Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CC_2021_01_12_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://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_ZwJ7a031S3KXauEym9ehaA. 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 contacti ng 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 109 CITY OF ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Tuesday, January 12, 2021 City Hall Council Chambers, 4th floor 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California REGULAR SESSION – CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Funk ROLL CALL: Mayor Moreno Mayor Pro Tem Newsom Council Member Bourbeau Council Member Dariz Council Member Funk APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Roll Call Recommendation: Council: 1. Approve this agenda; and 2. Waive the reading in full of all ordinances appearing on this agenda, and the titles of the ordinances will be read aloud by the City Clerk at the first reading, after the motion and before the City Council votes. City Council Regular Session: 6:00 P.M. Successor Agency to the Community Immediately following Redevelopment Agency of Atascadero: conclusion of the City Council Regular Session Public Financing Authority: Immediately following conclusion of the Successor to the Community Redevelopment Agency of Atascadero Session Page 2 of 109 PRESENTATIONS: 1. Administration of Oath of Office - Police Chief Robert (Bob) Masterson 2. Chief of Police Commendation - Officer Craig Martineau 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 – December 8, 2020 & December 15, 2020 Recommendation: Council approve the December 8, 2020 Draft City Council Regular Meeting Minutes and the December 15, 2020 Draft City Council Special Meeting Minutes. [City Clerk] 2. October 2020 Amended Accounts Payable and Payroll Fiscal Impact: $2,775,703.30 Recommendation: Council approve amended certified City accounts payable, payroll and payroll vendor checks for October 2020. [Administrative Services] 3. November 2020 Accounts Payable and Payroll Fiscal Impact: $2,332,558.11 Recommendation: Council approve certified City accounts payable, payroll and payroll vendor checks for November 2020. [Administrative Services] 4. Appropriation of Parkland Facilities Fees for Construction of Pickleball Courts at Colony Park Fiscal Impact: $150,000.00 Recommendation: Council authorize the Director of Administrative Service to appropriate $150,000 in Parkland Facilities Fees Funds for construction of Pickleball Courts at Colony Park for Fiscal Year 2021/2022. [Public Works] 5. Lift Station No. 2 Motor Control Center Purchase Fiscal Impact: $230,000.00 Recommendation: Council authorize the City Manager to execute a contract for $230,000 with Tesco Controls Inc. to purchase a new Motor Control Center for the Lift Station No. 2 Replacement project. [Public Works] UPDATES FROM THE CITY MANAGER: (The City Manager will give an oral report on any current issues of concern to the City Council.) 1. Police Department Update – Discussion on new Department of Justice crime reporting requirements. Page 3 of 109 COMMUNITY FORUM: (This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wanting to address the Council on any matter not on this agenda and over which the Council has jurisdiction. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Please state your name for the record before making your presentation. Comments made during Community Forum will not be a subject of discussion. A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum, unless changed by the Council. Any members of the public who have questions or need information may contact the City Clerk’s Office, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at (805) 470-3400, or cityclerk@atascadero.org.) B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None. C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: 1. 2021-2023 and D-20 Priorities Public Outreach Kickoff Session Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Council provide input and receive information from the public on priorities for the 2021-2023 Budget Cycle and the expenditure of Measure D-20 funds. [Administrative Services] 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 Newsom 1. City / Schools Committee 2. Design Review Committee 3. League of California Cities – Council Liaison 4. Visit SLO CAL Advisory Committee Council Member Bourbeau 1. City of Atascadero Finance Committee 2. City / Schools Committee 3. Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) 4. SLO County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) Page 4 of 109 Council Member Dariz 1. Air Pollution Control District 2. California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) Board 3. City of Atascadero Finance Committee Council Member Funk 1. Atascadero Basin Ground Water Sustainability Agency (GSA) 2. Design Review Committee 3. Homeless Services Oversight Council 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 ADJOURN TO MEETING OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY Please note: Should anyone challenge any proposed development entitlement lis ted 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 109 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 01/12/21 Atascadero City Council December 8, 2020 Page 1 of 9 CITY OF ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES Tuesday, December 8, 2020 City Hall Council Chambers, 4th floor 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Moreno announced at 5:00 p.m. that the Council was going into Closed Session. 1. CLOSED SESSION -- PUBLIC COMMENT - None 2. COUNCIL LEAVES CHAMBERS TO BEGIN CLOSED SESSION 3. CLOSED SESSION -- CALL TO ORDER a. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation Government Code Sec. 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: City of Atascadero v. Darin A. Vandeventer; San Luis Obispo Superior Court Case No. 20CV-0046 4. CLOSED SESSION -- ADJOURNMENT 5. COUNCIL RETURNS TO CHAMBERS 6. CLOSED SESSION – REPORT City Attorney Murphy reported that in accordance with Government Code Sec. 54957.1(a)(3)(b) there was unanimous direction from the City Council to seek settlement for the above referenced case on approved terms. He noted that details of those terms would not currently be made public as they need to first be presented to the other party and following negotiations, the City Attorney’s Office will be returning to Council for another Closed Session Conference or reporting about a settlement offer. City Council Closed Session: 5:00 P.M. City Council Regular Session: 6:00 P.M. Page 6 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 01/12/21 Atascadero City Council December 8, 2020 Page 2 of 9 REGULAR SESSION – CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M. Mayor Moreno called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. and Mayor Pro Tem Bourbeau led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: By Teleconference - Council Members Fonzi, Funk and Newsom, Mayor Pro Tem Bourbeau, and Mayor Moreno Absent: None Others Present: By Teleconference - Treasurer Sibbach Staff Present: By Teleconference – City Manager Rachelle Rickard, Interim Police Chief Bob Molle, Fire Chief Casey Bryson, Administrative Services Director Jeri Rangel, Public Works Director Nick DeBar, Community Development Director Phil Dunsmore, City Attorney Greg Murphy, Deputy City Manager/City Clerk Lara Christensen, and IT Manager Luke Knight APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION: By Council Member Newsom and seconded by Council Member Funk 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. A. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. City Council Draft Action Minutes – November 24, 2020 Recommendation: Council approve the November 24, 2020 Draft City Council Regular Meeting Minutes. [City Clerk] 2. City Council 2021 Meeting Schedule Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Council approve the City Council meeting schedule for 2021. [City Manager] 3. Reciting the Fact of the November 3, 2020 General Municipal Election Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Council adopt the Draft Resolution, reciting the fact of the General Municipal Election held on November 3, 2020, declaring the result and such other matters as provided by law. [City Clerk] Page 7 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 01/12/21 Atascadero City Council December 8, 2020 Page 3 of 9 4. Adoption of Public Transit Agency Safety Plan for Atascadero Transit Fiscal Impact: The City of Atascadero benefits from Federal 5307 capital and operating assistance funding. Federal funds could be withheld from Atascadero Transit should the City fail to submit a PTASP. Recommendation: Council approve and adopt the Atascadero Public Transit Agency Safety Plan. [Public Works] 5. Approve Final Map for Tract 3161 (South Mirasol Way) Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Council adopt Draft Resolution approving the Final Map for Tract 3161. [Public Works] 6. Essential Services Transactions and Use Tax Contracting with the State of California Fiscal Impact: The sales tax measure will generate an estimated $4.5 million in additional annual revenue. Staff anticipates costs to the State to be between $10,000-40,000 for the Preparatory Fee and on-going administrative costs will be 0.57% of the revenue received from the tax increase. HdL will charge a $200 monthly fee for the review and analysis services that will be paid from the General Fund, and 25% of the initial amount of new transactions or use tax revenue received by the City as a result of audit and recovery work performed by HdL. Recommendations: Council: 1. Adopt Draft Resolution A authorizing the City Manager to exec ute agreements with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration for implementation of a local transactions and use tax. 2. Adopt Draft Resolution B authorizing representatives of the City of Atascadero to examine confidential transactions and use tax records of the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) pertaining to transactions and use taxes collected by the CDTFA for the City of Atascadero. 3. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Hinderliter, De Llamas and Associates for transactions tax audit and information services related to the Measure D-20 Sales Tax Revenue. [City Manager] MOTION: By Council Member Funk and seconded by Council Member Newsom to approve the Consent Calendar. (#A-3: Resolution No. 2020-082) (#A-5: Resolution No. 2020-083) (#A-6: Resolution No. 2020-084, Contract Nos. 2020-015, 2020-016, Resolution No. 2020-085, Contract No. 2020-017) Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. B. 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 Council of Governments (SLOCOG) 2. SLO Regional Transit Authority (RTA) Page 8 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 01/12/21 Atascadero City Council December 8, 2020 Page 4 of 9 Mayor Pro Tem Bourbeau 1. Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) Council Member Funk 1. Homeless Services Oversight Council Council Member Newsom 1. City of Atascadero Design Review Committee OATHS OF OFFICE: 1. Administration of Oaths of Office Swearing in of Mayor Heather Moreno and Council Members Charles Bourbeau and Mark Dariz Deputy City Manager/City Clerk Christensen conducted the Oath of Office for the newly elected officials and distributed the Certificates of Election. Council Member Dariz joined the meeting at 6:18 p.m. PRESENTATIONS: 1. Recognition of outgoing City Council Member Roberta Fonzi City Manager Rickard, on behalf of the City Council and City staff, read a history of Council Member Fonzi and thanked her for her service to Atascadero. Mayor Moreno and the rest of the City Council all thanked Council Member Fonzi for her service and Mayor Moreno presented her with an obelisk listing her years of service. By telephone, 5th District Supervisor Debbie Arnold presented a commendation to Council Member Fonzi. Speaking from the public by telephone, Geoff Auslen and Tom O’Malley each thanked Council Member Fonzi for her service. Council Member Fonzi retired from service at left the meeting at 6:38 p.m. CITY COUNCIL REORGANIZATION: 1. Council Appointment of Mayor Pro Tem Accept nominations from the Council Members and appoint a Mayor Pro Tem for a two-year term ending December 2022. MOTION: By Council Member Bourbeau and seconded by Council Member Dariz to nominate Heather Newsom for the position of Mayor Pro Tem. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. Page 9 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 01/12/21 Atascadero City Council December 8, 2020 Page 5 of 9 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 by telephone during Community Forum: Geoff Auslen Mayor Moreno closed the COMMUNITY FORUM period. C. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Tentative Parcel Map 2930, 2945 Ramona Road (SBDV 20-0047) Fiscal Impact: Approval of the map creating one additional residential unit will have a slight negative fiscal impact on the City. Recommendation: Council adopt Draft Resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map AT 20-0013, including an abandonment of a portion of Ramona Road right- of-way and dedication of new right-of-way, based on findings and conditions of approval. [Community Development] Ex Parte Communications The Council Members reported having no communications on this matter. Council Member Dariz did note previously reviewing this item as a Planning Commissioner. Community Development Director Dunsmore gave the staff report and answered questions from the Council. PUBLIC COMMENT: The following citizens spoke by telephone on this item: Dennis Schmidt Mayor Moreno closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Council Member Funk and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Newsom to adopt Resolution No. 2020-086 approving Tentative Parcel Map AT 20-0013, including an abandonment of a portion of Ramona Road right-of-way and dedication of new right-of-way, based on findings and conditions of approval. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. 2. 2021 Community Development Block Grant Draft Recommendations Fiscal Impact: Approval of Atascadero’s total 2021 CDBG allocation would result in the estimated revenue and expenditure of $144,792 of CDBG funds. Recommendation: Council develop and adopt draft recommendations for the 2021 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. [Public Works] Ex Parte Communications The Council Members reported having no communications on this matter. Page 10 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 01/12/21 Atascadero City Council December 8, 2020 Page 6 of 9 Public Works Director DeBar gave the staff report and answered questions from the Council. PUBLIC COMMENT: The following citizens spoke by telephone on this item: Geoff Auslen Emails from the following citizens were read into the record by Deputy City Manager/City Clerk Christensen: Janna Nichols and Joanna Balsamo-Iilien. Mayor Moreno closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Mayor Moreno and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Newsom to adopt the following draft recommendations for the 2021 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds: Accessibility & Barrier Removal Project $ 68,615.00 Family Care Network, Inc. $ 25,500.00 City Youth Activities Scholarships $ 10,700.00 El Camino Homeless Organization $ 7,199.00 Court Appointed Special Advocates $ 2,500.00 5 Cities Homeless Coalition $ 1,320.00 City Program Administration Costs $ 10,135.00 County Program Administration Costs $ 18,823.00 TOTAL 2021: $144,792.00 Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. Mayor Moreno recessed the meeting at 8:18 p.m. Mayor Moreno reconvened the meeting with all present at 8:26 p.m. D. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: 1. Confirm the Appointment of Police Chief Fiscal Impact: The Police Chief’s monthly salary of $13,466.96, at Step E, is included in the Police Department budget for fiscal year 2020-2021. Recommendation: Council concur and confirm the appointment of Robert (Bob) Masterson as Atascadero’s new Police Chief. [City Manager] City Manager Rickard gave the presentation and answered questions from the Council. Chief Masterson also addressed the Council. PUBLIC COMMENT: The following citizens spoke on this item: None. Mayor Moreno closed the Public Comment period. Page 11 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 01/12/21 Atascadero City Council December 8, 2020 Page 7 of 9 MOTION: By Council Member Funk and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Newsom to concur and confirm the appointment of Robert (Bob) Masterson as Atascadero’s new Police Chief. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. 2. Council Policy Discussion Drive-Through Businesses, Fuel Stations and Other High Traffic Producing Uses Fiscal Impact: Discussion of the current Drive-Through Businesses, Fuel Station, and Other High Traffic Producing Uses Policy has no direct fiscal impact; however, any future action by the Council to amend the Policy may have a significant effect on City revenues. Recommendation: Council reaffirm the “Drive-Through Businesses, Fuel Station, and Other High Traffic Producing Uses Policy” to guide use permit applications and traffic impact fees to ensure orderly development in the City.[Community Development] Community Development Director Dunsmore gave the presentation and answered questions from the Council. City Manager Rickard also answered questions from the Council. PUBLIC COMMENT: The following citizens spoke on this item: Geoff Auslen Mayor Moreno closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Newsom and seconded by Council Member Funk to reaffirm the “Drive-Through Businesses, Fuel Station, and Other High Traffic Producing Uses Policy” to guide use permit applications and traffic impact fees to ensure orderly development in the City. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. 3. Draft Response to Grand Jury Report “Joint Agency Dispatch – Better Together?” Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Council approve the Draft Response to the Grand Jury Report Form and authorize the City Manager to execute the document on the City Council’s behalf. [City Manager] Deputy City Manager Christensen gave the report and answered questions from the Council. PUBLIC COMMENT: The following citizens spoke on this item: None. Mayor Moreno closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Council Member Bourbeau and seconded by Council Member Funk to approve the Draft Response to the Grand Jury Report Form Page 12 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 01/12/21 Atascadero City Council December 8, 2020 Page 8 of 9 and authorize the City Manager to execute the document on the City Council’s behalf. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. E. 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: None. Mayor Moreno closed the Public Comment period. F. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Mayor Moreno announced her appointments to the various standing committees: CITY COUNCIL STANDING COMMITTEES COMMITTEE APPOINTEE ALTERNATE Air Pollution Control District Dariz Bourbeau Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Funk Moreno California Joint Powers Insurance Authority Dariz Staff: Rickard, Rangel City / Schools Committee Bourbeau / Newsom Funk City Selection Committee Moreno Bourbeau County Mayors Round Table Moreno Newsom Design Review Committee Newsom (Chair) / Funk None Economic Vitality Corporation Moreno Newsom Finance Committee Bourbeau (Chair) / Dariz None Homeless Services Oversight Council Funk Bourbeau Integrated Waste Management Authority Bourbeau Funk League of California Cities–Council Liaison Newsom Bourbeau SLO Council of Governments (SLOCOG) Moreno Bourbeau SLO Regional Transit Authority (RTA) Moreno Bourbeau Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) Bourbeau None Visit SLO CAL Advisory Committee Newsom Moreno G. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND / OR ACTION: 1. City Clerk – Deputy City Manager/City Clerk Christensen gave an update on the Commission and Committee appointments. Page 13 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 01/12/21 Atascadero City Council December 8, 2020 Page 9 of 9 H. ADJOURN Mayor Moreno adjourned the meeting at 10:14 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED BY: ______________________________________ Lara K. Christensen Deputy City Manager/City Clerk APPROVED: Page 14 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 01/12/21 Atascadero City Council Special Meeting December 15, 2020 Page 1 of 3 CITY OF ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES Tuesday, December 15, 2020 City Hall Council Chambers, 4th floor 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M. Mayor Moreno called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. and Mayor Moreno led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: By Teleconference - Council Members Bourbeau, Dariz, Funk, Mayor Pro Tem Newsom, and Mayor Moreno Absent: None Others Present: None Staff Present: By Teleconference – City Manager Rachelle Rickard, Administrative Services Director Jeri Rangel, Community Development Director Phil Dunsmore, City Attorney Steve McEwen, Deputy City Manager/City Clerk Lara Christensen, and IT Manager Luke Knight A. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: 1. Small Business Emergency Assistance Grant Fiscal Impact: The adoption of this temporary emergency grant program would result in a direct fiscal impact to the General Fund in the amount of $250,000. Additional expenditures as a result of staff time and resources is expected to result in costs up to $20,000. Staff time expended on this program will not be recouped in full, however there is a potential for some long term revenue benefit as a result of maintaining business in Atascadero. City Council Special Meeting: 6:00 P.M. Page 15 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 01/12/21 Atascadero City Council Special Meeting December 15, 2020 Page 2 of 3 Recommendation: Council adopt Draft Resolution authorizing the City Manager to allocate up to $250,000 from the General Fund towards an emergency grant program to assist small businesses that have demonstrated significant financial impacts due to emergency business closures as a result of COVID-19. [City Manager] Community Development Director Dunsmore gave the staff report and answered questions from the Council. PUBLIC COMMENT: The following citizens spoke by telephone on this item: None. Mayor Moreno closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Mayor Moreno and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Newsom to adopt Resolution No. 2020-087 authorizing the City Manager to allocate up to $250,000 from the General Fund towards an emergency grant program to assist small businesses that have demonstrated significant financial impacts due to emergency business closures as a result of COVID-19, prioritizing businesses unable to adapt to the new stay-at-home order requirements and amending the application as follows: 1. Add the word “substantial” in front of the word compliance on the fourth bullet under the eligibility requirements on page 1, in front of the word loss on question #1 under eligibility verification on page 2, and in front of the word compliance on question #9 under eligibility verification on page 3. 2. Add the language “or 15 full-time equivalents” before the word as on the sixth bullet under the eligibility requirements on page 1 and before the word as on question #6 under eligibility verification on page 3. 3. Add the following term to the Grant Application Process and Terms on page 4 – “5. lf awarded, businesses receiving funding must send a notice by May 15,2021, either emailed or delivered directly to the City of Atascadero, briefly describing how the funds were used and how the funds helped maintain the business and/or workforce.” 4. Add the following questions to the application – “Has the business received any type of assistance funds due to the COVID-19 pandemic?” and “Does the business plan to cease operations anytime between now and April 30, 2021?” Motion passed 5:0 by a roll-call vote. Page 16 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 01/12/21 Atascadero City Council Special Meeting December 15, 2020 Page 3 of 3 B. 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: Emails from the following citizens were read into the record by Deputy City Manager/City Clerk Christensen: Hayley Mattson Mayor Moreno closed the Public Comment period. C. ADJOURN Mayor Moreno adjourned the meeting at 7:28 p.m. to the Next Regular Session on January 12, 2021. MINUTES PREPARED BY: ______________________________________ Lara K. Christensen Deputy City Manager / City Clerk APPROVED: Page 17 of 109 •irs"hffi^s1»7»B3SfeAtascadero City CouncilStaff Report - Administrative Services DepartmentOctober 2020 Amended Accounts Payable and PayrollRECOMMENDATION:Council approve amended certified City accounts payable, payroll and payroll vendorchecks for October 2020.DISCUSSION:Accounts Payable check numbers 165840 -165847 were inadvertently not included inthe October disbursements report approved by Council on November 24, 2020,due toa timing difference between when the checks were posted to the accounting systemand when the disbursements report was compiled. These eight checks were forpayments to payroll vendors in late October.Attached for City Council review and approval are the following, including checks165840-165847:PayrollDated 10/1/20Dated 10/15/20Dated 10/29/20Accounts PayableDated 10/1/20-10/31/20Checks # 34973 - 34984Direct DepositsChecks # 34985 - 34996Direct DepositsChecks # 34997 - 35006Direct DepositsChecks #165588-165847& EFTs 3822 - 3857TOTAL AMOUNTFISCAL IMPACT:Total expenditures for all funds is$ 8,252.42356,764.1311,112.79354,578.0810,316.70360,120.571,674,558.61$ 2,775,703.30$ 2,775,703.30CERTIFICATION:The undersigned certifies that the attached demands have been released forpayment and that funds are available for these demands.^rijRangel ^ictor of Administrative ServicesATTACHMENT:October 2020 Eden Warrant Register in the amount of$ 1,674,558.61ITEM NUMBER: A-2DATE: 01/12/21Page 18 of 109 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Amended Disbursement Listing For the Month of October 2020 3822 10/01/2020 ANTHEM BLUE CROSS HSA 7,725.06Payroll Vendor Payment 165588 10/01/2020 ATASCADERO MID MGRS ORG UNION 60.00Payroll Vendor Payment 165589 10/01/2020 ATASCADERO POLICE OFFICERS 1,916.25Payroll Vendor Payment 165590 10/01/2020 ATASCADERO PROF. FIREFIGHTERS 1,176.50Payroll Vendor Payment 165591 10/01/2020 MASS MUTUAL WORKPLACE SOLUTION 6,963.88Payroll Vendor Payment 165592 10/01/2020 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 344.38Payroll Vendor Payment 165593 10/01/2020 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 1,600.88Payroll Vendor Payment 165594 10/01/2020 SEIU LOCAL 620 806.49Payroll Vendor Payment 165595 10/01/2020 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 106099 357.85Payroll Vendor Payment 165596 10/01/2020 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 304633 4,228.47Payroll Vendor Payment 165597 10/01/2020 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 706276 296.00Payroll Vendor Payment 165598 10/01/2020 ANTHEM BLUE CROSS HEALTH 183,397.33Payroll Vendor Payment 165599 10/01/2020 LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INS CO 1,647.36Payroll Vendor Payment 165600 10/01/2020 MEDICAL EYE SERVICES 1,698.17Payroll Vendor Payment 165601 10/01/2020 PREFERRED BENEFITS INSURANCE 8,544.80Payroll Vendor Payment 3823 10/02/2020 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 209.54Payroll Vendor Payment 3824 10/02/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 22,884.14Payroll Vendor Payment 3825 10/02/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 35,184.36Payroll Vendor Payment 3826 10/02/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 1,831.93Payroll Vendor Payment 3827 10/02/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 1,759.31Payroll Vendor Payment 3828 10/02/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 3,178.07Payroll Vendor Payment 3829 10/02/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 7,000.47Payroll Vendor Payment 3830 10/02/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 8,203.43Payroll Vendor Payment 3831 10/02/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 12,055.27Payroll Vendor Payment 3832 10/06/2020 RABOBANK, N.A.81,066.12Payroll Vendor Payment 3833 10/06/2020 EMPLOYMENT DEV DEPARTMENT 26,088.02Payroll Vendor Payment 3834 10/06/2020 EMPLOYMENT DEV. DEPARTMENT 2,154.49Payroll Vendor Payment 165602 10/09/2020 13 STARS MEDIA 359.36Accounts Payable Check 165603 10/09/2020 ALTHOUSE & MEADE, INC.1,018.75Accounts Payable Check 165604 10/09/2020 AMERICAN WEST TIRE & AUTO INC 776.72Accounts Payable Check 165605 10/09/2020 SHANNON C. ASHBY 13.30Accounts Payable Check 165606 10/09/2020 AT&T 66.39Accounts Payable Check 165607 10/09/2020 AT&T 763.16Accounts Payable Check 165608 10/09/2020 ATASCADERO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 249.00Accounts Payable Check 165609 10/09/2020 ATASCADERO HAY & FEED 1,044.39Accounts Payable Check 165611 10/09/2020 ATASCADERO MUTUAL WATER CO.27,243.90Accounts Payable Check 165612 10/09/2020 AURORA WORLD, INC.269.41Accounts Payable Check 165613 10/09/2020 TERRIE BANISH 319.70Accounts Payable Check ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 19 of 109 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Amended Disbursement Listing For the Month of October 2020 165614 10/09/2020 BASSETT'S CRICKET RANCH,INC.667.57Accounts Payable Check 165615 10/09/2020 BAY AREA DRIVING SCHOOL, INC.15.37Accounts Payable Check 165616 10/09/2020 JOSE R. BENITEZ 120.00Accounts Payable Check 165617 10/09/2020 KEITH R. BERGHER 56.25Accounts Payable Check 165618 10/09/2020 BERRY MAN, INC.1,021.05Accounts Payable Check 165619 10/09/2020 TESSA BETZ 25.00Accounts Payable Check 165620 10/09/2020 BIG RED MARKETING, INC.4,395.00Accounts Payable Check 165621 10/09/2020 BRADS OVERHEAD DOORS, INC.150.00Accounts Payable Check 165622 10/09/2020 BRANCH SMITH PROPERTIES 350.00Accounts Payable Check 165623 10/09/2020 BURKE,WILLIAMS, & SORENSON LLP 64,938.39Accounts Payable Check 165624 10/09/2020 BURT INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 2,562.12Accounts Payable Check 165625 10/09/2020 CA ASSC OF ZOOS & AQUARIUMS 1,300.00Accounts Payable Check 165626 10/09/2020 CALPORTLAND COMPANY 333.73Accounts Payable Check 165627 10/09/2020 CARQUEST OF ATASCADERO 129.59Accounts Payable Check 165628 10/09/2020 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS 8,691.89Accounts Payable Check 165629 10/09/2020 CITY OF LOS ANGELES TREAS 1.10Accounts Payable Check 165630 10/09/2020 CLEVER CONCEPTS, INC.47.95Accounts Payable Check 165631 10/09/2020 COASTAL REPROGRAPHIC SERVICES 150.00Accounts Payable Check 165632 10/09/2020 CRYSTAL CLEAN A-1 WINDOW SVCS 1,700.00Accounts Payable Check 165633 10/09/2020 CRYSTAL CREAMERY, INC.182.86Accounts Payable Check 165634 10/09/2020 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER 20.00Accounts Payable Check 165635 10/09/2020 CULLIGAN/CENTRAL COAST WTR TRT 70.00Accounts Payable Check 165636 10/09/2020 NICHOLAS DEBAR 300.00Accounts Payable Check 165637 10/09/2020 DIVISION OF STATE ARCHITECT 42.00Accounts Payable Check 165638 10/09/2020 DRIVE CUSTOMS 891.46Accounts Payable Check 165639 10/09/2020 PHILIP DUNSMORE 300.00Accounts Payable Check 165640 10/09/2020 EIKHOF DESIGN GROUP, INC.24,356.80Accounts Payable Check 165641 10/09/2020 ELECTRICRAFT, INC.1,538.25Accounts Payable Check 165642 10/09/2020 JENNIFER FANNING 69.35Accounts Payable Check 165643 10/09/2020 FASTENAL COMPANY 1,629.61Accounts Payable Check 165644 10/09/2020 FENCE FACTORY ATASCADERO 427.05Accounts Payable Check 165645 10/09/2020 FERRAVANTI GRADING & PAVING 217,756.62Accounts Payable Check 165646 10/09/2020 FGL ENVIRONMENTAL 114.00Accounts Payable Check 165647 10/09/2020 FIESTA MAHAR MANUFACTURNG CORP 775.56Accounts Payable Check 165648 10/09/2020 FIGUEROA MOUNTAIN BREWING, LLC 245.13Accounts Payable Check 165649 10/09/2020 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 179.00Accounts Payable Check 165650 10/09/2020 NANCY GLOYE 29.00Accounts Payable Check 165651 10/09/2020 HART IMPRESSIONS PRINTING 790.94Accounts Payable Check ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 20 of 109 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Amended Disbursement Listing For the Month of October 2020 165652 10/09/2020 HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS 1,976.31Accounts Payable Check 165653 10/09/2020 JOHN HOLDER 167.49Accounts Payable Check 165654 10/09/2020 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 2,123.28Accounts Payable Check 165655 10/09/2020 IRON MOUNTAIN RECORDS MGMNT 113.45Accounts Payable Check 165656 10/09/2020 JOE A. GONSALVES & SON 3,000.00Accounts Payable Check 165657 10/09/2020 K & M INTERNATIONAL 1,022.54Accounts Payable Check 165658 10/09/2020 K.B. INDUSTRIES, INC.1,076.40Accounts Payable Check 165659 10/09/2020 KPRL 1230 AM 875.00Accounts Payable Check 165660 10/09/2020 KRITZ EXCAVATING & TRUCKNG INC 660.33Accounts Payable Check 165661 10/09/2020 L.A. CO SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT 485.00Accounts Payable Check 165662 10/09/2020 LAYNE LABORATORIES, INC.2,208.88Accounts Payable Check 165663 10/09/2020 COLETTE LAYTON 1,037.15Accounts Payable Check 165664 10/09/2020 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC CO. INC 1,797.55Accounts Payable Check 165665 10/09/2020 LIFE ASSIST, INC.1,611.89Accounts Payable Check 165666 10/09/2020 LONE MADRONE 936.00Accounts Payable Check 165667 10/09/2020 MADRONE LANDSCAPES, INC.1,682.00Accounts Payable Check 165668 10/09/2020 MARBORG INDUSTRIES 62.28Accounts Payable Check 165669 10/09/2020 MICHAEL K. NUNLEY & ASSC, INC.4,719.69Accounts Payable Check 165670 10/09/2020 MID-COAST MOWER & SAW, INC.81.88Accounts Payable Check 165671 10/09/2020 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE 244.50Accounts Payable Check 165672 10/09/2020 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 300.45Accounts Payable Check 165673 10/09/2020 MNS ENGINEERS, INC.3,103.75Accounts Payable Check 165674 10/09/2020 JULIAN A. MORA 850.00Accounts Payable Check 165675 10/09/2020 MV TRANSPORTATION, INC.6,757.64Accounts Payable Check 165676 10/09/2020 NASSAU-SOSNICK DISTRIBUTION CO 267.68Accounts Payable Check 165677 10/09/2020 NBS 6,964.53Accounts Payable Check 165678 10/09/2020 ANDRES J. NUNO 5,495.00Accounts Payable Check 165679 10/09/2020 OFFICE DEPOT INC.208.41Accounts Payable Check 165680 10/09/2020 TARA ORLICK 27.60Accounts Payable Check 165683 10/09/2020 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 58,910.76Accounts Payable Check 165684 10/09/2020 PEAKWIFI, LLC 650.00Accounts Payable Check 165685 10/09/2020 PROCARE JANITORIAL SUPPLY,INC.998.48Accounts Payable Check 165686 10/09/2020 PRP COMPANIES 1,539.23Accounts Payable Check 165687 10/09/2020 QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC.11,286.35Accounts Payable Check 165688 10/09/2020 SHIRLEY L. RADCLIFF-BRUTON 37.80Accounts Payable Check 165689 10/09/2020 RAINSCAPE, A LANDSCAPE SVC CO.7,460.36Accounts Payable Check 165690 10/09/2020 JERI RANGEL 300.00Accounts Payable Check 165691 10/09/2020 RACHELLE RICKARD 500.00Accounts Payable Check ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 21 of 109 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Amended Disbursement Listing For the Month of October 2020 165692 10/09/2020 SAN LUIS POWERHOUSE, INC.2,454.94Accounts Payable Check 165693 10/09/2020 SANTA MARIA TIRE, INC.2,574.34Accounts Payable Check 165694 10/09/2020 SLO BREWING CO., LLC 300.00Accounts Payable Check 165695 10/09/2020 SLO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE 4,600.00Accounts Payable Check 165696 10/09/2020 SMART AND FINAL 106.26Accounts Payable Check 165697 10/09/2020 SOFTWAREONE, INC.36,871.69Accounts Payable Check 165698 10/09/2020 SOUTHERN COMPUTER WAREHOUSE 420.99Accounts Payable Check 165699 10/09/2020 SPEAKWRITE, LLC.703.26Accounts Payable Check 165700 10/09/2020 SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT REPAIR 750.26Accounts Payable Check 165701 10/09/2020 STANLEY CONVERGENT SECURITY 355.50Accounts Payable Check 165702 10/09/2020 SUNLIGHT JANITORIAL, INC.2,661.00Accounts Payable Check 165703 10/09/2020 SUNSET SERVICE CENTER 150.86Accounts Payable Check 165704 10/09/2020 TARANTULA HILL BREWING CO. LLC 300.00Accounts Payable Check 165705 10/09/2020 THOMSON REUTERS - WEST 170.00Accounts Payable Check 165710 10/09/2020 U.S. BANK 28,941.71Accounts Payable Check 165711 10/09/2020 ULTREX LEASING 260.76Accounts Payable Check 165712 10/09/2020 UNITED STAFFING ASSC., INC.4,847.04Accounts Payable Check 165713 10/09/2020 VERDIN 5,646.69Accounts Payable Check 165714 10/09/2020 VERIZON WIRELESS 3,507.02Accounts Payable Check 165715 10/09/2020 VISITOR TELEVISION LLC 595.00Accounts Payable Check 165716 10/09/2020 JOSEPH WANN 64.30Accounts Payable Check 165717 10/09/2020 WARM FUZZY TOYS 374.56Accounts Payable Check 165718 10/09/2020 WCJ PROPERTY SERVICES 537.00Accounts Payable Check 165719 10/09/2020 WEX BANK - 76 UNIVERSL 11,787.68Accounts Payable Check 165720 10/09/2020 WEX BANK - WEX FLEET UNIVERSAL 6,209.89Accounts Payable Check 165721 10/09/2020 WILD FIELDS BREWHOUSE 3,208.27Accounts Payable Check 165722 10/09/2020 WILKINS ACTION GRAPHICS 126.71Accounts Payable Check 165723 10/09/2020 WISHPETS CO.201.67Accounts Payable Check 165724 10/09/2020 ZOOM IMAGING SOLUTIONS, INC.1,142.35Accounts Payable Check 3835 10/15/2020 ANTHEM BLUE CROSS HSA 7,725.06Payroll Vendor Payment 165725 10/15/2020 ATASCADERO MID MGRS ORG UNION 60.00Payroll Vendor Payment 165726 10/15/2020 ATASCADERO POLICE OFFICERS 1,916.25Payroll Vendor Payment 165727 10/15/2020 ATASCADERO PROF. FIREFIGHTERS 1,176.50Payroll Vendor Payment 165728 10/15/2020 MASS MUTUAL WORKPLACE SOLUTION 6,978.89Payroll Vendor Payment 165729 10/15/2020 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 233.14Payroll Vendor Payment 165730 10/15/2020 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 1,600.88Payroll Vendor Payment 165731 10/15/2020 SEIU LOCAL 620 816.58Payroll Vendor Payment 165732 10/15/2020 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 106099 357.85Payroll Vendor Payment ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 22 of 109 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Amended Disbursement Listing For the Month of October 2020 165733 10/15/2020 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 304633 3,642.33Payroll Vendor Payment 165734 10/15/2020 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 706276 296.00Payroll Vendor Payment 3836 10/16/2020 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 209.54Payroll Vendor Payment 3837 10/19/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 23,778.30Payroll Vendor Payment 3838 10/19/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 35,315.59Payroll Vendor Payment 3839 10/19/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 1,788.14Payroll Vendor Payment 3840 10/19/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 1,974.67Payroll Vendor Payment 3841 10/19/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 3,160.07Payroll Vendor Payment 3842 10/19/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 7,131.53Payroll Vendor Payment 3843 10/19/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 7,862.93Payroll Vendor Payment 3844 10/19/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 12,929.65Payroll Vendor Payment 3845 10/20/2020 RABOBANK, N.A.78,188.97Payroll Vendor Payment 3846 10/20/2020 EMPLOYMENT DEV DEPARTMENT 24,941.56Payroll Vendor Payment 3847 10/20/2020 EMPLOYMENT DEV. DEPARTMENT 2,272.11Payroll Vendor Payment 165735 10/23/2020 13 STARS MEDIA 597.40Accounts Payable Check 165736 10/23/2020 A.P.S. AUTOMOTIVE 283.10Accounts Payable Check 165737 10/23/2020 ADAMSKI,MOROSKI,MADDEN,512.50Accounts Payable Check 165738 10/23/2020 ADVANCED INFRASTRUCTURE TECHN 1,058.20Accounts Payable Check 165739 10/23/2020 AGM CALIFORNIA, INC.1,641.00Accounts Payable Check 165740 10/23/2020 AGP VIDEO, INC.6,467.50Accounts Payable Check 165741 10/23/2020 ALTHOUSE & MEADE, INC.5,393.00Accounts Payable Check 165742 10/23/2020 AMERICAN WEST TIRE & AUTO INC 2,859.48Accounts Payable Check 165743 10/23/2020 KELLY AREBALO 1,108.90Accounts Payable Check 165744 10/23/2020 VOID 0.00Accounts Payable Check 165745 10/23/2020 SHANNON C. ASHBY 26.60Accounts Payable Check 165746 10/23/2020 ASSOCIATED TRAFFIC SAFETY, INC 372.49Accounts Payable Check 165748 10/23/2020 AT&T 1,364.44Accounts Payable Check 165749 10/23/2020 AT&T 374.43Accounts Payable Check 165750 10/23/2020 AT&T 250.00Accounts Payable Check 165751 10/23/2020 ATASCADERO HAY & FEED 1,045.00Accounts Payable Check 165752 10/23/2020 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON 1,925.00Accounts Payable Check 165753 10/23/2020 DEMI BARTOLOMEO 161.00Accounts Payable Check 165754 10/23/2020 BASSETT'S CRICKET RANCH,INC.539.73Accounts Payable Check 165755 10/23/2020 BEAR MARKET RIOT, LLC 300.00Accounts Payable Check 165756 10/23/2020 BERRY MAN, INC.687.05Accounts Payable Check 165757 10/23/2020 BRANCH SMITH PROPERTIES 350.00Accounts Payable Check 165758 10/23/2020 BUREAU VERITAS NORTH AMERICA 1,365.00Accounts Payable Check 165759 10/23/2020 CA BUILDING STANDARDS COMM.261.90Accounts Payable Check ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 23 of 109 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Amended Disbursement Listing For the Month of October 2020 165760 10/23/2020 CA DEPT OF TAX AND FEE ADMIN.3,451.00Accounts Payable Check 165761 10/23/2020 CAL-COAST IRRIGATION, INC 554.80Accounts Payable Check 165762 10/23/2020 CALPORTLAND COMPANY 631.74Accounts Payable Check 165763 10/23/2020 KEVIN CAMPION 2,200.00Accounts Payable Check 165764 10/23/2020 CCI OFFICE TECHNOLOGIES 64.29Accounts Payable Check 165765 10/23/2020 CENTRAL COAST BREWING, INC.795.60Accounts Payable Check 165766 10/23/2020 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS 2,543.19Accounts Payable Check 165767 10/23/2020 CLAY'S SEPTIC & JETTING, INC.5,186.96Accounts Payable Check 165768 10/23/2020 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5,000.00Accounts Payable Check 165769 10/23/2020 CREWSENSE, LLC 286.71Accounts Payable Check 165770 10/23/2020 DARRYL'S LOCK AND SAFE 181.00Accounts Payable Check 165771 10/23/2020 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION 974.60Accounts Payable Check 165772 10/23/2020 DRIVE CUSTOMS 5,211.04Accounts Payable Check 165773 10/23/2020 EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC 2,682.00Accounts Payable Check 165774 10/23/2020 ELECTRICRAFT, INC.6,578.24Accounts Payable Check 165775 10/23/2020 FARM SUPPLY COMPANY 675.55Accounts Payable Check 165776 10/23/2020 FASTENAL COMPANY 738.91Accounts Payable Check 165777 10/23/2020 FERRELL'S AUTO REPAIR 87.73Accounts Payable Check 165778 10/23/2020 FGL ENVIRONMENTAL 1,243.00Accounts Payable Check 165779 10/23/2020 FUNFLICKS CENTRAL COAST 555.45Accounts Payable Check 165780 10/23/2020 GAS COMPANY 284.81Accounts Payable Check 165781 10/23/2020 GMV SYNCROMATICS 9,500.00Accounts Payable Check 165782 10/23/2020 HAMNER, JEWELL & ASSOCIATES 17,658.82Accounts Payable Check 165783 10/23/2020 ROCHELLE O. HANSON-TORRES 86.25Accounts Payable Check 165784 10/23/2020 HART IMPRESSIONS PRINTING 413.28Accounts Payable Check 165785 10/23/2020 HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS 300.00Accounts Payable Check 165786 10/23/2020 IMPACT ABSORBENTS, INC.2,111.89Accounts Payable Check 165787 10/23/2020 JIFFY LUBE 120.73Accounts Payable Check 165788 10/23/2020 JK'S UNLIMITED, INC.6,504.02Accounts Payable Check 165789 10/23/2020 KPRL 1230 AM 1,195.00Accounts Payable Check 165790 10/23/2020 LEE WILSON ELECTRIC CO. INC 1,638.80Accounts Payable Check 165791 10/23/2020 LIFE ASSIST, INC.2,896.09Accounts Payable Check 165792 10/23/2020 M SPECIAL BREWING, LLC 364.00Accounts Payable Check 165793 10/23/2020 MATTHEW MADRIGAL 1,071.00Accounts Payable Check 165794 10/23/2020 TRISTAN MARSEILLES 2,371.00Accounts Payable Check 165795 10/23/2020 BECKY MAXWELL 38.30Accounts Payable Check 165796 10/23/2020 MCCROMETER, INC.5,461.07Accounts Payable Check 165797 10/23/2020 MID-COAST MOWER & SAW, INC.82.47Accounts Payable Check ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 24 of 109 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Amended Disbursement Listing For the Month of October 2020 165798 10/23/2020 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE 520.89Accounts Payable Check 165799 10/23/2020 MINNESOTA ZOO 170.00Accounts Payable Check 165800 10/23/2020 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 505.22Accounts Payable Check 165801 10/23/2020 JULIAN A. MORA 520.00Accounts Payable Check 165802 10/23/2020 KYLE NAKAZAWA 1,071.00Accounts Payable Check 165803 10/23/2020 NATIONAL AUTO FLEET GROUP 29,048.25Accounts Payable Check 165804 10/23/2020 NEW TIMES 782.00Accounts Payable Check 165805 10/23/2020 NORTH COAST ENGINEERING INC.294.00Accounts Payable Check 165806 10/23/2020 ROCIO OCHOA 1,188.00Accounts Payable Check 165807 10/23/2020 OFFICE DEPOT INC.96.34Accounts Payable Check 165808 10/23/2020 O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE, INC.82.29Accounts Payable Check 165809 10/23/2020 PASO ROBLES SAFE & LOCK, INC.150.00Accounts Payable Check 165810 10/23/2020 PERRY'S PARCEL & GIFT 7.43Accounts Payable Check 165811 10/23/2020 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION, INC.468.20Accounts Payable Check 165812 10/23/2020 PROCARE JANITORIAL SUPPLY,INC.673.08Accounts Payable Check 165813 10/23/2020 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT 1,404.09Accounts Payable Check 165814 10/23/2020 QUADIENT, INC.692.55Accounts Payable Check 165815 10/23/2020 SHIRLEY L. RADCLIFF-BRUTON 86.39Accounts Payable Check 165816 10/23/2020 RAMINHA CONSTRUCTION, INC.12,150.00Accounts Payable Check 165817 10/23/2020 READYREFRESH BY NESTLE 166.42Accounts Payable Check 165818 10/23/2020 RECOGNITION WORKS 80.81Accounts Payable Check 165819 10/23/2020 CHRISTOPHER R. ROBINSON 1,071.00Accounts Payable Check 165820 10/23/2020 ERIN RUSSELL 200.00Accounts Payable Check 165821 10/23/2020 SAN LUIS OBISPO CO ARTS COUNCL 5,000.00Accounts Payable Check 165822 10/23/2020 SAN LUIS POWERHOUSE, INC.270.00Accounts Payable Check 165823 10/23/2020 SERVICE SYSTEMS ASSC, INC.2,500.00Accounts Payable Check 165824 10/23/2020 SLO CO AUDITOR CONTROLLER 36.00Accounts Payable Check 165825 10/23/2020 SLO COUNTY HEALTH AGENCY 81,104.50Accounts Payable Check 165826 10/23/2020 SOUTH COAST EMERGENCY VEH SVC 13.62Accounts Payable Check 165827 10/23/2020 STATE WATER RES CONTROL BOARD 2,709.00Accounts Payable Check 165828 10/23/2020 SUNSET SERVICE CENTER 122.82Accounts Payable Check 165829 10/23/2020 TERRA VERDE ENVIRONMENTAL CONS 347.50Accounts Payable Check 165830 10/23/2020 ULTREX BUSINESS PRODUCTS 80.93Accounts Payable Check 165831 10/23/2020 UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AM), INC 9,311.50Accounts Payable Check 165832 10/23/2020 UNITED STAFFING ASSC., INC.1,211.76Accounts Payable Check 165833 10/23/2020 BRIAN VAZQUEZ 1,071.00Accounts Payable Check 165834 10/23/2020 VERDIN 991.10Accounts Payable Check 165835 10/23/2020 VERIZON WIRELESS 248.29Accounts Payable Check ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 25 of 109 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Amended Disbursement Listing For the Month of October 2020 165836 10/23/2020 WALLACE GROUP 10,097.50Accounts Payable Check 165837 10/23/2020 WELL SEEN SIGN CO., LLC 80.81Accounts Payable Check 165838 10/23/2020 WHITLOCK & WEINBERGER TRANS.1,140.00Accounts Payable Check 165839 10/23/2020 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICES CO.220.56Accounts Payable Check 3848 10/29/2020 ANTHEM BLUE CROSS HSA 8,505.06Payroll Vendor Payment 165840 10/29/2020 ATASCADERO PROF. FIREFIGHTERS 1,176.50Payroll Vendor Payment 165841 10/29/2020 EMPLOYMENT DEV. DEPARTMENT 4,974.00Payroll Vendor Payment 165842 10/29/2020 MASS MUTUAL WORKPLACE SOLUTION 7,982.64Payroll Vendor Payment 165843 10/29/2020 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 303.64Payroll Vendor Payment 165844 10/29/2020 SEIU LOCAL 620 803.29Payroll Vendor Payment 165845 10/29/2020 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 106099 357.85Payroll Vendor Payment 165846 10/29/2020 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 304633 2,640.52Payroll Vendor Payment 165847 10/29/2020 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 706276 296.00Payroll Vendor Payment 3849 10/30/2020 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 209.54Payroll Vendor Payment 3850 10/30/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 22,129.73Payroll Vendor Payment 3851 10/30/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 34,655.35Payroll Vendor Payment 3852 10/30/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 1,906.29Payroll Vendor Payment 3853 10/30/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 2,009.57Payroll Vendor Payment 3854 10/30/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 3,160.07Payroll Vendor Payment 3855 10/30/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 7,176.53Payroll Vendor Payment 3856 10/30/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 8,203.43Payroll Vendor Payment 3857 10/30/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 12,759.45Payroll Vendor Payment $1,674,558.61 ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 26 of 109 \BS<»7»lae^tftse-Atascadero City CouncilStaff Report- Administrative Services DepartmentNovember 2020 Accounts Payable and PayrollRECOMMENDATION:Council approve certified City accounts payable, payroll and payroll vendor checks forNovember 2020.DISCUSSION:Attached for City Council review and approval are the following:PayrollDated 11/12/20 Checks #35007 - 35019Direct DepositsDated 11/25/20 Checks # 35020 - 35029Direct DepositsAccounts PayableDated 11/1/20-11/30/20 Checks # 165848 -166087& EFTs 3858 - 3883TOTAL AMOUNT$ 9,837.58332,191.158,150.33288,599.631,693,779.42$ 2,332,558.11FISCAL IMPACT:Total expenditures for all funds is$ 2,332,558.11CERTIFICATION:The undersigned certifies that the attached demands have been released forpayment and that funds are available for these demands.2J^^J^ri^Rangel^ctor of Administrative ServicesATTACHMENT:November 2020 Eden Warrant Register in the amount of$ 1,693,779.42ITEM NUMBER: A-3DATE: 01/12/21Page 27 of 109 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of November 2020 3858 11/03/2020 RABOBANK, N.A.79,398.10Payroll Vendor Payment 3859 11/03/2020 EMPLOYMENT DEV DEPARTMENT 26,508.41Payroll Vendor Payment 3860 11/03/2020 EMPLOYMENT DEV. DEPARTMENT 2,313.65Payroll Vendor Payment 165848 11/04/2020 ANTHEM BLUE CROSS HEALTH 181,510.95Payroll Vendor Payment 165849 11/04/2020 LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INS CO 1,568.55Payroll Vendor Payment 165850 11/04/2020 MEDICAL EYE SERVICES 1,704.02Payroll Vendor Payment 165851 11/04/2020 PREFERRED BENEFITS INSURANCE 8,361.30Payroll Vendor Payment 165852 11/06/2020 13 STARS MEDIA 41.53Accounts Payable Check 165853 11/06/2020 29TONIGHT, INC.396.89Accounts Payable Check 165854 11/06/2020 ADAMSKI,MOROSKI,MADDEN,547.50Accounts Payable Check 165855 11/06/2020 ALL SIGNS AND GRAPHICS 593.21Accounts Payable Check 165856 11/06/2020 ALTHOUSE & MEADE, INC.315.00Accounts Payable Check 165857 11/06/2020 MALYSSA AMENT 25.00Accounts Payable Check 165858 11/06/2020 SHANNON C. ASHBY 46.55Accounts Payable Check 165859 11/06/2020 AT&T 664.21Accounts Payable Check 165860 11/06/2020 ATASCADERO HAY & FEED 574.96Accounts Payable Check 165862 11/06/2020 ATASCADERO MUTUAL WATER CO.22,220.00Accounts Payable Check 165863 11/06/2020 ATASCADERO NEWS 49.95Accounts Payable Check 165864 11/06/2020 AURORA WORLD, INC.756.10Accounts Payable Check 165865 11/06/2020 AVILA TRAFFIC SAFETY 476.09Accounts Payable Check 165866 11/06/2020 BARTEL ASSOCIATES, LLC 1,750.00Accounts Payable Check 165867 11/06/2020 BASSETT'S CRICKET RANCH,INC.308.33Accounts Payable Check 165868 11/06/2020 KEITH R. BERGHER 251.25Accounts Payable Check 165869 11/06/2020 BERRY MAN, INC.417.45Accounts Payable Check 165870 11/06/2020 BIG RED MARKETING, INC.3,980.00Accounts Payable Check 165871 11/06/2020 COOPER BONECK 1,071.00Accounts Payable Check 165872 11/06/2020 DELIA RAMIREZ BRAVO 1,425.00Accounts Payable Check 165873 11/06/2020 BREZDEN PEST CONTROL, INC.65.00Accounts Payable Check 165874 11/06/2020 BUREAU VERITAS NORTH AMERICA 10,376.05Accounts Payable Check 165875 11/06/2020 BURKE,WILLIAMS, & SORENSON LLP 21,553.68Accounts Payable Check 165876 11/06/2020 BURT INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 516.37Accounts Payable Check 165877 11/06/2020 CARQUEST OF ATASCADERO 126.83Accounts Payable Check 165878 11/06/2020 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS 2,513.26Accounts Payable Check 165879 11/06/2020 CITY OF ATASCADERO 75.00Accounts Payable Check 165880 11/06/2020 CLEVER CONCEPTS, INC.47.95Accounts Payable Check 165881 11/06/2020 COAST ELECTRONICS 426.69Accounts Payable Check 165882 11/06/2020 COASTAL REPROGRAPHIC SERVICES 69.82Accounts Payable Check 165883 11/06/2020 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 68.00Accounts Payable Check ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 28 of 109 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of November 2020 165884 11/06/2020 CRYSTAL CREAMERY, INC.835.38Accounts Payable Check 165885 11/06/2020 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER 20.00Accounts Payable Check 165886 11/06/2020 DA2 DEVELOPMENT LLC 6,835.66Accounts Payable Check 165887 11/06/2020 NICHOLAS DEBAR 300.00Accounts Payable Check 165888 11/06/2020 DEP GENERAL CONTRACTING 148.00Accounts Payable Check 165889 11/06/2020 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 451.00Accounts Payable Check 165890 11/06/2020 DESTINATION TRAVEL NETWORK 325.00Accounts Payable Check 165891 11/06/2020 DOCUTEAM 134.47Accounts Payable Check 165892 11/06/2020 DRIVE CUSTOMS 500.00Accounts Payable Check 165893 11/06/2020 PHILIP DUNSMORE 300.00Accounts Payable Check 165894 11/06/2020 EIKHOF DESIGN GROUP, INC.18,057.00Accounts Payable Check 165895 11/06/2020 SCOTT EVERS 25.00Accounts Payable Check 165896 11/06/2020 CODY FERRIS 230.00Accounts Payable Check 165897 11/06/2020 FIESTA MAHAR MANUFACTURNG CORP 725.66Accounts Payable Check 165898 11/06/2020 FLUID RESOURCE MANAGEMENT,INC.4,465.39Accounts Payable Check 165899 11/06/2020 GAS COMPANY 338.70Accounts Payable Check 165900 11/06/2020 GOLDEN STATE COPIER & MAILING 992.00Accounts Payable Check 165901 11/06/2020 GREENVILLE ZOO 170.00Accounts Payable Check 165902 11/06/2020 GSOLUTIONZ, INC.2,752.46Accounts Payable Check 165903 11/06/2020 HEADSETS PLUS 471.36Accounts Payable Check 165904 11/06/2020 HELIXSTORM, INC.25,426.27Accounts Payable Check 165905 11/06/2020 JUDSON HICKS 1,071.00Accounts Payable Check 165906 11/06/2020 INGLIS PET HOTEL 117.76Accounts Payable Check 165907 11/06/2020 IRON MOUNTAIN RECORDS MGMNT 239.31Accounts Payable Check 165908 11/06/2020 JK'S UNLIMITED, INC.1,188.09Accounts Payable Check 165909 11/06/2020 JOE A. GONSALVES & SON 3,000.00Accounts Payable Check 165910 11/06/2020 K & M INTERNATIONAL 1,450.66Accounts Payable Check 165911 11/06/2020 JUSTIN KAMP 110.00Accounts Payable Check 165912 11/06/2020 KNECHT'S PLUMBING & HEATING 332.50Accounts Payable Check 165913 11/06/2020 KTU+A 13,415.00Accounts Payable Check 165914 11/06/2020 LIFE ASSIST, INC.2,321.00Accounts Payable Check 165915 11/06/2020 JACKSON LIGHT 1,071.00Accounts Payable Check 165916 11/06/2020 ANDREW LUERA 1,071.00Accounts Payable Check 165917 11/06/2020 MICHAEL K. NUNLEY & ASSC, INC.387.80Accounts Payable Check 165918 11/06/2020 MIG 4,352.50Accounts Payable Check 165919 11/06/2020 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE 716.39Accounts Payable Check 165920 11/06/2020 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 147.52Accounts Payable Check 165921 11/06/2020 MNS ENGINEERS, INC.16,693.48Accounts Payable Check ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 29 of 109 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of November 2020 165922 11/06/2020 KYLE NAKAZAWA 230.00Accounts Payable Check 165923 11/06/2020 NEWTON CONSTRUCTION & MGMT INC 35,130.40Accounts Payable Check 165924 11/06/2020 NORTH COUNTY BACKFLOW 650.00Accounts Payable Check 165925 11/06/2020 OFFICE DEPOT INC.385.44Accounts Payable Check 165926 11/06/2020 O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE, INC.648.08Accounts Payable Check 165928 11/06/2020 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 29,675.92Accounts Payable Check 165929 11/06/2020 PEAKWIFI, LLC 650.00Accounts Payable Check 165930 11/06/2020 PHILLIPS INTERNATIONAL, INC.1,134.60Accounts Payable Check 165931 11/06/2020 MIKE PIWOWARSKI 200.00Accounts Payable Check 165932 11/06/2020 PROCARE JANITORIAL SUPPLY,INC.479.02Accounts Payable Check 165933 11/06/2020 PRP COMPANIES 437.19Accounts Payable Check 165934 11/06/2020 PVP COMMUNICATIONS, INC.394.09Accounts Payable Check 165935 11/06/2020 QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC.41,880.39Accounts Payable Check 165936 11/06/2020 SHIRLEY L. RADCLIFF-BRUTON 42.00Accounts Payable Check 165937 11/06/2020 RAINSCAPE, A LANDSCAPE SVC CO.350.00Accounts Payable Check 165938 11/06/2020 JERI RANGEL 300.00Accounts Payable Check 165939 11/06/2020 READYREFRESH BY NESTLE 141.01Accounts Payable Check 165940 11/06/2020 RICHARD COWELL TACTICAL, LLC 638.00Accounts Payable Check 165941 11/06/2020 RACHELLE RICKARD 500.00Accounts Payable Check 165942 11/06/2020 ERIN RUSSELL 287.60Accounts Payable Check 165943 11/06/2020 SAFARI PROGRAMS, INC.283.50Accounts Payable Check 165944 11/06/2020 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIPMENT CO 6,801.18Accounts Payable Check 165945 11/06/2020 SANTA MARIA TIRE, INC.3,517.31Accounts Payable Check 165946 11/06/2020 SILVA BREWING 495.95Accounts Payable Check 165947 11/06/2020 SLO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE 318.00Accounts Payable Check 165948 11/06/2020 SMART AND FINAL 232.22Accounts Payable Check 165949 11/06/2020 MARY P. SMITH 495.00Accounts Payable Check 165950 11/06/2020 SOUTH COAST EMERGENCY VEH SVC 475.82Accounts Payable Check 165951 11/06/2020 SPEAKWRITE, LLC.1,559.86Accounts Payable Check 165952 11/06/2020 CONNER M. SPEARS 3,240.00Accounts Payable Check 165953 11/06/2020 STANLEY CONVERGENT SECURITY 357.47Accounts Payable Check 165954 11/06/2020 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 20.46Accounts Payable Check 165955 11/06/2020 STEPHEN JOSEPH 691.44Accounts Payable Check 165956 11/06/2020 SUNLIGHT JANITORIAL, INC.2,661.00Accounts Payable Check 165957 11/06/2020 THRIVE TRAINING CENTER 120.50Accounts Payable Check 165958 11/06/2020 THE TRIBUNE 684.86Accounts Payable Check 165962 11/06/2020 U.S. BANK 22,650.37Accounts Payable Check 165963 11/06/2020 ULTREX BUSINESS PRODUCTS 78.03Accounts Payable Check ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 30 of 109 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of November 2020 165964 11/06/2020 ULTREX LEASING 260.76Accounts Payable Check 165965 11/06/2020 UNITED STAFFING ASSC., INC.1,211.76Accounts Payable Check 165966 11/06/2020 VERIZON WIRELESS 2,306.93Accounts Payable Check 165967 11/06/2020 VISITOR TELEVISION LLC 595.00Accounts Payable Check 165968 11/06/2020 WALLACE GROUP 5,912.50Accounts Payable Check 165969 11/06/2020 WARM FUZZY TOYS 351.30Accounts Payable Check 165970 11/06/2020 WEST COAST AUTO & TOWING, INC.525.00Accounts Payable Check 165971 11/06/2020 WEX BANK - 76 UNIVERSL 9,900.56Accounts Payable Check 165972 11/06/2020 WEX BANK - WEX FLEET UNIVERSAL 5,937.27Accounts Payable Check 165973 11/06/2020 WHITLOCK & WEINBERGER TRANS.3,992.50Accounts Payable Check 165974 11/06/2020 WILKINS ACTION GRAPHICS 101.77Accounts Payable Check 165975 11/06/2020 KAREN B. WYKE 606.55Accounts Payable Check 165976 11/06/2020 ZOOM IMAGING SOLUTIONS, INC.977.83Accounts Payable Check 3861 11/12/2020 ANTHEM BLUE CROSS HSA 9,651.51Payroll Vendor Payment 165977 11/12/2020 ATASCADERO MID MGRS ORG UNION 60.00Payroll Vendor Payment 165978 11/12/2020 ATASCADERO POLICE OFFICERS 1,916.25Payroll Vendor Payment 165979 11/12/2020 ATASCADERO PROF. FIREFIGHTERS 1,176.50Payroll Vendor Payment 165980 11/12/2020 MASS MUTUAL WORKPLACE SOLUTION 29,313.88Payroll Vendor Payment 165981 11/12/2020 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 304.22Payroll Vendor Payment 165982 11/12/2020 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 1,600.88Payroll Vendor Payment 165983 11/12/2020 SEIU LOCAL 620 776.54Payroll Vendor Payment 165984 11/12/2020 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 106099 357.85Payroll Vendor Payment 165985 11/12/2020 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 304633 10,643.47Payroll Vendor Payment 165986 11/12/2020 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 706276 296.00Payroll Vendor Payment 3862 11/13/2020 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 209.54Payroll Vendor Payment 3863 11/16/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 21,975.44Payroll Vendor Payment 3864 11/16/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 33,069.46Payroll Vendor Payment 3865 11/16/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 1,788.14Payroll Vendor Payment 3866 11/16/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 1,976.13Payroll Vendor Payment 3867 11/16/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 3,160.07Payroll Vendor Payment 3868 11/16/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 6,968.00Payroll Vendor Payment 3869 11/16/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 8,576.18Payroll Vendor Payment 3870 11/16/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 12,618.74Payroll Vendor Payment 3871 11/17/2020 RABOBANK, N.A.72,314.32Payroll Vendor Payment 3872 11/17/2020 EMPLOYMENT DEV DEPARTMENT 24,351.86Payroll Vendor Payment 3873 11/17/2020 EMPLOYMENT DEV. DEPARTMENT 2,234.06Payroll Vendor Payment 165987 11/20/2020 13 STARS MEDIA 1,016.59Accounts Payable Check 165988 11/20/2020 A SUPERIOR CRANE, LLC 480.00Accounts Payable Check ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 31 of 109 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of November 2020 165989 11/20/2020 AGM CALIFORNIA, INC.297.00Accounts Payable Check 165990 11/20/2020 AGP VIDEO, INC.2,447.50Accounts Payable Check 165991 11/20/2020 ALL ABOUT ANIMALS 2,975.00Accounts Payable Check 165992 11/20/2020 ALL ABOUT ANIMALS 2,975.00Accounts Payable Check 165993 11/20/2020 AMERICAN WEST TIRE & AUTO INC 650.60Accounts Payable Check 165994 11/20/2020 SHANNON C. ASHBY 66.50Accounts Payable Check 165996 11/20/2020 AT&T 848.05Accounts Payable Check 165997 11/20/2020 AT&T 274.00Accounts Payable Check 165998 11/20/2020 ATASCADERO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 11,750.00Accounts Payable Check 165999 11/20/2020 ATASCADERO SHOTOKAN KARATE 45.00Accounts Payable Check 166000 11/20/2020 AVILA TRAFFIC SAFETY 98.89Accounts Payable Check 166001 11/20/2020 BIG RED MARKETING, INC.2,200.00Accounts Payable Check 166002 11/20/2020 TOM BIRKENFELD 405.75Accounts Payable Check 166003 11/20/2020 BREZDEN PEST CONTROL, INC.245.00Accounts Payable Check 166004 11/20/2020 BUREAU VERITAS NORTH AMERICA 8,360.08Accounts Payable Check 166005 11/20/2020 CALLYO 1,920.00Accounts Payable Check 166006 11/20/2020 CARQUEST OF ATASCADERO 52.47Accounts Payable Check 166007 11/20/2020 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS 4,344.06Accounts Payable Check 166008 11/20/2020 COASTAL COPY, INC.149.14Accounts Payable Check 166009 11/20/2020 COGENT SOLUTIONS & SUPPLIES 128.41Accounts Payable Check 166010 11/20/2020 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 62.00Accounts Payable Check 166011 11/20/2020 CREWSENSE, LLC 193.35Accounts Payable Check 166012 11/20/2020 CUESTA POLYGRAPH 2,600.00Accounts Payable Check 166013 11/20/2020 CULLIGAN/CENTRAL COAST WTR TRT 70.00Accounts Payable Check 166014 11/20/2020 DAKOS LAND SURVEYS, INC.17,980.00Accounts Payable Check 166015 11/20/2020 DAN BIDDLE PEST CONTROL SERVIC 135.00Accounts Payable Check 166016 11/20/2020 DEPENDABLE FIRE PROTECTION 228.00Accounts Payable Check 166017 11/20/2020 DESTINATION TRAVEL NETWORK 125.00Accounts Payable Check 166018 11/20/2020 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, LLC 2,950.20Accounts Payable Check 166019 11/20/2020 FERRAVANTI GRADING & PAVING 391,300.82Accounts Payable Check 166020 11/20/2020 FERRELL'S AUTO REPAIR 161.89Accounts Payable Check 166021 11/20/2020 CODY FERRIS 688.00Accounts Payable Check 166022 11/20/2020 FGL ENVIRONMENTAL 33.00Accounts Payable Check 166023 11/20/2020 FILIPPONI & THOMPSON DRILLING 6,203.13Accounts Payable Check 166024 11/20/2020 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 21.25Accounts Payable Check 166025 11/20/2020 GAS COMPANY 130.41Accounts Payable Check 166026 11/20/2020 ALEX GENTILLY 405.74Accounts Payable Check 166027 11/20/2020 GHOST/MONSTER 350.00Accounts Payable Check ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 32 of 109 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of November 2020 166028 11/20/2020 HAMNER, JEWELL & ASSOCIATES 8,845.31Accounts Payable Check 166029 11/20/2020 HANSEN BRO'S CUSTOM FARMING 9,684.41Accounts Payable Check 166030 11/20/2020 HART IMPRESSIONS PRINTING 200.42Accounts Payable Check 166031 11/20/2020 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1,492.49Accounts Payable Check 166032 11/20/2020 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 1,978.47Accounts Payable Check 166033 11/20/2020 ZACHARIAH JACKSON 688.00Accounts Payable Check 166034 11/20/2020 JB DEWAR INC 245.50Accounts Payable Check 166035 11/20/2020 JIFFY LUBE 54.61Accounts Payable Check 166036 11/20/2020 JK'S UNLIMITED, INC.2,025.72Accounts Payable Check 166037 11/20/2020 JOANN HEAD LAND SURVEYING 17,521.08Accounts Payable Check 166038 11/20/2020 DUSTIN KING 200.00Accounts Payable Check 166039 11/20/2020 KPRL 1230 AM 945.00Accounts Payable Check 166040 11/20/2020 LIFE ASSIST, INC.279.81Accounts Payable Check 166041 11/20/2020 LIQUID GRAVITY BREWING CO.624.00Accounts Payable Check 166042 11/20/2020 CONNOR MACLEOD 405.74Accounts Payable Check 166043 11/20/2020 MADRONE LANDSCAPES, INC.380.00Accounts Payable Check 166044 11/20/2020 MBS LAND SURVEYS 370.00Accounts Payable Check 166045 11/20/2020 WADE MCKINNEY 317.34Accounts Payable Check 166046 11/20/2020 MICHAEL K. NUNLEY & ASSC, INC.5,725.31Accounts Payable Check 166047 11/20/2020 MID-COAST MOWER & SAW, INC.20.88Accounts Payable Check 166048 11/20/2020 MINER'S ACE HARDWARE 74.27Accounts Payable Check 166049 11/20/2020 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 47.10Accounts Payable Check 166050 11/20/2020 JULIAN A. MORA 950.00Accounts Payable Check 166051 11/20/2020 MOSS, LEVY, & HARTZHEIM LLP 8,000.00Accounts Payable Check 166052 11/20/2020 MV TRANSPORTATION, INC.7,262.66Accounts Payable Check 166053 11/20/2020 MY805TIX 64.30Accounts Payable Check 166054 11/20/2020 NATIONAL AUTO FLEET GROUP 23,104.37Accounts Payable Check 166055 11/20/2020 NEW TIMES 477.00Accounts Payable Check 166056 11/20/2020 OFFICE DEPOT INC.118.22Accounts Payable Check 166057 11/20/2020 PACIFIC CNTRL COAST HLTH CTRS 125.00Accounts Payable Check 166058 11/20/2020 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 28,907.17Accounts Payable Check 166059 11/20/2020 PRP COMPANIES 392.48Accounts Payable Check 166060 11/20/2020 READYREFRESH BY NESTLE 696.39Accounts Payable Check 166061 11/20/2020 JACOB SABATINO 405.74Accounts Payable Check 166062 11/20/2020 SERVPRO OF MORRO BAY/KING CITY 827.14Accounts Payable Check 166063 11/20/2020 SLO COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR 65.92Accounts Payable Check 166064 11/20/2020 SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT REPAIR 3,288.95Accounts Payable Check 166065 11/20/2020 STANLEY CONVERGENT SECURITY 287.46Accounts Payable Check ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 33 of 109 Check Number Check Date Vendor Description Amount City of Atascadero Disbursement Listing For the Month of November 2020 166066 11/20/2020 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 346.85Accounts Payable Check 166067 11/20/2020 SWANK MOTION PICTURES, INC.450.00Accounts Payable Check 166068 11/20/2020 MARY LOU THOMASON 76.00Accounts Payable Check 166069 11/20/2020 THOMSON REUTERS - WEST 170.00Accounts Payable Check 166070 11/20/2020 UNITED STAFFING ASSC., INC.2,181.17Accounts Payable Check 166071 11/20/2020 VERDIN 7,336.23Accounts Payable Check 166072 11/20/2020 VERIZON WIRELESS 385.20Accounts Payable Check 166073 11/20/2020 VISIT SLO CAL 47,863.30Accounts Payable Check 166074 11/20/2020 WCJ PROPERTY SERVICES 63.75Accounts Payable Check 166075 11/20/2020 WEBB MUNICIPAL FINANCE, LLC 9,000.00Accounts Payable Check 166076 11/20/2020 WEST COAST AUTO & TOWING, INC.555.00Accounts Payable Check 166077 11/20/2020 KAREN B. WYKE 98.00Accounts Payable Check 3874 11/25/2020 ANTHEM BLUE CROSS HSA 7,376.21Payroll Vendor Payment 166078 11/25/2020 ATASCADERO MID MGRS ORG UNION 60.00Payroll Vendor Payment 166079 11/25/2020 ATASCADERO POLICE OFFICERS 1,858.00Payroll Vendor Payment 166080 11/25/2020 ATASCADERO PROF. FIREFIGHTERS 1,176.50Payroll Vendor Payment 166081 11/25/2020 MASS MUTUAL WORKPLACE SOLUTION 6,353.52Payroll Vendor Payment 166082 11/25/2020 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 271.21Payroll Vendor Payment 166083 11/25/2020 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 1,809.22Payroll Vendor Payment 166084 11/25/2020 SEIU LOCAL 620 776.54Payroll Vendor Payment 166085 11/25/2020 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 106099 357.85Payroll Vendor Payment 166086 11/25/2020 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 304633 3,448.86Payroll Vendor Payment 166087 11/25/2020 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT 706276 296.00Payroll Vendor Payment 3875 11/27/2020 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 209.54Payroll Vendor Payment 3876 11/27/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 21,975.44Payroll Vendor Payment 3877 11/27/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 32,131.31Payroll Vendor Payment 3878 11/27/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 1,871.81Payroll Vendor Payment 3879 11/27/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 1,958.05Payroll Vendor Payment 3880 11/27/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 3,160.07Payroll Vendor Payment 3881 11/27/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 6,219.40Payroll Vendor Payment 3882 11/27/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 7,689.53Payroll Vendor Payment 3883 11/27/2020 CALIF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM 12,632.28Payroll Vendor Payment $1,693,779.42 ITEM NUMBER: A-3 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 34 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: A-4 DATE: 01/12/21 Atascadero City Council Staff Report – Public Works Department Appropriation of Parkland Facilities Fees for Construction of Pickleball Courts at Colony Park RECOMMENDATION: Council authorize the Director of Administrative Service to appropriate $150,000 in Parkland Facilities Fees Funds for construction of Pickleball Courts at Colony Park for Fiscal Year 2021/2022. DISCUSSION: About two years ago, Council and staff were contacted by residents representing the Atascadero Pickleball Club to request additional pickleball courts at Colony Park. Currently, there are no dedicated pickleball facilities at Colony Park or at any other City park. Pickleball participants play in the Colony Park Community Center gymnasium and on the outdoor basketball courts. In December of 2019, the City Council approved changes to the Colony Park master plan to set aside space for 3 to 4 pickleball courts. The Council did not direct staff to appropriate funds at that time , but said that it would be amenable to discussing a funding partnership with the Atascadero Pickleball Club at some time in the future. Pickleball, fund raising by the Atascadero Pickleball Club and construction of the pickleball courts have all been affected by COVID. Pickleball is currently being played only on the outdoor basketball courts. Fund raising opportunities have been hampered by COVID restrictions and construction prices have seen some significant increases. In response to representatives from the Atascadero Pickleball Club expressing frustration with increasing estimated construction costs and the lack of a formal funding partnership agreement with the City, the Council discussed funding for the proposed pickleball courts at their November 24, 2020, meeting. Court construction design and cost options were reviewed at the meeting, along with past public -private projects. The Council consensus was to have a City contribution up to $150,000 and directed staff to return to Council with a formal appropriation from Parkland Facilities Fees, and continue to work with the Atascadero Pickleball Club representatives to move the project forward. This item provides a formal budget appropriation for the proposed pickleball courts at Colony Park. Page 35 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: A-4 DATE: 01/12/21 In order to have a better estimate on proje ct costs related to the court pavement design section, it was hoped that soil investigations and evaluations would be complete prior to this item. This work, however, has been delayed due to COVID and the holidays. Staff will continue to work toward obtaining the soils testing and refining the design as appropriate. FISCAL IMPACT: Approving recommendations will result in budget funding of $150,000 from the Parkland Facilities Fees Funds toward the construction of pickleball courts at Colony Park. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 36 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: A-5 DATE: 01/12/21 Atascadero City Council Staff Report – Public Works Department Lift Station No. 2 Motor Control Center Purchase RECOMMENDATION: Council authorize the City Manager to execute a contract for $230,000 with Tesco Controls Inc. to purchase a new Motor Control Center for the Lift Station No. 2 Replacement project. DISCUSSION: Background Staff is currently finalizing design documents for the Lift Station No. 2 Replacement Project and readying the project to bid with construction anticipated to begin in late spring or early summer 2021. The Lift Station No. 2 Replacement Project is included in the 2019-2020 Capital Improvement Plan and current adopted budget. As part of the Lift Station No. 2 Replacement Project, staff has worked with Tesco Controls, Inc. to establish exact needs for the new Motor Control Center (MCC). After preliminary design, the City requested and received a formal quote for a new Motor Control Center. Simply, this is the operational control system for the lift station and part of the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system, which is the computer control system that operates, monitors, and controls the entire wastewater collection and treatment systems. SCADA systems are proprietary and the City’s existing system is provided by Tesco Controls, Inc. In order for the MCC to work with the existing SCADA system, it needs to be compatible with Tesco Controls, Inc. products. Analysis Pursuant to the City Purchasing Policy, Section III, Proprietary Equipment and Goods, purchases larger than $100,000 shall be awarded by City Council and involve a formal product evaluation. Staff is requesting an exception to formal bid/evaluati on of this product under Section 3.1 of the purchasing policy, which allows for bypassing of the formal bid process “When there are extenuating circumstances that would make the formal bidding not the most cost effective approach. This often relates to qu alitative, artistic or proprietary software/technological issues.” Staff has evaluated and determined that utilizing a standardized motor control platform at the City’s lift stations is most efficient and cost effective for the following reasons: Page 37 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: A-5 DATE: 01/12/21 1. Tesco Controls is the leader in SCADA technology and has been the City’s selected vendor for MCCs on all new lift stations for more than a decade. 2. Due to limited staffing, use of a single standardized system is extremely important. Additionally, familiarity with a single system during routine maintenance or emergency situations improves response outcomes and minimizes risks. 3. Communication with central control. All lift stations within the City communicate and integrate with the SCADA system to allow for communications with the Master Control Center located at the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF). This Master Control Center is also a Tesco product, allowing for seamless communication between each of the lift station Motor Control Centers and the Master Control Center. 4. Quality of product and single point of contact if issues arise. Tesco Controls has provided reliable and quality products, as well as prompt design engineering services and product support as needed. Tesco Control’s quote for a not-to-exceed amount of $230,000 is attached and includes MCC engineering design, fabrication and delivery, communications integration and programming, as well as post-construction product startup services and onsite functional training for staff. The Motor Control Center is included in the current budget for FY19/20 as a component of the Lift Station No. 2 Replacement project. The following tables summarize the proposed expenditures and funding for the MCC purchase. ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES Lift Station #2 Motor Control Center (Tesco Controls, Inc.) $ 230,000 Lift Station #2 Design/Bid Phase $ 115,000 Lift Station #2 Construction Costs (includes 20% contingency) $ 1,450,000 Total Estimated Expenditures: $ 1,795,000 BUDGET FUNDS Lift Station #2 Replacement Project (Wastewater Funds) $ 1,282,000 Total Funding $ 1,282,000 Budget Surplus/(Shortfall) Estimate $ (513,000) Increases in anticipated expenditures above the original budget amount are the result of several factors. First, construction cost escalation factors for this work category has accelerated at a significantly higher rate than anticipated over the past two years when the project budget was last updated. This is particularly applicable to labor and material costs associated with specialty equipment, concrete and steel. Secondly, due to the lack of emergency overflow area at the site, additional wet well and pump redunda ncy was required to be included in the design. This, coupled with the slight oversizing of the lift station footprint to allow for long-term operational efficiency, material quantities exceeded those assumed for rough budgeting purposes . Finally, development of the parcel triggered requirements for frontage improvements on San Rafael Court , which in turn triggered site environmental mitigation work resulting from the environmental permitting Page 38 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: A-5 DATE: 01/12/21 process. This project includes work located within a waterway u nder the jurisdiction of California Fish & Wildlife, the State Water Board, and the US Army Corps of Engineers. These frontage improvements and environmental mitigation measures added significant additional cost to the project. The budget for this project with be reviewed again as part of the upcoming two-year budget cycle. FISCAL IMPACT: Authorization of the purchase of a new Motor Control Center from Tesco Controls Inc. for the Lift Station No. 2 Replacement project will result in the expenditure of up to $230,000 in budgeted Wastewater Funds. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council may direct staff to obtain additional product quotes from alternate vendors. This alternative is not recommended as this is likely to result in higher costs, ongoing additional costs for wastewater operator training, and delays to Lift Station No. 2 project construction. ATTACHMENT: Tesco Controls, Inc. Motor Control Center Quote Page 39 of 109 Corporate Office 8440 Florin Road, Sacramento, CA 95828 P.O. Box 299007, Sacramento, CA 95829 PH: 916.395.8800 FX: 916.429.2817 File Ref. 19H037Q03 Page | 1 of 4 To: City of Atascadero Quote Date: 11/30/2020 Attn: Justin Black Quote No.: 19H037Q03 Re: New Lift Station #2 (Budgetary) Motor Control Center (MCC) Dear Justin: Thank you for your continued interest in TESCO products, services, and solutions. We are pleased to quote the following scope of work pertaining to the above-referenced project. Project Understanding & Scope of Work The City of Atascadero has requested a budgetary quotation for a new Motor Control Center (MCC) for Lift Station #2 (LS-2). This lift station is forecast to be in a new location and require the supply of field instrumentation, programming services, and integration into the City’s existing SCADA system via Radio Frequency (RF) telemetry. This quotation includes all hardware supply and professional services necessary for the City’s new Lift Station #2 MCC and process control. Please note, this estimate is budgetary in nature, with the amended-finalized pricing being at or below this budgetary total. Tesco Controls, Inc. will provide the City with their new LS-2 MCC as detailed under the Scope of Supply below. This MCC will be custom engineered to the application and control process of the City’s new lift station. TESCO will first provide the City with engineered submittals for the new electrical design and layout for this MCC, with fabrication and manufacturing following City approval (Note: Engineered submittals will also include the City’s new Sump Termination Panel (STP) as described under the Scope of Supply below). Within the new MCC, an Automatic Transfer Switch (ATS) will be provided for the transference of emergency power, with necessary circuit protection and generator receptacle hardware also included. Three (3) Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) sections will be designed and included in this MCC to house the City’s three (3) new 50HP Ultra-Low Harmonics VFDs, with 5% Line-Reactors installed for increased harmonic mitigation. Individual voltage and power monitors will also be installed for increased motor protection. Professional services including PLC programming, telemetry communications, networking, and SCADA programming, will be provided by TESCO for the City’s LS-2 integration. This station’s automated process will be provided by a TESCO L3000e PLC, to include TESCO programming for monitoring and control of LS-2 operations. The new Radio Frequency (RF) telemetry link for communications from LS-2 to the City’s central SCADA location will also be provided by TESCO. Requirements for this new link will entail new radio and antenna hardware, RF preliminary studies and data performance, secure networking and onsite integration. TESCO’s SCADA Department will then provide (remote) SCADA programming for the City’s new LS-2 monitoring and control operations. This new programming will be of like format in appearance and functionality as the City’s existing lift stations within their ClearSCADA system. Following completion of the above, TESCO will then provide product startup services for final lift station integration, as well as onsite functional training and project documentation for the City. TESCO’s remote and onsite technical staff will coordinate for startup services for the verification of this project’s completion. All new and associated/integrated systems included in this project will be tested to ensure validation of programmed performance and automated process operations. Onsite training for the City’s available operations staff will then be provided, encompassing any changes in procedure or operations as a result of this project. Deliverables in the form of engineered shop drawings, equipment schematics, as-built documentation and Operations & Maintenance (O&M) manuals will also be provided. ITEM NUMBER: A-5 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 40 of 109 Quotation TESCO CONTROLS, INC. File Ref. 19H037Q03 Page | 2 of 4 Scope of Supply Item Qty Description CITY OF ATASCADERO - LIFT STATION #2 $0.00 1 1 TESCO Custom Low-Profile Motor Control Center to include: Freestanding NEMA 3R TESCO 24-000 Galvanized Enclosure to be 72” High & Powder Coated Ranch Green (4 or 5 Sections) Custom Top & Back Sunshields Provisions for Utility Metering Rated for 480/277V; 3-Phase, 4-Wire Main Disconnect Circuit Breaker Generator Disconnect Circuit Breaker TESCO Manual Transfer Switch (MTS) Automatic Transfer Switch (ATS) Power Distribution Transformer Distribution Breakers as Required Three (3) Motor Circuit Protection Breakers Three (3) 60HP Variable Frequency Drives (VFD) Ultra-Low Harmonics Three (3) 5% Line-Reactors Three (3) Pump Controls to include: Push-Buttons Indicating Lights HOA Switches Elapsed Time Meters Three (3) Motor/Pump Voltage and Power Monitors Nine (9) Current Transformers (CT) Three (3) Control Power Transformers (CPT) Programmable Logic Controller Package to include: TESCO L3000 Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) CPU L3000 Standard (5-Slot) Rack Chassis Two (2) HDIO Cards (6:AI, 2:AO, 16:DI, 8:DO each) Two (2) HDIO Terminal Boards Two (2) HDIO Terminal Cables L3000 Power Supply Unit (PSU) L3000 Standard (Compact) Operator Interface Ethernet Switch Power Supply 24VDC RF Telemetry Radio Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) RACO Verbatim Remote Alarm Dialing Monitor Generator Receptacle with Angle Adapter Panel Lights with Switches Panel Exhaust Fans with Filtered Louvers Panel Heaters with Thermostats Nameplates, Terminal Blocks and Relays as Required Ship Loose Hardware to include: RF Antenna RF Lightning Arrestor RF Coax Cable and Pigtail ITEM NUMBER: A-5 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 41 of 109 Quotation TESCO CONTROLS, INC. File Ref. 19H037Q03 Page | 3 of 4 Item Qty Description 2 1 Sump Termination Panel (STP) Package to include: Custom Galvanized STP Powder Coated Ranch Green Dimensions: 78”L x 48”H x 18”W Three (3) Cable-Gland Sealing Kits Two (2) Power Distribution Blocks Two (2) Discrete I/O Terminal Blocks Nameplates and Ground Bus as Required 3 1 Magnetic Flow Meter Package to include: Siemens MAG 14-inch Flow Meter MAGFLO Flow Transmitter (With Sun Protection Cover) MAG Flow Wall Mounting Kit Potting Submersion Kit Cable Kit – 32.8 Feet Two (2) Grounding Rings 4 1 Pulsar Level Instrumentation Package to include: Pulsar Ultra-3 Controller (Fascia-Mount) Pulsar dB3 Ultrasonic Transducer 10M (33ft) Cable Length 5 1 Opti-Float System Package to include: Two (2) Opti-Float Liquid Level Detectors 100-Foot Cable Length With External Weight Opti-Float Transceiver Dual Transceiver (for 2 Floats) Opti-Float Power Supply 6 Lot Professional Services: Project Management Engineering – engineered shop drawings, equipment schematics, submittals, technical data, as-built documents, and project records Manufacturing Services – fabrication, manufacturing, assembly, equipment wiring, and witnessed Factory Acceptance Testing (FAT) PLC Programming – L3000 PLC Programming applicable to the process control for Lift Station #2 OIT Programming - L3000 OIT Programming applicable to the process control for Lift Station #2 SCADA Programming – New SCADA page(s) applicable to the LS-2 MCC process control herein. Application will mirror the City’s existing application operations. Networking/Communications/Telemetry Radio RF Survey for LS-2 Telemetry to Repeater Station (if Required) and/or to the City’s Central SCADA Product Startup Services – product quality review, verification of product installation, product parameter adjustments, product programming, software upload/download as required, instrument/ device signal spanning, product/equipment reconfiguration as required, product function checks, and product startup. Onsite Training O&M Manuals BUDGETARY TOTAL (including applicable sales tax): $230,000.00 ITEM NUMBER: A-5 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 42 of 109 Quotation TESCO CONTROLS, INC. File Ref. 19H037Q03 Page | 4 of 4 Project Clarifications Unless otherwise indicated by the Scope of Work above, quote is to furnish only and does not include any trade labor, trade work, construction work, site improvement, contractor services, or any trade installation services. Any trade labor and/or related trade work shall be performed by others/contractor. Note: RF Study for LS-2 Telemetry to repeater station (if required) or to the City’s central SCADA does not imply that an RF Link is certain. If further testing is required, to include cellular testing performance, a change order may be necessary for the additional hardware and level-of-effort. Unless otherwise indicated by the Scope of Work above, the following is not included within this quotation: Conduit, field wire, tubing, or basic trade installation materials (brackets, screws, bolts, j-box, stanchions, pull-box, etc.) Instrumentation mounting components, brackets, stanchions, sunshields, etc. Local control stations and/or field mounted disconnects. Instrumentation, devices, components, or equipment not specifically identified in the above quotation. Fiber optic patch panels, cable, splicing or terminations. Networking infrastructure or architecture modifications to existing facilities. Any 3rd party testing, harmonic testing/analysis, protective device coordination study, short-circuit analysis, or Arc-Flash Risk Assessment (AFRA) services. Electrical interconnection diagrams for equipment not furnished by TESCO ISA process control loop diagrams. Signal loop diagrams for equipment not furnished by TESCO. Terms and Conditions Quote is firm for 30 days unless otherwise stated. Submittals: to be provided approximately 12-14 weeks after receipt of purchase order, written notice of intent, or notice to proceed. Delivery: to be scheduled approximately 14-16 weeks minimum after submittal approval. Addendums Acknowledged: 0 Unless otherwise stated above, price does not include any sales tax, use tax, or applicable fees; please apply any taxes and/or fees as appropriate. Please note that all invoices will include sales tax where applicable. TESCO price is FOB factory, full freight allowed. TESCO warranties against defect in design, workmanship, and materials for a period of one year from date of installation, and does not exceed 18 months from the date of shipment from the factory. TESCO carries liability insurance, with full workman's compensation coverage. Terms are net 30 days on approved credit accounts. Interest will be applied to all past due invoices. All merchandise sold is subject to lien laws. Final retention to be paid within 10 days after the project notice of completion. Please feel free to contact us at (916) 395-8800 to discuss any questions or comments you may have regarding this quotation. Sincerely, TESCO CONTROLS, INC. Douglas K Smith Technical Sales dsmith@tescocontrols.com ITEM NUMBER: A-5 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 43 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 01/12/21 Atascadero City Council Staff Report – Administrative Services 2021-2023 Budget and D-20 Priorities Public Outreach Kickoff Session RECOMMENDATION: Council provide input and receive information from the public on priorities for the 2021 - 2023 Budget Cycle and the expenditure of Measure D-20 funds. REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The City of Atascadero adopts a two-year financial budget, and prepares a Seve n Year Forecast along with it. The upcoming 2021-2023 budget cycle will have a much more extensive process than the typical budget cycle due to the passage of the one -cent Essential Services Sales Tax Measure. Otherwise known as Sales Tax Measure D -20 (or just “Measure D-20”), this measure was passed by Atascadero voters in November 2020, receiving 58.6% “Yes” votes. The new measure increases the sales tax rate in Atascadero beginning April 1, 2021, and is expected to generate about $4.5 million in annual General Fund revenue. While $4.5 million annually in new tax revenues will go a long way in providing the services that the community wants and expects, it will not be enough to provide all of the services, programs, amenities that community members will want to see. It is important to set clear priorities on what items need to be addressed with the new funding. Tonight is the first night in a series of ten public outreach meetings designed to disseminate information on current service level needs and gather additional public input on priorities for City services. The input received from these public meetings, along with all of the other input that Council receives, is intended to help inform and drive the Council strategic goal setting which in turn drives the adopted budget/expenditure plan. DISCUSSION: Public Engagement on Priorities Public engagement is a continuous ongoing dialog between City Council, City staff and the community. The City’s budget process is purposely structured to receive public input on where funds are spent. Members of the public can speak at City Council meetings, reach out to Council Members outside of the meeting setting, and talk with City staff. Page 44 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 01/12/21 In preparation for the 2021-2023 budget cycle, the Council expanded public outreach even further. The City Council commissioned a Feasibility Study performed by True North Research, Inc. The survey was administered to a random sample of 787 voters in the City of Atascadero who we re 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. The survey was one more method of gathering feedback from the community, and results were not unexpected. When presented with a list of 10 City services that could be funded by the sales tax measure, the surveyed voters were most inter ested in using the money to 1) provide fire protection and paramedic services; 2) provide quick responses to 911 emergencies; and 3) repair and maintain public facilities and infrastructure. It is interesting to note that the survey also indicated that 76% of Atascadero voters surveyed were satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services, and 60% responded positively regarding the City’s fiscal management. As part of the development of Measure D-20, it was clear that in addition to all of the traditional methods of seeking input on what needs should be addressed, the Council wanted an even more extensive public outreach process in determining the priorities for the expenditure of D-20 funds. Tonight is the first in a series of 10 meetings designed to receive public input on the priorities and needs of the City. The schedule for the 10 meetings are as follows: Kickoff Session: Tuesday, January 12th, 6pm Council Meeting (tonight’s meeting) Study Session 1: Thursday, January 14th, 10am Study Session 2: Thursday, January 14th, 2pm Study Session 3: Wednesday, January 20th, 4pm Study Session 4: Saturday, January 23rd, 10am Study Session 5: Thursday, January 28th, 6pm Study Session 6: Friday, January 29th, 12pm Study Session 7: Monday, February 1st, 1:30pm Study Session 8: Thursday, February 4th, 4pm Study Session 9: Saturday, February 6th, 9am Each study session is being heavily advertised and each study session is formatted in a similar manner so that the public will only need to attend one session to voice their opinion. At each study session staff will give a presentation, like tonight’s, providing information to the public about the immediate needs identified by staff as necessary to maintain service levels. The public will be able to ask questions of staff to engender a broader understanding of what needs are not being met to maintain the service levels expected by the community. The public will then participate in exercises to garner input on: What services and service levels would they like to see provided by the City? What does the right level of service look like? What is success and how should it be measured? Which services/service levels are the priorities of the community? Page 45 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 01/12/21 After the study sessions are complete, staff will gather all of the public input and will summarize the information into categories of what the members of the public would like to achieve with funds from Measure D-20. This data will be included in a report for the City Council’s annual goal setting session. The annual goal setting session is scheduled for the evening of February 19th and the day of Saturday February 20th. It is anticipated that the bulk of this annual Council planning session will need to be devoted to determining community priorities and desired service levels. Based on the input received, the Council is expected to set general priorities and goals for both the expenditure of D-20 funds and all other funding sources in the City. At the March 9th City Council meeting, staff will bring back for confirmation any direction provided by the Council at the annual goal setting session so that the public can provide additional public comment and the Council can clarify and adjust direction if desired. At the April 27th City Council meeting, staff will bring back an Action Plan with detailed action steps to be taken, what is expected to be achieved with each action, what metrics would measure success of the action, and the estimated costs associated with e ach action. At that meeting the public would once again have input on where the funds should be spent. All actions included in the Council approved Action Plan would be incorporated into the City’s 2021-2023 budget. There will be no less than six well publicized Finance Committee meetings scheduled between mid-April and the end of May. At the Finance Committee meetings, various sections of the budget will be discussed in great detail. Each of these Finance Committee meetings will be advertised to encourage public participation and attendance. At the June 8th City Council meeting, the budgets for fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022- 2023 will be presented to the City Council for adoption. The budgets will incorporate the priorities, actions, service levels and metrics developed through this expanded public process. At the July 13th City Council meeting, the Council will approve the first annual Measure D-20 report. The report will include information on where the Measure D -20 funds are going to be spent, what is to be achieved by the expenditure of these funds and what metrics will be used to determine success. The report will be distributed to all residents and businesses similar to the annual F-14 Roads report. Before the City ever receives any Measure D-20 funds, there will be a total of 20 public meetings designed to receive input from the public on the expenditure of Measure D-20 funds. Current Status of City Finances and Budget During a series of “Talk on the Block” public outreach events held in 2020, City staff was able to share a lot of information with attendees. These events focused 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 recognize the City’s current shortfalls and appreciate how additional sales tax revenue could be used to resolve some of these shortfalls. The information that was shared at the Talk on the Block events has been updated and is included in the following section. Page 46 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 01/12/21 Revenues Cities do not receive the same amounts in taxes per 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. $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 The City manages resources in a frugal and fiscally responsible manner, consistently protecting and stretching taxpayer’s dollars as far as possible. While the City does as much as it can, for as many as it can, as often as it can, unfortunately there is still much left undone. 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 $434 per capita, with Pismo Beach being the outlier at $690 per person. Page 47 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 01/12/21 Many members of the community are unaware that the City receives only a small slice of the property tax that property owners pay. An example of where the funds go from a typical $3,500 annual property tax bill in Atascadero is shown in the pie graph that follows. The City of Atascadero also 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. $332 $298 $343 $434 $350 $690 $381 $- $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 Atascadero Arroyo Grande Grover Beach Morro Bay Paso Robles Pismo Beach San Luis Obispo Per Capita Property Taxes by City Schools, $2,146 County, $579 City, $494 Sewer, $242 Other, $39 Where Does Property Tax Go? $3,500 Annual Bill Page 48 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 01/12/21 Key Categories of Needs The City, by necessity, spends a lot less per capita than other cities in the State. Data that was previously available on the ClearGov.com website comparing jurisdictions in the State of California showed that the City of Atascadero spends a fraction per capita of what most other jurisdictions in the State expend. The data indicated that the City is very frugal with expenditures, yet much continues to get done. How has the City made it work? In addition to generally providing lower service levels than neighboring jurisdictions, the City has also made ends meet by deferring and reducing resources which has led to the general critical needs identified by staff below: Equipment Replacement and Additions Vehicles / Apparatus Replacement Fire Stations Rehabilitation Staffing Levels Employee Retention Issues Related to Transients and Homelessness Issues Deferred Maintenance Unfunded Infrastructure Economic Development Underfunded Operations Operational Efficiencies $138 $241 $201 $191 $510 $395 $576 $- $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 Per Capita Sales Tax by City (FY 18-19) Page 49 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 01/12/21 Equipment Replacement and Additions As an all-risk Fire Department, the firefighters are equipped and trained to respond to not only structure and vegetation fires, but also medical emergencies, traffic collisions, hazardous material incidents, technical rescues, natural disasters and more. Public safety personnel rely on a variety of tools and equipment that are crucial to mitigating these emergencies. Traffic collisions sometimes require extrication tools, like the Jaws of Life, to remove a trapped occupant from a vehicle. Every medical emergency, fire paramedics use cardiac monitors to assess and treat patients. Firefighters require specialized breathing apparatus to fight structure fires, keeping their airway safe from fatal heat and gases. Both Fire and Police require specialized protection as part of their uniform, like firefighter turnouts and bulletproof vests and helmets. All public safety members rely heavily on radios for communication, which not only means hand -held and mobile radios, but also the towers and equipment that support the radio network. Recent mandates by the State have placed additional requirements on the Police Department radio system. These new requirements are expensive, and currently do not have a funding source. Also, standby generators are important pieces of equipment throughout the City that allow services to continue uninterrupted during power outages or PG&E power shutdowns. Generators provide back-up power to essential service buildings such as the Police and Fire Stations, but also power essential functions such as radio repeaters sites, wastewater lift stations and Zoo refrigerators, but not all of these facilities have the generators needed in a PG&E widespread shut down. While all of these tools and equipment are critical to public safety, none has been fully funded through the City budget due to financial constraints. Police, Fire and Public W orks have relied many times on grants and donations to fund this equipment. The sales tax measure can ensure necessary safety equipment is properly funded to allow continued effective emergency services. Vehicles/Apparatus Replacement 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 to 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 exceptional ly 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. The Fire Department’s fleet of emergency vehicles, including all fire engines and the ladder truck, does not currently have a replacement fund in place. Teams at both of the fire stations respond to most emergencies in a structure firefighting engine. This is the engine seen most often because it is equipped with nearly everything need ed for a variety of emergencies, including medical calls. There is also a wildland firefighting engine at each station, meaning that if dispatched to a vegetation fire, firefighters will respond in a smaller engine, better suited for narrow streets and off -road terrain. Page 50 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 01/12/21 At Station 2, the aerial ladder truck is housed for large commercial building or multi-family apartment fires. The truck’s ladder reaches 100 feet and allows firefighters to quickly access upper floors and rooftops to rescue those trapped by fire. It can also be used for aerial master streams, which means a large volume of water from an elevated position. The Public Works Department also has concern for aging vehicles critical to their mission. Public Works staff use many types of vehicles including com pactors, loaders, backhoes and park mowers for routine daily operations as well as to assist Fire and Police personnel during storms, flooding or other emergencies. While great care is exercised in maintaining and caring for City owned apparatus and vehicles, these vehicles have a finite life. They are costly and require setting aside funding annually in anticipation of replacement once the vehicle is no longer reliable for its intended use. Unfortunately, the City budget has not been able to contribute to these replacement schedules for many years, causing concern for how the aging apparatus will be replaced. Reliable emergency vehicles are a fundamental component of any City service and funding necessary apparatus is an important part of each department’s mission. Fire Stations Over the decades, the fire stations have housed many firefighters while they work to protect the City of Atascadero. Built in 1952, Station 1 on Lewis Avenue was designed as a station for a mostly volunteer firefighting staff. From volunteer firefighter beginnings, the station morphed into what we have today, which required several remodels and changes along the way. Station 1 now facilitates 24/7 staffing which required the addition of bedrooms, bathrooms and a kitchen. It ho uses three fire engines, one rescue trailer, one ambulance and several command vehicles. It provides storage for advanced medical equipment and supplies, self-contained breathing apparatus equipment, the firefighter turnout washer, breathing air compressor and so much more. While staff takes great pride in maintaining the Fire Station, the station is showing signs of its nearly 70-year old age. Water-stained ceiling tiles, masonry cracks throughout the station flooring, driveway and exterior columns, diesel exhaust stained walls, small rooms and limited storage all speak to the underlying issues that the current budget has been unable to fix. Safety items to be addressed include the structural stability and earthquake retrofit of both the roof structure and the hose tower. The station needs updated features to keep firefighters safe. Cancer causing agents such as vehicle exhaust and dirty turnout gear or biohazards on medical equipment need to be isolated from the living quarters to keep firefighters safe and healthy. Fire Station 2 was built in the mid-1980s and is also showing its age. With one bedroom and a small square footage, it was built to house two firefighters. With four firefighters now on duty at the station during the wildfire season, this small footprint provides for very cramped quarters, especially during this season of Covid 19 and the need for social distancing in the Fire Station. Page 51 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 01/12/21 Staffing Levels 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 Atascadero Police Department was established in 1980 with 19 sworn officers serving 16,232 residents. The department grew commensurate with the population through the 80s and early 90s. In 1994 the Department reached 29 sworn officers to keep pace with 23,982 residents. The Department peaked at 30 officers in the early 2000’s; however, three sworn positions were lost during the great recession in 2007 to 2009. The current population of Atascadero is estimated at 30,305 and the Atascadero Police Department has the same staffing it did in 1994, 29 sworn officers. The City’s financial hardships have impacted the Department’s ability to grow with the population and leaves the community with the same staffing as 27 years ago. If the Department had grown commensurate with the population there would be 37 officers for the current population level. In comparing all seven police departments in our county, Atascadero has the lowest staffing per capita in the county. The minimum staffing in 1980 was established with one supervisor and two officers. The minimum staffing level has never been increased and in 2019 the Atascadero Police Department operated at 1980 staffing, or one supervisor and two officers for 52% of the year. This was not an abnormality, in 2018 it was 54% of the year. Although 29 sworn officers were adequate in 1994, they are not nearly enough to handle the workload in 2020. Aside from the increased calls associated with a 21% growth in the population, the community has been faced with an opioid epidemic and an influx of homeless related calls for service. Along with these calls, there are mental health problems associated with these issues, and communities across California, including Atascadero, are also suffering the unintended consequences of the recent trend to decriminalize narcotics and other crimes. In 2011, Assembly Bill 109 shifted much of the prison population to county jails, which were not designed or equipped for this function and quickly caused the jails to be became overcrowded. Proposition 47 in 2014 reduced certain theft and drug offenses from felonies to misdemeanors and Proposition 57 in 2016 allowed parole consideration instead of incarnation for nonviolent offenders, which all combined has resulted in a substantial increase in offenders released without incarceration. This has, and will continue to, leave more offenders in the community and increase criminal activity in Atascadero. Combine this with other recent requirements, such as the new reporting standards which have increased the amount of reports officers are required to take, the change in medical clearance and procedures for mental health detentions and county jail bookings, increased training standards all result in task saturated officers that spend less time on patrol. This directly impacts officers’ availability to respond to calls for service and increase response times. Page 52 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 01/12/21 Although this narrative has focused on the police departme nt’s staffing shortages, every department in the City is understaffed. When compared to other communities of our size, the staffing history and numbers for Planning, Public Works, Finance, and Administration are all similar to those in the Police Department. This affects staff’s ability to provide the expected level of City services across the board. Employee Retention 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 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, inefficiencies and additional incurred costs as new employees are trained. 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. Atascadero’s financial hardships have had a devastating effect on employee retention. The inability to offer competitive salaries with neighboring agencies have resulted in the loss of many quality, experienced employees from every department in the City. Page 53 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 01/12/21 The Police Department has lost six officers and two dispatchers within the last two and a half years. This equates to 20% of the sworn officers and 28% of the dispatch staff. Due to the salary disparities between Atascadero and other communities, the dispatch positions have remained unfilled for over two years because of the inability to attract quality applicants at the current pay scale. The hiring and training of police personnel is very time consuming and intensive, and there is a steep learning curve. It is not uncommon to have to hire an inexperienced officer and send the individual through the police academy. With an extensive recruitment process, the academy training and the field training program it takes more than a year before the officer is competent as a solo officer. Once on their own, it takes a police employee additional time to become proficient and several years before they are at optimal performance. With the lack of retention, the department often loses employees just when they reach the optimal performance level and the process starts all over. The Department has become a training ground for other community departments. Atascadero spends the money, effort and risk in getting the employee trained and other agencies benefit from it. A well-trained and veteran department is efficient and has less liabilit y than when the department has primarily a staff with limited experience. This is again true for all departments in the City. Employee attraction and retention has become a crisis in most departments in the City. Losses of key employees with institutional knowledge cause delays, inefficiencies and additional overtime costs in order to complete the work needed to provide service to our City. Issues Related to Transients and Homelessness Issues The human impact of the homeless crisis is tragic. While not as visible, there is also a very real impact to government services and in particular local services as cities that were never designed, nor funded to provide social services, deal with the inherent conflicts and problems of people living on the streets. It is important that we point out that staff are not classifying individuals because of their housing status. The reference is to those people who are engaged in behavior that precipitates a call for service for public safety or other City resources. Atascadero, like many other cities throughout California and the rest of the nation, were not intended or equipped to handle the additional wo rkload associated with the homeless crisis. The influx of people who are living on the streets and in other areas never designed to function someone’s home have impacted every department in the City. Many of those living in these areas are suffering from mental health issues and/or addiction problems. Calls for service include panhandling, public disturbances, public defecation, scavenging, trespassing and camping on sidewalks or other public areas. These issues don’t begin to touch the impact to the community. Many of these individuals have underlying health problems. Our Fire Department is frequently called to treat and assist everything from a minor cut to shortness of breath, a stroke or mental illness. This takes one of the two on-duty engine companies out of Page 54 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 01/12/21 service. W hen further treatment is necessary for the individual, they are transported to a local hospital, taking an ambulance out of service for an extended time. The impact to the Police Department has also been significant. In 2018, the department received 513 calls for service related to illegal camping and 81 calls for panhandling. The Department coordinated with County Behavioral Health and partnered a County social worker with a department detective to form a part-time Community Action Team. These teams have been highly successful for the San Luis Obispo Police Department and Sheriff’s Department. The goal of the team is to identify those individuals who wo uld benefit from available resources and be the intermediary so those services are utilized. The program has been successful; however, the position was unable to be filled due to staffing shortages. Once the staffing is full, the program will be resumed. The illegal camps throughout the City have a significant impact on the environment and the general quality of life for the neighborhood s. The creeks, rivers, underpasses and other areas of encampment were never designed to be someone’s home. The hom eless crisis/addiction issues have led people to establish camps where there is no sanitary services, no heat, no water and other basic necessities for life. The camps contain a large amount of trash and personal refuse. Legally, notices must be posted at the camps before cleanup and property removed must be retained for a substantial period of time before disposal. Clean-up of these camps is also a fairly time consuming job as clean- up workers must be extremely cautious as dirty needles and other bio hazards are often found amongst the camp debris. The workload involved in the cleanups and debris removal must be balanced with the workload and primary responsibilities of a Public Works Department that is stretched too thin to maintain the 106 acres of parks, the 140 miles of streets and the many City facilities that are the responsibility of the personnel . There is not sufficient staff, nor funding for the additional workload of camps clean-up. Deferred Maintenance The City owns and maintains many assets that are used by the community every day. These assets include roads, storm drains, parks and trails, Atascadero Lake, zoo exhibits, and public buildings. Many of these facilities were constructed long ago and funded with one-time expenditures, such as grants and impact fees, or constructed by private developers or community groups. These assets are aging and at the end of their useful life and need to be replaced, upgraded, or have major repai rs that have been deferred due to a lack of funding. The City’s budget has not had the capacity to include ongoing infrastructure replacement. Storm drains and culverts handle storm runoff to prevent flooding and other problems caused by ponding water. The City has over 1,750 storm pipes totaling nearly 30 miles and 600 inlets with no funding source to replace them. About one - third of these pipes are in poor or failed condition. Park facilities are also deteriorating including parking lots, sidewalks, benches, picnic tables, playgrounds, restrooms, and athletic facilities. The shoreline retaining walls and dock on Atascadero Lake needs significant work, and the lake requires costly periodic dredging to keep it healthy. Page 55 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 01/12/21 Many of the animal exhibits at the zoo are very old, deteriorated and functionally obsolete. In order to continue to provide for these endangered animals , these exhibits must be replaced in the near future. City buildings like City Hall, Police and Fire stations, Pavilion, and C ommunity Center need continuous maintenance and building systems such as roofs, HVAC units, plumbing, and electrical need replacement as these buildings age. Lastly, roads – the City maintains over 140 miles of roads. We all drive worn -out roads every day and know the shape they are in and potholes to avoid. Measure F-14 has helped a lot, but we need to invest more if we want to improve the overall condition of our road system. Replacing and repairing these assets has been put off in order to make ends meet. Some items like playground equipment, shade structures or picnic benches are removed until donations are made to replace them. Other critical infrastructure that must be replaced or fixed, like a failed culvert, is done as an emergency measure by eliminating or delaying some other service, program, or capital replacement. It is important to find ongoing funding to repair and replace these items as necessary. Unfunded Infrastructure There are other public assets that many think are the City’s responsibility but by code, these items are the responsibility of adjacent property owners. Many property owners feel this is unfair, and care for these assets may be worth consideration for City funding. Property owners are often surprised to find out that sidewalks and street trees in the public way are actually their responsibility. Property owners assume the City takes care of these items, so they do not perform repairs and maintenance ca using the sidewalks and trees to fall into a state of disrepair until a problem occurs and the property owner and City are sued. A lot of staff time is spent to notice and explain this responsibility to property owners and it takes funds to defend the City in lawsuits. There are also over 30 miles of public streets in Atascadero that are not maintained by the City but instead, by property owners that live on the street. Many of these streets were never built to City standards, and others meet standards b ut were not accepted after completion. These public roads are used like City maintained roads, but the burden to maintain and repair them falls to adjacent property owners – who pay the same taxes as those on City maintained roads. There is also a Community Facility District that some newer residential units are required to pay an additional tax of about $700 each year to help offset that home’s impact to police, fire, and parks. A new unit that is not allowed by right must pay this additional tax, while other new and existing units do not. Page 56 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 01/12/21 Economic Development How can Atascadero bring head of household jobs, along with the things that our community members desire such as restaurants, shops, and entertainment? How can we continue to make Atascadero a desirable place to live, with attractive neighborhoods and quality public spaces in our downtown? It takes investments from busi ness owners to open a business, restaurant, shop, entertainment and good jobs. The City cannot force someone to make the investment here in Atascadero, but the City can invest resources (staff time, infrastructure, funding) to entice those businesses to locate here in Atascadero. This is economic development. Businesses want to be in a place where their customers and/or employees want to be and stay. The City can help with things like: Infrastructure Investment: Sidewalks, and pedestrian friendly areas attract shops, restaurants and employers. Previously, the City has been successful in finding alternate funding sources- grants, special funds and other ways to add amenities to a place such as street trees, benches, plazas, and parks. Unfortunately, these alternative funding sources have dried up in recent years, but the need to revitalize Atascadero and make our community more attractive still remains. Place Making: Investments to make Atascadero attractive to potential businesses include things like removal of the pigeons from the downtown, events and activities that draw people to a place, facilitation of creative id eas from business owners to bring people to the downtown. Increasing Broadband Capabilities: Strong internet capabilities are the backbone of most businesses today. As part of economic development, the City could look at facilitating and investing in the increase of broadband capabilities in our business corridors to both attract businesses that currently can’t loca te here, and providing access as another tool to help make existing businesses more successful. Marketing: Potential restaurant investors, shop owners, and businesses cannot locate their business in Atascadero unless they know about Atascadero and what our community can provide: quality of life, skilled workers, shops, restaurants, broadband capabilities, available sites and more. We need staff that can be dedicated to seeking out and working with potential businesses/shops/restaurants to attract them to Atascadero and share our quality of life. It takes additional resources that are not currently available to provide economic development to attract those businesses and amenities we want to see in town. Underfunded Operations Operational budgets have always been tight due to the limited type and amount of revenue the City receives. Ideally, the budget that each department has to perform its essential services should grow each year at a rate that keeps pace with both the growth of the City and inflation. While revenues have increased over the years, they have not grown enough to keep up with ever increasing expenses due to growth in City population or inflation. Page 57 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 01/12/21 Some of the operational costs have not only grown due to inflation, but have increased much more than that in the last 15 years. In spite of reducing turf areas, the costs of water to irrigate the parks has more than doubled from $69,400 in 2006 to $145,000 in 2020. It is a similar situation with the cost of animal food at the Charles Paddock Zoo. In 2006, the city spent about $30,000 on animal food. The cost of the food in 2020 was about $90,000 for a similar number of animals. That is almost 3 times the cost over a period of 15 years. $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Parks Water Costs 2006 -2020 $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 $90,000 $100,000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Zoo Animal Food Costs 2006 -2020 Page 58 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 01/12/21 Electricity costs have soared as well. The costs to power the street lights and signals has almost doubled from $49,000 in 2006 to $95,000 in 2020. At the Zoo, electricity more than doubled from $15,500 to $35,000 in that same time frame. In 2019, the City began implementing a new management plan to help improve the water quality in Atascadero Lake. The plan focuses on the use of regulatory agency-approved probiotics and pond dye to prevent algae blooms during the h ot Atascadero summers. This has shown to be an effective preventative measure and keeps the lake water much healthier, but comes at a cost of about $20,000 per year to implement the plan. The City has not been able to expand its vehicle fleet to meet the needs of the number of employees needing to drive the vehicles as an essential part of their jobs. There is not, and has not, been room to increase the operating budgets enough to allow for the purchase, maintenance and replacement of additional fleet veh icles. Limited vehicles impact the speed at which projects in the field can be viewed, inspected, and approved. Over the last decade, the City has also seen a steep increase in costs for regu latory compliance. For example: Stormwater runoff that occurs throughout the City’s storm drains is regulated and requires an annual MS4 Stormwater permit. This costs about $14,000 every year, in addition to costs for a host of other requirements, reporting, and staff time. The Stormwater “trash amendment” is relatively new, and requires collection and removal of 100% of the trash before it goes in the storm drain. Data collection and reporting is required on the quantity of trash collected and removed. Meeting this requirement is estimated to cost about $20,000 annually. The Federal Highway Administration now requires a certain degree of “retro - reflectivity” on all road traffic signs. In order to meet this requirement, most traffic signs need to be changed out sooner than they otherwise would have been, thereby increasing costs. $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Streets and Zoo Electricity Costs 2006 -2020 Streets Zoo Page 59 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 01/12/21 Technology costs increase over the years as operations and the workforce become more dependent on it. The two biggest concerns in the field of technology and data management are data loss and data corruption (through any number of methods.) Data backup and redundancy are critical to protect against these two concern s and are the backbones of the City’s technical infrastructure. The City must be prepared in the event of emergencies that may impact the electronic operations of the City, and the City must have security in place to avoid being the target of unwanted data intrusions and ransoms. Operational Efficiencies There are opportunities to increase efficiencies. Investments in particular areas are likely to magnify the return on such outlays. For example, by making strategic investments in technology, the City’s “information database” can be tapped to provide easy, efficient access of the City’s data which will save staff time in responding to public records request. Another idea is an Infrastructure Management System. This is essentially software that allows staff more efficient management of general assets. This includes fixed location infrastructure assets like roads, storm drains, and street signs. It could also include items like vehicles, heavy machinery, and equipment. Outreach In September, the City Council discussed the sales tax measure oversight expectations and the public input/outreach expectations. The information gathered from the public should be designed to help Council, at their February 19th & 20th annual goal setting session, decide at a big picture level: What services and service levels would they like to see provided by the City? What does the right level of service look like? What is success and how should it be measured? Which services/service levels are the priorities of the community? In this early stage of gathering input for City priorities, it is important to capture citizen input on both high level goals and at the same time, garner an understanding of the details on why that goal is important. We are looking for a broader understanding of public expectations than answers to a question like “What are your top three priorities for the City and expenditure of the Measure D-20 funds?” While this is a valid question, it does not provoke the meaningful dialog or understanding that we are hoping will be a result of these public outreach meetings. In order to provide meaningful data for the Council to set their vision and goals, the outreach sessions will be designed as mini goal setting/strategic planning/visioning sessions. Each of the remaining nine study session leading up to the Council’s goal setting session on February 19th & 20th will be formatted in a similar manner so that the public will only need to attend one session to voice their opinion . In order to stimulate that broader dialog and understanding, the format for each study session is currently planned as follows: Each study session will start off with introductions of key staff members. A department head or key representative from each department will attend each session. Page 60 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 01/12/21 Staff will play a 20-minute video to educate the public on some current needs that are unfunded. (A video was chosen to insure that each outreach group heard the same information and to keep the timing down to 20 minutes.) Staff will hold a short question and answer session with the whole group and then based on the number of public participants, staff will break the participants up into smaller meeting rooms. While allowing for some flexibility based on interest of the smaller group, two staff members will help lead a group discussion asking questions such as: o What is going well in the City? o What things are not going well in the City? o What things do you feel are important to maintain current service levels? o What things do you think would improve the quality of life here in Atascadero? o What is your vision for Atascadero? o If the City spent D-20 funds perfectly, what would success look like? o How should the City measure that success? o Anything we didn’t cover here today, that you want to make sure the Council understands prior to setting goals and moving through the budget process. Staff will be capturing all of the responses provided in the small group session and will provide all responses to the City Council both in summary forms such as word clouds and in detail form. SUMMARY: While the passage of Measure D-20 and the resulting much needed funding are truly a benefit, it is also a tremendous responsibility of both the community and the Council to spend these funds wisely. Staff has identified numerous unfunded necessities that must be prioritized in order to continue to provide the services that staff believes our community has come to expect. However, it is the public that must step up and participate in letting the City know the needs, priorities and true expectations of the community, in order to prioritize the expenditure of the new sales tax funds along with other City funds. The decisions that the Council and community will be making over the next five months will set forth the course for both City services and the community as a whole into the future. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact for this item. ALTERNATIVES: Not Applicable. ATTACHMENT: Revenue Measure Feasibility Study Results Page 61 of 109 ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 62 of 109 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 63 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 64 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 65 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 66 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 67 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 68 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 69 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 70 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 71 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 72 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 73 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 74 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 75 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 76 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 77 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 78 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 79 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 80 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 81 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 82 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 83 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 84 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 85 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 86 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 87 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 88 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 89 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 90 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 91 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 92 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 93 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 94 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 95 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 96 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 97 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 98 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 99 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 100 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 101 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 102 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 103 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 104 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 105 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 106 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 107 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 108 of 109 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-1 DATE: 01/12/21 ATTACHMENT: 1 Page 109 of 109