Agenda packet — Arroyo Grande City Council, January 9, 2024 (part 2 of 2)

Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 12-G
Required Federal-Aid Contract Language
34 mechanic, including watchpersons and guards, employed in violation of the clause set forth in paragraph 1. of this section, in the sum currently provided in 29 CFR 5.5(b)(2)* for each calendar day on which such individual was required or
permitted to work in excess of the standard workweek of forty hours without payment of the overtime wages required by the clause set forth in paragraph 1. of this section.
* $31 as of January 15, 2023 (See 88 FR 88 FR 2210) as may be adjusted annually by the Department of Labor, pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990.

3. Withholding for unpaid wages and liquidateddamages
a. Withholding process. The FHWA or the contracting
agency may, upon its own action, or must, upon written
request of an authorized representative of the Department of Labor, withhold or cause to be withheld from the contractor so much of the accrued payments or advances as may be
considered necessary to satisfy the liabilities of the prime contractor or any subcontractor for any unpaid wages;
monetary relief, including interest; and liquidated damages required by the clauses set forth in this section on this contract, any other Federal contract with the same prime contractor, or any other federally assisted contract subject to the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act that isheld by the same prime contractor (as defined in § 5.2). The necessary funds may be withheld from the contractor under this contract, any other Federal contract with the same prime contractor, or any other federally assisted contract that is subject to the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act and is held by the same prime contractor, regardless of whether the other contract was awarded or assisted by the same agency, and such funds may be used to satisfy the
contractor liability for which the funds were withheld. b. Priority to withheld funds. The Department has priority to funds withheld or to be withheld in accordance with Section IV paragraph 2.a. or paragraph 3.a. of this section, or both, over claims to those funds by:
(1) A contractor's surety(ies), including without limitation performance bond sureties and payment bond sureties;
(2) A contracting agency for its reprocurement costs;
(3) A trustee(s) (either a court-appointed trustee or a U.S. trustee, or both) in bankruptcy of a contractor, or a contractor's bankruptcy estate;
(4) A contractor's assignee(s);
(5) A contractor's successor(s); or
(6) A claim asserted under the Prompt Payment Act, 31
U.S.C. 3901–3907.

4. Subcontracts. The contractor or subcontractor must insert in any subcontracts the clauses set forth in paragraphs 1. through 5. of this section and a clause requiring the
subcontractors to include these clauses in any lower tier subcontracts. The prime contractor is responsible for
compliance by any subcontractor or lower tier subcontractor with the clauses set forth in paragraphs 1. through 5. Inthe event of any violations of these clauses, the prime contractor and any subcontractor(s) responsible will be liable for any unpaid wages and monetary relief, including interest from the date of the underpayment or loss, due to any workers of lower- tier subcontractors, and associated liquidated damages and may be subject to debarment, as appropriate.

5. Anti-retaliation. It is unlawful for any person to discharge, demote, intimidate, threaten, restrain, coerce, blacklist, harass, or in any other manner discriminate against, or to cause any person to discharge, demote, intimidate, threaten, restrain, coerce, blacklist, harass, or in any other manner discriminate against, any worker or job applicant for:
a. Notifying any contractor of any conduct which the worker reasonably believes constitutes a violation of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (CWHSSA) or its
implementing regulations in this part;
b. Filing any complaint, initiating or causing to be initiated any proceeding, or otherwise asserting or seeking to assert on behalf of themselves or others any right or protection under CWHSSA or this part;
c. Cooperating in any investigation or other compliance action, or testifying in any proceeding under CWHSSA orthis part; or
d. Informing any other person about their rightsunder
CWHSSA or this part.

VI. SUBLETTING OR ASSIGNING THE CONTRACT
This provision is applicable to all Federal-aid construction contracts on the National Highway System pursuant to 23 CFR 635.116.

1. The contractor shall perform with its own organization contract work amounting to not less than 30 percent (or a greater percentage if specified elsewhere in the contract) of the total original contract price, excluding any specialty items designated by the contracting agency. Specialty items may be performed by subcontract and the amount of any such
specialty items performed may be deducted from the total original contract price before computing the amount of work required to be performed by the contractor's own organization (23 CFR 635.116).
a. The term “perform work with its own organization” in paragraph 1 of Section VI refers to workers employed or leased by the prime contractor, and equipment owned or
rented by the prime contractor, with or without operators.

Such term does not include employees or equipment of a
subcontractor or lower tier subcontractor, agents of the prime contractor, or any other assignees. The term may include payments for the costs of hiring leased employees from an employee leasing firm meeting all relevant Federal and State regulatory requirements. Leased employees may only be
included in this term if the prime contractor meets all of the following conditions: (based on longstandinginterpretation) (1) the prime contractor maintains control overthe
supervision of the day-to-day activities of the leased
employees;
(2) the prime contractor remains responsible for thequality of the work of the leased employees;

Page 176 of 282 ends

Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 12-G
Required Federal-Aid Contract Language
35 (3) the prime contractor retains all power to accept or exclude individual employees from work on the project; and (4) the prime contractor remains ultimately responsible for the payment of predetermined minimum wages, the
submission of payrolls, statements of compliance and all other Federal regulatory requirements.
b. "Specialty Items" shall be construed to be limited towork that requires highly specialized knowledge, abilities, or equipment not ordinarily available in the type of contracting organizations qualified and expected to bid or propose on the contract as a whole and in general are to be limited to minor components of the overall contract. 23 CFR 635.102.

2. Pursuant to 23 CFR 635.116(a), the contract amount upon which the requirements set forth in paragraph (1) of Section VI is computed includes the cost of material and manufactured products which are to be purchased or produced by the
contractor under the contract provisions.

3. Pursuant to 23 CFR 635.116(c), the contractor shallfurnish (a) a competent superintendent or supervisor who is employed by the firm, has full authority to direct performance of the work in accordance with the contract requirements, and is in charge of all construction operations (regardless of who performs the work) and (b) such other of its own organizational resources (supervision, management, and engineering services) as the contracting officer determines is necessary to assure the performance of the contract.

4. No portion of the contract shall be sublet, assigned or otherwise disposed of except with the written consent of the contracting officer, or authorized representative, and such consent when given shall not be construed to relieve the contractor of any responsibility for the fulfillment of the contract. Written consent will be given only after the
contracting agency has assured that each subcontract is evidenced in writing and that it contains all pertinent provisions and requirements of the prime contract. (based on longstanding interpretation of 23 CFR 635.116).

5. The 30-percent self-performance requirement ofparagraph (1) is not applicable to design-build contracts; however, contracting agencies may establish their own self-performance requirements. 23 CFR 635.116(d).

VII. SAFETY: ACCIDENT PREVENTION
This provision is applicable to all Federal-aid construction contracts and to all related subcontracts.

1. In the performance of this contract the contractor shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws governing safety, health, and sanitation (23 CFR Part 635).

The contractor shall provide all safeguards, safety devices and protective equipment and take any other needed actions as it determines, or as the contracting officer may determine, to be reasonably necessary to protect the life and health of
employees on the job and the safety of the public and to protect property in connection with the performance of the work covered by the contract. 23 CFR 635.108.

2. It is a condition of this contract, and shall be made a condition of each subcontract, which the contractor enters into pursuant to this contract, that the contractor and any
subcontractor shall not permit any employee, in performance of the contract, to work in surroundings or under conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous or dangerous to his/her health or safety, as determined under construction safety and health standards (29 CFR Part 1926) promulgated by the
Secretary of Labor, in accordance with Section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3704). 29 CFR 1926.10.

3. Pursuant to 29 CFR 1926.3, it is a condition of this contract that the Secretary of Labor or authorized representative thereof, shall have right of entry to any site of contract performance to inspect or investigate the matter of compliance with the construction safety and health standards and to carry out the duties of the Secretary under Section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3704).

VIII. FALSE STATEMENTS CONCERNING HIGHWAY

PROJECTS
This provision is applicable to all Federal-aid construction contracts and to all related subcontracts.

In order to assure high quality and durable construction in conformity with approved plans and specifications and a high degree of reliability on statements and representations made by engineers, contractors, suppliers, and workers on Federal- aid highway projects, it is essential that all persons concerned with the project perform their functions as carefully, thoroughly, and honestly as possible. Willful falsification, distortion, or misrepresentation with respect to any facts related to the project is a violation of Federal law. To prevent any misunderstanding regarding the seriousness of these and similar acts, Form FHWA-1022 shall be posted on each Federal-aid highway
project (23 CFR Part 635) in one or more places where it is readily available to all persons concerned with the project:
18 U.S.C. 1020 reads as follows:
"Whoever, being an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, or of any State or Territory, or whoever, whether a person, association, firm, or corporation, knowingly makes any false statement, false representation, or false report as to the character, quality, quantity, or cost of the material used or to be used, or the quantity or quality of the work performed or to be performed, or the cost thereof in connection with the submission of plans, maps, specifications, contracts, or costs of
construction on any highway or related project submitted for approval to the Secretary of Transportation; or
Whoever knowingly makes any false statement, false
representation, false report or false claim with respect to the character, quality, quantity, or cost of any work performed or to be performed, or materials furnished or to be furnished, in connection with the construction of any highway or related project approved by the Secretary of Transportation; or Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or false
representation as to material fact in any statement, certificate, or report submitted pursuant to provisions of the Federal-aid Roads Act approved July 11, 1916, (39 Stat. 355), as amended and supplemented;
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both."

Page 177 of 282 ends

Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 12-G
Required Federal-Aid Contract Language
36 IX. IMPLEMENTATION OF CLEAN AIR ACT AND FEDERAL
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT (42 U.S.C. 7606; 2
CFR 200.88; EO 11738)
This provision is applicable to all Federal-aid construction contracts in excess of $150,000 and to all related
subcontracts. 48 CFR 2.101; 2 CFR 200.327.

By submission of this bid/proposal or the execution of this contract or subcontract, as appropriate, the bidder, proposer, Federal-aid construction contractor, subcontractor, supplier, or vendor agrees to comply with all applicable standards, orders or regulations issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251-1387). Violations must be reported to the Federal Highway Administration and the Regional Office of the Environmental Protection Agency. 2 CFR Part 200,
Appendix II.

The contractor agrees to include or cause to be included the requirements of this Section in every subcontract, and further agrees to take such action as the contracting agency may direct as a means of enforcing such requirements. 2 CFR 200.327.

X. CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT,

SUSPENSION, INELIGIBILITY AND VOLUNTARY

EXCLUSION
This provision is applicable to all Federal-aid construction contracts, design-build contracts, subcontracts, lower-tier subcontracts, purchase orders, lease agreements, consultant contracts or any other covered transaction requiring FHWA approval or that is estimated to cost $25,000 or more – as defined in 2 CFR Parts 180 and 1200. 2 CFR 180.220 and
1200.220.

1. Instructions for Certification – First Tier Participants:
a. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective first tier participant is providing the certification set out below. b. The inability of a person to provide the certification set out below will not necessarily result in denial of participation in this covered transaction. The prospective first tier participant shall submit an explanation of why it cannot provide the certification set out below. The certification or explanation will be considered in connection with the department or agency's determination whether to enter into this transaction. However, failure of the prospective first tier participant to furnish a certification or an explanation shall disqualify such a person from participation in this transaction. 2 CFR 180.320.
c. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when the contracting agency determined to enter into this transaction. If it is later determined that the prospective participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the contracting agency may terminate this transaction for cause of default. 2 CFR 180.325.
d. The prospective first tier participant shall provide immediate written notice to the contracting agency to whom this proposal is submitted if any time the prospective first tier participant learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed
circumstances. 2 CFR 180.345 and 180.350.
e. The terms "covered transaction," "debarred,"
"suspended," "ineligible," "participant," "person," "principal," and "voluntarily excluded," as used in this clause, are defined in 2 CFR Parts 180, Subpart I, 180.900-180.1020, and 1200. “First Tier Covered Transactions” refers to any covered transaction between a recipient or subrecipient of Federal funds and a participant (such as the prime or general contract). “Lower Tier Covered Transactions” refers to any covered transaction under a First Tier Covered Transaction (such as subcontracts). “First Tier Participant” refers to the participant who has entered into a covered transaction with a recipient or subrecipient of Federal funds (such as the prime or general contractor). “Lower Tier Participant” refers any participant who has entered into a covered transaction with a First Tier Participant or other Lower Tier Participants (such as
subcontractors and suppliers).
f. The prospective first tier participant agrees by submitting this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is debarred,
suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency entering into this transaction. 2 CFR 180.330.
g. The prospective first tier participant further agrees by submitting this proposal that it will include the clause titled "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transactions," provided by the department or contracting agency, entering into this covered transaction, without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions exceeding the $25,000 threshold. 2 CFR 180.220 and 180.300.
h. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that is not debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. 2 CFR 180.300; 180.320, and 180.325. A participant is responsible for
ensuring that its principals are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise ineligible to participate in covered transactions. 2 CFR 180.335. To verify the eligibility of its principals, as well as the eligibility of any lower tier prospective participants, each participant may, but is not required to, check the System for Award Management website (https://www.sam.gov/). 2 CFR
180.300, 180.320, and 180.325.
i. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require the establishment of a system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause.

The knowledge and information of the prospective participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings. j. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph (f) of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate this transaction forcause or default. 2 CFR 180.325.
* * * * *

Page 178 of 282 ends

Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 12-G
Required Federal-Aid Contract Language
37 2. Certification Regarding Debarment,Suspension,
Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion – First Tier
Participants:
a. The prospective first tier participant certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it and its principals:
(1) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participating in covered transactions by any Federal
department or agency, 2 CFR 180.335;.
(2) Have not within a three-year period preceding this
proposal been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property, 2 CFR 180.800; (3) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (a)(2) of this certification, 2 CFR 180.700 and 180.800; and
(4) Have not within a three-year period preceding this
application/proposal had one or more public transactions (Federal, State or local) terminated for cause or default. 2 CFR 180.335(d).
(5) Are not a corporation that has been convicted of a felony violation under any Federal law within the two-year period preceding this proposal (USDOT Order 4200.6 implementing appropriations act requirements); and
(6) Are not a corporation with any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and
administrative remedies have been exhausted, or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability (USDOT Order 4200.6 implementing appropriations act requirements).
b. Where the prospective participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant should attach an explanation to this proposal. 2 CFR 180.335 and 180.340.
* * * * *

3. Instructions for Certification - Lower Tier Participants:
(Applicable to all subcontracts, purchase orders, and other lower tier transactions requiring prior FHWA approval or estimated to cost $25,000 or more - 2 CFR Parts 180 and 1200). 2 CFR 180.220 and 1200.220.
a. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective lower tier participant is providing the certification set out below. b. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was entered into. If it is later determined that the prospective lower tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous
certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department, or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment.
c. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide immediate written notice to the person to which this proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective lower tier participant learns that its certification was erroneous by reason of changed circumstances. 2 CFR 180.365.
d. The terms "covered transaction," "debarred,"
"suspended," "ineligible," "participant," "person," "principal," and "voluntarily excluded," as used in this clause, are defined in 2 CFR Parts 180, Subpart I, 180.900 – 180.1020, and 1200.

You may contact the person to which this proposal is
submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those
regulations. “First Tier Covered Transactions” refers to any covered transaction between a recipient or subrecipient of Federal funds and a participant (such as the prime or general contract). “Lower Tier Covered Transactions” refers to any covered transaction under a First Tier Covered Transaction (such as subcontracts). “First Tier Participant” refers to the participant who has entered into a covered transaction with a recipient or subrecipient of Federal funds (such as the prime or general contractor). “Lower Tier Participant” refers any participant who has entered into a covered transaction with a First Tier Participant or other Lower Tier Participants (such as subcontractors and suppliers).
e. The prospective lower tier participant agrees by
submitting this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency with which this
transaction originated. 2 CFR 1200.220 and 1200.332.
f. The prospective lower tier participant further agrees by submitting this proposal that it will include this clause titled "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transaction," without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions exceeding the $25,000 threshold. 2 CFR 180.220 and 1200.220.
g. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that is not debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant is responsible for ensuring that its principals are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise ineligible to participate in covered transactions. To verify the eligibility of its principals, as well as the eligibility of any lower tier prospective participants, each participant may, but is not required to, check the System for Award Management website (https://www.sam.gov/), which is compiled by the General Services Administration. 2 CFR
180.300, 180.320, 180.330, and 180.335.
h. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings.
i. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph e of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment. 2 CFR 180.325. * * * * *

4. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension,
Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion--Lower Tier Participants: Page 179 of 282 Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 12-G
Required Federal-Aid Contract Language
38 a. The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this proposal, that neither it nor itsprincipals:
(1) is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participating in covered transactions by any Federal department or agency, 2 CFR 180.355;
(2) is a corporation that has been convicted of a felony violation under any Federal law within the two-year period preceding this proposal (USDOT Order 4200.6implementing appropriations act requirements); and
(3) is a corporation with any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted, or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability. (USDOT Order 4200.6 implementing appropriations act requirements)
b. Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant should attach an explanation to this proposal. * * * * *
XI. CERTIFICATION REGARDING USE OF CONTRACT FUNDS

FOR LOBBYING
This provision is applicable to all Federal-aid construction contracts and to all related subcontracts which exceed
$100,000. 49 CFR Part 20, App. A.

1. The prospective participant certifies, by signingand submitting this bid or proposal, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
a. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. b. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any Federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or
cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions.

2. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into.

Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by 31
U.S.C. 1352. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than
$10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.

3. The prospective participant also agrees by submitting its bid or proposal that the participant shall require that the language of this certification be included in all lower tier subcontracts, which exceed $100,000 and that all such recipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.

XII. USE OF UNITED STATES-FLAG VESSELS:

This provision is applicable to all Federal-aid construction contracts, design-build contracts, subcontracts, lower-tier subcontracts, purchase orders, lease agreements, or any other covered transaction. 46 CFR Part 381.

This requirement applies to material or equipment that is acquired for a specific Federal-aid highway project. 46 CFR
381.7. It is not applicable to goods or materials that come into inventories independent of an FHWA funded-contract.

When oceanic shipments (or shipments across the Great Lakes) are necessary for materials or equipment acquired for a specific Federal-aid construction project, the bidder, proposer, contractor, subcontractor, or vendor agrees:

1. To utilize privately owned United States-flag commercial vessels to ship at least 50 percent of the gross tonnage (computed separately for dry bulk carriers, dry cargo liners, and tankers) involved, whenever shipping any equipment, material, or commodities pursuant to this contract, to the extent such vessels are available at fair and reasonable rates for United States-flag commercial vessels. 46 CFR 381.7.

2. To furnish within 20 days following the date of loading for shipments originating within the United States or within 30 working days following the date of loading for shipments originating outside the United States, a legible copy of a rated, ‘on-board’ commercial ocean bill-of-lading in English for each shipment of cargo described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section to both the Contracting Officer (through the prime contractor in the case of subcontractor bills-of-lading) and to the Office of Cargo and Commercial Sealift (MAR-620), Maritime Administration, Washington, DC 20590. (MARAD requires copies of the ocean carrier's (master) bills of lading, certified onboard, dated, with rates and charges. These bills of lading may contain business sensitive information and therefore may be submitted directly to MARAD by the Ocean Transportation Intermediary on behalf of the contractor). 46 CFR 381.7.

Page 180 of 282 ends

Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 12-G
Required Federal-Aid Contract Language
39 12. FEMALE AND MINORITY GOALS
To comply with Section II, "Nondiscrimination," of "Required Contract Provisions Federal-Aid Construction Contracts," the following are for female and minority utilization goals for Federal-aid construction contracts and subcontracts that exceed $10,000:

The nationwide goal for female utilization is 6.9 percent.

The goals for minority utilization (45 Fed Reg 65984 (10/3/1980)) are as follows:

MINORITY UTILIZATION GOALS
Economic
Area
Goal
(Percent)
174
Redding CA:

Non-SMSA (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area) Counties:

CA Lassen; CA Modoc; CA Plumas; CA Shasta; CA Siskiyou; CA Tehama

6.8 175
Eureka, CA
Non-SMSA Counties:

CA Del Norte; CA Humboldt; CA Trinity

6.6 176
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA:

SMSA Counties:

28.9 7120 Salinas-Seaside-Monterey, CA
CA Monterey
7360 San Francisco-Oakland
CA Alameda; CA Contra Costa; CA Marin; CA San Francisco; CA San Mateo

25.6 7400 San Jose, CA 19.6
CA Santa Clara, CA
7485 Santa Cruz, CA
CA Santa Cruz 14.9
7500 Santa Rosa
CA Sonoma

9.1 8720 Vallejo-Fairfield-Napa, CA
CA Napa; CA Solano

17.1 Non-SMSA Counties:

CA Lake; CA Mendocino; CA San Benito

23.2 177
Sacramento, CA:

SMSA Counties:
6920 Sacramento, CA
CA Placer; CA Sacramento; CA
Yolo Non-SMSA Counties
CA Butte; CA Colusa; CA El Dorado; CA Glenn; CA Nevada; CA Sierra; CA Sutter; CA Yuba

16.1 14.3
178
Stockton-Modesto, CA:

SMSA Counties:
5170 Modesto, CA 12.3
CA Stanislaus
8120 Stockton, CA
CA San Joaquin

24.3 Non-SMSA Counties
CA Alpine; CA Amador; CA Calaveras; CA Mariposa; CA Merced; CA Tuolumne

19.8 179
Fresno-Bakersfield, CA
SMSA Counties:

19.1 26.1
0680 Bakersfield, CA
CA Kern
2840 Fresno, CA

Page 181 of 282 ends

Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 12-G
Required Federal-Aid Contract Language
40 CA Fresno
Non-SMSA Counties:

CA Kings; CA Madera; CA Tulare

23.6 180
Los Angeles, CA:

SMSA Counties:
0360 Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove, CA 11.9
CA Orange
4480 Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 28.3
CA Los Angeles
6000 Oxnard-Simi Valley-Ventura, CA
CA Ventura
6780 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA

21.5 19.0
CA Riverside; CA San Bernardino
7480 Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc, CA

19.7 CA Santa Barbara
Non-SMSA Counties
CA Inyo; CA Mono; CA San Luis Obispo

24.6 181
San Diego, CA:

SMSA Counties

16.9 7320 San Diego, CA
CA San Diego

18.2 Non-SMSA Counties
CA Imperial
For the last full week of July during which work is performed under the contract, the prime contractor and each non material-supplier subcontractor with a subcontract of $10,000 or more must complete Form FHWA PR-1391 (Appendix C to 23 CFR 230). Submit the forms by August 15.

13. TITLE VI ASSURANCES
The U.S. Department of Transportation Order No.1050.2A requires all federal-aid Department of Transportation contracts between an agency and a contractor to contain Appendix A and E. Appendix B only requires inclusion if the contract impacts deeds effecting or recording the transfer of real property, structures, or improvements thereon, or granting interest therein. Appendices C and D only require inclusion if the contract impacts deeds, licenses, leases, permits, or similar instruments entered into by the recipient.

APPENDIX A
During the performance of this Agreement, the contractor, for itself, its assignees and successors in interest (hereinafter collectively referred to as CONTRACTOR) agrees as follows:
a. Compliance with Regulations: CONTRACTOR shall comply with the regulations relative to nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs of the Department of Transportation, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21, as they may be amended from time to time, (hereinafter referred to as the REGULATIONS), which are herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this agreement.
b. Nondiscrimination: CONTRACTOR, with regard to the work performed by it during the AGREEMENT, shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, or disability in the selection and retention of sub-applicants, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment. CONTRACTOR shall not participate either directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by Section 21.5 of the Regulations, including employment practices when the agreement covers a program set forth in Appendix B of the Regulations. c. Solicitations for Sub-agreements, Including Procurements of Materials and Equipment: In all solicitations either by competitive bidding or negotiation made by CONTRACTOR for work tobe

Page 182 of 282 ends

Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 12-G
Required Federal-Aid Contract Language
41 performed under a Sub- agreement, including procurements of materials or leases of equipment, each potential sub-applicant or supplier shall be notified by CONTRACTOR of the CONTRACTOR’S obligations under this Agreement and the Regulations relative to nondiscrimination on the grounds of race, color, or national origin. d. Information and Reports: CONTRACTOR shall provide all information and reports required by the Regulations, or directives issued pursuant thereto, and shall permit access to its books, records, accounts, other sources of information, and its facilities as may be determined by the recipient or FHWA to be pertinent to ascertain compliance with such Regulations or directives. Where any information required of CONTRACTOR is in the exclusive possession of another who fails or refuses to furnish this information, CONTRACTOR shall so certify to the recipient or FHWA as appropriate, and shall set forth what efforts CONTRACTOR has made to obtain the information. e. Sanctions for Noncompliance: In the event of CONTRACTOR’s noncompliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of this agreement, the recipient shall impose such agreement sanctions as it or the FHWA may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to:
i. withholding of payments to CONTRACTOR under the Agreement within areasonable period of time, not to exceed 90 days; and/or
ii. cancellation, termination or suspension of the Agreement, in whole or in part. f. Incorporation of Provisions: CONTRACTOR shall include the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (6) in every sub-agreement, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the Regulations, or directives issued pursuant thereto.

CONTRACTOR shall take such action with respect to any sub-agreement or procurement as the recipient or FHWA may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions including sanctions for noncompliance, provided, however, that, in the event CONTRACTOR becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a sub-applicant or supplier as a result of such direction, CONTRACTOR may request the recipient enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the State, and, in addition, CONTRACTOR may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States.

APPENDIX B

CLAUSES FOR DEEDS TRANSFERRING UNITED STATES PROPERTY
The following clauses will be included in deeds effecting or recording the transfer of real property, structures, or improvements thereon, or granting interest therein from the United States pursuant to the provisions of Assurance 4:

NOW THEREFORE, the U.S. Department of Transportation as authorized by law and upon the condition that the recipient will accept title to the lands and maintain the project constructed thereon in accordance with Title 23 U.S.C., the regulations for the administration of the preceding statute, and the policies and procedures prescribed by the FHWA of the U.S. Department of Transportation in accordance and in compliance with all requirements imposed by Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, Non-discrimination in Federally-assisted programs of the U.S. Department of Transportation pertaining to and effectuating the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 252; 42 U.S.C. § 2000d to 2000d-4), does hereby remise, release, quitclaim and convey unto the recipient all the right, title and interest of the U.S. Department of Transportation in and to said lands described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. (HABENDUM CLAUSE)
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said lands and interests therein unto the recipient and its successors forever, subject, however, to the covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations herein contained as follows, which will remain in effect for the period during which the real property or structures are used for a purpose for which Federal financial assistance is extended or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits and will be binding on the recipient, its successors and assigns. The recipient, in consideration of the conveyance of said lands and interest in lands, does hereby covenant

Page 183 of 282 ends

Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 12-G
Required Federal-Aid Contract Language
42 and agree as a covenant running with the land for itself, its successors and assigns, that (1) no person will on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination with regard to any facility located wholly or in part on, over, or under such lands hereby conveyed [,] [and]* (2) that the recipient will use the lands and interests in lands and interest in lands so conveyed, in compliance with all requirements imposed by or pursuant to Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, Non-discrimination in Federally-assisted programs of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and as said Regulations and Acts may be amended[, and (3) that in the event of breach of any of the above-mentioned non-discrimination conditions, the Department will have a right to enter or re-enter said lands and facilities on said lands, and that above described land and facilities will thereon revert to and vest in and become the absolute property of the U.S.

Department of Transportation and its assigns as such interest existed prior to this instruction].* (*Reverter clause and related language to be used only when it is determined that such a clause is necessary in order to make clear the purpose of Title VI.)

APPENDIX C

CLAUSES FOR TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY ACQUIRED OR IMPROVED UNDER THE

ACTIVITY, FACILITY, OR PROGRAM
The following clauses will be included in deeds, licenses, leases, permits, or similar instruments entered into by the recipient pursuant to the provisions of Assurance 7(a):

A. The (grantee, lessee, permittee, etc. as appropriate) for himself/herself, his/her heirs, personal representatives, successors in interest, and assigns, as a part of the consideration hereof, does hereby covenant and agree [in the case of deeds and leases add “as a covenant running with the land”] that:

1. In the event facilities are constructed, maintained, or otherwise operated on the property described in this (deed, license, lease, permit, etc.) for a purpose for which a U.S. Department of Transportation activity, facility, or program is extended or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits, the (grantee, licensee, lessee, permittee, etc.) will maintain and operate such facilities and services in compliance with all requirements imposed by the Acts and Regulations (as may be amended) such that no person on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination in the use of said facilities.

B. With respect to licenses, leases, permits, etc., in the event of breach of any of the above Nondiscrimination covenants, the recipient will have the right to terminate the (lease, license, permit, etc.) and to enter, re-enter, and repossess said lands and facilities thereon, and hold the same as if the (lease, license, permit, etc.) had never been made or issued.*
C. With respect to a deed, in the event of breach of any of the above Non-discrimination covenants, the recipient will have the right to enter or re-enter the lands and facilities thereon, and the above described lands and facilities will there upon revert to and vest in and become the absolute property of the recipient and its assigns.*
(*Reverter clause and related language to be used only when it is determined that such a clause is necessary to make clear the purpose of Title VI.)

Page 184 of 282 ends

Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 12-G
Required Federal-Aid Contract Language
43 APPENDIX D

CLAUSES FOR CONSTRUCTION/USE/ACCESS TO REAL PROPERTY ACQUIRED UNDER THE

ACTIVITY, FACILITY OR PROGRAM
The following clauses will be included in deeds, licenses, permits, or similar instruments/agreements entered into by the recipient pursuant to the provisions of Assurance 7(b):

A. The (grantee, licensee, permittee, etc., as appropriate) for himself/herself, his/her heirs, personal representatives, successors in interest ,and assigns, as a part of the consideration hereof, does hereby covenant and agree (in the case of deeds and leases add, “as a covenant running with the land”) that (1) no person on the ground of race, color, or national origin, will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination in the use of said facilities, (2) that in the construction of any improvements on, over, or under such land, and the furnishings of services thereon, no person on the ground of race, color, or national origin, will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits or, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination, (3) that the (grantee, licensee, lessee, permittee, etc.) will use the premises in compliance with all other requirements imposed by or pursuant to the Acts and Regulations, as amended, set forth in this Assurance.

B. With respect to (licenses, leases, permits, etc.) in the event of breach of any of the above of the above Non-discrimination covenants, the recipient will have the right to terminate the (license, permits, etc., as appropriate) and to enter or re-enter and repossess said land and the facilities thereon, and hold the same as if said (license, permit, etc., as appropriate) had never been made or issued.* C. With respect to deeds, in the event of breach of any of the above Non-discrimination covenants, the recipient will there upon revert to and vest in and become the absolute property of the recipient and its assigns.
(*Reverter clause and related language to be used only when it is determined that such a clause is necessary to make clear the purpose of Title VI.)

APPENDIX E
During the performance of this contract, the contractor, for itself, its assignees, and successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as the “contractor”) agrees to comply with the following non-discrimination statutes and authorities, including, but not limited to:

Pertinent Non-Discrimination Authorities:
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., 78 stat. 252), prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin); and 49 CFR Part 21. • The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, (42 U.S.C. § 4601), (prohibits unfair treatment of persons displaced or whose property has been acquired because of Federal or Federal-aid programs and projects);
• Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, (23 U.S.C. § 324 et seq.), prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex; • Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.), as amended, (prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability); and 49 CR Part 27; • The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, (42 U.S.C. § 6101 et seq.), prohibits discrimination on the basis of age);
• Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, (49 U.S.C. § 471, Section 47123), as amended, (prohibits discrimination based on race, creed, color, national origin, or sex); • The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, (PL 100-209), (Broadened the scope, coverage and applicability of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and Section

Page 185 of 282 ends

Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 12-G
Required Federal-Aid Contract Language
44 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, by expanding the definition of the terms “programs or activities” to include all of the programs or activities of the Federal-aid recipients, sub-recipients and contractors, whether such programs or activities are Federally funded or not); • Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibit discrimination of the basis of disability in the operation of public entities, public and private transportation systems, places of public accommodation, and certain testing entities (42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 – 12189) as implemented by Department of Transportation regulations 49 C.F.R. parts 37 and 38; • The Federal Aviation Administration’s Non-discrimination statute (49 U.S.C. § 47123) (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, and sex); • Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, which ensures discrimination against minority populations by discouraging programs, policies, and activities with disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations; • Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, and resulting agency guidance, national origin discrimination includes discrimination because of limited English proficiency (LEP). To ensure compliance with Title VI, you must take reasonable steps to ensure that LEP persons have meaningful access to your programs (70 Fed. Reg. at 74087 to74100); • Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, which prohibits you from discriminating because of sex in education programs or activities (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq).

Page 186 of 282 ends

Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 12-G
Required Federal-Aid Contract Language
45 Federal Trainee Program Special Provisions (to be used when applicable)

14. FEDERAL TRAINEE PROGRAM
For the Federal training program, the number of trainees or apprentices is 0.

This section applies if a number of trainees or apprentices is shown on the Notice to Bidders.

As part of the prime contractor’s equal opportunity affirmative action program, provide on-thejob training to develop full journeymen in the types of trades or job classifications involved.

The prime contractor has primary responsibility for meeting this training requirement.

If the prime contractor subcontracts a contract part, they shall determine how many trainees or apprentices are to be trained by the subcontractor. Include these training requirements in each subcontract.

Where feasible, 25 percent of apprentices or trainees in each occupation must be in their 1st year of apprenticeship or training.

Distribute the number of apprentices or trainees among the work classifications on the basis of the prime contractor’s needs and the availability of journeymen in the various classifications within a reasonable recruitment area.

Before starting work, the prime contractor shall submit to theCity of Arroyo Grande:

1. Number of apprentices or trainees to be trained for each classification

2. Training program to be used

3. Training starting date for each classification
The prime contractor shall obtain the City of Arroyo Grande approval for this submitted information before the prime contractor starts work. The City of Arroyo Grande credits the prime contractor for each apprentice or trainee the prime contractor employs on the job who is currently enrolled or becomes enrolled in an approved program.

The primary objective of this section is to train and upgrade minorities and women toward journeyman status. The prime contractor shall make every effort to enroll minority and women apprentices or trainees, such as conducting systematic and direct recruitment through public and private sources likely to yield minority and women apprentices or trainees, to the extent they are available within a reasonable recruitment area and show that they have made the efforts. In making these efforts, the prime contractor shall not discriminate against any applicant for training.

The prime contractor shall not employ as an apprentice or trainee an employee:

1. In any classification in which the employee has successfully completed a training course leading to journeyman status or in which the employee has been employed as a journeyman

2. Who is not registered in a program approved by the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training
The prime contractor shall ask the employee if the employee has successfully completed a training course leading to journeyman status or has been employed as a journeyman. The prime contractor’s records must show the employee's answers to the questions.

In the training program, the prime contractor shall establish the minimum length and training type for each classification. The City of Arroyo Grande and FHWA approves a program if one of the following ismet:

1. It is calculated to:
 Meet the equal employment opportunity responsibilities  Qualify the average apprentice or trainee for journeyman status in the

Page 187 of 282 ends

Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 12-G
Required Federal-Aid Contract Language
46 classification involved by the end of the training period

2. It is registered with the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training, and it is administered in a way consistent with the equal employment responsibilities of Federal-aid highway construction contracts
The prime contractor shall obtain the State's approval for their training program before they start work involving the classification covered by the program.

The prime contractor shall provide training in the construction crafts, not in clerk-typist or secretarial-type positions. Training is allowed in lower level management positions such as office engineers, estimators, and timekeepers if the training is oriented toward construction applications.

Training is allowed in the laborer classification if significant and meaningful training is provided and approved by the division office. Off-site training is allowed if the training is an integral part of an approved training program and does not make up a significant part of the overall training.

The City of Arroyo Grande reimburses the prime contractor 80 cents per hour of training given an employee on thiscontract under an approved training program:

1. For on-site training

2. For off-site training if the apprentice or trainee is currently employed on a Federalaid project and prime contractor does at least one of the following:
a. Contribute to the cost of the training
b. Provide the instruction to the apprentice or trainee c. Pay the apprentice's or trainee's wages during the off-site training period

3. If the prime contractor complies with this section.

Each apprentice or trainee must:

1. Begin training on the project as soon as feasible after the start of work involving the apprentice's or trainee's skill

2. Remain on the project as long as training opportunities exist in the apprentice's or trainee's work classification or until the apprentice or trainee has completed the training program
Furnish the apprentice or trainee a:

1. Copy of the training plan approved by the U.S. Department of Labor or a training plan for trainees approved by both Caltrans and FHWA

2. Certification showing the type and length of training satisfactorily completed Maintain records and submit reports documenting contractor's performance under this section.

15. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND VIDEO SURVEILLANCE

EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES
In response to significant national security concerns, the agency shall check the prohibited vendor list before making any telecommunications and video surveillance purchase because recipients and subrecipients of federal funds are prohibited from obligating or expending loan or grant funds to:
 Procure or obtain;
 Extend or renew a contract to procure or obtain; or
 Enter into a contract (or extend or renew a contract) to procure or obtain equipment, services, or systems that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial oressential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system.

The prohibited vendors (and their subsidiaries or affiliates) are:
 Huawei Technologies Company;
 ZTE Corporation;

Page 188 of 282 ends

Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 12-G
Required Federal-Aid Contract Language
47  Hytera Communications Corporation;
 Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company;
 Dahua Technology Company; and
 Subsidiaries or affiliates of the above-mentioned companies.

In implementing the prohibition, the agency administering loan, grant, or subsidy programs shall prioritize available funding and technical support to assist affected businesses, institutions and organizations as is reasonably necessary for those affected entities to transition from covered communications equipment and services, to procure replacement equipment and services, and to ensure that communications service to users and customers is sustained.

The contractors should furnish telecommunications and video surveillance equipment with a certificate of compliance. The certificate must state telecommunications and video surveillance equipment was not procured or obtained from manufacturers identified in the above list.

Page 189 of 282 ends

APPENDICES
48 Attachment 3: Federal Wage Rates
Federal Wage Rates are not physically incorporated into this contract advertising package but the applicable federal wage rates can be found on the State of California Department of Industrial Relations website at:
https://www.dir.ca.gov/OPRL/DPreWageDetermination.htm
The final contract documents signed by the City and the contractor will physically include the current federal wage rates.
-- END OF CONTRACT --

Page 190 of 282 ends

APPENDICES
49 PAYMENT BOND (FOR LABOR AND MATERIAL)
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

The condition of the above obligation is such that whereas said Principal has been awarded and is about to enter into a written contract with the City of Arroyo Grande for the work described in CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF, “THE RETROFIT OF SWINGING BRIDGE OVER ARROYO GRANDE CREEK, PW 2021-06”, which is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and to which reference is hereby made for all particulars, and is required by said City to give this bond in connection with the execution of said contract;
NOW THEREFORE, if said Principal, as Contractor in said contract, or Principal's Subcontractor, fail to pay any of the persons referred to in Section 3181 of the Civil Code of the State of California for labor performed, skills or other necessary services bestowed, site improvement made, equipment leased, or appliances, equipment implements, machinery, materials, power, provender, provisions, teams, or trucks furnished or used in, upon, for, or about the performance of the work contracted to be done, or for amounts due under the employment Insurance Act with respect to work or labor performed by any such claimant, said Surety shall pay for the same. In an amount not exceeding the sum specified above; and if suit is brought upon this bond, a reasonable attorney's fee to be fixed by the court. This bond is pursuant to the provisions of Ch 7 Div 3, Pt 4, Tit 15, of the Civil Code of the State of California, and shall insure to the benefit of any of the persons referred to in said Civil Code Section 3181, as it now exists or may hereafter be amended, so as to give a fight of action to such persons or their assigns in any suit brought upon this bond. No premature payment by said City to said Principal shall exonerate any Surety unless the City Council of said City shall have actual notice that such payment is premature at the time and it is ordered by said Council, and then only to the extent that such payment shall result in loss to such Surety, but in no event more than the amount of such premature payment.

It is agreed, that any alterations in the work to be done, or increase or decrease of the material to be furnished, which may be made pursuant to the terms of said contract shall not in any way release either the Principal or Surety hereunder, nor shall any extension of time granted under the provisions of said contract release either the Principal or Surety, and notice of such alterations or extensions of the contract is hereby waived by the surety.

WITNESS our hands this day of , 20 .

Page 191 of 282 ends

APPENDICES
50 Surety Principal
ALL SIGNATURES MUST BE WITNESSED BY NOTARY (Attach appropriate jurats) -- END OF PAYMENT BOND --

Page 192 of 282 ends

APPENDICES
51 FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

That we, , as Principal, and
as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Arroyo Grande, in the sum of Dollars
($ ) lawful money of the United States, for the payment of which sum, well and truly to be made, has been awarded and is about to enter into a written contract with the City of Arroyo Grande for the work described in the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE “RETROFIT OF SWINGING BRIDGE OVER ARROYO GRANDE CREEK, PW 2021-06” which is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and to which reference is hereby made for all particulars, and is required by said City to give this bond in connection with the execution of said contract; NOW, THEREFORE, if said Principal shall well and truly do and perform all of the covenants and obligations of said contract on Principal's part to be done and performed at the times and in the manner specified therein, then this obligation shall be null and void, otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and effect. No premature payment by said City to said Principal shall exonerate any Surety unless the City Council of said City shall have actual notice that such payment is premature at the time it is ordered by said Council, and then only to the extent that such payment shall result in loss to such Surety, but in no event more than the amount of such premature payment.

It is agreed, that any alterations in the work to be done, or increase or decrease of the material to be furnished, which may be made pursuant to the terms of said contract shall not in any way release either the Principal or Surety hereunder, nor shall any extensions of time granted under the provisions of said contract release either the principal or surety, and notice of such alterations or extensions of the contract is hereby waived by the Surety.

WITNESS our hands this day of , 20 .

Surety Principal
ALL SIGNATURES MUST BE WITNESSED BY NOTARY (Attach appropriate jurats) -- END OF FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND --

Page 193 of 282 ends

Item 9.g.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Brian Pedrotti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Waiving or Reimbursing up to $5,000 for Certain Building Permit Fees Related to Repair or Reconstruction of Homes Damaged by Flooding in 2023 Declared Local Emergencies
DATE: January 9, 2024
SUMMARY OF ACTION:

Adoption of a Resolution (Attachment 1) waiving or reimbursing up to $5,000 for certain building permit fees (demolition, building permit, and inspection fees) related to repair or reconstruction of homes damaged by flooding during the 2023 declared local emergencies.

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

There are seven (7) red-tagged homes and one (1) yellow-tagged home that experienced flood damage on Tally Ho Road as part of the 2023 storm events. Waivers or reimbursements up to $5,000 for fees associated with staff’s review and inspection of each impacted residence would be funded from the General Fund. Staff estimates that there may be up to three residences that could need significant remodeling or full reconstruction due to damages from the winter 2023 storm events within the larger set of eligible properties. The City contracts with a building plan-check and inspection firm. The fees for these services are offset by individuals who apply for building permits and pay the associated fees.

RECOMMENDATION:
1) Adopt a Resolution waiving or reimbursing up to $5,000 for certain building permit fees (demolition, building permit, and inspection fees) related to repair or reconstruction of homes damaged by flooding during the 2023 declared local emergencies; 2) Find the public purpose contained within the Staff Report supports the contemplated waivers or reimbursements; and 3) Determine that the item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it has not potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (b)(2)-(3), 15378.).

Page 194 of 282 ends

Item 9.g.

City Council
Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Waiving or Reimbursing up to $5,000 for Certain Building Permit Fees Related to Repair or Reconstruction of Homes Damaged by Flooding in 2023 Declared Local Emergencies
January 9, 2024

Page 2 ends

BACKGROUND:

On January 4, Governor Newsom issued a Proclamation of a State of Emergency relating to severe winter storms and a series of atmospheric river systems that struck California beginning December 27, 2022, bringing high winds, substantial precipitation, and river, stream, and urban flooding. Storm events starting in December, 2022 resulted in two City Council-ratified local emergencies in winter and spring 2023.

On January 8, 2023, the President of the United State declared that an emergency existed in the State of California relating to severe winter storms, flooding, landslides, and mudslides. The Presidential Emergency Declaration makes residents in impacted counties who had damage or losses from the storms eligible to apply for federal disaster assistance. On January 17, 2023, San Luis Obispo County was added as an affected county, meaning San Luis Obispo County residents who had damage or losses from the storms became eligible to apply for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) disaster assistance.

On January 9, 2023, the County Administrative Officer of San Luis Obispo issued a Proclamation of Local Emergency relating to severe winter storms.

In the City of Arroyo Grande, due to the recent flooding events, seven (7) properties were “red-tagged,” meaning that the City’s Building Official deemed the residences as unsafe to occupy due to flooding and/or structural damage to the homes. Additionally, one (1) property was “yellow-tagged” meaning that the City’s Building Official identified damage but did not deem it unsafe to occupy. A few weeks following the storm event on January 24, 2023, the City Council passed Resolution 5259 (Attachment 2), which proclaimed and confirmed the existence of a local emergency, as issued by the Emergency Services Director/City Manager on January 18, 2023, and waived demolition permit and inspection fees for residents that experienced flooding resulting from the emergency. A demolition permit fee is $377.12, and this fee was waived for those Tally Ho properties that pulled demolition permits. On March 14, 2023, the City adopted a resolution declaring a continued local emergency related to the winter 2023 storm events (Attachment 3).

On January 23, 2023, the City received and approved an application to demolish one (1) of the damaged homes at 262 Tally Ho Road. On August 4, 2023, the City received an application to reconstruct a single-family home of the approximate same size as the one that was demolished. The property owner requested a fee waiver on October 10, 2023.

City staff let the applicant know that fees would need to be paid upfront to issue the permit, but that staff would consider bringing the fee waiver request to the City Council for direction and that at that time, there was no indication that the City Council would support such a fee waiver. Subsequently, the discussion evolved after hearing from community stakeholders and after further research on other local communities’ response to fee waiver requests, and staff determined that a discussion at the City Council was warranted.

Page 195 of 282 ends

Item 9.g.

Page 3 ends

On December 12, 2023, the City Council held a discussion to consider waiving or reimbursing certain building permit fees. The City Council directed staff to return with a resolution to allow a waiver or reimbursement of building permit fees up to $5,000 for each applicant with several requirements as follows:

A. Limiting the fee waiver to a maximum, not-to-exceed amount of $5,000 of the total amount of the associated demolition, building permit, and inspection fees for the impacted properties.

B. The home must be within Arroyo Grande and have been “red-tagged” or “yellowtagged” during the 2023 storm events and City’s declared local emergencies related to those weather events.

C. The time to seek a reimbursement or fee waiver reduction should be limited to 90 days or less (from the adoption of the attached resolution), unless the applicant provides evidence within the 90-day period that it is beyond their reasonable control to apply for the fee waiver within the time limit. The applicant must apply for the underlying permits for which they sought a fee waiver within 1-year of adoption of the attached resolution. If approved by City Council, written notice will be provided to the eligible City property owners described within item “B” above, within one day following adoption of the resolution.

D. The applicant must provide proof of ownership of the home and proof that the home is their primary residence. Proof of homeownership shall require a stamped grant deed filed with the county recorder. Acceptable proof of primary residency will include: an active voter registration, a valid driver’s license, or other governmentissued documentation with both the property owner’s name and the property address damaged or destroyed by the winter 2023 storm events.

E. All those listed as grantee on the deed must sign an acknowledgement that the City of Arroyo Grande makes no representations regarding how the property owner’s acceptance of the fee waiver may impact insurance payments or potential recovery through federal disaster relief programs. Additionally, property owners receiving a fee waiver or reimbursement must waive all potential claims by themselves or any third party against the City of Arroyo Grande based on insurance payments or federal disaster relief program payments to the same address.

F. The applicant must provide evidence to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director that other sources of recovery dollars (FEMA, Homeowners insurance), when taken together, are insufficient to cover the cost of repair, reconstruction, and permitting, or alternatively, that such other sources refuse to cover the cost of repair, reconstruction, and permitting.

G. The fee waiver shall not be transferrable to any other property owner. If a waiver is obtained, a Certificate of Occupancy will only be issued to the property owner who files the proof of primary residency at the time of the winter 2023 storm events.

Page 196 of 282 ends

Item 9.g.

Page 4 ends

All fees that were waived must be paid to the City before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued to an owner other than the one listed on the fee waiver.

H. Authorize the City Manager to impose any additional conditions or modify the listed conditions as necessary or proper to effecting and administering the fee waiver.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

City Authority to Grant Fee Waivers
The City Council has the authority to grant fee waivers for building permits. As stated above, the City Council previously approved Resolution 5259 to waive demolition permit and inspection fees for residents and businesses who experienced flooding resulting from the January 9th storm event. The City Council has the authority to similarly waive the fees for other building permit fees by resolution.

Regarding potential City costs associated with waiving building permit fees, staff found that there were up to three residences with significant flood damage that could potentially require a complete rebuild. The total permit cost for each residence would likely be in the range of $13,500. Several other homes on Tally Ho sustained more minor flood damage and obtained demolition permits to remove drywall and insulation. These demolition permit fees were previously waived by the City in accordance with Resolution 5259.

Findings Regarding Building Permit Fee Waiver in Arroyo Grande Waiver or reimbursement of building permit fees for those homes damaged by the winter 2023 storm events must be supported by a public purpose. Staff identified, and the City Council agreed, that the public purpose supported by this fee waiver is to restore blighted neighborhoods by reducing barriers to reconstruction or repair of storm-damaged homes.

Authorizing reductions in fee waivers helps facilitate individuals to return to homes from which they were displaced during flooding events. Additionally, costs of home repair may be so significant that the monetary barrier can act as a disincentive from conducting such repair. Natural disasters like flooding represent an unexpected and unplanned expense that can significantly constrain homeowners’ ability to pay for these repairs. Thus, waiver or reimbursement of building permit fees serves substantial public purposes, and the benefits of the program to private individuals are incidental to the public benefit.

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:

1. Adoption of a Resolution waiving or reimbursing up to $5,000 for certain building permit fees (demolition, building permit, and inspection fees) related to repair or reconstruction of homes damaged by flooding in 2023 declared local emergencies, subject to the findings and conditions listed therein; or

2. Provide other direction to staff.

Page 197 of 282 ends

Item 9.g.

Page 5 ends

ADVANTAGES:

Waiver of the fees associated with this action would assist a group of similarly situated homeowners with reconstruction costs resulting from the winter 2023 storm events; thereby allowing this neighborhood to continue to improve in its orderly development; however, the City will fail to recoup its whole set of adopted, applicable fees as described below.

DISADVANTAGES:

Waiving the fees associated with this action will result in the City providing building services without full cost recovery. Additionally, there are precedent-setting issues related to future emergencies that will have widespread private property damage such as slope failures and earthquakes, as well as more minor private property damages such as structural damage due to high wind events. Depending on future emergencies, these could significantly impact the City’s General Fund budget. However, the targeted and focused list of findings and constraints in the attached Resolution are intended to limit any type of fee waiver to a specific time frame that includes an ending date and criteria that correlate to a scope and event.

Not allowing a fee waiver or reduction would require property owners to fully fund building permits associated with reconstruction of residences damaged by the winter 2023 storm events.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This fee waiver/reimbursement is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. The reconstruction of a flood damaged single-family residence is a ministerial project and therefore is also not subject to CEQA. Alternatively, the fee waiver/reimbursement is exempt from CEQA on the basis that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15061, subd. (b)(3).)
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2.

Attachments:

1. Proposed Resolution

2. City of Arroyo Grande Resolution 5259

3. City of Arroyo Grande Resolution 5273

Page 198 of 282 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ARROYO GRANDE WAIVING OR REIMBURSING UP TO
$5,000 FOR CERTAIN BUILDING PERMIT FEES
(DEMOLITION, BUILDING PERMIT, AND INSPECTION

FEES) RELATED TO REPAIR OR RECONSTRUCTION OF
HOMES DAMAGED BY FLOODING IN 2023 DECLARED

LOCAL EMERGENCIES AND FINDING THE ACTION

EXEMPT FROM CEQA
WHEREAS, on January 8, 2023, the President of the United States declared that an emergency exists in the State of California relating to severe winter storms, flooding, landslides, and mudslides; and
WHEREAS, the Presidential Declaration makes residents in impacted counties who had damage or losses from the storms eligible to apply for federal disaster assistance; and
WHEREAS, on January 9, 2023, the County Administrative Officer of San Luis Obispo issued a Proclamation of Local Emergency relating to severe winter storms and a series of atmospheric river systems that struck San Luis Obispo County, bringing high winds, substantial precipitation, and river, stream and urban flooding; and WHEREAS, on January 17, 2023, San Luis Obispo County was added as an affected county, meaning San Luis Obispo County residents who had damage or losses from the storms may apply for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) disaster assistance; and
WHEREAS, on January 24, 2023, the City Council adopted a resolution confirming the emergency services director's proclamation of existence of a local emergency in Arroyo Grande and waiving demolition permit and inspection fees for flooded residents, and on March 14, 2023, the City Council adopted a resolution declaring a second, continued local emergency related to the winter 2023 storm events; and WHEREAS, conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons and/or property had arisen within the City of Arroyo Grande as a result of severe storm weather conditions for which the City Council declared local emergencies in 2023, including flooding and high winds, which damaged public and private structures and facilities including multiple homes and residences within the City limits that experienced significant flooding, and related local emergency impacts throughout the City; and WHEREAS, at the City Council meeting on December 12, 2023, the Council considered the public benefits associated with waiving a portion of the associated building permit fees (demolition, building permit, and inspection fees) resulting from the 2023 declared local emergencies for homes within the City of Arroyo Grande that were “redPage 199 of 282 RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 2
tagged” or “yellow-tagged” as a result of the winter 2023 storm events as defined by the City’s declared local emergencies; and
WHEREAS, the City Council found that there existed a public benefit to waiving or reimbursing up to $5,000 for certain building permit fees related to repair or reconstruction of homes damaged by flooding in 2023 declared local emergencies for a specific set of impacted residential homes; and
WHEREAS, on January 9, 2024, the City Council considered the staff report and recommendations by staff, concerning the proposed fee waiver. Following the consideration on the consent agenda, the City Council adopted the prepared Resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande finds, determines, resolves, and recommends:

1. Recitals. All recitals above are true and correct and hereby incorporated by reference.

2. Waiver of Building Permit Fees Public Purpose Finding. Waiver of a portion of the building permit fees associated with the reconstruction of flood damaged homes within the City of Arroyo Grande that were “red-tagged” or “yellow-tagged” during the winter 2023 storm events, as defined by the City’s declared local emergencies, provides a community benefit by restoring blighted neighborhoods and reducing barriers to reconstruction or repair of storm-damaged homes. Authorizing reductions in fee waivers helps facilitate individuals to return to homes from which they were displaced during flooding events. Additionally, costs of home repair may be so significant that the monetary barrier can act as a disincentive from conducting such repair.

Natural disasters like flooding represent an unexpected and unplanned expense that can significantly constrain homeowners’ ability to pay for these repairs. Thus, waiver or reimbursement of building permit fees serves substantial public purposes, and the benefits of the program to private individuals are incidental to the public benefit.

3. Fee Waiver. The City of Arroyo Grande shall waive or reimburse up to $5,000 of certain building permit fees (demolition, building permit, and inspection fees) related to the repair or reconstruction of homes damaged by flooding during the 2023 declared local emergencies.

4. Limitations. Eligible City residents must meet the following criteria that shall apply to any fee waiver or reimbursement pursuant to this resolution:

A. Limiting the fee waiver to a maximum not-to-exceed amount of $5,000 of the total amount of the associated demolition, building permit, and inspection fees for the impacted properties.

B. The home must have been “red-tagged” or “yellow-tagged” during the 2023 storm events and City’s declared local emergencies related to those weather events.

C. The time to seek a reimbursement or fee waiver reduction should be limited to 90 days or less (from the adoption of the attached

Page 200 of 282 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 3
resolution), unless the applicant provides evidence within the 90-day period that it is beyond their reasonable control to apply for the fee waiver within the time limit. The applicant must apply for the underlying permits for which they sought a fee waiver within 1-year of adoption of the attached resolution. If approved by the City Council, written notice will be provided to the eligible City property owners described within item “B” above, within one day following adoption of the resolution.

Acceptable proof of primary residency will include: an active voter registration, a valid driver’s license, or other government-issued documentation with both the property owner’s name and the property address damaged or destroyed by the winter 2023 storms.

G. The fee waiver shall not be transferrable to any other property owner.

If a waiver is obtained, a Certificate of Occupancy will only be issued to the property owner who files the proof of primary residency at the time of the winter 2023 storm events. All fees that were waived must be paid to the City before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued to an owner other than the one listed on the fee waiver.

H. The City Manager may impose any additional conditions or modify the listed conditions as necessary or proper to effecting and administering the fee waiver.

5. CEQA. Pursuant to State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the fee waiver/reimbursement is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. The reconstruction of a flood damaged single-family residence is a ministerial project and therefore is also not subject to CEQA.

Alternatively, the fee waiver or reimbursement is exempt from CEQA on the

Page 201 of 282 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 4
basis that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15061, subd. (b)(3).)

6. Severability. If any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution or the document in the record in support of this resolution is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, unenforceable, unconstitutional or otherwise void, that determination shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, divisions, sentences, clauses, phrases of this Resolution.

7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon its date of adoption.

On motion by Council Member ________, seconded by Council Member _______, and by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

The foregoing Resolution was adopted this 9
th day of January, 2024.

Page 202 of 282 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 5
_______________________________

CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________

JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
_______________________________

MATTHEW DOWNING, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________

ISAAC ROSEN, CITY ATTORNEY

Page 203 of 282 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 6

EXHIBIT A

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

BUILDING PERMIT FEE WAIVERS OR REIMBURSEMENTS
CERTAIN RESIDENCES DAMAGED DURING 2023 WINTER STORMS

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

PLANNING DIVISION

GENERAL CONDITIONS

1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this resolution.

2. Eligible City residents shall have ninety (90) days or less from the date this Resolution is adopted to request in writing a fee waiver addressed to the Director of Community Development unless the applicant provides evidence within the 90-day period that it is beyond their reasonable control to apply for the fee waiver within the time limit, and the applicant must apply for the underlying permits within one year of adoption of this Resolution for which they sought a fee waiver or reimbursement.

3. To the extent permitted by law, Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Arroyo Grande, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void any permit or approval authorized by the City, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorney’s fees and costs in defense of the litigation.

The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. The Applicant shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City related to this permit or approval. Although the Applicant is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of the action, but such participation shall not relieve the Applicant of any obligation under this condition. Building permit fee waivers authorized by this Resolution shall only apply to residences that were red- or yellow-tagged during the 2023 winter storm events as defined by the City’s declared local emergencies.

4. The amount of the waiver shall not exceed five-thousand dollars ($5,000) in total.

5. The applicant shall provide proof of ownership of the home and proof that the home is their primary residence. Proof of homeownership shall require a stamped grant deed filed with the county recorder. Acceptable proof of residency will include: an active voter registration, a valid driver’s license, or other government-issued documentation with both the property owner’s name and the property owner’s address damaged or destroyed by the 2023 storms.

6. The applicant and all individuals listed as grantee on the deed shall sign an acknowledgement that the City of Arroyo Grande makes no representations regarding how the property owner’s acceptance of the fee waiver may impact insurance payments or potential recovery through federal disaster relief programs. Additionally, property owners receiving a fee waiver or reimbursement must waive all potential

Page 204 of 282 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 7
claims by themselves or any third party against the City of Arroyo Grande based on insurance payments or federal disaster relief program payments to the same address.

7. The applicant must provide evidence to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director that other sources of recovery dollars (FEMA, homeowners insurance), when taken together, are insufficient to cover the cost of repair, reconstruction, and permitting, or alternatively, that such other sources refuse to cover the cost of repair, reconstruction and permitting.

8. The fee waiver shall not be transferable to any other property owner. If a waiver is obtained, a Certificate of Occupancy will only be issued to the property owner who files the proof of primary residency at the time of the 2023 January and March flood events. All fees that were waived must be paid to the City before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued to an owner other than the one listed on the fee waiver.

9. The Resolution shall authorize the City Manager to impose any additional conditions or modify the listed conditions as necessary or proper to effecting and administering the fee waiver.

Page 205 of 282 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 5259

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF ARROYO GRANDE CONFIRMING THE EMERGENCY

SERVICES DIRECTOR' S PROCLAMATION OF

EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY IN ARROYO

GRANDE AND WAIVING DEMOLITION PERMIT AND

INSPECTION FEES FOR FLOODED RESIDENTS
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 8630 and Section 8. 12.060 ( a) of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code empower the Emergency Services Director/ City Manager to proclaim a local emergency if the City Council is not in session; and WHEREAS, California Government Code section 8630 requires that the City Council shall take action to ratify the proclamation within seven days thereafter; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code section 8558( b), on January 4, 2023, the Governor of the State of California issued a Proclamation of a State of Emergency (" Governor' s Proclamation") relating to severe winter storms and a series of atmospheric river systems that struck California, bringing high winds, substantial precipitation, and river, stream and urban flooding; and WHEREAS, on January 8, 2023, the President of the United States declared that an emergency exists in the State of California relating to severe winter storms, flooding, landslides, and mudslides; and
WHEREAS, The Presidential Declaration makes residents in impacted counties who had damage or losses from the storms eligible to apply for federal disaster assistance; and
WHEREAS, on January 9, 2023, the County Administrative Officer of San Luis Obispo issued a Proclamation of Local Emergency relating to severe winter storms and a series of atmospheric river systems that struck San Luis Obispo County, bringing high winds, substantial precipitation, and river, stream and urban flooding; and WHEREAS, on January 17, 2023, San Luis Obispo County was added as an affected county, meaning San Luis Obispo County residents who had damage or losses from the storms may now apply for Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA) disaster assistance; and
WHEREAS, conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons and/or property have arisen within the City of Arroyo Grande as a result of severe storm weather conditions, including flooding and high winds, causing damage to public and private structures and facilities including multiple homes and residences within the City limits that experienced significant flooding, and related local emergency impacts throughout the City, as defined by California Government Code section 8558( c) ATTACHMENT 2

Page 206 of 282 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 5259
PAGE 2
beginning on or about December 27, 2022, and escalating in a manner warranting the proclamation of a local emergency, commencing on or about 8: 00 a. m. on the 4th day of January, 2023, at which time the City Council of Arroyo Grande was not in session; and WHEREAS, on January 18, 2023, the City Manager acting as the Emergency Services Director did properly proclaim the existence of a local emergency within the City commencing on or about 8: 00 am on January 4, 2023, due to the storm events that began on December 27, 2022.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande, that:

1. The proclamation of existence of a local emergency, as issued by the Emergency Services Director/City Manager on January 18th, 2023, is hereby ratified and confirmed.

2. Demolition permit and inspection fees will be waived for residents and businesses who have experienced flooding resulting from this emergency.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the conditions constituting a local emergency emerged on or about December 27, 2022, and continued and escalated in a manner warranting a local emergency proclamation as of January 4, 2023, and shall be deemed to continue to exist until its termination is proclaimed by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande.

On motion of Council Member Barneich, seconded by Council Member George, and on I following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: Council Members Barneich, George, Guthrie, Secrest, and Mayor Ray Russom NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 24th day of January, 2023.

Page 207 of 282 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 5D51
PAGE 3

CAREN RAY RU
611 ,
MAYOR
ATTEST:

JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

PIAt A
WHITNEY M 4. ONALD, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

TIMOTHY,. CARMEL, ATTORNEY

Page 208 of 282 ends

OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION
I, JESSICA MATSON, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the attached Resolution No. 5259 was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande on the 24th day of January, 2023.

WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 26th day of January, 2023.

SSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK

Page 209 of 282 ends

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 210 of 282 ends

Page 211 of 282 ends

Page 212 of 282 ends

Page 213 of 282 ends

Page 214 of 282 ends

Item 10.a.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Brian Pedrotti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider a Resolution for the Installation of One (1) Domestic Well on Property Zoned Planned Development (PD); Applicant – Michael Harris; Representative – Richard Burde, SLO Civil Design DATE: January 9, 2024
RECOMMENDATION:

On October 24, 2023, this public hearing item was opened and continued to a date certain of November 28, 2023. On November 28, 2023, the item was opened and continued to a date certain of January 9, 2024, with a re-notice for a public hearing. The applicant has requested that this item be continued to a date certain of February 27, 2024. City staff has worked with applicant to find a mutually satisfactorily date for the hearing and determined the 2nd Council meeting in February works with applicant’s availability.

Attachments:

1. Applicant’s Continuance Request to a date certain.

Page 215 of 282 ends

1 Isaac Rosen
From: Marsha Burch <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2024 11:22 AM
To: Isaac Rosen
Subject: Harris Well Application -- City of Arroyo Grande CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER.

Hello, Issac.

I represent Mr. Harris with respect to the above-referenced application. The Harris Well Application is set to be heard by the City Council on January 9, 2024.

The applicant requests a continuance of the hearing to February 27, 2024. This time will allow the new City Manager to become familiar with the application and issues.

Thank you for your consideration.
-Marsha
131 S. Auburn Street
Grass Valley, CA 95945
530/272.8411
fax: 530/272.9411
[email protected]
https://www.marshaburchlawoffice.com

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS ELECTRONIC MAIL TRANSMISSION IS CONFIDENTIAL AND INTENDED TO BE SENT ONLY TO THE STATED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION. IT MAY THEREFORE BE PROTECTED FROM UNAUTHORIZED USE OR DISSEMINATION BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND/OR ATTORNEY WORKPRODUCT PRIVILEGES. If you are not the intended recipient or the intended recipient's agent, you are hereby notified that any review, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. You are also asked to notify us immediately by telephone at 530/272.8411 or reply by e-mail and delete or discard the message. Thank you.

Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by the sender for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 216 of 282 ends

Item 12.a.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Bill Robeson, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director BY: Jessica Matson, Legislative & Information Services Director/City Clerk SUBJECT: Consider Results of Voter Opinion Polling for a Potential Future Ballot Measure
DATE: January 9, 2024
SUMMARY OF ACTION:

The City Council will review the results of a statistically valid survey of Arroyo Grande voters conducted by True North Research.

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

The cost of polling services was $27,850 and was allocated in the FY 2023-24 budget as part of a professional services agreement for voter opinion polling and public outreach services.

RECOMMENDATION:
1) Review and file the results summary report; and 2) Direct staff on whether or not to continue work with the consultant on a potential future revenue measure.

BACKGROUND:

In August 2019, Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a Consultant Services Agreement with True North Research for voter opinion survey services for a potential Transaction & Use Tax (Sales Tax) measure on the November 2020 ballot. Polling was conducted in the Fall of 2019 and results were presented to Council in January 2020. In June 2020 Council discussed bringing forward a 1% Sales Tax measure on the November 2020 ballot and ultimately chose not to pursue the ballot initiative due the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Approximately two years later, having continued to identify significant funding needs, particularly for the City’s infrastructure, pavement maintenance, stormwater systems, and sidewalks, the City Council again discussed the potential for seeking additional Sales Tax revenue through a new ballot measure. On May 24, 2022, Council approved placing a 1% local Sales Tax measure, Measure D-22, on the November 8, 2022 ballot.

Page 217 of 282 ends

Item 12.a.

City Council
Consider Results of Voter Opinion Polling for a Potential Future Ballot Measure January 9, 2024

Page 2 ends

On November 8, 2022, a General Municipal Election was held in the City which included Measure D-22, asking voters if the City shall be authorized to increase the Sales Tax by 1% to fund maintenance and repair of streets, sidewalks, stormwater and drainage facilities, and for other City programs and facilities. Measure D-22 did not pass, with

45.64% of the votes in favor of the measure. 50% of the votes, plus one vote is necessary to pass a General Tax Measure.

On March 2, 2023, Council participated in a goal-setting study session and identified seven priorities:

1. Funding: New Revenue Sources, Economic Development;

2. Five Cities Fire Authority;

3. Address Current Infrastructure Needs;

4. General Plan;

5. Water Resilience;

6. Homeless/Housing; and

7. Staff Resources/Employee Attraction and Retention
The top four priorities were identified as the City’s focus for the upcoming two-year budget process, including a potential revenue measure.

On June 13, 2023, City Council authorized the publishing of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Voter Opinion Polling and Public Education and Outreach Services and on August 22, 2023, City Council approved a professional services agreement with Clifford Moss and True North Research for these services.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

Following direction from the Council in August 2023, staff worked with Clifford Moss and True North Research to develop and conduct the voter opinion poll, analyze the results, and provide a written and verbal report. Between December 6 and December 12, 2023, True North Research was able to complete surveys from a sample of 487 likely November 2024 voters. Dr. Timothy McLarney of True North Research prepared a summary report on the polling results, which is shown in Attachment 1 and will present the report to Council.

Next Steps
Should the Council direct staff to continue working with Clifford Moss on outreach and education services, a community survey and other robust outreach efforts will take place between now and May 2024. Updates will be provided to Council in preparation for further discussion and potential action to place a revenue measure on the November 2024 ballot.

Page 218 of 282 ends

Item 12.a.

City Council
Consider Results of Voter Opinion Polling for a Potential Future Ballot Measure January 9, 2024

Page 3 ends

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:

1. Review and file the polling results summary report and direct staff to continue working with the consultant on a potential future revenue measure;

2. Review and file the polling results summary report and direct staff to discontinue working with the consultant on a potential future revenue measure; or

3. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

A review of the voter opinion polling results can assist the Council in identifying community perspectives on services and potential support for a future ballot measure.

DISADVANTAGES:

No disadvantages have been identified for receiving and filing the polling results summary report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

No environmental review is required for this item.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2.

Attachments:

1. Voter Opinion Polling Summary Report

Page 219 of 282 ends

12/21/2023

REVENUE MEASURE FEASIBILITY
STUDY

CONDUCTED FOR THE

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE

PRESENTED BY
TIMOTHY MCLARNEY PH.D.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 220 of 282 ends

2 oDetermine if a local sales tax measure is feasible
o Identify how to create a measure consistent with
community priorities
oGather information needed for communications &
outreach

PURPOSE OF STUDY

Page 221 of 282 ends

3 o How did we select voters to survey?
o Stratified & Clustered Random Sample of likely November 2024 voters using age, gender, partisanship, household party type, and sub-geographies
o Ensures balanced, representative sample of likely voters o How did we recruit participation?
o Personalized email, text, and telephone calls
o PINs to restrict access and ensure one complete per respondent o How were voters able to share their opinions?
o Secure, PIN-protected website that scales to the device o Telephone (land line or mobile)
o What was the sample size?
o 487 completed interviews
oOverall margin of error of ± 4.4% @ 95% level of confidence

METHODOLOGY OF STUDY

Page 222 of 282 ends

4 QUALITY OF LIFE
Not sure

0.4 Very poor
Poor 0.9

1.1 Fair

8.4 Good

49.3 Excellent

39.9

Page 223 of 282 ends

5 CHANGES TO IMPROVE CITY

16.2 14.2

9.3 8.0

5.7 5.1

4.8 4.7

3.5 2.8

2.5 2.3

2.3 2.2

2.2 2.1

2.0 1.9

1.9 1.8

1.8 1.6

1.5 1.5

2.4 3.4

1.6 0 5 10 15 20
Improve infrastructure, roads
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific
No changes needed / Everything is fine
Address homeless issues
Reduce traffic congestion
Provide more sidewalks
Provide more affordable housing
Provide more bike, walking trails
Clean up, beautify City
Reduce cost of living
Provide rec activities, events
Improve, redo Brisco interchange
Limit growth, development
Support small, local businesses
Address parking issues
Improve parks, rec facilities
Improve City Council, Gov process
Reduce taxes, fees
Provide more police presence
Increase public safety
Address water issues
Improve economy, jobs
Improve schools, education
Improve City-resident communication
Improve shopping, dining opportunities
Improve downtown
Improve spending, budgeting

Page 224 of 282 ends

6 OVERALL SATISFACTION
Very satisfied

31.4 Somewhat
satisfied

49.2 Somewhat
dissatisfied

10.7 Very
dissatisfied

3.7 Not sure

4.7 Prefer not to
answer

0.3

Page 225 of 282 ends

7 INITIAL BALLOT TEST
To provide funding for city services in Arroyo Grande, such as:
o Keeping streets, sidewalks, infrastructure, parks, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained
o Fixing potholes
o Providing fire protection, paramedic, police, and 9-1-1 emergency services
o And addressing homelessness
Shall City of Arroyo Grande’s ordinance establishing a one-cent sales tax be adopted, providing 6 million dollars annually for general government use for 10 years that can’t be taken away by the State, with citizen oversight, independent audits, and all money locally controlled? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure?

Page 226 of 282 ends

8 INITIAL BALLOT TEST
Definitely yes

34.9 Probably yes

30.5 Probably no

12.8 Definitely no

15.9 Not sure

5.7 Prefer not to
answer

0.1 65%
29%

Page 227 of 282 ends

9 PROJECTS & SERVICES

63.9 62.5

63.3 58.3

57.1 59.2

48.2 48.3

49.4 33.8

23.3 24.5

23.2 28.0

27.6 23.2

32.4 27.9

24.7 37.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Repair infrastructure including sidewalks, curbs, and storm drains
Fix potholes
Pave and maintain local streets
Keep parks, recreation facilities, community centers, public facilities safe, clean, well-maintained
Provide fire protection and paramedic services
Provide quick responses to 911 emergencies
Clean up piles of trash, litter that people dump along streets, sidewalks, in public areas
Provide police services, including crime prevention and investigation
Address homelessness
Remove graffiti
% Respondents
Strongly favor Somewhat favor

Page 228 of 282 ends

10 POSITIVE ARGUMENTS

47.9 48.7

44.9 39.2

41.8 38.6

42.0 38.4

32.1 28.6

23.5 26.3

31.7 28.9

30.7 25.3

28.0 33.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
City maintains 73 mi of streets; measure will allow City to fix potholes, repairs, maintenance to streets, sidewalks, storm drains, pipes, facilities; if we don’t take care of it now, more expensive to repair in future All money raised by measure will be used to fund essential services, facilities here in Arroyo Grande; by law, it can’t be taken away by State Most of sales tax generated locally goes to State; measure ensures higher percentage of sales tax stays here in, we have control over how those funds are spent
By keeping city safe, clean, well-maintained, this measure will help protect quality of life, keep Arroyo Grande a special place to live Fast emergency response for 911 critical for saving lives; measure will ensure enough police, firefighters, dispatchers, paramedics to respond quickly to 911 emergencies
High quality parks, open spaces, sports fields, recreation programs help keep kids healthy, active, away from drugs, gangs, crime Substantial amount of money raised by sales tax will come from people who visit community, but don’t live here; measure will make sure they pay fair share for facilities, services they use
Measure includes a clear system of accountability incl citizen oversight, independent audits, public disclosure of how all funds are spent Measure costs just one dollar for every $100 purchased, groceries, medicine, many other essential items are excluded from the tax % Respondents
Very convincing Somewhat convincing

Page 229 of 282 ends

11 INTERIM BALLOT TEST
Definitely yes

39.5 Probably yes

28.0 Probably no

10.6 Definitely no

15.5 Not sure

5.7 Prefer not to
answer

0.6 68%
26%

Page 230 of 282 ends

12 NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS

35.1 34.9

33.1 33.8

28.9 16.7

29.7 28.5

29.8 26.2

27.8 23.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Local businesses, residents hit hard by pandemic, now
facing high gas prices, runaway inflation; many
struggling to stay afloat; now is not the time to raise taxes Everyone coming after us for tax increases, state, county taxes, school bonds, other taxes on ballot next yr; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes
Arroyo Grande is an expensive place to live, especially for young families, seniors, those on fixed incomes; passing this tax will make it even less affordable
Residents are already paying too many taxes, incl state, county taxes, school bonds, other taxes; enough is
enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes
There are no guarantees on how funds will be spent, City can divert the money to pet projects without any say from voters; we can’t trust City with tax dollars
Raising the sales tax will hurt local economy and the
businesses in our community
% Respondents
Very convincing Somewhat convincing

Page 231 of 282 ends

13 FINAL BALLOT TEST
Prefer not to
answer

1.3 Not sure

8.6 Definitely no

18.3 Probably no

12.1 Probably yes

24.4 Definitely yes

35.2 60%
30%

Page 232 of 282 ends

14 Prefer not to
answer
Not sure 1.3

6.4 Definitely no

14.4 Probably no

10.1 Probably yes

7.5 Definitely yes

0.8 Def, prob yes @
1 cent (Q11)

59.6 FINAL BALLOT TEST AT ½ CENT RATE

Page 233 of 282 ends

15 KEY CONCLUSIONS
o Does a local sales tax measure appear to be feasible for November 2024? Yes.

Positive Signs
o Voters value the quality of life in Arroyo Grande and the services they receive from the City, but also see room for improvement o Strong natural support for measure to fund city services (65%) o Popular projects and services
o Positive arguments resonate
o All ballot tests are well above the simple majority (50%+1) required for passage of general tax, even after opposition arguments Challenges
o Receptiveness to potential opposition arguments (-8%) o Electoral climate: Hyper-partisanship & statewide initiatives Unknowns
o Trajectory of economy, inflation, other measures

Page 234 of 282 ends

16 o Snapshot in time, not a crystal ball
o Service Priorities: Street and infrastructure repair/maintenance, maintenance/protection of parks, recreation, and community facilities, fire/EMS, police, 911 response, addressing
homelessness.
o City Communications: Begin a conversation with the community to build awareness of ongoing needs and consensus on a
proposal.
o Independent Campaign: Need to have solid independent
campaign to navigate through the election cycle, communicate key messages, turn out supporters, and weather uncertainties.

OBSERVATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Page 235 of 282 ends

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 236 of 282 ends

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 237 of 282 ends

Table of Contents
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Motivation for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Overview of Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 About True North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Quality of Life & City Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Quality of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Changes to Improve Arroyo Grande . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Overall Performance Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Support by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Reasons for Not Supporting Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Question 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Projects & Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Service Ratings by Initial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Positive Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Question 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Positive Arguments by Initial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 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 Fiscal Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Question 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Background & Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Programming & Pre-Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Statistical Margin of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Recruiting & Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Data Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Questionnaire & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Page 238 of 282 ends

List of Tables
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 ii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L IST OF T ABLES
Table 1 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Initial Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Table 2 Top Projects & Services by Position at Initial Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 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 Top 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Page 239 of 282 ends

List of Figures
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 iii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L IST OF F IGURES
Figure 1 Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Figure 2 Quality of Life by Age & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Figure 3 Quality of Life by Years in Arroyo Grande, Child in Hsld & Homeowner on Voter File . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 4 Changes to Improve City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 5 Overall Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 6 Overall Satisfaction by Age & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 7 Overall Satisfaction by Years in Arroyo Grande, Child in Hsld & Homeowner on Voter File . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 8 Initial Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 9 Reasons for Not Supporting Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 10 Projects & Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 11 Positive Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 12 Interim Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 13 Negative Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 14 Final Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 15 Final Ballot Test @ One-Half Cent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 16 Opinion of Fiscal Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 17 Opinion of Fiscal Management by Years in Arroyo Grande & Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 18 Opinion of Fiscal Management by Child in Hsld, Homeowner on Voter File, Position at Initial Ballot Test & Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 19 Maximum Margin of Error due to Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Page 240 of 282 ends

Introduction
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

I NTRODUCTION
One of five cities that comprise California’s Central Coast, the City of Arroyo Grande is a small town in San Luis Obispo County known for its village, agriculture, rural character, and temperate climate. Incorporated in 1911 and currently home to an estimated 17,922 residents1, the City’s team of full-time and part-time employees provides a full suite of municipal services including police, fire, public works, and recreation services.

Over the past decade, the City of Arroyo Grande’s revenues have not kept pace with the growing costs associated with providing municipal services and facilities. Although the City has been proactive in responding to this challenge by reducing its costs where feasible 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 additional funding for essential city services including keeping streets, sidewalks, infrastructure, parks, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained, fixing potholes, providing fire protection, paramedic, police, and 911 emergency services, and addressing homelessness, the City of Arroyo Grande is considering establishing a local sales tax 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 forward with a revenue measure, the survey can guide how best 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 to provide 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 somewhat fluid, especially when the amount of information they initially have about a measure is limited. 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 election cycle. Accordingly, to accurately assess the feasibility of establishing a local sales tax 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 for January 2023.

Page 241 of 282 ends

Introduction
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY For a full discussion of the research methods and techniques used in this study, turn to Methodology on page 29. In brief, the survey was administered to a random sample of 487 voters in the City of Arroyo Grande who are likely to participate in the November 2024 election. The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (email, text, and telephone) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online). Administered between December 6 and December 12, 2023, 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 section titled Key Findings is for you. It provides a summary of the most important factual findings of the survey in a Question & Answer format. 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 collecting 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 32), and a complete set of crosstabulations for the survey results is contained in Appendix A.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS True North thanks the City of Arroyo Grande for the opportunity to assist the City in this important effort. The collective expertise, local knowledge, and insight provided by city staff and representatives improved the overall quality of the research presented here. A special thanks also to Bonnie Moss and Laura Crotty (CliffordMoss) for contributing to the design of the study.

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 Arroyo Grande. 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 priorities, passing revenue measures, and developing effective public information campaigns.

During their careers, Dr. McLarney and Mr. Sarles have designed and conducted over 1,200 survey research studies for public agencies, including more than 400 revenue measure feasibility studies. Of the measures that have gone to ballot based on Dr. McLarney’s recommendation, 95% have been successful. In total, the research that Dr. McLarney has conducted has led to over $35 billion in voter-approved local revenue measures.

Page 242 of 282 ends

Key Findings
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

K EY F INDINGS
As noted in the Introduction, this study was designed to provide the City of Arroyo Grande with a statistically reliable understanding of voters’ interest in establishing a one-cent sales tax to fund city services. Whereas subsequent sections of this report are devoted to conveying the detailed results of the survey, in this section we attempt to ‘see the forest through the trees’ and note how the collective results of the survey answer some of the key questions that motivated the research. The following conclusions are based on True North’s and CliffordMoss’ interpretations of the survey results and the firms’ collective experience conducting revenue measure studies for public agencies throughout the State.

Is it feasible to place a
local sales tax measure
on the November 2024
ballot?
Yes. Arroyo Grande voters have a high opinion of the quality of life in the City, and they value the services they receive from the City of Arroyo Grande. Together, these sentiments translate into strong natural support (65%) for establishing a one-cent sales tax to provide funding for city services in Arroyo Grande, such as keeping streets, sidewalks, infrastructure, parks, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained, fixing potholes, providing fire protection, paramedic, police, and 911 emergency services, and addressing homelessness.

The results of this survey indicate that a local sales tax measure is feasible for the November 2024 ballot provided that it is kept affordable, focuses on projects and improvements that voters identify as their priorities, and is accompanied by robust community/opinion leader engagement, education, and communication (more on this below).

Having stated that a local sales tax measure appears feasible, it is important to note that the measure’s prospects will be shaped by external factors (not within the City’s or an independent campaign’s control) and that a recommendation to place the measure on the November 2024 ballot comes with several qualifications and conditions. Indeed, although the results are promising, all revenue measures must overcome challenges 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 and CliffordMoss recommend.

Which services do
Arroyo Grande voters
view as priorities for
funding?
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 general 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 Arroyo Grande City Council would have the discretion to decide how to spend the revenues, the survey results indicate that voters were primarily interested in using the funds for public works and public

2. Section 1, Article XIIIC, California Constitution.

Page 243 of 282 ends

Key Findings
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 safety. Specifically, voters expressed the greatest interest in using measure proceeds to repair infrastructure including sidewalks, curbs, and storm drains (87% strongly or somewhat favor), fix potholes (87%), pave and maintain local streets (87%), keep parks, recreation facilities, community centers, and public facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained (86%), provide fire protection and paramedic services (85%), and provide quick responses to 911 emergencies (82%).

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 some voters’ opinions about the proposed measure are somewhat sensitive to the nature—and amount— of information that they have about the measure. Information about the specific services that could be funded by the sales tax, as well as arguments in favor of the measure, were found by many voters to be compelling reasons to support the measure. However, voters also exhibited sensitivity to opposition arguments, and there is a risk that voters could be swayed by divisive and hyper-partisan campaigning during the 2024 election cycle. Accordingly, one of the keys to building and sustaining support for a local sales tax measure will be the presence of an effective, well-organized public outreach effort, as well as an independent campaign that focuses on the need for the measure as well as the many benefits that it will bring.

How might changes to
the economic or political climate 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. On the one hand, this should provide some reassurances to the City that a local sales tax measure is feasible.

Even with lingering concerns regarding the pandemic, inflation, high gas prices, and the trajectory of the economy, voters strongly supported establishing a local sales tax to fund streets, infrastructure, parks, public safety, and other general services.

On the other hand, the months leading up to a 2024 election are likely to be punctuated with significant events on the economic and political fronts. Exactly how these events unfold and may shape voters’ opinions remains to be seen. Should the economy and/or political climate improve, support for the measure could increase. Conversely, negative economic and/or political developments (including devolving into a hyper-partisan environment), competing measures, and/or skewed voter turnout could dampen support for the measure below what was recorded in this study.

Page 244 of 282 ends

Quality of Life & City Services
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Q UALITY OF L IFE & C ITY S ERVICES
The opening section of the survey was designed to gauge voters’ opinions regarding the quality of life in Arroyo Grande, their ideas for how it can be improved, as well as their assessment of the City’s performance in providing municipal services.

QUALITY OF LIFE At the outset of the interview, voters were asked to rate the quality of life in the City of Arroyo Grande using a five-point scale of excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor.

As shown in Figure 1 below, nearly nine-in-ten voters shared favorable opinions of the quality of life in Arroyo Grande, with 40% reporting it is excellent and 49% stating it is good. Approximately 8% of voters surveyed rated the quality of life in the City as fair, whereas just 2% used poor or very poor to describe the quality of life in Arroyo Grande.

Question 2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in Arroyo Grande? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor? FIGURE 1 QUALITY OF LIFE Figures 2 and 3 show how ratings of the quality of life in the City of Arroyo Grande varied by age of the
respondent, gender, length of residence, presence of a
child in the home, and home ownership. The most
striking pattern in the figures is the consistency with which voters provided high ratings for the quality of
life in the City, with at least 78% of respondents in
every subgroup rating the quality of life in Arroyo
Grande as excellent or good.

FIGURE 2 QUALITY OF LIFE BY AGE & GENDER
Not sure

0.4 Very poor

0.9 Poor

1.1 Fair

8.4 Good

49.3 Excellent

39.9 45.9

38.0 47.6

45.6 53.2
Excellent

22.1 27.8

38.2 47.9 41.5
Good

60.9 45.1

60.7 40.1
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 Male Female Age Gender
% Respondents

Page 245 of 282 ends

Quality of Life & City Services
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 FIGURE 3 QUALITY OF LIFE BY YEARS IN ARROYO GRANDE, CHILD IN HSLD & HOMEOWNER ON VOTER FILE CHANGES TO IMPROVE ARROYO GRANDE The next question in this series asked voters to indicate the one thing that city government could change to make Arroyo Grande a better place to live, now and in the future. Question 3 was posed in an open-ended manner, allowing residents 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 4 on the next page.

Among specific changes desired, improving infrastructure and roads was the most common response at 16%, followed by addressing homeless issues (8%), reducing traffic congestion (6%), and providing more sidewalks (5%). It is also worth noting that nearly one-quarter of respondents could not think of a change to Arroyo Grande that they desired (14%) or indicated that no changes are needed, everything is fine as is (9%).

39.4 42.3 35.2

44.7 51.3 48.8

50.3 41.0 37.0

50.3 36.0
Excellent

43.7 50.9

45.1 50.7
Good

47.2 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 Yes No
Years in Arroyo Grande (Q1) Child in Hsld (Q14) Homeowner on Voter File % Respondents

Page 246 of 282 ends

Quality of Life & City Services
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Question 3 If the city government could change one thing to make Arroyo Grande a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see? FIGURE 4 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 Arroyo Grande is doing to provide city services. Because this question does not reference a specific program, facility, 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.

As shown in Figure 5 on the next page, eight-in-ten voters surveyed indicated that they were satisfied with the City of Arroyo Grande’s efforts to provide municipal services, with 31% saying they were very satisfied and 49% somewhat satisfied. Approximately 14% reported that they were dissatisfied with the City’s overall performance, whereas 5% were unsure or unwilling to state their opinion. For the interested reader, figures 6 and 7 display how the percentage of respondents satisfied with the City’s overall performance varied across demographic subgroups.

16.2 14.2

9.3 8.0

5.7 5.1

4.8 4.7

3.5 2.8

2.5 2.3

2.3 2.2

2.2 2.1

2.0 1.9

1.9 1.8

1.8 1.6

1.5 1.5

2.4 3.4

Page 247 of 282 ends

Quality of Life & City Services
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Question 4 Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Arroyo Grande is doing to provide city services? FIGURE 5 OVERALL SATISFACTION FIGURE 6 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY AGE & GENDER FIGURE 7 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY YEARS IN ARROYO GRANDE, CHILD IN HSLD & HOMEOWNER ON VOTER FILE Very satisfied

31.4 Somewhat
satisfied

49.2 Somewhat
dissatisfied

10.7 Very
dissatisfied

3.7 Not sure

4.7 Prefer not to
answer

0.3 38.2 31.7

48.0 50.7 47.4
Very
satisfied

25.5 20.6 17.9

38.2 31.4
Smwt
satisfied

55.7 45.8

47.1 54.6
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 Male Female Age Gender
% Respondents

23.0 33.1 28.0

54.6 46.8 47.4 52.8

36.5 32.8 28.8 25.0
Very
satisfied

36.2 50.2

52.1 46.4
Smwt
satisfied

52.8 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 Yes No
Years in Arroyo Grande (Q1) Child in Hsld (Q14) Homeowner on Voter File % Respondents

Page 248 of 282 ends

I NITIAL B ALLOT T EST
The primary research objective of this survey was to estimate voters’ support for establishing a one-cent sales tax to provide funding for city services in Arroyo Grande, such as keeping streets, sidewalks, infrastructure, parks, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained; fixing potholes; providing fire protection, paramedic, police, and 911 emergency services; and addressing homelessness. 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 information items conveyed later in the survey on voter support for the measure.

Question 5 Next year, voters in Arroyo Grande may be asked to vote on a local ballot measure.

Let me read you a summary of the measure. To provide funding for city services in Arroyo Grande, such as keeping streets, sidewalks, infrastructure, parks, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained; fixing potholes; providing fire protection, paramedic, police, and 911 emergency services; and addressing homelessness; shall City of Arroyo Grande's ordinance establishing a one-cent sales tax be adopted, providing 6 million dollars annually for general government use for 10 years that can't be taken away by the State, with citizen oversight, independent audits, and all money locally controlled? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure?
FIGURE 8 INITIAL BALLOT TEST
As shown in Figure 8, 65% of likely November
2024 voters surveyed indicated that they would
support the proposed one-cent sales tax,
whereas 29% stated that they would oppose the
measure and 6% 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 15 percentage points above the simple majority (50%+1) required for passage.

Prefer not to
answer

0.1 Not sure

5.7 Definitely no

15.9 Probably no

12.8 Probably yes

30.5 Definitely yes

34.9

Page 249 of 282 ends

Initial Ballot Test
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 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 (Approximate % of Universe) indicates the percentage of the likely November 2024 electorate that each subgroup category comprises. Support for the proposed measure was widespread, exceeding a majority in nearly all identified subgroups. When compared to their respective counterparts, support was strongest among respondents who registered to vote in the City on or after November 2018, Democrats and dual-Democrat households, newer residents (less than 5 years), those satisfied with the City’s overall performance, respondents who rated the City’s fiscal management as excellent or good, lower propensity voters (likely to vote in November, but not in March), and males. Also of note is that support was remarkably consistent (within 3%) across age cohorts.

TABLE 1 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Probably or
Definitely Yes % Not sure
Overall 100.0 65.4 5.7
18 to 29 12.7 66.2 15.1
30 to 39 12.9 65.6 7.3
40 to 49 14.5 63.9 1.8
50 to 64 22.5 66.8 4.4
65 or older 37.5 64.7 4.4
Since Nov '18 15.9 81.2 6.9
Jun '06 to <Nov '18 24.0 66.0 7.1
Before Jun '06 60.2 61.0 4.9
Single dem 16.3 80.3 2.9
Dual dem 11.1 81.1 2.8
Single rep 12.5 56.4 4.6
Dual rep 13.7 42.6 1.3
Other / Mixed 46.5 65.5 9.1
Less than 5 19.9 75.9 4.0
5 to 9 20.1 57.0 5.8
10 to 14 13.4 64.3 1.4
15 or more 46.7 64.9 7.7
Democrat 37.6 77.8 6.2
Republican 32.4 50.6 3.8
Other / DTS 30.0 65.8 7.4
Satisfied 84.8 68.6 5.5
Dissatisfied 15.2 53.0 4.0
Excellent, good 38.1 79.1 2.8
Fair 25.8 56.8 7.7
Poor, very poor 13.1 39.8 2.6
Not sure 23.0 69.9 10.5
Yes 28.8 69.2 4.1
No 71.2 66.7 6.6
Yes 66.4 65.6 4.7
No 33.6 64.9 7.9
Yes 81.0 66.4 5.8
No 19.0 61.1 5.5
Yes 77.4 62.8 5.1
No 22.6 74.4 7.9
Male 50.8 72.7 4.6
Female 49.2 59.0 7.0 Gender
Child in Hsld (Q14)
Homeowner on Voter File
Likely to Vote by Mail
Likely Mar 2024 Voter
Age
Household Party Type
Years in Arroyo Grande
(Q1)
Fiscal Management
Rating (Q13)
Party
Registration Year
Overall Satisfaction (Q4)

Page 250 of 282 ends

Initial Ballot Test
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 REASONS FOR NOT SUPPORTING MEASURE Respondents who opposed the measure (or were unsure) at the Initial Ballot Test were subsequently 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. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 9.

Among the reasons offered for not supporting the measure, a belief that taxes are already too high (44%) and the perception that city funds have been/will be mismanaged or misspent (37%) were the most common, followed by a need for more information (16%).

Question 6 Is there a particular reason why you do not support or are unsure about the measure I just described? FIGURE 9 REASONS FOR NOT SUPPORTING MEASURE

44.3 36.8

15.9 6.1

2.9 2.7

2.6 2.0

1.7 1.4

0.8 0.6

1.5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Taxes already too high
Money is misspent, mismanaged
Need more information
Do not trust City
Money will go to employee salaries, pensions
Measure is too expensive
Other ways to be funded
Other higher priorities in community
City has enough money
Not sure / No particular reason
City services are okay as-is, no need for more money
Mentioned past ballot measure
It will hurt business economy
% Respondents Who Do Not Support Measure

Page 251 of 282 ends

P ROJECTS & S ERVICES
The ballot language presented in Question 5 indicated that the proposed measure would provide funding for city services in Arroyo Grande, such as keeping streets, sidewalks, infrastructure, parks, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained; fixing potholes; providing fire protection, paramedic, police, and 911 emergency services; and addressing homelessness. 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 10.3 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 10 PROJECTS & SERVICES
All projects and services tested were popular with Arroyo Grande voters, with at least seven-inten respondents indicating they would favor spending measure proceeds on each of the items tested. That said, the services that resonated with the largest percentage of respondents were repairing infrastructure including sidewalks, curbs, and storm drains (87% strongly or somewhat

3. For the full text of the services tested, turn to Question 7 in Questionnaire & Toplines on page 32.

63.9 62.5

63.3 58.3

57.1 59.2

48.2 48.3

49.4 33.8

23.3 24.5

23.2 28.0

27.6 23.2

32.4 27.9

Page 252 of 282 ends

Projects & Services
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 favor), fixing potholes (87%), paving and maintaining local streets (87%), and keeping parks, recreation facilities, community centers, and public facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained (86%).

SERVICE RATINGS BY INITIAL SUPPORT Table 2 on the next page presents the top five services (showing 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 supporters, opponents, and the undecided did agree on two of the top five priorities for funding.

Page 253 of 282 ends

Projects & Services
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 TABLE 2 TOP PROJECTS & SERVICES BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Position at
Initial Ballot
Test (Q5) Item Project or Service Summary
% Strongly
Favor
Q7c Repair infrastructure including sidewalks, curbs, and storm drains 77 Q7b Pave and maintain local streets 75
Q7a Fix potholes 71
Q7d Keep parks, recreation facilities, community centers, public facilities safe, clean, wellmaintained 70 Q7f Provide quick responses to 911 emergencies 69
Q7a Fix potholes 42
Q7e Provide fire protection and paramedic services 40
Q7c Repair infrastructure including sidewalks, curbs, and storm drains 38 Q7g Provide police services, including crime prevention and investigation 38 Q7b Pave and maintain local streets 37
Q7a Fix potholes 66
Q7f Provide quick responses to 911 emergencies 64
Q7b Pave and maintain local streets 61
Q7e Provide fire protection and paramedic services 55
Q7h Address homelessness 54
Probably or
Definitely Yes
(n = 318)
Probably or
Definitely No
(n = 140)
Not Sure
(n = 28)

Page 254 of 282 ends

P OSITIVE A RGUMENTS
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 arguments 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 proposed 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 administered 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 convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to SUPPORT the measure? FIGURE 11 POSITIVE ARGUMENTS

47.9 48.7

44.9 39.2

41.8 38.6

42.0 38.4

32.1 28.6

23.5 26.3

31.7 28.9

30.7 25.3

28.0 33.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
City maintains 73 mi of streets; measure will allow City to fix potholes, repairs, maintenance to streets, sidewalks, storm drains, pipes, facilities; if we don’t take care of it now, more expensive to repair in future
All money raised by measure will be used to fund essential services, facilities here in Arroyo Grande; by law, it can’t be taken away by State
Most of sales tax generated locally goes to State; measure ensures higher percentage of sales tax stays here in, we have control over how those funds are spent
By keeping city safe, clean, well-maintained, this measure will help protect quality of life, keep Arroyo Grande a special place to live
Fast emergency response for 911 critical for saving lives; measure will ensure enough police, firefighters, dispatchers, paramedics to respond quickly to 911 emergencies
High quality parks, open spaces, sports fields, recreation programs help keep kids healthy, active, away from drugs, gangs, crime
Substantial amount of money raised by sales tax will come from people who visit community, but don’t live here; measure will make sure they pay fair share for facilities, services they use Measure includes a clear system of accountability incl citizen oversight, independent audits, public disclosure of how all funds are spent
Measure costs just one dollar for every $100 purchased, groceries, medicine, many other essential items are excluded from the tax Q8e Q8a Q8f Q8c Q8h Q8i Q8d Q8b Q8g
% Respondents
Very convincing Somewhat convincing

Page 255 of 282 ends

Positive Arguments
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 11 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: The City maintains 73 miles of streets in Arroyo Grande. The funding raised by this measure will allow the City to fix potholes and keep up with basic repairs and maintenance to streets, sidewalks, underground storm drains and pipes, and public facilities. If we don't take care of it now, it will be a lot more expensive to repair in the future (77% very or somewhat convincing), All money raised by the measure will be used to fund essential services and facilities here in Arroyo Grande. By law, it can't be taken away by the State (72%), and Most of the sales tax generated locally goes to the State of California. This measure ensures that a higher percentage of our sales tax dollars stay here in Arroyo Grande and we have local control over how those funds are spent (71%).

POSITIVE ARGUMENTS BY INITIAL SUPPORT Table 3 on the next page lists the top five most convincing 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 resonated with a much higher percentage of voters initially inclined to support the measure compared with those who initially opposed the measure or were unsure. Nevertheless, two arguments were ranked among the top five most compelling by all three groups.

Page 256 of 282 ends

Positive Arguments
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 TABLE 3 TOP POSITIVE ARGUMENTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Position at
Initial Ballot
Test (Q5) Item Positive Argument Summary
% Very
Convincing
Q8e
City maintains 73 mi of streets; measure will allow City to fix potholes, repairs, maintenance to streets, sidewalks, storm drains, pipes, facilities; if we don’t take care of it now, more expensive to repair in future
64 Q8a All money raised by measure will be used to fund essential services, facilities here in Arroyo Grande; by law, it can’t be taken away by State 63 Q8f Most of sales tax generated locally goes to State; measure ensures higher percentage of sales tax stays here in, we have control over how those funds are spent 62 Q8h Fast emergency response for 911 critical for saving lives; measure will ensure enough police, firefighters, dispatchers, paramedics to respond quickly to 911 emergencies 56 Q8d
Substantial amount of money raised by sales tax will come from people who visit community, but don’t live here; measure will make sure they pay fair share for facilities, services they use
55 Q8a All money raised by measure will be used to fund essential services, facilities here in Arroyo Grande; by law, it can’t be taken away by State 18 Q8i High quality parks, open spaces, sports fields, recreation programs help keep kids healthy, active, away from drugs, gangs, crime 14
Q8e
City maintains 73 mi of streets; measure will allow City to fix potholes, repairs, maintenance to streets, sidewalks, storm drains, pipes, facilities; if we don’t take care of it now, more expensive to repair in future
13 Q8d
Substantial amount of money raised by sales tax will come from people who visit community, but don’t live here; measure will make sure they pay fair share for facilities, services they use
13 Q8c By keeping city safe, clean, well-maintained, this measure will help protect quality of life, keep Arroyo Grande a special place to live 11
Q8f Most of sales tax generated locally goes to State; measure ensures higher percentage of sales tax stays here in, we have control over how those funds are spent 43 Q8i High quality parks, open spaces, sports fields, recreation programs help keep kids healthy, active, away from drugs, gangs, crime 40
Q8d
Substantial amount of money raised by sales tax will come from people who visit community, but don’t live here; measure will make sure they pay fair share for facilities, services they use
40 Q8h Fast emergency response for 911 critical for saving lives; measure will ensure enough police, firefighters, dispatchers, paramedics to respond quickly to 911 emergencies 38 Q8a All money raised by measure will be used to fund essential services, facilities here in Arroyo Grande; by law, it can’t be taken away by State 37 Probably or
Definitely Yes
(n = 318)
Probably or
Definitely No
(n = 140)
Not Sure
(n = 28)

Page 257 of 282 ends

I NTERIM B ALLOT T EST
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 12, overall support among likely November 2024 voters increased to 68%, with 40% of voters indicating that they would definitely vote yes on the measure. Approximately 26% of respondents opposed the measure at this point in the survey, and an additional 6% were unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice.

Question 9 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. To provide funding for city services in Arroyo Grande, such as keeping streets, sidewalks, infrastructure, parks, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained; fixing potholes; providing fire protection, paramedic, police, and 911 emergency services; and addressing homelessness; shall City of Arroyo Grande's ordinance establishing a one-cent sales tax be adopted, providing 6 million dollars annually for general government use for 10 years that can't be taken away by the State, with citizen oversight, independent audits, and all money locally controlled? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? FIGURE 12 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 support when compared with the Initial Ballot Test. Positive differences appear in green, whereas negative differences appear in red. As shown in the table, support for the sales tax measure increased or decreased by modest amounts (5 percentage points or less) between the Initial and Interim Ballot Test for nearly all voter subgroups. Notable exceptions include voters living in single Republican households (+7%) and voters under 30 years of age (+6%).

Definitely yes

39.5 Probably yes

28.0 Probably no

10.6 Definitely no

15.5 Not sure

5.7 Prefer not to
answer

0.6

Page 258 of 282 ends

Interim Ballot Test
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 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 67.6 +2.2
18 to 29 12.7 72.2 +6.0
30 to 39 12.9 68.2 +2.6
40 to 49 14.5 60.6 -3.3
50 to 64 22.5 70.2 +3.4
65 or older 37.5 66.9 +2.1
Since Nov '18 15.9 85.3 +4.1
Jun '06 to <Nov '18 24.0 65.4 -0.6
Before Jun '06 60.2 63.7 +2.8
Single dem 16.3 83.4 +3.1
Dual dem 11.1 82.5 +1.4
Single rep 12.5 63.7 +7.3
Dual rep 13.7 44.4 +1.8
Other / Mixed 46.5 66.3 +0.8
Less than 5 19.9 77.3 +1.4
5 to 9 20.1 56.8 -0.2
10 to 14 13.4 68.5 +4.2
15 or more 46.7 67.8 +2.9
Democrat 37.6 81.1 +3.3
Republican 32.4 54.2 +3.6
Other / DTS 30.0 65.0 -0.8
Satisfied 84.8 70.1 +1.6
Dissatisfied 15.2 53.5 +0.5
Excellent, good 38.1 83.4 +4.3
Fair 25.8 56.1 -0.6
Poor, very poor 13.1 36.0 -3.8
Not sure 23.0 75.2 +5.3
Yes 28.8 69.5 +0.3
No 71.2 69.8 +3.1
Yes 66.4 67.1 +1.5
No 33.6 68.5 +3.6
Yes 81.0 68.0 +1.6
No 19.0 65.6 +4.4
Yes 77.4 64.0 +1.2
No 22.6 79.8 +5.5
Male 50.8 73.2 +0.5
Female 49.2 63.2 +4.2
Homeowner on Voter File
Likely to Vote by Mail
Likely Mar 2024 Voter
Gender
Party
Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
Fiscal Management
Rating (Q13)
Child in Hsld (Q14)
Age
Registration Year
Household Party Type
Years in Arroyo Grande
(Q1)

Page 259 of 282 ends

N EGATIVE A RGUMENTS
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 13.

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 13 NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS
The most compelling negative arguments were: Local businesses and residents were hit hard by the pandemic and are now facing high gas prices and runaway inflation. Many are struggling to stay afloat. Now is not the time to raise taxes (65% very or somewhat convincing), Everyone is coming after us for tax increases - including state and county taxes, school bonds, and other taxes that will be on the ballot next year. Enough is enough. We can't afford to keep raising our taxes (63%), and Arroyo Grande is an expensive place to live, especially for young families, seniors, and those on fixed incomes. Passing this tax will make it even less affordable (63%).

NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS BY INITIAL SUPPORT Table 5 on the next page ranks the top five negative arguments (showing the percentage of respondents who cited each as very convincing) according to respondents’ vote choice at the Initial Ballot Test.

35.1 34.9

33.1 33.8

28.9 16.7

29.7 28.5

29.8 26.2

Page 260 of 282 ends

Negative Arguments
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 TABLE 5 TOP NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Position at
Initial Ballot
Test (Q5) Item Negative Argument Summary
% Very
Convincing
Q10d1 Residents are already paying too many taxes, incl state, county taxes, school bonds, other taxes; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes 22 Q10b Arroyo Grande is an expensive place to live, especially for young families, seniors, those on fixed incomes; passing this tax will make it even less affordable 22 Q10a Local businesses, residents hit hard by pandemic, now facing high gas prices, runaway inflation; many struggling to stay afloat; now is not the time to raise taxes 21 Q10c There are no guarantees on how funds will be spent, City can divert the money to pet projects without any say from voters; we can’t trust City with tax dollars 21 Q10d2 Everyone coming after us for tax increases, state, county taxes, school bonds, other taxes on ballot next yr; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes 18 Q10d1 Residents are already paying too many taxes, incl state, county taxes, school bonds, other taxes; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes 70 Q10d2 Everyone coming after us for tax increases, state, county taxes, school bonds, other taxes on ballot next yr; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes 68 Q10a Local businesses, residents hit hard by pandemic, now facing high gas prices, runaway inflation; many struggling to stay afloat; now is not the time to raise taxes 65 Q10b Arroyo Grande is an expensive place to live, especially for young families, seniors, those on fixed incomes; passing this tax will make it even less affordable 56 Q10c There are no guarantees on how funds will be spent, City can divert the money to pet projects without any say from voters; we can’t trust City with tax dollars 47 Q10b Arroyo Grande is an expensive place to live, especially for young families, seniors, those on fixed incomes; passing this tax will make it even less affordable 51 Q10a Local businesses, residents hit hard by pandemic, now facing high gas prices, runaway inflation; many struggling to stay afloat; now is not the time to raise taxes 43 Q10d2 Everyone coming after us for tax increases, state, county taxes, school bonds, other taxes on ballot next yr; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes 34 Q10c There are no guarantees on how funds will be spent, City can divert the money to pet projects without any say from voters; we can’t trust City with tax dollars 32 Q10d1 Residents are already paying too many taxes, incl state, county taxes, school bonds, other taxes; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes 22 Probably or
Definitely Yes
(n = 318)
Probably or
Definitely No
(n = 140)
Not Sure
(n = 28)

Page 261 of 282 ends

F INAL B ALLOT T EST
Voters’ opinions about ballot measures are often not rigid, especially when the amount of information 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 summary of it one more time. To provide funding for city services in Arroyo Grande, such as keeping streets, sidewalks, infrastructure, parks, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained; fixing potholes; providing fire protection, paramedic, police, and 911 emergency services; and addressing homelessness; shall City of Arroyo Grande's ordinance establishing a onecent sales tax be adopted, providing 6 million dollars annually for general government use for 10 years that can't be taken away by the State, with citizen oversight, independent audits, and all money locally controlled? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure?
FIGURE 14 FINAL BALLOT TEST
At this point in the survey, support for the one-cent sales tax measure was found among 60% of likely November 2024 voters, with 35% indicating that they would definitely support the measure. Approximately 30% of respondents were opposed to the measure at the Final Ballot Test, and 10% were unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice.

Prefer not to
answer

1.3 Not sure

8.6 Definitely no

18.3 Probably no

12.1 Probably yes

24.4 Definitely yes

35.2

Page 262 of 282 ends

C HANGE IN S UPPORT
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 support for the sales tax measure when compared with the levels recorded at the Interim Ballot Test.

The general trend over the course of the entire survey (Initial to Final Ballot Test) was also one of declining support across voter subgroups, averaging -6% overall. Even with this trend, however, support for the proposed sales tax measure at the Final Ballot Test (60%) remained 10% above the simple majority (50%+1) required for passage.

Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Probably or
Definitely Yes
Change From
Initial Ballot
Test (Q5)
Change From
Interim Ballot
Test (Q9)
Overall 100.0 59.6 -5.8 -8.0
18 to 29 12.7 61.3 -4.9 -10.8
30 to 39 12.9 61.0 -4.6 -7.1
40 to 49 14.5 56.1 -7.8 -4.5
50 to 64 22.5 60.2 -6.7 -10.1
65 or older 37.5 59.5 -5.3 -7.4
Since Nov '18 15.9 70.8 -10.4 -14.5
Jun '06 to <Nov '18 24.0 56.4 -9.6 -9.0
Before Jun '06 60.2 57.9 -3.1 -5.9
Single dem 16.3 74.0 -6.3 -9.4
Dual dem 11.1 79.8 -1.3 -2.7
Single rep 12.5 46.8 -9.6 -16.8
Dual rep 13.7 37.9 -4.7 -6.5
Other / Mixed 46.5 59.5 -6.0 -6.8
Less than 5 19.9 72.3 -3.6 -5.0
5 to 9 20.1 53.4 -3.5 -3.4
10 to 14 13.4 55.0 -9.3 -13.5
15 or more 46.7 58.1 -6.7 -9.6
Democrat 37.6 74.4 -3.4 -6.8
Republican 32.4 41.4 -9.2 -12.8
Other / DTS 30.0 60.7 -5.1 -4.3
Satisfied 84.8 62.1 -6.4 -8.0
Dissatisfied 15.2 47.1 -5.9 -6.5
Excellent, good 38.1 75.6 -3.5 -7.8
Fair 25.8 50.9 -5.9 -5.2
Poor, very poor 13.1 24.8 -15.0 -11.2
Not sure 23.0 65.9 -4.0 -9.3
Yes 28.8 57.9 -11.2 -11.5
No 71.2 62.9 -3.8 -6.9
Yes 66.4 61.4 -4.2 -5.7
No 33.6 56.0 -8.9 -12.5
Yes 81.0 59.7 -6.7 -8.4
No 19.0 59.2 -2.0 -6.4
Yes 77.4 59.2 -3.6 -4.8
No 22.6 60.8 -13.5 -19.0
Male 50.8 68.9 -3.8 -4.3
Female 49.2 51.3 -7.7 -11.9
Homeowner on Voter File
Likely to Vote by Mail
Likely Mar 2024 Voter
Gender
Party
Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
Fiscal Management
Rating (Q13)
Child in Hsld (Q14)
Age
Registration Year
Household Party Type
Years in Arroyo Grande
(Q1)

Page 263 of 282 ends

Change in Support
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Whereas Table 6 displays changes 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 Initial 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 34.9% of respondents who indicated that they would definitely support the measure at the Initial Ballot Test, 29.4% also indicated they would definitely support the measure at the Final Ballot Test. Approximately 2.7% moved to the probably support group, 1.0% moved to the probably oppose group, 0.7% moved to the definitely oppose group, and 1.1% 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 movement. 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 individuals 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 14% of respondents making a fundamental4 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 (60%) was just six percentage points different5 than support at the Initial Ballot Test (65%).

4. This is, they changed from a position of support, opposition, or undecided at the Initial Ballot Test to a different position at the Final Ballot Test.

5. Calculated with unrounded numbers (see Table 6 on page 23).

Definitely
support
Probably
support
Probably
oppose
Definitely
oppose Not sure
Definitely support 34.9% 29.4% 2.7% 1.0% 0.7% 1.1%
Probably support 30.5% 5.8% 20.2% 1.6% 0.5% 2.5%
Probably oppose 12.8% 0.0% 0.6% 7.3% 2.0% 3.0%
Definitely oppose 15.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 14.3% 0.2%
Not sure 5.9% 0.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.8% 3.2%
Initial Ballot Test (Q5)
Final Ballot Test (Q11)

Page 264 of 282 ends

Final Ballot Test at Lower Rate
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 F INAL B ALLOT T EST AT L OWER R ATE 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 15, lowering the tax rate to one-half cent generated a modest amount of additional support for the proposed measure. An additional 8% of voters indicated they would support the measure if the tax rate were lowered to one-half cent, although nearly all of the additional 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: onehalf cent? Would you vote yes or no on the measure? FIGURE 15 FINAL BALLOT TEST @ ONE-HALF CENT Prefer not to
answer
Not sure 1.3

6.4 Definitely no

14.4 Probably no

10.1 Probably yes

7.5 Definitely yes

0.8 Def, prob yes @
1 cent (Q11)

59.6

Page 265 of 282 ends

F ISCAL M ANAGEMENT
The final substantive question of the survey asked respondents to rate the job the City of Arroyo Grande has done in managing its financial resources. Six-in-ten (63% of) voters gave the City positive or neutral marks, with 6% rating the City’s performance as excellent, 32% good, and 26% fair. Approximately 13% of respondents rated the job the City has done in managing its finances as poor or very poor, while 24% confided they were not sure or preferred to not answer the question.

Question 12 In your opinion, has the City of Arroyo Grande done an excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor job of managing its financial resources?
FIGURE 16 OPINION OF FISCAL MANAGEMENT
For the interested reader, figures 17 and 18 show
how ratings of the City’s performance in managing
its finances varied across key voter subgroups
(among those with an opinion). It is worth noting
the positive relationship between having a high
opinion of the City’s performance in managing its
financial resources and support for the proposed
measure at the Initial Ballot Test.

FIGURE 17 OPINION OF FISCAL MANAGEMENT BY YEARS IN ARROYO GRANDE & AGE Excellent

5.5 Good

32.1 Fair

25.5 Poor

8.2 Very poor

4.8 Not sure

22.7 Prefer not to
answer

1.2 8.6 4.9 4.1 2.0

9.8 11.1

39.1 54.8

37.1 38.5

32.9 31.8

40.3 50.8

19.2 34.0

28.1 39.0 42.7

51.5 41.9

27.9 25.4

9.4 12.7 5.7

11.7 12.0 5.3 16.6 13.7

8.2 6.5 8.1 3.6 10.3 7.7 8.2 4.5

3.2 18.4

51.7 1.3 5.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more 18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Years in Arroyo Grande (Q1) Age
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Very poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent

Page 266 of 282 ends

Fiscal Management
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 FIGURE 18 OPINION OF FISCAL MANAGEMENT BY CHILD IN HSLD, HOMEOWNER ON VOTER FILE, POSITION AT INITIAL

BALLOT TEST & GENDER

9.1 6.7 8.5

0.8 7.4 7.2

50.6 46.9

31.8 49.4

28.3 31.5

41.0 44.1

40.1 31.0

31.1 38.7

29.3 38.8

58.6 37.1 29.1

17.9 6.2

8.8 14.9

7.2 18.4

9.9 9.2 12.6

6.5 6.0 3.3

13.7 5.3 7.1

3.7 10.8

29.4 3.2 8.8
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Yes No Yes No Def, prob yes Def, prob no Not sure Male Female Child in Hsld (Q14) Homeowner on Voter File Position at Initial Ballot Test (Q5) Gender % Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Very poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent

Page 267 of 282 ends

Background & Demographics
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 B ACKGROUND & D EMOGRAPHICS TABLE 8 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE In addition to questions directly related to the proposed measure, the study collected basic demographic information 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 2024 voter sample represented in this report is shown in Table 8.

Total Respondents 487
Years in Arroyo Grande (Q1)
Less than 5 19.9
5 to 9 20.1
10 to 14 13.4
15 or more 46.7
Prefer not to answer 0.0
Child in Hsld (Q14)
Yes 27.4
No 67.8
Prefer not to answer 4.9
Gender
Male 50.2
Female 48.7
Non-binary 0.4
Prefer not to answer 0.7
Party
Democrat 37.6
Republican 32.4
Other / DTS 30.0
Age
18 to 29 12.7
30 to 39 12.9
40 to 49 14.5
50 to 64 22.5
65 or older 37.5
Registration Year
Since Nov '18 15.9
Jun '06 to <Nov '18 24.0
Before Jun '06 60.2
Household Party Type
Single dem 16.3
Dual dem 11.1
Single rep 12.5
Dual rep 13.7
Other / Mixed 46.5
Homeowner on Voter File
Yes 66.4
No 33.6
Likely to Vote by Mail
Yes 81.0
No 19.0
Likely Mar 2024 Voter
Yes 77.4
No 22.6

Page 268 of 282 ends

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 Arroyo Grande 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 the items in a set order can lead to a systematic position bias in responses, items were asked in random order for each respondent.

Some questions asked in this study were presented only to a subset of respondents. For example, only individuals who did not support the measure (or were unsure) at the Initial Ballot Test (Question 5) were asked the follow-up, open-ended Question 6 regarding their reasons for not supporting the measure. The questionnaire included with this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 32) identifies 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 conducting telephone interviews. The CATI program automatically navigates skip patterns, randomizes the appropriate question items, and alerts the interviewer to certain types of keypunching mistakes should they occur. The survey was also programmed into a passcode-protected online survey 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 stratified and clustered random sample of registered voters in the City who are likely to participate in the November 2024 general election, with a subset of voters who are also likely to participate in the lower turnout March 2024 primary election. Consistent with the profile of this universe, 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 participate, 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 2024 general election. The results of the survey can thus be used to estimate the opinions of all voters likely to participate in said 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 487 voters for a particular question and what would have been found if all of the estimated 12,324 likely November 2024 voters identified in the City had been surveyed for the study.

Page 269 of 282 ends

Methodology
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 19 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 ± 4.4%.

FIGURE 19 MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR DUE TO SAMPLING
Within this report, figures and tables show how responses to certain questions varied by subgroups such as age, gender, and partisan affiliation. Figure 19 is thus useful for understanding how the maximum margin of error for a percentage estimate will grow as the number of individuals 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, text, and email) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online). Telephone interviews averaged 16 minutes in length and were conducted 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 and text 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 one time only. 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 487 surveys were completed between December 6 and December 12, 2023. 487 Respondents
± 4.4%
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 Error

Page 270 of 282 ends

Methodology
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 DATA PROCESSING Data processing consisted of checking the data for errors or inconsistencies, coding and recoding responses, weighting, and preparing frequency analyses and crosstabulations.

ROUNDING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole number, 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.

Page 271 of 282 ends

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Q UESTIONNAIRE & T OPLINES

True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 1
City of Arroyo Grande
Sales Tax Survey
Final Toplines (n=487)
December 2023
Section 1: Introduction to Study
Hi, may I please speak to _____. My name is _____, and Im calling on behalf of TNR, an independent public opinion research firm. Were conducting a survey of voters about important issues in Arroyo Grande (Uh-ROY-yo GRAWN-day) 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 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.

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 Arroyo Grande.

Q1 How long have you lived in Arroyo Grande?
1 Less than 1 year 2%
2 1 to 4 years 18%
3 5 to 9 years 20%
4 10 to 14 years 13%
5 15 years or longer 47%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in Arroyo Grande? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?
1 Excellent 40%
2 Good 49%
3 Fair 8%
4 Poor 1%
5 Very poor 1%
98 Not sure 0%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%

Page 272 of 282 ends

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 City of Arroyo Grande Baseline Survey December 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 2
Q3
If the city government could change one thing to make Arroyo Grande 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.

Improve infrastructure, roads 16%
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific 14%
No changes needed / Everything is fine 9%
Address homeless issues 8%
Reduce traffic congestion 6%
Provide more affordable housing 5%
Provide more sidewalks 5%
Provide more bike, walking trails 5%
Clean up, beautify City 3%
Provide rec activities, events 3%
Reduce cost of living 3%
Increase public safety 2%
Improve parks, rec facilities 2%
Improve schools, education 2%
Reduce taxes, fees 2%
Improve economy, jobs 2%
Provide more police presence 2%
Improve shopping, dining opportunities 2%
Improve City-resident communication 2%
Improve City Council, Gov process 2%
Limit growth, development 2%
Address parking issues 2%
Support small, local businesses 2%
Improve, redo Brisco interchange 2%
Improve spending, budgeting 2%
Address water issues 2%
Improve downtown 2%

Page 273 of 282 ends

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 City of Arroyo Grande Baseline Survey December 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 3
Q4
Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Arroyo Grande is doing to provide city services? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 31%
2 Somewhat satisfied 49%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 11%
4 Very dissatisfied 4%
98 Not sure 5%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Section 3: Initial Ballot Test
Next year, voters in Arroyo Grande may be asked to vote on a local ballot measure. Let me read you a summary of the measure.

Q5
To provide funding for city services in Arroyo Grande, such as: o Keeping streets, sidewalks, infrastructure, parks, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained
o Fixing potholes o Providing fire protection, paramedic, police, and 9-1-1 emergency services o And addressing homelessness Shall City of Arroyo Grandes ordinance establishing a one-cent sales tax be adopted, providing 6 million dollars annually for general government use for 10 years that cant be taken away by the State, with citizen oversight, 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 35% Skip to Q7
2 Probably yes 31% Skip to Q7
3 Probably no 13% Ask Q6
4 Definitely no 16% Ask Q6
98 Not sure 6% 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 44%
Money is misspent, mismanaged 37%
Need more information 16%
Do not trust City 6%
Other ways to be funded 3%
Measure is too expensive 3%

Page 274 of 282 ends

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 City of Arroyo Grande Baseline Survey December 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 4
Money will go to employee salaries, pensions 3%
City has enough money 2%
Other higher priorities in community 2%
Not sure / No particular reason 2%
City services are okay as-is, no need for more
money
1%
Mentioned past ballot measure 1%
It will hurt business economy 1%
Section 4: Projects & 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 Fix potholes 62% 24% 4% 2% 2% 5%
B Pave and maintain local streets 63% 23% 4% 2% 3% 4%
C Repair infrastructure including sidewalks,
curbs, and storm drains 64% 23% 3% 3% 3% 4%
D
Keep parks, recreation facilities, community
centers, and public facilities safe, clean, and
well-maintained
58% 28% 4% 2% 3% 4%
E Provide fire protection and paramedic
services 57% 28% 4% 3% 3% 4%
F Provide quick responses to 9-1-1 emergencies 59% 23% 5% 4% 5% 4% G Provide police services, including crime
prevention and investigation 48% 28% 9% 7% 4% 5%
H Address homelessness 49% 25% 7% 9% 6% 5%
I Remove graffiti 34% 37% 11% 6% 7% 5%
J
Clean up piles of trash and litter that people
dump along streets, sidewalks, and in public
areas
48% 32% 7% 4% 4% 4%

Page 275 of 282 ends

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 City of Arroyo Grande Baseline Survey December 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 5
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
Very
convincing
Somewhat
convincing
Not at all
convincing
Don t
believe
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A
All money raised by the measure will be used
to fund essential services and facilities here
in Arroyo Grande. By law, it cant be taken
away by the State.
49% 24% 13% 9% 3% 3%
B
The measure includes a clear system of
accountability including citizen oversight,
independent audits, and public disclosure of
how all funds are spent.
38% 28% 16% 10% 4% 3%
C
By keeping our city safe, clean, and wellmaintained, this measure will help protect our quality of life and keep Arroyo Grande a
special place to live.
39% 32% 18% 5% 3% 3%
D
A substantial amount of the money raised by
the sales tax will come from people who visit
our community, but dont live here. This
measure will make sure they pay their fair
share for the facilities and services they use
while in our city.
42% 25% 17% 10% 3% 3%
E
The City maintains 73 miles of streets in
Arroyo Grande. The funding raised by this
measure will allow the City to fix potholes
and keep up with basic repairs and
maintenance to streets, sidewalks,
underground storm drains and pipes, and
public facilities. If we dont take care of it
now, it will be a lot more expensive to repair
in the future.
48% 29% 11% 7% 2% 3%
F
Most of the sales tax generated locally goes
to the State of California. This measure
ensures that a higher percentage of our sales
tax dollars stay here in Arroyo Grande and we
have local control over how those funds are
spent.
45% 26% 14% 7% 4% 4%
G
This measure costs just one dollar for every
100 dollars purchased and groceries,
medicine, and many other essential items are
excluded from the tax.
32% 33% 21% 8% 3% 3%

Page 276 of 282 ends

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 City of Arroyo Grande Baseline Survey December 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 6
H
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% 29% 17% 6% 3% 3%
I
High quality parks, open spaces, sports
fields, and recreation programs help keep
kids healthy, active, and away from drugs,
gangs and crime.
39% 31% 19% 6% 2% 3%
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 city services in Arroyo Grande, such as: o Keeping streets, sidewalks, infrastructure, parks, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained
o Fixing potholes o Providing fire protection, paramedic, police, and 9-1-1 emergency services o And addressing homelessness Shall City of Arroyo Grandes ordinance establishing a one-cent sales tax be adopted, providing 6 million dollars annually for general government use for 10 years that cant be taken away by the State, with citizen oversight, 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 40%
2 Probably yes 28%
3 Probably no 11%
4 Definitely no 16%
98 Not sure 6%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%

Page 277 of 282 ends

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 City of Arroyo Grande Baseline Survey December 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 7
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. Split Sample D1/D2.

Very
convincing
Somewhat
convincing
Not at all
convincing
Don t
believe
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A
Local businesses and residents were hit hard
by the pandemic and are now facing high gas
prices and runaway inflation. Many are
struggling to stay afloat. Now is not the time
to raise taxes.
35% 30% 22% 8% 2% 3%
B
Arroyo Grande is an expensive place to live,
especially for young families, seniors, and
those on fixed incomes. Passing this tax will
make it even less affordable.
33% 30% 23% 8% 3% 3%
C
There are no guarantees on how funds will be
spent, which means the City can divert the
money to pet projects without any say from
voters. We cant trust the City with our tax
dollars.
29% 28% 26% 11% 4% 3%
D1
Residents are already paying too many taxes
including state and county taxes, school
bonds, and other taxes. Enough is enough.

We cant afford to keep raising our taxes.
34% 26% 27% 7% 3% 3%
D2
Everyone is coming after us for tax increases
including state and county taxes, school
bonds, and other taxes that will be on the
ballot next year. Enough is enough. We cant
afford to keep raising our taxes.
35% 29% 24% 8% 2% 3%
E
Raising the sales tax will hurt our local
economy and the businesses in our
community.
17% 23% 37% 17% 3% 3%

Page 278 of 282 ends

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 City of Arroyo Grande Baseline Survey December 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 8
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 city services in Arroyo Grande, such as: o Keeping streets, sidewalks, infrastructure, parks, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained
o Fixing potholes o Providing fire protection, paramedic, police, and 9-1-1 emergency services o And addressing homelessness Shall City of Arroyo Grandes ordinance establishing a one-cent sales tax be adopted, providing 6 million dollars annually for general government use for 10 years that cant be taken away by the State, with citizen oversight, 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 35% Skip to Q13
2 Probably yes 24% Skip to Q13
3 Probably no 12% Ask Q12
4 Definitely no 18% Ask Q12
98 Not sure 9% 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 @ 1 cent (Q11) 60%
1 Definitely yes 1%
2 Probably yes 7%
3 Probably no 10%
4 Definitely no 14%
98 Not sure 6%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%

Page 279 of 282 ends

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 City of Arroyo Grande Baseline Survey December 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 9
Section 9: Background & Demographics
Thank you so much for your participation. I have just two background questions for statistical purposes.

Q13 In your opinion, has the City of Arroyo Grande done an excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor job of managing its financial resources?
1 Excellent 6%
2 Good 32%
3 Fair 25%
4 Poor 8%
5 Very poor 5%
98 Not sure 23%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q14 Do you have children under the age of 18 living in your household? 1 Yes 27%
2 No 68%
99 Prefer not to answer 5%
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 50%
2 Female 49%
3 Non-binary 0%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
S2 Party
1 Democrat 38%
2 Republican 32%
3 Other 8%
4 DTS 22%

Page 280 of 282 ends

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 City of Arroyo Grande Baseline Survey December 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 10
S3 Age on Voter File
1 18 to 29 13%
2 30 to 39 13%
3 40 to 49 14%
4 50 to 64 22%
5 65 or older 38%
S4 Registration Date
1 Since Nov 2018 16%
2 Jun 2012 to before Nov 2018 14%
3 Jun 2006 to before Jun 2012 9%
4 Before June 2006 60%
S5 Household Party Type
1 Single Dem 16%
2 Dual Dem 11%
3 Single Rep 12%
4 Dual Rep 14%
5 Single Other 11%
6 Dual Other 6%
7 Dem & Rep 6%
8 Dem & Other 13%
9 Rep & Other 9%
0 Mixed (Dem + Rep + Other) 1%
S6 Homeowner on Voter File
1 Yes 66%
2 No 34%
S7 Likely to Vote by Mail
1 Yes 81%
2 No 19%

Page 281 of 282 ends

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Arroyo Grande True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 City of Arroyo Grande Baseline Survey December 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 11
S8 Likely March 2024 Voter
1 Yes 77%
2 No 23%
S9 Likely November 2024 Voter
1 Yes 100%
2 No 0%
S10 Council District
One 29%
Two 27%
Three 22%
Four 22%

Page 282 of 282 ends

Arroyo Grande City CouncilJanuary 9, 2024

Arroyo Grande City Council
January 9, 2024