgrading traffic signal pedestrian
equipment.
PUBLIC SERVICES - 15% cap on percentage of award from this category estimated at
$23,218 this cycle.
CDBG regulations allow for a wide range of public service activities, including, but not
limited to: employment services, crime prevention, child care, health services,
substance abuse services, fair housing counseling and recreational services.
Atascadero Loaves and Fishes – Groceries for Needy Families
Funds Requested: $10,000
Loaves and Fishes operate an emergency food pantry for elderly, very low and low-
income residents in Atascadero, Templeton, Santa Margarita, Creston and Cal ifornia
Valley. In 2015 they served 1,772 elderly individuals and numerous low-income families
with over 229,000 pounds of groceries. They are requesting funds to purchase
groceries.
City of Atascadero – Youth Activity Scholarship Fund
Funds Requested: $10,000
The City administers this scholarship fund to allow the children of very low and low-
income families to participate in recreational and social activities. The 201 5 Grant funds
Page 77
ITEM NUMBER: B-2
DATE: 12/13/16
provided over 180 scholarships to keep children active and engaged. Because this
program is limited to very-low and low-income families, the benefit criteria will be met.
El Camino Homeless Organization – Operation of Homeless Shelter
Funds Requested: $18,590
ECHO is the only homeless shelter in Northern San Luis Obispo County providing
transitional shelter, a daily meal program, transportation assistance and referrals for job
search workshops and parenting classes . ECHO completed a major renovation that
included the expansion of the shelter from 31 to 50 beds whic h provided a 60%
increase in the number of clients served. The ECHO shelter, intake process and all
ancillary services are located at 6370 Atascadero Avenue in Atascadero.
Lifesteps Foundation, Inc. – Senior Homemaker Program
Funds Requested: $3,000
The Senior Homemaker Program provides housecleaning, clothes laundering, home
cooked meals and bathing assistance to approximately 64 households for clients 60
years of age and older. Services are provided at no charge , allowing low income
seniors to live independently in their own home preventing premature placement in a
skilled nursing facility. The Senior Homemaker Program receives referrals from Adult
Protective Service and Home Health agencies but currently has a waiting list for
services.
ADMINISTRATION – Limited to 20% of 2017 Allocation ($30,958)
City of Atascadero – CDBG Program Administration- limited to 7% of the 2017
Allocation
Funds Requested: $10,835
Significant City staff time from Administration, Public Works and Administrativ e Services
is required for CDBG administration, and coordination with County Planning staff. The
City’s administrative portion of the funding c annot exceed 7%, or $11,140, of the total
administrative grant amount.
If administration costs exceed the funding allocation, the remaining cost of administering
the program will need to be paid from the general fund.
County of San Luis Obispo – CDBG Program Administration- limited to 13% of the
2017 Allocation
Allocated Funds: $20,123
Due to the complexity of grant administration responsibilities and the consequences of
non-compliance, HUD recommends that the County provide all monitoring and oversight
for all CDBG grants. The County will assume the duties of project oversight, and
receive a required 13% of th e total grant funds for administration services in the amount
of $20,688.
Page 78
ITEM NUMBER: B-2
DATE: 12/13/16
FISCAL IMPACT:
The 2017 allocation is estimated to be $220,528.
ALTERNATIVES:
The City Council will need to remember that a wards must meet program requirements,
providing a minimum of 70% of funding for benefit to low and moderate -income
persons, and no more than 15% can be allocated to the public service category.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
A complete packet of submitted applications is available for public review at the City of
Atascadero, Public Works Department, 6500 Palma Avenue.
Page 79
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 12/13/16
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report - City Attorney
Proposed Settlement with PG&E Regarding Future Closure of
Diablo Canyon Power Plant
RECOMMENDATION:
Council approve the proposed Settlement Agreement with PG&E regarding future
closure of Diablo Canyon Power Plant and authorize the City Manager to execute the
Settlement Agreement.
DISCUSSION:
On June 21, 2016 Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) announced that it will close the Diablo
Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) when the current operating licenses f rom the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) expire in 2024 and 2025. The announcement also
stated that a Joint Proposal (JP) for the closure had been reached with labor and
environmental groups, but required final approval by the California Public Utilitie s
Commission (CPUC) and was contingent on the extension of current leases with the
State Lands Commission (SLC), for the ocean intake and outfall structures. PG&E
proposed a $49.5 million Community Impact Mitigation Fund to address economic
impacts to the County of San Luis Obispo and to the San Luis Coastal Unified School
District (SLCUSD)
After the announcement by PG&E in June, a coalition of six cities in the County was
formed including the cities of San Luis Obispo, Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Morro Bay,
Paso Robles, and Pismo Beach (Coalition cities). The City of Grover Beach chose not
to participate as a member of the Coalition cities.
Following formation of the Coalition cities, there were negotiations by representatives of
the Coalition citi es, and their legal counsel, with PG&E for the purpose of seeking a
financial contribution from PG&E to reduce the economic impacts which the closure of
DCPP would have in these cities. The economic impacts are anticipated to occur in a
number of ways i ncluding, but not limited to, loss of jobs, reduction in tax revenue and
other impacts.
Page 80
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 12/13/16
On November 18, 2016 the California Public Utilities Commission issued a Scoping
Memo and Ruling of Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge, see
Attachment 1 (“Memo”). The Memo includes a discussion regarding the issues pending
before the CPUC in the pending proceedings and also sets out a Schedule in Section
12 (Memo at pages 11-12). In the conclusion of Section 12, there is a statement that it
is the Commission’s intent to complete the proceedings within 18 months of the date of
the Memo.
On November 28, 2016, there were four press releases issued which describe a
tentative settlement which has been reached with PG&E with the County, SLCUSD and
the Coalition Cities. There was a joint press release by the County, SLCUSD and the
Coalition Cities (Attachment 2) and also press releases by the County (Attachment 3),
SLCUSD (Attachment 4) and the Coalition cities (Attachment 5). These press releases
summarize the tentative settlement which is subject to formal approval by the County
Board of Supervisors, the SLCUSD Board, the City Councils for the Coalition cities and
by PG&Es senior management.
The tentative settlement includes four components:
1. Essential Services Mitigation Fund
A $75 million Essential Services Mitigation Fund to offset the potential negative impacts
to essential public services provided to the community. This will be distributed to the
County in nine equal annual installments through 2025 and the County will redistribute
the funds to 71 local agencies whose budgets are impacted by the inevitable decrease
in unitary tax funding from the power plant. The SLCUSD will receive the bulk of this
funding.
2. Economic Development Fund
A $10 million Economic Development Fund to ease the local economic impacts of the
plant’s closure. The Coalition of Cities will receive $5.76 million, the County will receive
$3.84 million, and the remaining $400,000 will be allocated for regional econ omic
development activities. The cities receiving portions of the fund include San Luis
Obispo, Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Paso Robles and
Pismo Beach. Each agency will issue an annual report, which describes how the funds
are used and assesses the resulting economic development measures or programs.
The reports will be available to PG&E, the CPUC and the public. The Coalition’s $5.76
million share of the $10 million Economic Development Fund will be distributed to the
six member ci ties proportionate to their current share of property tax revenue:
• Arroyo Grande $747,422
• Atascadero $783,106
• Morro Bay $497,472
• Paso Robles $1.15 million
Page 81
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 12/13/16
• Pismo Beach $767,028
• San Luis Obispo $1.82 million
3. Emergency Planning
Continued funding of offsite community and local emergency planning efforts until all
spent fuel is in dry cask storage and the two nuclear reactors are fully decommissioned.
Total funding in this area could range between $37.5 million and $62.5 million over the
course of 15 to 25 years.
4. Agreement on Re-Use or Sale
An agreement from PG&E that it will not take actions or make decisions on the re -use or
sale of land surrounding the power plant, including Wild Cherry Canyon, until PG&E has
completed a site-specific decommissioning plan with input from the community.
On December 6, 2016, the City received the proposed Settlement Agreement between
PG&E, the County, SLCUSD and the Coalition Cities. The Settlement Agreement,
including Appendix 2 and Exhibit A to Appendix 2, confirm the $10 million settlement
with PG&E, the County and the Coalition Cities for the purposes of economic
development and impact mitigation in the amounts listed above (see Section 2 -
Economic Development Fund).
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact to this report.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Scoping Memo and Ruling issued by California Public Utilities Commission
2. Joint Press Release by County, SLCUSD and Coalition Cities
3. Press Release by County
4. Press Release by SLCUSD
5. Press Release by Coalition Cities
6. Proposed Settlement Agreement
Page 82
170158218 - 1 -
MP6/PVA/vm1/ek4 11/18/16
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Application of Pacific Gas and Electric
Company for Approval of the Retirement of
Diablo Canyon Power Plant,
Implementation of the Joint Proposal, And
Recovery of Associated Costs Through
Proposed Ratemaking Mechanisms (U39E).
Application 16-08-006
(Filed August 11, 2016)
SCOPING MEMO AND RULING OF ASSIGNED
COMMISSIONER AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
Summary
This Scoping Memo and Ruling sets forth the category, issues, need for
hearing, schedule, and other matters necessary to scope this proceeding pursuant
to Public Utilities Code (Pub. Util. Code) Section 1701.1 and Article 7 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules).1
1. Background
On August 11, 2016, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed an
Application requesting Commission approval of its plan to retire its Diablo
Canyon Power Plant and related proposals. A prehearing conference (PHC) was
held on October 6, 2016 to determine parties and discuss scope, schedule, and
other procedural matters. Two public participation hearings (PPHs) were held in
San Luis Obispo on October 20, 2016 to obtain public input on local concerns and
the scope of the proceeding.
1 California Code of Regulations, Title 20, Division 1, Chapter 1; hereinafter, Rule or Rules.
FILED
11-18-16
01:43 PM
Page 83
A.16-08-006 MP6/PVA/vm1/ek4
- 2 -
2. Scope
The scope of this proceeding is based upon the issues raised by PG&E’s
application, parties’ protests and responses, the discussion at the PHC, and
statements at the PPHs. Specifically, the scope of the proceeding includes the
following issues:
2.1 Retirement of Diablo Canyon Power Plant
PG&E has proposed to retire Diablo Canyon Unit 1 in 2024, and Unit 2 in
2025. Parties have proposed both earlier and later retirement dates. Parties may
present testimony in support of PG&E’s proposed dates, or earlier or later
retirement dates, including indefinite dates. Issues relating to the operation of
the plant until the retirement date that do not have a dedicated section may also
be addressed here.
2.2 Proposed Replacement Procurement
PG&E has made a proposal for procurement of resources to partially
replace Diablo Canyon’s output, at a cost of $1.3 billion. Parties may present
testimony supporting alternative procurement proposals, including proposals
that all necessary replacement procurement should be addressed in this
proceeding, that no replacement procurement should be addressed in this
proceeding, or that some replacement procurement should be addressed in this
proceeding. All proposals should address potential reliability, safety, cost and
greenhouse gas impacts. All proposals should address how much of Diablo
Canyon’s output needs to be replaced in light of current and projected levels of
electric generation.
All testimony on replacement procurement should address the
relationship between the proposal being made in this proceeding with other
related Commission proceedings, and how this proceeding should coordinate
Page 84
A.16-08-006 MP6/PVA/vm1/ek4
- 3 -
with other related proceedings on this issue. Testimony recommending that
some or all replacement procurement be addressed in another proceeding should
indicate when, where, and how that procurement will be addressed. Specifically,
any testimony recommending that replacement procurement be addressed in
other proceedings at the CPUC should identify those other proceedings, why it
would be more appropriate to address replacement procurement in those
proceedings rather than in this proceeding, and whether issues including or
relating to replacing Diablo Canyon are already being addressed in those
proceedings. Testimony recommending that all replacement procurement be
addressed in this proceeding should describe how doing so would affect or
interact with other proceedings at the CPUC.
2.3 Proposed Employee Program
PG&E has proposed an employee retention, retraining and severance
program associated with approximately 1,500 employees at Diablo Canyon.
PG&E requests the CPUC approve PG&E’s proposed:
1. Employee Retention Program and associated cost
estimate of $352.1 million;
2. Employee Retraining Program and associated cost
estimate of $11.3 million; and
3. Employee Severance Program and associated estimate
of $168 million.
Parties have raised questions about the cost and funding of this program.
Parties may present testimony on the need for this program and its size, cost,
structure, timing and its source of funding.2
2 Testimony discussing whether the source of funding should (or should not) be the nuclear
decommissioning charge should be presented in this area. Testimony discussing ratemaking
Footnote continued on next page
Page 85
A.16-08-006 MP6/PVA/vm1/ek4
- 4 -
2.4 Proposed Community Impacts Mitigation Program
PG&E has proposed a community impacts mitigation program and
associated costs of $49.5 million to mitigate some of the adverse economic
impacts to the residents of San Luis Obispo County as a result of the planned
retirement of Diablo Canyon. This issue was addressed by parties in their
protests and responses, and by numerous speakers at the PPHs. Parties may
present testimony on the community impacts of the proposed retirement of the
Diablo Canyon, including economic and emergency response impacts, and on
proposals to mitigate those impacts.
PG&E’s proposal would mitigate some, but not all, of the community
impacts resulting from the proposed retirement of Diablo Canyon; testimony can
support or criticize PG&E’s proposal, or propose alternatives for mitigation of
community impacts ranging from no ratepayer funding of community impact
mitigation to 100% ratepayer funding of complete community impact mitigation.
Testimony should address the appropriate size and timing of any
mitigation measures and the source of funding for mitigation measures (i.e.
decommissioning funds, other ratepayer funding, shareholders, or taxpayers).3
To the extent possible, testimony should separately address (or otherwise clearly
distinguish) economic impacts and emergency services impacts.
and cost allocation proposals based on a different source of ratepayer funding should be
presented in section VI. Proposed Ratemaking and Cost Allocation Issues.
3 Please note that the CPUC cannot authorize new or increased taxes. For any proposed
ratepayer-funded mitigation measures, ratemaking and cost allocation issues should be
addressed in section VI. Proposed Ratemaking and Cost Allocation Issues.
Page 86
A.16-08-006 MP6/PVA/vm1/ek4
- 5 -
The recently-enacted SB 968 (Monning) requires the Commission to
complete an assessment of the local economic impacts of the proposed retirement
of Diablo Canyon. The language and timeline of SB 968 would indicate that the
assessment would be independent of this proceeding, and most likely follow this
proceeding. In order to ensure coordination of this proceeding with the SB 968
process, the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) requested input on the
relationship between this application and SB 968. At a PPH, Senator Monning’s
office provided a statement to clarify the legislative intent behind SB 968.
Senator Monning opposed delaying this proceeding to incorporate the analysis
required by SB 968, and stated: “The economic assessment required under
SB 968 was never intended to impact or be part of the discussions and decisions
being considered under Application 16-08-006.” This is consistent with the
language of SB 968. Accordingly, this proceeding will go forward
independently, and the record of this proceeding may be used as appropriate in
the assessment required by SB 968.
2.5 Recovery of License Renewal Costs
PG&E has proposed that it be granted rate recovery for approximately
$53 million in costs relating to license renewal activities, including the filing of a
license renewal application with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Other parties have questioned whether PG&E should get rate recovery for these
costs. Parties may present testimony on whether it is reasonable for PG&E to
recover some or all of these costs in rates. Specific ratemaking and cost allocation
testimony should be addressed in section
2.6 Proposed Ratemaking and Cost Allocation Issues
PG&E has requested rate recovery for the costs of its proposals, including
costs of replacement procurement, its employee program and community
Page 87
A.16-08-006 MP6/PVA/vm1/ek4
- 6 -
impacts mitigation program, and its license renewal activities, as well as other
costs relating to the operation of Diablo Canyon facilities. PG&E has also
requested to recover the full book value of Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 by the
time the units cease operations on November 2, 2024 and August 26, 2025.
Parties may present testimony on the rate design and cost allocation for
these items. Parties may support or criticize PG&E’s proposed rate design and
cost allocation, or may present alternative rate design and cost allocation
proposals. In general, recommendations that PG&E should or should not get
rate recovery for replacement procurement, employee programs, community
impact mitigation, and license renewal costs should be presented in the sections
addressing those issues. Recommendations regarding rate recovery for issues
that do not have a dedicated section may be presented in this section.
2.7 Land Use, Facilities and Decommissioning Issues
It is premature to address land use, facilities and decommissioning issues.
At the same time, parties expressed concern that deferring consideration of these
issues could result in PG&E making changes that would preclude future options.
PG&E must obtain Commission approval under Pub. Util. Code § 851 prior to
selling, leasing, or otherwise encumbering utility-owned land or facilities. While
some of the land at issue is owned by a subsidiary of PG&E, PG&E has
committed to take no action with any of the lands and facilities, whether owned
by the utility or a subsidiary, before completion of a future process including a
public stakeholder process, and states that the parties will not be prejudiced by
excluding these issues from the current scope of this proceeding. PG&E is
directed to abide by that commitment. Parties may present testimony
recommending how to best preserve these issues for future consideration, and
Page 88
A.16-08-006 MP6/PVA/vm1/ek4
- 7 -
how, when, and where they should be addressed. Specific land use, facilities and
decommissioning recommendations will not be considered at this time.
2.8 Additional Issues Not Addressed Above
Parties may present testimony on issues that are within the general scope
of the proceeding, as established by the record to date, that are not specifically
addressed in the above sections. The assigned ALJ or Commissioner can
determine if any such testimony is appropriately within the scope of the
proceeding, and may strike testimony or defer consideration of issues as
appropriate.
3. Guidance for Testimony
All testimony should be organized using the above section headings.4 If a
party has no testimony on one or more of those issues, the testimony should still
include all headings, with a brief note under a heading stating that the party is
not submitting testimony on that issue.
PG&E has already served its direct testimony; all other parties may serve
testimony on the date set for intervenor testimony. The “Joint Parties” that
support PG&E’s application may also submit testimony on that date, but that
testimony should be limited in scope to matters not addressed in PG&E’s
testimony, or to areas of disagreement with PG&E’s testimony.
PG&E and all other parties may serve rebuttal testimony to the intervenor
testimony. Rebuttal testimony may respond to the intervenor testimony of any
4 Given the large number of parties to this proceeding, the assigned ALJ requested the parties
to develop a common, high-level outline for testimony. The above section headings are based
on the outline developed by the parties.
Page 89
A.16-08-006 MP6/PVA/vm1/ek4
- 8 -
or all other parties. Rebuttal testimony should use the same format and section
headings as intervenor testimony.
Testimony should focus on factual and policy issues. Purely legal issues
should not be addressed in testimony, but should be addressed in briefs. While a
party may indicate in its testimony that it intends to raise a particular legal issue,
parties do not need to do so, and parties may raise a legal issue in briefs without
having addressed that issue in testimony.
The Commission’s web site now allows electronic submittal of supporting
documents, such as testimony. Accordingly, parties shall submit their testimony
in this proceeding through the Commission’s electronic filing system, as
described in Appendix A to this ruling.
4. Categorization
The Commission in Resolution ALJ 176-3382, issued on August 18, 2016,
preliminarily determined that the category of the proceeding is ratesetting.
Anyone who disagrees with this categorization must file an appeal of the
categorization no later than ten days after the date of this scoping ruling. (See
Rule 7.6.)
5. Need for Hearing
The Commission in Resolution ALJ 176-3382 also preliminarily determined
that hearings are required. This scoping memo finds hearings necessary.
6. Ex Parte Communications
In a ratesetting proceeding such as this one, ex parte communications with
the assigned Commissioner, other Commissioners, their advisors and the ALJ are
only permitted as described at Pub. Util. Code § 1701.3(c) and Article 8 of the
Rules.
Page 90
A.16-08-006 MP6/PVA/vm1/ek4
- 9 -
Notice of workshops will be posted on the Commission’s Daily Calendar
to inform the public that a decision-maker or an advisor may be present at those
workshops. Parties shall check the Daily Calendar regularly for such notices.
7. Intervenor Compensation
Pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 1804(a)(1), a customer who intends to seek
an award of compensation must file and serve a notice of intent to claim
compensation by November 7, 2016, 30 days after the PHC.
8. Assigned Commissioner, Presiding Officer
Commission President Michael Picker is the assigned Commissioner and
Peter V. Allen is the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Pursuant to
Pub. Util. Code § 1701.3 and Rule 13.2, ALJ Allen is designated as the Presiding
Officer.
9. Filing, Service and Service List
The official service list has been created and is on the Commission’s
website. Parties should confirm that their information on the service list is
correct, and serve notice of any errors on the Commission’s Process office, the
service list, and the ALJ. Persons may become a party pursuant to Rule 1.4.
When serving any document, each party must ensure that it is using the
current official service list on the Commission’s website.
This proceeding will follow the electronic service protocols set forth in
Rule 1.10. All parties to this proceeding shall serve documents and pleadings
using electronic mail, whenever possible, transmitted no later than 5:00 p.m., on
the date scheduled for service to occur. Parties are reminded, when serving
copies of documents, the document format must be consistent with the
requirements set forth in Rules 1.5 and 1.6. Additionally, Rule 1.10 requires
Page 91
A.16-08-006 MP6/PVA/vm1/ek4
- 10 -
service on the ALJ of both an electronic and a paper copy of filed or served
documents.
Rules 1.9 and 1.10 govern service of documents only and do not change the
Rules regarding the tendering of documents for filing. Parties can find
information about electronic filing of documents at the Commission’s Docket
Office at www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/efiling. All documents formally filed with the
Commission’s Docket Office must include the caption approved by the Docket
Office and this caption must be accurate.
Persons who are not parties but wish to receive electronic service of
documents filed in the proceeding may contact the Process Office at
process_office@cpuc.ca.gov to request addition to the “Information Only”
category of the official service list pursuant to Rule 1.9(f).
10. Discovery
Discovery may be conducted by the parties consistent with Article 10 of
the Commission’s Rules. Any party issuing or responding to a discovery request
shall serve a copy of the request or response simultaneously on all parties.
Electronic service under Rule 1.10 is sufficient, except Rule 1.10(e) does not apply
to the service of discovery and discovery shall not be served on the
Administrative Law Judge. Deadlines for responses may be determined by the
parties. Motions to compel or limit discovery shall comply with Rule 11.3.
11. Public Advisor
Any person interested in participating in this proceeding who is
unfamiliar with the Commission’s procedures or who has questions about the
electronic filing procedures is encouraged to obtain more information at
http://consumers.cpuc.ca.gov/pao/ or contact the Commission’s Public
Page 92
A.16-08-006 MP6/PVA/vm1/ek4
- 11 -
Advisor at 866-849-8390 or 415-703-2074 or 866-836-7825 (TTY), or send an e-mail
to public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov.
12. Schedule
At the suggestion of Marin Clean Energy, workshops are being held
on replacement procurement and cost allocation. The purpose of these
workshops is to generally increase the parties’ understanding of the issues
presented in those areas, and more specifically to increase their
understanding of PG&E’s proposals in those areas.5 This should assist the
parties in the preparation of their testimony, and may also reduce the
amount of discovery required on those issues. The workshops will be
conducted by staff of the Commission’s Energy Division, and they are
scheduled for December 8, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. at the CPUC Auditorium,
505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102.
The adopted schedule is:
EVENT DATE
Prehearing Conference October 6, 2016
Public Participation Hearing October 20, 2016
Workshop re replacement procurement December 8, 2016
Workshop re cost allocation December 8, 2016
Intervenor Testimony served January 27, 2017
Rebuttal Testimony served March 17, 2017
Cross-Examination estimates served April 11, 2017
5 PG&E should ensure that representatives of PG&E with detailed knowledge of these issues
are in attendance at the workshop, and that they are prepared to discuss PG&E’s proposals.
Page 93
A.16-08-006 MP6/PVA/vm1/ek4
- 12 -
EVENT DATE
Evidentiary Hearings April 18, 2017 through April 28,
2017
Briefs May 26, 2017
Request for Final Oral Argument Concurrent with Briefs
Reply Briefs/Record submitted June 9, 2017
Comments on Proposed Decision Within 20 Days of Service of the
Proposed Decision
Replies to Comments on Proposed
Decision
Within 5 Days of Service of
Comments
Anticipated Commission
Meeting/Decision
30 Days after but no later than
60 days after the Proposed
Decision
The proceeding will be submitted upon the filing of reply briefs, unless the
assigned Commissioner or the ALJ directs further evidence or argument.
The assigned Commissioner or assigned ALJ may modify this schedule as
necessary to promote the efficient management and fair resolution of this
proceeding.
It is the Commission’s intent to complete this proceeding within 18 months
of the date this Scoping Memo is filed. This deadline may be extended by order
of the Commission. (Pub. Util. Code § 1701.5(a).)
13. Settlement and Alternative Dispute Resolution
While the schedule does not include specific dates for settlement
conferences it does not preclude parties from meeting at other times provided
notice is given consistent with our Rules.
The Commission offers Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) services
consisting of mediation, facilitation, or early neutral evaluation. Use of ADR
services is voluntary, confidential, and at no cost to the parties. Trained ALJs
Page 94
A.16-08-006 MP6/PVA/vm1/ek4
- 13 -
serve as neutrals. The parties are encouraged to visit the Commission’s ADR
webpage at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/adr/, for more information.
If requested, the assigned ALJ will refer this proceeding, or a portion of it,
to the Commission’s ADR Coordinator. Alternatively, the parties may contact
the ADR Coordinator directly at adr_program@cpuc.ca.gov. The parties will be
notified as soon as a neutral has been assigned; thereafter, the neutral will
contact the parties to make pertinent scheduling and process arrangements.
Alternatively, and at their own expense, the parties may agree to use outside
ADR services.
14. Final Oral Argument
If hearings are held, a party in this proceeding has the right to make a Final
Oral Argument before the Commission, but only if the argument is requested by
the deadline set in the schedule above. (Rule 13.13.)
IT IS RULED:
1. The category of this proceeding is ratesetting. Appeals as to category, if
any, must be filed and served within ten days from the date of this scoping
memo.
2. Administrative Law Judge Peter V. Allen is designated as the Presiding
Officer.
3. The scope of the issues for this proceeding is as stated in “Section 2. Scope”
of this ruling.
4. Hearings may be necessary.
5. The schedule for the proceeding is set in “Section 11. Schedule” of this
ruling. The assigned Commissioner or Presiding Officer may adjust this
schedule as necessary for efficient management and fair resolution of this
proceeding.
Page 95
A.16-08-006 MP6/PVA/vm1/ek4
- 14 -
6. With limited exceptions that are subject to reporting requirements, ex parte
communications are prohibited. (See Public Utilities Code § 1701.3(c); Article 8 of
the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.)
7. A party may submit request for Final Oral Argument in its opening briefs,
but the right to Final Oral Argument ceases to exist if hearings are not needed.
8. Parties shall adhere to the instructions provided in Appendix A of this
ruling for submitting supporting documents.
Dated November 18, 2016, at San Francisco, California.
/s/ MICHAEL PICKER /s/ PETER V. ALLEN
Michael Picker
Assigned Commissioner
Peter V. Allen
Administrative Law Judge
Page 96
- 1 -
APPENDIX A
1. Electronic Submission and Format of Supporting Documents
The Commission’s web site now allows electronic submittal of supporting
documents (such as testimony and work papers).
Parties shall submit their testimony or workpapers in this proceeding
through the Commission’s electronic filing system.1 Parties must adhere to the
following:
The Instructions for Using the “Supporting Documents” Feature,
(http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/SearchRes.aspx?docformat=ALL&DocID=
158653546), and
The Naming Convention for Electronic Submission of Supporting
Documents
(http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/SearchRes.aspx?docformat=ALL&DocID=
100902765).
The Supporting Document feature does not change or replace the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Parties must
continue to adhere to all rules and guidelines in the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedures including but not limited to rules
for participating in a formal proceeding, filing and serving formal
documents and rules for written and oral communications with
1 These instructions are for submitting supporting documents such as testimony and work
papers in formal proceedings through the Commission’s electronic filing system. Parties must
follow all other rules regarding serving testimony.
Any document that needs to be formally filed such as motions, briefs, comments, etc., should be
submitted using Tabs 1 through 4 in the electronic filing screen.
Page 97
A.16-08-006 MP6/PVA/vm1/ek4
- 2 -
Commissioners and advisors (i.e. “ex parte communications”) or
other matters related to a proceeding.
The Supporting Document feature is intended to be solely for the
purpose of parties submitting electronic public copies of testimony,
work papers and workshop reports (unless instructed otherwise by
the Administrative Law Judge), and does not replace the
requirement to serve documents to other parties in a proceeding.
Unauthorized or improper use of the Supporting Document feature
will result in the removal of the submitted document by the CPUC.
Supporting Documents should not be construed as the formal files
of the proceeding. The documents submitted through the
Supporting Document feature are for information only and are not
part of the formal file (i.e. “record”) unless accepted into the record
by the Administrative Law Judge.
All documents submitted through the “Supporting Documents” Feature
shall be in PDF/A format. The reasons for requiring PDF/A format are:
Security – PDF/A prohibits the use of programming or links to
external executable files. Therefore, it does not allow malicious
codes in the document.
Retention – The Commission is required by Resolution L-204, dated
September 20, 1978, to retain documents in formal proceedings for
30 years. PDF/A is an independent standard and the Commission
staff anticipates that programs will remain available in 30 years to
read PDF/A.
Page 98
A.16-08-006 MP6/PVA/vm1/ek4
- 3 -
Accessibility – PDF/A requires text behind the PDF graphics so the
files can be read by devices designed for those with limited sight.
PDF/A is also searchable.
Until further notice, the “Supporting Documents” do not appear on the
“Docket Card”. In order to find the supporting documents that are submitted
electronically, go to:
Online documents, choose: “E-filed Documents ”,
Select “Supporting Document” as the document type, ( do not
choose testimony)
Type in the proceeding number and hit search.
Please refer all technical questions regarding submitting supporting
documents to:
Kale Williams (kale.williams@cpuc.ca.gov) 415 703- 3251 and
Ryan Cayabyab (ryan.cayabyab@cpuc.ca.gov) 415 703-5999
(END OF APPENDIX A)
Page 99
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT 2
County, Cities, Schools Reach Tentative Agreement with PG&E
To Ease Local Impacts of Diablo’s Closure
Officials representing County of San Luis Obispo, the Coalition of Cities, and the San Luis
Coastal Unified School District announced today that they have reached a tentative
agreement with PG&E aimed at easing the local impacts expected from the planned closing
of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in 2025.
“We reached this agreement through many hours of thoughtful and collegial negotiations
with PG&E,” the officials said in a joint statement. “PG&E’s representatives listened
carefully to our concerns. We are grateful for their willingness to substantially increase their
original proposal to assist us in the difficult undertaking we face – how to support the
region’s economic vitality in the aftermath of the plant’s closure.”
In its original application to the California Public Utilities Comm ission (CPUC), PG&E
proposed a $49.5 million Community Impact Mitigation Program to assist the region in
planning for the economic impacts of Diablo’s closure. This new agreement addresses the
community’s concerns related to public health, safety and economic security following the
closure of the power plant.
The agreement, according to the rules of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC),
is “a settlement in principle” pending formal approval by the County Board of Supervisors,
the councils of the six cities that comprise the Coalition of Cities, the San Luis Coastal
Unified School Board and PG&E’s senior management.
All parties need to officially approve the agreement and submit it to the CPUC as a
modification to PG&E’s original joint proposal. All elements of the joint proposal are subject
to the CPUC’s review and approval.
The County coordinated the settlement negotiations with PG&E, working hand in hand with
both the school district and the Coalition of Cities over the past several months to negotiate
separate parts of the agreement. The Coalition of Cities includes the six cities of San Luis
Obispo, Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Morro Bay, Paso Robles, and Pismo Beach.
The attached news releases from the County, the Coalition of Cities and San Luis Coastal
Unified School District contain details for how the agreement will assist each of the three
entities and the communities they serve.
Page 100
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT 3
County of San Luis Obispo
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, RM. D430 • SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93408 • (805) 781 -5011
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 28, 2016
CONTACT
Dan Buckshi
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
(805) 781-5011 dbuckshi@co.slo.ca.us
MULTIMILLION DOLLAR AGREEMENT REACHED
TO EASE IMPACTS OF DIABLO CANYON CLOSURE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA—The County of San Luis Obispo, in coordination with the San Luis Coastal
Unified School District (SLCUSD) and a local Coalition of Cities, has reached a multimillion dollar
settlement agreement with Pacific Gas & Electric Co mpany (PG&E) to ease the local impacts of the
impending closure of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.
This agreement addresses the County’s concerns about how to cushion the impact of the plant’s closure
on local public health, safety and economic stability. The settlement will provide $122.5 million to
$147.5 million to address impacts to essential public services, the local economy, and offsite emergency
planning efforts until the plant is fully decommissioned.
“PG&E is a valued community partner and its efforts to negotiate with us and address our major
concerns related to the plant’s closure further confirms that PG&E cares about the future of our
community,” said County Board of Supervisors Chair and District 4 Supervisor Lynn Compton.
The County served as the lead agency for the local area in negotiating the overall settlement agreement
wit h PG&E. The agreement has four parts, which include:
1. A $75 million Essential Services Mitigation Fund to offset the potential negative impacts to
essential public services provided to the community. This will be distributed to the County in
nine equal annual installments through 2025 and the County will redistribute the funds to 71
local agencies whose budgets are impacted by the inevitable decrease in unitary tax funding from
the power plant. The SLCUSD will receive the bulk of this funding.
2. A $10 million Economic Development Fund to ease the local economic impacts of the plant’s
closure. The Coalition of Cities will receive $5.76 million, the County will receive $3.84 million,
and the remaining $400,000 will be allocated for regio nal economic development activities. The
cities receiving portions of the fund include San Luis Obispo, Arroyo Grande, Atascadero,
Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Paso Robles and Pismo Beach. Each agency will issue an annual
report , which describes how the funds are used and assesses the resulting economic development
measures or programs. The reports will be available to PG&E, the CPUC and the public.
3. Continued funding of offsite community and local emergency planning efforts until all spent fuel
is in dry cask storage and the two nuc lear reactors are fully decommissioned. Total funding in
Page 101
this area could range between $37.5 million and $62.5 million over the course of 15 to 25 years.
4. An agreement from PG&E that it will not take actions or make decisions on the re-use or sale of
land surrounding the power plant, including Wild Cherry Canyon, until PG&E has completed a
site-specific decommissioning plan with input from the community.
“The people of San Luis Obispo County and the future of our community have been our top concerns.
We will continue to work with PG&E and other local community partners to protect the public health,
safety and economic security of the communities we serve,” said County Administrative Officer Dan
Buckshi.
In June, PG&E revealed its plans to close Diablo Canyon by 2025 in a joint proposal with seven labor
and environmental organizations. Soon after, the County intervened in the relevant rate hearing cases
before the CPUC, which has the authority to approve or deny the joint proposal. As an intervener, the
County identified several points that served as the framework for the community’s successful
negotiations with PG&E. The County worked closely with PG&E, the SLCUSD and the Coalition of
Cities during the negotiation process, and consulted with the State Board of Equalization and industry
experts.
The County Board of Supervisors will receive an update on the settlement agreement on Dec. 6. All
parties need to officially approve the agreement and submit it to the CPUC as a modification to PG&E’s
original joint proposal. All elements of the joint proposal are subject to the CPUC’s review and
approval.
“This groundbreaking agreement will soften the significant impact our community will feel once Diablo
Canyon is no longer here,” said County Board Vice Chair and District 3 Supervisor Adam Hill. “There
is still a difficult road ahead, but if we continue to work together, we will shape a prosperous future for
our community. This collaborative effort is something we can all be proud of.”
More information can be found at www.slocounty.ca.gov.
# # #
ABOUT THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
The County of San Luis Obispo is one of the largest employers in the area with more than 2,800
individuals working to serve the community with pride to enhance the public’s economic, environmental
and social quality of life. Established in 1850, the Co unty has 23 departments working collaboratively to
provide essential services that benefit local citizens. Elected representatives, including a five -member
Board of Supervisors, work with employees to create a safe, healthy, livable, prosperous and well-
governed community.
Page 102
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT 4
1500 Lizzie Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3062
(805) 549-1200
Q:\Jeri's Folder\121316 - C1d ATTACH 4 Nov 28 SLCUSD Press Release FINAL.docx
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
San Luis Coastal Unified School District and PG&E Agree to Diablo Settlement;
Tentative Pact Includes $10 Million Endowment to Provide Long-term Funding
SAN LUIS OBISPO – The San Luis Coastal Unified School District and PG&E have reached a tentative agreement
aimed at easing economic impacts on the District related to the utility’s plan to close the Diablo Canyon Power Plant
in 2025.
The tentative agreement is part of an overall agreement with the School District, the County of San Luis Obispo and
the county’s cities in which PG&E agreed to provide an Essential Services Mitigation Fund. The tentative agreement
calls for a significant increase from the $49.5 million that PG&E initially proposed in June when it first announced
plans to close Diablo.
The School District is scheduled to r eceive $36 million to be paid out over nine years. Included in that amount will be
$10 million dedicated to an educational foundation the School District will establish and use in ways similar to how
colleges and universities use returns on endowment investments to help support student programs.
San Luis Coastal Unified School District’s Trustee and School Board President Marilyn Rodger praised PG&E
officials for their collaboration: “Shortly after PG&E announced its intentions to close Diablo, PG&E representatives
met with us to begin a series of earnest conversations about finding a fair way to mitigate some of the economic
impacts. PG&E listened carefully to our concerns and worked with us in good faith to help ease the District’s transition
to a post-Diablo era.”
In a typical year, PG&E’s property taxes to San Luis Coastal are approximately $8 million of the school district’s
annual $80 million operating budget. With Diablo’s planned closure, the value of PG&E’s real assets will decline
precipitously causing a corr esponding decline in what had been a reliable source of property tax revenues for the
District.
“By establishing certainty about what the School District will receive over the next nine years, the agreement gives us
needed breathing room for making what will still be a very difficult transition when Diablo finally closes in 2025,”
said School District Superintendent Eric Prater. “Now, with this baseline of certainty, San Luis Coastal can develop a
thoughtful, long-term transition plan. Further, the establishment of an educational foundation will provide a modest
but steady source of funding to help support student programs for years to come.”
Prater also expressed his confidence that San Luis Coastal will be able to create a transition plan that maintains high-
quality education despite the revenue loss: “We will continue our public outreach to harvest ideas and interests from
staff, parents, concerned citizens, and educational experts across California for help in reimagining our future.”
All parties need to formally approve the agreement and submit it to the California Public Utilities Commission as a
modification to PG&E’s original joint proposal made in June. All elements of the joint proposal are subject to the
CPUC’s review and approval.
## END ##
FOR INFORMATION, CONTACT
Ryan Pinkerton
Assistant Superintendent/Business Services
(805) 549-1331
Page 103
City of San Luis Obispo, News Release
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT 5
DATE: Nov. 28, 2016
RELEASE: Immediate
CONTACT: Katie Lichtig, San Luis Obispo City Manager
Christine Dietrick, San Luis Obispo City Attorney
(805) 781-7114
Coalition of Cities and SLO County Reach Tentative Diablo Mitigation Agreement
PG&E Agrees to Establish Additional $10 Million Economic Impact Fund
Officials from the Coalition of Cities – which includes the six cities of San Luis Obispo, Arroyo
Grande, Atascadero, Morro Bay, Paso Robles, and Pismo Beach – today announced a tentative
agreement with PG&E calling for the utility to establish a $10 million Economic Development Fund
to help plan and implement ways to ease the economic impact of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant
closure in 2025.
The Coalition of Cities reached the agreement in collaboration with the County of San Luis Obispo
after weeks of discussions with PG&E. The Coalition was formed proactively in September 2016 on
behalf of their residents primarily to address the economic impacts related to Diablo’s planned
closure.
The $10 million Economic Development Fund will be in addition to the original $49.5 million that
PG&E proposed in June as a Community Impact Mitigation Fund. The County and San Luis Coastal
Unified School District also negotiated for additional support, o utlined in separate news releases.
The mayors of the six Coalition cities – Jan Marx (San Luis Obispo); Shelly Higginbotham (Pismo
Beach); Steven W. Martin (Paso Robles); Tom O’Malley (Atascadero); Jamie Irons (Morro Bay);
and Mayor Pro Tem Barbara Harmo n (Arroyo Grande) – commented in a joint statement :
“In reaching this agreement, PG&E has recognized the need to help our region navigate an uncertain
economic future. We are pleased with this phase of the process. The transition to a post -Diablo era
will be challenging, but the Economic Development Fund will help facilitate the planning and action
required to support the future economic vitality of our communities,” the mayors said in the joint
statement .
Page 104
Coalition of Cities Advocates for Community Interests 2 | Page
“In addition to the economic impacts, the Coalition of Cities had expressed other concerns, such as
public health, land use and emergency preparedness related to Diablo’s ongoing operations and
decommissioning process,” the mayors said. “The County of San Luis Obispo addressed these issues
in its independent negotiations with PG&E. The Coalition of Cities is grateful for the County’s
efforts to address these important regional issues.”
The mayors added, “The collaboration among the cities in the Coalition along with the County has
been important during this process. We look forward to this spirit of cooperation continuing in the
years to come since the hard work of achieving a post -Diablo economy is still in front of us.”
PG&E will contribute an initial $400,000 within 30 days of the initial approval by the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) so that regional economic impact planning can begin quickly.
The rest of the $10 million will be disbursed once the CPUC has made all final approvals, with 60
percent going to the Coalition of Cities ($5.76 million) and 40 percent to the County ($3.84 million).
The tentative agreement also permits the Coalition of Cities to participate in the CPUC’s review of
any additional economic mitigation that might result from the economic impact report required by
SB 968, authored by Senator Bill Monning. This means the Coalition of Cities may advocate for
more funding beyond the Economic Development Fund to address additional economic impacts
uncovered by the Monning Study. This is an important additional opportunity to ensure that our
communities have the best possibilities for economic vitality once additional data is known.
Speaking on behalf of the staff from the Coalition of Cities, Katie Lichtig, San Luis Obispo City
Manager, said: “This agreement demonstrates the collective commitment of all the parties to help our
communities re-craft the economy in the face of Diablo’s closure. Economic development is both a
local and regional challenge. In order for our communities to thrive after Diablo, it is vital that the
Cities and the County – together with our residents, the broader business community and other key
institutions – collaborate closely for years to come. With this financial support, members of the
Coalition believe we can begin to create a path toward a stable economic future.”
Lichtig added, “The working relationship between the County and Coalition of Cities during these
negotiations was essential to obtaining this tentative agreement, and we appreciate the County’s
leadership in this endeavor.”
The Coalition’s $5.76 million share of the $10 million Economic Development Fund will be
distributed to the six member cities proportionate to their current share of property tax revenue:
Arroyo Grande $747,422
Atascadero $783,106
Morro Bay $497,472
Paso Robles $1.15 million
Pismo Beach $767,028
San Luis Obispo $1.82 million
###
Page 105
BEFORE THE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Application of Pacific Gas and Electric
Company for Approval of the Retirement of
Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Implementation of
the Joint Proposal, And Recovery of Associated
Costs Through Proposed Ratemaking
Mechanisms
(U 39 E)
Application 16-08-006
(Filed August 11, 2016)
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (U 39 E),
THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE,
THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, THE CITY OF MORRO BAY, THE CITY OF PASO
ROBLES, THE CITY OF PISMO BEACH, THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,
THE SAN LUIS COASTAL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, FRIENDS OF THE
EARTH, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, ENVIRONMENT
CALIFORNIA, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS
LOCAL 1245, COALITION OF CALIFORNIA UTILITY EMPLOYEES,
AND ALLIANCE FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 6
Page 106
1
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (U 39 E),
THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE,
THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, THE CITY OF MORRO BAY, THE CITY OF PASO
ROBLES, THE CITY OF PISMO BEACH, THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,
THE SAN LUIS COASTAL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, FRIENDS OF THE
EARTH, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, ENVIRONMENT
CALIFORNIA, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS
LOCAL 1245, COALITION OF CALIFORNIA UTILITY EMPLOYEES,
AND ALLIANCE FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY
The County of San Luis Obispo (“County”), the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Atascadero,
Morro Bay, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach, and San Luis Obispo (collectively, the “Cities”), the San
Luis Coastal Unified School District (“District”), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”),
and Friends of The Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environment California,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245, Coalition of California Utility
Employees, and Alliance For Nuclear Responsibility (together with PG&E, the “Joint Parties” to
the Joint Proposal filed as Attachment A to the Application in the above-referenced proceeding)
(collectively, the “Parties”), enter into this Settlement Agreement (“Settlement”) as a
compromise of their respective litigation positions to resolve the disputed issues between the
Parties raised in the above-captioned proceeding. This Settlement addresses the Community
Impact Mitigation Program (“CIMP”) proposed by PG&E in this proceeding, including the
ratemaking treatment for the CIMP. The Parties request the California Public Utilities
Commission’s (“Commission”) approve the Settlement as just and reasonable.
BACKGROUND
A. On August 11, 2016, PG&E filed this Application seeking the Commission’s
approval to implement portions of a Joint Proposal for the Retirement of Diablo Canyon Power
Plant (“Joint Proposal”). Concurrent with filing the Application, PG&E also served its Prepared
Testimony and workpapers. On September 15, 2016, the Cities filed a protest and motion for
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 6
Page 107
2
party status in this proceeding and the District filed a response to the Application. The County
served its response on September 15, 2016, but a filing error prevented the response from being
docketed. The County filed a motion for leave to late-file a response to the Application on
September 23, 2016; the motion was granted and the County formally filed its response October
6, 2016. On September 26, 2016, PG&E filed a reply to the responses and protests filed by
parties, including those of the Cities, the County, and the District.
B. In its Application, PG&E proposed a $49.5 million fund as part of the CIMP to
provide transitional assistance to the local community in connection with the retirement of
DCPP. PG&E proposed a stream of mitigation payments between 2017 and 2025 as a way to
assist the local community to prepare and plan for the long-term loss of economic stimulus that
DCPP provides. PG&E calculated the size of the community impact mitigation payments based
upon the forecasted reductions in DCPP property tax base over that same period. The rapid loss
of unitary tax funding levels will have significant impacts on the County, the District and 71
other local taxing jurisdictions.
C. PG&E entered into settlement discussions with the Cities, the County, and the
District to address concerns about PG&E’s proposal. The County, District, and PG&E each met
with the the State Board of Equalization (“SBE”) to better understand the unitary tax allocation
methodology and the implications for the local community assuming a 2024 (Unit 1) and 2025
(Unit 2) shutdown of DCPP. As a result of these discussions, the Parties have learned that the
proposed $49.5 million mitigation fund was based on simplified assumptions and understates the
reduction in unitary taxes that is likely to occur over the next 9 years. The County, District,
PG&E, and the remaining Joint Parties have reached a compromise on the appropriate funding
levels for an Essential Services Mitigation Fund, as set forth in this Settlement.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 6
Page 108
3
D. Public Utilities Code Section 712.5 (added by Senate Bill (“SB”) 968 (2016,
Monning)) requires the Commission to cause an assessment of adverse and beneficial economic
impacts for the County and surrounding regions that could occur due to the shutdown of DCPP
(“Monning Report”). The Monning Report will review potential actions for the state and local
jurisdictions to consider in order to mitigate the economic impacts of a shutdown. The Cities
have requested that the Commission review such issues in this proceeding and have expressed
concern that the Monning Report will not be completed in time for consideration in the
proceeding. The County has suggested the Monning Report be considered in a second phase of
this proceeding or a separate proceeding initiated after this proceeding concludes. PG&E has
taken the position that such economic impacts are out of scope in this proceeding given the
separate procedural path specified by the California Legislature for review. On November 18,
2016, the Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge filed the scoping memo in this
matter, finding community economic impacts to be within the scope of the current proceeding.
Notwithstanding that ruling, the Cities, County, PG&E, and the remaining Joint Parties have
reached a compromise on the procedural path for the future evaluation of economic impacts and
the creation of an Economic Development Fund, as set forth in this Settlement.
E. In the Application, PG&E also proposed to continue support for local emergency
planning and preparedness after the cessation of plant operations in 2025. The County has
requested assurances that PG&E’s commitment to supporting local emergency planning and
preparedness will also continue for the duration of DCPP’s operation through 2025 as well as
after the cessation of plant operations. The County, PG&E, and the other Joint Parties have
reached a compromise that provides these assurances, as set forth in this Settlement.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 6
Page 109
4
SETTLEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS
In order to avoid the risks and costs of litigation, the Parties agree to the following terms
and conditions as a complete and final resolution of the CIMP-related issues between the Parties
in this proceeding, subject to reservations of rights set forth herein by the County, the District,
the Cities, and PG&E to address economic impact issues in a future proceeding informed by the
Monning report and other subsequently developed economic impact data. Not all Parties have
agreed to all terms set forth in the Appendices to this Agreement. Each of the Parties has agreed
to support those Appendices described in Sections 1-3, below, in which the specific Party is
named. Each of the Parties agree not to oppose any terms set forth in the Appendices to this
Settlement to which the Party has not specifically agreed.
1. Essential Services Mitigation Fund
1.1. The County, District, PG&E, and the Joint Parties agree to the terms governing an
Essential Services Mitigation Fund, as set forth in Appendix 1 to this Settlement.
2. Evaluation and Mitigation of Regional Economic Impacts
2.1. The Cities, County, PG&E, and the Joint Parties agree to the terms governing the
evaluation and mitigation of regional economic impacts, including the process for further
consideration of the Monning Report and the creation of an Economic Development Fund, as set
set forth in Appendix 2 to this Settlement.
3. Emergency Planning and Preparedness and Future Land Use
3.1. The County, PG&E, and the Joint Parties agree to the terms governing emergency
planning and preparedness and the future use and disposition of DCPP lands, as set forth in
Appendix 3 to this Settlement.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 6
Page 110
5
4. Support for Other Provisions of the DCPP Application
4.1. The Parties agree it is critical to retain the highly-skilled workforce at Diablo
Canyon during the remaining years of operations in order to continue safe and relaible
operations. The Parties support the approval of the Employee Program as described in Chapter 7
of the DCPP Application.
4.2. The County, Cities, and the District have reviewed all other portions of PG&E’s
Application, testimony, and workpapers and do not oppose or take no position on the relief
requested in PG&E’s Application, as modifed by this Settlement.
5. Modification to the Joint Proposal
5.1. This Settlement results in a modifcation to Section 4 of the Joint Proposal, by and
among PG&E, Friends of The Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environment
California, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245, Coalition of California
Utility Employees, and Alliance For Nuclear Responsibility. The Joint Parties hereby agree
upon and support such modification.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
6. Scope and Approval
6.1. In accordance with Rule 12.5, the Parties intend that Commission adoption of this
Settlement will be binding on the Parties, including their legal successors, assigns, partners,
members, agents, parent or subsidiary companies, affiliates, officers, directors, and/or
employees. Unless the Commission expressly provides otherwise, and except as otherwise
expressly provided herein, such adoption does not constitute approval or precedent for any
principle or issue in this or any future proceeding.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 6
Page 111
6
6.2. The Parties agree that this Settlement is subject to approval by the Commission.
After the Parties have signed this Settlement, the Parties shall jointly file a motion for
Commission approval and adoption of this Settlement, which may be submitted along with
additional partial settlements in this proceeding. The Parties will furnish such additional
information, documents, and/or testimony as the ALJ or the Commission may require in granting
the motion adopting this Settlement.
6.3. The Parties agree to support the terms of this Settlement to which they have
expressly agreed and to use their best efforts to secure Commission approval of those terms in
their entirety without modification.
6.4. The Parties agree to recommend that the Commission approve and adopt this
Settlement in its entirety without change.
6.5. The Parties agree that, if the Commission fails to adopt this Settlement in its
entirety and without modification, the Parties shall convene a settlement conference within
fifteen (15) days thereof to discuss whether they can resolve the issues raised by the
Commission’s actions. If the Parties cannot mutually agree to resolve the issues raised by the
Commission’s actions, the Settlement shall be rescinded and the Parties shall be released from
their obligation to support the Settlement. Thereafter, the Parties may pursue any action they
deem appropropriate, but agree to cooperate in establishing a procedural schedule.
6.6. The Parties agree to actively and mutually defend all terms of this Settlement to
which each Party has agreed if the adoption of those terms is opposed by any other party.
6.7. This Settlement constitutes a full and final settlement of all issues reviewed by the
County, Cities, and District in the above-captioned proceeding. This Settlement constitutes the
Parties’ entire settlement concerning the CIMP, which cannot be amended or modified without
the express written and signed consent of all the Parties hereto.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 6
Page 112
7
7. Miscellaneous Provisions
7.1. The Parties agree that no signatory to the Settlement or any employee thereof
assumes any personal liability as a result of the Settlement.
7.2. If any Party fails to perform its respective obligations under the Settlement, the
other Party may come before the Commission to pursue a remedy including enforcement.
7.3. The provisions of this Settlement are not severable. If the Commission, or any
competent court of jurisdiction, overrules or modifies as legally invalid any material provision of
the Settlement, the Settlement may be considered rescinded as of the date such ruling or
modification becomes final, at the discretion of the Parties.
7.4. The Parties acknowledge and stipulate that they are agreeing to this Settlement
freely, voluntarily, and without any fraud, duress, or undue influence by any other party. Each
party states that it has read and fully understands its rights, privileges, and duties under the
Settlement, including each Party’s right to discuss the Settlement with its legal counsel and has
exercised those rights, privileges, and duties to the extent deemed necessary.
7.5. In executing this Settlement, each Party declares and mutually agrees that the
terms and conditions to which it has expressly agreed are reasonable, consistent with law, and in
the public interest.
7.6. No Party has relied, or presently relies, upon any statement, promise, or
representation by any other Party, whether oral or written, except as specifically set forth in this
Settlement. Each Party expressly assumes the risk of any mistake of law or fact made by such
Party or its authorized representative.
7.7. This Settlement may be executed in separate counterparts by the different Parties
hereto with the same effect as if all Parties had signed one and the same document. All such
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 6
Page 113
8
counterparts shall be deemed to be an original and shall together constitute one and the same
Settlement.
7.8. Except as otherwise specifically provided in Appendix 2 specifying time of
payment of the Economic Development Fund within 30 days after Commission’s approval of the
Application, Joint Proposal, and this Settlement, this Settlement shall become effective and
binding on the Parties as of the date it is approved by the Commission in a final and non-
appealable decision.
7.9. This Settlement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California as to all
matters, including but not limited to, matters of validity, construction, effect, performance, and
remedies.
The Parties mutually believe that, based on the terms and conditions stated above, this
Settlement is reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with the law, and in the public
interest. The Parties’ authorized representatives have duly executed this Settlement on behalf of
the Parties they represent.
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
COMPANY
Name:
Title:
Date:
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Name:
Title:
Date:
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 6
Page 114
9
SAN LUIS COASTAL UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Name:
Title:
Date:
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Name:
Title:
Date:
CITY OF ATASCADERO
Name:
Title:
Date:
CITY OF MORRO BAY
Name:
Title:
Date:
CITY OF PASO ROBLES
Name:
Title:
Date:
CITY OF PISMO BEACH
Name:
Title:
Date:
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Name:
Title:
Date:
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH
Name:
Title:
Date:
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 6
Page 115
10
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
COUNCIL
Name:
Title:
Date:
ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA
Name:
Title:
Date:
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 1245
Name:
Title:
Date:
COALITION OF CALIFORNIA
UTILITY EMPLOYEES
Name:
Title:
Date:
ALLIANCE FOR NUCLEAR
RESPONSIBILITY
Name:
Title:
Date:
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 6
Page 116
1
Appendix 1 - Essential Services Mitigation Fund Terms
(District/County/PG&E)
1. The Essential Services Mitigation Fund (“ESMF”) will be increased from $49.5 million to $75
million, of which $10 million will be dedicated to an educational foundation to be designated by
the San Luis Coastal Unified School District (“District”). These funds, including the $10 million
portion to be dedicated to a District educational foundation, will be distributed to San Luis
Obispo County (“County”) in nine equal annual installments through 2025. The funds will be
distributed on September 1st of each year, following a final and non-appealable CPUC decision
approving the settlement and the DCPP Application, as revised. If final and non-appealable
CPUC approval of this settlement is not obtained by September 1, 2017, the first distribution will
occur 30 days after such approval is issued, unless otherwise agreed. The parties will meet and
confer within 30 days of the filing of any application for rehearing or appeal of the CPUC
decision approving this Settlement. The payments will continue as scheduled for the full 9 year
period even in the event one or both DCPP Units closes early. The Parties accept the risk that
DCPP may close before the scheduled dates in 2024 and 2025 and will not request any additional
financial compensation in such an event.
2. The County will redistribute the funds based on a revision of the 2015/2016 unitary factors to the
taxing jurisdictions whose unitary tax funding is negatively impacted by the closure of Diablo
Canyon within two weeks of receiving the PG&E payment and will cause $2 million of the
District’s share of each of the first five installment payments to be deposited into the account of
the District’s designated educational foundation. The recalculation of the unitary tax factors will
exclude local agencies whose funding is not impacted by unitary tax. The allocation that the
County shall use in allocating the ESMF is set forth in Attachment A to this Appendix 1.
3. The parties agree that the compromise they have reached is a settlement and is not intended to be
a substitute or in-lieu tax payment. Estimating potential tax revenue declines is simply one of
many factors the parties considered in developing an appropriate and reasonable ESMF.
4. The ESMF will be included as part of the overall Community Impact Mitigation Program and
collected in rates through the nuclear decommissioning charge over the remaining life of the
plant, as described in Chapter 10 of the DCPP Application.
5. The County and District agree to support the Employee Program set forth in the Application and
to not oppose the remaining provisions of the Application, as may be modified through
settlements with other parties.
6. This term sheet is subject to (i) final approval by all parties; (ii) negotiation and execution of a
final settlement agreement; (iii) agreement by the Joint Parties to the PG&E Joint Proposal for
Diablo Canyon (to the extent the terms and conditions result in modifications to the Joint
Proposal) and (iv) approval by the CPUC.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 6
Page 117
1 | P a g e
Attachment A to Appendix 1:
Distribution of the Essential Services Mitigation Fund
The Essential Services Mitigation Fund (ESMF) of $75,000,000 is created to assist local
jurisdictions whose annual budgets will be impacted by the decline in unitary tax over
the next nine years. Local jurisdictions (71) currently receiving unitary tax include the
County of San Luis Obispo, Incorporated Cities, Special Districts and Basic-Aid School
Districts. The San Luis Obispo County Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector has
developed Schedule 1 by starting with 2015/2016 unitary factors and redistributing the
percentages allocated to agencies whose budgets are not impacted by the decline in
unitary tax. Those agencies’ (non-basic aid schools and redevelopment agencies)
percentages were redistributed based on the actual 2015/2016 unitary factors so that
the allocations of the ESMF include only those agencies whose annual budgets are
adversely impacted by the closure of DCPP. The County Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-
Tax Collector will distribute the amounts identified in Schedule 1 to the 71 agencies
within two weeks of receiving the annual payment by PG&E. The ESMF is not Unitary
Tax and will not change any prescribed Unitary Tax distributions.
The ESMF will be distributed annually in 9 equal and consecutive payments of
$8,333,333.33 from PG&E to the County of San Luis Obispo on the 1st of September
beginning in 2017. If final and non-appealable CPUC approval of this settlement is not
obtained by September 1, 2017, the first distribution will occur 30 days after such
approval, unless otherwise agreed. The payments will continue as scheduled for the full
9-year period even in the event one or both DCPP Units closes early.
The total distribution to San Luis Coastal Unified School District includes $10 million that
will be dedicated to an educational foundation to be designated by the District. The
County will cause $2 million of the District’s share from each of the first 5 installment
payments to be deposited to the account of the District’s Educational Foundation. The
other receiving agencies will not be impacted by this distribution.
Schedule 1
Agency
Essential Services
Mitigation Fund of 75 Million
9 Annual Payments of
$8,333,333.33
County of San Luis Obispo – General Fund $3,106,644.19
Roads $130,559.76
Air Pollution Control District $13,202.49
San Luis Obispo County Library $223,570.15
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 6
Page 118
2 | P a g e
Schedule 1 – continued
Agency
Essential Services
Mitigation Fund of 75 Million
9 Annual Payments of
$8,333,333.33
Garden Farms Water $273.50
Santa Maria Valley Water Conservation District $356.23
Cambria Community Hospital $2,823.44
Cayucos Sanitary District $4,030.04
City of Arroyo Grande $30,202.90
City of Atascadero (including sanitation) $40,440.60
City of Grover Beach $12,615.28
City of Morro Bay $104,716.70
City of Paso Robles $40,387.74
City of Pismo Beach $20,581.13
City of San Luis Obispo $76,962.63
Cachuma Resource Conservation District $210.29
Post San Luis Harbor District $170,300.53
California Valley Community Services District $1,330.71
Nipomo Community Services District $3,608.31
Cambria Community Services District $13,658.70
San Simeon Acres Community Services District $667.65
Templeton Community Services District $5,235.49
Nipomo Sewer Maintenance $103.42
Nipomo Drain Maintenance $103.42
Linne Community Services District $119.51
Grover City Street Light District #1 $2,962.49
San Luis Obispo County Flood Control District $32,067.95
Nacimiento Water Services District $39,975.20
Flood Control Zone 1 $998.60
Flood Control Zone 1A $104.57
Flood Control Zone 3 $1,807.60
Flood Control Zone 9 $3,776.08
County Waterworks No. 8 $344.74
Nipomo Lighting District $241.32
San Miguel Community Services District - Lighting $613.64
County Service Area # 23(former Santa Margarita Lighting) $227.53
County Service Area #1 $65.50
County Service Area #1 Zone A $280.39
County Service Area #1 Zone B $143.64
County Service Area #1 Zone C $52.86
County Service Area #1 Zone D $212.59
County Service Area #7 $288.43
County Service Area #7 Zone A $1,184.77
County Service Area #7 Zone B $265.45
Los Osos Community Services District Zone A $2,022.49
Los Osos Community Services District Zone B $11,629.32
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 6
Page 119
3 | P a g e
Schedule 1 – continued
Agency
Essential Services
Mitigation Fund of 75 Million
9 Annual Payments of
$8,333,333.33
Los Osos Community Services District Zone C $116.06
Los Osos Community Services District Zone F $66.65
County Service Area #10 $998.60
County Service Area #12 $3,524.42
County Service Area #16 $217.19
Heritage Community Services District $1,740.95
San Miguel Sanitary District $429.78
Oceano Community Services District $5,668.72
Cayucos Fire District $1,290.49
San Miguel Community Services District - Fire $2,090.29
Santa Margarita Fire District $887.14
Arroyo Grande Cemetery District $897.48
Atascadero Cemetery District $2,489.04
Cambria Cemetery District $640.07
Cayucos-Morro Bay Cemetery District $10,058.44
Paso Robles Cemetery District $2,978.58
San Miguel Cemetery District $611.34
Santa Margarita Cemetery District $707.87
Shandon Cemetery District $480.34
Templeton Cemetery District $674.55
Avila Beach County Water District $31,330.20
Avila County Water Improvement District #1 $1,341.05
Coast Unified School District (Cayucos Elem) $16,515.47
Coast Unified School District $54,799.13
San Luis Coastal Unified School District – Note: For the first
5 distributions $2,000,000 will be deposited in the District’s
Educational Foundation
$4,090,809.51
Annual Total $8,333,333.33
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 6
Page 120
1
Appendix 2 - Economic Development Fund Terms
(Coalition Cities/County/PG&E)
1. The Parties agree that the economic impacts of DCPP closure should be considered as a part of a
separate CPUC proceeding following issuance of the economic analysis specified in California
Public Utilities Code Section 712.5 (“Monning Report”). The Parties support Commission
approval of this settlement and proceeding with consideration of the remaining scope of the
DCPP Application immediately, without delay for consideration of the economic impacts of
DCPP closure.
2. The Parties agree that the DCPP Application should be revised to include a $10 million payment
by PG&E to the County and to the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Morro Bay, Paso
Robles, Pismo Beach and San Luis Obispo (collectively, the “Coalition of Cities”) to establish a
fund for implementation of regional economic development and job creation programs
(collectively, the “Economic Development Fund”). The County and the Coalition of Cities agree
to further distribute those payments pursuant to the allocation methodology set forth in
Attachment A. The purpose of the Economic Development Fund is to provide immediate funding
for actions to create new economic development opportunities and mitigate impacts associated
with the pending closure of DCPP.
3. Within 18 months of the payment by PG&E of the Economic Development Fund, the County and
each of the Coalition of Cities will prepare a report that (i) enumerates and describes the
expenditures from the Economic Development Fund and (ii) assesses the results and effectiveness
of the economic development measures or programs resulting from such expenditures (the “Initial
Report”). The County and each of the Coalition of Cities will prepare subsequent annual updates
to the Initial Report until all Economic Development Fund revenues have been expended, at
which time the reporting may cease. The Initial Reports and any subsequent updates will be
provided to PG&E, and PG&E will submit the reports to the CPUC and make them available to
the public. Reports shall report on expenditures on a fiscal year basis. In the event payment of the
Economic Development Fund is delayed by any rehearing application or appeal of the CPUC’s
decision approving the DCPP Application, the County and each of the Coalition Cities shall be
entitled for purposes of the specified reporting to credit against the Economic Development Fund
amounts expended by the Cities for purposes of economic development and impact mitigation
between the date the CPUC first issues its decision and the date of payment of the Economic
Development Fund pursuant to this agreement.
4. The County and Coalition of Cities commit to spending the Economic Development Fund solely
for the purposes of economic development and impact mitigation purposes.
5. PG&E shall pay $400,000 of the total Economic Development Fund to the County within 30 days
of issuance of a decision by the CPUC approving the DCPP Application and thereafter shall not
request any reimbursement of payment from the County or the Coalition of Cities. PG&E shall
pay the remaining balance of the Economic Development Fund within 30 days of the final and
non-appealable approval of the DCPP Application, as revised consistent with this Settlement,
unless otherwise agreed. The parties will meet and confer within 30 days of the filing of any
application for rehearing or appeal of the CPUC decision approving this Settlement.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 6
Page 121
2
6. Following issuance of the Monning Report (per SB 968), the Commission will institute a new
proceeding to evaluate the results of the Monning Report, take comment, and consider further
action. The Parties reserve all rights in such proceeding to advocate for or to oppose further
funding of economic impact mitigation by PG&E and/or its customers. PG&E specifically
reserves the right to assert that no additional funding, beyond the mitigation payments provided
by the DCPP Application, as modified by this settlement, is required, and the County and the
Coalition of Cities or any of the cities specifically reserve the right to seek additional funding
beyond the Economic Development Fund. In no event shall the Coalition of Cities or the County
be required to refund any amount paid under this Settlement.
7. PG&E, the County, and the Coalition of Cities agree to work together to advocate jointly for
additional funding or other assistance from the State of California and Federal government
agencies, and their respective legislative bodies, to support the economic transition of the local
community to an era without DCPP in operation. This provision is not intended to bind any Party
to any financial commitment or specific position with respect to such advocacy.
8. The Economic Development Fund will be included as part of the overall Community Impact
Mitigation Program, as described in Chapter 10 of the DCPP Application.
9. The County and the Coalition of Cities agree to support the Employee Program set forth in the
Application and to not oppose the remaining provisions of the Application, as may be modified
through settlements with other parties.
10. This term sheet is subject to (i) final approval by all parties; (ii) negotiation and execution of a
final settlement agreement; (iii) agreement by the Joint Parties to the PG&E Joint Proposal for
Diablo Canyon (to the extent the terms and conditions result in modifications to the Joint
Proposal); and (iv) approval by the CPUC.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 6
Page 122
Attachment A to Appendix 2
Distribution of Economic Development Fund County of San Luis Obispo/Coalition of Cities
Total Amount
County (40%)
Coalition Share
(60%)
Regional
Economic
Development
Arroyo Grande
Atascadero
Morro Bay
Paso Robles
Pismo Beach
San Luis Obispo
$10,000,000 $3,840,000* $5,760,000 $400,000** $747,422 $783,106 $497,472 $1,145,631 $767,028 $1,819,341
*The County will allocate $192,000 of this amount to the City of Grover Beach.
** To be distributed to the County for Regional Economic Development.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 6
Page 123
1
Appendix 3 – Emergency Planning and Future Land Use Terms
(County/PG&E)
Emergency Planning and Preparedness
1. The specific costs and detailed plans for emergency planning and preparedness (emergency
management) through the decommissioning period will be definitively proposed in the site-
specific decommissioning estimate to be submitted to the CPUC as specified in Chapter 8 of
PG&E's prepared testimony supporting Application 16-08-006. The purpose of this agreement is
to outline the intent of what will be submitted as part of the site-specific decommissioning
estimate and is subject to CPUC approval and funding in nuclear decommissioning rates.
2. The parties recognize that PG&E will continue to fund, at current funding levels, the maintenance
of all emergency response-related equipment, including the public warning sirens, as well as the
approximately $4 million in funding for offsite state and local emergency planning functions, as
required to be adjusted pursuant to state law, through cessation of plant operations in 2025.
Infrastructure that is directly maintained by PG&E as of June 21, 2016, will continue to be fully
maintained by PG&E.
3. In addition to continued funding per current state law, beyond the expiration of said law, the
general intent is that the maintenance of the public warning sirens and funding for offsite
community and local emergency planning functions (approximately $2 million forecast in 2017)
will continue until all spent fuel is in dry cask storage and the two nuclear reactors are fully
decommissioned (following the surrender of the Part 50 licenses). Using the formula established
in Section 8610.5 of the California Emergency Services Act, funding for offsite community and
local emergency planning functions will be paid directly to the County of San Luis Obispo.
4. The funding for other emergency preparedness equipment, training, emergency planning
functions, and PG&E’s emergency response personnel will be informed by the reduced risks that
remain and will be more definitively proposed in the site-specific decommissioning estimate.
5. The process for development of the site-specific decommissioning estimate will include
formation of a decommissioning advisory panel, which will include representation from the
County of San Luis Obispo, industry experts, state and local government representatives, and
affected stakeholders.
6. Parties reserve their ability to make arguments in future decommissioning proceedings regarding
necessary and appropriate emergency response and preparedness actions and costs associated
with DCPP following the surrender of the Part 50 licenses.
Future Land Use
1. Issues surrounding the disposition of lands related to DCPP, including future land uses, will be
addressed in the DCPP site-specific decommissioning plan to be submitted in PG&E’s next
Triennial Nuclear Decommissioning Proceeding, and the Parties agree they are not within scope
of this proceeding.
2. As stated in the October 4, 2016, letter that PG&E sent to the County, which is Attachment A to
this Appendix 3, PG&E agrees to complete a site-specific decommissioning plan for the facility
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 6
Page 124
2
before making any decisions on the disposition of the DCPP lands. As part of this process,
PG&E will convene a community advisory group that will give stakeholders an opportunity to
help shape the future use of PG&E’s land plans prior to finalizing the site-specific plan. In the
meantime, PG&E and its affiliate companies that hold a property interest in the DCPP lands will
not make any commitments on land disposition or post-retirement land use, including the Wild
Cherry Canyon parcels, until the stakeholder process is completed and PG&E’s recommendations
have been considered by the Commission as part of the DCPP site-specific decommissioning
plan.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 6
Page 125
Thomas Patrick Jones
Director, Strategic Initiatives
735 Tank Farm Road
Suite 200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805-595-6340
TPJ2@pge.com
October 4, 2016
Dan Buckshi
County Administrator Officer
County of San Luis Obispo
1055 Monterey Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
Dear Mr. Buckshi:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) has carefully reviewed the County of San Luis Obispo’s (County)
September 15 response to PG&E’s Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) Application 16-08-006. One of the
concerns raised by the County (and other locally-based parties) pertains to the future use of the 12,000 acres of
lands surrounding DCPP after the facility is retired. In our September 26 reply to protests and responses, PG&E
clarified that we do not yet have a plan for the future use of DCPP lands, that we will commence a public
stakeholder process as we evaluate the options, and that we will submit a land use plan to the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) in the site-specific decommissioning plan for the facility, which PG&E will file as
part of its next Nuclear Decommissioning Triennial Proceeding application in 2019.
I am writing to assure you that PG&E intends to complete the site-specific decommissioning plan for the facility
over the coming years with community input before making any decisions on the disposition of the DCPP lands.
As part of this process, PG&E will convene a community advisory group that will give stakeholders an
opportunity to help shape the future use of PG&E’s land plans prior to finalizing the site-specific plan. In the
meantime, PG&E will not make any commitments on land disposition or post-retirement land use, including the
Wild Cherry Canyon parcels, until the stakeholder process is completed and PG&E’s recommendations have been
considered by the CPUC as part of the DCPP site-specific decommissioning plan.
PG&E values and appreciates the active partnership of the County and other local stakeholders, and we look
forward to continuing to work with you and the rest of the community in both the pending CPUC proceeding and
the important decommissioning work to follow. Please feel free to contact me if I can provide any further
assurance regarding these land disposition issues.
Sincerely,
Thomas P. Jones
cc: City of Arroyo Grande
City of Atascadero
City Grover Beach
City of Morro Bay
City of El Paso de Robles
City of Pismo Beach
City of San Luis Obispo
Friends of Wild Cherry Canyon
Service List for CPUC Docket No. A.16-08-006 (via email only)
Attachment A to Appendix 3
PG&E October 4, 2016 Letter to the County
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 12/13/16
ATTACHMENT: 6
Page 126
ITEM NUMBER: C-2
DATE: 12/13/16
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report - Information Technology Division
City Permit System Software
RECOMMENDATION:
Council authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with SunGard Public Sector in
the amount of $424,818, plus travel expenses not to exceed $10,000, for purchase,
implementation and training for a new permitting software system.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF:
The City currently uses an outdated software product to manage all permits issued by
the City. The software has been in use for 10 years and it has reached its end -of-life.
City staff formed a team of key stakeholders and users to analyze needs for a new
system, research potential software vendors, review vendors and make a final software
selection. Ultimately, the project team selected TRAKiT by SunGard as the preferred
vendor for this project.
DISCUSSION:
Background: Permits are issued for work ranging from replacing water heaters, re -
roofing a house, building additions, building a house or commercial building, performing
road work in the right-of-way to single day temporary events. Since the late 1990s the
City has utilized computer software to process these permits. The software allows staff
to turn applications for this work into digital, trackable permits which enables staff to
issue receipts, track the routing of a permit, record details and timeframes of a permit
and report on the work being done throughout the city.
The current permitting system has been in use since 2006. The system utilized prior to
2006 was implemented in 2000 and had become increasingly difficult to use. After
reviewing the systems that several nearby cities were using, staff selected a system
created by Custom Design Software (CDS). CDS served the needs of the City very well
for several years. CDS is used to process building permits, planning applications and
projects and code enforcement cases.
Page 127
ITEM NUMBER: C-2
DATE: 12/13/16
Sadly, the developer of CDS passed away in 2009. CDS was a sole proprietorship and
her passing left this system unsupported. The software was programmed using a code
base that has long since fallen from popularity. Over the last 7 years the system has
become more and more unstable. With each operating system update to city computers
and servers, the risk grows for the system losing yet again a piece of key functionality.
Staff is now forced to maintain a handful of computers using Windows XP just to keep
portions of the CDS software accessible. In addition to instability, the lack of new
development on the system has kept the City from providing new features and access
to the public.
While it met our needs well for many years, staff and public expectations of what the
system can and should do has grown beyond the capacity of the CDS software. Many
of the other local cities that were using CDS for their permit processing have found
other software options to replace the functionality that CDS provided. City staff
determined it was time for us to find a replacement as well.
Analysis: To address the need for finding a new software platform that could meet our
current and future needs, staff formed a project team. Rather than the decision being
exclusive to Community Development, as was the case in selecting CDS, staff began to
see the scope of a new software package that could encompass all departments. A
team was put together that consisted of members from Community Development, Public
Works, Administrative Services, City Manager’s Office, Fire and Technology. This team
has met twice a month over the last year. The team drafted a Project Charter to clarify
and define the project importance, constraints, expectations and stakeh olders.
The permit system is highly used and relied upon for many day -to-day operations
throughout the City and a large portion of the City’s non tax-based revenue is received
through permits issued by the City. The permit system is a critical component f or fee
collection, fund tracking, revenue tracking, regulatory reporting and compliance, public
information and records creation for maintaining transparency. Permit issuance is also
a primary public interface service provided by the City. All of these factors justify the
importance of the project and the expenditure of staff time and city funds to purchase a
suitable replacement.
Identified constraints for this project include staff time needed for quality control during
the testing phases, learning curves for staff, support from contractors, business owners
and home owners during the implementation phase, seasonal time con straints and
budget considerations including the purchase of the software, travel expenses, staff
over-time and ongoing annual maintenance costs.
The team’s primary expectations for the new software include high integration with the
City’s GIS system, ability to interact with the system via mobile technology, ability to
reasonably customize the software to meet the City’s unique needs, ability to attach
plans and other documents, ability to integrate with current workflow/routing processes
and ability to support the processing of all City permit types. In addition to these
primary expectations, the selected software should also include sufficient internal
Page 128
ITEM NUMBER: C-2
DATE: 12/13/16
control mechanisms to maintain and enforce data integrity, security access controls to
ensure staff can view and edit only what they need to view and edit, the ability to
produce notification letters, capacity for standard and custom reporting, user friendly
interfaces and a public portal. Milestones were also identified in order to keep the
project moving forward, which include project kick-off, project charter completion,
conducting calls with other cities to ask what system they are using, selecting vendors
to review, evaluating and interviewing vendors, final vendor selection, Council approval
of selected vendor, data transfers, fee schedule entry, configuration, training, testing
and debugging, go-live, dual entry and decommissioning the legacy system.
The project stakeholders vary in involvement and level to which they will be impacted.
Those impacted by a new permit system include City staff, contractors, home and
business owners and any resident/customer applying for a permit or license or
submitting a code enforcement complaint. Those involved in the project comprise the
project team. The team is comprised of the following City staff members:
Community Development – Phil Dunsmore, Kelly Gleason, Alfredo
Castillo, David Muehlhausen, Jamie Striegel
Public Works – Nick DeBar, Ryan Hayes, Jim Campana, Dawn Patterson,
Mike Bertaccini
Fire – Tom Peterson
Administrative Services – Jeri Rangel, Cindy Chavez
City Manager’s Office – Lara Christensen
Technology – Luke Knight
Upon completion of the Project Charter, the project team set out to implement what was
laid out in the charter. The team called 20 other cities around California and asked them
about the permit system they use and about the pros and cons of the system. In the
course of talking with these cities and conducting online research, the team began to
put shape to the level of software that would be required to me et the project
expectations. Based on the team’s expectations that the software reasonably bend to
our needs and support functions across all departments, an enterprise level software
platform became the focus of our research. In addition to the level of software, the team
also considered the amount of customization that would be needed for the software to
be functional in the City’s environment. Software generally falls into one of three
categories based on the amount of possible customization. Off-the-shelf software is
less expensive but it forces users to change business practices to make use of the
software’s built-in workflows. Custom off-the-shelf (COTS) software is highly
customizable software that can be designed, to a degree, to meet the customer’s
business practices. Fully custom software can be designed to do exactly what you
need it to do but it is very expensive. A pilot project was conducted in 2014 to test the
viability of an off-the-shelf software platform. The City purchased Citizen Serve and
attempted to migrate all Code Enforcement operations to this software. The software
proved far too rigid to be useful and staff was unable to bend the software to meet the
City’s business practices and the software pilot was cancelled. While more expensive
than off-the-shelf products, a COTS solution would allow staff to analyze and modify
Page 129
ITEM NUMBER: C-2
DATE: 12/13/16
current business practices to best work with the software without being forced to change
everything to fit into a cookie-cutter product.
The project team also became aware of the public facing capabilities of the software
being researched. As the City continues to focus on economic growth, the team
realized the need for product selections that are in-line with the business friendly and
professional goals of the Council and City staff. The team sought to select a product
that would allow staff to present the most professional face possible. Based on these
conversations and market research, the team narrowed down the list to four pote ntial
software vendors.
The team then reviewed the software packages from these four vendors; CityView by
Harris, EnerGov by Tyler Technologies, Accela by Accela Inc. and TRAKiT by SunGard
Public Sector. After initial webinar demonstrations held in February and March of this
year, the team narrowed down the field to EnerGov, Accela and TRAKiT. Each vendor
was then invited to present their software to the team over the course of a full day in the
beginning of June. Each vendor covered the following topic s during their presentations;
Planning, Land Use, Building, Public Works, Code Enforcement, Mobility, Customer
Portal, Electronic Plan Review, Public Records, GIS and Data Conversion. Each
vendor sent 2-3 presenters that demonstrated to the team how the software worked and
the benefits of their product. The team developed a list of questions that each vendor
answered during the course of their presentation. Some questions that were asked
were:
1. General
a. What are the ongoing training options?
b. How is your software licensed?
c. How is the City’s fee structure used in the software?
d. How are user permissions handled?
2. Planning
a. How are conditions of approval linked to building permits?
b. Can you track and report on Affordable Housing / State density bonuses /
City density bonuses?
c. How is parcel history tracked?
3. Building
a. Can the software be linked live to the California State License Board
(CSLB)?
b. How are permits routed to the necessary departments?
c. How does scheduling inspections work?
4. Public Works
a. How are project bonds tracked?
b. How are encroachment permits tracked?
5. Code Enforcement
a. How is correspondence about a case logged?
b. Is it possible to generate a case log for court submission?
Page 130
ITEM NUMBER: C-2
DATE: 12/13/16
6. Mobility
a. What are inspectors able to accomplish while in the field?
b. Can images be uploaded to a permit from a mobile device?
7. Customer Portal
a. What can the public see and do on the portal?
b. Can we phase in features for the public as the system matures?
8. Electronic Plan Review
a. Can you compare different versions of plans?
b. How does red-lining work in digital formats?
9. Public Records
a. Can reports be sent to Laserfiche, our document repository?
b. Can records and reports be searched and printed easily?
10. GIS
a. Can permits be displayed on a map showing their current statuses?
b. Can permits and reports be generated from the map?
c. Can GIS be used to validate addresses?
11. Data Conversion
a. Is data conversion done in-house, or do you hire a 3rd party?
b. How long does the data conversion phase generally take?
After the three consecutive full day presentations the tea m reconvened to discuss
reactions, thoughts and rankings. The team ranked the vendors in the following order;
1) TRAKiT, 2) Accela and 3) EnerGov.
Before committing to TRAKiT, the team wanted to see the software in action. The City
of Santa Maria has been utilizing TRAKiT since 1999 and they are still very happy with
the overall performance, scalability and function of the software as well as the customer
support that TRAKiT provides. Several team members traveled down to Santa Maria in
early August. Those from Santa Maria who use TRAKiT on a regular basis, including
Planning, Building, Code Compliance, GIS and Public Works, demonstrated the
structure and functionality of the software.
The team then asked TRAKiT and Accela to come back in August for follow-up
presentations to address additional questions and clarify portions of the software’s
capabilities. After the follow-up presentations the team formally selected TRAKiT by
SunGard PS as the preferred vendor for this project.
Under provisions allowed in the Purchasing Policy, Section III, the City is allowed to
purchase proprietary goods based on qualification, rather than price. Based on the
amount and depth of research the team conducted on this project, the team is very
satisfied with the TRAKiT software and solicited a quote solely from SunGard PS. In
accordance with the scope of the project defined in the Project Charter, the quote
includes the following modules and professional services:
Page 131
ITEM NUMBER: C-2
DATE: 12/13/16
1. Modules
a. GeoTRAK – GIS interface for viewing and analyzing permits
b. AEC TRAK – Module to maintain project contacts consisting of Architects,
Engineers and Contractors
c. PermitTRAK – Module for managing permits
d. ProjectTRAK – Module for managing projects
e. CodeTRAK – Module to manage Code Enforcement
f. CRM TRAK – Module to manage public requests and complaints
g. LicenseTRAK – Module to manage Business Licenses
h. eTRAKiT – Module for web-based citizen and contractor permit lookup
i. iTRAKiT – Mobile apps for accessing and processing permits and
inspections in the field
j. Bluebeam – Module for electronic plan review
2. Professional Services
a. Project Management
b. Installation
c. Technical Services
d. Training
e. Implementation Services
f. Consulting
g. Development
h. Data Conversion
i. Custom Enhancements
The proposed steps for project completion are as follows:
1. Kickoff / Review
a. On-site and remote meetings to discuss and document how the business
processes and systems will function.
b. A project plan will be produced by SunGard.
2. Configuration
a. SunGard will perform configuration of TRAKiT and City staff will develop
documentation of our current processes and workflows.
b. Data conversion will begin.
3. Testing and Initial Training
a. On-site training for City staff.
b. City staff will begin testing of TRAKiT.
c. SunGard will assist with issues and resolve as needed.
d. Testing and configuration until final version is ready.
4. Final Training / Go Live
a. Final data conversion.
b. Final staff training.
c. Dual entry for 2 weeks prior to and 2 weeks after go live
d. Go live with TRAKiT
e. Follow up as needed after go live.
Page 132
ITEM NUMBER: C-2
DATE: 12/13/16
The project is anticipated to take 12-15 months to complete between Kick-off and Go-
Live.
Conclusion: Staff is confident that TRAKiT will meet our current and future needs.
Based on feedback from other municipalities regarding the level and quality of customer
support SunGard PS provides for their software, staff is confident that implementation
and adoption of the software will be successful. At the same time, staff is fully aware of
the time investment necessary to implement a software package of this scope and
complexity. Many extra hours will be needed from the entire project team in order to
keep the project on time. Staff also acknowledges that while any new software package
will fix many of the problems that are currently being experienced, no software of this
complexity is without its own set of quirks and potential issues. While knowing that
TRAKiT will not fix every problem nor make every aspect of job functions easier, the
project team is confident that TRAKiT is the best fit and will be able to move the City
forward as staff continually seeks to find tools that enable delivery of solutions and
resolutions to businesses and residents that meet and exceed expectations.
FISCAL IMPACT:
A total project budget of $500,000 is included in the adopted FY 2015-2017 budget.
This action will result in the expenditure of a contract amount of $43 4,818 in budgeted
funds, which includes maintenance costs for the first 12 months. The annual
maintenance fee after the first year will be $44,197.60. Annual maintenance fees will be
budgeted accordingly for future fiscal years.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
Page 133