Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CC_2020_05_26_AgendaPacket
CITY OF ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA * COVID-19 NOTICE * Consistent with Executive Orders N-25-20 and No. N-29-20 from the Executive Department of the State of California and the San Luis Obispo County Health Official’s March 18, 2020 Shelter at Home Order, the City Council Meeting will not be physically open to the public and City Council Members will be teleconferencing into the meeting. HOW TO OBSERVE THE MEETING: To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, the meeting will be live-streamed on SLO-SPAN.org, on Spectrum cable Channel 20 in Atascadero, and on KPRL Radio 1230AM. The video recording of the meeting will repeat daily on Channel 20 at 1:00 am, 9:00 am, and 6:00 pm and will be available through the City’s website or by visiting https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/rt/6870163572939367694 . HOW TO SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENT: Members of the public are highly encouraged to call 805-538-2888 to listen and provide public comment via phone, or submit written public comments to cityclerk@atascadero.org by 5:00 pm on the day of the meeting. Such email comments must identify the Agenda Item Number in the subject line of the email. The comments will be read into the record, with a maximum allowance of 3 minutes per individual comment, subject to the Mayor’s discretion. All comments should be a maximum of 500 words, which corresponds to approximately 3 minutes of speaking time. If a comment is received after the agenda item is heard but before the close of the meeting, the comment will still be included as a part of the record of the meeting but will not be read into the record. AMERICAN DISABILITY ACT ACCOMMODATIONS: Any member of the public who needs accommodations should contact the City Clerk’s Office at cityclerk@atascadero.org or by calling 805-470-3400 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed. The City will use their best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to afford as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety in accordance with the City procedure for resolving reasonable accommodation requests. City Council agendas and minutes may be viewed on the City's website: www.atascadero.org. Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the Agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk and are available for public inspection on our website, www.atascadero.org. Contracts, Resolutions and Ordinances will be allocated a number once they are approved by the City Council. The Minutes of this meeting will reflect these numbers. All documents submitted by the public during Council meetings that are either read into the record or referred to in their statement will be noted in the Minutes and available for review by contacting the City Clerk's office. All documents will be available for public inspection during City Hall business hours once City Hall is open to the public following the termination of the Shelter at Home Order. Page 1 of 155 CITY OF ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Tuesday, May 26, 2020 City Hall Council Chambers, 4th floor 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION: 5:30 P.M. 1. CLOSED SESSION -- PUBLIC COMMENT 2. COUNCIL LEAVES TO BEGIN CLOSED SESSION 3. CLOSED SESSION -- CALL TO ORDER 0 a. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Govt. Code Sec. 54957.6) Agency designated representatives: Rachelle Rickard, City Manager Employee Organizations: Atascadero Professional Firefighters, Local 3600; Atascadero Police Association; Service Employees International Union, Local 620; Mid-Management/Professional Employees; Non-Represented Professional and Management Workers and Confidential Employees 4. CLOSED SESSION – ADJOURNMENT 5. COUNCIL RETURNS FROM CLOSED SESSION 6. CLOSED SESSION – REPORT REGULAR SESSION – CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Pro Tem Bourbeau ROLL CALL: Mayor Moreno Mayor Pro Tem Bourbeau Council Member Fonzi Council Member Funk Council Member Newsom City Council Closed Session: 5:30 P.M. City Council Regular Session: 6:00 P.M. Page 2 of 155 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Roll Call Recommendation: Council: 1. Approve this agenda; and 2. Waive the reading in full of all ordinances appearing on this agenda, and the titles of the ordinances will be read aloud by the City Clerk at the first reading, after the motion and before the City Council votes. PRESENTATIONS: None. A. CONSENT CALENDAR: (All items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and non-controversial by City staff and will be approved by one motion if no member of the Council or public wishes to comment or ask questions. If comment or discussion is desired by anyone, the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and will be considered in the listed sequence with an opportunity for any member of the public to address the Council concerning the item before action is taken.) 1. City Council Draft Action Minutes – May 12, 2020 Recommendation: Council approve the May 12, 2020 Draft City Council Meeting Minutes. [City Clerk] 2. April 2020 Accounts Payable and Payroll Fiscal Impact: $2,243,160.71 Recommendation: Council approve certified City accounts payable, payroll and payroll vendor checks for April 2020. [Administrative Services] UPDATES FROM THE CITY MANAGER: (The City Manager will give an oral report on any current issues of concern to the City Council.) COMMUNITY FORUM: (This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wanting to address the Council on any matter not on this agenda and over which the C ouncil has jurisdiction. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Please state your name for the record before making your presentation. Comments made during Community Forum will not be a subject of discussion. A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Com munity Forum, unless changed by the Council. Any members of the public who have questions or need information may contact the City Clerk’s Office, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at (805) 470-3400, or cityclerk@atascadero.org.) B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Amendments to Fee Schedule Ex-Parte Communications: Fiscal Impact: There will be an increase in operating revenue resulting from the CPI increase, with an offsetting increase in costs to provide the services. Recommendation: Council adopt Draft Resolution adopting amended fees and deposits to offset costs incurred in planning services and a schedule of fees and charges for City services. [Administrative Services] Page 3 of 155 C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: 1. COVID- 19 Fiscal Update Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Council receive and file COVID-19 fiscal update. [Administrative Services] 2. Consideration of Sales Tax Measure Fiscal Impact: Directing staff to bring back a draft ordinance and resolutions necessary to place a sales tax measure on the November 2020 ballot would involve a small amount of staff time. Recommendations: Council: 1. Direct staff to prepare a resolution and ordinance for City Council consideration at the July 14, 2020 meeting to place a one cent local sales tax override measure on the November 2018 ballot; and, 2. Provide staff direction on what should be included in the draft ordinance. [City Manager] D. DISCUSSION ITEM: Discussion of COVID 19 issues including oral updates by Mayor Moreno and City Manager Rickard, questions by City Council, public comment and comments by City Council. 1. Coronavirus (COVID-19) update – Mayor Moreno 2. Coronavirus (COVID-19) update – City Manager Rickard E. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS: (On their own initiative, Council Members may make a brief announcement or a brief report on their own activities. The following represent standing committees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary): Mayor Moreno 1. City Selection Committee 2. County Mayors Round Table 3. Economic Vitality Corporation, Board of Directors (EVC) 4. SLO Council of Governments (SLOCOG) 5. SLO Regional Transit Authority (RTA) Mayor Pro Tem Bourbeau 1. City / Schools Committee 2. City of Atascadero Finance Committee 3. Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) 4. SLO County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) Council Member Fonzi 1. Air Pollution Control District 2. Atascadero Basin Ground Water Sustainability Agency (GSA) 3. City of Atascadero Design Review Committee 4. SLO Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) Page 4 of 155 Council Member Funk 1. City of Atascadero Finance Committee 2. Homeless Services Oversight Council 3. League of California Cities – Council Liaison Council Member Newsom 1. California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) Board 2. City / Schools Committee 3. City of Atascadero Design Review Committee 4. Visit SLO CAL Advisory Committee F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND / OR ACTION: (Council Members may ask a question for clarification, make a referral to staff or take action to have staff place a matter of business on a future agenda. The Council may take action on items listed on the Agenda.) 1. City Council 2. City Clerk 3. City Treasurer 4. City Attorney 5. City Manager G. ADJOURN Please note: Should anyone challenge any proposed development entitlement listed on this Agenda in court, that person may be limited to raising those issues addressed at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at or prior to this public hearing. Correspondence submitted at this public hearing will be distributed to the Council and available for review in the City Clerk's office. Page 5 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 05/26/20 Atascadero City Council May 12, 2020 Page 1 of 8 CITY OF ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES Tuesday, May 12, 2020 City Hall Council Chambers, 4th floor 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California REGULAR SESSION - CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M. Mayor Moreno called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. and Council Member Fonzi led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: By Teleconference - Council Members Fonzi, Funk, Newsom, Mayor Pro Tem Bourbeau, and Mayor Moreno Absent: None Others Present: By Teleconference - City Treasurer Sibbach Staff Present: By Teleconference - City Manager Rachelle Rickard, Administrative Services Director Jeri Rangel, Police Chief Jerel Haley, Community Development Director Phil Dunsmore, Fire Chief Casey Bryson, and City Attorney Greg Murphy APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION: By Council Member Funk and seconded by Council Member Fonzi to: 1. Approve this agenda; and, 2. Waive the reading in full of all ordinances appearing on this agenda, and the titles of the ordinances will be read aloud by the City Clerk at the first reading, after the motion and before the City Council votes. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. City Council Regular Session: 6:00 P.M. Page 6 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 05/26/20 Atascadero City Council May 12, 2020 Page 2 of 8 PRESENTATIONS: None. A. CONSENT CALENDAR: (All items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and non-controversial by City staff and will be approved by one motion if no member of the Council or public wishes to comment or ask questions. If comment or discussion is desired by anyone, the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and will be considered in the listed sequence with an opportunity for any member of the public to address the Council concerning the item before action is taken.) 1. City Council Draft Action Minutes – April 28, 2020 Recommendation: Council approve the April 28, 2020 Draft City Council Meeting Minutes. [City Clerk] 2. March 2020 Investment Report Fiscal Impact: None Recommendation: Council receive and file the City Treasurer’s report for quarter ending March 31, 2020. [Administrative Services] 3. Apple Valley Assessment Districts Fiscal Impact: Annual assessments for 2020/2021 will total $38,5 00 for road/drainage system maintenance and $63,000 for landscape and lighting maintenance. These amounts will be assessed to the owners of parcels in Apple Valley. Recommendations: Council: 1. Adopt Draft Resolution A initiating proceedings for the levy and collection of annual assessments for Atascadero Street and Storm Drain Maintenance District No. 01 (Apple Valley) for fiscal year 2020/2021. 2. Adopt Draft Resolution B accepting and preliminarily approving the Engineer’s Annual Levy Report regarding the Atascadero Street and Storm Drain Maintenance District No. 01 (Apple Valley). 3. Adopt Draft Resolution C declaring the City’s intention to levy and collect annual assessments within Atascadero Street and Storm Drain Maintenance District No. 01 (Apple Valley) in fiscal year 2020/2021, and to appoint a time and place for the public hearing on these matters. 4. Adopt Draft Resolution D initiating proceedings for annual levy of assessments for the Atascadero Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District No. 01 (Apple Valley) for fiscal year 2020/2021 pursuant to the provisions of Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code. 5. Adopt Draft Resolution E for preliminary approval of the Annual Engineer’s Levy Report for the Atascadero Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District No. 01 (Apple Valley) for fiscal year 2020/2021. 6. Adopt Draft Resolution F declaring the City’s intention to levy and collect assessments for the Atascadero Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District No. 01 (Apple Valley) for fiscal year 2020/2021. [Administrative Services] Page 7 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 05/26/20 Atascadero City Council May 12, 2020 Page 3 of 8 4. De Anza Estates Assessment Districts Fiscal Impact: Annual assessments for 2020/2021 will total $30,562 for road/drainage system maintenance and $15,875 for landscape and lighting maintenance. These amounts will be assessed to the owners of parcels in De Anza Estates. The City General Fund will contribute $1,400 for the fiscal year 2020/2021 for half of the maintenance costs of the trails and open space. Recommendations: Council: 1. Adopt Draft Resolution A initiating proceedings for the levy and collection of annual assessments for Atascadero Street and Storm Drain Maintenance District No. 03 (De Anza Estates) for fiscal year 2020/2021. 2. Adopt Draft Resolution B accepting and preliminarily approving the Engineer’s Annual Levy Report regarding the Atascadero Street and Storm Drain Maintenance District No. 03 (De Anza Estates). 3. Adopt Draft Resolution C declaring the City’s intention to levy and collect annual assessments within Atascadero Street and Storm Drain Maintenance District No. 03 (De Anza Estates) in fiscal year 2020/2021, and to appoint a time and place for the public hearing on these matters. 4. Adopt Draft Resolution D initiating proceedings for annual levy of assessments for the Atascadero Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District No. 03 (De Anza Estates) for fiscal year 2020/2021 pursuant to the provisions of Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code. 5. Adopt Draft Resolution E for preliminary approval of the Annual Engineer’s Levy Report for the Atascadero Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District No. 03 (De Anza Estates) for fiscal year 2020/2021. 6. Adopt Draft Resolution F declaring the City’s intention to levy and collect assessments for the Atascadero Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District No. 03 (De Anza Estat es) for fiscal year 2020/2021. [Administrative Services] 5. Las Lomas (Woodridge) Assessment Districts Fiscal Impact: Annual assessments for 2020/2021 will total $92,932 for road/drainage system maintenance and $66,049 for landscape and lighting maintenance. These amounts will be assessed to the owners of parcels in Las Lomas (Woodridge). The City General Fund will contribute $1,850 for the fiscal year 2020/2021 for 25% of the maintenance costs of the trails and open space. Recommendations: Council: 1. Adopt Draft Resolution A initiating proceedings for the levy and collection of annual assessments for Atascadero Street and Storm Drain Maintenance District No. 02 (Woodridge) for fiscal year 2020/2021. 2. Adopt Draft Resolution B accepting and preliminarily approving the Engineer’s Annual Levy Report regarding the Atascadero Street and Storm Drain Maintenance District No. 02 (Woodridge). 3. Adopt Draft Resolution C declaring the City’s intention to levy and collect annual assessments within Atascadero Street and Storm Drain Maintenance District No. 02 (Woodridge) in fiscal year 2020/2021, and to appoint a time and place for the public hearing on these matters. Page 8 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 05/26/20 Atascadero City Council May 12, 2020 Page 4 of 8 4. Adopt Draft Resolution D initiating proceedings for annual levy of assessments for the Atascadero Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District No. 02 (Woodridge) for fiscal year 2020/2021 pursuant to the provisions of Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets & Highways Code. 5. Adopt Draft Resolution E for preliminary approval of the Annual Engineer’s Levy Report for the Atascadero Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District No. 02 (Woodridge) for fiscal year 2020/2021. 6. Adopt Draft Resolution F declaring the City’s intention to levy and collect assessments for the Atascadero Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District No. 02 (Woodridge) for fiscal year 2020/2021 .[Administrative Services] 6. 2019 General Plan & Housing Element Annual Progress Report Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Council receive and file the 2019 Annual General Plan and Housing Element Progress Report and the 2019 HCD Annual Progress Report. [Community Development] 7. Cooperation Agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo for Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Programs for Fiscal Years 2021 through 2023 Fiscal Impact: The Cooperative Agreement will provide continued availability of CDBG funding for CDBG eligible programs in Atascadero over the next three years. The current annual award amount is approximately $140,000, of which 13% will be retained by the County to cover expenses for administrative project oversight, resulting in approximately $122,000 in available funding to the City for CDBG programs. Recommendation: Council approve the Cooperation Agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo for joint participation in the Community Development Block Grant Program, the Home Investment Partnerships Program, and the Emergency Solutions Grant Program for Fiscal Years 2021 through 2023. [Public Works] 8. Local Roadway Safety Plan Fiscal Impact: Approving recommendations will result in the City receiving grant funding totaling $72,000 from Caltrans and expenditures from the Local Transportation Fund up to $15,000 to cover the 10% local share of participating costs ($8,000) and any costs related to staff time and additional consultant fees (up to $7,000). Recommendations: Council: 1. Approve the California Department of Transportation grant funding allocation of $72,000 to prepare a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). 2. Authorize the Director of Administrative Services to appropriate $15,000 in Local Transportation Funds to fund the local share of participating costs for the LRSP. [Public Works] Page 9 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 05/26/20 Atascadero City Council May 12, 2020 Page 5 of 8 9. Atascadero Tourism Business Improvement District (ATBID) Board Appointment of Four Board Members to Fill Vacancies Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendations: Council: 1. Appoint Lucian Caprau to the ATBID Advisory Board for the vacant position for a term expiring June 30, 2021. 2. Appoint Patricia Harden, Amar Sohi, and Deana Alexander to the ATBID Advisory Board for terms expiring June 30, 2022. [City Manager] City Treasurer Gere Sibbach commented on and answered questions regarding the March 2020 Investment Report (Item A-2). Mr. Sibbach stated that the City’s investment yield would drop and is expected to continue to drop and explained the City’s ladder investment strategy. MOTION: By Council Member Funk and seconded by Council Member Newsom to approve the Consent Calendar. (#A-3: Resolution Nos. 2020-012, 013, 014, 015, 016 & 017) (#A-4: Resolution Nos. 2020-018, 019, 020, 021, 022 & 023) (#A-5: Resolution Nos. 2020-024, 025, 026, 027, 028 & 029) (#A-7 Contract No. 2020-005) Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. UPDATES FROM THE CITY MANAGER: City Manager Rachelle Rickard gave an update on projects and issues within the City. COMMUNITY FORUM: The following citizens spoke during Community Forum: Pastor Wayne Riddering and Geoff Auslen Emails from the following citizens were read into the record by City Manager Rickard: Ron Krall Mayor Moreno closed the COMMUNITY FORUM period. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Weed Abatement – Hearing of Objections Ex-Parte Communications: Fiscal Impact: None. Costs of the weed abatement program are recovered through the assessments charged to non-compliant parcels that must be abated by the City Contractor. Those property owners who comply with the Municipal Code are not assessed or charged. Recommendations: Council: 1. Hear all objections to the proposed removal of vegetative growth and/or refuse and allow or overrule any objections. 2. Authorize the Fire Chief to proceed and perform the work of abatement. [Fire Department] Page 10 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 05/26/20 Atascadero City Council May 12, 2020 Page 6 of 8 Fire Chief Bryson gave the presentation and answered questions from the Council. Ex Parte Communications Mayor Moreno reported that she had talked about the item on the radio that day. PUBLIC COMMENT: The following citizens spoke on this item: None. Mayor Moreno closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Council Member Funk and seconded by Council Member Fonzi to: 1. Hear all objections to the proposed removal of vegetative growth and/or refuse and allow or overrule any objections. 2. Authorize the Fire Chief to proceed and perform the work of abatement. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: 1. Cannabis Regulations Update (CPP 2020-011) Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Council provide staff direction on cannabis activities and regulations. Community Development] Community Development Director Dunsmore gave the presentation and answered questions from the Council. PUBLIC COMMENT: The following citizens spoke on this item: Devon Wardlow Mayor Moreno closed the Public Comment period. Council provided direction on cannabis activities and regulations to staff. 2. Council Norms and Procedures Consideration of Amendments Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Council review and approve an amendment to the Council Norms and Procedures. [City Manager] City Manager Rickard gave the presentation and answered questions from the Council. PUBLIC COMMENT: The following citizens spoke on this item: None. Mayor Moreno closed the Public Comment period. Page 11 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 05/26/20 Atascadero City Council May 12, 2020 Page 7 of 8 MOTION: By Council Member Fonzi and seconded by Council Member Funk to approve an amendment to the Council Norms and Procedures Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. D. DISCUSSION ITEM: Discussion of COVID 19 issues including oral updates by Mayor Moreno and City Manager Rickard, questions by City Council, public comment and comments by City Council. 1. Coronavirus (COVID-19) update – Mayor Moreno 2. Coronavirus (COVID-19) update – City Manager Rickard Mayor Moreno and City Manager Rickard provided updates on Coronavirus (COVID-19) and answered questions from the Council. PUBLIC COMMENT: The following citizens spoke on this item: Brenda Mac and Tricia Stanley Mayor Moreno closed the Public Comment period. E. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS: The following Council Members made brief announcements and gave brief update reports on their committees since their last Council meeting: Mayor Moreno 1. SLO Regional Transit Authority (RTA) Mayor Pro Tem Bourbeau 1. Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) 2. Mobile Home Rent Stabilization ad hoc Committee Council Member Funk 1. Homeless Services Oversight Council Council Member Newsom 1. City of Atascadero Design Review Committee F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND / OR ACTION: Council Member Fonzi requested a report on the City’s fire evacuation plan. City Manager Rickard agreed to bring it back as a staff report. Council Member Funk asked Council to consider writing a letter to the Governor to request a moratorium on rent/mortgage payments. There was not consensus to pursue writing a letter to the Governor from the Council, but it was noted that Council Members could initiate such a letter independently. Page 12 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 05/26/20 Atascadero City Council May 12, 2020 Page 8 of 8 G. ADJOURN Mayor Moreno adjourned the meeting at 10:26 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED BY: ______________________________________ Amanda Muther Deputy City Clerk APPROVED: Page 13 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: A-2DATE: 05/26/20Page 14 of 155 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of April 2020 3635 04/02/2020 ANTHEM BLUE CROSS HSA 8,396.61Payroll Vendor Payment 163784 04/02/2020 ATASCADERO MID MGRS ORG UNION 60.00Payroll Vendor Payment 163785 04/02/2020 ATASCADERO POLICE OFFICERS 1,858.00Payroll Vendor Payment 163786 04/02/2020 ATASCADERO PROF. FIREFIGHTERS 1,176.50Payroll Vendor Payment 163787 04/02/2020 MASS MUTUAL WORKPLACE SOLUTION 6,928.91Payroll Vendor Payment 163788 04/02/2020 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 132.74Payroll Vendor Payment 163789 04/02/2020 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 1,600.88Payroll Vendor Payment 163790 04/02/2020 SEIU LOCAL 620 865.74Payroll Vendor Payment 163791 04/02/2020 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 106099 357.85Payroll Vendor Payment 163792 04/02/2020 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 304633 4,522.53Payroll Vendor Payment 163793 04/02/2020 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 706276 296.00Payroll Vendor Payment 163794 04/02/2020 ANTHEM BLUE CROSS HEALTH 183,274.12Payroll Vendor Payment 163795 04/02/2020 LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INS CO 1,654.56Payroll Vendor Payment 163796 04/02/2020 MEDICAL EYE SERVICES 1,732.62Payroll Vendor Payment 163797 04/02/2020 PREFERRED BENEFITS INSURANCE 8,686.10Payroll Vendor Payment 3636 04/03/2020 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 209.54Payroll Vendor Payment 3637 04/07/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 22,419.41Payroll Vendor Payment 3638 04/07/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 34,205.52Payroll Vendor Payment 3639 04/07/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 1,688.93Payroll Vendor Payment 3640 04/07/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 2,301.66Payroll Vendor Payment 3641 04/07/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 2,908.84Payroll Vendor Payment 3642 04/07/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 4,566.43Payroll Vendor Payment 3643 04/07/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 7,071.34Payroll Vendor Payment 3644 04/07/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 12,225.97Payroll Vendor Payment 3645 04/07/2020 RABOBANK, N.A.47,785.63Payroll Vendor Payment 3646 04/07/2020 EMPLOYMENT DEV DEPARTMENT 13,643.00Payroll Vendor Payment 3647 04/07/2020 EMPLOYMENT DEV. DEPARTMENT 2,244.88Payroll Vendor Payment 163798 04/09/2020 MARC NOBRIGA 287.15Payroll Vendor Payment 163799 04/10/2020 A & R CONSTRUCTION 3,921.00Accounts Payable Check 163800 04/10/2020 KRISTINE ABBEY 69.00Accounts Payable Check 163801 04/10/2020 AGP VIDEO, INC.2,805.00Accounts Payable Check 163802 04/10/2020 ALPHA ELECTRIC SERVICE 1,881.54Accounts Payable Check 163803 04/10/2020 AMERICAN WEST TIRE & AUTO INC 3,230.22Accounts Payable Check 163804 04/10/2020 ASCAP 367.94Accounts Payable Check 163805 04/10/2020 AT&T 563.26Accounts Payable Check 163806 04/10/2020 AT&T 767.95Accounts Payable Check 163807 04/10/2020 ATASCADERO HAY & FEED 1,115.01Accounts Payable Check 163809 04/10/2020 ATASCADERO MUTUAL WATER CO.9,610.10Accounts Payable Check ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 15 of 155 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of April 2020 163810 04/10/2020 ATASCADERO PICKLEBALL CLUB,INC 82.80Accounts Payable Check 163811 04/10/2020 A-TOWN AV, INC.1,787.33Accounts Payable Check 163812 04/10/2020 BASSETT'S CRICKET RANCH,INC.532.10Accounts Payable Check 163813 04/10/2020 KEITH R. BERGHER 416.25Accounts Payable Check 163814 04/10/2020 BERRY MAN, INC.502.48Accounts Payable Check 163815 04/10/2020 BIG RED MARKETING, INC.2,930.00Accounts Payable Check 163816 04/10/2020 BORLODAN PAINTING COMPANY 493.00Accounts Payable Check 163817 04/10/2020 BURT INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 602.21Accounts Payable Check 163818 04/10/2020 CA BUILDING STANDARDS COMM.132.30Accounts Payable Check 163819 04/10/2020 CALPORTLAND COMPANY 1,926.48Accounts Payable Check 163820 04/10/2020 CARQUEST OF ATASCADERO 137.98Accounts Payable Check 163821 04/10/2020 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS 6,024.20Accounts Payable Check 163822 04/10/2020 KATHLEEN J. CINOWALT 84.00Accounts Payable Check 163823 04/10/2020 COAST ELECTRONICS 840.45Accounts Payable Check 163824 04/10/2020 COASTAL COPY, INC.445.89Accounts Payable Check 163825 04/10/2020 COASTAL REPROGRAPHIC SERVICES 16.16Accounts Payable Check 163826 04/10/2020 COMPETITIVE EDGE DISTRIBUTING 217.74Accounts Payable Check 163827 04/10/2020 CREWSENSE, LLC 93.36Accounts Payable Check 163828 04/10/2020 CULLIGAN/CENTRAL COAST WTR TRT 70.00Accounts Payable Check 163829 04/10/2020 DAN BIDDLE PEST CONTROL SERVIC 135.00Accounts Payable Check 163830 04/10/2020 SHARON J. DAVIS 103.25Accounts Payable Check 163831 04/10/2020 NICHOLAS DEBAR 300.00Accounts Payable Check 163832 04/10/2020 DELTA LIQUID ENERGY 1,033.72Accounts Payable Check 163833 04/10/2020 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION 525.85Accounts Payable Check 163834 04/10/2020 DIAMONDBACK FIRE & RESCUE, INC 73.34Accounts Payable Check 163835 04/10/2020 DIVISION OF STATE ARCHITECT 578.30Accounts Payable Check 163836 04/10/2020 PHILIP DUNSMORE 300.00Accounts Payable Check 163837 04/10/2020 KRISSY DUPERRON 59.00Accounts Payable Check 163838 04/10/2020 EIKHOF DESIGN GROUP, INC.1,356.25Accounts Payable Check 163839 04/10/2020 EL CAMINO VETERINARY HOSP 444.00Accounts Payable Check 163840 04/10/2020 ELECTRICRAFT, INC.1,978.00Accounts Payable Check 163841 04/10/2020 ENTENMANN-ROVIN CO.159.15Accounts Payable Check 163842 04/10/2020 ESCUELA DEL RIO 360.00Accounts Payable Check 163843 04/10/2020 FARM SUPPLY COMPANY 514.74Accounts Payable Check 163844 04/10/2020 FERRELL'S AUTO REPAIR 163.50Accounts Payable Check 163845 04/10/2020 FGL ENVIRONMENTAL 1,009.00Accounts Payable Check 163846 04/10/2020 RAKIA GALVEZ 59.00Accounts Payable Check 163847 04/10/2020 GAS COMPANY 105.79Accounts Payable Check ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 16 of 155 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of April 2020 163848 04/10/2020 GHD, INC.3,991.08Accounts Payable Check 163849 04/10/2020 BRADLEY A. HACKLEMAN 148.04Accounts Payable Check 163850 04/10/2020 HANSEN BRO'S CUSTOM FARMING 8,470.00Accounts Payable Check 163851 04/10/2020 SEAN HARRIS 72.00Accounts Payable Check 163852 04/10/2020 ANDREW HAWKINS 59.00Accounts Payable Check 163853 04/10/2020 HELIXSTORM, INC.1,366.20Accounts Payable Check 163854 04/10/2020 IRON MOUNTAIN RECORDS MGMNT 218.60Accounts Payable Check 163855 04/10/2020 JIFFY LUBE 54.61Accounts Payable Check 163856 04/10/2020 JK'S UNLIMITED, INC.100.00Accounts Payable Check 163857 04/10/2020 JOE A. GONSALVES & SON 3,000.00Accounts Payable Check 163858 04/10/2020 TARYN P. KALMAN 24.00Accounts Payable Check 163859 04/10/2020 NATHANIEL KENYON 25.00Accounts Payable Check 163860 04/10/2020 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 1,320.14Accounts Payable Check 163861 04/10/2020 KW CONSTRUCTION 14,000.00Accounts Payable Check 163862 04/10/2020 LADIES CONFERENCE, INC.3,212.78Accounts Payable Check 163863 04/10/2020 JOANNE LAIRD 59.00Accounts Payable Check 163864 04/10/2020 PAULA LAMPERT 59.00Accounts Payable Check 163865 04/10/2020 PRUDENCIA LANDIN 59.00Accounts Payable Check 163866 04/10/2020 LEGACY UNITED SOCCER CLUB 2,592.00Accounts Payable Check 163867 04/10/2020 LIFE ASSIST, INC.841.36Accounts Payable Check 163868 04/10/2020 MADRONE LANDSCAPES, INC.394.00Accounts Payable Check 163869 04/10/2020 MICHAEL K. NUNLEY & ASSC, INC.2,616.17Accounts Payable Check 163870 04/10/2020 MID-COAST MOWER & SAW, INC.157.20Accounts Payable Check 163871 04/10/2020 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE 287.74Accounts Payable Check 163872 04/10/2020 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 248.26Accounts Payable Check 163873 04/10/2020 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.28,580.20Accounts Payable Check 163874 04/10/2020 NEWTON CONSTRUCTION & MGMT INC 71,329.32Accounts Payable Check 163875 04/10/2020 NWF-ZOOBOOKS 223.00Accounts Payable Check 163876 04/10/2020 OFFICE DEPOT INC.515.12Accounts Payable Check 163877 04/10/2020 O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE, INC.206.48Accounts Payable Check 163878 04/10/2020 TARA ORLICK 43.70Accounts Payable Check 163879 04/10/2020 TERESA ORTIZ 71.00Accounts Payable Check 163881 04/10/2020 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 27,000.01Accounts Payable Check 163882 04/10/2020 PEAKWIFI, LLC 650.00Accounts Payable Check 163883 04/10/2020 PERRY'S PARCEL & GIFT 50.00Accounts Payable Check 163884 04/10/2020 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION, INC.49.73Accounts Payable Check 163885 04/10/2020 PROCARE JANITORIAL SUPPLY,INC.419.79Accounts Payable Check 163886 04/10/2020 PROSOUND BUSINESS MEDIA, INC.99.00Accounts Payable Check ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 17 of 155 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of April 2020 163887 04/10/2020 SHIRLEY L. RADCLIFF-BRUTON 386.40Accounts Payable Check 163888 04/10/2020 RAINSCAPE, A LANDSCAPE SVC CO.6,567.56Accounts Payable Check 163889 04/10/2020 JERI RANGEL 300.00Accounts Payable Check 163890 04/10/2020 RAVATT,ALBRECHT, & ASSC.,INC.755.00Accounts Payable Check 163891 04/10/2020 READYREFRESH BY NESTLE 137.86Accounts Payable Check 163892 04/10/2020 REFUGE CHURCH 362.00Accounts Payable Check 163893 04/10/2020 REVENUE & COST SPECIALISTS LLC 775.53Accounts Payable Check 163894 04/10/2020 RACHELLE RICKARD 500.00Accounts Payable Check 163895 04/10/2020 FATIMAH SALEH 71.00Accounts Payable Check 163896 04/10/2020 SAN LUIS POWERHOUSE, INC.759.26Accounts Payable Check 163897 04/10/2020 THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY 46.68Accounts Payable Check 163898 04/10/2020 JOHN C. SIEMENS 193.90Accounts Payable Check 163899 04/10/2020 HEIDI SINKOVICH 59.00Accounts Payable Check 163900 04/10/2020 SLO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE 4,472.91Accounts Payable Check 163901 04/10/2020 SOUTH COAST EMERGENCY VEH SVC 3,223.96Accounts Payable Check 163902 04/10/2020 SPEAKWRITE, LLC.166.64Accounts Payable Check 163903 04/10/2020 CONNER M. SPEARS 3,080.00Accounts Payable Check 163904 04/10/2020 SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT REPAIR 3,270.45Accounts Payable Check 163905 04/10/2020 STANLEY CONVERGENT SECURITY 246.25Accounts Payable Check 163906 04/10/2020 STATEWIDE TRAFFIC SAFETY&SIGNS 795.99Accounts Payable Check 163907 04/10/2020 SUNLIGHT JANITORIAL, INC.1,700.00Accounts Payable Check 163908 04/10/2020 TERRA VERDE ENVIRONMENTAL CONS 203.75Accounts Payable Check 163909 04/10/2020 THOMAS TREE CO.400.00Accounts Payable Check 163910 04/10/2020 TUCKFIELD & ASSOCIATES 20,475.00Accounts Payable Check 163911 04/10/2020 TURF STAR, INC.212.06Accounts Payable Check 163916 04/10/2020 U.S. BANK 28,372.55Accounts Payable Check 163917 04/10/2020 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE 3,000.00Accounts Payable Check 163918 04/10/2020 U.S. POSTMASTER 800.00Accounts Payable Check 163919 04/10/2020 UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AM), INC 1,650.97Accounts Payable Check 163920 04/10/2020 USA BLUE BOOK 1,144.13Accounts Payable Check 163921 04/10/2020 VERDIN 9,564.54Accounts Payable Check 163922 04/10/2020 VERIZON WIRELESS 2,129.21Accounts Payable Check 163923 04/10/2020 VERIZON WIRELESS-VSAT 65.00Accounts Payable Check 163924 04/10/2020 WCJ PROPERTY SERVICES 720.00Accounts Payable Check 163925 04/10/2020 WEST COAST AUTO & TOWING, INC.615.00Accounts Payable Check 163926 04/10/2020 WEX BANK - 76 UNIVERSL 9,806.27Accounts Payable Check 163927 04/10/2020 WEX BANK - WEX FLEET UNIVERSAL 5,983.44Accounts Payable Check 163928 04/10/2020 NICKY WILLIAMS 59.00Accounts Payable Check ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 18 of 155 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of April 2020 163929 04/10/2020 COURTNEY WIMMER 59.00Accounts Payable Check 163930 04/10/2020 KAYLA WRIGHT 59.00Accounts Payable Check 163931 04/10/2020 KAREN B. WYKE 132.00Accounts Payable Check 163932 04/10/2020 ZOOM IMAGING SOLUTIONS, INC.947.54Accounts Payable Check 3648 04/16/2020 ANTHEM BLUE CROSS HSA 9,846.61Payroll Vendor Payment 163933 04/16/2020 ATASCADERO MID MGRS ORG UNION 60.00Payroll Vendor Payment 163934 04/16/2020 ATASCADERO POLICE OFFICERS 1,858.00Payroll Vendor Payment 163935 04/16/2020 ATASCADERO PROF. FIREFIGHTERS 1,176.50Payroll Vendor Payment 163936 04/16/2020 MASS MUTUAL WORKPLACE SOLUTION 6,933.88Payroll Vendor Payment 163937 04/16/2020 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 100.60Payroll Vendor Payment 163938 04/16/2020 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 1,600.88Payroll Vendor Payment 163939 04/16/2020 SEIU LOCAL 620 876.11Payroll Vendor Payment 163940 04/16/2020 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 106099 357.85Payroll Vendor Payment 163941 04/16/2020 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 304633 4,422.53Payroll Vendor Payment 163942 04/16/2020 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 706276 296.00Payroll Vendor Payment 3649 04/17/2020 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 209.54Payroll Vendor Payment 3650 04/17/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 22,358.04Payroll Vendor Payment 3651 04/17/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 34,925.15Payroll Vendor Payment 3652 04/17/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 1,818.24Payroll Vendor Payment 3653 04/17/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 2,088.66Payroll Vendor Payment 3654 04/17/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 2,908.84Payroll Vendor Payment 3655 04/17/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 4,776.72Payroll Vendor Payment 3656 04/17/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 7,071.34Payroll Vendor Payment 3657 04/17/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 12,235.86Payroll Vendor Payment 3658 04/21/2020 RABOBANK, N.A.47,439.59Payroll Vendor Payment 3659 04/21/2020 EMPLOYMENT DEV DEPARTMENT 13,735.72Payroll Vendor Payment 3660 04/21/2020 EMPLOYMENT DEV. DEPARTMENT 2,230.31Payroll Vendor Payment 163943 04/24/2020 KRISTINE ABBEY 85.00Accounts Payable Check 163944 04/24/2020 ALL SIGNS AND GRAPHICS 80.81Accounts Payable Check 163945 04/24/2020 ALLIANCE READY MIX, INC.1,220.98Accounts Payable Check 163946 04/24/2020 ALTHOUSE & MEADE, INC.2,834.10Accounts Payable Check 163947 04/24/2020 AMERICAN WEST TIRE & AUTO INC 99.95Accounts Payable Check 163949 04/24/2020 AT&T 775.34Accounts Payable Check 163950 04/24/2020 AT&T 259.90Accounts Payable Check 163951 04/24/2020 ATASCADERO HAY & FEED 1,015.35Accounts Payable Check 163952 04/24/2020 ATASCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST 2,468.75Accounts Payable Check 163953 04/24/2020 AVILA TRAFFIC SAFETY 1,607.50Accounts Payable Check 163954 04/24/2020 VIVIANA BAKER 55.00Accounts Payable Check ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 19 of 155 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of April 2020 163955 04/24/2020 TERRIE BANISH 174.80Accounts Payable Check 163956 04/24/2020 BRIAN BARONI 55.00Accounts Payable Check 163957 04/24/2020 BASSETT'S CRICKET RANCH,INC.249.80Accounts Payable Check 163958 04/24/2020 YULIANA BECERRA 49.00Accounts Payable Check 163959 04/24/2020 BERRY MAN, INC.904.43Accounts Payable Check 163960 04/24/2020 TESSA BETZ 49.00Accounts Payable Check 163961 04/24/2020 BIG RED MARKETING, INC.3,280.00Accounts Payable Check 163962 04/24/2020 MICHELLE BLASINGAME 49.00Accounts Payable Check 163963 04/24/2020 JEFF BOCKERT 205.00Accounts Payable Check 163964 04/24/2020 PRISCILLA BOYD 500.00Accounts Payable Check 163965 04/24/2020 BREZDEN PEST CONTROL, INC.65.00Accounts Payable Check 163966 04/24/2020 CARRIE BRISCOE 49.00Accounts Payable Check 163967 04/24/2020 DIANA BROWN 49.00Accounts Payable Check 163968 04/24/2020 BUREAU VERITAS NORTH AMERICA 105,033.12Accounts Payable Check 163969 04/24/2020 AMY BURGETT 55.00Accounts Payable Check 163970 04/24/2020 CA DEPT OF TAX AND FEE ADMIN.1,521.00Accounts Payable Check 163971 04/24/2020 CALIFORNIA MID-STATE FAIR 100.00Accounts Payable Check 163972 04/24/2020 CALPORTLAND COMPANY 2,813.17Accounts Payable Check 163973 04/24/2020 CARRIE CAMPBELL 49.00Accounts Payable Check 163974 04/24/2020 CANNON 829.25Accounts Payable Check 163975 04/24/2020 JILL CAPOZZOLI 93.00Accounts Payable Check 163976 04/24/2020 CARQUEST OF ATASCADERO 38.75Accounts Payable Check 163977 04/24/2020 ROBIN CARTER 49.00Accounts Payable Check 163978 04/24/2020 REBEKAH CARVALHO 55.00Accounts Payable Check 163979 04/24/2020 WHITNEY CELLI 49.00Accounts Payable Check 163980 04/24/2020 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS 256.77Accounts Payable Check 163981 04/24/2020 ERICA CHEATUM 49.00Accounts Payable Check 163982 04/24/2020 COASTLINE EQUIPMENT 217.88Accounts Payable Check 163983 04/24/2020 COBAN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.644.56Accounts Payable Check 163984 04/24/2020 JODIE COHEN 93.00Accounts Payable Check 163985 04/24/2020 AMY COONS 55.00Accounts Payable Check 163986 04/24/2020 SAMADHY COOTS 55.00Accounts Payable Check 163987 04/24/2020 COPWARE, INC.840.00Accounts Payable Check 163988 04/24/2020 PATTI CORTESE 49.00Accounts Payable Check 163989 04/24/2020 LEO CORTEZ 49.00Accounts Payable Check 163990 04/24/2020 JULIE CRESPIN 49.00Accounts Payable Check 163991 04/24/2020 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER 20.00Accounts Payable Check 163992 04/24/2020 PAMELA DAILEY 55.00Accounts Payable Check ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 20 of 155 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of April 2020 163993 04/24/2020 DEEP BLUE INTEGRATION, INC.135.00Accounts Payable Check 163994 04/24/2020 DELTA LIQUID ENERGY 772.95Accounts Payable Check 163995 04/24/2020 WILLIAM DENISSEN 55.00Accounts Payable Check 163996 04/24/2020 ORALIA DEVROEDE 49.00Accounts Payable Check 163997 04/24/2020 AURALY DOBBS 71.00Accounts Payable Check 163998 04/24/2020 DOCUTEAM 207.76Accounts Payable Check 163999 04/24/2020 MICHELLE DOWELL 55.00Accounts Payable Check 164000 04/24/2020 STEPHANIE DREXLER 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164001 04/24/2020 VANESSA DUHON 55.00Accounts Payable Check 164002 04/24/2020 EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC 2,207.50Accounts Payable Check 164003 04/24/2020 JENIFER ECKLUND 105.00Accounts Payable Check 164004 04/24/2020 ECS IMAGING, INC.7,174.60Accounts Payable Check 164005 04/24/2020 EL CAMINO HOMELESS ORG.330.00Accounts Payable Check 164006 04/24/2020 ELIMNOLOGY, INC.7,478.70Accounts Payable Check 164007 04/24/2020 RYAN ENFANTINO 562.00Accounts Payable Check 164008 04/24/2020 TRICIA ENGLAND 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164009 04/24/2020 ESCUELA DEL RIO 40.00Accounts Payable Check 164010 04/24/2020 THAMARA ESPINOZA 1,470.50Accounts Payable Check 164011 04/24/2020 MIRANDA ESTRADA 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164012 04/24/2020 FAILSAFE TESTING, LLC 959.25Accounts Payable Check 164013 04/24/2020 FARM SUPPLY COMPANY 755.93Accounts Payable Check 164014 04/24/2020 MEGAN FARMER 123.00Accounts Payable Check 164015 04/24/2020 AMANDA FERRELL 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164016 04/24/2020 AMANDA FERRIE 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164017 04/24/2020 FGL ENVIRONMENTAL 681.00Accounts Payable Check 164018 04/24/2020 ANGELA FISHER 475.00Accounts Payable Check 164019 04/24/2020 XZANDREA FOWLER 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164020 04/24/2020 MISTI FREEMAN 112.00Accounts Payable Check 164021 04/24/2020 GARRY BRILL PRODUCTIONS 150.00Accounts Payable Check 164022 04/24/2020 GAS COMPANY 1,240.56Accounts Payable Check 164023 04/24/2020 AMY GEORGE 98.00Accounts Payable Check 164024 04/24/2020 GHD, INC.5,785.28Accounts Payable Check 164025 04/24/2020 MARGARITA GUINN 2,569.50Accounts Payable Check 164026 04/24/2020 ROBERT S HAMMER 883.00Accounts Payable Check 164027 04/24/2020 HAMNER, JEWELL & ASSOCIATES 3,068.53Accounts Payable Check 164028 04/24/2020 ROY A. HANLEY 425.50Accounts Payable Check 164029 04/24/2020 HANSEN BRO'S CUSTOM FARMING 11,000.00Accounts Payable Check 164030 04/24/2020 HART IMPRESSIONS PRINTING 855.15Accounts Payable Check ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 21 of 155 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of April 2020 164031 04/24/2020 REBECCA HART 1,970.50Accounts Payable Check 164032 04/24/2020 VIVIAN HAWKINS 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164033 04/24/2020 HELIXSTORM, INC.15,101.57Accounts Payable Check 164034 04/24/2020 HERC RENTALS, INC.542.80Accounts Payable Check 164035 04/24/2020 ROCHELLE HIGGINS 55.00Accounts Payable Check 164036 04/24/2020 THEANNA HIGHTOWER 55.00Accounts Payable Check 164037 04/24/2020 BETHANNI HOFFMAN 105.00Accounts Payable Check 164039 04/24/2020 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 3,791.92Accounts Payable Check 164040 04/24/2020 MELISSA HOPE 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164041 04/24/2020 JENNIFER IDLER 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164042 04/24/2020 CARMELA ILDEFONSO 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164043 04/24/2020 JK'S UNLIMITED, INC.620.75Accounts Payable Check 164044 04/24/2020 JOANN HEAD LAND SURVEYING 1,232.50Accounts Payable Check 164045 04/24/2020 JOE A. GONSALVES & SON 3,000.00Accounts Payable Check 164046 04/24/2020 JOEL SWITZER DIESEL REPAIR,INC 721.95Accounts Payable Check 164047 04/24/2020 MONICA MUNOZ JORGENSEN 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164048 04/24/2020 K & M INTERNATIONAL 2,652.91Accounts Payable Check 164049 04/24/2020 SHELLEY KERR 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164050 04/24/2020 JENNIFER KINNEAR 55.00Accounts Payable Check 164051 04/24/2020 LUKE KNIGHT 93.00Accounts Payable Check 164052 04/24/2020 REBECCA KOZNEK 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164053 04/24/2020 KPRL 1230 AM 320.00Accounts Payable Check 164054 04/24/2020 ELIZABETH KREPS 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164055 04/24/2020 ANNIKA KUHNLE 112.00Accounts Payable Check 164056 04/24/2020 EMILY KYLE 1,425.00Accounts Payable Check 164057 04/24/2020 REBECCA LAFAYETTE 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164058 04/24/2020 KURT LEAVITT 55.00Accounts Payable Check 164059 04/24/2020 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC CO. INC 1,428.00Accounts Payable Check 164060 04/24/2020 MICHELLE LEE 112.00Accounts Payable Check 164061 04/24/2020 RUSS LEVANWAY 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164062 04/24/2020 NADIA LEVINE 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164063 04/24/2020 LIFE ASSIST, INC.821.66Accounts Payable Check 164064 04/24/2020 JESSICA LLOYD 105.00Accounts Payable Check 164065 04/24/2020 PATRICIA LOMELI 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164066 04/24/2020 M.E. DESIGNS 775.00Accounts Payable Check 164067 04/24/2020 MAILSTREAM, INC.1,592.58Accounts Payable Check 164068 04/24/2020 AUTUMN MARTIN 112.00Accounts Payable Check 164069 04/24/2020 MINDY MEADE 49.00Accounts Payable Check ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 22 of 155 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of April 2020 164070 04/24/2020 JD MEGASON 55.00Accounts Payable Check 164071 04/24/2020 SHANNON MEIDAM 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164072 04/24/2020 ANTHONY MENDES 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164073 04/24/2020 MICHAEL K. NUNLEY & ASSC, INC.5,941.81Accounts Payable Check 164074 04/24/2020 MID-COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.840.00Accounts Payable Check 164075 04/24/2020 MID-COAST MOWER & SAW, INC.160.61Accounts Payable Check 164076 04/24/2020 MIG 9,742.00Accounts Payable Check 164077 04/24/2020 MIKE MITCHELL CONSTRUCTION 178.23Accounts Payable Check 164079 04/24/2020 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE 1,464.32Accounts Payable Check 164080 04/24/2020 MEGAN MIRANDA 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164081 04/24/2020 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 780.58Accounts Payable Check 164082 04/24/2020 MNS ENGINEERS, INC.19,574.64Accounts Payable Check 164083 04/24/2020 SCOTT MOORE 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164084 04/24/2020 ZOLA MOORE 123.00Accounts Payable Check 164085 04/24/2020 MONICA MOSQUEDA 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164086 04/24/2020 MUNICIPAL MAINT EQUIPMENT, INC 734.01Accounts Payable Check 164087 04/24/2020 MV TRANSPORTATION, INC.12,599.10Accounts Payable Check 164088 04/24/2020 LACIE NEWTON 224.00Accounts Payable Check 164089 04/24/2020 JENNIFER NIADNA 112.00Accounts Payable Check 164090 04/24/2020 OFFICE DEPOT INC.153.55Accounts Payable Check 164091 04/24/2020 CHANDLER OLIVERA 112.00Accounts Payable Check 164092 04/24/2020 JESSICA OTTER 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164093 04/24/2020 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 19,359.36Accounts Payable Check 164094 04/24/2020 SAMANTHA PARKER 112.00Accounts Payable Check 164095 04/24/2020 PASO ROBLES SAFE & LOCK, INC.631.90Accounts Payable Check 164096 04/24/2020 SHANE PAYTON 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164097 04/24/2020 PERRY'S PARCEL & GIFT 27.77Accounts Payable Check 164098 04/24/2020 CODY PHILBIN 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164099 04/24/2020 PLACEWORKS, INC.2,770.52Accounts Payable Check 164100 04/24/2020 KELLY MYER POLACEK 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164101 04/24/2020 HOLLY PORTER 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164102 04/24/2020 PROCARE JANITORIAL SUPPLY,INC.585.36Accounts Payable Check 164103 04/24/2020 PRP COMPANIES 109.14Accounts Payable Check 164104 04/24/2020 LAUREN PURIFY 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164105 04/24/2020 RAINSCAPE, A LANDSCAPE SVC CO.8,055.92Accounts Payable Check 164106 04/24/2020 RAVATT,ALBRECHT, & ASSC.,INC.645.00Accounts Payable Check 164107 04/24/2020 CATHERINE RAWITZER 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164108 04/24/2020 READYREFRESH BY NESTLE 312.85Accounts Payable Check ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 23 of 155 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of April 2020 164109 04/24/2020 CINNAMON REDD 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164110 04/24/2020 RICHARD REED 153.00Accounts Payable Check 164111 04/24/2020 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 127,601.51Accounts Payable Check 164112 04/24/2020 ROB DAVIS CONSTRUCTION 4,650.00Accounts Payable Check 164113 04/24/2020 SAN LUIS POWERHOUSE, INC.832.77Accounts Payable Check 164114 04/24/2020 KRISTY SANCHEZ 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164115 04/24/2020 JESSICA SANFORD 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164116 04/24/2020 CHLOE SCIORTINO 112.00Accounts Payable Check 164117 04/24/2020 SCOTT O'BRIEN FIRE & SAFETY CO 390.19Accounts Payable Check 164118 04/24/2020 FAUSTINA SCOTT 112.00Accounts Payable Check 164119 04/24/2020 THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY 70.29Accounts Payable Check 164120 04/24/2020 JESSICA SIMS 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164121 04/24/2020 JESSICA SIMS 112.00Accounts Payable Check 164122 04/24/2020 SITEIMPROVE, INC.4,092.00Accounts Payable Check 164123 04/24/2020 EMILY SIZELOVE 1,188.00Accounts Payable Check 164124 04/24/2020 KYLA SKINNER 59.00Accounts Payable Check 164125 04/24/2020 SO. BAY REG. PUBLIC SAFETY 711.00Accounts Payable Check 164126 04/24/2020 SOUTH COAST EMERGENCY VEH SVC 233.82Accounts Payable Check 164127 04/24/2020 CATHERINE STALEY 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164128 04/24/2020 STEVE DUNCAN CONSTRUCTION 6,200.00Accounts Payable Check 164129 04/24/2020 SUNLIGHT JANITORIAL, INC.961.00Accounts Payable Check 164130 04/24/2020 SUNRUN INSTALLATION SERVICES 63.03Accounts Payable Check 164131 04/24/2020 JENNIFER TALLEY 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164132 04/24/2020 LUPE TAPIA-VILLASENOR 93.00Accounts Payable Check 164133 04/24/2020 HEATHER TARANGO 224.00Accounts Payable Check 164134 04/24/2020 TECH-TIME COMMUNICATIONS, INC.312.50Accounts Payable Check 164135 04/24/2020 TESCO CONTROLS, INC.9,845.00Accounts Payable Check 164136 04/24/2020 AMY THOMPSON 123.00Accounts Payable Check 164137 04/24/2020 MADISON THOMPSON 112.00Accounts Payable Check 164138 04/24/2020 SANDY TOMASINI 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164139 04/24/2020 AARON TRAHAN 93.00Accounts Payable Check 164140 04/24/2020 AMY TREJO 93.00Accounts Payable Check 164141 04/24/2020 MELANIE TUCKER 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164142 04/24/2020 KRISTIN TWETEN 55.00Accounts Payable Check 164143 04/24/2020 LONI TWISSELMAN 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164144 04/24/2020 ULTREX BUSINESS PRODUCTS 68.77Accounts Payable Check 164145 04/24/2020 CHERYL URKE 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164146 04/24/2020 USA BLUE BOOK 991.45Accounts Payable Check ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 24 of 155 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of April 2020 164147 04/24/2020 JILLIAN VAN ENCKEVORT 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164148 04/24/2020 BRENT VANDER WEIDE 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164149 04/24/2020 NICOLE VAZQUEZ 24.50Accounts Payable Check 164150 04/24/2020 LEAH VILLA 93.00Accounts Payable Check 164151 04/24/2020 VINO VICE, INC.429.00Accounts Payable Check 164152 04/24/2020 TANI VRAJICH 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164153 04/24/2020 ROCHELLE WAGNER 55.00Accounts Payable Check 164154 04/24/2020 JAMIE WAISTELL 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164155 04/24/2020 VALERIE WALLA 112.00Accounts Payable Check 164156 04/24/2020 WALLACE GROUP 18,171.33Accounts Payable Check 164157 04/24/2020 HANNAH WARREN 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164158 04/24/2020 KATHERINE WEBSTER 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164159 04/24/2020 WESTERN JANITOR SUPPLY 161.18Accounts Payable Check 164160 04/24/2020 DENISE WIDUCH 52.00Accounts Payable Check 164161 04/24/2020 APRIL WILLS 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164162 04/24/2020 WENDY WILSON-HERNDON 49.00Accounts Payable Check 164163 04/24/2020 MICHAEL WOLFE 123.00Accounts Payable Check 164164 04/24/2020 MERISSA WOOD 112.00Accounts Payable Check 3661 04/30/2020 ANTHEM BLUE CROSS HSA 9,846.61Payroll Vendor Payment 164165 04/30/2020 ATASCADERO PROF. FIREFIGHTERS 1,176.50Payroll Vendor Payment 164166 04/30/2020 EMPLOYMENT DEV. DEPARTMENT 1,039.00Payroll Vendor Payment 164167 04/30/2020 MASS MUTUAL WORKPLACE SOLUTION 6,933.88Payroll Vendor Payment 164168 04/30/2020 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 96.20Payroll Vendor Payment 164169 04/30/2020 SEIU LOCAL 620 860.36Payroll Vendor Payment 164170 04/30/2020 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 106099 357.85Payroll Vendor Payment 164171 04/30/2020 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 304633 3,230.79Payroll Vendor Payment 164172 04/30/2020 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 706276 296.00Payroll Vendor Payment $1,396,868.71 ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 25 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 Atascadero City Council Staff Report – Administrative Services Department Amendments to Fee Schedule RECOMMENDATION: Council adopt Draft Resolution adopting amended fees and deposits to offset costs incurred in planning services and a schedule of fees and charges for City services. DISCUSSION: The purpose of City government is to service the needs of the people. The City offers a variety of services to the community including those such as planning and building development services, park and recreational services, rental of City property, police and fire services, and other miscellaneous City services of a voluntary or limited nature. These services are funded in part by fees paid by the users and in part by a General Fund subsidy. The amount of General Fund subsidy that is required is predicated on the degree to which the City is able to recover the costs reasonably borne to provide the special services. California law allows the City to recover “costs reasonably borne” by the City in providing services. However, the fee may not exceed those “costs reasonably borne” or it is by definition a special tax that must be approved by two -thirds of the voters. In 2014, the City hired a consultant, Revenue & Cost Specialists, LLC (RCS) to perform a complete Cost Allocation and User Fee Study. RCS is an expert in the industry and has been providing fee and costing services to local government agencies for 44 years. RCS provided similar services for the City in 2002 and 2006. Fee increases were considered and adopted by Council on May 13, 2014. At that time, Council directed staff to bring back the issue of adjusting fees annually using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI adjustment for year ending 2019 is 2.8%. The CPI used was the California weighted average change from calendar 2018 to 2019 that is calculated by the State Department of Industrial Relations. Attached, as Exhibit A to the Draft Resolution, is a summary fee comparison detailing the proposed adjustments. Page 26 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 Recreation activity fees adjust according to cost recovery guidelines and local trends. The Council has consistently demonstrated the desire to keep recreation fees affordable to the average family, resulting in a benefit to the entire community. In this Fee Schedule update however, all recreational activity fees are being proposed to increase by CPI. Similarly, Council has historically indicated their intention to have development pay for itself. The majority of the development fees proposed are at 100% cost recovery. If development fees are 100% user supported, general taxes are not diverted from general services such as police, fire and parks. Recovering the full cost of the service also allows the City to deliver the development services more efficiently as it hel ps to provide the funding for the staffing needs of the department. Other fees are limited by State law. Those cost recovery fees will remain at a constant level unless they are updated by the State. The remaining fees, which are neither managed by the State nor fall into the already discussed categories, were adjusted to reflect the actual changes in the costs of providing those services. The Service Fees will go into effect sixty days (60) after the resolution is adopted. FISCAL IMPACT: There will be an increase in operating revenue resulting from the CPI increase, with an offsetting increase in costs to provide the services. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Council may change any of the proposed fees that are not limited by State law. 2. Council may keep the current fees. This option is not recommended as the amount of tax dollars necessary to provide these services would increase , reducing the amount of money available for key Council priorities. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Schedule of Fees and Charges for Service Fees - Current vs. Proposed Fee Schedule (Exhibit A) Page 27 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 05/26/20 1 DRAFT RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AMENDED FEES AND DEPOSITS TO OFFSET COSTS INCURRED IN PLANNING SERVICES AND A SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES FOR CITY SERVICES WHEREAS, the City wishes to comply with both the letter and the spirit of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution and limit the growth of taxes; and WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero provides various planning and building development services to the public including, but not limited to, processing applications, reviewing plans and maps, issuing permits and reviewing development agreements (the “Planning Services”); and WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero desires to establish a policy of recovering some portion of the costs reasonably borne of providing special services, including but not limited to park and recreation services, rental of City property, police and fire services, and other miscellaneous City services, of a voluntary or limited nature, such that general taxes are not diverted from general services of a broad nature and thereby utilized unfairly and inequitably such special services (“City Services”); and WHEREAS, City Council intends to collect various fees (the “Fees”) and, in certain cases, require advance deposit of the Fees, to offset the costs associated with providing the Planning Services and City Services; and WHEREAS, because some of the Fees are described in Government Code section 66014, (i) notice of the time and place of this meeting as well as a general description of the matter to be considered are to be mailed at least 14 days prior to the date of this meeting to those parties (if any) who have filed requests for such notification, and (ii) data indicating the amount of the estimated cost required to provide the Services and the resources anticipated to fund the Planning Services were made available to the public at least 10 days prior to the date of this meeting, all in accordance with Government Code section 66016; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66016 applies to fees authorized in Government Code sections 51287, 56383, 57004, 65104, 65456, 65863.7, 65909.5, 66013, 66014 and 66451.2, Health & Safety Code sections 17951, 19132.3 and 19852, Public Resources Code section 41901 and Public Utilities Code section 21671.5 consisting of primarily fees for zoning variances, zoning changes, use permits, building inspections, building permits, filing and processing applications and petitions filed with LAFCO, the processing of subdivision maps, tentative, final and parcel maps and planning services to be charged for development projects; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66018 applies to the adopting or increasing fees to which a specific statutory notice requirement does not apply; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code sections 66016 and 66018 the enactment or increase in any fees to be charged for services must be adopted by the City Council by ordinance or resolution, after providing notice and holding a public hearing; and Page 28 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 05/26/20 1 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the fee schedule detailed in Exhibit A on file in the City Clerk’s Office and incorporated herein by this reference, is consistent with the City of Atascadero General Plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code sections 66016 and 66018, the data required to be made available to the public prior to increasing the amount of t he fees by this Resolution was made available for public review at least 10 days prior to the date of this meeting; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code sections 66014, 66106, 66018 and 6062a, notice of a public hearing on the increase to the amount of fees was published in The Tribune twice, with at least five days intervening the two publications, commencing at least ten days prior to the date of this meeting; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing before the City Council was held on May 26, 2020, at which public testimony was received and duly considered on the proposed Planning Services and City Services Fees; and WHEREAS, the City Council has previously adopted Resolution No. 2019-037, setting forth such fees, and desires to amend and restate this Resolution, to have all service fees contained in one resolution, without rescinding said adoption; and WHEREAS, the amount of the Fees do not exceed the true cost of providing the Planning Services and City Services; and WHEREAS, the increase to the amount of the fees is not a “project” subject to the California Environmental Quality Act because it is a funding mechanism having no physical effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Atascadero: SECTION 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and the City Council so finds and determines. SECTION 2. Establishment of the Fees. The Fees are hereby established in the amounts detailed in Exhibit A for the purpose of funding the cost of providing the Services. SECTION 3. Collection of the Fees. The Fees levied pursuant to this Resolution shall be paid to the City either at the time the Planning Service or City Service is requested or required or shall, in certain cases, be advanced to the City in the form of an advance deposit as further detailed in Exhibit A. SECTION 4. Constitutionality. If any portion of this Resolution is declared invalid or unconstitutional then it is the intention of the City Council to have passed the entire Resolution and all its component parts, and all other sections of this Resolution shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 5. Repealer. All resolutions and other actions of the City Council in conflict with the contents of this Resolution are hereby repealed. Page 29 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: ATTACHMENT: 05/26/20 1 SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect 60 days after the effective date of this Resolution, and shall remain in effect, until revised by the City Council. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Atascadero held this ___ day of _______, 2020. On motion by Council Member _______________and seconded by Council Member ____________, the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CITY OF ATASCADERO _________________________ Heather Moreno, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________ Lara K. Christensen, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________ Brian A. Pierik, City Attorney Page 30 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees 20-001 ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT REVIEW $752 per application No charge - Non-commercial wall mural $771 per application No charge - Non-commercial wall mural 20-001- Sign SIGNAGE ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT REVIEW $100 per application, inclusive of noticing and label generation fees $100 per application, inclusive of noticing and label generation fees 20-002 MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW $1,233 per application $1,264 per application 20-003 MAJOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW $4,424 per application $4,533 per application 20-004 VARIANCE APPLICATION $1,952 per application $2,000 per application 20-006 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT $13,577 deposit with staff charges at the fully allocated hourly rate + all outside or legal expenses $13,913 deposit with staff charges at the fully allocated hourly rate + all outside or legal expenses 20-007 SPECIFIC PLAN $10,183 deposit with staff charges at the fully allocated hourly rate + all outside or legal expenses $10,435 deposit with staff charges at the fully allocated hourly rate + all outside or legal expenses 20-008 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT $7,801 per application $7,994 per application 20-009 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE CHANGE $7,705 per application $7,896 per application 20-010 REZONING (MAP OR TEXT)$4,282 per application $8,186- Rezoning with a General Plan Amendment $4,388 per application $8,388- Rezoning with a General Plan Amendment DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE PLANNING Page 1 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 31 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-011 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP $4,616 per application $4,730 per application 20-012 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP $6,353 per map + $45 per lot over 15 lots $6,510 per map + $46 per lot over 15 lots 20-013 CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION TENTATIVE MAP $3,355 per map + $72 per unit over 15 units $5,566 per map + $72 per unit over 15 units for Condominium Conversion with a Major Conditional Use Permit $3,438 per map + $74 per unit over 15 units $5,704 per map + $74 per unit over 15 units for Condominium Conversion with a Major Conditional Use Permit 20-014 PRECISE PLAN $2,314 per application $2,371 per application 20-015 RECONSIDERATION/AMEND REVIEW (MAP/CUP) $1,437 per application - Minor $4,164 per application - Major $1,472 per application - Minor $4,267 per application - Major 20-016 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVIEW 10% of contract consultant amount for City staff review 10% of contract consultant amount for City staff review 20-016A ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION $1,646 per application in addition to other application fees where applicable $1,687 per application in addition to other application fees where applicable 20-017 ANNEXATION $16,971 deposit with staff charges at the fully allocated hourly rate + all outside or legal expenses $17,391 deposit with staff charges at the fully allocated hourly rate + all outside or legal expenses 20-018 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT REVIEW $1,465 per application - Historic Conflict Lot Line Adjustment $2,455 per application - Other $1,501 per application - Historic Conflict Lot Line Adjustment $2,516 per application - Other 20-019 LOT MERGER $1,488 per application $1,525 per application PLANNING (continued) Page 2 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 32 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-020 REVERSION TO ACREAGE $2,280 per application $2,336 per application 20-021 AGRICULTURE PRESERVE CANCELLATION $1,929 per application $1,977 per application 20-022 SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE FINDING $554 per application $568 per application 20-145 ALCOHOL BEVERAGE LICENSE $498 per application $510 per application 20-024 TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY REVIEW Commercial - $628 per application Residential - $453 per application Commercial - $643 per application Residential - $464 per application 20-025 ADMINISTRATIVE TIME EXTENSION REVIEW $447 per application $458 per application 20-026 PLANNING COMMISSION TIME EXTENSION REVIEW $820 per application $841 per application 20-027 CONTINUANCE $283 per application $290 per application 20-028 APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION $786 per application (70% cost recovery)$806 per application (70% cost recovery) 20-029 APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL $1,058 per application (70% cost recovery)$1,084 per application (70% cost recovery) 20-030 NATIVE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT $402 per permit- All trees other than Heritage trees $945 per permit- Heritage trees $412 per permit- All trees other than Heritage trees $968 per permit- Heritage trees PLANNING (continued) Page 3 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 33 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-031 TREE PROTECTION PLAN / INSPECTION FOR BUILDING PERMIT Minor (No Arborist Required) - No charge if done in conjunction with Planning Plan Check fee or $68 per review if done independently Major - $266 per application +: 6-25 trees - $34 per tree over 5 trees 26-100 trees - $11 per each tree over 25 trees 100+ trees - $5 per each tree over 100 trees Fee includes one inspection and one re-inspection Minor (No Arborist Required) - No charge if done in conjunction with Planning Plan Check fee or $70 per review if done independently Major - $272 per application +: 6-25 trees - $35 per tree over 5 trees 26-100 trees - $12 per each tree over 25 trees 100+ trees - $5 per each tree over 100 trees Fee includes one inspection and one re-inspection 20-032 RE-INSPECT TREE PROTECTION $136 per inspection (Fee imposed on the third and any subsequent inspections) $139 per inspection (Fee imposed on the third and any subsequent inspections) 20-033 ANNUAL UTILITY TREE PERMIT $1,341 per application $1,374 per application 20-035 STREET NAME/RENAME PROCESS WITHOUT MAP $707 per application $725 per application 20-037 BUILDING ADDRESS ASSIGNMENT PROCESSING $520 per application $533 per application 20-038 REAL ESTATE LETTER $136 per letter $139 per letter 20-039 CONSTRUCTION OPERATION AFTER-HOURS $470 per application $481 per application PLANNING (continued) Page 4 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 34 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-040A PLANNING REVIEW / APPROVAL OF BUILDING PERMIT Minor - $102 per application Major - $356 per application CUP/PD Compliance $470 per application DRC Review $402 per application +2.85% for document imaging Minor - $104 per application Major - $365 per application CUP/PD Compliance $481 per application DRC Review $412 per application +2.85% for document imaging 20-040B PLANNING INSPECTION $136 per inspection $139 per inspection 20-040C PLANNING- EXTRA PLAN CHECK/INSPECTION $136 per hour OR 1.3 times the actual cost of contract consultant $139 per hour OR 1.3 times the actual cost of contract consultant 20-068 GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE 5% of all building permit fees, which includes new buildings and additions. 5% of all building permit fees, which includes new buildings and additions. 20-069A DISTRICT FORMATION PROCESSING $4,469 per district + any outside consultant or legal costs $4,580 per district + any outside consultant or legal costs 20-069B COMMUNITY FACILITY DISTRICT ANNEXATION $1,086 per district + any outside consultant or legal costs $1,113 per district + any outside consultant or legal costs PLANNING (continued) Page 5 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 35 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-041 BUILDING PLAN CHECK/INSPECTION FEE Building Permit - The current International Code Council (ICC) Building Valuation Tables including inflation indexing Plumbing Permits-10% of Building Permit Fee ($85 minimum) Mechanical Permits-10% of Building Permit Fee ($85 minimum) Electrical Permits-10% of Building Permit Fee ($85 minimum) Plan Check - 65% of Building Permit Fee Disabled Access - Additional 10% of Building Permit Fee Energy Efficiency - Additional 10% of Building Permit Fee Outside plan check - 1.3 times the cost of an outside consultant Document Imaging-2.85% of Permit/Plan Check Fees Building Permit - The current International Code Council (ICC) Building Valuation Tables including inflation indexing Plumbing Permits-10% of Building Permit Fee ($87 minimum) Mechanical Permits-10% of Building Permit Fee ($87 minimum) Electrical Permits-10% of Building Permit Fee ($87 minimum) Plan Check - 65% of Building Permit Fee Disabled Access - Additional 10% of Building Permit Fee Energy Efficiency - Additional 10% of Building Permit Fee Outside plan check - 1.3 times the cost of an outside consultant Document Imaging-2.85% of Permit/Plan Check Fees BUILDING Page 6 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 36 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-041C OVER THE COUNTER MISCELLANEOUS BUILDING PERMIT Water Heater - $85 + 2.85% for document imaging Minor (1 inspection) - $204 per permit + 2.85% for document imaging Major (2 inspections) - $300 per permit + 2.85% for document imaging Water Heater - $87 + 2.85% for document imaging Minor (1 inspection) - $209 per permit + 2.85% for document imaging Major (2 inspections) - $307 per permit + 2.85% for document imaging 20-041D EXPRESS BUILDING PERMIT $509 per permit + 2.85% for document imaging except: Solar Systems - $368 per permit + 2.85% for document imaging $522 per permit + 2.85% for document imaging except: Solar Systems - $377 per permit + 2.85% for document imaging 20-041D- Sign EXPRESS SIGN PERMIT $50 per permit, inclusive of noticing and label generation fees + 2.85% for document imaging Exclusive of Monument Signs and Pole Signs $51 per permit, inclusive of noticing and label generation fees + 2.85% for document imaging Exclusive of Monument Signs and Pole Signs 20-048 PLAN REVISION CHECKING $136 + actual cost of City staff at the fully allocated hourly rates or actual cost of consultant + 2.85% for document imaging $139 + actual cost of City staff at the fully allocated hourly rates or actual cost of consultant + 2.85% for document imaging 20-049 BUILDING - EXTRA PLAN CHECK/INSPECTION Plan Check - $23 + $127 per hour, 1 hour minimum or the actual cost of contract consultant Inspection - $153 per extra inspection Plan Check - $23 + $130 per hour, 1 hour minimum or the actual cost of contract consultant Inspection - $157 per extra inspection 20-050 RESTAMPING OF APPROVED PLANS Residential - $204 per plan Commercial - $385 per plan Residential - $209 per plan Commercial - $394 per plan BUILDING (continued) Page 7 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 37 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-051 LOST INSPECTION CARD $91 per card $93 per card 20-051A CHANGE OF CONTRACTOR OR RESPONSIBLE PARTY $141 per application $145 per application 20-052 APPEAL TO BOARD OF APPEALS $769 per appeal for 70% cost recovery $788 per appeal for 70% cost recovery 20-999 MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES All legal, consultant and other direct costs + fully allocated hourly rate of all staff time involved. All legal, consultant and other direct costs + fully allocated hourly rate of all staff time involved. 20-117 CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY $205 per application $210 per application 20-128 DOCUMENT IMAGING FEE 2.85% of plan check fee 2.85% of plan check fee 20-147 NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE $243 each + county fees $249 each + county fees BUILDING (continued) Page 8 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 38 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-042 FIRE BUILDING PLAN CHECK/INSPECTION $96 per permit +2.85 % for document imaging $99 per permit +2.85 % for document imaging 20-042A FIRE SPRINKLER PLAN CHECK New Residential - $232 + actual cost of consultant Tenant Improvement Residential Plan Check - $164 + actual cost of consultant Commercial Plan Check - $124 + actual cost of City staff at the fully allocated hourly rates or actual cost of consultant +2.85% for document imaging New Residential - $238 + actual cost of consultant Tenant Improvement Residential Plan Check - $168 + actual cost of consultant Commercial Plan Check - $128 + actual cost of City staff at the fully allocated hourly rates or actual cost of consultant +2.85% for document imaging 20-042B FIRE SPRINKLER INSPECTION Residential - $175 Commercial - Charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved + all outside expenses Residential - $180 Commercial - Charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved + all outside expenses 20-042C EXTRA FIRE PLAN CHECK/INSPECTION $141 per hour extra plan check or inspection OR 1.3 times the actual cost of contract consultant (Fee to be assessed after initial plan check/inspection and one re-check/inspection) $145 per hour extra plan check or inspection OR 1.3 times the actual cost of contract consultant (Fee to be assessed after initial plan check/inspection and one re-check/inspection) 20-042D SPRINKLER EXPRESS PLAN CHECK/INSPECTION $153 per permit +2.85% for document imaging $157 per permit +2.85% for document imaging FIRE DEVELOPMENT Page 9 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 39 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-043A FIRE ALARM PLAN CHECK $153 + actual cost of contract consultant + 2.85% for document imaging $157 + actual cost of contract consultant + 2.85% for document imaging 20-043B FIRE ALARM INSPECTION Single Family Residential - $62 Other - Charges at the fully allocated hourly rates of all personnel involved + all outside expenses Single Family Residential - $64 Other - Charges at the fully allocated hourly rates of all personnel involved + all outside expenses 20-044A NEW FIRE HOOD/DUCT PLAN CHECK $153 + actual cost of consultant + 2.85% for document imaging $157 + actual cost of consultant + 2.85% for document imaging 20-044B NEW FIRE HOOD/DUCT INSPECTION $107 per project $110 per project 20-045 PRIVATE HYDRANT SYSTEM PC/INSPECTION $305 per system + 2.85% for document imaging $313 per system + 2.85% for document imaging 20-130 OTHER FIRE SERVICES Fully allocated hourly rate of all staff time involved.Fully allocated hourly rate of all staff time involved. FIRE DEVELOPMENT (continued) Page 10 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 40 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-053 ON-SITE GRADING PLAN CHECK Less than 50 Cubic Yard Permit: $413 Single Family Residence/Accessory: $718 Commercial: $775 + $175 per each 5,000 sq ft after the first 5,000 sq ft Multi Family: $1,674 + $62 per unit Tract: 5-50 lots-$1,375 + $42 per lot for each lot over 5 lots 50+ lots-$3,265 + $29 per lot for each lot over 50 lots + 2.85% for document imaging Less than 50 Cubic Yard Permit: $423 Single Family Residence/Accessory: $736 Commercial: $794 + $180 per each 5,000 sq ft after the first 5,000 sq ft Multi Family: $1,716 + $64 per unit Tract: 5-50 lots-$1,409 + $43 per lot for each lot over 5 lots 50+ lots-$3,344 + $30 per lot for each lot over 50 lots + 2.85% for document imaging 20-053A ON-SITE DRAINAGE PLAN CHECK Single Family Residence: $130 Commercial: $272 + $209 per each 5,000 sq. ft. after the first 5,000 sq. ft. Multi Family: $498 + $91 per unit Tract: 5-50 lots-$453 + $20 per lot for each lot over 5 lots 50+ lots-$1,353 + $11 per lot for each lot over 50 lots + 2.85% for document imaging Single Family Residence: $133 Commercial: $278 + $214 per each 5,000 sq. ft. after the first 5,000 sq. ft. Multi Family: $510 + $93 per unit Tract: 5-50 lots-$464 + $21 per lot for each lot over 5 lots 50+ lots-$1,409 + $12 per lot for each lot over 50 lots + 2.85% for document imaging PUBLIC WORKS Page 11 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 41 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-053C ENGINEERING-EXTRA PLAN CHCK/INSPECTION $48 per plan/inspection + $175 per hour per extra plan check or inspection OR 1.3 times the actual cost of contract consultant (Fee to be assessed after initial plan check/inspection and one re-check/inspection) $49 per plan/inspection + $180 per hour per extra plan check or inspection OR 1.3 times the actual cost of contract consultant (Fee to be assessed after initial plan check/inspection and one re-check/inspection) 20-054 ON-SITE GRADING INSPECTION Single Family Residence/Accessory: $277 Commercial: $617 + $305 per each 5,000 sq. ft. after the first 5,000 sq. ft. Multi Family: $396 + $57 per unit Tract: 5-50 lots-$617 + $53 per lot for each lot over 5 lots 50+ lots-$3,002 + $31 per lot for each lot over 50 lots Single Family Residence/Accessory: $284 Commercial: $632 + $313 per each 5,000 sq. ft. after the first 5,000 sq. ft. Multi Family: $406 + $58 per unit Tract: 5-50 lots-$632 + $54 per lot for each lot over 5 lots 50+ lots-$3,062 + $31 per lot for each lot over 50 lots 20-054A ON-SITE DRAINAGE INSPECTION Single Family Residence/Accessory: $141 Commercial: $453 + $198 per each 5,000 sq. ft. after the first 5,000 sq. ft. Multi Family: $453 + $57 per unit Tract: 5-50 lots-$792 + $35 per lot for each lot over 5 lots 50+ lots-$2,367 + $20 per lot for each lot over 50 lots Single Family Residence/Accessory: $145 Commercial: $464 + $203 per each 5,000 sq. ft. after the first 5,000 sq. ft. Multi Family: $464 + $58 per unit Tract: 5-50 lots-$812 + $36 per lot for each lot over 5 lots 50+ lots-$2,432 + $21 per lot for each lot over 50 lots PUBLIC WORKS (continued) Page 12 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 42 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-053W SEPTIC SYSTEM PLAN CHECK $311 per plan + 2.85% for document imaging $319 per plan + 2.85% for document imaging 20-054W SEPTIC SYSTEM INSPECTION $107 per permit $110 per permit 20-055 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN CHECK $0 - $50,000 - 4.80% of the Engineer's Estimate ($566 minimum) $50,001 - $100,000 - $2,400 + 0.75% of the Engineer's Estimate over $50,000 $100,001 - $250,000 - $2,775 + 0.23% of the Engineer's Estimate over $100,000 $250,001 - $500,000 - $3,120 + 0.75% of the Engineer's Estimate over $250,000 $500,001+ - $4,995 + 0.23% of the Engineer's Estimate over $500,000 + 2.85% for document imaging $0 - $50,000 - 4.80% of the Engineer's Estimate ($580 minimum) $50,001 - $100,000 - $2,400 + 0.75% of the Engineer's Estimate over $50,000 $100,001 - $250,000 - $2,775 + 0.23% of the Engineer's Estimate over $100,000 $250,001 - $500,000 - $3,120 + 0.75% of the Engineer's Estimate over $250,000 $500,001+ - $4,995 + 0.23% of the Engineer's Estimate over $500,000 + 2.85% for document imaging PUBLIC WORKS (continued) Page 13 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 43 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-055A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT INSPECTION $0 - $50,000 - 3.4% of the Engineer's Estimate ($566 minimum) $50,001 - $100,000 - $1,700 + 1.5% of the Engineer's Estimate over $50,000 $100,001+ - $2,450 + 0.45% of the Engineer's Estimate over $100,000 $0 - $50,000 - 3.4% of the Engineer's Estimate ($580 minimum) $50,001 - $100,000 - $1,700 + 1.5% of the Engineer's Estimate over $50,000 $100,001+ - $2,450 + 0.45% of the Engineer's Estimate over $100,000 20-056 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT $130 per permit $133 per permit 20-057 MINOR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT Driveway Approach - $232 Sidewalk - $339 for first 50 linear feet + $2 for each additional foot Curb/Gutter - $339 for first 50 linear feet + $2 for each additional foot Sidewalk/Curb/Gutter - $453 for first 50 linear feet + $3 for each additional foot Driveway Approach - $238 Sidewalk - $348 for first 50 linear feet + $2 for each additional foot Curb/Gutter - $348 for first 50 linear feet + $2 for each additional foot Sidewalk/Curb/Gutter - $464 for first 50 linear feet + $3 for each additional foot 20-057A PERMANENT ENCROACHMENT PERMIT $373 per permit $383 per permit 20-058 UTILITY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT $289 - Water patch $537 - 0-10' trench $758 - 10'-50' trench $1,069 - 50'-100' trench $1,352 - 100'-300' Trench (plus $2 per additional foot over 300 feet) $454 - Annual Blanket Encroachment Permit (Registration Only) $296 - Water patch $551 - 0-10' trench $777 - 10'-50' trench $1,096 - 50'-100' trench $1,385 - 100'-300' Trench (plus $2 per additional foot over 300 feet) $466 - Annual Blanket Encroachment Permit (Registration Only) PUBLIC WORKS (continued) Page 14 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 44 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-058A TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN CHECK/INSPECTION $594 per project $609 per project 20-059 FINAL PARCEL MAP CHECK $1,986 per map + $102 + $6 per lot GIS fee + any recording fees + any consultant fees $2,035 per map + $104 + $6 per lot GIS fee + any recording fees + any consultant fees 20-060 FINAL TRACT MAP CHECK $2,970 per map + $31 per lot over 5 lots + $102 + $6 per lot GIS fee + any recording fees + any consultant fees Affordable Housing - $402 per application + $136 per unit + any outside or legal costs $3,043 per map + $31 per lot over 5 lots + $104 + $6 per lot GIS fee + any recording fees + any consultant fees Affordable Housing - $412 per application + $139 per unit + any outside or legal costs 20-061 CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION PLAN $2,970 per map + $31 per unit + any consultant fees $3,043 per map + $31 per unit + any consultant fees 20-062 FINAL MAP AMENDMENT $3,043 per application Certificate of Correction-$803 per application $3,119 per application Certificate of Correction-$823 per application 20-063 STREET/RIGHT OF WAY ABANDONMENT PROCESS $4,808 per application + any consultant fees $4,927 per application + any consultant fees 20-064 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE $1,160 per application + any consultant fees $1,188 per application + any consultant fees 20-065 FLOOD PLAIN LETTER $509 per letter $522 per letter 20-066 WIDE/OVERWEIGHT/OVERLONG LOAD REVIEW $16 - Daily Permit $90 - Annual Permit Fees are set by the State $16 - Daily Permit $90 - Annual Permit Fees are set by the State 20-109A SEWER TAP $526 per lateral $539 per lateral PUBLIC WORKS (continued) Page 15 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 45 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-109 SEWER PROCESSING $45 per sewer connection permit $46 per sewer connection permit 20-110 EMERGENCY SEWAGE SPILL RESPONSE Charge the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved + any outside or material costs. Charge the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved + any outside or material costs. 20-066A STREET CLOSURES All Street Closures are subject to the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved, with a minimum of two (2) hours. All Street Closures are subject to the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved, with a minimum of two (2) hours. 20-070 NOISE DISTURBANCE RESPONSE CALL-BACK Charge the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved Charge the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved 20-071 POLICE FALSE ALARM RESPONSE First three responses within a calendar year - No Charge Fourth and subsequent false alarm within a calendar year - $170 per response First three responses within a calendar year - No Charge Fourth and subsequent false alarm within a calendar year - $174 per response 20-072 DUI ACCIDENT RESPONSE INVESTIGATION Charge the fully allocated hourly rate for all emergency personnel involved, not to exceed $12,000 per incident by State Law. Charge the fully allocated hourly rate for all emergency personnel involved, not to exceed $12,000 per incident by State Law. 20-073 VEHICLE EQUIPMENT CORRECTION INSPECTION $40 per inspection $41 per inspection 20-074 VIN VERIFICATION $34 per request $35 per request PUBLIC WORKS (continued) POLICE Page 16 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 46 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-075 STORED/IMPOUNDED VEHICLE RELEASE $119 per vehicle $122 per vehicle 20-076 REPOSSESSED VEHICLE RELEASE $15 per vehicle This fee is set by State Law $15 per vehicle This fee is set by State Law 20-078 RECORDS CHECK/CLEARANCE LETTER $32 per letter + notary fee if applicable $32 per letter + notary fee if applicable 20-080 POLICE REPORT COPY As this service is covered by the Public Records Act, the fee should match the City's copy charge fee: 1st page - $0.50 each additional page - $0.10 As this service is covered by the Public Records Act, the fee should match the City's copy charge fee: 1st page - $0.50 each additional page - $0.10 20-081 POLICE DIGITAL FILE REPRODUCTION $3 per device $3 per device 20-083 CIVIL SUBPOENA OF RECORDS $15 + reproduction costs $275 per day deposit + travel costs Fees are set by the Court $15 + reproduction costs $275 per day deposit + travel costs Fees are set by the Court 20-084 DUCES TECUM SUBPOENA $15 per request + reproduction costs Fees are set by State Law. $15 per request + reproduction costs Fees are set by State Law. No Charge - Volunteers for Seniors/Youth $17 per person - community group coaches or leaders $34 per person - all others No Charge - Volunteers for Seniors/Youth $17 per person - community group coaches or leaders $35 per person - all others 20-079 LIVE SCAN FINGERPRINT PROCESSING POLICE (continued) Page 17 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 47 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-085 POLICE SPECIAL SERVICES Fully allocated costs of all personnel involved, + any actual material or equipment expenses required for the event. Fully allocated costs of all personnel involved, + any actual material or equipment expenses required for the event. 20-082 CONCEALED CARRY WEAPONS LICENSE $112 New license application $28 Renewal license application $11 Amendments to existing license application +All required State and Federal agency fees $115 New license application $29 Renewal license application $11 Amendments to existing license application +All required State and Federal agency fees 20-069 CODE ENFORCEMENT Recover the full costs related to the enforcement of the City's codes at a particular parcel if the parcel is not brought into compliance, up to and including court action. Recover the full costs related to the enforcement of the City's codes at a particular parcel if the parcel is not brought into compliance, up to and including court action. 20-045A FIRE SPRINKLER SERVICE LETTER $34 per letter $35 per letter 20-045B FIRE CODE POSITION LETTER $175 per letter $180 per letter 20-046 FIRE FLOW TEST $175 per test $180 per test 20-086 TEMPORARY TENT/CIRCUS PERMIT $107 per permit + $45 per day after the first day $110 per permit + $46 per day after the first day 20-086A PERMANENT TENT PERMIT Charge the fully allocated hourly rate for all staff involved + any outside costs. Charge the fully allocated hourly rate for all staff involved + any outside costs. 20-087 SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT $243 per day $249 per day FIRE POLICE (continued) Page 18 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 48 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-042C RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY CONSULTATION Maximum allowed under State law (currently $50)Maximum allowed under State law (currently $50) 20-088 CONFINED SPACE PERMIT Hazard Permit - $113 Extended Hazard Permit - $679 Annual Hazard Permit - $1,697 Hazard Permit - $116 Extended Hazard Permit - $696 Annual Hazard Permit - $1,739 20-089 UNDERGROUND TANK REMOVAL $130 per tank - 1st inspection $68 per tank - each subsequent inspection $133 per tank - 1st inspection $70 per tank - each subsequent inspection 20-090 FIRE CODE PERMITS $62 per permit $64 per permit 20-091 ENGINE COMPANY INSPECTION First 2 inspections - no charge 3rd and subsequent inspections - $153 per inspection First 2 inspections - no charge 3rd and subsequent inspections - $157 per inspection 20-092 FIRE FALSE ALARM RESPONSE First 3 responses in a calendar year - No Charge 4th and subsequent response in a calendar year - $260 per response First 3 responses in a calendar year - No Charge 4th and subsequent response in a calendar year - $267 per response 20-093 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM Actual costs + 166% Administrative Fee + $260 Flat Fee if lot must be cleared by the City This program is designed to only recover the cost of the properties that do not comply. Actual costs + 166% Administrative Fee + $267 Flat Fee if lot must be cleared by the City This program is designed to only recover the cost of the properties that do not comply. 20-094 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RESPONSE Charge the fully allocated hourly rate for all personnel involved. Charge the fully allocated hourly rate for all personnel involved. FIRE (continued) Page 19 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 49 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-095 NEGLIGENT INCIDENT RESPONSE Charge double the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved. Charge double the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved. 20-096 FIRE/ARSON INVESTIGATION Charge the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved. Charge the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved. 20-098 FIRE INCIDENT REPORT COPY As this service is covered by the Public Records Act, the fee should match the City's copy charge fee: 1st page - $0.50 each additional page - $0.10 As this service is covered by the Public Records Act, the fee should match the City's copy charge fee: 1st page - $0.50 each additional page - $0.10 20-098A FIRE CODE OCCUPANCY LETTER $68 per letter $70 per letter FIRE (continued) Page 20 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 50 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-099 ADULT SPORTS The City Manager or Designee may set and change Adult Sports Fees according to cost recovery guidelines and local trends. This authorization is intended to allow the Community Services Department to offer new and revised programs between fee updates. Current Fees are as follows: Adult Softball: $623 per team + $5 per nonresident player or additional 10% if 8 or more nonresident players Adult Basketball: $410 per team + $5 per nonresident player or additional 10% if 8 or more nonresident players Adult Volleyball: $307 per team + $5 per nonresident player or additional 10% if 8 or more nonresident players Adult Drop-in Programs: $2 per person Light Fee: $21 per hour Late Fee: After registration $52 per team Forfeit Fee: $26 per team Protest Fee: $21 per team Add/Drop Fee: $21 per transaction The City Manager or Designee may set and change Adult Sports Fees according to cost recovery guidelines and local trends. This authorization is intended to allow the Community Services Department to offer new and revised programs between fee updates. Current Fees are as follows: Adult Softball: $640 per team + $5 per nonresident player or additional 10% if 8 or more nonresident players Adult Basketball: $421 per team + $5 per nonresident player or additional 10% if 8 or more nonresident players Adult Volleyball: $316 per team + $5 per nonresident player or additional 10% if 8 or more nonresident players Adult Drop-in Programs: $2 per person Light Fee: $22 per hour Late Fee: After registration $53 per team Forfeit Fee: $27 per team Protest Fee: $22 per team Add/Drop Fee: $22 per transaction RECREATION Page 21 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 51 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-100 YOUTH SPORTS The City Manager or Designee may set and change Youth Sports Fees according to cost recovery guidelines and local trends. This authorization is intended to allow the Community Services Department to offer new and revised programs between fee updates. Current Fees are as follows: Jr. Volleyball - $49 per resident participant or $54 for nonresident participants ($5 discount for each additional family member) Youth Basketball - $92 per participant or $101 per nonresident participant ($5 discount for each additional family member) T-Ball - $83 per resident participant or $92 for nonresident participant ($5 discount for each additional family member) $10 late fee per participant or family The City Manager or Designee may set and change Youth Sports Fees according to cost recovery guidelines and local trends. This authorization is intended to allow the Community Services Department to offer new and revised programs between fee updates. Current Fees are as follows: Jr. Volleyball - $50 per resident participant or $56 for nonresident participants ($5 discount for each additional family member) Youth Basketball - $95 per participant or $104 per nonresident participant ($5 discount for each additional family member) T-Ball - $85 per resident participant or $95 for nonresident participant ($5 discount for each additional family member) $10 late fee per participant or family 20-103 CONTRACT RECREATION CLASSES City Contract Instructors receive 70% of the class fee and the City receives the remaining 30% for off-site classes and/or existing instructors. City Contract Instructors receive 60% of the class fee and the City receives the remaining 40% for on-site classes and/or new instructors. City Contract Instructors receive 70% of the class fee and the City receives the remaining 30% for off-site classes and/or existing instructors. City Contract Instructors receive 60% of the class fee and the City receives the remaining 40% for on-site classes and/or new instructors. RECREATION (continued) Page 22 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 52 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-104 CITY SPECIAL EVENTS The City Manager or Designee may set and change Special Events according to cost recovery guidelines and local trends. This authorization is intended to allow the Community Services Department to offer new and revised programs between fee updates. Current Fees are as follows: 1st Banner Position - No charge Additional Banner Positions - $50 each per week according to policy A temporary banner removal fee of $26 will be charged if banner is left up more than one day after the event. The City Manager or Designee may set and change Special Events according to cost recovery guidelines and local trends. This authorization is intended to allow the Community Services Department to offer new and revised programs between fee updates. Current Fees are as follows: 1st Banner Position - No charge Additional Banner Positions - $51 each per week according to policy A temporary banner removal fee of $27 will be charged if banner is left up more than one day after the event. RECREATION (continued) Page 23 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 53 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE Cruise Night: $27 per car during pre-registration $37 per car the night of the event Craft Faire $67 per inside space for residents $83 per inside space for nonresidents $57 per outside space for residents $73 per outside space for nonresidents Cruise Night: $28 per car during pre-registration $38 per car the night of the event Craft Faire $69 per inside space for residents $85 per inside space for nonresidents $59 per outside space for residents $75 per outside space for nonresidents Father/Daughter Dance: $31 per couple for residents $36 per couple for nonresidents + $5 for each additional daughter Booth Fee (Booths allowed in accordance with City policy at other City-run events) $0 Nonprofit vendors $60 For Profit Vendors Other Special Events: Fully allocated cost of required personnel Father/Daughter Dance: $32 per couple for residents $37 per couple for nonresidents + $5 for each additional daughter Booth Fee (Booths allowed in accordance with City policy at other City-run events) $0 Nonprofit vendors $62 For Profit Vendors Other Special Events: Fully allocated cost of required personnel 20-105 TRIPS AND TOURS Charge the direct cost of the trip Charge the direct cost of the trip 20-104 CITY SPECIAL EVENTS (continued) RECREATION (continued) Page 24 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 54 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-148 ADVERTISING The City Manager or designee may set and change Advertising Fees according to cost recovery guidelines and local market trends. This authorization is intended to allow the Community Services Department to offer new and revised programs between fee updates. Current Fees are as follows: $130 1/8 Page Ad $205 1/4 Page Ad $305 1/2 Page Ad $255 Banner Ad $575 Full Page Ad $825 Inside Back Cover $825 Inside Front Cover $1,500 Back Cover The City Manager or designee may set and change Advertising Fees according to cost recovery guidelines and local market trends. This authorization is intended to allow the Community Services Department to offer new and revised programs between fee updates. Current Fees are as follows: $134 1/8 Page Ad $211 1/4 Page Ad $314 1/2 Page Ad $262 Banner Ad $591 Full Page Ad $848 Inside Back Cover $848 Inside Front Cover $1,542 Back Cover RECREATION (continued) Page 25 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 55 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE Security Deposit: All special events require a $396 security deposit. Security Guards: All events where alcohol is served require one guard per 100 people. $23+ actual cost of security service (minimum of 4 hours) Security Deposit: All special events require a $406 security deposit. Security Guards: All events where alcohol is served require one guard per 100 people. $23+ actual cost of security service (minimum of 4 hours) Application Fee: $6 each Application Fee: $6 each Cleaning Fee: $21 + contract cleaning charge + any repair costs for damage to the facility + fully allocated hourly rate of City personnel Cleaning Fee: $23 + contract cleaning charge + any repair costs for damage to the facility + fully allocated hourly rate of City personnel Cleaning Fee will be applied at the discretion of the City Manager or Designee. (In general it will be required for all rentals where food and/or beverages are served, for all day Saturday rentals and other large events where a cleaning crew is required.) Cleaning Fee will be applied at the discretion of the City Manager or Designee. (In general it will be required for all rentals where food and/or beverages are served, for all day Saturday rentals and other large events where a cleaning crew is required.) 20-138 PAVILION CLEANING FEE PAVILION Page 26 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 56 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE Rotary Room: Weekdays: $45 per hour for residents $51 per hour for nonresidents/commercial $40 per hour for non-profits Rotary Room: Weekdays: $46 per hour for residents $52 per hour for nonresidents/commercial $41 per hour for non-profits Evenings and Sundays: $62 per hour for residents $74 per hour for nonresidents/commercial $40 per hour for non-profits Evenings and Sundays: $64 per hour for residents $75 per hour for nonresidents/commercial $41 per hour for non-profits Gronstrand Room: Weekdays: $40 per hour for residents $45 per hour for nonresidents/commercial $34 per hour for non-profits Gronstrand Room: Weekdays: $41 per hour for residents $46 per hour for nonresidents/commercial $35 per hour for non-profits Evenings and Sundays: $51 per hour for residents $57 per hour for nonresidents/commercial $34 per hour for non-profits Evenings and Sundays: $52 per hour for residents $58 per hour for nonresidents/commercial $35 per hour for non-profits 20-106 PAVILION RENTAL PAVILION (continued) Page 27 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 57 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE Community Room: Weekdays: $34 per hour for residents $34 per hour for nonresidents/commercial $28 per hour for non-profits Community Room: Weekdays: $35 per hour for residents $35 per hour for nonresidents/commercial $29 per hour for non-profits Evenings and Sundays: $40 per hour for residents $40 per hour for nonresidents/commercial $28 per hour for non-profits Evenings and Sundays: $41 per hour for residents $41 per hour for nonresidents/commercial $29 per hour for non-profits Kitchen: Weekdays: $51 per hour for residents $57 per hour for nonresidents/commercial $28 per hour for non-profits Kitchen: Weekdays: $52 per hour for residents $58 per hour for nonresidents/commercial $29 per hour for non-profits Evenings and Sundays: $62 per hour for residents $68 per hour for nonresidents/commercial $28 per hour for non-profits Evenings and Sundays: $64 per hour for residents $70 per hour for nonresidents/commercial $29 per hour for non-profits Great Room: Weekdays: $79 per hour for residents $91 per hour for nonresidents/commercial $68 per hour for non-profits Great Room: Weekdays: $81 per hour for residents $93 per hour for nonresidents/commercial $70 per hour for non-profits 20-106 PAVILION RENTAL (continued) PAVILION (continued) Page 28 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 58 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE Great Room: Evenings and Sundays: $107 per hour for residents $124 per hour for nonresidents/commercial $68 per hour for non-profits Great Room: Evenings and Sundays: $110 per hour for residents $128 per hour for nonresidents/commercial $70 per hour for non-profits Combined: (Includes Great Room, Community Room, Kitchen and Lobby, Saturday Only) $2,184 per day + $192 cleaning fee for residents $2,749 per day + $192 cleaning fee for nonresidents/commercial Combined: (Includes Great Room, Community Room, Kitchen and Lobby, Saturday Only) $2,238 per day + $197 cleaning fee for residents $2,817 per day + $197 cleaning fee for nonresidents/commercial $68 per hour, 12 hour min for non-profits (Great Room only), additional fees apply for use of $70 per hour, 12 hour min for non-profits (Great Room only), additional fees apply for use of Lakeside Room: $40 per hour for residents $39 per hour for nonresidents/commercial $28 per hour for non-profits Lakeside Room: $41 per hour for residents $40 per hour for nonresidents/commercial $29 per hour for non-profits 20-106 PAVILION RENTAL (continued) PAVILION (continued) Page 29 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 59 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE Non-profit organizations may receive a 50% discount on equipment rental fees. Upon approval of the City Manager or Designee, non-profit organizations that have ongoing rental agreements with the Pavilion on the Lake and have made significant donations to the City facilities are eligible to receive a full waiver of rental items. Gazebo Chairs: $1.70 per chair + $40 set-up fee Stage: $11 per 4' x 8' piece Linens (optional): Fees set by the Pavilion Coordinator based on market conditions. Podium: $23 per day TV/VCR: $34 per day TV/VCR/DVD: $40 per day Sound System: $113 per day Non-profit organizations may receive a 50% discount on equipment rental fees. Upon approval of the City Manager or Designee, non-profit organizations that have ongoing rental agreements with the Pavilion on the Lake and have made significant donations to the City facilities are eligible to receive a full waiver of rental items. Gazebo Chairs: $1.70 per chair + $41 set-up fee Stage: $12 per 4' x 8' piece Linens (optional): Fees set by the Pavilion Coordinator based on market conditions. Podium: $23 per day TV/VCR: $35 per day TV/VCR/DVD: $41 per day Sound System: $116 per day Overhead Projector: $28 per day Portable Projector Screens: $17 per day Electric Projector Screens: $28 per day LCD Projector: $113 per day Topiary Trees: $23 each Lattice Screen: $28 each without lights $57 each with lights Microphone: $23 each per day Mirrors: $2 each Candleholders: $1 each Wireless Internet: $28 per day Overhead Projector: $29 per day Portable Projector Screens: $17 per day Electric Projector Screens: $29 per day LCD Projector: $116 per day Topiary Trees: $23 each Lattice Screen: $29 each without lights $58 each with lights Microphone: $23 each per day Mirrors: $2 each Candleholders: $1 each Wireless Internet: $29 per day PAVILION (continued) 20-139 PAVILION EQUIPMENT RENTALS Page 30 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 60 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-140 GAZEBO RENTALS $175 per day $180 per day 20-141 RANGER HOUSE RENTALS RANGER HOUSE RENTALS-ZOO ROOM $34 per hour for residents $34 per hour for nonresidents/commercial $28 per hour for non-profit $35 per hour for residents $35 per hour for nonresidents/commercial $29 per hour for non-profit 20-150 YOUTH & TEEN SERVICES Teen Center membership - $10 per year Teen Center membership card replacement - $2 per card Teen Center Summer Club - $55 per week Teen Center membership - $10 per year Teen Center membership card replacement - $2 per card Teen Center Summer Club - $57 per week PAVILION (continued) COLONY PARK COMMUNITY CENTER Page 31 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 61 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE Non-refundable Deposit: All bookings require a 50% non-refundable deposit. Cancellations will forfeit the deposit Non-refundable Deposit: All bookings require a 50% non-refundable deposit. Cancellations will forfeit the deposit Security Deposit: May be required at the discretion of the Director (refundable after event if no damages/extra charges apply). Security Guards: At the discretion of the Director, events require one guard per 100 people. $22 + actual cost of security service Security Deposit: May be required at the discretion of the Director (refundable after event if no damages/extra charges apply). Security Guards: At the discretion of the Director, events require one guard per 100 people. $22 + actual cost of security service Additional Staff Time: An additional hourly rental charge of $22 per hour will apply if the City is required to schedule additional personnel in order to accommodate the event Additional Staff Time: An additional hourly rental charge of $22 per hour will apply if the City is required to schedule additional personnel in order to accommodate the event Fitness (Dance & Exercise Rooms Combined): Weekdays: $49 per hour for residents $54 per hour for nonresidents $43 per hour for non-profits Fitness (Dance & Exercise Rooms Combined): Weekdays: $50 per hour for residents $55 per hour for nonresidents $45 per hour for non-profits Fitness (Dance & Exercise Rooms Combined): Evenings, Saturdays and Sundays: $64 per hour for residents $69 per hour for nonresidents $59 per hour for non-profits Fitness (Dance & Exercise Rooms Combined): Evenings, Saturdays and Sundays: $66 per hour for residents $71 per hour for nonresidents $61 per hour for non-profits 20-152 COLONY PARK COMMUNITY CENTER RENTAL COLONY PARK COMMUNITY CENTER (continued) Page 32 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 62 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE Conference Room: Weekdays: $32 per hour for residents $37 per hour for nonresidents $27 per hour for non-profits Conference Room: Weekdays: $33 per hour for residents $38 per hour for nonresidents $28 per hour for non-profits Evenings, Saturdays and Sundays: $49 per hour for residents $54 per hour for nonresidents $43 per hour for non-profits Evenings, Saturdays and Sundays: $50 per hour for residents $55 per hour for nonresidents $45 per hour for non-profits Gymnasium: Weekdays: $64 per hour for residents $81 per hour for nonresidents $59 per hour for non-profits Gymnasium: Weekdays: $66 per hour for residents $83 per hour for nonresidents $61 per hour for non-profits Evenings, Saturdays and Sundays: $81 per hour for residents $96 per hour for nonresidents $76 per hour for non-profits Evenings, Saturdays and Sundays: $83 per hour for residents $99 per hour for nonresidents $78 per hour for non-profits Arts and Crafts Room: Weekdays: $37 per hour for residents $43 per hour for nonresidents $32 per hour for non-profits Arts and Crafts Room: Weekdays: $38 per hour for residents $45 per hour for nonresidents $33 per hour for non-profits Evenings, Saturdays and Sundays: $54 per hour for residents $59 per hour for nonresidents $49 per hour for non-profits Evenings, Saturdays and Sundays: $55 per hour for residents $61 per hour for nonresidents $50 per hour for non-profits COLONY PARK COMMUNITY CENTER (continued) 20-152 COLONY PARK COMMUNITY CENTER RENTAL (continued) Page 33 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 63 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE Cleaning Fee: Up to $300 (applied at the discretion of the Director) Cleaning Fee: Up to $308 (applied at the discretion of the Director) 20-153 COMMUNITY CENTER CLEANING FEE Cleaning Fee will be applied at the discretion of the City Manager or Designee. (In general it will be required for all rentals where food and/or beverages are served, for all day Saturday rentals and other large events where a cleaning crew is required.) Cleaning Fee will be applied at the discretion of the City Manager or Designee. (In general it will be required for all rentals where food and/or beverages are served, for all day Saturday rentals and other large events where a cleaning crew is required.) Table and chair set up (groups of 50+): $43 Scoreboard: $27 per day Podium: $27 per day TV/DVD: $27 per day Table and chair set up (groups of 50+): $45 Scoreboard: $28 per day Podium: $28 per day TV/DVD: $28 per day Sound system: $108 per day Stage: $10 per 4' x 8' piece Portable projector screen: $22 per day Coffee service: $3 per person (10 person min.) Sound system: $111 per day Stage: $11 per 4' x 8' piece Portable projector screen: $23 per day Coffee service: $3 per person (10 person min.) COLONY PARK COMMUNITY CENTER (continued) 20-154 COLONY PARK COMMUNITY CENTER EQUIPMENT RENTALS Page 34 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 64 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-160 CITY HALL RENTALS Public Meeting Room (M-F 8:00-5:00): $28 per hour for non-profit $45 per hour for private resident $50 per hour for private nonresident If outside of business hours: + Fully allocated hourly rate of all City personnel required $48 per event cleaning fee for events that serve food City Council Chambers (M-F 8:00-5:00) 2 hour minimum rental $99 per hour for non-profit $121 per hour for private resident $132 per hour for private nonresident $500 non-refundable security deposit and a separate cleaning fee are required for events that serve food and/or drinks or are longer than 2 hours City Council Chambers (Friday Evenings) 2 hour minimum rental $410 per hour for non-profit $500 per hour for private resident $550 per hour for private non-resident $500 non-refundable security deposit and a separate cleaning fee are required for events that serve food and/or drinks or are longer than 2 hours Public Meeting Room (M-F 8:00-5:00): $29 per hour for non-profit $46 per hour for private resident $51 per hour for private nonresident If outside of business hours: + Fully allocated hourly rate of all City personnel required $49 per event cleaning fee for events that serve food City Council Chambers (M-F 8:00-5:00) 2 hour minimum rental $102 per hour for non-profit $124 per hour for private resident $136 per hour for private nonresident $513 non-refundable security deposit and a separate cleaning fee are required for events that serve food and/or drinks or are longer than 2 hours City Council Chambers (Friday Evenings) 2 hour minimum rental $421 per hour for non-profit $513 per hour for private resident $564 per hour for private non-resident $513 non-refundable security deposit and a separate cleaning fee are required for events that serve food and/or drinks or are longer than 2 hours PARKS & FACILITIES RENTALS Page 35 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 65 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE City Council Chambers (Saturday & Sunday) $3,849 per day for non-profit $5,498 per day for private resident $6,048 per day for private non-resident $550 per hour in excess of 10 hours $1,100 reservation deposit required $100 per event cleaning fee for events that serve food and/or drinks City Council Chambers (Saturday & Sunday) $3,953 per day for non-profit $5,647 per day for private resident $6,212 per day for private non-resident $564 per hour in excess of 10 hours $1,130 reservation deposit required $103 per event cleaning fee for events that serve food and/or drinks Event Photography (Saturday & Sunday) 2 hour minimum $165 per hour for private resident $220 per hour for private nonresident Outdoor event Ceremony (Saturday & Sunday) $385 per ceremony Event Photography (Saturday & Sunday) 2 hour minimum $169 per hour for private resident $226 per hour for private nonresident Outdoor event Ceremony (Saturday & Sunday) $395 per ceremony PARKS & FACILITIES RENTALS 20-160 CITY HALL RENTALS (continued) Page 36 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 66 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-107A PARK RENTALS In case of inclement weather, the applicant may request a refund of usage fees subject to an administrative fee or reschedule the reservation date subject to a reservation modification fee. In addition to the base rental rate listed below, all park facility charges are also subject to the following charges as applicable: $17 Reservation change or modification fee $12 Use of utilities fee Security Guards: At discretion of City Manager or Designee, events where alcohol is served require one guard per 100 people. $22 + actual cost of security service Fully allocated hourly rate of all City personnel required for the event will be charged In case of inclement weather, the applicant may request a refund of usage fees subject to an administrative fee or reschedule the reservation date subject to a reservation modification fee. In addition to the base rental rate listed below, all park facility charges are also subject to the following charges as applicable: $17 Reservation change or modification fee $13 Use of utilities fee Security Guards: At discretion of City Manager or Designee, events where alcohol is served require one guard per 100 people. $22 + actual cost of security service Fully allocated hourly rate of all City personnel required for the event will be charged PARKS & FACILITIES RENTALS (continued) Page 37 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 67 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-107A PARK RENTALS (continued) Barbeque Areas: $59 per day for Paloma BBQ Areas $59 per day for Lake Park BBQ Areas $32 per day for Colony Park BBQ Areas $81 per day for all 3 Colony Park BBQ areas Lake Park Bandstand: $56 for nonprofits $89 for all others Outdoor Movie Screen Rental: $1,074 for 5 hours for nonprofits $1,342 for 5 hours all others Barbeque Areas: $61 per day for Paloma BBQ Areas $61 per day for Lake Park BBQ Areas $33 per day for Colony Park BBQ Areas $83 per day for all 3 Colony Park BBQ areas Lake Park Bandstand: $57 for nonprofits $91 for all others Outdoor Movie Screen Rental: $1,103 for 5 hours for nonprofits $1,379 for 5 hours all others PARKS & FACILITIES RENTALS (continued) Page 38 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 68 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE Faces of Freedom Veterans Memorial: $81 per day No fee for veteran's organizations, individual veterans, or families of veterans for services and events. No security deposit will be required for these events. Faces of Freedom Veterans Memorial: $83 per day No fee for veteran's organizations, individual veterans, or families of veterans for services and events. No security deposit will be required for these events. Sunken Gardens: $181 per day for non-profit $403 per day for all others Sunken Gardens: $186 per day for non-profit $413 per day for all others Equestrian Arena: $108 per day private use $212 security deposit Equestrian Arena: $111 per day private use $218 security deposit Lake Park Special Event: $537 per day for non-profits $805 per day for others Lake Park Special Event: $552 per day for non-profits $827 per day for others Stadium Park: $ 805 per day for non-profits for a > 150 person event $1,611 per day for all others for a >150 person event Stadium Park: $ 827 per day for non-profits for a > 150 person event $1,655 per day for all others for a >150 person event $ 215 per day for non-profits for a <= 150 person event $ 537 per day for all others for a <= 150 person event $ 221 per day for non-profits for a <= 150 person event $ 552 per day for all others for a <= 150 person event Paloma Creek Park Horseshoe Pits: $12 per hour (2 hour minimum) Paloma Creek Park Sand Volleyball Court: $12 per hour (2 hour minimum) Paloma Creek Park Horseshoe Pits: $13 per hour (2 hour minimum) Paloma Creek Park Sand Volleyball Court: $13 per hour (2 hour minimum) 20-107A PARK RENTALS (continued) PARKS & FACILITIES RENTALS (continued) Page 39 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 69 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-107A PARK RENTALS (continued) Colony Park Bocce Ball Courts: $12 per hour (2 hour minimum) Corn Hole Board Set Rental With Bags: $31 per day plus $100 refundable security deposit Colony Park Bocce Ball Courts: $13 per hour (2 hour minimum) Corn Hole Board Set Rental With Bags: $32 per day plus $103 refundable security deposit 20-107 BALLFIELD/PARK FACILITY RENTAL Ballfield and Open Fields fees: in addition to in-kind contributions $27 per hour for field $22 per hour for lights $27 base rental per field (+ $205 deposit) $54 for field lining (one time per day) Ballfield and Open Fields fees: in addition to in-kind contributions $28 per hour for field $22 per hour for lights $28 base rental per field (+ $211 deposit) $55 for field lining (one time per day) PARKS & FACILITIES RENTALS (continued) Page 40 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 70 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-107B BALLFIELD FACILITY TOURNAMENT RENTAL A Non-refundable deposit of 50% required on all bookings (unless a higher deposit is noted). There are no refunds due to bad weather. In addition to the rental rate listed below, all tournaments are also subject to the following charges as applicable: Fully allocated hourly rate of all City personnel required for the event will be charged $22 per hour for lights $27 per field per day base rental fee (+$212 deposit) $54 facility key replacement fee $54 field lining fee (one time per day) In addition to in-kind contributions rental fees will be as follows: $27 per hour per field or $429 per day (12 hours max) for two fields $751 for two days (24 hours max) for two fields Any rental of fields that is 5 or more hours will be treated as a Tournament and Tournament fees and policies will apply. A Non-refundable deposit of 50% required on all bookings (unless a higher deposit is noted). There are no refunds due to bad weather. In addition to the rental rate listed below, all tournaments are also subject to the following charges as applicable: Fully allocated hourly rate of all City personnel required for the event will be charged $22 per hour for lights $28 per field per day base rental fee (+$218 deposit) $55 facility key replacement fee $55 field lining fee (one time per day) In addition to in-kind contributions rental fees will be as follows: $28 per hour per field or $441 per day (12 hours max) for two fields $772 for two days (24 hours max) for two fields Any rental of fields that is 5 or more hours will be treated as a Tournament and Tournament fees and policies will apply. PARKS & FACILITIES RENTALS (continued) Page 41 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 71 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE Admissions: $10 General (13 and up) $9 Senior (65 and up) $8 Child (5-12) $5 Child (3-4) Military Day at the Charles Paddock Zoo - One dedicated day will be chosen during the year to offer "FREE Admission" for Active Military and their families. In the past, this day has been referred to as Armed Forces Day. Admissions: $10 General (13 and up) $9 Senior (65 and up) $8 Child (5-12) $5 Child (3-4) Military Day at the Charles Paddock Zoo - One dedicated day will be chosen during the year to offer "FREE Admission" for Active Military and their families. In the past, this day has been referred to as Armed Forces Day. Stroller Rental: $5 per day - basic $6 per day - theme Educational Programs: fees set by Zoo Director based on market conditions and cost of items being resold School Presentations, Camps, Special Programs: fees set by the Zoo Director based on market conditions and estimated variable costs of the program. Birthday parties: $10-$15 per child, based on market conditions and costs of items included Stroller Rental: $5 per day - basic $6 per day - theme Educational Programs: fees set by Zoo Director based on market conditions and cost of items being resold School Presentations, Camps, Special Programs: fees set by the Zoo Director based on market conditions and estimated variable costs of the program. Birthday parties: $10-$15 per child, based on market conditions and costs of items included Zoo Asset Sales: fees set by the Zoo Director, based on market conditions. Zoo Concessions, Vending & Gifts: fees set by the Zoo Director, based on market conditions and cost of items being resold. Zoo Asset Sales: fees set by the Zoo Director, based on market conditions. Zoo Concessions, Vending & Gifts: fees set by the Zoo Director, based on market conditions and cost of items being resold. ZOO 20-108 ZOO SERVICES Page 42 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 72 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-116 NEW BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION REV/ENFORCEMENT $235 - A Occupancy, H Occupancy, Sprinkler $103 - All Other Occupancies $75 - Out of Town Business or Contractor $75 - Home Occupation $241 - A Occupancy, H Occupancy, Sprinkler $106 - All Other Occupancies $77 - Out of Town Business or Contractor $77 - Home Occupation 20-118 BUSINESS LICENSE RENEWAL $23 per renewal $23 per renewal 20-118A BUSINESS LICENSE REPRINT $15 per reprint $15 per reprint 20-119 SOLICITOR PERMIT $28 per permit + $6 per card $29 per permit + $6 per card 20-077 SPECIAL BUSINESS DOJ CHECK $172 per application + any DOJ fees $176 per application + any DOJ fees BUSINESS LICENSES Page 43 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 73 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-115 DAMAGE TO CITY PROPERTY REPAIR Charge the fully allocated hourly rate for all required personnel + any material costs. Charge the fully allocated hourly rate for all required personnel + any material costs. 20-120 RETURNED CHECK PROCESSING $28 per NSF check $29 per NSF check 20-121 ELECTRONIC FILE COPY SERVICE $3 per device $3 per device 20-122 DOCUMENT CERTIFICATION $31 per document $31 per document 20-123 CANDIDATE/INITIATIVE FILING Candidate - $25 per candidate Initiative - $200 per initiative Fee is refundable to the filer, if within one year of filing the notice of intent, the elections official certifies the sufficiency of the petition. Fees are set by Sate Law Candidate - $25 per candidate Initiative - $200 per initiative Fee is refundable to the filer, if within one year of filing the notice of intent, the elections official certifies the sufficiency of the petition. Fees are set by Sate Law 20-124 RECORDS COMPILATION SERVICE Charge the fully allocated hourly rate for all required personnel and any outside costs in accordance with Government Code section 6253.9. Charge the fully allocated hourly rate for all required personnel and any outside costs in accordance with Government Code section 6253.9. GENERAL Page 44 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 74 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-125 DOCUMENT REPRODUCTION Copying/Scanning/Faxing: Black & White: $0.50 - 1st page $0.10 - each additional page Color Copies: $1 per page Fair Political Practices Commission copies - $.10 per page Contract reproduction of documents: Actual cost of reproduction + actual postage and/or mailing expense Digital File Reproduction - $3 per device Copying/Scanning/Faxing: Black & White: $0.50 - 1st page $0.10 - each additional page Color Copies: $1 per page Fair Political Practices Commission copies - $.10 per page Contract reproduction of documents: Actual cost of reproduction + actual postage and/or mailing expense Digital File Reproduction - $3 per device 20-142 GENERATION OF MAILING LABELS 0-50 Labels: $114 51-100 Labels: $172 101-150 Labels: $230 151+ Labels: $286 0-50 Labels: $117 51-100 Labels: $176 101-150 Labels: $235 151+ Labels: $293 20-143 MAILING OF NOTICES/LETTERS 0-50 Notices: $86 51-100 Notices: $144 101-150 Notices: $200 151+ Notices: $200 + $1 per item over 150 + Actual cost of postage or other mailing fee 0-50 Notices: $88 51-100 Notices: $147 101-150 Notices: $205 151+ Notices: $205 + $1 per item over 150 + Actual cost of postage or other mailing fee 20-144 MAP FOLDING FEE $36 each $37 each GENERAL (continued) Page 45 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 75 of 155 Ref #Fee Name 2019 Fees (Effective 07/29/2019)Proposed Fees DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE 20-067 BLUEPRINT/MAP REPRODUCTION Actual cost of reproduction and associated postage and/or mailing costs GIS printout fee - fully allocated rate of staff time spent on project Large building plan copy: $5 per sheet Actual cost of reproduction and associated postage and/or mailing costs GIS printout fee - fully allocated rate of staff time spent on project Large building plan copy: $5 per sheet 20-163 FILMING PERMIT APPLICATION $266 per permit $273 per permit 20-990 ACTIVE NET REGISTRATION Administrative fee associated with registering for an activity online through Active Net: Activity cost between $0-$10.99 - $0.50 Activity cost between $11.00-$39.99 - $1.00 Activity cost between $40.00-$199.99 - $2.00 Activity cost $200+ - $10.00 Administrative fee associated with registering for an activity online through Active Net: Activity cost between $0-$10.99 - $0.50 Activity cost between $11.00-$39.99 - $1.00 Activity cost between $40.00-$199.99 - $2.00 Activity cost $200+ - $10.00 20-991 DIRECTOR APPROVED FEE WAIVER With the approval of the Administrative Services Director, staff would have the ability to waive certain fees that were incurred due to staff error. With the approval of the Administrative Services Director, staff would have the ability to waive certain fees that were incurred due to staff error. GENERAL (continued) Page 46 of 46 ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1A Page 76 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 05/26/20 Atascadero City Council Staff Report – Administrative Services Department COVID- 19 Fiscal Update RECOMMENDATION: Council receive and file COVID-19 fiscal update. DISCUSSION: Background The City of Atascadero has worked hard to maintain fiscal stability through the ups and downs in the economy that have occurred over the years. The effects of the state, national, and worldwide financial environments all have an impact on the local economy. This era of COVID-19 is the ultimate example. The County of San Luis Obispo and the State of California both issued Stay/Shelter at Home Orders that went into effect on March 19, 2020. These Orders required all individuals living in the County/State to stay home except as needed for essential services, in an effort to help curb the spread of COVID-19. The swift reaction by consumers and businesses in what some are now calling, “The Great Shutdown”, is impacting revenues across the board for individuals, businesses, and governments. Atascadero is no exception. While some of the other local cities have already begun implementing changes to their budgets, it is important to remember that each jurisdiction is different. By continuing to carefully analyze the specifics for Atascadero together, the best decisions can be made to lead the community forward. Analysis Staff continues to analyze revenues from all sources to determine what kind of effect there might be on the City’s financial health and operations. This COVID-19 event is different from anything that has been experienced in the past. While the Great Recession is looked to for answers, this COVID-19 situation is different and considered new territory. The primary revenue areas that are expected to decrease as a result of COVID -19 and the Great Shutdown include Sales Tax, TOT, and recreational activities such as Zoo fees, Pavilion and Park rentals, and Recreation fees. Following is an analysis of the assumptions and projections for these revenues. Staff continues to take in all the data and information that is available, and the following analysis is staff’s best effort at an updated projection, given the very limited existing data. This projection will undoubtedly continue to change as new information is available. Page 77 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 05/26/20 Property Tax Revenue The City’s 2019-2021 budget estimates that property tax revenue make s up a two-year average of 47% of the General Fund Revenue (excluding Measure F-14 Funds). This has a few implications. The first is that just under half of the General Fund revenue is dependent on this very stable revenue source. This source is not subje ct to rapid variations and thus it is a reliable base. The second implication, however, is that just under half of the General Fund revenue is also slow to increase, and most of the ability to influence this source is based on the economy. The City has limited ability, mostly through economic development policies, to influence property tax revenue. Even at that, increases come slowly and may take years to come to fruition. The property taxes that are due in fiscal year 2020/21 were calculated based on valuations determined in January 2020, prior to the time COVID -19 effects hit. The next valuation will occur in January 2021, and would be due in fiscal year 2021/22. The County Tax Collector is seeing a delinquency rate of about 3%, compared to a de linquency rate in the prior year at the same time of 1%. Since Atascadero is on the Teeter Plan with the County, there will be only a slight cash flow shift from April 2020 to July of 2020 due to the delinquencies. The County Assessor is still projecting a 5% increase in the Countywide Secured roll for fiscal year 2021/22. Sales Tax Revenue Sales tax revenue averages about 18% of General Fund revenue. Sales tax is arguably the most volatile of the major revenues and is highly reactive to the local, state and national economies. Sales tax revenue in Atascadero was greatly reduced due to the Great Recession, and had just recovered to an equivalent amount as of fiscal year 2017/18. Prior to COVID-19, the City was expecting slow and steady growth to exceed $4.5 million by fiscal year 2024/25. The following graph illustrates sales tax revenue projections as included in the 2019-2021 budget. Property taxes & RPTTF 47% Sales Tax 18% TOT 7%Other Taxes 6% Permits, Fees & Development 6% Charges for Services 6% Other Revenues 9% Intergovernmental 1% Average Major Revenue Sources 2019-2021 Page 78 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 05/26/20 The City contracts with HdL Companies (HdL) for Sales Tax revenue and analysis services. HdL was able to provide the City a breakdown of revenue by industry to most accurately assess the specific mixture of the sales tax generators in the community. HdL’s general COVID-19 related assumptions include: the stay-at-home order will conclude by the end of May 2020 the virus will have largely run its course by the end of September 2020 no later resurgence of the virus in the fall or winter sales tax will generally continue to decline through the end of the calendar year before beginning moderate gains for several quarters afterward Of Atascadero’s sales tax revenue, about 18% is due to sales from fuel and service stations. This sector has seen significant volatility in the last few years due to decreases in per gallon prices or in consumption. The c urrent COVID-19 has brought both a decrease in fuel prices and consumption. 0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 2019-2021 Budget Sales Tax Projections Page 79 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 05/26/20 HdL has advised that Atascadero may see a decrease of 26.9% in the Fuel and Service Stations industry group revenue for fiscal year 2019/20. HdL expects to see a decrease of about 13.1% in the Building and Construction industry group revenue for fiscal year 2019/20. Fortunately, there is an expected increase of about 11.3% in the State and County Pools due to AB 147, the “Wayfair Decision”, which requires certain online retailers to remit California Sales Tax. A portion of this “new” revenue is allocated to Atascadero and is expected to help offset some of the COVID-19 related reductions. Overall, HdL is projecting a decrease in Atascadero Sales Tax Revenue of about 11.1% for fiscal year 2019/20, and another 1.6% for fiscal year 2020/21 (excluding Measure F- 14 revenue.) Measure F-14 revenue is projected to decrease about 9.3% in fiscal year 2019/20 and another 4.6% in 2020/21. As part of the relief offered to sales tax collectors in the State, the Governor made two changes that affect the remittance of sales tax revenue: a 90-day extension to file sales tax returns that were originally due on April 30, 2020 (automatically extended to all sales tax payers who file a return less than $1 million) a 12-month interest-free payment plan (available after an application process to sales tax payers with less than $5 million in taxable annual sales, for up to $50,000 in sales and use tax liability) These programs are available to businesses in the Atascadero community to help them through the difficult time caused by the physical distancing and shutdown. However, the programs also have the effect of shifting City revenue from fiscal year 2019/20 to fiscal year 2020/21. Conservative estimates, based on the make-up of sales tax payers in Atascadero, puts this deferred revenue potentially as much as $766,000. This deferral of revenue is evidenced in the graph above by the exceptionally low revenue in fiscal year - 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 4,500,000 May 2020 Revised Sales Tax Projections Page 80 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 05/26/20 2019/20, followed by a spike in fiscal year 2020/21, before returning to a more gradual pattern in fiscal year 2021/22. Ideally, this revenue deferral would be collected in full in the subsequent fiscal year, but there remains a possibility that some tax-payers may default. The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) has indicated they remain positive about this program and suggested that not as many businesses may take advantage of the program as are eligible. Many businesses prepay, and April collections were reported to be fairly comparative with prior periods. Staff has assumed that all business that are eligible will take advantage of the programs, and assumes no defaults. While this discussion is focused on the City’s General Fund, reductions in sales tax revenues will also affect Gas Tax Revenue and Local Transportation funds. At this time, staff believes that existing projects and programs can continue as planned with the funds already on hand, but depending on the length and depth of the revenue reductions, there could be a delay in future road programs/projects. Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Revenue Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) are revenues collected from guests staying at lodging facilities within the City. This is a local revenue, with which the City has significantly more influence. Prior to the COVID-19 issue, the City had seen a sizable increase in TOT revenues with the Council’s emphasis on promotion and economic gro wth and the efforts of the Atascadero Tourism Business Improvement District. The increase in additional lodging facilities, in and proposed for development, provides the potential for additional TOT revenue. Consistent with what staff is understanding from the industry and other experts such as HdL Companies, TOT revenues were average in January and February 2020, and then saw COVID-19 impacts beginning in March 2020. These impacts are expected to be most significant in April – June 2020, and then begin to start recovery from there. The TOT revenue projections assume a reduction of 30% for the quarter of January – March 2020, and a reduction of 72% for the quarter of April – June 2020. Reductions for the quarters in fiscal year 2020/21 are expected to taper off as guests again start traveling. Staff is currently projecting revenue reductions in next fiscal year of 55% in quarter one $- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 2019-2021 Budget Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Page 81 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 05/26/20 (July – September 2020), 30% in quarter two (October – December 2020), 15% in quarter three (January – March 2021, and 10% in quarter four (April – June 2021.) The revenue projections also assume that the new hotel currently in development will open in October 2020, instead of in April 2020 as originally budgeted. Activity Based Service Fee Revenue The City is also experiencing a reduction in service fee revenues related to activities such as recreation, Zoo admissions and functions, park rentals, and facility rentals at the Colony Park Community Center and Pavilion on the Lake . Staff assumed no additional revenue for the remainder of this fiscal year, as these activities are not allowed or significantly limited as of the writing of this report. This projection assumes the Zoo is reopened near the beginning of the next fiscal year and park rentals will resume again. Staff assumed fiscal year 2020/21 Zoo revenue would be about 90% of the originally budgeted revenue, plus an adjustment to the Zoo Admissions price that was approved in May 2019. Staff assumed fiscal year 2020/21 park rentals would be about 95% of the original budgeted revenue. Recreation, rentals for the Colony Park Community Center and the Pavilion on the Lake are projected to be about 75% of the originally budgeted revenue for fiscal year 2020/21. Expenses Expenses were also reviewed and analyzed to understand if there is any potential to offset the reduction of revenue with a reduction in expenses. The City is a service organization and employee services are the backbone of the community. The largest portion of General Fund expenditures is dedicated to employee services. An average of 72% of General Fund expenditures for the budget were allocated directly toward the cost of employee services, but even with that, staffing has always been lean in Atascadero and hasn’t kept pace with the increase in population and service level demands due to constrained resources. Employees continue to be hard at work to provide services for the community throughout the COVID-19 Stay-at-Home Orders, and these related costs have not been reduced. $- $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 $1,800,000 $2,000,000 May 2020 Revised Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Page 82 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 05/26/20 In this time of uncertainty, Public Safety is more important than ever. About 56% of the City’s General fund expenditures is devoted to Police and Fire and Emergency services. This includes the costs of each officer and fire fighter, their equipment, supplies, training and other costs. Costs for Public Safety have not been reduced during this time, and in fact have increased to some degree. The City is spending more than originally anticipated for COVID-19 response specific items such as Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and additional cleaning supplies. Other departments aren’t seeing much in the way of reductions either. Although the Zoo is closed to the public, the costs of feeding and caring for the many animals at the Zoo continues. As does the maintenance of the buildings, facilities, and landscapes. Some costs directly related to services, such as the purchase of basketballs for the youth sports teams, may be reduced. However, there are base levels of costs that are ongoing regardless of the number of sports teams, recreation classes, or weddings held. Employee Services 72% Operations 26%Capital and Special Projects 2%Transfers Out 0% Average Expenditures by Category 2019-2021 General Government 15% Public Safety 56% Community Development 8% Community Services 11%Public Works 10% Average Expenditures by Function 2019-2021 Page 83 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 05/26/20 CalPERS retirement costs are another area staff has been closely monitoring, especially with the downturn in the economy and investment markets. The ongoing “normal” costs of retirement and the CalPERS projected payments for the Unfunded Accrued Liabilities (UAL) are included in the City’s existing Seven-Year Projection, as found on Page B-11 in the 2019-2021 Budget Document. There is concern that if the CalPERS investment returns are significantly lower than CalPERS has projected, the costs to each of the agencies , including Atascadero, could be greatly increased and would have a negative impact on future budgets. CalPERS reported the market value of the total fund was $372.6 billion as of 6/30/19. CalPERS reported an increase in the market value of the total fund of $3.93 billion since the end of June last year. CalPERS reported the market value of the total fund as of 5/8/20 was $376.53 billion. CalPERS fiscal year ends June 30, so staff will continue to monitor CalPERS investment progress, particularly as the end of the fiscal year approaches. CalPERS has taken steps over the last few years to put the fund in a position to better weather a downturn, expecting that a downturn would eventually occur. CalPERS has indicated it has a plan and will take advantage of investment opportunities that the downturn has created. Staff will continue to monitor CalPERS, the expected investment returns, and other factors that may have an impact on the City’s current and future budgets. Reserves The City’s overall financial strategy has consistently been to maintain a conservative outlook by putting aside reserves in good times and then using those reserves during down periods to achieve stable operations. By employing this conservative strategy, the City can avoid the undesirable peaks and valleys in services due to revenue fluctuations and can better maintain its long-term financial vitality. Page 84 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 05/26/20 The Council’s Financial Strategy has been effective at building a General Fund Reserve. As of June 30, 2019, the General Fund (excluding Sales Tax Measure F-14 funds) had a fund balance of $10.9 million, or 51.2% of the General Fund Expenses. The Council agreed through the Strategic Planning process to judiciously use reserves annually in down economic times in order to maintain a consistent level of City services, and thus the 2019-2021 budget cycle included the use of just over $1 million in reserves. The Seven- Year Projection in the 2019-2021 budget, showed the judicious use of reserves through fiscal year 2023-2024, and then building back up again starting in fiscal year 2024-2025. The COVID-19 induced Great Shutdown has changed the revenue forecast picture. The new projection shows use of just under $1.3 million in reserves during this two -year budget cycle and that revenues will exceed expenditures in fiscal year 2025 -2026. While this isn’t an ideal situation, the reserves are doing their job and allowing the City to maintain consistent services in the face of this downturn. Since this economic shutdown is so different from anything experienced in history, there are a lot of unknowns as to how deep and how long it will all last. This situation requires continuous monitoring and analysis, but at the same time, allows some time to see how things play out and how much the plan may need to be modified. Comparison to Neighboring Communities Cities are often able to look to their neighbors for resources, ideas, thoughts and actions on how to best serve the community or resolve issue s that come up. This is especially true in the relatively small county of San Luis Obispo. While the cities in the county have a lot of similarities, there are also a number of differences. Some cities have a significant portion of their revenue coming from some of the more volatile revenues sources: TOT, sales tax, and gross receipts business licenses tax. The City of Atascadero, having an average of 47% of General Fund revenue coming from property tax would likely have a different response plan than other cities with different revenue sources. The following graph illustrates this difference, and shows the different make-up of revenue sources and also revenue per capita in the seven cities in the county. Atascadero has a small portion of General Fund revenue subject to volatile revenue, and is therefore afforded more time to gather data and understand the impacts before making plans that have the potential to impact the City’s service levels. Page 85 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 05/26/20 The downside of this, of course, as shown in the graph, is that in total, Atascadero only receives $745 in revenue per capita, which is much lower than most of the cities in the county. Before the COVID-19 shutdown occurred, Atascadero already had a tight budget. The City will have to continue to monitor and adjust if necessary as part of a larger ongoing strategy as more is learned. Conclusion COVID-19 and the resulting Great Shutdown have caused economic issues locally and throughout the world. The good news is that the City Council Financial Strategy put the City in a good position to be able to maintain consistent services throughout this downturn, and provides a financial cushion to buy some time before making any decisions that cou ld really impact the City. At this point, nobody knows how deep and how long this economic downturn will last. Some economists are forecasting a quick “V” shaped recovery, and some are forecasting a slow “L” shaped recovery. There just isn’t enough info rmation at this point in time to predict which will ring true. City staff is projecting a two-year reduction of about $2 million in General Fund revenues compared to the original budget. This is not great news, but it’s not the worst news either. The projection includes many assumptions that will be revised over time, and will be continuously monitored. The current projection does not include any Federal or State assistance, that could potentially become available in the future. At this time, staff recommends no significant changes to operations. While it may not feel like it now, the COVID-19 response is a temporary situation. It may last a few months or a few years, but the City’s Financial Strategy is designed to insulate the City from such economic instability. The bigger financial picture is the state of the City’s ongoing operations. The City runs a tight budget and does the best possible with $745 $1,053 $916 $1,467 $1,365 $2,966 $1,619 $- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 Atascadero Arroyo Grande Grover Beach Morro Bay Paso Robles Pismo Beach San Luis Obispo General Fund Revenue by Type San Luis Obispo County Cities (FY18-19) Other Revenue Franchise Fees TOT Sales tax Property Taxes Page 86 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 05/26/20 the limited resources. While Atascadero can manage the short-term effects of COVID-19, there are many unmet needs that continue to be delayed. It is especially at times like this where the need for a silver lining is most great. Staff continues to look for opportunities in this time of change and uncertainty. As the City continues to monitor the impacts of COVID-19, staff will evaluate all scenarios to look for opportunities to bett er fund the City and enhance its fiscal health. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Revised Seven-Year Projection 2. Seven-Year Projection as adopted in the 2019-2021 Budget Document 3. California Forecast, Sales Tax Trends and Economic Drivers, HdL Companies, April 2020 Revised Page 87 of 155 Actual 2018/2019 Adopted Budget 2019/2020 Estimated 2019/2020 Adopted Budget 2020/2021 Estimated 2020/2021 Estimated 2021/2022 Estimated 2022/2023 Estimated 2023/2024 Estimated 2024/2025 Estimated 2025/2026 Taxes 9,197,648$ 9,738,770$ 9,569,670$ 10,357,940$ 10,035,390$ 10,461,490$ 10,830,690$ 11,212,810$ 11,671,990$ 12,083,560$ RDA Dissolution Distributions 460,501 497,500 486,010 518,400 527,480 562,900 601,300 642,100 684,800 728,200 Other Property Taxes 332,067 335,710 418,250 337,320 450,900 453,580 456,280 459,010 461,770 464,560 Sales Tax *4,133,073 4,142,000 3,089,320 4,226,020 4,484,660 3,942,440 4,041,020 4,142,060 4,246,240 4,352,680 Franchise Fees 1,117,791 1,101,680 1,113,680 1,130,330 1,142,540 1,162,800 1,183,170 1,203,930 1,225,070 1,246,600 Transient Occupancy Tax 1,390,972 1,420,020 1,057,560 1,633,840 1,163,900 1,629,500 1,793,500 1,829,400 1,866,000 1,903,300 Other Taxes 350,047 324,670 358,000 327,250 365,390 365,550 367,140 369,050 370,670 372,580 Permits 585,524 625,800 654,700 640,460 640,660 749,250 601,250 601,460 601,680 601,900 Intergovernmental 164,735 169,780 156,350 171,350 172,230 178,090 182,520 187,110 191,870 196,790 Grants 180,817 179,680 206,530 48,390 48,390 12,280 - - - - Service Fees Safety Fees 213,082 191,480 209,750 193,670 202,330 204,540 206,790 209,060 211,370 213,710 Mutual Aid 342,543 453,000 452,520 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 Development Fees 697,321 930,010 887,770 635,170 634,910 718,840 608,080 595,260 588,140 584,800 Recreation Fees 332,099 310,480 239,720 313,200 235,000 311,940 318,370 321,800 323,230 335,670 Administrative Fees 58,884 59,150 53,920 56,310 57,150 60,100 56,760 57,470 58,400 59,170 Pavilion & Other Rental Fees 135,392 126,710 92,610 128,610 96,500 130,530 132,490 134,470 136,490 138,540 Parks Fees 50,373 35,460 24,120 36,090 34,330 36,760 37,420 38,090 38,770 39,470 Zoo Fees 438,779 399,050 308,150 388,470 413,700 466,070 471,140 477,520 484,310 492,440 Fines 117,943 115,250 90,490 80,330 80,330 80,330 80,330 80,330 80,330 80,330 Interest Income 270,995 55,380 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 Other Interfund Charges 1,055,347 1,184,440 1,192,100 1,218,920 1,217,040 1,240,820 1,272,810 1,275,680 1,295,830 1,307,060 Donations 176,967 24,420 22,480 24,420 26,100 29,530 29,530 30,090 30,090 30,660 Other 31,643 24,440 55,510 24,700 24,700 24,830 24,960 25,090 25,220 25,360 Transfers 548,350 690,450 690,450 698,950 698,950 650,540 663,550 676,820 690,360 704,170 Total Revenues 22,382,893 23,135,330 21,485,660 23,496,140 23,058,580 23,778,710 24,265,100 24,874,610 25,588,630 26,267,550 Employee Services (14,886,317) (16,622,230) (16,023,222) (17,267,100) (17,125,200) (17,682,600) (18,040,700) (18,331,300) (18,618,500) (18,919,500) Operations (5,373,114) (6,079,860) (5,972,073) (6,110,190) (6,110,190) (6,247,600) (6,407,900) (6,491,730) (6,650,270) (6,728,750) (1,005,181) (526,040) (277,891) (292,960) (292,960) (979,670) (234,250) (233,350) (237,850) (238,170) Capital Outlay (86,124) - (28,580) - - (150,000) (150,000) (150,000) (150,000) (150,000) Other Uses (2,690) (3,250) (3,250) (50,250) (50,250) (50,250) (3,250) (3,230) (3,230) (3,230) Total Expenses (21,353,426) (23,231,380) (22,305,016) (23,720,500) (23,578,600) (25,110,120) (24,836,100) (25,209,610) (25,659,850) (26,039,650) NET INCOME / (LOSS)1,029,467 (96,050) (819,356) (224,360) (520,020) (1,331,410) (571,000) (335,000) (71,220) 227,900 Fund Balance Beginning of Year 9,897,974 10,927,441 10,927,441 10,831,391 10,108,085 9,588,065 8,256,655 7,685,655 7,350,655 7,279,435 FUND BALANCE END OF YEAR 10,927,441$ 10,831,391$ 10,108,085$ 10,607,031$ 9,588,065$ 8,256,655$ 7,685,655$ 7,350,655$ 7,279,435$ 7,507,335$ Fund Balance as % of Expenses 51.2%46.6%45.3%44.7%40.7%32.9%30.9%29.2%28.4%28.8% * Sales Tax Measure F-14 funds are not included in this 7-year Projection. Special Projects & Community Funding GRAPHS AND SUMMARIES Seven Year Projection * General Fund REVISED 05/18/2020 Property Tax (Current Secured & VLF) ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 88 of 155 Actual2016/2017Actual2017/2018Estimated2018/2019Estimated2019/2020Estimated2020/2021Estimated2021/2022Estimated2022/2023Estimated2023/2024Estimated2024/2025Estimated2025/2026Taxes8,308,110$ 8,743,471$ 9,177,860$ 9,738,770$ 10,131,800$ 10,540,520$ 10,912,490$ 11,297,480$ 11,759,780$ 12,174,410$ RDA Dissolution Distributions283,066 759,176 406,260 497,500 518,400 562,900 601,300 642,100 684,800 728,200 Other Property Taxes336,496 296,515 326,800 335,710 337,320 338,940 340,580 342,240 343,910 345,600 Sales Tax *3,620,027 4,058,583 4,008,130 4,142,000 4,226,020 4,331,650 4,439,950 4,550,960 4,665,360 4,782,270 Franchise Fees1,168,572 1,099,534 1,101,660 1,101,680 1,130,330 1,150,390 1,170,550 1,191,090 1,212,010 1,233,320 Transient Occupancy Tax1,337,528 1,376,498 1,322,680 1,420,020 1,633,840 1,666,520 1,831,300 1,867,900 1,905,300 1,943,400 Other Taxes319,124 368,885 322,790 324,670 327,250 327,410 329,000 330,910 332,530 334,440 Permits542,181 472,398 544,410 625,800 640,460 749,250 601,250 601,460 601,680 601,900 Intergovernmental139,698 184,415 169,490 169,780 171,350 88,190 90,080 92,040 94,060 96,160 Grants13,455 272,265 247,170 179,680 48,390 12,280 - - - - Service FeesSafety Fees194,113 204,270 202,700 191,480 193,670 195,750 197,860 200,010 202,180 204,380 Mutual Aid473,670 643,165 452,520 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 Development Fees728,993 535,114 551,740 630,810 635,170 718,630 594,590 586,890 583,100 582,090 Recreation Fees362,792 326,418 319,050 310,480 313,200 311,940 318,370 321,800 323,230 335,670 Administrative Fees56,654 54,096 57,940 55,400 56,310 60,090 56,750 57,460 58,390 59,170 Pavilion & Other Rental Fees115,069 148,550 133,290 126,710 128,610 130,530 132,490 134,470 136,490 138,540 Parks Fees36,980 25,123 50,460 35,460 36,090 36,740 37,400 38,070 38,750 39,450 Zoo Fees377,732 417,983 418,530 399,050 388,470 394,270 398,620 404,280 409,970 416,990 Fines76,981 87,647 112,520 115,250 80,330 80,330 80,330 80,330 80,330 80,330 Interest Income3,231 9,741 56,000 55,380 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 OtherInterfund Charges1,189,488 1,088,534 1,218,480 1,184,440 1,218,920 1,240,960 1,272,950 1,275,840 1,295,990 1,307,220 Donations242,282 48,333 30,570 24,420 24,420 24,880 24,880 25,350 25,350 25,820 Other45,654 27,818 23,620 24,440 24,700 24,930 25,160 25,390 25,620 25,860 Transfers494,190 540,250 548,350 690,450 698,950 650,540 663,550 676,820 690,360 704,170 Total Revenues20,466,086 21,788,782 21,803,020 22,629,380 23,270,000 23,943,640 24,425,450 25,048,890 25,775,190 26,465,390 Employee Services(14,213,908) (14,882,845) (14,836,580) (16,622,230) (17,267,100) (17,752,120) (18,071,050) (18,363,580) (18,671,840) (19,033,740) Operations(4,728,276) (5,128,887) (5,458,860) (6,079,860) (6,110,190) (6,247,600) (6,407,900) (6,491,730) (6,650,270) (6,728,750) (1,351,509) (338,333) (597,390) (526,040) (292,960) (979,670) (234,250) (233,350) (237,850) (238,170) Capital Outlay(236,948) (315,252) (543,500) - - (150,000) (150,000) (150,000) (150,000) (150,000) Other Uses(169,400) (256,343) (2,690) (3,250) (50,250) (50,250) (3,250) (3,230) (3,230) (3,230) Total Expenses(20,700,041) (20,921,660) (21,439,020) (23,231,380) (23,720,500) (25,179,640) (24,866,450) (25,241,890) (25,713,190) (26,153,890) NET INCOME / (LOSS)(233,955) 867,122 364,000 (602,000) (450,500) (1,236,000) (441,000) (193,000) 62,000 311,500 Fund Balance Beginning of Year9,264,807 9,030,852 9,897,970 10,261,970 9,659,970 9,209,470 7,973,470 7,532,470 7,339,470 7,401,470 FUND BALANCE END OF YEAR9,030,852$ 9,897,974$ 10,261,970$ 9,659,970$ 9,209,470$ 7,973,470$ 7,532,470$ 7,339,470$ 7,401,470$ 7,712,970$ Fund Balance as % of Expenses43.6%47.3%47.9%41.6%38.8%31.7%30.3%29.1%28.8%29.5%* Sales Tax Measure F-14 funds are not included in this 7-year Projection.Special Projects & Community FundingGRAPHS AND SUMMARIESSeven Year Projection *General FundProperty Tax (Current Secured & VLF)B-11ITEM NUMBER: C-1DATE: 05/26/20ATTACHMENT: 2Page 89 of 155 Delivering Revenue, Insight and Efficiency to Local Government Since 1983 HdL provides relevant information and analyses on the economic forces affecting California’s local government agencies. In addition, HdL’s Revenue Enhancement and Economic Development Services help clients to maximize revenues. HdL serves over 500 cities, counties and special districts in California and across the nation. CALIFORNIA FORECAST SALES TAX TRENDS AND ECONOMIC DRIVERS APRIL 2020 REVISED Sierra Foothills, California ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 3 Page 90 of 155 FY 19/20 & 20/21 FORECAST CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) Impacts on California Sales Tax The swift reaction by consumers and businesses to the outbreak of coronavirus (Covid-19) in the U.S. has caused a massive decrease in spending on certain goods and services. The national and state response combined with the uncertainty of how long the presence of the virus will disrupt the U.S. economy has made forecasting local government revenues particularly challenging. This forecast was developed in early April after numerous news updates detailing ”shelter-in-place” related impacts, comparisons to previous economic downturns like the Great Recession, studying the data, reports and projections of many industry specific analysts and monitoring various updates up to that time. The forecast assumes that the statewide ‘shelter-in-place’ directive will continue until the end of May 2020, although volume testing may allow health care agencies an understanding of the extent of the virus and implement more site specific containment actions that allow some businesses and schools to slowly reopen and return to work. Based on recovery reports from China and South Korea, our forecast still assumes that the virus will have run its course by the end of September, however it does not consider a return of the virus and potential economic impacts after the current period at this time. Under our ‘end of May’ scenario, declines in sales tax revenues are expected to continue through the fourth quarter of 2020 with only moderate gains for several quarters thereafter. With the most dramatic decreases expected during the first and second quarters of 2020, future comparisons to these periods will be positive. However, overall dollars will still be less than the same period in 2019 noting a prolonged flat rebound. Already marginal or overly leveraged businesses still may not survive a lengthy shutdown even with federal subsidies and our observation from previous downturns; the return to previous spending patterns after significant income interruptions is not immediate and often evolves. Consumers may now take even more time to fully get back to previous leisure travel, dining and discretionary spending habits. Businesses similarly may become more cautious about capital investment and the number of employees to hire after emerging from an economic crisis. Business travelers who had to resort to teleconferencing may continue to teleconference. Formerly avid brick-and-mortar shoppers may find that online shopping and delivery services suits them just as well. The percentage changes in HdL’s quarterly forecasts are statewide. Every local jurisdiction has its own distinctive sales tax demographics and business characteristics and the depth of the impact will vary. Further, as individual client budget forecasts are constructed, we will continue to monitor for subsequent economic changes that may have not been reflected in earlier forecasts. Given the unusual circumstances we are all living in today, we have modified the April 2020 HdL Consensus Forecast. We are providing broader explanations about two major ongoing events which impact fiscal year 2019/20 and 2020/21 statewide sales tax trends. As is our tradition, we also offer context that supports our major industry group projections. We trust this information communicates clearly a broad understanding of where sales tax revenue is headed, knowing these vital resources are essential to addressing your communities needs during these trying times. ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 3 Page 91 of 155 Autos/Transportation 1Q20 -12.0% | 2Q20 -55.0% | 2020/21 -6.3% Numerous industry observers including Cox and JD Power have predicted 80% or more declines in auto sales while Shelter-in-Place (SIP) regulations are in force, similar to reported results from Chinese auto dealers in February. Anecdotal reports indicate sales may now indeed be declining near that amount. Once showrooms are fully reopened, sales are expected to remain depressed as consumers suffer from lob losses and heightened levels of economic anxiety. Recent industry forecasts from ALG, JD Power, RBC and others predict new car sales decreases anywhere from 10 to 34% in 2020 overall. HdL is projecting a decrease of 25% for the auto/transportation category as a whole, exceeding the 20% worst annual decline seen in 2008 during the Great Recession. Building/Construction 1Q20 -7.0% | 2Q20 -40.0% | 2020/21 -0.1% Recent regional decision makers have put most construction on hold; the threat remains that jurisdictions outside the Bay Area will stop work for prolonged periods during the next 3 months. Supply chain issues are a problem but manageable in the near term. Some jurisdictions are having difficulty keeping up with required inspections with some handling it remotely or others allowing self-inspection. As the pandemic continues, permit levels will decline, leading to less work for future periods. Without government incentives, housing development is likely to dry up as the effects of growing unemployment further limit the pool of prospective buyers. Commercial projects, although holding entitlements and permits, may no longer pencil. Even if construction demand remains strong after the pandemic passes, existing capacity limits will throttle growth as crews must first deal with the growing backlog of work. HDL CONSENSUS FORECAST – APRIL 2020STATEWIDE SALES TAX TRENDS Business/Industry 1Q20 -15.0% | 2Q20 -30.0% | 2020/21 -5.4% Most categories within this group are expected to decline over next few quarters with the Coronavirus disruption of supply chains deepest in first and second quarters. Companies needing components for manufacture of consumer electronics, pharmaceuticals, machinery and trucks may be particularly impacted. Depending on inventory availability, there may be a temporary boost in the demand for food processing, medical, and telecommunication equipment and supplies. The major winner will be for industrial zoned fulfillment and logistics centers that also happen to be “point of sale” for the products that they ship. The Coronavirus quarantines are expected to accelerate the shift from brick and mortar stores to online shopping and produce double digit gains in those specific cases. Food/Drugs 1Q20 5.0% | 2Q20 5.0% | 2020/21 2.0% The current pandemic has not restricted access to grocery and drugs stores. While operational and safety modifications have occurred, consumers can still acquire household essentials at both chain and local establishments. Some products are in short supply, temporarily, as anxious shoppers acquire larger quantities of certain products. Cannabis businesses are also open and expected to perform fairly well, given the circumstances. The SIP mandates create expectations to merchandise from this group being delivered directly to homes or through curbside pickup. Fuel/Service Stations 1Q20 -10.0% | 2Q20 -50.0% | 2020/21 0.0% As a result of COVID-19, the consumption of fuel, have either slowed or stopped. The combination of strong supply and weak demand for fuel has pushed oil barrel prices down to historically low levels. Fuel prices in California are now averaging less than $3 per gallon. With lower prices and less fuel being consumed because of SIP restrictions, taxes generated are expected to significantly drop in the second quarter of 2020 and remain down until the middle of the first quarter of 2021. Oil prices should then increase into the range of $45 to $55 per barrel toward the end of 2021 and into 2022. However, oversupply may keep gas prices relatively low and moderate potential sales tax recovery. HdL Companies | hdlcompanies.com TOTAL 1Q20 -7.5% | 2Q20 -36.1% | 2020/21 -1.5% ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 3 Page 92 of 155 HDL CONSENSUS FORECAST – APRIL 2020STATEWIDE SALES TAX TRENDS General Consumer Goods 1Q20 -15.0% | 2Q20 -45.0% | 2020/21 -2.5% Core retail sales are expected to see significant drops as society practices social distancing measures to combat the spread of COVID-19 at the recommendation of health professionals and government leaders. With SIP orders expected to continue well into the second quarter of 2020, the effect on consumer spending and retail sales are expected to be extremely disturbed. Shuttered malls, shopping centers and retailer stores all will be adversely impacted. State and federal programs are being set up to assist small businesses to temper short term cash flow declines and permanent closures. While the immediate fallout subsides, brick and mortar retail sales are expected to be bleak into the summer months. As consumer confidence drops and employment woes set in, the effects are projected to negatively impact discretionary spending throughout the remainder of 2020. Restaurants/Hotels 1Q20 -10.0% | 2Q20 -60.0% | 2020/21 -6.5% The restaurant industry is reporting 65% drops in revenue and the hotel industry is reporting drops of over 85% due to the COVID-19 shelter-in-place. Restaurants and other facilities that prepare and serve food are restricted to delivery or take-out. Consumers are shifting their food spending to groceries as quarantines continue, which could impact the long- term outlook for the sector if dining habits change. After the shelter-in-place is lifted, dining rooms are expected to operate at reduced capacity for continued social distancing. This industry is very vulnerable to closure given the already increasing tight operating margins and staff costs pre virus impacts. Most major hotels have laid off most of the staff, while others have announced they will temporarily shut down. HdL Companies | hdlcompanies.com TOTAL 1Q20 -7.5% | 2Q20 -36.1% | 2020/21 -1.5% State and County Pools 1Q20 15.0% | 2Q20 10.0% | 2020/21 7.3% This is one segment that is expected to stay positive, even in the midst of the virus crisis. The primary driver is the coincidental arrival of new out of state taxes; early results from the Wayfair decision implementation, which launched in the second quarter of 2019 under AB147, added new revenues at the State and local level. The marketplace facilitator phase started October 1st; current and next year forecasting comprises Wayfair’s total impact on anticipated use taxes distributed via the countywide pools. Online shopping surged in March as buyers complied with crowd avoidance mandates; some chose to stock up early expecting weeks of limited store access. Going forward, spending will be focused on high priority necessities, balanced against available retailer inventories and rapid increases in unemployment which shrinks overall purchasing capacity. Proposition 172 projections vary from statewide Bradley-Burns calculations due to the state’s utilization of differing collection periods in its allocation to counties. HdL forecasts a statewide decrease of -8.19% for Fiscal Year 2019/2020 and -1.82% in 2020/2021. ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 3 Page 93 of 155 NATIONAL AND STATEWIDEECONOMIC DRIVERS Beacon Economics | BeaconEcon.com U.S. Real GDP Growth 0.1% | 2.0% The current state of affairs in the global and U.S economy is unlike anything experienced in modern times, and like many forecasting organizations, Beacon Economics is working to fully grasp the scope of what is happening and exactly how it might shift the economic outlook. There are many potential outcomes to this crisis. And while it is easy to underestimate the resilience of the U.S. economy, that does not diminish the risks posed by the worldwide Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic – it is the greatest threat to the nation’s economic expansion in over a decade. Despite it all, it is by no means fait accompli that the U.S. economy is about to fall into a recession of any scale, much less a major one At the center of the uncertainty are the actions being taken by businesses, consumers, and regulators to contain the disease. There have been wholesale cancelations of conferences, travel, sporting events, live entertainment, and really any forum in which large groups of people gather. Public health mandates, both voluntary and otherwise, have led many businesses to implement short run work-from-home policies for their employees and caused restaurants and bars across the nation to close temporarily. This sudden halt in economic activity will create turmoil in the economy in the coming weeks and it is highly likely that the U.S. economy will experience negative growth in the second quarter. But if the shock is short lived enough, the economy will catch up, possibly with a positive third quarter that makes up for much of the loss in the second. U.S. Unemployment Rate 5.0% | 3.4% The March employment numbers will surely be grim. Initial unemployment claims are already crashing some state’s computer systems due to demand and will likely jump more quickly than ever before. Many businesses will continue to operate but will experience a loss in productivity driven by absent employees and the basic complications of unexpected work-from-home policies. But as dramatic as these changes are, such a shock is not necessarily recession causing. As long as current public health measures are sufficient to prevent the Coronavirus from becoming truly widespread across the nation, it is business delayed rather than business cancelled. CA Total Nonfarm 1.5% | 1.3% Employment Growth The fourth quarter of 2019 marked the end of ten years of strong expansion for the California economy. Over the course of the past decade, nearly 3.5 million nonfarm jobs were added to the state, at a growth rate of 23%. In the preceding decade, fewer than one-quarter of a million jobs were added to California’s economy, a growth rate of 1.5%. However, the state is in a different economic reality than before the COVID-19 pandemic hit. The California economy does enter this crisis from a position of strength. CA Unemployment Rate 4.0% | 4.0% The big unknown is how long the shock to the economy will last. The CDC has recommended that public gatherings of more than 50 people cease for 8 weeks. In addition, we know that university closures will last for many months. While university employees will be paid, many businesses surrounding universities will be adversely affected as staff and students are their primary source of income. Coupled with federal stimulus, and a resumption of some semblance of normalcy within a couple of months, immediate economic hardship could be somewhat temporary, with consumption deferred to a later period. But those dark clouds could turn into a storm for the state’s economy if this unprecedented draw down in peacetime consumption endures into the summer. CA Median Existing $532,216 | $564,823 Home Price The state’s strong fourth quarter paints a picture that is a far cry from the beginning of the year when the stock market had just seen a major correction, there was anxiety about trade uncertainty, and forecasts about a national and global slowdown were coming from all quarters. Unfortunately, the anxiety has returned due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Home prices won’t drop under our baseline scenario, but the likelihood of them being affected continues to I crease the longer the situation drags on. CA Residential 126,449 | 131,572 Building Permits The number of housing permits issued in the state peaked in the first quarter of 2018 and has trended lower since then. Even before this downturn, the state was in the midst of a housing shortage. As the shortage persists, it will create two primary effects. First, it will put upward pressure on housing prices, exacerbating affordability problems, and second (relatedly), it will shape the nature of the state’s labor force. 2020/21 | 2021/22 Beacon Economics Southern California Office 5777 West Century Boulevard, Suite 895 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: 310.571.3399 Fax: 424.646.4660 Beacon Economics has proven to be one of the most thorough and accurate economic research/analytical forecasting firms in the country. Their evaluation of the key drivers impacting local economies and tax revenues provides additional perspective to HdL’s quarterly consensus updates. The collaboration and sharing of information between Beacon and HdL helps both companies enhance the accuracy of the work that they perform for their respective clients. ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 3 Page 94 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 Atascadero City Council ____________ Staff Report - City Manager Consideration of Sales Tax Measure RECOMMENDATIONS: Council: 1. Direct staff to prepare a resolution and ordinance for City Council consideration at the July 14, 2020 meeting to place a one cent local sales tax override measure on the November 2018 ballot; and, 2. Provide staff direction on what should be included in the draft ordinance. REPORT-IN-BRIEF: While the City does well with the funding that it has, general fund reven ue growth has not kept pace with the increasing costs of providing services to a growing population. The City has the lowest per capita revenue in the County, has about half the national average of police officers per capita for a City our size, is amongst the lowest paying City employer in the County for most positions (and as such has difficulties retaining employees), and has deteriorating infrastructure including buildings, park, roads, sidewalks and zoo facilities. There are services that community members expect, that the City does not and cannot provide. The City is fiscally challenged. Council adopted “Fiscal Sustainability” as one of the top three priority areas and included exploring a potential sales tax measure as part of the Council adopted ac tion plan. In November 2019, the City hired True North Research to conduct statistically valid polling to determine if a sales tax measure was feasible. The January 2020 poll results showed support for a one-cent sales tax measure among 65% of likely November 2020 voters, with 33% indicating that they would definitely support the measure and 32% indicating they would probably support the measure. The poll was conducted in mid to late January and a lot has changed in Atascadero since that time. COVID has had a large impact that will affect voters in unknown ways. Some of the impacts include: severe financial impacts on many families and individuals, changes in perception about government; social distancing hampering the ability to gather and share information and large financial impacts to the City. Page 95 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 The voters are the only ones who may approve an additional sales tax. The Council may place an item on the ballot for voter consideration, but the Council cannot impose an additional sales tax. The Council must adopt a resolution to submit a sales tax measure by mid-July in order for the County Clerk to place the measure on the November ballot. The following draft language is proposed for the ballot measure: To provide funding for fire protection, paramedics, and 911 emergency response, police, crime prevention and investigations, maintenance of parks, public facilities and infrastructure, graffiti removal, and recreation, community services, and other general city services in the City of Atascadero, shall an ordinance establishing a one-cent sales tax be adopted, providing approximately 5 million dollars annually for city services until ended by voters, with annual independent audits and all money locally controlled? This language is similar to the language that was included in the January poll, but has a few minor changes based on recommendations from the polling consultant. DISCUSSION: The City Council held a Strategic Planning Workshop January 25 and 26, 2019, to discuss the many issues and concerns throughout the community, determine day-to-day priorities for the City, set goals/objectives, brainstorm creative ways to accomplish these goals/objectives and focus the organization on these priorities, goals and objectives. One of the three priorities identified by Council was fostering financial stability. The Council discussed this focus area at length to clarify their vision and expected outcomes. Utilizing the Council’s newly established Decision Criteria and Strategic Priorities, staff developed an action plan to implement the Council’s goals over the next two-year budget cycle. On May 15, 2019, Council, staff and public gathered at a special Council meeting to discuss the Draft Action Plan and following clarifications and revisions, the City Counci l adopted the 2019-2021 Action Plan. Formal adoption of the Action Plan forces the organization to focus on those agreed upon actions that move the community and organization forward on the identified strategic priorities, keeping in mind the City Mission, 10-Year Vision and Decision Criteria. As part of the strategic priority to foster financial stability, the first action identified in the Action Plan is to consider placing a tax measure on the November 2020 ballot. This action was broken into four parts: 1. Conduct a public outreach campaign to hear about priorities from the community and to educate community members about fiscal realities. 2. Conduct scientific polling to learn community thoughts on priorities, fiscal choices and receptiveness to additional taxes to fund priorities. 3. Explore different types and levels of tax measures to determine which would best be suited for the ballot measure. Page 96 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 4. Hold public hearings and prepare tax measure language. Conduct a Public Outreach Campaign Talk on the Block town hall meetings were held in several locations throughout the City in May, June and July of 2019 and then again in February 2020. At each of these sessions, City staff members gave a brief presentation sharing various facts about the City and each of the departments within the City. As part of the presentation, City staff discussed the finances of the City and where the City ranks amongst the other cities in the County and State. The intent of the presentations was to increase understanding and awareness of City finances so attendees could make an informed choice in November if faced with a sales tax ballot measure. COVID-19 and the Shelter at Home order has severely hampered our ability to expand public outreach and conduct a public education campaign. It was hoped that staff would be able to attend various meetings and gatherings to discuss the potential sales tax ballot measure, informing attendees of both the underlying financial background information that is driving the need to consider a sales tax measure and the expected costs and downsides of increasing the sales tax. Unfortunately groups like Kiwanis, Rotary, and other community groups have not been allowed to meet for the last two months and this method of reaching out to people in an interactive setting has not been available. Once a city council votes to place a measure on the ballot, staff’s ability to provide these educational talks will be hampered. While staff may provide educational information, the City may not use any resources to advocate once a measure is placed on the ballot. Underlying Financial Information Why should the citizens of Atascadero consider taxing themselves and visitors an additional 1% on the goods and services that they purchase here in Atascadero? There is a lot of underlying information that was shared with attendees at the various public outreach opportunities held before COVID-19 and the Shelter at Home order. A potential sales tax was only briefly mention ed, as a focus was put on the importance of understanding the City’s current financial circumstances and some of the challenges and trade-offs that are being made every day and will need to be made in the future. From this basic understanding, attendees could better understand why some may want to consider an additional tax and why it might not be the best choice for others. The information that was shared at the Talk on the Block events has been updated and is included in the following section. Page 97 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 Revenues Cities do not receive the same amounts in taxes p er resident. Atascadero receives the lowest revenue per capita in Sales Tax, in Property Tax and in General Fund revenues among all SLO County cities. As shown below, Atascadero receives about half of the amount received per capita from each of our immediately adjacent cities. * Morro Bay breakout has been estimated. This inequity forces the City to manage resources in a fiscally responsible manner, consistently protecting and stretching our taxpaye r’s dollars as far as possible. W hile the City does as much as it can, for as many as it can, as often as it can, unfortunately there is still much to be done and no funding available to do so. At the Talk on the Block series, information about relative property tax and how it is distributed was also discussed. The City of Atascadero receives about $332 per capita in property tax per year. While this is the second lowest per capita in the County, most of the cities in the County range between $298 and $437 per capita, with Pismo Beach being the outlier at $690 per person. A lot of attendees at Talk on the Block were unaware that the City receives only a small slice of the property tax that property owners pay. An example of where the funds from a typical $3,500 annual property tax bill goes was provided. Page 98 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 Schools, $2,146 County, $579 City, $494 Sewer, $242 Other, $39 Where Does Property Tax Go? $3,500 Annual Bill Information was also provided on relative sales tax. The City of Atascadero receives the lowest per capita sales tax of any City in the County. Because the City does not have many retail outlets selling taxable goods, the City has the lowest per capita sales tax in the County. Sales tax on gasoline purchases from residents and those traveling along Highway 101 is the City’s largest sales tax producing sector with sales of building and construction materials a close second. Expenditures A lot of time in the recent Talk on the Block events was spent on expenditures and where the City does spend the limited funds available to it. Using data available on the ClearGov.com website, information was shared on what the City of Atascadero spends per capita compared to the State-wide average expenditure per resident. The data shows that the City is very frugal with expenditures, yet we continue to get a lot done. Atascadero Cost per Capita State Avg. Cost per Capita % of State Avg. Police 240.00$ 677.00$ 35.5% Fire 153.00$ 807.00$ 19.0% Community Development 104.00$ 539.00$ 19.3% Parks & Recreation 56.00$ 100.00$ 56.0% Streets 39.00$ 432.00$ 9.0% General Government 48.00$ 504.00$ 9.5% Source ClearGov.com 2018 Page 99 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 As the chart shows, the City, by necessity, spends a lot less per capita than other cities in the State. How has the City made it work? There are four main areas where the City is artificially keeping expenses low. 1. Fewer employees to get the job done 2. Paying employees less than neighboring jurisdictions 3. Postponing or ignoring deferred maintenance and replacement of infrastructure 4. Having fewer services and lower service levels than other cities Fewer employees: About 72% of General Fund expenditures are for personnel, police officers, fire fighters, parks maintenance workers, building inspectors, planners and a host of other positions. Therefore, to keep expenses down in order to spend less than available resources, the City has kept employee expenses down. The Police Department is an example of what the City has done and continues to do to make ends meet. The City has kept employee expenses down by not hiring employees at a pace that keeps up with the growth of the City population. About 20 years ago, the City had 30 sworn police officer positions to serve a population of just over 26,000 people which translated to about 1.1 police officer for every 1,000 residents. Today, 20 years later, the City has 29 sworn police officers at full-staffing to serve a population of over 30,000 residents. (about 0.9 sworn officers per 1,000 residents). The national average for a City of our size is 1.7 police officers per thousand residents. This means, that with no vacancies, the Police Department often has only 3 officers on duty. This low staffing combined with increased calls related to homelessness, the passage of Proposition 57 and Proposition 47, and the imposition of no-bail has made police work in the City difficult. It is estimated that it would cost approximately $800,000 - $900,000 annually to hire five new officers, bringing the minimum number of officers per shift up to 4, and bringing our sworn officers back up to 1.1 per thousand residents. Similar needs and examples can be found in most departments in the City. Paying Employees Less: The City has been able to stay within its financial constraints with the cooperation of its employees. The employees are used to doing more with less and this often carries over into salaries and wages. Below are the current comparisons to other jurisdictions for top step police officer positions: Jurisdiction Officer Sergeant City of San Luis Obispo 8,699$ 10,953$ County Sheriff 8,417$ 10,221$ City of Paso Robles 7,752$ 10,461$ City of Pismo Beach 7,510$ 9,854$ City of Grover Beach 7,129$ 9,212$ City of Arroyo Grande 6,941$ 8,884$ City of Morro Bay 6,929$ 8,642$ City of Atascadero 6,693$ 8,379$ Monthly Salary Page 100 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 While, there are some differences in benefit packages between jurisdictions, the City is consistently amongst the lowest total compensation for most positions at the City. While compensation is often not the only reason an employee chooses to work for an employer, when there are significant differences in pay, it is an important consideration. Because the cost of living is high in the area, and neighboring jurisdictions are able to pay more, the City’s low wages are often a barrier to attracting, hiring and most important- retaining professional employees. This has a large effect on City operations as vacancies lead to even lower staffing levels and inefficiencies as new employees are trained. There is no department where this is more visible than the Police Department. Unfortunately, being a police officer is not as popular of an occupation as it once was and there is a general shortage of qualified police officers nationwide. While the City has had occasional success in hiring qualified police officers, often there are no candidates available for long periods of time. This has led our Police Department to implement a Police Officer Recruit position. The City program hires a police officer recruit and pays the recruit a salary and benefits to attend the police academy. If the recruit passes the 27 week Police Academy, the recruit becomes a police officer and begins their field training in Atascadero. Once the recruit passes all field training requirements, they are then able to be on patrol in Atascadero. This means that that a single police officer leaving for another neighboring jurisdiction can leave the Police Department short staffed for a year. This challenge is not uncommon throughout the City. There have been recruitments in several departments where the City did not receive a single qualified applicant. In these cases, after sometimes 2 or more recruitments, the City has chosen to re-organize, find a way to contract out, or hire someone at a lower level and provide a lot of training. In 2019, staff did an informal salary survey of the incorporated cities in the County. At that time it was determined that it would cost the City approximately $850,000 to bring all City positions to the average salary level of cities in the County. The loss of employees due to higher wages in neighboring jurisdictions continues to be a barrier to providing services at the level that the community expects. Deterioration of Infrastructure: The City has facilities such as parks, buildings and roads. In addition, the City also has vehicles such as fire engines, police cars, dump trucks, backhoes, tractors and police cars; and equipment such as breathing apparatus, jaws of life, cardiac monitors, radios, computer, software and more. The City has been able to fund the routine replacement of smaller vehicles such as police cars and building inspector vehicles, but has not had the funding since 2008 t o fund the replacement of more expensive (longer lasting vehicles) such as fire engines, the ladder truck, backhoes, tractors and dump trucks. Unfortunately, each piece of equipment is deteriorating and will need to be replaced. The City takes exceptiona lly good care of its major vehicles, but at some point the two 15 year old fire engines will have to be replaced at an estimated cost of $500,000 each. At that point , the City will need to make cuts somewhere to either buy the engines or pay to lease the engines. While City Hall was recently renovated and is good shape, the City has other facilities such as Fire Station #1 which is now 70 years old. The building does not meet current earthquake safety standards, has exhaust safety issues a failing roof, old plumbing and Page 101 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 generally does not meet the requirements of a modern fire station. In 2017 , the City obtained an estimate of how much it would be to renovate the fire station to bring it up to current standards. The construction cost was estimated to be $9.3 million in March of 2017. While Fire Station #1 is the City’s oldest facility, the City has many buildings that need constant upkeep and rehabilitation such as the Pavilion, Fire Station #2, Police Station, Zoo Buildings, etc. In addition to vehicles, equipment and facilities, the City’s largest asset is the roads system. While the additional tax measure approved by the voters in 2014 has allowed the City to make significant progress in repairing and rehabilitating roads there is more to be done. Lower Service Levels: While the City does the best it can to serve the community, there are some things that just cannot be done with the existing resource constraints of the City. There are services that other cities provide, that the City does not prov ide. There are things that the community wants to see done that the City does not have the funding to make happen. Atascadero has had success in asking the community to step up and raise funds or volunteer to get things done. Groups like Parents for Joy, the Friends of the Zoo and the Friends of the Lake all improve the quality of life for the community through their fundraising efforts to help build and maintain City assets. While not in a current financial crisis (with the exception of the COVID impac ts), the City is coming to a crossroads and cannot sustain the services it provides with the projected available resources. Even though the seven-year budgeted projection shows that the City can survive financially, it has some assumptions that may not be tenable for the community. It assumes that we will not hire any new personnel in the next seven years. It assumes that employees will not receive any raises or cost of living adjustments in the next seven years. It assumes that infrastructure such as F ire Station #1 and our fire engines will continue to function adequately. Taxes are unpleasant and there are some in the community that have their own structural budget gap, and for them any new additional taxes may be a burden. For others who have concerns about the level of police service or fire protection, the sales tax is a must. The City’s Financial Strategy, the City budget, the Annual Financial Report, and the Financial Update on tonight’s agenda have additional financial information on why the City Council is considering placing a sales tax measure on the ballot to determine if voters are willing to tax themselves more to address some of the financial issues that the City is facing. Sales Tax Information The sales tax rate in the City of Atascadero is currently 7.75%. This includes the statewide sales tax rate of 7.25% plus an additional 0.5% transaction and use tax approved by the voters in 2014 (F-14). Sales tax rates can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction based on what the voters in that jurisdiction have approved. In looking through the State website, sales tax rates in California vary from 7.25% to 10.5%. Each incorporated city in the County currently has a sales tax rate of 7.75% and the County has a rate of 7.25%. Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo, Morro Bay, Grover Beach and Arroyo Grande are all considering putting an additional 1% sales tax measure on the ballot. Page 102 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 Under the California Sales and Use Tax Law, the sale of tangible personal property is subject to sales or use tax unless exempt or otherwise excluded. Sales tax is imposed on all retailers for the privilege of selling tangible personal property and is measured by the retailer’s gross receipts. Use tax is imposed on the purchaser of tangible personal property from any retailer for storage, use or other consumption in California. Sales taxes, use taxes and transaction taxes are all typically just referred to as “sales tax”. Sales taxes are generally not imposed on groceries, medical products, utilities, services, real property, electronic products, art and various other products. Like other California cities, Atascadero generally receives 1% of the cost of taxable goods purchased within the city limits of Atascadero in Bradley-Burns Sales tax. The remaining 6.25% of base sales tax goes to the State of California. The additional 0.5% F-14 sales tax is actually a transaction and use tax and is imposed on taxable goods that are delivered or “used” in Atascadero. (Items purchased at most retail stores are assumed to be used in the jurisdiction where it is purchased.) The sales tax measure being considered is a transaction or use tax and would be allocated similar to F -14. There are many nuances for allocating and applying sales and transactions taxes. In general, for purchases at retail stores (in-store), both the sales and transaction tax are allocated to the jurisdiction where the store is located. So if you purchase an item in Atascadero, Atascadero receives both the 1% Bradley-Burns tax plus any additional transaction tax approved by the Atascadero voters. If you purchase an item in a different city, that different city receives the 1%, plus any additional transaction taxes approved by that city’s voters. There are exceptions for registered vehicles (the city where you purchased the vehicle receives the 1% bradley-Burns; and the city where the vehicle is registered receives any applicable transaction tax) and other specific items. There is also a whole host of different rules for internet purchases and purchases fo r items that are delivered. Further information on sales taxes and allocations is available at the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) website. Potential Impact on Local Sales The actual amount of proposed increase in the sales tax is minimal when compared to the actual cost of a product sold. For example, for every $100 spent, an additional one percent sales tax increase would result in an additional $1.00 paid by the consumer. Sales tax data trends show that an increase in the sa les tax rate of one percent has no noticeable effect on the amount of taxable goods consumers buy. In other words, in other jurisdictions where the sales tax has been increased, the businesses did not see a decline in sales because the sales tax rate had been increased. A one percent sales tax measure was estimated to bring in about $4.7 million annually to the City if passed. While COVID-19 is having a substantial negative effect on the sales tax that the City receives, it is expected that eventually people will once again buy gas, go to restaurants, and buy building goods bringing the sales tax back up to a pre- COVID level. Advantages and Disadvantages of Sales Tax Measure As with most policy actions, enacting an increase to the sales tax has adva ntages and disadvantages. Page 103 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 Some arguments in favor include: Unlike property taxes, sales taxes are paid by a greater distribution of the population (including homeowners, renters, businesses, travelers and tourists); Sales taxes are not paid on many basic necessities such as rent, groceries, medicines and services. Sales taxes are paid based on consumption (those who can afford to spend more pay more), and they are paid incrementally instead of in a lump sum; Because the tax is established by a vote of the local electorate, it cannot be taken by the State. It would generate additional revenue to maintain police, fire, parks and other City services by: o Increasing minimum police staffing to four officers per shift (consistent to levels from 20 years ago) o Ensure preparedness for wildland fires o Ensure adequate staffing to respond quickly to 9 -1-1 calls o Allow the City to keep up with basic repairs of parks, buildings, and equipment o Allow the City to rehabilitate aging infrastructure such as the 70 year old Fire Station #1 Other jurisdictions in the County will be voting on a sales tax in their City: o There is no competitive advantage to having a lower sales tax rate o Atascadero citizens make many purchases outside of the City and may be paying a higher rate already. None of that tax supports services in Atascadero. o An Atascadero sales tax will help fund Atascadero police, fire and parks on purchases made in Atascadero. Some arguments against include: Additional taxes reduce the discretionary income of Atascadero re sidents; Tax increases are not generally perceived positively by the citizenry and may erode trust in local government. COVID-19 has had a large financial effect on some in our community and now may not be the time to ask people to pay more in taxes. This is a general tax and there is no guarantee on the how the additional revenue will be spent. Sales Tax Measure Process Regarding increases to the sales tax rate, in order to make a change to any general tax rate, the change must be approved by the voters. The City Council does not have the authority to raise taxes, only to put a measure on the ballot. In order to place a tax measure on the November 3, 2020 ballot, it takes a 2/3 vote of the City Council (at least 4 members). If passed by the Council and the electorate, the tax would be effective no sooner than the first day of the first calendar quarter, commencing more than 110 days after the adoption of the ordinance. Therefore, the tax would be effective no sooner than April 1, 2021. Page 104 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 Proposition 218, approved in 1996, now requires that all City tax election measures be placed on the same election when City Council Members are selected unless a financial emergency is declared. The next Council election is scheduled for November 3, 2020. Subsequent Council elections are held every two years. In order to place the local sales tax election on the next ballot the Council needs to act prior to August 7, 2020. In order to provide staff enough time to submit the proper paperwork, and related resolutions and ordinances a decision must be made at the July 14, 2020 Council meeting. Staff discussed the potential effect of COVID-19 with True North Research, the firm that conducted the original poll in January. Not unexpectedly, there is not a lot of information available on how voter outlook will change from January to November. There is a least one city in the County that will be conducting a second statistical poll in late June. If the Council is interested in conducting a second statistical poll in June , it would cost around $17,000 for an abbreviated poll. Sales Tax Options If the City Council decides to move forward with a sales tax measure, and in order to draft the measure, decisions on the following key issues will need to be made: Amount of Increase Staff recommends that 1% be proposed as the local sales tax override amount. As discussed in the sales tax polling results, sales tax measures are not very rate sensitive. Experts opine, that citizens would rather pay what is needed to provide adequate services instead of paying less and receiving services that may not meet their expectations. Staff believes that the City needs the entire 1% to hire and retain additional personnel to keep up with current demands, and to address deteriorating infrastructure needs. Advisory Measure Sunset Clause Sunset clauses state that a tax measure ends or “sunsets” after a certain period of time. Sunset clauses can be perceived as beneficial because the tax is temporary and voters retain control over the tax. They are particularly popular when the tax will be used for a project of limited duration or to fund one -time expenditures. In this case, the need for the tax is an ongoing need – maintenance of police, fire, parks and other services. It would not make se nse to use the tax revenues to hire additional police officers, only to have to lay the officers off as the tax measure sunsets. Because the poll results do not show that a sunset clause is likely to measurably increase support for the measure, staff is not recommending that a sunset clause be added to the measure. Citizen Advisory or Oversight Committee Citizen committees can also be popular with the electorate. The City’s measure F- 14 sales tax has a citizen oversight committee that reviews how the funds are spent and reports to the Council and the community annually on where the funds are spent. Staff is not recommending a Citizen Advisory or Oversight Committee. The proposed sales tax measure is intended to be a general tax measure and the revenue is intended to be used to maintain police, fire, parks, recreation, and other Page 105 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 services and infrastructure. The ability to breakout and track expenditures similar to F-14 becomes exponentially more difficult for ongoing maintenance and personnel costs. A considerable amount of time and effort would need to be spent on administration if a citizen committee was formed. Conclusion The City of Atascadero is severely fiscally constrained. While the City does a lot with the small amount of revenue that it receives, the revenues have not kept pace with the increasing costs of providing police, fire, parks, recreation, and other services. The City has stretched the available resources as far as possible, but services continue to be eroded and facilities and inf rastructure continue to deteriorate. The City has implemented many measures over the years to contain costs such as maintaining consistent personnel numbers, keeping compensation costs low, and making do with aging and inadequate facilities and equipment. The City has tried to increase revenues through economic development, full cost recovery fee levels and the community facilities district. These measures have all helped, but have not been enough and are generally unsustainable in the long-run. Tonight, Council must decide whether there is enough interest to continue to move forward in placing a measure on the November ballot. If Council wants to continue moving forward, Council would need to direct staff to bring back an item at the July 14 th meeting. At the July 14th meeting, Council must decide whether to ask the community if they want to accept the trade off of an additional one percent on taxable sales to be used to maintain City services. The Council will never be voting on whether the sales tax should be increased; but rather whether the voters should be given the opportunity to decide if an additional sales tax is the right thing for the community. If Council decides to move forward tonight, the Council will also need to decide on: Does the proposed ballot measure language adequately convey the intent of the ballot measure? Is 1% the right amount to ask or should another amount be considered? Should the measure include a sunset clause? Should there be a citizens committee included in the ordin ance? Are there other considerations that Council would like to see in the draft ordinance? Because July 14th is the last day that Council can adopt the necessary resolutions and ordinance, it is important that Council give staff clear direction on what they expect to see in the ordinance as there would not be time to come back at a later Council date. FISCAL IMPACT: Directing staff to bring back a draft ordinance and resolutions necessary to place a sales tax measure on the November 2020 ballot would i nvolve a small amount of staff time. If the Council later votes to put the tax measure on the ballot, t he proposed sales tax measure would generate an estimated $5 million annually in additional revenue. The total cost of placing the measures on the ballot is estimated to be approximately $12,000 of budgeted General Funds. Page 106 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ALTERNATIVES: 1. Council may not pursue an increase to the sales tax rate. 2. Council may ask staff for additional information. ATTACHMENT: Revenue Measure Feasibility Study, dated February 4, 2020 Page 107 of 155 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 108 of 155 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 109 of 155 Table of ContentsTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 iCity of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T ABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Motivation for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Overview of Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 About True North. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Just the Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Quality of Life & City Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Positive Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Interim Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Negative Arguments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Final Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Support at Lower Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Relevant Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Quality of Life & City Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Quality of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Changes to Improve Atascadero. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Overall Performance Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Support by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Reasons for Opposing Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Question 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Service Ratings by Initial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Positive Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Question 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Positive Arguments by Initial Support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Interim Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Question 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Support by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Negative Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Question 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Negative Arguments by Initial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Final Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Question 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Change in Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Final Ballot Test at Lower Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Question 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Relevant Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Should the City Continue to Operate the Zoo? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 110 of 155 Table of ContentsTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 iiCity of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Question 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Financial Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Question 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Background & Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Programming & Pre-Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Statistical Margin of Error. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Recruiting & Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Data Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Questionnaire & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 111 of 155 List of TablesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 iiiCity of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L IST OF TABLES Table 1 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Initial Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Table 2 Top Services by Position at Initial Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 3 Top Positive Arguments by Position at Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table 4 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Interim Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Table 5 Negative Arguments by Position at Initial Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Table 6 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Final Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Table 7 Movement Between Initial & Final Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table 8 Demographics of Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 112 of 155 List of FiguresTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 ivCity of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L IST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Quality of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 2 Quality of Life by Years in Atascadero, Child in Hsld, Age & Homeowner on Voter File . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 3 Changes to Improve City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 4 Overall Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 5 Overall Satisfaction by Years in Atascadero, Child in Hsld, Age & Homeowner on Voter File . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 6 Initial Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 Figure 7 Reasons for not Supporting Measure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 8 Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 9 Positive Arguments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 10 Interim Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 11 Negative Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 12 Final Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 Figure 13 Final Ballot Test at One-Half Cent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 14 Opinion of Zoo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 15 Opinion of Zoo by Years in Atascadero, Overall Satisfaction & Child in Hsld . . . . . 27 Figure 16 Opinion of Zoo by Age, Homeowner on Voter File & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 17 Fiscal Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 18 Maximum Margin of Error Due to Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 113 of 155 IntroductionTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 1City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I NTRODUCTION Located along Californias’ scenic central coast, the City of Atascadero is committed to building community by fostering an outstanding quality of life with excellent public service, stewardship of the environment, preservation of local heritage, and promotion of economic prosperity. Founded in 1913 and incorporated in 1979, the City provides a full suite of municipal services to an estimated 30,405 residents1 and local businesses. Over the past decade, the City of Atascadero’s revenues have not kept pace with the growing costs associated with providing municipal services and facilities. Although the City has been pro- active in responding to this challenge by reducing its costs where feasible, reducing staff posi- tions, and through effective financial management practices, the practical reality is that existing revenues simply do not support the high quality services that residents have come to expect. To provide the funding required to maintain and improve the quality of essential city services, the City of Atascadero is considering establishing a local revenue measure. MOTIVATION FOR RESEARCH The primary purpose of this study was to produce an unbiased, statistically reliable evaluation of voters' interest in supporting a general sales tax measure to provide the funding noted above. Additionally, should the City decide to move for- ward with a revenue measure, the data provide guidance as to how to structure the measure so it is consistent with the community's priorities and expressed needs. Specifically, the study was designed to: • Gauge current, baseline support for enacting a local sales tax measure to ensure adequate funding for general municipal services; • Identify the types of services voters are most interested in funding, should the measure pass; • Expose voters to arguments in favor of, and against, the proposed tax measure to assess how information affects support for the measure; and • Estimate support for the measure once voters are presented with the types of information they will likely be exposed to during an election cycle. It is important to note at the outset that voters’ opinions about tax measures are often some- what fluid, especially when the amount of information they initially have about a measure is lim- ited. How voters think and feel about a measure today may not be the same way they think and feel once they have had a chance to hear more information about the measure during the elec- tion cycle. Accordingly, to accurately assess the feasibility of establishing a sales tax increase to fund municipal services, it was important that in addition to measuring current opinions about the measure (Question 5), the survey expose respondents to the types of information voters are likely to encounter during an election cycle, including arguments in favor of (Question 8) and opposed to (Question 10) the measure, and gauge how this type of information ultimately impacts their voting decision (Questions 9 & 11). 1. Source: California Department of Finance estimate, January 2019. ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 114 of 155 IntroductionTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 2City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY For a full discussion of the research methods and tech- niques used in this study, turn to Methodology on page 30. In brief, the survey was administered to a random sample of 787 voters in the City of Atascadero who are likely to participate in the November 2020 election. The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (telephone and email) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online). Administered between January 18 and January 23, 2020, the average interview lasted 16 minutes. ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to meet the needs of readers who prefer a summary of the findings as well as those who are interested in the details of the results. For those who seek an overview of the findings, the sections titled Just the Facts and Conclusions are for you. They provide a summary of the most important factual findings of the survey in bul- let-point format and a discussion of their implications. For the interested reader, this section is followed by a more detailed question-by-question discussion of the results from the survey by topic area (see Table of Contents), as well as a description of the methodology employed for col- lecting and analyzing the data. And, for the truly ambitious reader, the questionnaire used for the interviews is contained at the back of this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 33) and a complete set of crosstabulations for the survey results is contained in Appendix A. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS True North thanks the City of Atascadero for the opportunity to assist the City in this important effort. The collective expertise, local knowledge, and insight pro- vided by city staff and representatives improved the overall quality of the research presented here. DISCLAIMER The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the authors (Dr. Timothy McLarney and Richard Sarles) at True North Research, Inc. and not necessarily those of the City of Atascadero. Any errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors. ABOUT TRUE NORTH True North is a full-service survey research firm that is dedicated to providing public agencies with a clear understanding of the values, perceptions, priorities, and concerns of their residents and voters. Through designing and implementing scientific surveys, focus groups, and one-on-one interviews as well as expert interpretation of the findings, True North helps its clients to move with confidence when making strategic decisions in a variety of areas—such as planning, policy evaluation, performance management, establishing fiscal priori- ties, passing revenue measures, and developing effective public information campaigns. During their careers, Dr. McLarney and Mr. Sarles have designed and conducted over 1,000 sur- vey research studies for public agencies, including more than 350 revenue measure feasibility studies. Of the measures that have gone to ballot based on Dr. McLarney’s recommendation, 97% have been successful. In total, the research that Dr. McLarney has conducted has led to over $32 billion in successful local revenue measures. ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 115 of 155 Just the FactsTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 3City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J UST THE FACTS The following section is an outline of the main factual findings from the survey. For the reader’s convenience, we have organized the findings according to the section titles used in the body of this report. Thus, if you would like to learn more about a particular finding, simply turn to the appropriate report section. QUALITY OF LIFE & CITY SERVICES • Eight-in-ten voters shared favorable opinions of the quality of life in Atascadero, with 17% reporting it is excellent and 64% stating it is good. Approximately 16% of voters surveyed said the quality of life in the City is fair, whereas about 2% used poor or very poor to describe the quality of life in Atascadero. • When asked what changes the City could make to improve the quality of life in Atascadero, 12% of respondents could not think of a desired change (9%) or reported that no changes are needed (2%). Among specific changes desired, addressing the homeless issue was the most common (21%), followed closely by improving and maintaining infrastructure, streets, and roads (19%) and improving shopping and dining opportunities (17%). • More than three-quarters (76%) of Atascadero voters surveyed indicated that they were satis- fied with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services, with 19% saying they were very sat- isfied and 57% somewhat satisfied. Approximately 18% reported that they were dissatisfied with the City’s overall performance, and 6% were unsure or unwilling to state their opinion. INITIAL BALLOT TEST • With only the information provided in the ballot language, 67% of likely November 2020 vot- ers surveyed indicated that they would support the proposed one-cent sales tax, whereas 27% stated that they would oppose the measure and 7% were unsure or unwilling to share their vote choice. • Among voters who initially opposed the sales tax or were unsure, a belief that taxes are already too high, a perception that city funds have been/will be mismanaged or misspent, and a desire for additional information about the measure were the most common reasons mentioned for their position. SERVICES When presented with a list of 10 services that could be funded by the sales tax measure, voters were most interested in using the money to: • Provide fire protection and paramedic services • Provide quick responses to 911 emergencies • Repair and maintain public facilities and infrastructure ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 116 of 155 Just the FactsTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 4City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POSITIVE ARGUMENTS When presented with arguments in favor of the measure, voters found the following arguments to be the most persuasive: • Fast emergency response times for 911 calls are critical for saving lives. This measure will ensure that we have enough police officers, firefighters, dispatchers, and paramedics to respond quickly to 911 emergencies. • We have fewer police officers today than we did 10 years ago, meanwhile our population and the number of 911 emergency calls continues to grow. We need more police officers to keep our community safe. • The City of Atascadero has just three police officers on duty at a time, which is less than half the number of police officers that experts agree is needed to keep a community of our size safe. This measure will improve our public safety. INTERIM BALLOT TEST • After learning more about the services that could be funded, as well as hearing arguments in favor of the measure, overall support for the proposed sales tax among likely November 2020 voters increased slightly to 68%, with 36% of voters indicating that they would defi- nitely vote yes on the measure. Approximately 24% of respondents opposed the measure at this point in the survey, and an additional 8% were unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice. NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS Of the arguments in opposition to the measure, voters found the following arguments to be the most persuasive: • There are no guarantees on how funds will be spent, which means the City can divert the money to pet projects. • Taxes are already too high, we can't afford another tax increase. This is especially true for seniors and others on fixed incomes. • This tax will last forever. There is not expiration date. FINAL BALLOT TEST • After providing respondents with the wording of the proposed measure, a list of services that could be funded by the measure, as well as arguments in favor of and against the pro- posal, support for the one-cent sales tax measure was found among 65% of likely November 2020 voters, with 33% indicating that they would definitely support the measure. Approxi- mately 26% of respondents were opposed to the measure at the Final Ballot Test, and 9% were unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice. SUPPORT AT LOWER RATE • Voters who did not support the proposed measure at the Final Ballot Test were asked if they would support the measure at a lower tax rate of one-half cent. An additional 6% of voters indicated they would support the measure under this condition. ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 117 of 155 Just the FactsTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 5City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RELEVANT ATTITUDES • After being informed that the City currently spends approximately $500,000 each year to operate and maintain the zoo, two-thirds of voters (68%) favored keeping the zoo open despite the cost, whereas 21% preferred to close the zoo to save money, and 11% preferred to not answer the question. • When asked to rate the job the City of Atascadero had done in managing its financial resources, approximately one-quarter of respondents confided that they were unsure (24%) or preferred to not answer the question (2%). The remaining respondents were divided between those who provided an excellent (4%) or good rating (31%), those who offered fair (25%), and those who felt the City’s performance in this respect has been poor (9%) or very poor (4%). ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 118 of 155 ConclusionsTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 6City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C ONCLUSIONS The bulk of this report is devoted to conveying the details of the study findings. In this section, however, we attempt to ‘see the forest through the trees’ and note how the collective results of the survey answer the key questions that motivated the research. The following conclusions are based on True North’s interpretations of the survey results and the firm’s experience conducting revenue measure studies for public agencies throughout the State. Is it feasible to place a local sales tax measure on the ballot in 2020? Yes. Atascadero voters have a high opinion of the quality of life in the community, with eight-in-ten voters rating the quality of life in the City as excellent or good. Voters also value the services they receive from the City and see opportunities to strengthen public safety and public works. Together, these sentiments translate into strong natural support (67%) for establishing a one cent sales tax to provide funding for general city services such as police and crime prevention, fire protection, paramed- ics, and 911 emergency response, maintenance of parks, public facilities and infrastructure, and recreation, community services, and other city services. The results of this study indicate that, if structured appropriately and combined with an effective public outreach/education effort and a solid independent campaign, the proposed sales tax measure has a very good chance of passage if placed on the November 2020 ballot. Having stated that a general sales tax measure is feasible, it is important to note that the measure’s prospects will be shaped by external factors and that a recommendation to place the measure on the November 2020 ballot comes with several qualifications and conditions. Indeed, although the results are promising, all revenue measures must overcome chal- lenges prior to being successful. The proposed measure is no exception. The following paragraphs discuss some of the challenges and the next steps that True North recommends. Which services do Atas- cadero voters view as priorities? A general tax is “any tax imposed for general governmental purposes”2 and is distinguished from a special tax in that the funds raised by a gen- eral tax are not earmarked for a specific purpose(s). Thus, a general tax provides a municipality with a great deal of flexibility with respect to what is funded by the measure on a year-to-year basis. Although the Atascadero City Council would have the discretion to decide how to spend the revenues, the survey results indicate that voters are most interested in using the proceeds to fund public safety and pub- lic works. Specifically, voters most strongly favored using measure pro- ceeds to provide fire protection and paramedic services, provide quick responses to 911 emergencies, repair and maintain public facilities and 2. Section 1, Article XIIIC, California Constitution. ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 119 of 155 ConclusionsTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 7City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . infrastructure, maintain parks and recreation facilities including courts, fields and playgrounds, and keep public areas clean and free of graffiti. How might a public information campaign affect support for the proposed measure? As noted in the body of this report, individuals’ opinions about revenue measures are often not rigid, especially when the amount of information presented to the public on a measure has been limited. Thus, in addition to measuring current support for the measure, one of the goals of this study was to explore how the introduction of additional information about the measure may affect voters’ opinions about the proposal. It is clear from the survey results that voters’ opinions about the pro- posed revenue measure are somewhat sensitive to the nature, and amount, of information they have about the measure. Information about the specific services and infrastructure improvements that could be funded by the measure, as well as arguments in favor of the measure, were found by many voters to be compelling reasons to support the pro- posed sales tax. However, voters also exhibited some sensitivity to opposition arguments designed to reduce support for the measure. Accordingly, one of the keys to building and sustaining support for the proposed measure will be the presence of an effective, well-organized public outreach effort and a separate, independent campaign that focuses on the need for the measure as well as the many benefits that it will bring. How might the eco- nomic or political cli- mate alter support for the measure? A survey is a snapshot in time—which means the results of this study and the conclusions noted above must be viewed in light of the current economic and political climates. Should the economy and/or political cli- mate improve, support for the measure could increase. Conversely, neg- ative economic and/or political developments, especially at the local level, could dampen support for the measure below what was recorded in this study. ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 120 of 155 Quality of Life & City ServicesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 8City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q UALITY OF LIFE & CITY SERVICES The opening section of the survey was designed to gauge voters’ opinions regarding the City of Atascadero’s performance in providing municipal services, as well as their perceptions of the quality of life in the City. QUALITY OF LIFE At the outset of the interview, voters were asked to rate the quality of life in the City of Atascadero using a five-point scale of excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor. As shown in Figure 1 below, eight-in-ten voters shared favorable opinions of the quality of life in Atascadero, with 17% reporting it is excellent and 64% stating it is good. Approximately 16% of voters surveyed said the quality of life in the City is fair, whereas about 2% used poor or very poor to describe the quality of life in Atascadero. Question 2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in Atascadero? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor? FIGURE 1 QUALITY OF LIFE Figure 2 shows how ratings of the quality of life in Atascadero varied according to length of residence, presence of a child in the home, age, and home ownership status. Although some subgroups (e.g., those over the aged 65 or older and homeowners) were more likely than their counterparts to rate the quality of life in the City as excellent, the most striking pattern in the figure is the con- sistency of opinion. Approximately eight-in- ten respondents in every subgroup rated the quality of life in Atascadero as excellent or good. FIGURE 2 QUALITY OF LIFE BY YEARS IN ATASCADERO, CHILD IN HSLD, AGE & HOMEOWNER ON VOTER FILE Prefer not to answer 0.1 Not sure 0.3Very poor 0.8Poor 1.4 Fair 16.4 Good 63.7 Excellent 17.2 14.3 18.8 14.7 9.3 14.4 19.5 21.7 19.1 13.8 65.6 63.2 64.4 68.3 63.2 61.6 62.9 63.9 63.4 17.217.115.8Excellent 19.2 62.669.467.6Good 59.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Yes No 18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Yes No Years in Atascadero (Q1) Child in Hsld (Q15) Age Homeowner on Voter File% RespondentsITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 121 of 155 Quality of Life & City ServicesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 9City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHANGES TO IMPROVE ATASCADERO The next question in this series asked voters to indicate the one thing that city government could change to make Atascadero a better place to live, now and in the future. Question 3 was posed in an open-ended manner, allowing resi- dents to mention any aspect or attribute that came to mind without being prompted by or restricted to a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 3 below. Overall, 12% of respondents could not think of any desired changes (9%) or reported that no changes are needed (2%) to make Atascadero a better place to live. Among specific changes desired, addressing the homeless issue was the most common (21%), followed closely by improv- ing and maintaining infrastructure, streets, and roads (19%) and improving shopping and dining opportunities (17%). Other changes mentioned by at least 5% of respondents included improving the local economy and jobs (8%), improving public safety (8%), improving the downtown area (7%), adding bike and walking paths (6%), providing affordable housing (6%), improving parks and recreation areas (6%), and providing more community events and activities for residents of all ages (5%). Question 3 If the city government could change one thing to make Atascadero a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see? FIGURE 3 CHANGES TO IMPROVE CITY OVERALL PERFORMANCE RATING The final question in this series asked respondents to indicate if, overall, they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Atascadero is doing to provide city services. Because this question does not reference a specific program, facil- ity, or service and requested that the respondent consider the City’s performance in general, the findings of this question may be regarded as an overall performance rating for the City. 1.6 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.3 3.3 5.0 6.2 6.2 7.7 8.0 9.4 16.8 18.9 21.0 7.1 5.6 0 5 10 15 20 25 Improve government, more transparency Improve environmental efforts Reduce, limit growth Beautify city, landscaping Reduce traffic Enforce City codes No changes needed / Everything is fine Reduce taxes, fees Provide more community events, activities for all ages Improve parks, recreation areas Provide affordable housing Add bike, walking paths Improve downtown area Improve public safety, reduce crime, drugs, provide more police presence Improve economy, jobs Not sure, cannot think of anything Improve shopping, dining opportunities Improve, maintain infrastructure, streets, roads Address homeless issue % Respondents ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 122 of 155 Quality of Life & City ServicesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 10City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . As shown in Figure 4 below, 76% of Atascadero voters surveyed indicated that they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services, with 19% saying they were very satisfied and 57% somewhat satisfied. Approximately 18% reported that they were dissatisfied with the City’s overall performance, and 6% were unsure or unwilling to state their opinion. For the interested reader, Figure 5 displays how the percentage of respondents satisfied with the City’s overall per- formance varied across several demographic subgroups. Question 4 Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Atas- cadero is doing to provide city services? FIGURE 4 OVERALL SATISFACTION FIGURE 5 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY YEARS IN ATASCADERO, CHILD IN HSLD, AGE & HOMEOWNER ON VOTER FILE Very satisfied 18.7 Somewhat satisfied 57.4 Somewhat dissatisfied 12.0 Very dissatisfied 5.5 Not sure 5.4 Prefer not to answer 1.0 16.6 19.9 21.6 15.1 17.5 20.1 18.8 17.3 21.2 58.2 57.8 57.3 63.0 54.3 56.2 56.9 60.6 51.6 15.315.422.5 Very satisfied 26.5 57.1 69.955.7 Smwt satisfied 50.9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Yes No 18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Yes No Years in Atascadero (Q1) Child in Hsld (Q15) Age Homeowner on Voter File% RespondentsITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 123 of 155 Initial Ballot TestTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 11City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I NITIAL BALLOT TEST The primary research objective of this survey was to estimate voters’ support for establishing a one-cent sales tax to provide funding for general city services in the City of Atascadero, such as police and crime prevention, fire protection, paramedics, and 911 emergency response, mainte- nance of parks, public facilities and infrastructure, and recreation, community services, and other city services. To this end, Question 5 was designed to take an early assessment of voters’ support for the proposed measure. The motivation for placing Question 5 near the front of the survey is twofold. First, voter support for a measure can often depend on the amount of information they have about a measure. At this point in the survey, the respondent has not been provided information about the proposed measure beyond what is presented in the ballot language. This situation is analogous to a voter casting a ballot with limited knowledge about the measure, such as what might occur in the absence of an effective campaign. Question 5, also known as the Initial Ballot Test, is thus a good measure of voter support for the proposed measure as it is today, on the natural. Because the Initial Ballot Test provides a gauge of natural support for the measure, it also serves a second purpose in that it provides a useful baseline from which to judge the impact of various informa- tion items conveyed later in the survey on voter support for the measure. Question 5 Later this year, voters in Atascadero may be asked to vote on a local ballot mea- sure. Let me read you a summary of the measure. To provide funding for general city services in the City of Atascadero, such as police and crime prevention; fire protection, paramedics, and 911 emergency response; maintenance of parks, public facilities and infrastructure; and recre- ation, community services, and other city services; shall an ordinance establishing a one-cent sales tax be adopted, providing approximately 5 million dollars annually for city services until ended by voters, with annual independent audits and all money locally controlled? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? FIGURE 6 INITIAL BALLOT TEST As shown in Figure 6, 67% of likely November 2020 voters surveyed indicated that they would definitely or probably support the proposed one-cent sales tax, whereas 27% stated that they would oppose the measure and 7% were unsure or unwilling to share their vote choice. For general taxes in California, the level of support recorded at the Initial Ballot Test is approximately 17 percentage points above the sim- ple majority (50%+1) required for passage. Prefer not to answer 0.1 Not sure 6.6 Definitely no 14.4 Probably no 12.3 Probably yes 35.1 Definitely yes 31.5 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 124 of 155 Initial Ballot TestTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 12City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUPPORT BY SUBGROUPS For the interested reader, Table 1 shows how support for the measure at the Initial Ballot Test varied by key demographic traits. The blue column (Approxi- mate % of Universe) indicates the percentage of the electorate that each subgroup category com- prises. The most striking pattern is that support for the proposed measure exceeded the 50% threshold in every identified subgroup with the exception of those dissatisfied with the City’s overall performance (43%). That said, initial support for the sales tax measure did vary somewhat across voter subgroups, with the largest differences found among partisan subgroups (house- hold and individual), length of residence categories, age, and voter registration year. TABLE 1 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Approximate % of Voter Universe % Probably or Definitely Yes % Not sure Overall 100.0 66.6 6.6 Less than 5 19.5 76.5 5.8 5 to 9 17.6 72.1 4.5 10 to 14 13.0 67.8 7.0 15 or more 49.8 60.3 7.7 Satisfied 81.3 71.7 6.5 Dissatisfied 18.7 42.6 5.6 Yes 29.9 71.1 6.0 No 70.1 65.0 6.9 Democrat 32.9 77.2 5.9 Republican 39.7 56.4 6.6 Other / DTS 27.4 68.6 7.5 Single dem 15.7 74.1 6.5 Dual dem 9.7 80.0 4.5 Single rep 13.2 54.3 6.9 Dual rep 16.4 50.5 7.6 Other 19.0 69.0 6.8 Mixed 25.9 71.7 6.6 18 to 29 11.8 77.7 4.8 30 to 39 16.5 76.8 5.1 40 to 49 14.3 65.5 6.0 50 to 64 25.9 62.1 9.3 65 or older 31.5 61.3 6.1 Since Nov 16 12.8 81.6 2.7 Jun 10 to <Nov 16 16.9 76.7 5.5 Jun 04 to <Jun 10 17.8 65.6 7.5 Before June 04 52.5 60.0 7.6 Yes 64.2 63.8 7.9 No 35.8 71.6 4.2 Yes 81.0 66.3 6.3 No 19.0 67.6 8.1 Yes 82.8 64.6 7.1 No 17.2 76.0 4.3 Yes, natural 95.0 66.2 6.8 Yes, GOTV 5.0 74.1 3.6 Male 47.6 62.5 4.6 Female 52.4 73.4 7.8 Household Party Type Age Years in Atascadero (Q1) Registration Year Party Overall Satisfaction (Q4) Child in Hsld (Q15) Gender Homeowner on Voter File Likely to Vote by Mail Likely Mar 2020 Voter Likely Nov 2020 Voter ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 125 of 155 Initial Ballot TestTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 13City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REASONS FOR OPPOSING MEASURE Respondents who opposed the measure (or were unsure) at the Question 5 Initial Ballot Test were asked if there was a particular reason for their position. Question 6 was asked in an open-ended manner, allowing respondents to mention any reason that came to mind without being prompted by, or restricted to, a particular list of options. Among specific reasons offered for not supporting the measure, a belief that taxes are already too high was the most common, mentioned by 36% of voters who received the question, fol- lowed by the perception that city funds have been/will be mismanaged or misspent (24%) and a desire for additional information about the measure (22%). Question 6 Is there a particular reason why you do not support or are unsure about the mea- sure I just described? FIGURE 7 REASONS FOR NOT SUPPORTING MEASURE 1.6 2.5 3.4 3.5 7.6 10.3 12.9 21.6 23.6 36.1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Measure too expensive Mentioned past measure Other ways to be funded It will drive people away from purchasing in City City has enough money Do not trust City, government Other higher priorities in community Need more information Money is misspent, mismanaged Taxes already too high % Respondents Who Do Not Support Measure ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 126 of 155 ServicesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 14City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S ERVICES The ballot language presented in Question 5 indicated that the proposed measure would provide funding for general city services in the City of Atascadero, such as police and crime prevention, fire protection, paramedics, and 911 emergency response, maintenance of parks, public facili- ties and infrastructure, and recreation, community services, and other city services. The purpose of Question 7 was to provide respondents with a full range of services that may be funded by the proposed measure, as well as identify which of these services voters most favored funding with the proceeds of the measure. After reading each service, respondents were asked if they would favor or oppose spending some of the money on that particular item assuming that the measure passed. Descriptions of the services tested, as well as voters’ responses, are shown in Figure 8 below. The order in which the services were presented to respondents was randomized to avoid a systematic position bias. Question 7 The measure we've been discussing will provide funding for a variety of services in your community. If the measure passes, would you favor or oppose using some of the money to: _____, or do you not have an opinion? FIGURE 8 SERVICES Overall, the services that resonated with the largest percentage of respondents were providing fire protection and paramedic services (86% strongly or somewhat favor), providing quick responses to 911 emergencies (86%), and repairing and maintaining public facilities and infra- structure (86%). SERVICE RATINGS BY INITIAL SUPPORT Table 2 presents the top five services (show- ing the percentage of respondents who strongly favor each) by position at the Initial Ballot Test. Not surprisingly, individuals who initially opposed the measure were generally less likely to favor spending money on a given service when compared with supporters. Nevertheless, initial sup- porters, opponents, and the undecided did agree on three of the top five priorities for funding. 22.9 37.8 47.0 49.0 44.8 48.3 47.1 56.4 59.6 58.5 36.8 36.1 27.7 31.4 36.2 34.6 36.1 29.3 26.3 27.7 0 102030405060708090100 Maintain and enhance zoo exhibits Provide recreation programs and community services Attracting more retail stores, restaurants, entertainment options to city Provide police services, including crime prevention and investigations Retrofit the City’s 70 year-old fire station so that it is earthquake safe, can operate in an emergency Keep public areas clean and free of graffiti Maintain parks, recreation facilities including courts, fields, playgrounds Repair and maintain public facilities and infrastructure Prov ide quick responses to 9-1-1 em ergencies Provide fire protection and paramedic services Q7i Q7h Q7j Q7a Q7d Q7f Q7g Q7e Q7b Q7c % Respondents Strongly favor Somewhat favor ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 127 of 155 ServicesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 15City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TABLE 2 TOP SERVICES BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Position at Initial Ballot Test (Q5) Item Project or Improvement Summary % Strongly Favor Q7c Provide fire protection and paramedic services 69 Q7b Provide quick responses to 9-1-1 emergencies 69 Q7e Repair and maintain public facilities and infrastructure 66 Q7f Keep public areas clean and free of graffiti 58 Q7g Maintain parks, recreation facilities including courts, fields, playgrounds 58 Q7j Attracting more retail stores, restaurants, entertainment options to city 37 Q7b Provide quick responses to 9-1-1 emergencies 36 Q7e Repair and maintain public facilities and infrastructure 32 Q7c Provide fire protection and paramedic services 31 Q7a Provide police services, including crime prevention and investigations 29 Q7c Provide fire protection and paramedic services 59 Q7b Provide quick responses to 9-1-1 emergencies 58 Q7e Repair and maintain public facilities and infrastructure 54 Q7f Keep public areas clean and free of graffiti 50 Q7a Provide police services, including crime prevention and investigations 50 Probably or Definitely Yes (n = 524) Probably or Definitely No (n = 210) Not Sure (n = 52) ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 128 of 155 Positive ArgumentsTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 16City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P OSITIVE ARGUMENTS If the City chooses to place a measure on an upcoming ballot, voters will be exposed to various arguments about the measure in the ensuing months. Proponents of the measure will present arguments to try to persuade voters to support a measure, just as opponents may present argu- ments to achieve the opposite goal. For this study to be a reliable gauge of voter support for the proposed sales tax measure, it is important that the survey simulate the type of discussion and debate that will occur prior to the vote taking place and identify how this information ultimately shapes voters’ opinions about the measure. The objective of Question 8 was thus to present respondents with arguments in favor of the pro- posed measure and identify whether they felt the arguments were convincing reasons to support it. Arguments in opposition to the measure were also presented and are discussed later in this report (see Negative Arguments on page 20). Within each series, specific arguments were admin- istered in random order to avoid a systematic position bias. Question 8 What I'd like to do now is tell you what some people are saying about the measure we've been discussing. Supporters of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convinc- ing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to SUPPORT the measure? FIGURE 9 POSITIVE ARGUMENTS Figure 9 presents the truncated positive arguments tested, as well as voters’ reactions to the arguments. The arguments are ranked from most convincing to least convincing based on the percentage of respondents who indicated that the argument was either a ‘very convincing’ or ‘somewhat convincing’ reason to support the sales tax measure. Using this methodology, the most compelling positive arguments were: Fast emergency response times for 911 calls are crit- ical for saving lives. This measure will ensure that we have enough police officers, firefighters, dispatchers, and paramedics to respond quickly to 911 emergencies (75% very or somewhat con- vincing), We have fewer police officers today than we did 10 years ago - meanwhile our popula- 30.5 28.6 34.1 34.5 36.9 29.8 42.6 36.8 43.6 35.5 42.0 31.5 34.2 31.2 31.1 30.7 37.9 29.7 36.3 30.2 38.8 32.9 0 102030405060708090100 Measure will cost just $1 for every $100 purchased, food, medicine, many other essential items are excluded from tax Over past 10 yrs City has deferred maintenance projects, reduced staff, cut back basic services; no more room to cut and keep community safe, clean place to live Measure will provide funding to avoid deep cuts in all service areas, police, fire, 9-1-1 response times, maintenance of parks, facilities, programs for youth There will be a clear system of accountability incl independent audits, annual reports to community to ensure that money is spent properly Money raised by measure will be used to fund essential services, facilities here in Atascadero; by law, it can’t be taken away by State By keeping city safe, clean, well-maintained, measure will help protect property values, keep Atascadero a special place to live Wildland fires are getting larger, faster, deadlier; we need to make sure we have the resources, staff to respond quickly to wildfire emergencies when they happen Measure will allow City to keep up with basic repairs, maintenance; If we don’t take care of it now, it will be a lot more expensive to repair in future City has just 3 police officers on duty at a time, less than half the number experts agree needed to keep community of our size safe; measure will improve public safety We have fewer police officers today than 10 yrs ago; population, number of 9-1- 1 calls continues to grow; we need more police officers to keep community safe Fast response times for 9-1-1 critical for saving lives; measure will ensure enough police officers, firefighters, dispatchers, paramedics to respond quickly to 9-1-1 Q8d Q8g Q8i Q8a Q8b Q8f Q8h Q8e Q8j2 Q8j1 Q8c % Respondents Very convincing Somewhat convincing ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 129 of 155 Positive ArgumentsTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 17City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tion and the number of 911 emergency calls continues to grow. We need more police officers to keep our community safe (74%), The City of Atascadero has just three police officers on duty at a time, which is less than half the number of police officers that experts agree is needed to keep a community of our size safe. This measure will improve our public safety (74%), The funding raised by this measure will allow the City to keep up with basic repairs and maintenance to pub- lic facilities and infrastructure. If we don't take care of it now, it will be a lot more expensive to repair in the future (73%), and Wildland fires are getting larger, faster, and deadlier. We need to make sure we have the resources and staff to respond quickly to wildfire emergencies when they happen (72%). POSITIVE ARGUMENTS BY INITIAL SUPPORT Table 3 lists the top five most convinc- ing positive arguments (showing the percentage of respondents who cited it as very convincing) according to respondents’ vote choice at the Initial Ballot Test. The positive arguments reso- nated with a higher percentage of voters initially inclined to support the measure compared with those who initially opposed the measure or were unsure. Nevertheless, three arguments were ranked among the top five most compelling by all three groups. TABLE 3 TOP POSITIVE ARGUMENTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Position at Initial Ballot Test (Q5) Item Positive Argument Summary % Very Convincing Q8j2 City has just 3 police officers on duty at a time, less than half the number experts agree needed to keep community of our size safe; measure will improve public safety 57 Q8h Wildland fires are getting larger, faster, deadlier; we need to make sure we have the resources, staff to respond quickly to wildfire emergencies when they happen 54 Q8c Fast response times for 9-1-1 critical for saving lives; measure will ensure enough police officers, firefighters, dispatchers, paramedics to respond quickly to 9-1-1 53 Q8e Measure will allow City to keep up with basic repairs, maintenance; If we don’t take care of it now, it will be a lot more expensive to repair in future 48 Q8b Money raised by measure will be used to fund essential services, facilities here in Atascadero; by law, it can’t be taken away by State 48 Q8h Wildland fires are getting larger, faster, deadlier; we need to make sure we have the resources, staff to respond quickly to wildfire emergencies when they happen 15 Q8c Fast response times for 9-1-1 critical for saving lives; measure will ensure enough police officers, firefighters, dispatchers, paramedics to respond quickly to 9-1-1 15 Q8j1 We have fewer police officers today than 10 yrs ago; population, number of 9-1-1 calls continues to grow; we need more police officers to keep community safe 14 Q8a There will be a clear system of accountability incl independent audits, annual reports to community to ensure that money is spent properly 14 Q8j2 City has just 3 police officers on duty at a time, less than half the number experts agree needed to keep community of our size safe; measure will improve public safety 12 Q8h Wildland fires are getting larger, faster, deadlier; we need to make sure we have the resources, staff to respond quickly to wildfire emergencies when they happen 38 Q8a There will be a clear system of accountability incl independent audits, annual reports to community to ensure that money is spent properly 38 Q8j2 City has just 3 police officers on duty at a time, less than half the number experts agree needed to keep community of our size safe; measure will improve public safety 37 Q8c Fast response times for 9-1-1 critical for saving lives; measure will ensure enough police officers, firefighters, dispatchers, paramedics to respond quickly to 9-1-1 37 Q8j1 We have fewer police officers today than 10 yrs ago; population, number of 9-1-1 calls continues to grow; we need more police officers to keep community safe 32 Probably or Definitely Yes (n = 524) Probably or Definitely No (n = 210) Not Sure (n = 52) ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 130 of 155 Interim Ballot TestTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 18City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I NTERIM BALLOT TEST After exposing respondents to services that could be funded by the measure as well as the types of positive arguments voters may encounter during an election cycle, the survey again presented respondents with the ballot language used previously to gauge how support for the proposed sales tax measure may have changed. As shown in Figure 10, overall support among likely November 2020 voters increased slightly to 68%, with 36% of voters indicating that they would definitely vote yes on the measure. Approximately 24% of respondents opposed the measure at this point in the survey, and an additional 8% were unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice. Question 9 Sometimes people change their mind about a measure once they have more infor- mation about it. Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a sum- mary of it again. To provide funding for general city services in the City of Atascadero, such as police and crime prevention; fire protection, paramedics, and 911 emergency response; mainte- nance of parks, public facilities and infrastructure; and recreation, community services, and other city services; shall an ordinance establishing a one-cent sales tax be adopted, providing approximately 5 million dollars annually for city services until ended by voters, with annual inde- pendent audits and all money locally controlled? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? FIGURE 10 INTERIM BALLOT TEST SUPPORT BY SUBGROUPS Table 4 on the next page shows how support for the measure at this point in the survey varied by key voter subgroups, as well as the change in subgroup sup- port when compared with the Initial Ballot Test. Positive differences appear in green and negative differences appear in red. As shown in the table, support for the sales tax measure increased or decreased by modest amounts (less than 5 percentage points) between the Initial and Interim Ballot Test for nearly all voter subgroups. Definitely yes 36.0 Probably yes 31.8 Probably no 12.4 Definitely no 11.9 Not sure 7.2 Prefer not to answer 0.6 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 131 of 155 Interim Ballot TestTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 19City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TABLE 4 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INTERIM BALLOT TEST Approximate % of Voter Universe % Probably or Definitely Yes Change From Initial Ballot Test (Q5) Overall 100.0 67.8 +1.3 Less than 5 19.5 81.0 +4.4 5 to 9 17.6 69.9 -2.3 10 to 14 13.0 65.0 -2.9 15 or more 49.8 62.6 +2.3 Satisfied 81.3 73.4 +1.7 Dissatisfied 18.7 42.3 -0.4 Yes 29.9 69.6 -1.5 No 70.1 67.7 +2.7 Democrat 32.9 80.6 +3.4 Republican 39.7 55.3 -1.1 Other / DTS 27.4 70.7 +2.1 Single dem 15.7 77.2 +3.1 Dual dem 9.7 83.5 +3.5 Single rep 13.2 53.3 -1.0 Dual rep 16.4 50.3 -0.2 Other 19.0 71.2 +2.2 Mixed 25.9 72.3 +0.7 18 to 29 11.8 79.1 +1.5 30 to 39 16.5 77.9 +1.1 40 to 49 14.3 66.0 +0.5 50 to 64 25.9 64.7 +2.5 65 or older 31.5 61.8 +0.6 Since Nov 16 12.8 87.0 +5.4 Jun 10 to <Nov 16 16.9 75.7 -1.0 Jun 04 to <Jun 10 17.8 65.5 -0.2 Before June 04 52.5 61.5 +1.5 Yes 64.2 66.1 +2.3 No 35.8 70.9 -0.7 Yes 81.0 68.0 +1.7 No 19.0 66.9 -0.6 Yes 82.8 64.9 +0.2 No 17.2 82.2 +6.2 Yes, natural 95.0 67.1 +0.9 Yes, GOTV 5.0 81.4 +7.2 Male 47.6 62.3 -0.2 Female 52.4 76.0 +2.6 Likely to Vote by Mail Likely Mar 2020 Voter Likely Nov 2020 Voter Gender Household Party Type Age Registration Year Homeowner on Voter File Years in Atascadero (Q1) Overall Satisfaction (Q4) Child in Hsld (Q15) Party ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 132 of 155 Negative ArgumentsTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 20City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N EGATIVE ARGUMENTS Whereas Question 8 of the survey presented respondents with arguments in favor of the sales tax measure, Question 10 presented respondents with arguments designed to elicit opposition to the measure. In the case of Question 10, however, respondents were asked whether they felt that the argument was a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to oppose the measure. The arguments tested, as well as voters’ opinions about the arguments, are presented below in Figure 11. Question 10 Next, let me tell you what opponents of the measure are saying. Opponents of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to OPPOSE the measure? FIGURE 11 NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS Most voters found the negative arguments tested to be less convincing than the positive argu- ments. The most compelling negative arguments were: There are no guarantees on how funds will be spent, which means the City can divert the money to pet projects (67% very or somewhat convincing) and Taxes are already too high - we can't afford another tax increase. This is espe- cially true for seniors and others on fixed incomes (63%). NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS BY INITIAL SUPPORT Table 5 on the next page ranks the negative arguments (showing the percentage of respondents who cited each as very convincing) according to respondents’ vote choice at the Initial Ballot Test. 18.3 18.1 29.7 32.7 31.5 25.1 26.7 23.7 30.0 35.0 0 102030405060708090100 City employees are making too much money in salary, pensions, benefits, that’s the problem; City needs to tighten its belt before asking residents to pay more taxes We can’t trust the City with our tax dollars; they will mismanage the money This tax will last forever; there is no expiration date Taxes are already too high, we can’t afford another tax increase; this is especially true for seniors, others on fixed-incomes There are no guarantees on how funds will be spent, which means the City can divert the money to pet projects Q10b Q10c Q10e Q10a Q10d % Respondents Very convincing Somewhat convincing ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 133 of 155 Negative ArgumentsTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 21City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TABLE 5 NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Position at Initial Ballot Test (Q5) Item Negative Argument Summary % Very Convincing Q10d There are no guarantees on how funds will be spent, which means the City can divert the money to pet projects 21 Q10a Taxes are already too high, we can’t afford another tax increase; this is especially true for seniors, others on fixed-incomes 18 Q10e This tax will last forever; there is no expiration date 16 Q10b City employees are making too much money in salary, pensions, benefits, that’s the problem; City needs to tighten its belt before asking residents to pay more taxes 10 Q10c We can’t trust the City with our tax dollars; they will mismanage the money 8 Q10a Taxes are already too high, we can’t afford another tax increase; this is especially true for seniors, others on fixed-incomes 68 Q10e This tax will last forever; there is no expiration date 60 Q10d There are no guarantees on how funds will be spent, which means the City can divert the money to pet projects 57 Q10c We can’t trust the City with our tax dollars; they will mismanage the money 44 Q10b City employees are making too much money in salary, pensions, benefits, that’s the problem; City needs to tighten its belt before asking residents to pay more taxes 39 Q10a Taxes are already too high, we can’t afford another tax increase; this is especially true for seniors, others on fixed-incomes 42 Q10d There are no guarantees on how funds will be spent, which means the City can divert the money to pet projects 35 Q10e This tax will last forever; there is no expiration date 29 Q10c We can’t trust the City with our tax dollars; they will mismanage the money 16 Q10b City employees are making too much money in salary, pensions, benefits, that’s the problem; City needs to tighten its belt before asking residents to pay more taxes 16 Probably or Definitely Yes (n = 524) Probably or Definitely No (n = 210) Not Sure (n = 52) ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 134 of 155 Final Ballot TestTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 22City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F INAL BALLOT TEST Voters’ opinions about ballot measures are often not rigid, especially when the amount of infor- mation presented to the public on a measure has been limited. A goal of the survey was thus to gauge how voters’ opinions about the proposed measure may be affected by the information they could encounter during the course of an election cycle. After providing respondents with the wording of the proposed measure, services that could be funded, and arguments in favor of and against the proposal, the survey again asked voters whether they would vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on the proposed sales tax measure. Question 11 Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a sum- mary of it one more time. To provide funding for general city services in the City of Atascadero, such as police and crime prevention; fire protection, paramedics, and 911 emergency response; maintenance of parks, public facilities and infrastructure; and recreation, community services, and other city services; shall an ordinance establishing a one-cent sales tax be adopted, provid- ing approximately 5 million dollars annually for city services until ended by voters, with annual independent audits and all money locally controlled? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? FIGURE 12 FINAL BALLOT TEST At this point in the survey, support for the one-cent sales tax measure was found among 65% of likely November 2020 voters, with 33% indicating that they would definitely support the mea- sure. Approximately 26% of respondents were opposed to the measure at the Final Ballot Test, and 9% were unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice. Definitely yes 33.2 Probably yes 32.0 Probably no 13.4 Definitely no 12.3 Not sure 7.9 Prefer not to answer 1.2 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 135 of 155 Change in SupportTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 23City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C HANGE IN SUPPORT Table 6 provides a closer look at how support for the proposed measure changed over the course of the interview by calculating the difference in support between the Initial, Interim, and Final Ballot tests within various subgroups of voters. The percentage of support for the measure at the Final Ballot Test is shown in the column with the heading % Probably or Definitely Yes. The columns to the right show the difference between the Final and the Initial, and the Final and Interim Ballot Tests. Positive differences appear in green, and negative differences appear in red. TABLE 6 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT FINAL BALLOT TEST As expected, voters generally responded to the negative arguments with a reduction in their sup- port for the sales tax measure when compared with levels recorded at the Interim Ballot Test. The trend over the course of the entire survey (Initial to Final Ballot Test) was also one of mod- estly declining support for many voter subgroups, averaging -1 percentage points overall. Never- theless, support for the proposed measure at the Final Ballot Test remained 15 percentage points above the simple majority required for passage of a general tax. Approximate % of Voter Universe % Probably or Definitely Yes Change From Initial Ballot Test (Q5) Change From Interim Ballot Test (Q9) Overall 100.0 65.2 -1.4 -2.6 Less than 5 19.5 76.4 -0.2 -4.6 5 to 9 17.6 69.1 -3.0 -0.8 10 to 14 13.0 64.3 -3.5 -0.6 15 or more 49.8 59.7 -0.5 -2.9 Satisfied 81.3 71.0 -0.7 -2.4 Dissatisfied 18.7 39.3 -3.4 -3.0 Yes 29.9 66.1 -5.0 -3.6 No 70.1 65.1 +0.1 -2.6 Democrat 32.9 77.5 +0.3 -3.1 Republican 39.7 53.7 -2.7 -1.6 Other / DTS 27.4 67.1 -1.5 -3.6 Single dem 15.7 74.3 +0.2 -2.9 Dual dem 9.7 80.5 +0.4 -3.1 Single rep 13.2 50.3 -4.0 -3.0 Dual rep 16.4 48.4 -2.1 -1.9 Other 19.0 69.0 +0.0 -2.2 Mixed 25.9 69.4 -2.2 -2.9 18 to 29 11.8 75.9 -1.8 -3.3 30 to 39 16.5 75.1 -1.7 -2.8 40 to 49 14.3 64.5 -1.0 -1.5 50 to 64 25.9 62.9 +0.7 -1.8 65 or older 31.5 58.3 -3.0 -3.5 Since Nov 16 12.8 82.0 +0.4 -5.0 Jun 10 to <Nov 16 16.9 74.5 -2.2 -1.2 Jun 04 to <Jun 10 17.8 64.5 -1.2 -1.0 Before June 04 52.5 58.4 -1.6 -3.1 Yes 64.2 63.2 -0.5 -2.9 No 35.8 68.7 -2.9 -2.2 Yes 81.0 65.2 -1.2 -2.8 No 19.0 65.3 -2.3 -1.7 Yes 82.8 62.2 -2.4 -2.6 No 17.2 79.4 +3.4 -2.7 Yes, natural 95.0 64.6 -1.6 -2.6 Yes, GOTV 5.0 77.5 +3.4 -3.9 Male 47.6 59.5 -3.0 -2.7 Female 52.4 73.1 -0.3 -2.9 Years in Atascadero (Q1) Overall Satisfaction (Q4) Child in Hsld (Q15) Party Household Party Type Age Registration Year Homeowner on Voter File Likely to Vote by Mail Likely Mar 2020 Voter Likely Nov 2020 Voter Gender ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 136 of 155 Change in SupportTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 24City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Whereas Table 6 displays change in support for the measure over the course of the interview at the subgroup level, Table 7 displays the individual-level changes that occurred between the Ini- tial and Final Ballot tests for the measure. On the left side of the table is shown each of the response options to the Initial Ballot Test and the percentage of respondents in each group. The cells in the body of the table depict movement within each response group (row) based on the information provided throughout the course of the survey as recorded by the Final Ballot Test. For example, in the first row we see that of the 31.5% of respondents who indicated that they would definitely support the measure at the Initial Ballot Test, 26.1% also indicated they would definitely support the measure at the Final Ballot Test. Approximately 4.1% moved to the proba- bly support group, 0.3% moved to the probably oppose group, 0.0% moved to the definitely oppose group, and 0.9% stated they were now unsure of their vote choice. To ease interpretation of the table, the cells are color coded. Red shaded cells indicate declining support, green shaded cells indicate increasing support, whereas white cells indicate no move- ment. Moreover, within the cells, a white font indicates a fundamental change in the vote: from yes to no, no to yes, or not sure to either yes or no. TABLE 7 MOVEMENT BETWEEN INITIAL & FINAL BALLOT TEST As one might expect, the information conveyed in the survey had the greatest impact on individ- uals who either weren’t sure about how they would vote at the Initial Ballot Test or were tentative in their vote choice (probably yes or probably no). Moreover, Table 7 makes clear that although the information did impact some voters, it did not do so in a consistent way for all respondents. Some respondents found the information conveyed during the course of the interview to be a reason to become more supportive of the measure, whereas a slightly larger percentage found the same information to be a reason to be less supportive. Despite 12% of respondents making a fundamental3 shift in their opinion about the measure over the course of the interview, the net impact is that support for the measure at the Final Ballot Test was approximately one percentage points lower than support at the Initial Ballot Test. 3. This is, they changed from a position of support, opposition or undecided at the Initial Ballot Test to a differ- ent position at the Final Ballot Test. Definitely support Probably support Probably oppose Definitely oppose Not sure Definitely support 31.5%26.1% 4.1%0.3% 0.0% 0.9% Probably support 35.1%6.9% 24.4%0.7% 0.4% 2.7% Probably oppose 12.3%0.0% 1.6%7.9% 1.5%1.3% Definitely oppose 14.4%0.0% 0.1%3.5% 10.3%0.5% Not sure 6.7%0.2% 1.7% 1.0% 0.1%3.6% Initial Ballot Test (Q5) Final Ballot Test (Q11) ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 137 of 155 Final Ballot Test at Lower RateTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 25City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F INAL BALLOT TEST AT LOWER RATE The ballot language tested throughout the survey indicated that the measure would increase the local sales tax rate by one cent and be used to fund general city services. Voters who did not support the proposed measure at the Final Ballot Test (Question 11) were subsequently asked if they would support the measure if the rate were set at a lower amount: one-half cent. As shown in Figure 13, lowering the tax rate to one-half cent generated a modest amount of additional support for the proposed measure. An additional 6% of voters indicated they would support the measure if the tax rate were lowered to one-half cent, although nearly all of the addi- tional support for the measure was ‘soft’ (probably yes). Question 12 What if the measure I just described raised the sales tax by a lower amount: one- half cent? Would you vote yes or no on the measure? FIGURE 13 FINAL BALLOT TEST AT ONE-HALF CENT Prefer not to answer 1.4 Definitely yes 0.7 Yes @ one cent 65.2 Probably yes 4.8 Probably no 9.9 Not sure 8.6 Definitely no 9.4 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 138 of 155 Relevant AttitudesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 26City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R ELEVANT ATTITUDES The final substantive section of the survey focused on the City’s financial management practices in general, as well as the use of General Fund dollars to operate and maintain the Charles Pad- dock Zoo. SHOULD THE CITY CONTINUE TO OPERATE THE ZOO? When placed into compe- tition with public safety and public works services earlier in survey (see Services on page 14), respondents rated operating the zoo as being a comparatively low priority for future sales tax revenues. Anticipating that this might be the case, Question 13 first informed voters that the City currently spends approximately $500,000 each year to operate and maintain the zoo, then asked if they think the City should remain open or be closed to save money. As shown in Figure 14, two-thirds of voters (68%) favored keeping the zoo open despite the cost, whereas 21% pre- ferred to close the zoo to save money, and 11% preferred to not answer the question. Question 13 The City of Atascadero operates the Charles Paddock zoo, which is the Central Coast's only accredited zoo. In a typical year, the City spends about 500 thousand dollars of its general fund budget to operate and maintain the zoo. In your opinion, should the City keep the zoo open or should the zoo be closed to save money? FIGURE 14 OPINION OF ZOO Support for keeping the zoo open were strikingly similar across subgroups of Atascadero resi- dents, as shown in figures 15 and 16 on the next page. Supporters of the zoo outnumbered those who prefer it be closed by a large margin in every subgroup. Keep zoo open 68.3 Close zoo to save money 20.5 Prefer not to answer 11.3 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 139 of 155 Relevant AttitudesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 27City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FIGURE 15 OPINION OF ZOO BY YEARS IN ATASCADERO, OVERALL SATISFACTION & CHILD IN HSLD FIGURE 16 OPINION OF ZOO BY AGE, HOMEOWNER ON VOTER FILE & GENDER FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT Respondents were also asked to rate the job the City of Atas- cadero had done in managing its financial resources (see Figure 17). Approximately one-quarter of respondents confided that they were unsure (24%) or preferred to not answer the question (2%). The remaining respondents were divided between those who provided an excellent (4%) or good rating (31%), those who offered fair (25%), and those who felt the City’s performance in this respect has been poor (9%) or very poor (4%). 70 65 64 70 72 54 73 68 20 26 25 18 18 34 16 21 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Satisfied Dissatisfied Yes No Years in Atascadero (Q1) Overall Satisfaction (Q4) Child in Hsld (Q15)% Respondents Keep zoo open Close zoo to save money 72 69 67 68 67 69 67 71 70 22 22 21 21 19 19 23 21 19 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Yes No Male Female Age Homeowner on Voter File Gender% Respondents Keep zoo open Close zoo to save money ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 140 of 155 Relevant AttitudesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 28City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Question 14 In your opinion, has the City of Atascadero done an excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor job of managing its financial resources? FIGURE 17 FISCAL MANAGEMENT Prefer not to answer 2.1 Not sure 24.4 Very poor 3.8 Poor 9.3 Fair 25.0 Good 31.2 Excellent 4.0 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 141 of 155 Background & DemographicsTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 29City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B ACKGROUND & DEMOGRAPHICS TABLE 8 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE In addition to questions directly related to the proposed measure, the study collected basic demographic informa- tion about respondents and their households. Some of this information was gathered during the interview, although much of it was collected from the voter file. The profile of the likely November 2020 voter sample used for this study is shown in Table 8. Total Respondents 787 Years in Atascadero (Q1) Less than 5 19.4 5 to 9 17.5 10 to 14 13.0 15 or more 49.6 Prefer not to answer 0.5 Child in Hsld (Q15) Yes 29.1 No 68.1 Prefer not to answer 2.8 Gender Male 44.4 Female 48.8 Prefer not to answer 6.8 Age 18 to 29 11.8 30 to 39 16.5 40 to 49 14.3 50 to 64 25.9 65 or older 31.5 Party Democrat 32.9 Republican 39.7 Other / DTS 27.4 Homeowner on Voter File Yes 64.2 No 35.8 Registration Year Since Nov 16 12.8 Jun 10 to <Nov 16 16.9 Jun 04 to <Jun 10 17.8 Before June 04 52.5 Likely to Vote by Mail Yes 81.0 No 19.0 Likely Mar 2020 Voter Yes 82.8 No 17.2 Likely Nov 2020 Voter Yes, natural 95.0 Yes, GOTV 5.0 Household Party Type Single dem 15.7 Dual dem 9.7 Single rep 13.2 Dual rep 16.4 Other 19.0 Mixed 25.9 ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 142 of 155 MethodologyTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 30City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M ETHODOLOGY The following sections outline the methodology used in the study, as well as the motivation for using certain techniques. QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT Dr. McLarney of True North Research worked closely with the City of Atascadero to develop a questionnaire that covered the topics of interest and avoided possible sources of systematic measurement error, including position-order effects, wording effects, response-category effects, scaling effects, and priming. Several questions included multiple individual items. Because asking items in a set order can lead to a systematic position bias in responses, items were asked in random order for each respondent. Some of the questions asked in this study were presented only to a subset of respondents. For example, only individuals who did not support the sales tax or were unsure at the Final Ballot Test (Question 11) were asked if they would support the measure at a lower tax rate (Question 12). The questionnaire included with this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 33) iden- tifies the skip patterns that were used during the interview to ensure that each respondent received the appropriate questions. PROGRAMMING & PRE-TEST Prior to fielding the survey, the questionnaire was CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) programmed to assist interviewers when conduct- ing telephone interviews. The CATI program automatically navigates skip patterns, randomizes the appropriate question items, and alerts the interviewer to certain types of keypunching mis- takes should they occur. The survey was also programmed into a passcode-protected online sur- vey application to allow online participation for sampled voters. The integrity of the questionnaire was pre-tested internally by True North and by dialing into voter households in the City prior to formally beginning the survey. SAMPLE The survey was administered to a random sample of 787 registered voters in the City likely to participate in the November 2020 election. Consistent with the profile of this uni- verse, the sample was stratified into clusters, each representing a combination of age, gender, and household party-type. Individuals were then randomly selected based on their profile into an appropriate cluster. This method ensures that if a person of a particular profile refuses to partic- ipate in the study, they are replaced by an individual who shares their same profile. STATISTICAL MARGIN OF ERROR By using the probability-based sampling design noted above, True North ensured that the final sample was representative of voters in the City who are likely to participate in the November 2020 election. The results of the sample can thus be used to estimate the opinions of all voters likely to participate in this election. Because not all voters participated in the study, however, the results have what is known as a statistical margin of error due to sampling. The margin of error refers to the difference between what was found in the survey of 787 voters for a particular question and what would have been found if all 16,119 likely November 2020 voters identified in the City had been surveyed for the study. ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 143 of 155 MethodologyTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 31City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 18 provides a graphic plot of the maximum margin of error in this study. The maximum margin of error for a dichotomous percentage result occurs when the answers are evenly split such that 50% provide one response and 50% provide the alternative response. For this survey, the maximum margin of error is ± 3.4%. FIGURE 18 MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR DUE TO SAMPLING Within this report, figures and tables show how responses to certain questions varied by sub- groups such as age, gender, and partisan affiliation. Figure 18 is thus useful for understanding how the maximum margin of error for a percentage estimate will grow as the number of individ- uals asked a question (or in a particular subgroup) shrinks. Because the margin of error grows exponentially as the sample size decreases, the reader should use caution when generalizing and interpreting the results for small subgroups. RECRUITING & DATA COLLECTION The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (telephone and email) and multiple data collection meth- ods (telephone and online). Telephone interviews averaged 16 minutes in length and were con- ducted during weekday evenings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM). It is standard practice not to call during the day on weekdays because most working adults are unavailable and thus calling during those hours would likely bias the sample. Voters recruited via email were assigned a unique passcode to ensure that only voters who received an invitation could access the online survey site, and that each voter could complete the survey only one time. During the data collection period, an email reminder notice was also sent to encourage participation among those who had yet to take the survey. A total of 787 surveys were completed between January 18 and January 23, 2020. DATA PROCESSING Data processing consisted of checking the data for errors or inconsis- tencies, coding and recoding responses, weighting, and preparing frequency analyses and cross- tabulations. Sample of 787 Likely November 2020 Voters ± 3.4% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Sample Size (Number of Respondents)Margin of ErrorITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 144 of 155 MethodologyTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 32City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ROUNDING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole num- ber, whereas numbers that end in 0.4 or lower are rounded down to the nearest whole number. These same rounding rules are also applied, when needed, to arrive at numbers that include a decimal place in constructing figures and tables. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place when comparing tables and charts for a given question. Due to rounding, some figures and narrative include numbers that add to more than or less than 100%. ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 145 of 155 Questionnaire & ToplinesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 33City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q UESTIONNAIRE & TOPLINES True North Research, Inc. © 2020 Page 1 City of Atascadero Revenue Measure Feasibility Survey Final Toplines (n=787) January 24, 2020 Section 1: Introduction to Study Hi, may I please speak to _____. My name is _____ and Im calling from TNR, an independent public opinion research firm. Were conducting a survey of voters about important issues in the City of Atascadero (Uh-TASK-uh-DAIR-Oh) and Id like to get your opinions. If needed: This is a survey about important issues in your community. Im NOT trying to sell anything and I wont ask for a donation. If needed: The survey should take about 12 minutes to complete. If needed: If now is not a convenient time, can you let me know a better time so I can call back? If needed: Your answers will be confidential. The City will be provided with a summary of all survey responses, not individual responses. If the person asks why you need to speak to the listed person or if they ask to participate instead, explain: For statistical purposes, at this time the survey must only be completed by this particular individual. If the person says they are an elected official or is somehow associated with the survey, politely explain that this survey is designed to measure the opinions of those not closely associated with the study, thank them for their time, and terminate the interview. Section 2: Quality of Life & City Services Id like to begin by asking you a few questions about what it is like to live in Atascadero. Q1 How long have you lived in the City of Atascadero? 1 Less than 1 year 2% 2 1 to 4 years 17% 3 5 to 9 years 18% 4 10 to 14 years 13% 5 15 years or longer 50% 99 Prefer not to answer 0% Q2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in Atascadero? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor? 1 Excellent 17% 2 Good 64% 3 Fair 16% 4 Poor 1% 5 Very Poor 1% 98 Not sure 0% 99 Prefer not to answer 0% ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 146 of 155 Questionnaire & ToplinesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 34City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . City of Atascadero Survey January 2020 True North Research, Inc. © 2020 Page 2 Q3 If the city government could change one thing to make Atascadero a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below. Address homeless issue 21% Improve, maintain infrastructure, streets, roads 19% Improve shopping, dining opportunities 17% Not sure, cannot think of anything 9% Improve public safety, reduce crime, drugs, provide more police presence 8% Improve economy, jobs 8% Improve downtown area 7% Provide affordable housing 6% Improve parks, recreation areas 6% Add bike, walking paths 6% Provide more community events, activities for all ages 5% Reduce taxes, fees 3% Reduce traffic 2% Beautify city, landscaping 2% Improve environmental efforts 2% Reduce, limit growth 2% Enforce City codes 2% Improve government, more transparency 2% No changes needed / Everything is fine 2% Q4 Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Atascadero is doing to provide city services? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 19% 2 Somewhat satisfied 57% 3 Somewhat dissatisfied 12% 4 Very dissatisfied 6% 98 Not sure 5% 99 Prefer not to answer 1% ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 147 of 155 Questionnaire & ToplinesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 35City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . City of Atascadero Survey January 2020 True North Research, Inc. © 2020 Page 3 Section 3: Initial Ballot Test Later this year, voters in Atascadero may be asked to vote on a local ballot measure. Let me read you a summary of the measure. Q5 To provide funding for general city services in the City of Atascadero, such as: Police and crime prevention Fire protection, paramedics, and 9-1-1 emergency response Maintenance of parks, public facilities and infrastructure And recreation, community services, and other city services shall an ordinance establishing a one-cent sales tax be adopted, providing approximately 5 million dollars annually for city services until ended by voters, with annual independent audits and all money locally controlled? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? 1 Definitely yes 31% Skip to Q7 2 Probably yes 35% Skip to Q7 3 Probably no 12% Ask Q6 4 Definitely no 14% Ask Q6 98 Not sure 7% Ask Q6 99 Prefer not to answer 0% Skip to Q7 Q6 Is there a particular reason why you do not support or are unsure about the measure I just described? If yes, ask: Please briefly describe your reason? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below. Taxes already too high 36% Money is misspent, mismanaged 24% Need more information 22% Other higher priorities in community 13% Do not trust City, government 10% City has enough money 8% It will drive people away from purchasing in City 4% Other ways to be funded 3% Measure too expensive 2% Mentioned past measure 2% ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 148 of 155 Questionnaire & ToplinesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 36City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . City of Atascadero Survey January 2020 True North Research, Inc. © 2020 Page 4 Section 4: Services Q7 The measure weve been discussing will provide funding for a variety of services in your community. If the measure passes, would you favor or oppose using some of the money to: _____, or do you not have an opinion? Get answer, if favor or oppose, then ask: Would that be strongly (favor/oppose) or somewhat (favor/oppose)? Randomize Strongly Favor Somewhat Favor Somewhat Oppose Strongly Oppose Not sure Prefer not to answer A Provide police services, including crime prevention and investigations 49% 31% 7% 7% 3% 3% B Provide quick responses to 9-1-1 emergencies 60% 26% 5% 3% 4% 2% C Provide fire protection and paramedic services 58% 28% 5% 4% 3% 2% D Retrofit the Citys 70-year-old fire station so that it is earthquake safe and can operate in an emergency 45% 36% 8% 6% 4% 2% E Repair and maintain public facilities and infrastructure 56% 29% 5% 4% 3% 2% F Keep public areas clean and free of graffiti 48% 35% 7% 5% 3% 2% G Maintain parks and recreation facilities including courts, fields, and playgrounds 47% 36% 8% 4% 3% 2% H Provide recreation programs and community services 38% 36% 11% 7% 6% 2% I Maintain and enhance zoo exhibits 23% 37% 15% 15% 8% 2% J Attracting more retail stores, restaurants and entertainment options to our city 47% 28% 11% 8% 5% 2% Section 5: Positive Arguments What Id like to do now is tell you what some people are saying about the measure weve been discussing. Q8 Supporters of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to SUPPORT the measure? Randomize. Split sample J1/J2 Very Convincing Somewhat Convincing Not At All Convincing Don t Believe Not sure Prefer not to answer A There will be a clear system of accountability including independent audits and annual reports to the community to ensure that the money is spent properly. 34% 31% 17% 12% 3% 2% ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 149 of 155 Questionnaire & ToplinesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 37City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . City of Atascadero Survey January 2020 True North Research, Inc. © 2020 Page 5 B All money raised by the measure will be used to fund essential services and facilities here in Atascadero. By law, it cant be taken away by the State. 37% 31% 16% 10% 3% 3% C Fast emergency response times for 9-1-1 calls are critical for saving lives. This measure will ensure that we have enough police officers, firefighters, dispatchers, and paramedics to respond quickly to 9-1-1 emergencies. 42% 33% 14% 6% 3% 3% D This measure will cost just 1 dollar for every 100 dollars purchased and food, medicine and many other essential items are excluded from the tax. 31% 31% 22% 9% 4% 3% E The funding raised by this measure will allow the City to keep up with basic repairs and maintenance to public facilities and infrastructure. If we dont take care of it now, it will be a lot more expensive to repair in the future. 37% 36% 14% 7% 2% 3% F By keeping our city safe, clean and well- maintained, this measure will help protect our property values and keep Atascadero a special place to live. 30% 38% 19% 8% 2% 3% G The City has done a good job keeping costs down. Over the past 10 years it has deferred maintenance projects, reduced staff, and cut back on basic services. There is no more room to cut if we want to keep our community a safe, clean place to live. We need to support this measure. 29% 34% 20% 11% 4% 3% H Wildland fires are getting larger, faster, and deadlier. We need to make sure we have the resources and staff to respond quickly to wildfire emergencies when they happen. 43% 30% 15% 7% 3% 3% I This measure will provide the funding needed to avoid deep cuts in all service areas, including police, fire protection, 9-1-1 emergency response times, the maintenance of parks and public facilities, as well as programs for youth. 34% 31% 19% 11% 3% 3% J1 We have fewer police officers today than we did 10 years ago meanwhile our population and the number of 9-1-1 emergency calls continues to grow. We need more police officers to keep our community safe. 36% 39% 13% 8% 2% 2% J2 The City of Atascadero has just three police officers on duty at a time, which is less than half the number of police officers that experts agree is needed to keep a community of our size safe. This measure will improve our public safety. 44% 30% 11% 11% 2% 2% ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 150 of 155 Questionnaire & ToplinesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 38City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . City of Atascadero Survey January 2020 True North Research, Inc. © 2020 Page 6 Section 6: Interim Ballot Test Sometimes people change their mind about a measure once they have more information about it. Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it again. Q9 To provide funding for general city services in the City of Atascadero, such as: Police and crime prevention Fire protection, paramedics, and 9-1-1 emergency response Maintenance of parks, public facilities and infrastructure And recreation, community services, and other city services shall an ordinance establishing a one-cent sales tax be adopted, providing approximately 5 million dollars annually for city services until ended by voters, with annual independent audits and all money locally controlled? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? 1 Definitely yes 36% 2 Probably yes 32% 3 Probably no 12% 4 Definitely no 12% 98 Not sure 7% 99 Prefer not to answer 1% Section 7: Negative Arguments Next, let me tell you what opponents of the measure are saying. Q10 Opponents of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to OPPOSE the measure? Randomize Very Convincing Somewhat Convincing Not At All Convincing Don t Believe Not sure Prefer not to answer A Taxes are already too high we cant afford another tax increase. This is especially true for seniors and others on fixed incomes. 33% 30% 23% 9% 3% 2% B City employees are making too much money in salary, pensions and benefits thats the problem. The City needs to tighten its belt before asking residents to pay more taxes. 18% 25% 27% 19% 8% 3% C We cant trust the City with our tax dollars. They will mismanage the money. 18% 27% 28% 19% 6% 3% D There are no guarantees on how funds will be spent, which means the City can divert the money to pet projects. 32% 35% 17% 9% 6% 2% ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 151 of 155 Questionnaire & ToplinesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 39City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . City of Atascadero Survey January 2020 True North Research, Inc. © 2020 Page 7 Only odd clusters receive item E. E This tax will last forever. There is no expiration date. 30% 24% 30% 9% 6% 1% Section 8: Final Ballot Test Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it one more time. Q11 To provide funding for general city services in the City of Atascadero, such as: Police and crime prevention Fire protection, paramedics, and 9-1-1 emergency response Maintenance of parks, public facilities and infrastructure And recreation, community services, and other city services shall an ordinance establishing a one-cent sales tax be adopted, providing approximately 5 million dollars annually for city services until ended by voters, with annual independent audits and all money locally controlled? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? 1 Definitely yes 33% Skip to Q13 2 Probably yes 32% Skip to Q13 3 Probably no 13% Ask Q12 4 Definitely no 12% Ask Q12 98 Not sure 8% Ask Q12 99 Prefer not to answer 1% Skip to Q13 Q12 What if the measure I just described raised the sales tax by a lower amount: one-half cent? Would you vote yes or no on the measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? Def, prob yes @ one-cent (Q11) 65% 1 Definitely yes 1% 2 Probably yes 5% 3 Probably no 10% 4 Definitely no 9% 98 Not sure 9% 99 Prefer not to answer 1% ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 152 of 155 Questionnaire & ToplinesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 40City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . City of Atascadero Survey January 2020 True North Research, Inc. © 2020 Page 8 Section 9: Background & Demographics Thank you so much for your participation. I have just few background questions for statistical purposes. Q13 The City of Atascadero operates the Charles Paddock zoo, which is the Central Coasts only accredited zoo. In a typical year, the City spends about 500 thousand dollars of its general fund budget to operate and maintain the zoo. In your opinion, should the City keep the zoo open or should the zoo be closed to save money? 1 Keep the zoo open 68% 2 Close the zoo to save money 20% 99 Prefer not to answer 11% Q14 In your opinion, has the City of Atascadero done an excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor job of managing its financial resources? 1 Excellent 4% 2 Good 31% 3 Fair 25% 4 Poor 9% 5 Very poor 4% 98 Not Sure 24% 99 Prefer not to answer 2% Q15 Do you have children under the age of 18 living in your household? 1 Yes 29% 2 No 68% 99 Prefer not to answer 3% Those are all of the questions that I have for you. Thanks so much for participating in this important survey. Post-Interview & Sample Items S1 Gender 1 Male 44% 2 Female 49% 3 Prefer not to answer 7% ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 153 of 155 Questionnaire & ToplinesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 41City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . City of Atascadero Survey January 2020 True North Research, Inc. © 2020 Page 9 S2 Party 1 Democrat 33% 2 Republican 40% 3 Other 8% 4 DTS 20% S3 Age on Voter File 1 18 to 29 12% 2 30 to 39 17% 3 40 to 49 14% 4 50 to 64 26% 5 65 or older 32% S4 Registration Date 1 Since Nov 2016 13% 2 Jun 2010 to before Nov 2016 17% 3 Jun 2004 to before Jun 2010 18% 4 Before June 2004 52% S5 Household Party Type 1 Single Dem 16% 2 Dual Dem 10% 3 Single Rep 13% 4 Dual Rep 16% 5 Single Other 13% 6 Dual Other 6% 7 Dem & Rep 5% 8 Dem & Other 8% 9 Rep & Other 11% 0 Mixed (Dem + Rep + Other) 2% S6 Homeowner on Voter File 1 Yes 64% 2 No 36% ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 154 of 155 Questionnaire & ToplinesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2020 42City of Atascadero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . City of Atascadero Survey January 2020 True North Research, Inc. © 2020 Page 10 S7 Likely to Vote by Mail 1 Yes 81% 2 No 19% S8 Likely March 2020 Voter 1 Yes 83% 2 No 17% S9 Likely November 2020 Voter 1 Yes, natural 95% 2 Yes, GOTV 5% ITEM NUMBER: C-2 DATE: 05/26/20 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 155 of 155