HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 03/10/1986 "THERE WILL BE A CL,USED COUNCIL SESSION AT 6. 4v P.M. IN THE
CLUB ROOM REGARDING PERSONNEL MATTERS
• AGENDA - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM
MARCH 10 , 1986
7 :30 P.M.
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Invocation
Roll Call
City Council Comments
** Proclamation of Appreciation to Rose Hebron on Her Departure
from the Police Department
** Proclamation of Appreciation to Carla Sanders on Her Departure
from the Atascadero Planning Commission
** Proclamation Acknowledging March 22-29, 1986 as "Zoo Week"
** Proclamation Acknowledging March 16-22, 1986 as "Camp Fire
Birthday Week"
** Introduction of Jeffery Fredeicks - New Employee - Police
Department
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO PUBLIC
All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are considered
to be routine and will be enacted by one motion in the form list-
ed below. There will be no separate discussion of these items.
If discussion is required, that item will be removed from the
Consent Calendar and considered separately. Vote may be by roll-
call.
1. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of February 24 , 1986
2. Finance Director ' s Report - January 1-31, 1986
3. Treasurer ' s Report - January 1-31, 1986
4. Approval of $5, 000 Funding for Alvord Field Proposed Improvements
5. Proposed Resolution 25-86 - Authorizing Public Works Director
• to Sign UMTA Section 18 Contracts
1
• 6. Claim by William K Allen (unspecified amount) (RECOMMEND DENIAL) a
7. Proposed Resolution 22-86 - Amending Resolution 79-85, Appointing
Alternate to the Central Coast Cities Joint Powers Agreement
Board of Directors
8. Proposed Resolution 23-86 - Establishing Maximum Settlement
Authority to Risk Management Associates for Settlement of
Workers ' Compensation Claims
9. Consideration of General Plan Conformity Report for City
Acquisition of Real Property at 9185 Morro Road (Cont 'd
from 2/18/86)
10. Acceptance of Final Lot Line Adjustment 10-85 , 1300 Garcia
Road, Dulitz/Moore
11. Proclamation Acknowledging April 30 , 1986 , as Tri-Counties
Small Business Opportunities Days
B. NEW BUSINESS
1. Administrative Building Renovation - Status Report
• 2. Amapoa Tecorida Drainage Plan - Status Report
3. Discussion - Reappointment of Planning Commission Vacant
Position
C. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (ACSD)
(Council will recess and convene as the Atascadero County
Sanitation District Board of Directors)
1. Proposed Ordinance No. 121 - Amendments to Sewer Service
Fees (FIRST READING) (Cont'd from 2/24/86)
(The Board of Directors will adjourn and reconvene as City
Council)
D. COMMUNITY FORUM:
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION
• 1. City Council
2. City Attorney
3. City Clerk
4. City Treasurer
5. City Manager
2
PROCLAMATION OF THANKS AND APPRECIATION
• TO
ROSIE HEBRON
SERGEANT OF POLICE
WHEREAS, Rosie began employment with the City of Atascadero
on January 13, 1982 , and has since established an impressive record
of excellent police service; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to acknowledge Rosie ' s contribution
to the Police Department and the City of Atascadero, including
her tenure as Youth Services Officer in 1983 and 1984 , her promotion
to Sergeant of Police in April , 1985 , her special assignment as
Traffic Supervisor beginning August, 1985; and
WHEREAS, Rosie has continually endeavored to enhance her
participation in law enforcement through education and training; and
WHEREAS, the City has received many commendations and letters
of praise from the public regarding Rosie ' s performance; and
WHEREAS, Rosie has consis-tently shown a high standard of
• professional dedication, loyalty, and hard work encompassing many
hours exceeding what is expected of her, and has contributed
greatly to the betterment of the City of Atascadero;
THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the Council and employees
of the City of Atascadero do hereby acknowledge Rosie Hebron ' s
committment, interest, and contribution to the City of Atascadero,
and contratulate her for a job well done.
BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that the Council and employees of
the City of Atascadero extend their best wishes to Rosie in
her future endeavors.
ROLF E LEL ON , :•I_'vYOR
City of Atascadero, CA
March 10, 1986
•
PROCLAMATION OF THANKS AND APPRECIATION
TO
CARLA SANDERS
CITY OF ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSIONER
MAY 1985 TO MARCH 1986
WHEREAS, Carla has served as City Planning Commissioner from
May, 1985 through March, 1986 ; and
WHEREAS, Carla has shown a high quality of professional
dedication and hard work encompassing many hours, and has con-
tributed greatly to the betterment of Atascadero; and
• WHEREAS, Carla was chosed out of 30 applicants by City
Council based on her qualifications and background and her demon-
strated interest in the community; and
THEREFORE, be it proclaimed that the Council, Planning
Commission, City staff, and the people of Atascadero hereby
acknowledge Carla' s commitment, interest and contribution,
congratulate her for a job well done, and wish her well.
ROLFE NELSON, %favor
Citv or Atascadero
March 10, 1986
P R O C L A M A T I O N
Z 0 0 W E E K
March 22 - 29, 1986
WHEREAS, The Charles Paddock Zoo, located in Atascadero, is
celebrating its 30th anniversity; and
WHEREAS, the Charles Paddock Zoo is the only zoo between
Santa Barbara and San Francisco, and one of seven in the State;
and
WHEREAS, the Charles Paddock Zoo provides an educational
opportunity for students and a tourist attraction; and
SWHEREAS, the Zoo is expanding in its collection of rare
exotic animals, and involved in ongoing renovations; and
WHEREAS, the goal of the Zoological Society is to offer a
safe and natural home for endangered species and encourage
reproduction in capacity; and
THEREFORE, I Rolfe Nelson, Mayor , and the City Council
proclaim March 22 - 29, 1986 as "Zoo Week" , and invite the public
to visit the Zoo during this week and to participate in activ-
ities such as Pancake Breakfast, barbecue, and entertaining
animal and bird acts, and celebrity guests.
J� �---
ROLFE IN SON, %layor
City of Atascadero, California
P R O C L A M A T I O N
"CAMP FIRE BIRTHDAY WEEK"
March 16 - 22, 1986
WHEREAS, Camp Fire, Inc. , national youth organization, will
be celebrating its 76th birthday on March 17, 1986 ; and
WHEREAS, the Chumash Camp Fire Council, in Atascadero offers
young people the opportunity of informal educational programs
which combine group activities with the development of individual
talents, as well as offering flexible programming focused on
encouraging life skills education for young people to age 21; and
WHEREAS, as a community organization, Camp Fire is concerned
• with preserving the environment, adapting to social change, the
application of democratic standards and stimulating and guiding
young people; and
WHEREAS, in Camp Fire, recognition of accomplishments is
combined with the encouragement to use developing skills to serve
others in the community; and
WHEREAS, Camp Fire is commended for the opportunities its
programs offer young people and for the many services these young
people perform for their communities as Camp Fire members;
THEREFORE, I Rolfe Nelson, Mayor of the City of Atascadero,
do hereby proclaim March 16 through 22, 1986 , as "Camp Fire
Birthday Week" .
ROLFE E ON, ;Mayor
City of Atascadero, California
i
MINUTES - ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting, February 24, 1986
Atascadero Administration Building
The Regular Meeting of the Atascadero City Council was called to order at
7:30 p.m. by Mayor Nelson, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmembers Handshy, Mackey, Molina, Norris and Mayor Nelson
'.Absent: None
STAFF
MikeShelton
Jones Cit City Manager; David Jorgensen, .Admin. Svcs.. Director; Robert
City C lerk/City Atty. ; Bud McHale, Police Chief; Mike Hicks , Fire
.Chief; Henry Engen, Community Dev. Director; Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works
Director; Cindy Wilkins, Deputy City Clerk.
COUNCIL COMMENT
Councilman Molina proposed that the Council consider taking some action to
correct the drainage problems in the Azucena/Amapoa area, now that the
$. 50 development fees are in place. Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Dir. ,
responded that one of the fees on the agenda tonight addresses the drain-
age in that area; if the fee ordinance is adopted tonight , staff will
report back with plans to correct the flooding problems. Mayor Nelson
C
directed Mr. Sensibaugh to report on the City' s 'plan of attack' at the
.ext Council meeting. Mr. Sensibaugh noted that corrective action is
planned to be taken before next winter.
STAFF COMMENT
Fire Chief Mike Hicks introduced members of the Fire Dept. full-time and
reserve staff, who presented a 20-minute EMT-II demonstration of their
capabilities with newly acquired equipment. Chief Hicks stated the Fire
Dept. has a goal to provide a 24-hour medic service , 365 days a year , in
cooperation with Atascadero Emergency Medical Services. Participating,
in the exercise were : Fire Capt. Fred Motlo and Firefighter_Mike Messina,
both certified EMT-II medics; reserve firefighters Bob Collinsworth, Kurt
Stone and Tom Vandermolen.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 11 , 1986
2. Tentative Parcel Map 11-85 - 7150 Serena (Kennedy/Stewart)
3. Tentative Parcel Map 12-85 - 7100 Serena (Harrell/Stewart)
4. Acceptance of Final Tract Map 5-85 - 5405 El Camino Real (Van Alen/
Associated Professions)
5. Claim of Andrew Zabiega, M.P. (RECOMMEND DENIAL)
Accept Proposal for Atascadero Lake Feasibility Study from Alderman
Engineering.
7. Authorization to Purchase Parks Dept. Truck through State Cooper-
ative Fleet Plan (Proposed Res. No. 19-86)
COUNCIL MINUTES, 2/24/86 r
PAGE TWO
8. Resolution Authorizing 'Parks & Recreation Director t m X.hL� 5 mtt wC
Animal Loan Agreements
47
9. Award Contract for Asbestos Removal to P.W. Stephen_ iCDrtcc ��,
Inc. , rSo. El Monte, California (Bid #86-35)
MOTION: By Councilwoman Norris to adopt Consent Calendii Ztamm 1-2Dq sec
onded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimousIlg 11g, =121...caaI
B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS
1. Consideration of Adopting Development Impact Ordi=Lay.�
'HEARING) (Cont'd from 2/11/86)
'a. Amapoa-Tecorida Development Area (Proposed Ord. Mn.. A117I
READING) (Resolution Addressing Fees, No. 9-86 , ilhttnm)j�� 11eeting)
b. Lewis Avenue Bridge (Proposed Ord. No. 118 - SECMM ;=Lam=)i
(Resolution Addressing Fees , No. 11-86 , IntroduzrLit f
c. General (Proposed Ord. No. 119 - SECOND READING1) ( =timet
Addressing Fees, No. 10-86 , Introduced @ Meetin-0)
Paul Sensibaugh,^ Public Works Director, gave staff report/ tthe
recommendations for the proposed Development Impact Feer_
Public Comment
Herb LaPrade , resident, spoke in opposition to levying t-t Mavri:z &\71-e_
Bridge fees on only new development in the identified =%at3:sv4n urs_ 11 7_1
Mike Lucas , resident , spoke in favor of the Lewis Ave. 3a P_=_fe Tur.mj?d.+¢.-',t and
of the business people within the defined area contribw-±mg to) iit;r he in-
quired if certain recent projects were preconditioned tt C tt1�ew wDudd be
required to contribute as well, to which Mr . SensibaughspndM yiies,d
some projects are aware of such a requirement. Mr. Luce-(msur-
prise that the BIA was not notified in order to be present:. if=,E#ht
speak for or against; staff clarified that the BIA was ag ¢;a3 col t2n.e
map designating the boundaries of the area proposed to Btm asa¢smz� _
Mr LaPrade spoke again, inquiring how long it will be fi*,.ffaTm tf:::ie &:ri.d-ge
is completed; staff responded that the fees are intended 'tT) c22aurifle the
mechanism toward getting the project started.
Terril Graham, 6205 Conejo , inquired if there is any prUo=:�tjizmat.Emm ,as to
how the BIA funds are to be spent; City Atty. Robert iaiaas ru�sTrcmde�d that
the BIA is set up under the Streets and Highways Code , : zih mm.-motes
definite purposes as to how monies are to be spent - maimdL•y fbir the .ad-
vertising and promotion of the downtown area. If the BTIM cles-i:r-e-s ttD use
funds for capital improvements , the issue would have to ite 2,=1,zg'hL be-fore
the City Council and, specifically for parking, would ham +tD, torn= an
assessment district: The BIA has no authority to spend may ffbm bridge
improvements.
COUNCIL MINUTES , 2/24/86
PAGE THREE
C )Richard Shannon, 4820 Obispo, requested and received clarification that
additions or remodelings to buildings in both the Amapoa . and downtown
are exempt from the fees; Henry Engen, Commun. Dev. Director, noted that
the ordinances are patterned after the $. 50 tax, which does exempt addi-
tions and is applied only to the principal square footage on new con-
struction.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina to read Ord. 117 by title only, seconded
by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously. Mayor Nelson read
Ord. 117 by title only.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina to adopt Ord. 117, seconded by Councilwoman
Mackey; passed 4: 1 by roll-call vote, with Councilwoman Norris
voting NO.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina to adopt Res. No. 9-86 , seconded by Coun-
cilwoman Mackey; passed 4: 1 by roll-call vote, with Councilwoman
Norris voting NO.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina to read Ord. 118 by title only, seconded
by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously. Mayor Nelson read
Ord. 118 by title only.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina to adopt Ord. 118 , seconded by Councilwoman
Mackey; passed 4 : 1 by roll-call vote , with Councilwoman Norris
voting NO.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina to adopt Res. No. 11-86 , seconded by Coun-
cilwoman Mackey; passed 4 : 1 by roll-call vote, with Councilwoman
Norris voting NO.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to read Ord. 119 by title only, seconded
by Councilman Molina; passed unanimously. Mayor Nelson read Ord.
119 by title only.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to adopt Ord. 119 , seconded by Councilman
Molina; passed 4: 1 by roll-call vote , with Councilwoman Norris
voting NO.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey to adopt Res. No . 10-86 , seconded by
Councilman Molina; passed 4: 1 by roll-call vote , with Council-
woman Norris voting NO.
2. General Plan Amendment 2G-85 - Lopus (8205 Coromar) /Coromar Study
Area (PUBLIC HEARING)
Councilman Molina stepped down from discussion and vote due to pos-
sible conflict of interest.
Henry Engen , Commun. Devel. Director , gave staff report and responded
to several questions from Council with regard to density issues.
COUNCIL MINUTES, 2/24/86
PAGE FOUR
Public Comment C
John and Dottie Lopus, the applicants, spoke in support of their re-
quest based on their desire to acquire affordable housing to upgrade
the living conditions for members of their family.
Tom Gouff, whose property fronts on Portola Rd. , stated he did not
receive notice of the Planning Commission hearing and was unable to
represent his family' s interests at that time; he spoke in favor of
the �-acre zoning designation, and has been trying to get his pro-
perty zoned so since its purchase in 1977 in order to achieve afford-
able housing for his children.
Mike Lucas, resident, spoke in favor of allowing the applicants their
lot split; however , he expressed concern over why so much adjacent
property has been attached to the request in view of density and traf-
fic issues. He proposed Council limit the �-acre designation to either
study area #1 or areas 1 and 3 , since so many residents in area #2 ex-
pressed opposition at the Planning Commission meeting; Mr. Engen re-
sponded that the area was expanded in order to include requests from
property owners.
Herb LaPrade spoke in favor of �-acre lots and feels Coromar is ideal
for that zoning designation.
Debbie .Sullivan, owner of 8730 Coromar and 25-year resident , spoke in C
favor of the �-acre designation based on her desire to provide indi-
vidual affordable housing as an alternative to apartments in view of
Atascadero 's current rate of population growth.
Vince Sullivan, 8730 Coromar, pointed out the number of smaller lots.
surrounding the study area and feels �-acre zoning would straighten
out an earlier zoning mistake made by the County; he ' s especially in
favor of the Lopuses being granted their request.
Tim Lopus, son of applicants, spoke in favor of his parents ' request.
Stacy Phillips, daughter of Mr. Gouff (who spoke earlier) , and part-
owner of his property fronting Portola, reiterated that they were not
notified about the Planning Commission hearing; she spoke in support
of including their parcel in the ,-acre zoning, should it be adopted.
Bob Stoner , 8635 Coromar , spoke in favor of ,-acre zoning in order to
provide the opportunity for affordable housing (less than $100 ,000) .
Phoebe Watson, 8055 Coromar, spoke in support of ,-acre zoning in the
Coromar area without further delay.
Terril Graham, 6205 Conejo , spoke in support of the ,-acre zoning in
view of the community/neighborhood support for it . He offered a
public apology to Councilman George Molina for statements previously
made to him regarding "a car coming down the road" .
COUNCIL MINUTES, 2/24/86
PAGE FIVE
Dennis Lockridge , 8935 Atascadero Ave. , though sympathetic to the
people in support of 2-acre lots , pointed out the several lots ad-
joining the study area that are zoned 1+ acres , which owners bought
with the promise that the area zoning designation would not change.
He favors a well-planned, if any, zone change, expressing concern
over school overcrowding issues.
Claire Barbieri, 8660 Coromar, spoke in support of �-acre lots.
MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to adopt the h-acre zoning designation in
the Coromar study area to include areas I , II & III in order to
have both sides of Coromar in conformity with �-acre lots, sec-
onded by Councilwoman Norris; passed 3 : 1 by roll-call vote, with
Councilwoman Mackey voting NO, and Councilman Molina not voting.
COUNCIL RECESSED FOR A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK AT APPROX. 10 : 00 P.M.
Mayor Nelson announced a follow-up item of business has come to the Coun-
cil' s attention: Henry Engen, Commun. Development Director , reported that,
since the previous General Plan action (Item B-2) was a resolution with a
modified exhibit per the motion acted upon, it ' s suggested the City Council
formally initiate a rezoning to RSF-X to implement that General Plan change
C (item would go to the Planning Commission before coming back to Council for
final approval) . There was no public comment.
MOTION: By Councilman Handshy to accept staff' s recommendation (as sum-
marized above) , seconded by Councilwoman Norris; passed 3 : 1 ,
with Councilwoman Mackey voicing NO.
C. NEW BUSINESS
1 . Zoning Ordinance Procedures Evaluation
Henry Engen gave staff report. There was no public comment.
MOTION: By Councilwoman to direct staff to go ahead with the ten items
(as listed in the staff report , dated 2/24/86) , seconded by
Councilman Molina; passed unanimously.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina to recess as Council and convene as the
Atas. County Sanitation District Board of Directors , seconded
by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously.
D. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
1. Introduction of Proposed Amended Sewer Ordinance Adding New and Re-
vising Sewer Service Fees
Paul Sensibauqh, Public Works Director, gave brief staff report re-
viewing recommendations which will be brought forward in ordinance
form at the next regular meeting.
COUNCIL MINUTES, 2/24/86
PAGE SIX
Public Comment
Doug Lewis suggested that the Board has the power to address the issue
of not penalizing the people who 've been paying the sewer charges al-
though not hooked up to the system (relating to Director Mackey ' s
comment that the ordinance does not address this) ; Mr. Sensibaugh re-
sponded that those people , theoretically , will have the same impact
as a new annexation at this point in time even though they did pay
their original assessment.
MOTION: By Director Molina that the Board recess and reconvene as the
City Council, seconded by Director Mackey; passed unanimously.
E. COMMUNITY FORUM
No public comment.
F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION
City Council - Councilwoman Norris said she believes the Council should
review, through public hearings , the zoning ordinance regarding mul-
tiple dwellings to consider less than 16 per acre zoning; Mayor
Nelson suggested specific areas be proposed for consideration.
Councilman Molina suggested the news media assist the Council by
noticing the public of the Council ' s desire to find out how many
people that own property would like to have it down-zoned.
City Attorney/City Clerk - Robert Jones , as City Atty. , reported that
an appeal has been made to the Planning Dept. for referral to the
Board of Appeals , of which three members terms have recently ex-
pired.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina that the City Council make interim appoint-
ments of John Edens, Kenneth Lerno and David Walters to the Board
of Appeals until 4/1/86 , and direct staff to advertise that there
are positions available on that Board, seconded by Councilwoman
Mackey; passed unanimously.
Citv Manaaer - Mike Shelton briefly responded to Council ' s questions
regarding the various processing and scheduling in changing tl:a uses
of the Administration Bldg. , with related comments from Mr. Sensi-
baugh, Public Works Director. City Council concurred that the issue
of whether the Rotunda Rm. should be a dedicated room for use by the
City Council and Commissions or a multi-purpose room should be
brought back as an agenda item for discussion of alternatives .
MOTION: By Councilman Molina to extend the meeting past 11 :00 p.m. , sec-
onded by Councilwoman Norris; passed 4 : 1 , with Councilman Handshy
voicing NO.
COUNCIL MINUTES, 2/24/86
PAGE SEVEN
Mr. Shelton recognized the efforts of the Dep. City Clerk, who
filled in as his secretary during the absence of Karen Vaughan on
maternity leave , and he expressed his appreciation by presenting
her with six beautiful long-stemmed roses; Councilman Handshy, as
spokesman for the Deputy Clerk, indicated that flattery will get
you nowhere , but that Cindy would like to negotiate for a wage
increase. (Thank you Mike -- nice try, Bear) .
MEETING ADJOURNED AT APPROXIMATELY 11 :10 P.M.
RECORDED BY:
ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk
PREPARED BY:CINDY WILKINS , Dep. City Clerk
C
i
CITY OF ATASCADERO
• FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
JANUARY 1, 1986 TO JANUARY 31, 1986
BALANCE AS OF DECEMBER 31,1985 8, 490.11
DEPOSITED BY TREASURER, SEE RECEIPTS,
TREASURER'S REPORT, PAGE 1 549,916 . 45
TOTAL 558, 406 . 56
HAND CHECK REGISTER DATED 01/31/86 236 , 068. 49
CHECK REGISTER DATED O1/03/86 15,427. 70
CHECK REGISTER DATED 01/09/86 2,179. 75
CHECK REGISTER DATED 01/10/86 35,124.02
CHECK REGISTER DATED 01/17/86 27, 519. 71
CHECK REGISTER DATED 01/24/86 29, 027. 80
CHECK REGISTER DATED 01/24/86 2, 632. 75
CHECK REGISTER DATED 01/31/86 50 ,721. 91
EXPENSE LISTING 123 , 741.17
TOTAL 522, 443. 30
BALANCE AS OF JANUARY 31, 1986 35 ,963. 26
PETTY CASH 540 . 00
• TREASURY INVESTMENTS
SEE TREASURER' S REPORT, PAGE 2 1, 530 ,000 . 00
TOTAL 1,566 , 503 . 26
I , DAVID JORGENSEN, do hereby certify and declare
that demands enumerated and referred to in the foregoing
register are accurate and just claims against the City and
that there are funds available for payment thereof in the
City Treasury.
DATED: February 24 , 1986
U �ti
DAVI J RfNSEN
Admin. $er+vices Director
4
CITY OF ATASCADERO
FINANCE DIRECTOR' S REPORT •
JANUARY 1, 1986 TO JANUARY 31, 1986
EXPENSE LISTING
PAYROLL DATED 01/08/86 CHECKS #35373-35492 68 , 756 . 42
PAYROLL DATED 01/22/86 CHECKS #35500-35598 70 ,430 .92
VOID CK#27602 CK. REG. DATED 12/30/85 (470 . 00)
VOID CK#27621 CK. REG. DATED 12/30/85 (20 . 00)
VOID CK#27643 CK. REG. DATED 01/03/86 (420 .00)
VOID CK#27145 CK. REG. DATED 01/10/86 (43 . 62)
VOID CK#27703 CK. REG. DATED 01/10/86 (125.00)
VOID CK#27744 CK. REG. DATED 01/10/86 (48 .00)
VOID CK#27847 CK. REG. DATED 01/17/86 (3. 84) •
VOID CK#27154 CK. REG. DATED 01/24/86 (14 , 315.71)
TOTAL 123 ,741.17
• v
CITY OF ATASCADERO
• TREASURER' S REPORT
JANUARY 1, 1986 TO JANUARY 31, 1986
RECEIPTS
TAXES
Property Tax 31, 201.33
Cigarette Tax 5, 441.17
Motor Vehicle "In Lieu" 36,835. 88
Sales Tax 85, 500 . 00
Franchise Tax 2,039.03
Occupancy Tax 13,630. 88
Livestock-Head Day Tax 26. 88
Development Impact Tax 4,637. 50
LICENSE/PERMITS/FEES 34 , 652. 47
GAS TAX 82, 599.44
STREET ASSESSMENT 100 .50
RECREATION FEES 16,784. 80
GRANTS 44, 357.00
TRANSPORTATION SB-325 95, 149. 50
• MISCELLANEOUS
Miscellaneous 1, 722.14
Donations 169. 68
Rents/Concessions 504 . 72
Sale Maps/Publications/Reports 278 .30
Special Police Services 108.00
Fines & Penalties 1, 017 .12
Planning Permit Deposits 4,330 .72
Bails/Bonds 1,923.00
Traffic Safety 5,136 . 45
Reimbursement from Sanitation District 30 , 682. 87
Reimbursement to Expense 1, 518 . 29
P.O.S.T. 1, 621. 54
Refunds 1,713. 62
Appeals 50. 00
Overages & Shortages 1. 00
Traffic Safety Officer 3 ,948 . 90
Investment Earnings 33 , 014 . 66
Weed Abatement 1, 179 . 53
Off-Highway Vehicles 165 . 13
Use of City Crews/Equip. 226 . 40
Storm Damage-Emer . Svcs. 48 . 00
Performance Bonds 7, 600 .00
TOTAL 549 ,916 . 45
1
CITY OF ATASCADERO
TREASURER' S REPORT
JANUARY 1, 1986 TO JANUARY 31, 1986
INVESTMENTS
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND $1, 530,000.00
TOTAL INVESTMENT DEPOSITS $1,530 ,000.00
•
1
Ralph H. Dowell, Jr.
City Treasurer
2
FEBRUARY 24,1986
To All Council Members:
The breakdown detail on all accounts is available
for your viewing in the Finance Department.
U`N`---
Davi or ensen
Admini tr tive Services Director
3
M �;ii�G fi.v�r•:�A
i M E M O R A N D U M I;F}��
i -
February 26 , 1986
To : City Council
Via: Mike Shelton , City Manager
From: Bob Best , Director of Parks & Recreation .Department
Subject : Alvord Field
INTRODUCTION
At the mid-year budget review, Council directed me to obtain
more information regarding the needs for improvements at Alvord
Field. I have since met with Mr. Jim Gibbons concerning the
needs of the Babe Ruth baseball program regarding this facility.
BACKGROUND
As Council is aware , the Babe Ruth program utilizes Alvord
Field for several months during Spring and Summer. Current goals
of the organization are to request being the host for state and
• regional tournaments . These would bring in many teams from outside
the Atascadero and San Luis Obispo County areas , necessitating
overnight loding and expenditures of funds for many differenct
activities .
The Babe Ruth organization informs me that , in order to host
these tournaments , Alvord Field must be brought up to standards
which would qualify Atascadero to be the host city for these youth
tournaments. This would include the addition of dugouts , a con-
cesssion/storage area, and additional seating.
Mr. Gibbons informs me that he has contractors already committed
to do the necessary work to construct the dugouts and the conces-
sion building . He is also seeking donations for as many materials
for these projects as possible . He has committed the organization
to completing the dugouts and concession stand with volunteer labor
if the City can help with the cost of plans and materials . This
would would not exceed $5 ,000 .
In addition , he understands that any plans for this facility
must be reviewed by City staff.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the expenditure of a maximum of $5 ,000 from Council
• Contingency Fund for materials and building plans , to be used
at Alvord Field.
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT
To date , a total of $10 ,244 has been allocated from Council
Contingency Fund from an initial $33 , 800 , leaving a balance of
$23 , 556 . With a maximum of $5 ,000 for this project , the Contingency
Fund balance will be $18 , 556 .
•
i
,'I
CINIG�� AGrNIDA
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager (N1� .
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: UMTA Section 18 Capital Assistance Contracts
DATE: March 4, 1986
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution
authorizing the Director of Public Works to execute all documents
required in obtaining UMTA Section 18 Capital Assistance Contracts.
Background:
UMTA Section 18 funds are available each fiscal year for the
purchase of buses for the Dial-A-Ride transportation system. These
funds are on a matching basis and the cost to the city is
approximately $8, 000 per bus purchased.
• At the City Council meeting of September 23 , 1985 Council
authorized staff to make application for the purchase of two re-
placement buses, one bus to be funded out of Section 18 funds and
the other out of State Discretionary Funds, both administered by
the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council and Regional Trans-
portation Planning Agency.
RESOLUTION NO. 25-86 _
•
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING AN AGENT FOR MATTERS
PERTAINING TO UMTA SECTION 18 CAPITAL
ASSISTANCE CONTRACTS
The Council of the City of Atascadero resolves as follows:
THAT the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to
execute for and in behalf of the City of Atascadero, a public entity
established under the laws of the State of California, all documents
required in obtaining UMTA Section 18 Capital Assistance Contracts.
UPON MOTION of Councilman ,seconded by
Councilman , and carried, the Council hereby authorizes
the above named to sign UMTA Section 18 Capital Assistance Contracts.
AYES
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED: •
ATTEST: ROLFE NELSON, Mayor
ROBERT M. JONES
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
ROBERT M. JONES PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH
City Attorney Director of Public Works
�T;�;G
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mike Shelton
FROM: David Jorgensen\
SUBJECT: Claim of William K. Allen
DATE: February 25 , 1986
RECOMMENDATION
City Council deny claim submitted on August 23 , 1985 , by the
above-named claimant ' s attorney.
BACKGROUND
Claimant alleged false arrest by Atascadero Police Department.
• City' s adjustors, Carl Warren & Co. , have reviewed this claim
and have advised that it be rejected at this time.
DGJ/cw
•
• M_E M_O R A N_D_U M_
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager '1
FROM: David G. Jorgensen, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: Appointment as Alternate to Central Coast Cities Join
Powers Authority
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council appoint the Director
of Administrative Services as an alternate member of the Board of
Directors of the Central Coast Cities Joint Powers Authority.
DISCUSSION
Currently the City Manager is the City' s Board Member on the
Central Coast Cities Joint Powers Authority. It is not always
• possible for him to attend the board meetings. In order for the
City to maintain participation and disseminate information from
the JPA as well as represent the City' s position on board issues,
it is necessary that an alternate board member be appointed to
attend in the absence of the City Manager.
Since part of the responsibilities of the Director of Administrative
Services is risk management and personnel , it seems logical that
he be appointed as alternate board member in the City Managers
absence.
RESOLUTION NO. 22-86
•
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 79-85 , PERTAINING
TO APPOINTMENT OF AN ALTERNATE TO THE CENTRAL COAST
CITIES JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
WHEREAS, the Central Coast Cities Joint Powers Agreement
requires the City Council to authorize the City Manager to appoint
a representative to serve as alternate to the Central Coast Cities
Joint Powers Agreement Board of Directors;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council authorize
the City Manager to appoint the Director of Administrative Services
as the City' s alternate to the Central Coast Cities Joint Powers
Agreement Board of Directors
(This resolution replaces Resolution 79-85 previously adopted by
the City Council . )
On motion by Councilman and seconded by
Councilman the foregoing resolution is hereby
adopted in its entirety on the following vote : •
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ROLFE NELSON, Mayor
ATTEST:
ROBERT M. JONES , City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
MICHIOEt SHELTON, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROBERT M. JONES, City Attorney
M_E M_O_R A N_D_U M_
•
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: David G. Jorgensen, Administrative Services Directo '
SUBJECT: Establish Settlement amount for Workers Compensation
Claims
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council establish $5, 000 - as the
maximum Authority that Risk Management Associates , as Claims
Administrator, can setthe workers compensation claims and that any
amount over $5, 000 must have City Council approval before settle-
ment is made.
DISCUSSION
In Section II - Workers ' Compensation Plan under item D-1 of
the Central Coast Cities Insurance Fund Policy and Procedures it
• states , "Each City grants to the Claims Administrator a level
of discretionary settlement authority. All settlements in excess
of the discretionary authority of the Administrator requires prior
approval from the City. " Apparently the actual dollar amount of the
settlement authority level has never been established.
It is important that an amount be established that will help
facilitate the settlement of claims. It is equally important that
this settlement authority amount be substantial enough to make
settlement a viable option in negotiating claims.
I feel that we now have a Claims Administrator, Risk Management
Associates , who will agressively pursue the settlement of
claims and who is actively looking out for the best interests of
the City. Sometimes a claim that might be settled immediately for
a reasonable amount may cost more if settlement authority is
delayed waiting for a vote of the governing body. However, I do
feel that it' s equally important for the governing body to have
absolute control of proposed settlements that are excessively large.
Hence my recommendation of up to $5, 000 settlement authority be
granted to the Claims Administrator and anything over 55 , 000 be
done only upon the approval of the City Council.
RESOLUTION NO. 23-86
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO,
ESTABLISHING MAXIMUM SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY TO RISK
MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF WORKERS '
COMPENSATION CLAIMS.
WHEREAS, the Central Coast Cities Joint Powers Agreement
allows each city to grant to the Claims Administrator a level
of discretionary settlement authority and;
WHEREAS , this settlement authority amount is important in
order to facilitate the negotiating of claims.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council establishes
$5, 000 as the maximum settlement authority granted to Risk
Management Associates as Claims Administrator for Workers '
Compensation Claims and that any negotiated settlement in excess
of $5, 000 can only be made by the approval of the City Council.
On motion by Councilperson and seconded
by Councilperson the foregoing resolution is
hereby adopted in its entirety on the following votes:
AYES: •
NOES:
ABSENT:
ADOPTED:
ROLFE D. NELSON, Mayor
ATTEST:
ROBERT M. JONES, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
ROBERT M. JONES, City Attorney MICHA . SHELTON, City Manager
•
r
MEQ"NG AG NDA
• M E M O R A N D U M `
TO: City Council March 10 , 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager A ,
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director A-K
SUBJECT: General Plan Conformity Report
LOCATION: 9185 Morro Road
REQUEST: General Plan conformity report for City acquisition
of real property located near Atascadero Lake.
On February 18 , 1986 , the Planning Commission considered the
above-referenced subject. After discussion, the Commission rec-
ommended that acquisition of the referenced property be found
• to be in conformance with the City adopted General Plan (see
attached staff report) .
No one else spoke to this matter.
HE:ps
City of Atascadero Item:
STAFF REPORT
•
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 2/18/86
BY: Steven L. Decamp, Senior Planner
Project Address: 9185 Morro Road
SUBJECT:
General Plan conformity report - City acquisition of real property.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council has approved funding (FY 1985-86 budget) for the ac-
quisition of real property near Atascadero Lake. The Parks and Recre-
ation Department has researched the question of land acquisition near
the Lake and has determined that Lot 6 , Block JC (9185 Morro Road)
would be an appropriate addition. The City currently owns two adja-
cent parcels in front of Atascadero Lake Park between the spillway and
Lago Avenue. The purchase of this third lot would provide the City
with complete ownership of all three parcels in front of the parking
lot at the Lake.
The owner of the subject parcel has indicated a willingness to sell •
the property to the City. On February 11, 1986 , the City Council
authorized the Parks and Recreation Department to obtain an appraisal
of the parcel' s value.
ANALYSIS:
Once a City has adopted a General Plan, no real property can be
acquired or disposed of until the proposal has been submitted to the
planning agency for a General Plan conformity report (see attached
Government Code Section 65402 (a) ) .
The City' s adopted General Plan does address the question of land
acquisition in the area around Atascadero Lake. The Open Space and
Conservation element of the plan specifically lists areas of open
space which are to be preserved for recreation (see attached) . That
list includes Atascadero Lake and its surrounding park. Listed for
acquisition are County-owned parcels adjacent to Atascadero Lake along
Lakeview. Although not included within these County-owned parcels,
the lot currently proposed for acquisition will further recreational
and/or other public pursuits at Atascadero Lake.
In addition, the Open Space element notes that Atascadero Lake Park is
so heavily used that additional areas will need to be acquired.
Again, the subject parcel will help satisfy this identified need.
Finally, the General Plan map designates the parcel proposed for ac-
General Plan Conformity Report (9185 Morro Road)
quisition as "recreation
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend to the City Council that the acquisition of Lot 6, Block JC
be found to be in conformance with the City' s adopted General Plan.
SLD:ps
ATTACHMENTS: A - Vicinity Map
B - General Plan Excerpts
C - General Plan Map
D - Government Code Excerpt
2
Q i I A69meMT PTN. 'CITYOF .i4TASCADE' ,R
,
+ Y
31
"
LA
PORTS---
--;:
e4 33
>n /
rat � f4 �'.
AL1/OK
h o'.
Is�X+' \ 0 38
INA
N6 00 ca
! 1 r 18 r 31 `w F y h.
FR.
f All JC
34 30 ` r 39 o Q
10� !'f23.7 N673 5pµr r1 �' ,'g 9y M
�•
. ` 7
56 co
/29.67 81.Tb ,
. ISO
i i `N 6 SITE
I :
A:.
J DO •
J Q N I a
CITY 3 ' PA R K
Z o.
PARK IN c
i N O
(' 029 W
O N63 LOT
iI;Z o
M ' I
QOWNS O
t OR ,�--
uj
t w �, �
r _ . Al �6?..'b Z i .'Q 70,. L .. `_'' '' 90 IO�.bp4 86.60
AOAN RLr5.`7,0_7f"
G ITY Z 040
y
AAIC9M' GFNT 13
i
6"E2AL PLAN WXGEEPTs
Open space for outdoor recreation includes areas of out-
standing scenic, historic or cultural value., areas parti-
cularly outstanding for park and recreation purpos:e.s,
P� 82 including access to lakeshores, beaches, rivers and streams,
and areas which serve as links between major recreation and
open space reservations , including utility easements, banks
of rivers and streams ,, trails,. and scenic highway corridors .
Areas of open space available for recreation that shall be
preserved are listed below:
�J The banks and bed of Atascadero Creek
The inundation area of the Salinas River
Atascadero Lake and its surrounding park
The Sunken Gardens
Chalk Mountain Regional Park
The three Little League baseball fields
PC. 83
The banks and bed of Graves Creek
Pine mountain (in part)
The Wranglerette Arena
Areas of open space that shall be considered for acquisition
by a public agency and/or preserved for recreation are listed
below:
Chandler Parkland
Pine *'fountain Amphitheater
County-owned lots fronting on Lakeview adjacent to
Atascadero Lake
Atascadero Lake
The 25-acre Atascadero Lake and its surrounding 10-acre
park not only provide a home for aauatic and bird life but
also serve as the primary recreational area for the Colony
and, indeed, for surrounding portions of the entire Countv.
The park is so heavily used that additional areas will have
$5 to be acquired to keep pace with the patronage. A park
development plan approved by the Board of Supervisors foresees
acquisition and construction of a greater variety and number
of recreational facilities . A long-term Capital Outlav
Program is necessary to properly allocate construction+ funds
for these projects.
-� rNNW&l���_� S` r� 1
�- �' � � •`�. .•�.. �� '� �Ems`
� 'ray ♦� •� ♦ � `�,-. \��`IIf� �' r
� �� / 1 � t I � 'mmmii� ymm bm•'�i
� f
+ s b A
s s A A A m A A A � • ,1.� � A A A
® ® ® + A A A A A A m
r ' 1
� L/ i y ® i 9 b •
A A A A t! A A A b b BA
�s�►��' A A A 8 A b A ® . a A A A
l` WAR, A 4 B ® A A A A
�\ P'� • A ® m ♦ ® ® 4 8 A A• b
� �• A 4 m A A ® 9 e w
A A ® Jo A e
® b A b A ® b A A A A A b A
� A ® A ® b 6 b A f •
,/� ♦ 1 A • b A A A A A b b b A
b ® ® ® A A ® A
iioiu•oii
wuuuuo
_ 'OOVGANnY7EhI'T c00E EX445-Aep-r-
(a) Investigate and make recommendations to the legis-
lative body upon reasonable and practical means for putting !
into effect the general plan or part thereof, in order that
it will serve as a pattern and guide for the orderly physical
growth and development and the preservation and conserva-
tion of open space land of the county or city and as a
basis for the efficient expenditure of its funds relating to
the subjects of the general plan; the measures recommended
may include plans, regulations, financial reports, and capital
budgets.
(b) Render an annual report to the legislative body on
the status of the plan and progress in its application.
(c) Endeavor to promote public interest in and understand-
ing of the general plan, and regulations relating to it.
(d) Consult and advise with public officials and agencies,
public utility companies, civic, educational, professional and
other organizations, and citizens generally with relation to
carrying out the general plan.
(Amended by Stats. 1970, Ch. 1590.)
Annual review of public 65401. If a general plan or part thereof has been adopted,
works projects for within such time as may be fixed by the legislative body,
conformity with plan each county or city officer, department, board, or commis-
sion, and each govemmental body, commission, or board,
including the governing body of any special district or school
district, whose jurisdiction lies wholly or partially within
the county or city, whose functions include recommending,
preparing plans for, or constructing, major public works,
shall submit to the official agency, as designated by the
respective county board of supervisors or city council, a
list of the proposed public works recommended for planning,
initiation or construction during the ensuing fiscal year.
The official agency receiving the list of proposed public
works shall list and classify all such recommendations and
shall prepare a coordinated program of proposed public
works for the ensuing fiscal year. Such coordinated program
shall be submitted to the county or city planning agency
for review and report to said official agency as to con-
formity with the adopted general plan or part thereof.
(Amended by Stats. 1970, Ch. 1590.)
Restrictions on acqui- 65402. (a) If a general plan or part thereof has been
sition and disposal of adopted, no real property shall be acquired by dedication
real property or otherwise for street, square, park or other public pur-
poses. and no real property shall hP riicnr,cnrl f
� no street
shall be vacated or abandoned and no public buildinor
structure shall be constructed or authorized if the ado ted
general plan or part thereof applies thereto, until the
location, purpose and extent of such acquisition or disposi-
tion, such street vacation or abandonment, or suc public
uil ing or structure nave been su mitte to and reported
upon by the planning._agency as to conformity with said
adopted general plan or part thereof The planning agency
shall render its report as to conformity with said adopted
general plan or part thereof within forty (40) days after
44
the matter was submitted to it, or such longer period of
C ; time as may be designated by the legislative body.
If the legislative body so provides, by ordinance or reso-
lution, the provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to:
(1) the disposition of the remainder of a larger parcel which
was acquired and used in part for street purposes; (2)
acquisitions, dispositions, or abandonments for street widen-
ing; or (3) alignment projects, provided such dispositions for
street purposes, acquisitions, dispositions, or abandonments
for street widening, or alignment projects are of a minor
nature.
(b) A county shall not acquire real property for any of
the purposes specified in paragraph (a), nor dispose of any
real property, nor construct or authorize a public building
or structure, in another county or within the corporate
limits of a city, if such city or other county has adopted
a general plan or part thereof and such general plan or
part thereof is applicable thereto, and a city shall not
acquire real property for any of the purposes specified in
paragraph (a), nor dispose of any real property, nor construct
or authorize a public building or structure, in another city
or in unincorporated territory, if such other city or the
county in which such unincorporated territory is situated
has adopted a general plan or part thereof and such general
plan or part thereof is applicable thereto, until the location,
purpose and extent of such acquisition, disposition, or such
Cpublic building or structure have been submitted to and
reported upon by the planning agency having jurisdiction,
as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part
thereof. Failure of the planning agency to report within
forty (40) days after the matter has been submitted to it
shall be conclusively deemed a finding that the proposed
acquisition, disposition, or public building or structure is in
conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof.
The provisions of this paragraph (b) shall not apply to
acquisition or abandonment for street widening or alignment
projects of a minor nature if the legislative body having
the real property within its boundaries so provides by ordi-
nance or resolution.
(c) A local agency shall not acquire real property for any
of the purposes specified in paragraph (a) nor dispose of
any real property, nor construct or authorize a public
building or structure, in any county or city, if such county
or city has adopted a general plan or part thereof and such
general plan or part thereof is applicable thereto, until the
location, purpose and extent of such acquisition, disposition,
or such public building or structure have been submitted to
and reported upon by the planning agency having jurisdiction,
as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part
thereof. Failure of the planning agency to report within
forty (40) days after the matter has been submitted to it
shall be conclusively deemed a finding that the proposed
acquisition, disposition, or public building or structure is in
45
NG2i'+7A
A- /D
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council March 10, 1986
VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager .
FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director 44.1?,
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Lot Line Adjustment 10-85
LOCATION: 1300 Garcia Road
APPLICANT: James and Sylvia Dulitz (Shirley Moore)
• On November 12, 1985, the City Council approved Lot Line Adjust-
ment 10-85 , subject to certain conditions and in concurrence with
the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The required con-
ditions have been complied with and the final map is recommended
for approval.
HE:ps
cc: James and Shirley Dulitz
Shirley Moore
•
R` R§ Z.T �� •'
g �pAP
4 �'';�
GPS �,r F. •a
Atea
V
z
/A)
P R O C L A M A T I O N
TRI-COUNTIES SMALL BUSINESS OPORTUNITY DAY
TRADE FAIR
APRIL 30 , 1986
WHEREAS, business enterprise has been a vital part of this
County' s way of life since its very beginning; and
WHEREAS, the Southern California Regional Purchasing Council
and its co-sponsor local corporate businesses have joined in
selecting April 30, 1986 to emphasize the contributions made to
the American way of life by members of the small community; and
WHEREAS, entrepreneurship is still the free enterprise
system' s gateway to opportunity and the means by which most
Americans build a better way for their families; and
WHEREAS, small business people of all ethnic origins have
developed capabilities which now include a diverse range of
products and services; and
• WHEREAS, the Tri-Counties Small Business Opportunity Day will
provide a forum for these outstanding businesses to interface
with their counterparts in majority Corporate America in an on-
going effort to develop purchases;
THEREFORE, I, Rolfe Nelson, Mayor of the City of Atascadero,
do hereby declare April 30 , 1986 as "Small Business Opportunity
Day" and ask all citizens of Atascadero to thank the local
business community for their sponsorship of this worthy event.
ROLFE NELSON, Mayor
City of Atascadero
March 10, 1986
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager U
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Building Renovation - Staff Report
DATE: March 6, 1986
Activity-Description Eng. Estimate Status
Phase IIA - Asbestos Removal $12, 000 Contract awarded
Begin removal by
end of month.
Phase IIB - Structural and 90 ,000 Comments received
3rd Floor Restroom Plans now being
revised. Anticipate
Bid in April
Phase IIC - HVAC and Room 371,900 Under Design
• Renovation
All Phases - Engineering 73 ,400, HVAC & Room Renov-
ation now being
designed.
Total Project Estimate $547, 300
Total Project Budget 570 , 000
Available Contingency Monies $ 22,700
TO: City Council March 10, 1986
• FROM: Mike Shelton ,
City Manager
SUBJECT: PROPOSED USE OF ADMINISTRATION FACILITY
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council endorse proposed Administration Facility Use Plan
and designate City Council/Planning Commission Chamber location.
BACKGROUNDS
The City is a recipient of grant funds to renovate the City Hall
building. On November 7, 1985, City Council authorized entering
into agreement with Fred H. Schott and Associates for engineering
and architectural services for the renovation project for City
Hall. Current usage of the building will change with the poten-
tial relocation of the Police Department and Library to other
facilities. Schott and Associates are asking direction from
staff for the final room arrangements, including the Council/
Planning Commission Chamber location. It is important to final-
ize these decisions to enable final planning and avoid redesign
• at a later date.
Attached are diagrams showing the proposed usage of each floor of
the building. The proposal is submitted based on the following
assumptions and priorities:
* Internal reassignments assume moving out of the Police
Department and Library
* Convenience to the public is the most important location con-
sideration, with departments having the greatest public con-
tact being located in areas to achieve ease of access by the
public.
* Department location must provide adequate space and con-
figuration (within the limitations of the building) to
provide for efficient internal operations.
* Proximity must be planned to enable efficient interdepart-
mental contact for departments with need for frequent inter-
action.
Based on these considerations, staff recommends usage of the
first floor by the Community Development Department, Parks and
Recreation , and City Clerk/Information functions. Current per-
sonnel are as follows:
•
1
Community Development
1 Community Services Director
1 Secretary to Community Services Director
1 Senior Planner
3 Planners
1 Chief Building Inspectors
3 Building Inspectors
1 Plan Checker
1 Building Technician
1 Clerk
13 TOTAL WORK SPACES REQUIRED
Parks and Recreation
1 Parks and Recreation Director
1 Senior Recreation Coordinator
1 Recreation Coordinator
1 Secretary
2 Part-time Personnel
6 TOTAL WORK SPACES REQUIRED
City Clerk/Information
1 City Clerk (elected position)
1 Deputy City Clerk (part-time)
1 PBX Operator/Clerk (part-time)
3 TOTAL WORK SPACES REQUIRED
(Total first floor work spaces required is 22) -
The second floor usage is proposed as follows:
2
Public Works Department _
1 Public Works Director
1 Secretary
1 Senior Engineer
1 Public Works Superintendent
1 Engineering Technician
5 TOTAL WORK SPACES REQUIRED
Administrative Services/Finance
1 City Treasurer (elected position)
1 Administrative Services Director
1 Accounting Supervisor
3 Accounting Clerks
1 Secretary to Administrative Services Director
1 *Computer (work space required)
8 TOTAL WORK SPACES REQUIRED
City Council/City Manager
1 City Council (elected)
1 City Manager
1 Secretary
3 TOTAL WORK SPACES REQUIRED
(Total second floor work spaces required is 16)
The Third Floor usage is proposed as follows:
Outside Agencies
Dial A Ride
Genaelogical Society
Recreation/Conference Rooms
Employee Lounge/Kitchen
Other/Storage
The Fourth Floor usage is proposed as follows:
Council/Planning Commission Chamber/Public Facility
Staff requests direction from City Council as to location of the
Council/Planning Commission Chambers. Alternatives discussed
include :
3
Fourth Floor - Carpet - Exclusive use as Council/Planning
. Commission Chamers with permanent chairs
Fourth Floor - Carpet - Multi-purpose room - Council/Planning
Commission Chambers and public use. New chairs or "permanent
chairs" on runners.
Fourth Floor - As is - Multi-purpose Council/Planning
Commission Chambers and public use (no carpeting)
First Floor Rotunda - Shared use with Historical Society.
Council/Planning Commission Chambers - Alternate site away
from Administration Building. . . such as new Police facility
"multi-purpose" room.
Staff has reviewed the alternative of placing the Council
Chambers in either the current Adult or Childrens Library.
Due to the long rectangular shape, support columns in the
rooms and poor mid-room access, this alternative is not
recommended.
Council may desire to appoint a subcommittee to review alter-
natives of the Council/Planning Commission Chamber concept with
staff and report back to Council.
MS:kv
File: MADMIN
4
RECEIVED NAR 985
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AG GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN,Governor
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
P.O. BOX 2390
-i
SACRAMENTO 93811
February 27, 1986
Paul Sensibaugh
City of Atascadero
P.O. Box 747
Atascadero, CA 93423
Subject: Administration Building
Dear Paul:
Thank you for submitting an application for grant funds for the above
project through the historic preservation component of the California
Park and Recreational Facilities Act of 1984, 1896 cycle.
I regret to inform you that we were unable to include this project in
the list recommended to the Legislature for funding this year. We
received 130 applications for a total of $18 million. The $3 million
allocated for this year's program has 32 projects recommended for
funding, most of them for amounts less than requested.
The competetive ranking for this program was such that many good
projects ranked lower than others. Your project was not reachable
with available funds. Staff in the Office of Historic Preservation
at (916) 445-8006 will be glad to discuss your application for possible
modifications for resubmittal in the next funding cycle.
Your concern and commitment to preserving this important historic
resource is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Wm. S. Briner
Director
l
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—TME RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN,Governor -
CE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
TMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
POST OFFICE BOX 2390
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 93811 19 hr" EIVED
February 24, 1986 FEB 2 719861
Rich Kopecky
Fred Schott & Co. MC-0 H. SCHOTT&ASSOC.
200 Suburban Road
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
Dear Rich:
Our restoration architect, Tom Winter, has reviewed the Phase IIB
revised plans for the Atascadero Administration Building and, in general,
finds them excellent. He does, however, have several comments he wishes
to have incorporated into the plans.
On Sheet A-2 Plan No. B/A2 Women ' s Restroom, show access doors
into less significant areas, in this case into the handicap stall
opposite door to stall.
Justify lowered ceilings in toilet rooms, Sheets A3 and A4. If
ceilings must be lowered, use lath and plaster and match existing
finishes at new height.
OHP would prefer solving Detail A/S2 Low Parapet Brace in another
manner. Since the parapet balustrade occurs over landscape areas, and
is non-historic our preferences follow in order:
1 . provide no bracing;
2. brace minimally from brick columns (horizontal brace) ;
3, use a similar detail but do not drill holes into the top
surface of the concrete parapet. Drill holes into the inside
vertical face and slope the holes enough so that water will not
stand or flow to the closed end, but to the open end.
On Detail B/S2 High Parapet Brace, drill holes into the inside
face as shown except holes shall slope to drain water, as noted above
(see enclosed xerox) .
Please call if you have questions or comments. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Pamela Carlson
1984 State Park Bond Grants Administrator
• _w s
PaZma"Avenue
0 C O O 0 .
. . . . . ... . . . .� l l 04*01 l l
////-H/////
• ��� ��%� r r �� XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX '
• xxxxXXxxxx
I . . . . . . / \
_ G XXXXXXXXX
. . . . .
xxiaxxxxxx
I Atascadero xxxxxxxxxx
• • •
• • •#1t71• • • • ' Historical. xx=Mx xx
. . . . . . . . . . Society �. xxxxxxxxxx
• Q • ` \ [ xxlxxxxxxx
i . . . . . . . . . .
. ••. . . . . . . .� \\ \ Museum i`jxxxxxxxxxx
. . . . . . . . . . . . _ �, Xxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
T . x�xxxxXxxx
xx
EZe
FIRST
FLOOR
TABLE:
xxxxxx - RECREATION DEPARTMENT
. . . . . . - COMrZUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PaZma Avenue
klunk##
#3087717777777
C.C.C.G.S.
#307
II DIAL-A-RIDLlI # ##t
����������k#���
k##########l Munk#
�###-####����
�###iY####
���;�aE�k����������
6 L1 a JLJL � F � JL E LJL LJk
THIRD FLOOR
RECREATION DEPARTMENT
COMMON CITY USE
PaZma Avenue
0 - 0 - 0 O .O O _
l��°r9ii�llll illll; lllll
4-1
777
llllll��llrl lllll�lllll .O C O
SECOND F
ADMINISTRA
- TIVE SERVICES
- PUBLIC WORKS
+H-�++ - CITY MANAGER
Club
I Room I
1
Storage I
IItorage I Rotunda
Room II
L
)1:17—
ri
I
Kitchen I
LLL-7
J
FOURTH FLOOR
B..ASEMENT
J .C, 'S
�I
rT
l
i'
ll�I
' ,D , ST AGE S
TO-RA .
DIRT
BOILER SHOP
ci
E
1
1---CUSTODIAL - -
c Q a M
D .A. R. ST RAGE
• M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paull SSensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Amapoa-Tecorida (Azucena) Drainage Plan
DATE: March 5, 1986
Recommendation:
Staff proposes the following schedule of events to alleviate the drainage
problem at Azucena which is a critical low spot in the Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage
Basin.
Activity 1986-87
Azucena March April May June July August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec Jan-July
• Project
Receive Contour
Mapping
Call in Dev.
Fee Agrmts. XXXCXXXXX
Drainage Plan
Design
Determine
Cost, Est.
Financing
Advertise & XXX
Receive Bids XXX
Construction
XX=4
CONTINUE DRAINAGE STUDY
Drainage
Policy KXXXXKXXXXKXXXY
Develop Stds. / XXXXXXXXXXX
Existing System XXXXXXXXXXX
onto Mapping
r
1987-88 •
July June
Drainage Design Below Lake Contact Caltrans for.Participation
Construction Below Lake Spillway Outlet Work
Identify other Major Problem Areas Obtain Easements on Major Channels
Other
Background:
At it's last regular meeting Council directed staff to bring back a pro-
posed scheduling plan to correct the drainage problems in the Amapoa-Tecorida
Atascadero Lake Drainage Basin with an emphasis on the Azucena area.
History:
This area has a long history of problems that have been previously
identified and several approaches have been used to deal with development
ranging from a County moritorium on building to a City imposed development fee.
Nothing, however, has been attempted to solve the runoff problem until
early 1985. Several projects have not only agreed to put money into a fund,
but have made physical improvements on the property that fit into the overall
solution to the problem.
Discussion:
With the newly enacted specific Amapoa-Tecorida Development Fee, revenues
are assured as development occurs to finance corrective measures. Easements
will be necessary but it is anticipated that they will be easy to obtain. This
is one item, however, that could disturb the time schedule projections.
Fiscal Impact:
The streets in the area are for the most part paper streets or non-city
maintained. However, the fees are specific for the area and no general funds
will be used, with the exception of staff time, to solve the problem.
•
MA
2M � -3
TO: City Council March 10 , 1986
FROM: Mike Shelton
• SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION VACANCY
BACKGROUND:
Urgency Ordinance Number 101, adopted April 8, 1985, created a
seven (7) member Planning Commission with three (3) members
appointed for terms expiring on August 1, 1986 and four (4)
members appointed for terms expiring on August 1, 1988.
Section 2-9-05 of the Ordinance states that vacancies will be
filled by appointment of the City Council for the unexpired term.
Attached Resolution Number 37-85 made the following appointments
to the Commission:
One year terms which expire August 1, 1986 :
Thomas Hatchell
Nellie Kennedy
Wayne La Prade
Three year terms which will expire August 1, 1988 :
Jerry Bond
• Eric Michielssen
Ed Nolan
Carla Sanders
In making these appointments, the Council advertised and received
33 applications, of which 26 applicants were interviewed.
Attached is a letter by Carla Sanders resigning from the
Commission as she has moved to the City of San Luis Obispo.
COUNCIL ACTION
With the resignation of Commissioner Sanders, Council will be
requested to discuss the vacancy and give direction to staff as
you deem appropriate.
MS:kv
File: Mplancom
•
Y
REVISED
ORDINANCE NO. 101 •
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO AMENDING CHAPTER 9 OF TITLE 2 OF THE j
ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AND AMENDING CHAPTER 13 OF TITLE 2 OF
TFIE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE
RECREATION COMMISSION AND DECLARING THE URGENCY
The Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows:
Section 1. Sections 2-9.01 through 2-9.07 of Chapter 9 of Title 2
of the Atascadero Municipal Code, relating to the Planning Commission,
are hereby repealed.
Section 2 . Chapter 9 (Reorganized) is added to Title 2 of the
Atascadero Municipal Code, relating to the Planning Commission, to
read as follows:
CHAPTER 9. PLANNING COMMISSION (Reorganized)
Sec. 2-9.01 . Creation-. Composition.
There is created a Planning Commission for the City which
shall consist of seven (7) members who shall not be officials
or employees of the City, but who shall be residents of the
City.
Sec. 2-9.02 . Members: Appointment: Terms of office.
The City Council shall appoint the members of the Plan-
ning Commission. Three (3) members shall be appointed for
terms which shall expire on August 1, 1986 . Four (4) members
shall be appointed for terms which shall expire on August 1,
1988. Thereafter, all terms shall be for four (4) years and
shall expire four (4) years after August l of the date of the
appointment, except those appointments made after the commence-
ment of the term to fill a vacancy or removal , in which case
the term of office shall be for the balance of the unexpired
term.
Sec. 2-9.03 . Absence from meetings: Running for office
on City Council.
Absence of a member of the Planning Commission from three
(3) consecutive meetings, or from four (4) meetings during a
calendar year, without formal consent of the Planning Commis-
sion noted in its official minutes, shall be reported by the
the Planning Director to the City Council for consideration of
removal from office. If a member of the Planning Commission •
files for election as a member of any elective City office,
-1- AG:fr/3/29/85
ORDINANCE N0. w
Page 2
his term as Planning Commissioner shall terminate as of the
date of filing.
Sec. 2-9.04 . Members: Removal from office.
A member of the Planning Commission may be removed by a
majority vote of all of the members of the Council.
Sec, 2-9.05 . Vacancies.
A vacancy on the Planning Commission occurring by death,
resignation, removal, or any other cause before the expiration
of the term of the member shall be filled by appointment for
the unexpired term by the Council.
Sec, 2-9.06. Expenses.
Planning Commission members shall be entitled to remunera-
tion for expenses in accordance with the procedure approved by
resolution of the Council.
Sec. 2-9.07 . Powers, duties. and functions.
The powers, duties and Commis-
sion
, n functions of the Planning Commis
9
si.on shall be all those powers, duties and functions i
i P , t ons of a
Planning Commission and Board of
Zoning Adjustment ment as
Provided
in Chapters 3 and 4 of Title 7, commencing with Section 65100
of the Government Code of the State (the Planning and Zoning
Law) , as the same may be hereafter amended. The Planning
Com-
mission shall perform such other duties and
functions as may
be directed or designated e ed b the Council 9 y not inconsistent with
State law.
Sec. 2-9.08. Chairman: Rules: Rego ds and meetinQs.
As of August 1 annually, or as soon thereafter as is fea-
sible, the Planning Commission shall elect a chairman and a
vice chairman from among its members, shall adopt rules for
the transaction of business, shall keep a public record of its
resolutions, transactions, findings, and determinations, and
shall hold at least one (1) regular meeting each month.
Section 3 . Sections 2-13 . 01 through 2-13 . 12 of Chapter 13 of
Title 2 of the Atascadero Municipal Code, relating to the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board, are hereby repealed.
Section 4 . Chapter 13 (Reorganized) is added to Title 2 of the
Atascadero Municipal Code, relating to the Parks and Recreation Com-
mission, to read as follows:
't'CIL MEETING 5/13/85
AJE`,JA ITEM
NO, ; C - 1 -
E
RESOLUTION NO. 37-85
A RESOLUTION OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION
`I
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Ordinance No. 101 relating
to the establishment of a city planning commission; and
WHEREAS, public advertisements soliciting interest in appointment
to the planning commission have been published; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did receive 33 applications for consid-
eration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did, on April 29, 1985 , consider 26
candidates for appointment to the planning commission; and
WHEREAS, on May 6 , 1985 , City Council did vote for specific nomin-
ations to the planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does resolve
to make the following appointments to the planning commission:
1. Oneear terms which will expire pire August 1, 1986 :
a. Thomas Hatchell
b. Nellie Kennedy
C. Wayne LaPrade
3. Three year terms which will expire August 1, 1988 :
a. Jerry Bond
b. Eric Michielssen
C. Ed Nolan
d. Carla Sanders
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does further
resolve that this resolution shall take effect immediately.
On motion by Councilman Molina and seconded by Council-
woman Mackey , the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its
entirety by the following vote:
AYES: Councilwomen Mackey & Norris , Councilmen I:olina & Handshy and
Mayor Nelson
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
Resolution No. 37-85
ADOPTED: May 13 , 1985 n
By
ROLFE NELSPN, Mayor
)` City of Atascadero, California
ATTEST
ROBERT M. JONES-,---City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALLEN GRIMES, City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
MICHAEL SHELTON, City Manager
PREPARED BY:
HENRY EN�EN, Pl�anhing Director
2
Mr. Henry Kneen V-'.R 5
Atasca, iero City .Hall CITY MGR.
Dear iir. Engen,
i'laase a.cceA isy resi -nation _"Cil tho ALasca:!ero il:a,ilain ,
Com—,issicn, as I no lcn :�r reside in tip cit,,, c1 _,tlasca. pro.
In offering my resi nation, I :7ould also ilio to o:=:-)res;i .iiiat a
1ea, suro 1 v _<a.s been to .dor . .vi t i jou an,-.
11 t.1� t J as r I r, -,en vvey 1'l i ess(�41 .:'i L c all
1 e ;a s ., i i1 c..Y :)a„�� _. „ .i a.S:i 1 v 11 a, Sri
and coolera.ticu s.)oyn to the d-lannin co:' .Assio11 , Joel
Moses, il.e,'r Morris an"' Roue Davidson.
Cincere',.
Carla :;a3i; ers
I,
MEMORANDUM
• TO: City Council
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Sewer Charges - Amendment Ordinance
DATE: March 6, 1986
Recommendation:
Staff recommends passage of Ordinance No. 121 amending certain
sections of the ACSD Ordinance Code and establishing new connection
charges.
Background:
Enclosed is the staff report regarding the fee changes and
policy statements.
Discussion:
Council directed staff to bring back the above ordinance based
on the staff report with the following changes:
a) That vacant lots not rezoned or split or changed in use since
the formation of Improvement District No. 1, or those paying
the stand-by charge that have been given a 12 month grace
period have an effective date of July 1, 1986 as proposed.
(Items 5 thru 7 on pg . 13 of the report) ;
b) That all other categories have an effective date of 30 days
after passage. (Items 1 thru 4 or other possible scenarios. )
c) That the designated Cease and Desist area and adjacent areas
covered by a Health Officers Letter be exempt from the new
fees, but will pay the old fees.
Fiscal Impact:
The new charges are expected to raise $1, 700 , 00 within
Improvement District No. 1 and $2,398 , 643 outside Improvement District
No. 1, but inside the ACSD or Urban Services Line, during the build-
out time of the respective areas. No figures have been estimated for
areas outside the USL that may be annexed in the future.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Directors
THROUGH: Mike Shelton, City Manager
FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Revision of Sewer Charges - Addition of Connection Fee
DATE: February 6, 1986
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Board of Directors approve the
suggested changes in sewer fees, designate the distribution of sewer
rates, and adopt suggested policies as explained in detail in this
report. It is recommended that all changes go into effect July 11
1986.
Background -
At the January 27 regular meeting the Board received the Sewer
Study prepared by John L. Wallace and Associates of San Luis Obispo.
The study recognized the problem areas of the wastewater sewer system
® and the treatment plant., suggested broad spectrum improvements, es�
ablished the need for an Inflow and Infiltration (I & I) analysis at.
presented a range of costs for the suggested improvements. Ad-
ditionally, the need for a sewer connection fee was established and it
was recommended that the Board proceed immediately with management
plans to combat anticipated changes in the sewer system in-
frastructure.
Growth
Growth within Improvement District No. 1 has been rapid and is
. above past projections. The need for design changes in the original
plans , underestimated I & I and the shift in economical parameters has
continued and will continue to place a burden on the customers within
the District.
Growth outside Improvement District No. 1 has been slow but
recent annexations show a demonstrative impact on the system and are
being, and should continue to be, mitigated by appropriated fees or
improvements.
Only 22 annexations occurred between 1964 and 1979 and con-
sidering use, this equates to less than 2 units per year . From 1979
to 1986 there have been 32 single family, 56 mobile home, and 104
apartments annexed to Improvement District No. 1, or about 28 units'
per year . The District has realized approximately $145 , 000 ie
annexation fees from these developments to buy into the system.
Other annexations on the books but not constructed includ
two projects consisting of 436 apartment units. The in-li
assessment fees for these units will amount to $344 , 100 , not includin
approximately $350 , 000 from the Bordeaux project that was conditioned
for specific impact as allowed by Seciton 4.13 of the ACSD Con-
solidated Ordinances.
History of Financing ACSD:
The bonding capacity of the ACSD is $23 ,108 , 000. A portion
(approximately 32%) has been utilized as follows:
The Traffic Way Activated Sludge Treatment Plant was
constructed in June of 1969. General Obligation Bonds were issued on
$665,000 for 30 years at 6% interest. This amount is being paid back
through assessments which are based on a pre-proposition 13 ad valorem
tax of 0 .023 per $100 valuation of property. This debt will be paid
off at about the projected buildout year . Post proposition 13 lot
splits or annexations are not subject to this payment.
The Improvement District No. 1 (hereinafter I.D. No. 1)
sewers and lift stations were completed in September of 1971. Assess-
ment Bonds were issued on $3, 010 , 869 . 07 for 20 years at 7% interest.
This amount is being paid back through assessments based upon a com-
plicated, controversial, yet workable and fair assessment formula.
Each property has a specific assessment differing from the others but
the average assessment is about $2536 per lot. This debt will be pal
off prior to the projected buildout year . Lot splits , use changes an
annexations pay in-leiu or substitute onetime payments which do not
reduce this debt but go toward expansion of the system to help protect
availability of service for those original I.D. No. 1 lots.
The new Aeriated Laaoons Treatment Plant adjacent to the Salinas
River was constructed in 1981 and completed its first year of full
operation in 1984. Revenue Bonds were issued on $1, 300 , 000 and a 40
year FmHA loan at 5% interest was awarded to finance the bonds. (The
actual cost was $3 , 678 , 900 , but a joint LPA, RWQCB grant was awarded
for the balance) Sewer customer rates are used to pay back this debt
at $76 , 000 per year . All new customers contribute to this payment but
of course are not expected to make up for the years when they were not
connected. There is an availability rate, however , that is being
charged at $7 per month to help equalize this difference recognizing
that the non-connected lot does not have an impact on operation and
maintenance. (O & M)
The new treatment plant was needed not because of annexations
but because the growth within I .D. No. 1 would reach its capacity of
0. 833 mgd by 1980 . And , amongst other things , the noise and odor in
the downtown area was intolerable and the solids handling system was
badly overloaded.
The recently predicted improvements based on the Wallace Sewer
Study and the update estimate for the cost of new annexation impacts
are currently being triggered and the financing of such are a subject
of this report.
2 C�
Explanation of Revenue Sources:
Within I.D. No. 1: _
A Permit Fee of $5 is charged upon application to those in I .D.
No. 1, including annexations or lot splits. This fee is intended to
help offset the clerical costs of handling the permit. (In the summary
table this will be called [D] )
A Connection Fee of $250 is charged for the physical connection
to the sewer lines and is borne by all who have not previously covered
this charge in their assessments or otherwise. This charge is in-
tended to offset the labor and materials necessary to provide a tap to
the mainline from a building sewer . It is herein recommended that
this charge be hereafter called a Tap Charge. (In the summary table
this will be called [C] )
A Lot Split or Use Change Fee is charged for all lot splits
within I .D. No. 1. The fee was intended to be similar to the In-Leiu
fee discussed below, but for simplicity was calculated on the basis
of plant replacement. The cost of the new plant as outlined in form 5
of the Revenue Program for the EPA grant and the assumed parameters of
3. 2 persons per household and 3. 0 per apartment were used as the
acceptable estimates at that time. The results of those calculations
produced a fee of: $850 for single-family, $725 per each apartment,
$660 per each mobile home and $26 . 35 per fixture unit for commercial
and industrial uses. (In the summary table this will be called 131 ) .
Annexations to I.D. No. 1: (Fees in addition to the charges 0
I.D. No. 1)
An In-Leiu Assessment Fee is charged for any annexation.
This fee was previously calculated on the same basis as the original
assessments with a credit given for actual expenditures for line ex-
tension to the lot. This method was obviously intended as a
buy-in to the system with the balance collected as a fair share
of the oversizing of lines and the cost of lift stations . This is
not, however , entirely equitable since the original assessments were
based on 1980 costs and the in-leiu fee does not contain a cost index
clause.
This fee was later replaced by a fixed fee which was calculated
as described in the Lot Split fee discussion above. Although the cost
of the existing plant was used in the calculations for simplification
and although the money went to the facilities fund and not to decrease
the actual debt, the intent of the fee was for maintaining a place in
the system for those in I .D. No. 1. This "buy-in" :Honey will go toward
plant or line expansion but does not take into account he buildout of
the ACSD and to actual cost of expansion based on the potential number
of new customers.
It is felt that not only should this in-leiu fee he collected
as a "buy-in" to help offset the i;^o_ act on the existinq system
which a portion was paid for only by the original I . D. No. 1 parcels
but that an annexation fee be high enough to .3uoport future facility
improvement as referenced later . It is suggested that this be called
3 �, �
• •
an Annexation Fee and recalculated as discussed later in this report
(In the Summary this fee will be called [B] ; 0
In addition to the above a $70 fee has recently been added to
southside developments as allowed by section 4 . 13 of the ACSD Con-
solidated Ordinances to offset lift station upgrading. This fee will
be consumed in the newly proposed annexation fee to simplify
calculations. Since improvements will be provided based upon the pro-
ximity of actual growth, coupled with the fact that the southside is
rapidly developing relative to other areas, there is little change for
inequities in the new approach.
Summary of Fees
[A] New Fee established in this Report
[B] Annexation Fee, or Lot Split or Use Change Fee, as Revised
[C] Tap Charge
[D] Permit Fee
Rates:
All customers are charged a monthly rate which is payable
annually and is collected on the tax roles. Different uses are
assigned different rates as established in the Revenue Program as part
of the EPA grant for the new treatment plant.
Form 8 of the above reference outlines the amount of money
necessary to be collected for Operations and Maintenance (0 & M) , Deb*
Service and Capital Outlay:
0 & M $350 , 000/yr or 67% of the rates
Debt Service 76 , 000/yr or 14 . 6% of the rates
Capital Outlay 96 , 000/yr or 18 . 4% of the rates
While this money is appropriately collected and distributed
accordingly for 0 & M and Debt Service , the Capital Outlay loses its
identity in the sewer fund. It is recommended that the ordinance be
amended to specifically allocate $76 , 000 for debt service and that 0 &
M and Capital Outlay keep their current proportions to each other ,
i.e. Capital Outlay is 27% of 0 & M,and that that money be placed in a
sinking fund with other monies intended for replacement or expansion
of facilities. `
Exnlanation of Expenditures
Pay off of General Obligation Bonds - $665 , 000
Pay off of F:^HA Loan (Assessment Bonds) - $3 , 010 . 369
Pay off of Revenue Bonds - $1 , 300 , 000
0 & M $350 , 000/year (presently)
Capital Outlay - 596 , 000/year ( from rates)
Sinking Fund - `7ewly Collected sewer charges and Annexation Fees
'feeds: - (Reference : Wallace Sewer Study and Engineering Science ' s
Facilities Plan)
Within I. D. ',,Io. 1:
4 i r
Replace Existing Sewers and Manholes $1, 030 , 000
Upgrade Pump Stations 142, 000 '
I & I Analysis and Aleviation Projects 274 , 300
Total Needs (1985$$) $1 , 446 , 300
Total Needs (1990$$) 1, 845 , 886
There are eleven (11) surcharged pipe segments in I.D. No. 1
and upon buildout of I.D. No. 1 without regard to annexations , there
will be thirty three (33) . I & I represents 20% of the average dry
flow, which is double the assumption used in the plant design. It
is anticipated that all new customers share in the above costs with
exceptions as shown in the summary table and that the money from the
the new sewer connection fee be placed in a sinking fund for capital
improvements.
Assuming that the $96 , 000 per year is used to upgrade the ex-
isting facilities due to normal deterioration and depreciation, this
money is not available for the above work . The Bordeaux money
($350 , 000) will reduce the need when paid but fees will be calculated
on total needs since bordeaux impacts the the total needs. Annexation
fees collected in the last several years (assuming to July, 1986) ,
amount to about $143 , 480 . Now annexation fees will go into a sinking
fund but are theoretically for plant and facility expansion not in-
cluded above. Cease and Desist areas may contribute to the above
depending upon when they connect to the system and upon what fees
are then applicable. Subtracting the $143 , 480 from the 1990 total
the realistic need is reduced to $1. 7 million, including design
of facilities upgrade.
m
Annexations:
The needs will be based on the amount of flow that will come
from the ultimate sewered population. That flow will be como_ ared with
the present design flow and proportioned to the replacement cost of
the present treatment facility. These assumptions recognize that sub-
stitutions such as lift station expansion and treatment plant ex-
pansion may set the basis for the actual expenditure of the annexation
monies , but the end result will meet the intention of the fees.
The new annexation fee will be a combination of the above
mitigation and the previous in-leiu fee discussed earlier .
Exolanation of 5oun6aries :
There are seven boundaries recognized in this and other such
reports, directly or indirectly, and deserve mention here.
atascadero Colonv ( 1913) - The Colony laid out by founder -
E.G. Lewis !This boundary is not a political boundary and is only
major significance when plaving the road game nuzzle , •.which is n
the pleasure of this report . ) The area emcompased by this line is
approximately 38 sq. miles or 24 , 320 acres.
5
F
�.a
Citv of Atascadero Corporation Line (1979) - The city is withi
the Atascadero Colony with the exception of the new wastewater trea t
ment plant, the "Holiday Inn Site" and a few scatterings in the south-
east section. The area of the City is about 26 sq. miles or 16, 640
acres.
Urban Reserve Line - This is a county planning line that
simulates the ultimate urban community and was laid prior to the in-
corporation of the city. This line is only significant in that
estimates for the ultimate sewered copulation are taken from this
area. The area within this boundary is about 14 , 000 acres ( 21. 88 sq.
miles) This lines crosses over the Colony line in the area of the
State Hospital.
Atascadero County Sanitation District (1956) - This boundary
(ACSD) was formed as means of establishing bonding capabilities under
the Health and Safety Code. It replaced the Perkins Sewer Maintenance
District and the Atascadero Sanitary District which were later dis-
solved. The ACSD is comprised of approximately 3620 acres and is en-
tirely within the City Limits. This line will dissolve upon
completion of the final EPA-RWQCB audit which has officially begun,
but will not see much action until March. It is expected to be
dissolved by late 1986 , almost exactly 30 years after its inception.
Work in this report has anticipated the dissolving of this line and a
final revision of the sewer ordinance will be made when the sewer
system becomes a division of the City Department of Public Works.
Urban Services Line (1979) - This line (USL) is
a figment o
1-0
the General Plan of the city and delineates the area which is intended
to be more urban in nature than the remainder of the City and within
which, amongst other services , sewer service is provided . This area
is approximately the same as the ACSD (but is outside the ACSD) north
of San Jacinto and east of Santa Ysabel but is inside the ACSD west
of Santa Rosa. This line will serve a purpose similar to the ACSD in
delineating future additions (annexations) to the City Sewer System
(I .D. No. 1) when the ACSD dissolves , but will not have special
financing capabilities under the Health and Safety Code.
Improvement District No. 1 (1969) This line represents
Assessment District No. 1 which encompases most of the present sewered
area within the ACSD but has had two group annexations (Assessment
District No. 2 and Assessment District No. 3) , along with several
single annexations discussed previously. There are about 2162 acres
in the original I . D. No 1 , the buildout of which is the subject of the
Wallace Sewer Study. This line will have sianificance for debt
service to the gear 2021 unless the ^mHA loan is either paid off
earlier or unforseen legal complications enter the picture.
Cease and Desist Boundaries - These boundaries delineate major
sewer proolem areas scattered throughout the City. all are within the
City but some are outside the ACSD and some are outside the 'JSL.
These boundaries are expected to exist until the sewers are Cit,-,, eve.
mo.provided . The Cit,-,, is presently under an Order to sewer threee o.
these areas by 'November of 1986 .
6
New Sewer Connection Fee (A)
The buildout of the area within I .D. No 1 is expected to produce
1. 86 mgd. Currently the wet weather flow is 1. 03 mgd (wet weather
flow is typically used to calculate sewer pipe sizes and lift station
capacities, which constitute the bulk of the recommended improvements.
Dry Flow is used for treatment plant design with emergency measures
provided for wet weather flow) .
The future flow increase is therefore 830 , 000 gpd.
There are 6231 units predicted in I .D. No. 1 buildout as compared
to 3278 currently. Therefore 2958 units are expected to produce
830 , 000 gpd. Assumptions are based on residential single family.
Large Commercial and Industrial uses would be scrutinized by the new
computer program at the time of application as their flows are
difficult to impossible to anticipate in planning.
Then, 830 , 000 gpd divided by 2958 residences equals 280 gpd/
residence. Also, 10 gallons per day per plumbing fixture unit hs been
used in past calculations. Therefore, a single family unit is ex-
pected to be equivalent to 28 fixture units. The 280 gpd compares with
fixture units per residence to calculate flow. These two changes
result from a reduction in water use through conservation or reduction
in family size not experienced by this writer.
The cost for the needs outlined has been derived to be $
million.
$1, 700 , 000 _ 830 , 000 gpd = $2. 05/gpd
$2. 05 X 10 gpd = $20 . 50 per F.U.
Single Family Residence:
28 F.U. X $20 . 50/F.U. _ $573 . 49/Residence
Multiple Family:
Keeping relative to the initial design, 300 and or 30 F.U.
should be proportioned to the newly predicted flows based on actual
usage. Therefore,
30 X 28 = 26 . 35 call 26 F.U. or 260 gpd/apt. unit
32
Then, 26 F.U. X $20 . 50/F.U. =5533 per apartment nit
Mobile Home:
Again, keeping proportionate to the original design,
25 X 28 = 21. 88 call 22 F.U. or 220 god
Then, 22 F.U. X $20 . 50 = $451 per mobile unit
Commercial, Industrial and Other Non-RAsidential:
Use- $20 . 50 per Fixture Unit
Adjustment to Annexation Fee (B)
In place of the in-leiu fee previously discussed, future plant
expansion or system expansion will be covered by the annexation fee.
The ultimate sewered population is expected to be 22 , 500. The
projected sewered population for I .D. No. 1 is 17 , 073 . Therefore,
5427 people are expected to join into the system from outside I .D.
No. 1 about the time the I.D. No. 1 is saturated. Using 2. 74 people
per unit as used in the Sewer Study, then 5427 - 2. 74 = 1981 units
which should complete the annexations, an ultimate increase of 32% .
Then, 1981 X 280 gpd = 555 ,753 gpd added flow. If the 1. 4
mgd plant cost $3 , 678 , 900 in 1980 then the assumed cost to handle
the increased flow for 1990 improvements is:
. 56 X 3, 678 , 900 X 1. 63 (Inflation factor, using 10 years @ 5%)
1.4 = $2, 398 , 643
Then $2,398, 643 _ 555 , 753 gpds = $4. 32/gpd
Single Family:
280 gpd X $4. 32 = $1, 210 per residence
Multifamily:
260 gpd X $4. 32 = $1, 123 . 20 Der unit
Mobile Units:
220 gpd X $4 . 32 = $ 950 . 40 Der unit
Commercial, Industrial and Other Non-Residential :
10 gpd X $4. 32 = $43. 20 per Fixture Unit
Su=ary of Fees : - Proposed
Use / Fee I [A] Sewer Conn. Fee I [B] Annex. Fee
[Cl Tap Char:.e [D] Permit Fee
Single Family S573/unit S 1,210/unit S250/each j SS/each
MultiFamily $533/unit I S 1,123/unit S250/each i SS/each
Mobile Home $451/unit S 950/unit 5250/each � '�5/oach
Commercial $20.50/F.U. S =+3.20/F.[ . S250/each � /each
T-Then Pavable: Upon Connection Upon anp. I Upon Conn. :'non :1np.
i Rates: See Rate Table in ordinance - It is not anticipated that rates wi11
increase in the near future.
n
` V
Scenarios for Future Connection:
(1) Presently outside the ACSD or USL or Inside the ACSD, but
outside I .D. No. 1, Not previously annexed.
Recommendations: Require annexation approval
Pay all fees when applicable
Pay all extension costs
(2) Inside ACSD,but outside I.D. No. 1 and previously annexed
but not connected.
Recommendations: Require connection within 12 months
from effective date of the new fees
or annexation is void.
Pay all extension costs
To include all previous annexations to
I.D. No. 1
Pay all fees.
(3) Inside ACSD, outside I.D. No. 1, but sewer available .
Recommendations : Require connection within 1-2 months of
the effective date of the new fees if
lot is not vacant.
Pay all fees when applicable
Pav all extension costs
Sewer be deemed available and subject
to violations.
(4) Inside I .D. No. 1 Lot Splits or Re-Zone or Use Change
Recommendations : Pay all fees for rezoning or Use change
when applicable
For lot splits , both will pay sewer
connection fee but only one will pav the
Annexation Fee .
(5) Inside I.D. No. 1, Sewer Available, but Building not
connected within the required 24 month period.
Recommendations: Pav all fees within 12 months.
Grant a 12 month grace period to connect
without beinq fined for the violation.
(This could be as many as 100 parcels)
(6) Inside I .D. No. 1, Vacant Lot, Sewer available.
Recommendations : This category to not include previous
annexations.
'_dot pav the annexation fee but ?fav the
sewer connection charge.
_ q
(7) Inside I.D. No. 1, Vacant Lot, Sewer Not Available, (Rare
case)
Recommendations: Pay all fees when they become applicable.
Sewer Availabilitv: (Mentioned because pertinent to above scenarios)
Sewer Ordinance Sections 3. 1 through 3. 5 govern sewer
availability.
Section 3.1 For the purposes of this Article a public sewer
shall be deemed to be available to a building if said sewer is in-
stalled in a public right of way or easement adjacent to the lot upon
which said building is located.
Section 3. 2 Pursuant to authority of Health and Safetv Code
Section 4762, the Board of Directors hereby finds and declares the
maintenance or use of cesspools and other local means of sewage dis-
posal within the District constitute a public nuisance, and finds it
to be in the public interest that properties to which a public sewer
is available be required to connect thereto.
Section 3. 3 When a public Sewer becomes available to a building
served by a private sewage disposal system, said building shall be
connected to the public sewer within twenty-four (24) months after
said public sewer is available and said orivate disposal system shal"
be abandoned in accordance with the 1982 edition of the Unifors,
Plumbing Code, unless a variance is granted by the Board of Directors.
Section 3. 4 Any newly-constructed building to which a public
sewer is available shall be connected to said _public sewer prior to
its use for human occupancy, unless a variance is granted by t!_- Board
of Directors.
Section 3 . 5 Variances referred to in Section 3. 3 and 3. 4 may
be granted upon written application to the Board of Directors by the
applicant setting forth the basis for such request. Variances may be
granted only upon affirmative showing that no health 'hazard, public
nuisance , or inequity to other property owners will result therefrom.
Po1icv:
Previous Policy. Seven policy statements were adopted in "983 .
They are as follows:
1. All sewer main extensions are to be funded by those requesting
annexation.
2. Annexations must be contiguous to the existing Improvement
District.
3. In consideration of the annexation request, the proponen
shall be required to furnish an engineer ' s evaluation
adequacy of existing sewer mains affected by the service ex-
tension. This would include an evaluation of the downstream
line capacities as well as any possible upgrading of existing
lift stations.
4. Ongoing service to the annexed areas shall not require
substantially higher costs than other areas presently
served. Typical of the consideration would be a need for
additional sewer lift stations.
5. Annexations will be processed as outlined in Article 8 of
the Sanitation District Ordinance.
6. Annexation fees, based on use, will be due and payable prior
to any sewer connection in the annexed area.
7. Should the proponent of the annexation wish to receive
reimbursement for any sewer main extensions by those
connecting within the annexed area, then the propnent whall
file a reimbursement map with the City upon completion of
the extension.
Suggested Changes in Current Policy:
The above referenced statements are recommended to be chanced
as follows:
2. Add. For problem sewer areas the governing body may annex
public areas to provide continuity.
3. Delete . "proponent shall be required to" and replace with,
"the City Engineer may. "
5. Add. "As amended"
6 . Revise to read : Annexation fees, based on use, will be due
and payable upon application for annexation or lot splits
or use change or rezoning .
New Policy Proposals :
It is recommended that the Board adopt the following policies
in addition to the above:
8 . Annexations become void if connection is not made within
12 months of apolication, and Fees •.gill be ceemod forteited.
Reapplication will require new fees.
9 . Within the ACSD if sewer is available on the boundary of
T_ . D. No. 1, it be deemed available to the lots outside
of I .D. No. 1 as well as those inside.
11
10. Sewer Connection Fees and Tap Charge be paid upon connection.
11. Sewer lines be brought g to the far property line unless other-
wise approved by the Director of Public Works on perimeter
or problem lots where future extensions are not practicable.
12. Condominiums be considered the same as Single Family.
13. Change of use from Apartments to Condominiums to pay the
difference in Single Family and MultiFamily fees upon
application. Rates will likewise be adjusted.
14. Change of Use from one Commercial use to another to pay
the difference in fees per fixture unit. Rates will
likewise be adjusted.
15. User Rates be designated in the proportion outlined in the
Revenue Program for the EPA-RWQCB grant and allocated to
appropriate accounting funds respective to their intended
use.
Timing - Effective Date:
It is recommended that the effective date of the suggested fees
and policies contained in this report be effective July 1, 1985 , the
start of the next fiscal year . This date will also be timely with
other proposed development fees and will provide adequate time fo
financial planning for development.
Fiscal Impact:
The fees suggested herein will provide adquate funding for the
proper management of present and future capital improvement needs.
Although the projects would be anticipated by 1990 , fees are based on
buildout and the Board may want to utilize its bonding capabilities as
long as it is available. Operation and 'Maintenance costs generally
increase due to cost index rise and expansion of service levels as the
system buildsout. Rates are not anticipated to be increased in the
near future. The debt service portion of the rates is fixed for 40
years, but the capital improvement costs may rise due to deterioration
depreciation and telemetering of lift stations and may require ad-
justment periodically in the same manner as does 0 « M.
2
i.
7 .
Summary Table of Fee Recommendations:
Applicable Scenario Proposed Fees Total Cost for Old Fees Notes
(max. case) Single Familv
t^as)
(1) Presently outside A,B,C,D $29038 B,C,D Requires approval
ACSD, USL or inside ACSD of annexation by
but outside ID #1, not governing body
previously annexed
(2) Inside ACSD, but out- A,B,C,D $2,038 B,C,D Requires conn.
side ID 1, previously within 12 mo or
annexed but not connected void.
('3) Inside ACSD, outside A,B,C,D $29038 B,C,D reouires conn.
I.D. #1,but sewer avail. within 12 mos.
or violation
(4) Inside Z.D. -F1, Lot A*B*C,D (2 conn.) B,C,D *One lot to pay B
Split, Re-Zone, Use Chg. $2,366 Both to pay A
Treated like
annexation.
(5) Inside I.D. 1, Sewer A,B,C,D $2,038. C,D iGrant 12 mo grace
Available, building not
period ;w/o fine
connected :within reqd 24
month period.
i
(6) Inside I.O. 1, vacant A,C,D S 828** C,D not to include
lot, sewer available ( previous annex.
I
(7) Inside Z.D. _`1, vacant A,B,C,D $2,038 C,D
lot, sewer not avail.
i
.,.ote:
`* ror the typical Single family zoned vacant lot in I.D. No. 1, .,hich has
an ex.istinz sewer lateral, t o total fees will equal 5578.
13
Conclusion:
Adoption of the above fees andP olicies will provide a first-come
first-serve pay-as-you-go system (although financing tools will be
necessary) which will not need to bar future users from service inside
or outside the I .D. No. 1.
References:
Capacity Analysis and Evaluation of the ACSD Wastewater Treatment
and Collection System, John L. Wallace & Assoc. November 1985
Facilities Plan Wastewater Treatment Alternatives, Engineering
Science, November 1977
LAFCO Report
ACSD Revenue Program - CWG Project No. C-06-1324-110
Attachments:
Map of Boundaries
Bar Chart of Comparison of Single Family Residence Total
Development Fees
ACSD Consolidated ordinances
Memorandum: Proposed Policies for Sewer Annexation,
Larry McPherson, November 1983
Excerpts from ACSD Revenue Program
r" oc w
. SRI cP� W Q
LLI
u]
LUQIL
a
f
® w
ce 4-
• -Wfrl
o
Lp
co
Ln
i
�1
m
Q "R •� 1 N t
Gooft
i
ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATIQ:1 DISTRICT _
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
STATE OF CLAIFORNIA
ORDINANCE NO. 121
AN ORDINANCE ArENDINIG a,'D ADDING
CERTAIN SECTIONS OF T'-TE
ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DIST'?_ICT ORDINANCE CODE
The Board of Directors of the Atascadero County Sanitation
District ordains as follows :
SECTION 1 : Article 2 of tr_e Atascadero County
Sanitation District Ordinance Code is amendef' to add Sections 2 . 38 ,
2 ,39 , and 2. 40 as follows :
"2. 38 . ' SMf�TER TAP CHARGE' : - a charge by the Sewer
District for the actual physical connection from a
building sewer to the main-line sewer. "
"2 . 39. ' SEIER CONNECTION CHAR''E ' : - the charge levied
by the Atascadero Sanitation =)istrict for connection
to the main-line sewer. "
"2 . 40 . ' Condominium Unit ' : - a resi: ence occupied or
suitab e -or occupancy in whole or in part as a home
or living quarters either permanently or temporarily
by a single-family, their guests and servants , but
not including an apartment or other unit of multiple-
family dwelling as defined herein. "
SECTIO? 2 : Section 4 . 4 of the Atascadero County
Sanitation District Ordinance Code is amended to read as follows :
"4 . 4 . The following fees shall be charged for sewer
permits :
(1) When the work to be performed involves the
connection of a building sewer to the public
sewer , the fees shall be five ($5 . 00) dollars .
(2) When any portion of the work to be perform-
ed is within the limits of a public right-of-
way or public sewer easement , ar encroachment
permit shall be obtained from the Public [-forks
Department of the City of Atascadero , the appli-
cant shall pay such fees as shall be set by the
Council of the City of Atascadero .
• -1-
(3) The applicant shall pay the following
sewer connection fees according to the Cate-
gory of building sewer :
(a) $573 . 00 per unit for single-family
residences ;
(b) $533 . 00 per unit for multi-family
residences ;
(c) $451. 00 per unit for mobil homes ;
(d) $20 . 50 per fixture unit for commer-
cial, industrial and other non-residen-
tial units . "
SECTION 3 : Section 4 . 7 of the Atascadero
County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is amended to read as
follows :
"4 . 7 . For each connection of a building sewer to a public
sewer , a ' sewer tap charge ' shall be collected by the
District before the permit for the construction is issued. "
SECTION 4 : Section 4 . 8 of the Atascadero
County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is amended to read as 0
follows :
"4 . 8. A ' sewer tap charge' in the amount of $250 . 00
shall be charged for each physical connection to the
public sewer except that:
(1) No charge shall be made when the owner of
the lot has already paid for lateral sewer in-
stallation by assessment or otherwise;
(2) No charge shall be made when a "T" fitting
has already been installed at the public sewer
at the property owner' s expense , and the lateral
sewer is to be installed from said fitting. "
SECTION 5 : Section 4 . 9 of the Atascadero
County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is added to read as
follows :
"4 . 9. Any parcel which was assessed during an Improve-
ment District Assessment proceeding for a collection
system, but on which the assessment was not paid
because the parcel was deeded to the State for non-
payment of taxes , shall incur an additional sewer con-
-2-
nection fee equal to the particular assessment
involved for that parcel , at the rate established
pursuant to this Ordinance . "
SECTION 6 : Section 4 . 10 of the Atascadero
County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is added to read as
follows :
4 . 10 . There s'-.all be a sewer connection fee charged
to each and every unit served based upon the follow-
ing applicable category. The fee shall be paid at the
time the permit for sewer connection is issued:
(a) $573 . 00 per unit for asingle-family lot;
(b) $533 . 00 per unit for a multi-family lot;
(c) $451 . 00 per mobile 'some unit for a mobile
home park;
(d) $20 . 50 per fixture unit for a commercial ,
industrial or non-industrial use lot . "
SECTION 7 : A new Section 4 . 11 of the Atascadero
County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is added to read as follows :
"4 . 11 . In addition to such fees as shall be assessed
Z
or sewer connection and sewer taps , applications for
sewer service shall be assessed a sewer annexation fee ,
subject to the exceptions and applications of Section
4 . 12 , as follows :
(a) $1 ,210 . 00 for a single-family lot;
(b) $1 , 123 . 00 per living unit for a multi-
family lot;
(c) $950 . 00 per mobile home unit for a mobile
home park;
(d) $43 . 20 per plumbing fixture as defined
in the 1982 Edition of the Uniform Plumbing
Code , for a commercial , industrial , non-resi-
dential lot . "
SECTION 8 : A new Section 4 . 12 of the Atascadero
County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is added , and the pre-
vious Section 4 . 12 is deleted, the new to read as follows :
-3-
"4. 12. emption to and applicati of annexation
fees wi be as follows : _--
(1) A vacant lot presently inside Improvement
District Number 1 where sewer is available ,
will be exempt from payment of an annexation _
fee.
(2) Where a lot inside Improvement District
Number 1 is subject to a lot-split , and the
annexation fee has not been previously paid,
the applicant shall pay an annexation fee for
one lot only, in addition to such other fees
as shall be required according to the Atascadero
County Sanitation District Ordinance Code. "
M Areas designated Cease and Desist and adjacent
areas covered by a Health Officers Letter will be
exempt from new charges and increase in annexation
fees, but will pay the fees in effect prior to
passage of this amendment ordinance
SECTION j: A new Section 4 . 16 of the Atascadero
County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is added to read as follows :
"4 . 16. Fees assessed pursuant to this Article IV for
annexations and permits shall be payable at the time
of the application for annexation and permit , and fees
for the sewer connection and tap charge shall be pay-
able upon actual connection o` the building sewer to
the Atascadero County Sanitation District. "
SECTION 10 : Section 4 . 17 is hereby added to
the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code to read
as follows :
"4 . 17 . In the event of a re-zone of a lot or change of
use , applicant for a building sewer shall pay such fees
as shall be required pursuant to this Article IV, in-
cluding sewer connection, annexation tap charge , and
permit fee , except that such annexation fee may be
waived if previously paid and the applicant has connect-
ed to the sewer within a timely manner pursuant to this
Ordinance Code. "
SECTION 11 : Section 5 . 1 (3) of the Atascadero
County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is amended to read as
follows :
"5 . 1 (3) . The person requesting said extension shall ex-
ecute and file a written Sewer Extension performance
Agreement the terms of which shall be subject to approval
by the District Board, wherebv said person agrees to
complete all required improvements at his expense and to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer , within the time
period specified within the agreement. Said person
-4-
further agrees to provide the City Engineer with a
detailed cost break-down of his actual expenditures
for any improvements authorized in the agreement . The
agreement shall also provide for inspection by the
City Engineer, or his designated representative , of
all improvements , and reimbursement of the District
by the requestor, for the costs of the inspection. The
District will invoice the requestor for such inspection
costs and any amount unpaid thirty (30) days from the
date of the District ' s invoice shall bear interest at
ten (10%) percent per annum beginning within thirty
(30) days after the date of the invoice . The Sewer
Extension Performance Agreement may also provide : (1)
for the construction of the improvements and units ; and
(2) for an extension of the time under conditions that
are unspecified. No extension of time shall be granted
except upon certification by the City Engineer that
such extension is justified, and upon approval of the
Board of Directors . In addition to the requirements of
this Section 5 . 1 (3) said person shall provide the District
with a bond or other suitable security as deemed appro-
priate by the City Attorney not to exceed fifty (50%)
percent of the cost of improvements . The District Board
may waive such requirements for a bond at its option. "
SECTIO? 12 : Sections 8. 3 , 8 . 4 , 8. 5 , and 8 . 6 of
the Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code are hereby
deleted. A new Section 8. 3 is hereby added to the Atascadero County
Sanitation District Ordinance Code to read as follows :
"8. 3 . The annexation fees shall be paid before a permit
is issued for a sewer connection pursuant to this Article
in that amount as set forth in Article IV. For the pur-
poses of this Article , lot splits or changes in uses of
lots shall be considered an annexation for the payment of
the annexation fee.
SECTION 1-3 : Section 11 . 9 of the Atascadero
County Sanitation District Ordinance Code is hereby added to read
as follows :
"11 . 9 . The revenues derived from the rate set forth in
Article XI of this Ordinance Code , sr.all be allocated
to specific categories in such amounts and percentages
as follows :
(a) The annual sum of $76 , 000 . 00 shall be alloca-
ted to debt service on existing bonded indebted-
ness of the District .
(b) Seventy-three (73%) percent of the revenues
derived from sewer service rates shall be allocated
to operation and the maintenance fund of the Dis-
trict .
-5-
(c) Twenty-Seven (27%) percent of the revenues
derived from the sewer service rates shall be _
allocated for replacement or expansion of facil-
ities in the District.
SECTION 14 : Article 12 of the Atascadero County
Sanitation District Ordinance Code is hereby amended and a new
Article 12 shall read as follows :
"The former Article 12 shall be renumbered as Article
13 .
ARTICLE 12 = POLICY STATEriENTS
The following Policy Statements are hereby adopted by the
Atascadero County Sanitation District Board to be a part of the
Atascadero County Sanitation District Ordinance Code:
1 . All sewer main extensions are to be funded by those re-
questing annexation. {
2 . Annexations must be contiguous to the existing improvement
District , however, for a problem sewer area , the District
Board may annex public areas to provide continuity.
3. In consideration of the annexation requests , the City
Engineer may be required to furnish an Engineer' s evaluation
of adequacy of existing sewer mains effected by the service
extention. This would include an evaluation of the down-
stream line capacities as well as any possible up-grading of
existing life stations .
4 . On-going service to the annexed areas shall not require
substantially higher costs than other areas presently served.
Typical of the consideration would be a need for additional
sewer lift stations .
5 . Annexations will be processed as outlined in Article 8
of the Sanitation District Ordinance as amended.
6 . Annexation fees , based on use , will be due and payable
upon application for annexation or lot splits or use change
or rezoning.
7 . Should the proponent of the annexation wish to receive
reimbursement for any sewer main extension by those connect-
ing within the annexed area, then the proponent shall file
a reimbursement map with the City upon completion of the ex-
tension.
8 . Annexations become void if connection is not made within
twelve (12) months from the application, and fees will be
deemed forfeited after that time. '_:e-application shall re-
quire such new fees as are set forth in this Ordinance Code.
-6-
LIVE FILE
Convert I Access 1 Stare
THIS SHEET INDICATES
THIS SECTION CONTAINS
POOR QUALITY IMAGES
9 . Within thE District , if sewer is available on the boundary
of Improvement District Number 1 , it shall be deemed available
to the lots of side of Improvement District Number 1 as well as
to those insicLt said Improvement District.
e
10 . Sewer co action fees and tap charges shall be paid upon
connection to `tae sewer system.
11 . Sewer lir 3 shall be brought to the far property line un-
less otherwis eipproved by the Director of Public Works where
future extens '_ci,s are not practical due to perimeter or pro-
blem lots . d
12. For the oses of this Ordinance Code condominiums
11
shall be tretedF1he same as single-family lots .
13 . Wheretriere I.s a change of use from apartments to condo-
-
ondo
Pl; .ant shall pay the difference in fees and
miniums , the aP
rates as established by this Ordinance Code upon the approval
of such change.
14. ,There t 7ere is a change of use from one commercial use
to another, 'the applicant shall pay the difference in fees
per fixture ;unit in ' dition to the applicable rate for the
new use.
User r
in tes shall �e designated in the proportion outlined
in the revenue program, for the EPA - R-ti•TOCB Grant and allocated
to appropr__ate accounti-ng funds respective to their intended
use.
Pte`,
This Ordiiiance shall be in full force and effect as it pertains
to increases in:, fees for annexations , sewer connections , and tap
charges for applications for sElwer service for lots presently out-
side the Improvement District N,imber 1 whether previously annexed
or annexed but' not previously coiznected, or outside Improvement
District Number 1 , but where sewer is presently available and for
all lot split,: , re-zones and use c.hanges ,within thirty days after
its adoption.
In all other cases , the new fees as set forth in this Ordinance,
shall be effective on July 1 , 1986 .
Before thy4'L,-expiration of fifteen (15) days after the passage of
this Ordinance , it shall be published once in the Atascadero News ,
a newspaper of general circulation , printed, published, and circula-
ted in this District , and the City Clerk shall certify to the adopt-
-7-
ion and publication of this Ordinance and it, certification, togethe -
with proof of publication to be entered. in 0 Book of Ordinances of_
this District. I
The foregoing Ordinance was introduced, adop d, and ordered publish-
ed at a meeting of the District Board of Dir- 2tors held on ,
1986 , by the following vote :
ATTEST:
AYES
NOES
ABSENT:
MIKE N , Secre
Y
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS T,0 FORM:
PAUL SENSIBAUGH R1 T M. -j4-
-NES , City Attorney
ti .
-8-