Agenda packet — Guadalupe City Council, July 12, 2022

July 12, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Agenda Page 1 of 6 City of Guadalupe
AGENDA
Regular Meeting of the Guadalupe City Council
Tuesday, July 12, 2022, at 6:00 pm
City Hall, 918 Obispo Street, Council Chambers
The City Council meeting will broadcast live on Charter Spectrum Cable Channel 20 and live streamed on the City of Guadalupe’s Official YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaxeHWd9JkmvKnGFU8BAYQQ If you choose not to attend the City Council meeting but wish to make a comment during oral communications or on a specific agenda item, please submit via email to [email protected] no later than 2:00 pm on Tuesday, July 12, 2022.

Please be advised that, pursuant to State Law, any member of the public may address the City Council concerning any item on the Agenda, before or during Council consideration of that item. If you wish to speak on any item on the agenda, including any item on the Consent Calendar or the Ceremonial Calendar, please submit a speaker request form for that item. If you wish to speak on a matter that is not on the agenda, please do so during the Community Participation Forum.

The Agenda and related Staff reports are available on the City’s website: www.ci.guadalupe.ca.us Friday before Council meeting.

Any documents produced by the City and distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available the Friday before Council meetings at the Administration Office at City Hall 918 Obispo Street, Monday through Friday between 8:00 am and 4:30 pm, and also posted 72 hours prior to the meeting. The City may charge customary photocopying charges for copies of such documents. Any documents distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda less than 72 hours before the meeting will be made available for inspection at the meeting and will be posted on the City’s website and made available for inspection the day after the meeting at the Administrator Office at City Hall 918 Obispo Street, Monday through Friday between 8:00 am and 4:30 pm.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, including review of the Agenda and related documents, please contact the Administration Office at (805) 356.3891 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. This will allow time for the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting.

1. ROLL CALL:

Council Member Liliana Cardenas
Council Member Gilbert Robles
Council Member Eugene Costa Jr.

Mayor Pro Tempore Tony Ramirez
Mayor Ariston Julian
July 12, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Agenda Page 2 of 6

2. MOMENT OF SILENCE

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. AGENDA REVIEW
At this time the City Council will review the order of business to be conducted and receive requests for, or make announcements regarding, any change(s) in the order of business.

5. CEREMONIAL CALENDAR
• Swearing-in Carlos Limon, Police Lieutenant

6. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION FORUM
Each person will be limited to a discussion of three (3) minutes or as directed by the Mayor.

Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on these matters unless they are listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. City Council may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future City Council meeting.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following items are presented for City Council approval without discussion as a single agenda items in order to expedite the meeting. Should a Council Member wish to discuss or disapprove an item, it must be dropped from the blanket motion of approval and considered as a separate item.

A. Waive the reading in full of all Ordinances and Resolutions. Ordinances on the Consent Calendar will be adopted by the same vote cast as the first meeting, unless City Council indicates otherwise.

B. Approve payment of warrants for the period ending July 6, 2022.

C. Approve the Minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting of June 28, 2022, to be ordered filed.

D. Approve the Minutes of the City Council Special Meeting of June 15, 2022, to be ordered filed.

E. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-61 approving the Co-Ed Adult Volleyball League Program.

F. MONTHLY REPORTS FROM DEPARTMENT HEADS

1. Planning Department report for June 2022

2. Building Department report for June 2022

3. Public Works/Engineering report for June 2022
July 12, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Agenda Page 3 of 6

8. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT: (Information Only)

9. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT: (Information Only)

10. MAYOR’S REPORT- UPDATES

REGULAR BUSINESS

11. Consideration of Rescinding Selection of Second Commercial Cannabis Business Permit Applicant – Retail (Element 7).

Written report: Philip F. Sinco, City Attorney
Recommendation: That the City Council:

1. by motion, rescind its decision made on April 26, 2022, selecting Element 7 as the second “prevailing candidate” for a Commercial Cannabis Business Permit Applicant; and

2. select a date where all five (5) members of the City Council will be present for another in-person presentation by Element 7 and The Roots Dispensary.

12. Le Roy Park Community Center Mural Contest.

Written report: Hannah Fuentes, Recreation Services Manager Recommendation: That the City Council select the finalist from the top three submissionsfor the Le Roy Park Community Center Mural.

13. Establishing a Downtown Residential Permit Parking Pilot Program in the 1000 Block of Guadalupe Street.

Written report: Michael Cash, Director of Public Safety Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-62 establishing a pilot residential permit parking program for the 1000 block of Guadalupe Street.

14. Approval to Reinstate the Public Safety Intern Program.

Written report: Michael Cash, Director of Public Safety Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-63 reinstating the Public Safety Intern Program.

July 12, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Agenda Page 4 of 6

15. Agreement for Animal Control Services between County of Santa Barbara and the City of Guadalupe – Fiscal Years 2022-2027.

Written report: Todd Bodem, City Administrator
Recommendation: That the City Council approve and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement for Animal Control Services between the County of Santa Barbara and City of Guadalupe for Fiscal Years 2022-2027.

16. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

17. ANNOUNCEMENTS – COUNCIL ACTIVITY/COMMITTEE REPORTS

18. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION MEETING

CLOSED SESSION

19. Conference with Labor Negotiator
(Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54957.6)
Agency designated representatives: City Administrator, Human Resources Manager, and Che Johnson, Partner, Liebert, Cassidy, Whitmore
Employee organizations: Guadalupe Police Officers Association (POA); International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), local 4403

20. Public Employment
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957(b))
Title: City Attorney

21. Public Employment
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 (b))
Title: City Administrator

22. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Subdivision (d)(1) of Government Code Section 54956.9) Name of case: Joseph Martin, et al. v. City of Guadalupe, et al., Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara – Cook Division, Case No. 22CV02484

23. ADJOURNMENT TO OPEN SESSION MEETING

24. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS

25. ADJOURNMENT
July 12, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Agenda Page 5 of 6 I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted on the City Hall display case and website not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Dated this 7th day of July 2022.
____________________________________
Todd Bodem, City Administrator
Todd Bodem
July 12, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Agenda Page 6 of 6

PROPOSED FUTURE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS
Council Meeting: Date and Subject Department Agenda Category Tuesday, July 26, 2022, at 6:00 pm / Regular Meeting
City Attorney Contract Renewal Admin. Department Consent Calendar June 2022 Financial Report Finance Department Consent Calendar Cost Allocation Study FY 22-23 Finance Department Consent Calendar Master Fee Schedule CPI Finance Department Consent Calendar Investment Policy Finance Department Consent Calendar
Gann Limit FY 22-23 Finance Department Consent Calendar Pasquini Lease Agreement – WWTP Effluent spray field Public Works Department Consent Calendar Pasadera Public Infrastructure Dedication Public Works Department Consent Calendar Central Park Design Consultant -Notice of Award Public Works Department Consent Calendar Santa Barbara County Association of Governments
Metropolitan Planning Organization agreement
Public Works Department Consent Calendar
Safe Routes to School – Measure A Cycle 3 Cooperative
Agreement
Public Works Department Consent Calendar
Parks / Facilities Lead Job Description Recreation & Parks Dept Regular Business Le Roy Park Phase 2 Cost Estimate Discussion Public Works Department Regular Business Budget Amendment FY 22-23 Finance Department Regular Business Boys and Girls Club Agreement Recreation & Parks Dept. Regular Business Public Hearing to consider La Guardia Apartments 2022-
001-GPZ, 2022-002-DR and 2022-051-LLA Amending the
General Plan Land Use Element
Planning Department Public Hearing
Tuesday, August 9, 2022, at 6:00 pm / Regular Meeting
Tuesday, August 23, 2022, at 6:00 pm / Regular Meeting
July 2022 Financial Report Finance Department Consent Calendar Other Unscheduled Items Proposed
Date of Item
Department Agenda Category
Tree Ordinance Public Works New Business
Sidewalk Vending Ordinance Planning Department New Business Vacant Property Ordinance Administration Dept New Business Pasadera Public Infrastructure Dedication Public Works Dept New Business Food Truck and Special Event Ordinance Planning Dept New Business Gift Policy City Attorney New Business
Master Fee Schedule Update Finance Department Workshop
Recognizing Food Distribution Volunteers Ceremonial Calendar Facility & Parks Use Fee Schedule Changes Recreation & Parks Benefit for Unrepresented Employees Human Resources New Business Agenda Item No. 7B

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of July 12, 2022
Approved by:

Veronica Fabian
Finance Account Clerk
Reviewed by
Lorena Zarate
Finance Director
Todd Bodem
City Administrator
SUBJECT:

RECOMMENDATION:

Payment of warrants for the period ending July 5, 2022 to be approved for payment by the City Council. Subject to having been certified as being in conformity with the budget by the Finance Department staff.

That the City Council review and approve the listing of hand checks and warrants to be paid on July 13, 2022.

BACKGROUND:

Submittal of the listing of warrants issued by the City to vendors for the period and explanations for disbursement of these warrants. An exception, such as an emergency hand check may be required to be issued and paid prior to submittal of the warrant listing, however, this warrant will be identified as "Ratify" on the warrant listing.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 - Jan - Dec 2021
-Jan - June 30, 2022
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 49
50 51
52 53
54 55
June 28, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 1 of 22

MINUTES
City of Guadalupe
Regular Meeting of the Guadalupe City Council
Tuesday, June 28, 2022, at 6:00 pm
City Hall, 918 Obispo Street, Council Chambers

1. ROLL CALL:

Council Member Liliana Cardenas
Council Member Gilbert Robles
Council Member Eugene Costa Jr.

Mayor Pro Tempore Tony Ramirez
Mayor Ariston Julian
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. All members were present. (Note: The abbreviation, “CM” will be used for “Council Member” in these minutes.)

2. MOMENT OF SILENCE
Mayor Julian mentioned the recent passing of Victoria Reyes, a Guadalupe resident. He also asked for thoughts and prayers for the 50 people who perished in a trailer in Texas. Continued remembrance for the war in Ukraine and the many sufferings and deaths there. And to all those who are experiencing the negative impacts of our environment today.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. AGENDA REVIEW
There were no requests to change the agenda.

5. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION FORUM
Each person will be limited to a discussion of three (3) minutes or as directed by the Mayor.

Beverly Taylor: Ms. Taylor spoke in opposition of a recent bill in the California Assembly, AB 2223 and asked the Council or individual council members to also support opposing this bill. AB 2223 Agenda Item No. 7C
June 28, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 2 of 22 would add a new code section 123467 H&S code which states: “(a) Notwithstanding any other law, a person shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or penalty, or otherwise deprived of their rights under this article, based on their actions or omissions with respect to their pregnancy or actual potential, or alleged pregnancy outcome, including miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion, or perinatal death due to causes that occurred in utero.”
She stressed the strong opposition made against the use of the language, ‘perinatal death’, as it includes the death of infants up to 28 days after birth with no inquiry related to infant’s death. (She also noted that this bill deletes the requirement for a coroner to inquire into circumstances, of all deaths related to known or suspected self-induced or criminal abortion.) Amendments have been made and failed to correct the threat this bill poses to children born in California.

Without an amendment to delete perinatal language altogether, which doesn’t appear to be the direction, this current bill with this language could effectively legalize infanticide up to 28 days after the baby is born, the perinatal period, “for any reason”. As part of a legal analysis, it states “…including the death of a newborn for any reason during the ‘perinatal’ period after birth, including a cause of death which is not attributable to pregnancy complications.” Ms. Taylor gave final comments saying, “Senator Thomas Umberg is the chair of the Senate Judiciary committee. I urge you to oppose this bill. We don’t need it. The law is clear in California that ending or losing pregnancy is not a crime. The law protects the pregnant individual. I am asking that we protect the child.”
The bill has already passed the Assembly and is now in the Senate. Ms. Taylor said, “I don’t know what, as a body, you can do but I just ask that this is something that you can look into. The weight that cities carry…mayors and city councils carry a lot of weight in our state. My main focus is on the language, ‘perinatal’, that’s in this bill that isn’t currently clearly defined…even the legal analyst for the judiciary made that clear. Again, it’s Assembly Bill 2223.

Lupe Alvarez: Mr. Alvarez referred to the recent budget workshop and a letter he submitted regarding a missing part of the levy. It’s missing about a mile and one-half to protect the sewer plant, the newly remodeled Le Roy Park, Apostolic Church and a few houses on lower Pioneer. He spoke with Thomas Brandeberry and found that there are grant monies available. He also spoke with Steve Lavagnino, new 5th District Supervisor, and Congressman Salud Carbajal and both are in support.

He said that to go forward, this needs to be agendized to, hopefully, get direction to tap into the grant monies still available. Mr. Alvarez ended saying, “This investment will even encourage a little bit more of a trail to the beach. Agendas have been long but maybe this can come forward at the next meeting or two. It’s something that’s needed, and it’ll protect the Boys & Girls Club, as well.”

6. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following items are presented for City Council approval without discussion as a single agenda item in order to expedite the meeting. Should a Council Member wish to discuss or disapprove an item, it must be dropped from the blanket motion of approval and considered as a separate item.

June 28, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 3 of 22 A. Waive the reading in full of all Ordinances and Resolutions. Ordinances on the Consent Calendar will be adopted by the same vote cast as the first meeting, unless City Council indicates otherwise.

B. Approve payment of warrants for the period ending June 21, 2022.

C. Approve the Minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting of June 14, 2022, to be ordered filed.

D. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-46 approving the Goal Statement for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

E. Accept the May 2022 Financial Report.

F. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-52 approving professional services agreement with Badawi & Associates for auditing services for fiscal years ending June 30, 2022, through 2024, with the option of extending the contract for two subsequent fiscal years.

G. Adopt Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2022-502 of the City of Guadalupe, California, amending portions of the Chapter 3.20 of title 3 of the Guadalupe Municipal Code related to Transient Occupancy Tax to increase the tax rate from 6% to 10% as well as increase the types of occupancy categories subject to the tax.

H. Transit Update – for informational only.

I. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-53 directing staff to forward to the Auditor Controller’s Office of the County of Santa Barbara the water standby charges for vacant parcels within the City of Guadalupe for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

J. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-54 authorizing the City to enter into an agreement for professional building inspector services with David R. Rose.

K. MONTHLY REPORTS FROM DEPARTMENT HEADS

1. Public Safety Department:
a. Police Department report for May 2022
b. Fire Department report for May 2022
c. Code Compliance report for May 2022

2. City Treasurer’s report for May 2022

3. Recreation & Parks report for May 2022
No items were pulled. Motion was made by Council Member Ramirez and seconded by Council Member Costa, Jr. to approve the full Consent Calendar. 5-0 Motion passed.

7. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT: (Information Only)
June 28, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 4 of 22 - West Main Street Waterline Replacement Project is currently underway on West Main Street from Guadalupe Street to Pioneer Street. This is the replacement of almost a thousand feet of 4-inch pipeline with 12-inch pipe. Project is scheduled to be completed July 15th. Project is approximately $400,0000.
- 2022 Pavement Rehabilitation Project is currently in design. Engineers estimate project is $1.4 million.
- A structural assessment of the City Hall has been completed. A building committee meeting is scheduled for July 14th to discuss results and options. - On July 1st the City’s transit system will change to two fixed routes instead of one fixed route and one on-demand shuttle. Upgrades have been made to several bus stops including shelters, signs, and lighting.
- On June 23rd, the City received a Letter of Intent from 3CE of up to $250,000 for procurement of an electric bus. The City needs to issue a PO or request an extension within 30 days of that date to secure these funds.
- On June 27th, the City finalized the details of the CalFire grant, which is $170,000 for the preparation of an urban tree plan and inventory of existing trees. The City has until March 30, 2026 to expend these funds.

8. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT: (Information Only) - Attended the Air Fest committee meeting at the Santa Maria Airport. The event will be held in September and they’re looking to make sure Guadalupe is represented and some Guadalupe dignitaries attend.
- For the recent rash of vandalism, the Police have identified all vandals. Some have already been arrested. With the help of Public Works, they’re giving me some of the projects that some of these vandals can paint over or do. We’ve already spoken to some of the parents and things are being worked through now.
- Have had discussions with two (2) major cities for a possible fire engine. I met with one (1) of our fire captains and was given detailed specifications of what the needs and wants are. Most of these large agencies rotate these vehicles out and donate to other cities. We’re in the process of determining how this will work out and trying to now to get on their list. - 4th of July – PD has already sent out flyers to the community about enforcement. An aerial drone was just procured that will be used for 4th of July and also for the Fire Department. This gives us “eyes in the sky” for better enforcement.
- Graffiti Task Force – I’ve spoken with our Guadalupe Business Association. We want to make this a community-driven type of enforcement and not from strictly the Police Department. Things are being worked out now. Mr. Garret Matsuura has worked with us to update the complaint form which is now online. We’re making sure the program is set…then we’ll put together the community meeting to make this more citizen-driven to report. We’ll be working with the Police and Fire Departments to then address these complaints.

June 28, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 5 of 22 - CCW Permits – the California Attorney General just came out with their directive. The Supreme Court upheld the 2nd Amendment regarding carrying a concealed weapon. We now need to get more clarification on what the state process would be. Currently, each jurisdiction will have the responsibility to issue CCW permits. Currently, we only have two (2) citizens requesting. We want to make sure everything is legal, so our city attorney is also sending that determination from our State Attorney General’s office. If we have any questions, we’ll be working with the city attorney’s office on that.

9. MAYOR’S REPORT- UPDATES
The mayor encouraged reading the report to see all that is happening in the City here. CM Cardenas said, “On #14, the ribbon cutting for Jack O’Connell Park has already happened.” Mayor Julian added that Masatani Market donated ice cream for the ribbon cutting event.

PUBLIC HEARING

10. Public hearing to consider TrusPro addition and Solar Project, 2022-095-DR, to approve two additions to the shop building totaling 1705 square feet and approve a roof-mounted photovoltaic system totaling 38.48 kW (370 modules).

Written report: Larry Appel, Planning Director
Recommendation: That the City Council:
a. Receive a presentation from staff;
b. Conduct a public hearing, including: 1) an opportunity for the applicant to present the proposed project, and 2) receive any comments from the public; and c. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-55 approving 2022-042-DR, including DR Findings, CEQA Class 32 Exemption and Conditions of Approval.

Mr. Steve Herring, President of TrusPro and owner of the property initially spoke on this issue giving some background. The key point is that two additions were made to a building without the appropriate permits. City Attorney Sinco added that this would have been a minor design review except for the un-permitted addition which was discovered at a later date. Staff is fine with this request and the applicant is fully cooperating.

Public hearing opened at 6:19 p.m. There were no requests to speak or additional comments.

Public hearing closed at 6:20 p.m. Motion was made by Council Member Robles and seconded by Council Member Costa, Jr. to approve Resolution No. 2022-55. Roll Call: All Ayes 5-0 Motion passed.

11. Pasadera Landscaping and Lighting District (FY 2022-23) – Public Hearing.

Written report: Shannon Sweeney, Public Works Director/City Engineer June 28, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 6 of 22 Recommendation: That the City Council conduct a public hearing to provide all present with the opportunity to speak regarding the assessment for the Pasadera Landscaping and Lighting District and adopt Resolution No. 2022-56 confirming the Engineer’s Report, Assessment Diagram, and assessments related thereto for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.
(Note: CM Ramirez recused himself.) Ms. Sweeney said that this is an annual exercise to pay amenities for the lighting and landscaping in the Pasadera development. At the Council meeting on June 14th, the City Council adopted a resolution, setting a public hearing date to adopt the resolution which approves the Engineer’s Report and orders the levy and collection of assessments on the County tax rolls for FY 2022-23.

Public hearing opened at 6:22 p.m. There were no speaker requests or additional comments.

Public hearing closed at 6:23 p.m. Motion was made by Council Member Costa, Jr. and seconded by Council Member Cardenas to adopt Resolution No. 2022-56. Roll Call: Ayes: 4 Recused: 1 Motion passed.

12. Guadalupe Benefit Assessment District (FY 2022-23) – Public Hearing.

Written report: Shannon Sweeney, Public Works Director/City Engineer Recommendation: That the City Council conduct the public hearing to provide all present with an opportunity to speak regarding the assessments for the Guadalupe Benefit Lighting District No. 1 and adopt Resolution No. 2022-57 setting the proposed assessments. (Note: Mayor Julian and CM Robles recused themselves. Mayor Pro Temp Ramirez presided.) Ms.

Sweeney said that this is the second of three benefits. This benefit assessment district is for lighting and landscaping in the Point Sal Dunes and Riverview subdivisions. The parcel assessments are the same as last year.

Public hearing opened at 6:25 p.m. There were no speaker requests or additional comments.

Public hearing closed at 6:26 p.m. Motion was made by Council Member Cardenas and seconded by Council Member Costa, Jr. to adopt Resolution No. 2022-57. Ayes: 3 Recused: 2 3-0 Motion passed.

13. Guadalupe Lighting District (FY 2022-23) – Public Hearing Written report: Shannon Sweeney, Public Works Director/City Engineer Recommendation: That the City Council conduct a public hearing to provide all present with an opportunity to speak regarding the assessments for the Guadalupe Lighting District and adopt Resolution No. 2022-58 setting the proposes assessments.

Ms. Sweeney said that this is the third of three benefit districts. This is for the annual cost of street lighting, the Katayama clock, city parking lot (Veterans Memorial Plaza), and Amtrak depot. (Property tax is subtracted.) Rates are unchanged from last year.

June 28, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 7 of 22 Public hearing opened at 6:28 p.m. There were no speaker requests or additional comments.

Public hearing closed at 6:29 p.m. Motion was made by Council Member Ramirez and seconded by Council Member Robles to adopt Resolution No. 2022-58. Roll Call: All Ayes 5-0 Motion passed.

REGULAR BUSINESS

14. Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Proposed Budget.

Written report: Lorena Zarate, Finance Director
Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-59 accepting the proposed budget for the fiscal year 2022-2023, along with the Capital Improvement Projects Budget, Capital Facilities Program of Projects, and American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) allocation of funds.

Ms. Zarate stated that at the budget workshop held on June 15, 2022, the Council recommended items to be deferred, eliminated, revised, etc. She went through the revised proposed budget for FY 2022-23 highlighting what was initially proposed in the June 15th workshop versus the proposed revised budget as follows:

General Fund Summary:

Revised revenues of $6,923,013 vs $6,761,712, an increase of $161,300. Revised expenditures of $6,855,696, a decrease of $891,200.

All departments had expenditures cut, with the more significant ones being: 1) Police, 13% decrease or $$370,000; 2) Fire, 12% decrease or $166,700; 3) Building & Safety, 15% decrease or $43,300, and 4) Non-Departmental, 28% decrease or $190,000, and 5) Building Maintenance, 15% decrease or $49,396. Administration, Finance, and Parks & Recreation Departments also had expenditures cut, 7%, 3% and 7%, respectively.

Some examples of these expenditure cuts:
- Administration: eliminated 20% increase for City Administrator - Building Maintenance: eliminated turf replacement for city facilities - Building & Permit: defer hiring Associate Planner for six (6) months with review of budget at that time
- Finance: eliminated temporary for Tyler implementation - Fire: eliminated Battalion Chief position
- Non-Departmental: eliminated rubberization of O’Connell Park and Tognazzini Park improvements - Police: defer hiring two (2) police officers and one (2) Emergency Preparedness Coordinator for six (6) months with review of budget at that time
June 28, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 8 of 22 The difference between budgeted revenues and budgeted expenditures per this proposed draft is $67,317. As revenues are expected to exceed expenditures by $67,000, the estimated fund balance for the general fund is expected to be approximately $890,00 in the black for fiscal year 2022-23.

One of the City Council’s main goals is a balanced budget. This revised proposed budget does reflect a balanced budget.

Some examples of changes to other funds:

Streets Special Funds:
- Measure A: decrease of $7,550 in overall budget, which includes update to the transfer to General Fund, which decreased by $4,650
Enterprise Funds:
- Water Operating: increase of $60,700, which includes a transfer to the General Fund and $60,000 for cost of turf replacement
- Wastewater Operating: increase of $50,000 for grit system replacement cost - Transit: revenues in the amount of $2,960,305
Miscellaneous Special Funds:
- Library Fund: decrease of $4,000 for rent, due to donation from Friends of the Guadalupe Library Capital Improvement Projects: the City plans on completing $20,053,162 in FY 2022-23 for public improvements
ARPA: changes were made to reflect the funding for Recreation Services Manager and Facilities/Parks Maintenance Lead positions; transfer of $166,200 to General Fund; $30,806 for Los Amigos de Guadalupe, and $707,000 for capital projects.

CM Cardenas asked about the Animal Services contract’s increase and whether the City looked at other services. Mr. Bodem explained, “Chief Cash had looked at the option to have service in-house before. City of Santa Maria may sign into a 5-year term, with a 60-day out and Guadalupe may want to do the same. By City Code, we must have this service. The current fee is $61,900 and will go up about 4.5% to $64,000 for FY 2022-23. We’re looking to have the contract brought before Council at the July 12th meeting for a 5-year term, with the 60-day out provision. It might be best to work with Santa Maria.” CM Ramirez said this has been a ‘hot topic’ with the County Board of Supervisors and that they’re looking at rejection of this contract by cities because of the 5-year term. CM Ramirez felt that the City shouldn’t agree with a 5-year term, but Mr. Bodem said that this is the way the contract is set up, with that 60-day out.

There was further discussion of projections/estimates and whether we saw anything beyond May.

Ms. Zarate said, “The estimates are for trends through April 2022, which includes estimates of property tax, sales tax, etc. from HdL. I’m confident in those estimated figures and that revenues up through September will be included in FY 2021-22.”
June 28, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 9 of 22 Other discussion involved importance to keeping the temporary worker for the Tyler accounting software implementation. CM Ramirez cited the benefits of that system for both staff, residents and public in conducting business efficiently. Also, Fund 76, People Self-Help Housing, and possibility of moving some funds for non-urgent budgeted items to another department where cuts occurred. Mr.

Bodem stated that elimination of step increases, though, approved is under review.

Mayor Julian said it’s been discussed before that a number of homes were anticipated to be built but that’s now hit about a 47% or so reduction in revenue that we thought we’d be getting. He cited the following facts on surrounding cities, showing population and FY 2022-23 budget compared to Guadalupe:

City Population Budget

Santa Maria 107,000 $258,000,000
Goleta 32,000 56,899,301
Carpinteria 14,000 41,678,735
Buellton 6,000 $ 10,000,000
Lompoc 47,800 $ 45,756,355
Santa Barbara 92,000 $184,100,000
Guadalupe 8,500 $ 6,855,700
They mayor said that about 10% of Santa Maria’s budget goes to public safety, with Police at $12.4M and Fire at $14.2M. Lompoc’s budget for Police is $13.1M and for Fire, $7.6M. Santa Barbara’s budget for Police is $51.4M and for Fire, $29.0M. For the City’s total budget, about $2.8M is for Police and $1.2M for Fire. Other cities have TOT. We lose monies to Santa Maria in sales tax. COVID hit and hurt all over. We received ARPA funds in the amount of $1.8M. ARPA allocations for Santa Maria are $50M and for Lompoc, $15M, due to their higher populations.

Other comments from the mayor: Fire Chief…Battalion Chief – seems to be a practical approach…not to belittle Chief Cash as it’s a hard stretch to take care of both responsibilities; look at Lompoc and Santa Maria…a lot of shootings, we have a safe environment. Public Safety needs to be elevated…we don’t want to lose our employees…Santa Maria needs 25+ police officers…we lack officers, too, but the monies just aren’t there; cannabis can’t do everything…we need more to move forward…additional monies for the Royal Theatre because “we’re a poor community”…we received for Le Roy Park, $1.7M, Central Park, $4.9M and the Royal Theatre, about $9M…the monies for the Royal Theatre will help with the second phase to help create jobs…we’re locked in a kind of stalemate with Cal Trans, Highways 1 & 166, and Southern Pacific Railroad...the signalization project with Cal Trans is locked…would like to see the new school going up…we’re leaning forward but COVID and Pasadera hurt us.

Mr. Deek Segovia gave a clarification that during the discussion of expenditures, a comment was made about work on various buildings. He said that the American Legion was cited. He wanted it June 28, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 10 of 22 on the record that the American Legion doesn’t have a building. We do have a Veterans Memorial Building.

CM Cardenas asked if ARPA funds could be used for the $6,500 for temporary help for the Tyler accounting software implementation. Ms. Zarate said that an amendment would be made to the ARPA funds.

Motion was made by Council Member Ramirez and seconded by Council Member Cardenas to approve Resolution No. 2022-59 with amendment to add back $6,500for temporary position during Tyler accounting software implementation, using ARPA funds. Roll Call: All Ayes 5-0 Motion passed.

15. Approval of City Policy for Veterans Memorial Building.

Written report: Philip F. Sinco, City Attorney
Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-60 approving a policy for the shared use of the Veterans’ Memorial Building between veterans’ group, the City, and the general public.

City Attorney Sinco said that the staff report was rather detailed but felt that it was important to show the full background for the public as well as the Council to understand why “we’re here asking to approve this policy”. He then highlighted some of the key dates and points:

November 22, 1994: Santa Barbara County managed the Veterans Memorial Building (“Building”), located at 1059 Guadalupe Street, until it granted it to the City.

April 21, 1997: On or about this date, City entered into a lease agreement with the American Legion Post 371 (“Post”) for the ‘leased premises’ (which included the Building and property’s exterior with City maintaining the property’s exterior portions), for a five-year term, ending on April 30, 2002, with a month-to-month provision with lease terminated and American Legion still in possession of leased premises.

April 24, 2007: ‘Lease Extension agreement’ was entered into between Post and the City, extending the term of the lease, with same hold-over provision, ending April 30, 2012.

April 30, 2012: Lease extension ended, and lease was converted to a month-to-month lease, until February 10, 2021.

January 11, 2021: Todd Bodem, City Administrator, sent a letter giving the Post #371 thirty (30) days’ notice of the termination of the lease with the City. The Post was asked to provide list of dates of Post’s use of building and that the City intended to rent the facility and exterior barbecue when not in use for veterans’ activities. It was stated in the letter that the reason for the rental would be to offset the annual cost of the building’s maintenance, estimated at $30,000 per year.

June 28, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 11 of 22 February 10, 2021: Lease was effectively terminated. Prior to the January 11, 2021 letter being send, Mr. Bodem received a quote of $17,000 to fumigate a possible termite infestation. After a review of the lease agreement, it was discovered there was no evidence of any monthly or yearly financial accounting/reporting as required by the lease. The possible “last straw” was then Mr.

Bodem discovered that the Vietnam Veterans had been meeting in the City’s Senior Center for the last 4-5 years. They were meeting there because the Post made it difficult for them to meet at the Building. However, all veterans are entitled to use the Building. Post did not agree with the termination of the lease.

June 11, 2021: Mayor Julian, Mr. Bodem, Philip Sinco, some Post leadership members and Post’s attorney, John Dorwin. met to try and negotiate a resolution and agreed that a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) for joint use would be necessary. The City agreed to draft the MOU with input from Mr. Dorwin.

City Attorney Sinco sent various drafts of the MOU on several occasions to Mr. Dorwin, and he came back each with the same objections: Post did not agree that City had the right to rent the BBQ area and/or to rent the bar/lounge area which had not been previously rented to the public. However, the City felt the need to rent for the increased revenue to offset maintenance costs of the Building.

January 4, 2022: The final draft of the MOU with the City’s ‘final offer’ was sent to Mr. Dorwin. This draft included the City’s demand that public rentals of the BBQ area and the bar/lounge area be permitted, with no fee required to be paid to the Post for use of the BBQ area or the Bar/Lounge area. Mr. Dorwin objected to the City’s final offer.

The city attempted to work with Post and its attorney negotiate an MOU in good faith. With Post 371’s refusal of the City’s final draft MOU proposal, City Attorney Sinco said, “The City’s on good ground and asserts ownership of the Building as intended as of February 2021. Staff has drafted a policy which has much that was in the MOU for shared use of the City’s Veterans Memorial Building between all veterans’ groups, the City and the general public. The main provisions of this policy are summarized as follows:

1. Veterans’ groups will have exclusive use of the Lodge Room (military items) for meetings – there is a room between the main hall and bar/lounge area that can be used as a passageway.

2. The City will have exclusive use and control of areas used by the Fire Department, electrical closet and storage area above the kitchen/main hall areas.

3. All other spaces in the Building, like the kitchen, main hall, bar/ lounge area, and the external BBQ area will be shared. (The office space will still be able to be used by Post.)

4. One (1) room is currently being rented by Alcoholics Anonymous and three (3) rooms are being rented by the Rancho de Guadalupe Historical Society. These rentals will be allowed to continue at $200 per month, paid to the City. (Note: on the schematic, two (2) spaces shown as ‘storage’ June 28, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 12 of 22 but are part of Rancho de Guadalupe Historical Society. Also, the zip code is 93434. Both will be corrected on final copy of the policy.)

5. Storage spaces – policy doesn’t dictate primary use; both City and veterans’ groups can use, as determined by City Administrator or designated staff.

6. No charge for veterans for shared spaces for event that is not open to the public; but if open to the public, rental fees would be charged but veterans would have priority over the public. (Note: City Attorney Sinco said that Mr. Dorwin requested that both deeds be shown on record.

Both deeds say basically the same thing that the City owns the building primarily for use by veterans although reasonable incidental non-veteran uses are going to be allowed. The purpose of that is that the City or whoever receives the rent is responsible for the maintenance of the Building.)

7. If alcoholic beverages are sold, a one-day Alcoholic Beverages Control license is required as is approval from the City of Guadalupe Police Department consistent with the City policy for rental of city facilities. (Any veterans’ event or activity held at the Building, not open to the public where alcohol is provided, with or without charge, requires approval by the City of Guadalupe Police Department.)

8. If food is sold, a caterer is required with all necessary food and health safety permits to be obtained by holder of event/activity. (If not open to the public and food is served, a caterer/health permit is not required.)

9. The City will pay for all utilities and be responsible maintenance for landscaping on the parcel where Building is located.”
City Attorney Sinco said that this is Phase 1 of the proposal. He said it’s important to go forward, but that he expects Post 371 objections based communication received from their attorney. He explained, “There will be a dispute of personal property that belongs to the American Legion. The lease included some of that. The City advised the Post attorney on numerous occasions to remove the property. If it isn’t removed, the City will negotiate to purchase it. The same request for the BBQ. A communication from Post said that Post would rather remove the equipment than let the City use it. The City is fine with that and will replace the equipment or purchase it from the Post.

Equipment not willing to be shared should be removed so the City can replace and start renting the facility or sell to the City at a fair price.”
Mayor Julian then commented that working through this effort to provide the Veterans Memorial Building as a home for veterans, that’s been a priority, regardless of veterans’ organization, branch of service, etc. He commented on the extensive research effort of City Attorney Sinco in trying to move this forward to benefit the veterans and the public. There are only two (2) facilities, besides the Veterans Building, for city functions – the City Auditorium and Senior Center, which is small. We June 28, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 13 of 22 owe it to the veterans to be able to use this building and then the public. Details are in the staff report showing response to Post attorney. The mayor said, “This MOU is needed, and I appreciate both Mr. Sinco’s and Mr. Dorwin’s efforts. Emails on this topic that will be part of the record.” The mayor then opened the discussion to those requesting to speak. He said that there were numerous requests and reminded all that each had three (3) minutes to speak.

John Dorwin: Legal counsel for American Legion Post 371. “The legal test is this: ‘is the resolution that is being proposed arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion in adopting the resolution?’ What the City staff proposes violates my clients’ historic use and occupancy of Veterans Memorial based upon the 1931 deed, the 1994 deed and various cases he cited, sections of the Military and Veterans Code.” He mentioned 90 years of occupancy and use of the facility in reliance of the original terms of the dedication in the 1931 deed.
“The City is going through great lengths to sabotage my clients to obtain a type 5 liquor license. The position the City Attorney has taken is that a lease is needed or some other evidence to occupy the premises. Only one deed is necessary – the veterans have two (2) deeds. All we want is what Post #56 has in Santa Maria which is a lounge open to all veterans.” He said that he was mistaken, did some more research and cited page 6 of the staff report. He said, “We can serve our members, our bona fide guests…members of other organizations, such as the Vietnam Veterans…reserve officers and active-duty personnel, and anybody who falls within the statutory definition of a veterans under the Government Code, somebody who served during a national emergency. So, we don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for a Type 52 license for the benefit of all veterans instead of having to go to the ABC and pay $75 for a daily permit. We also feel it’s unreasonable, with all due respect, to have to go to the Chief of Police whenever we want to serve alcohol in a veterans’ facility when it’s common practice in all veterans’ facilities throughout this state.”
At this time, the three-minute mark was cited. Mr. Dorwin asked for one of his members to yield his time. Mayor Julian said “You’ll have all the time you want. You had three minutes.” He then called up the next speaker request, Mr. Peter Benedict. Mr. Dorwin said, “I want to offer proof that I was not allowed to present my statement completely as counsel for the veterans.” The mayor told Mr.

Dorwin to go ahead and finish.

Mr. Dorwin continued citing numerous amendments relating to his clients ‘freedom to associate’.

He said that the consumption of alcohol is not dictated by cities but rather by the State, arguing for a Type 52 license as a recognized veterans’ organization and that the City’s actions denying such license is an abuse of discretion, arbitrary and capricious and violation of State law as well as the 21st Amendment to the Constitution of the Unted States. He said, “Post should have been able to apply for a license with a zoning clearance and process a license with any conditions and input from the public and the City. That process has been denied. That is a denial of due process and equal June 28, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 14 of 22 protection and his clients, as well as the other affected veterans, have standing to bring an action to correct that should the Council adopt the proposed resolution.” Mr. Dorwin then talked about the lounge area and that if alcohol was to be there, Post could not allow the public to also be there without a Post member present to provide security. He alluded to a lot of functions that Post has that are sensitive matters that require security. He does not believe that the City can open up the lounge area to the public without a designated representative of the American Legion being present. The same for the BBQ. “They’ve had bad experiences when the public was allowed to use that facility…they wrecked it.” Mr. Dorwin stated, “Council pointed out that the lease is gone…that it’s terminated.” He said that that his clients have their rights under State law, federal law, and other regulations and rulings. He also said that under the Military and Veterans Code, Post not being able to use the personal property, and the BBQ area, the City has a double obligation to pay just compensation, the fair market value of what is being taken for public use, re-dedicate it and open to the public. Citing some legal cases, he said then that the City has an obligation to provide Post with equivalent facilities if it takes over the facility and opens it up to the public. “The bar, the BBQ and the personal property fall into that category, citing the Military and Veterans Code, and that the City has to give Post a substitute location.”
He said the term, ‘rental’, for the Veterans Memorial Building, is inappropriate. He thinks you can ‘license’ spaces, but the City can’t rent out spaces…being rent implies a leasehold interest for a definite term which he thinks is contrary to the deed. He further said that the City needs to provide the Vietnam Veterans and other veterans groups with the same accommodations that historically have been provided to the American Legion…an office, exclusive meeting area and storage for amenities those groups have. He offered to sit down with the Vietnam Veterans and anyone else to determine ‘who gets what’. It’s not the City, as he cited case law, that is in a position to dictate to them ‘who gets what’.

Mr. Dorwin said, “Every time we sit down to negotiate, we come back with less and less. That’s a problem. We think there needs to be everyone at the table. Ultimately, if this proceeds to litigation, we believe that not only should the County of Santa Barbara have been noticed under the 1994 deed, but we believe, before the resolution was considered, there should have been a notification to the California Council of Druids, who are still out there, who have residual rights under the 1931 deed.

We think that’s a defect in the noticing of this resolution, not to notice people who have interests under the recorded instruments and residuary rights should the Council do something to violate the terms of the dedication.”
Mr. Deek Segovia asked, “I just want to ask how many three-minute sections that was?” Mayor Julian responded, “You can have more time.” City Attorney Sinco added, “Mr. Mayor, you’re obviously in charge, but I think in light of importance and the legal issues, it doesn’t really do us too good to enforce the three-minutes unless it starts to get really petty and then you’ll use your June 28, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 15 of 22 discretion. That’s just my take on this.” The mayor said that he was setting the three-minute timer but if the speaker needs to go on, that’s fine
Peter Benedict: I’m the current Board President of Chapter 982 of the Vietnam Veterans of America.

My dad was drafted in World War II, 101st infantry. He was a greenhorn in Europe and when the Battle of the Bulge happened, he was in the middle of it. I asked him what the most common memory he had of World War II. He told me it was blood mixing in with mud. He lost control of his bodily functions twice during combat. He came home…his family owned bars…my dad owned a bar. He had a problem with drinking, and he committed suicide when I was 18 years old. Currently, most of us know that twenty-two vets commit suicide each week. I would propose that most of those veterans are either drunk or loaded at the time that they killed themselves. I’m a voice in the wilderness here saying that of the hundreds of places in Santa Barbara County that serves alcohol, I don’t think a veteran’s organization should be one of those. We have a problem with trauma, alcohol and drugs. Thank you.”
John Velasquez: “I yield to our attorney”. (At this point, the mayor asked if Mr. Dorwin wanted to speak further. Mr. Dorwin said, “I’m done.”)
Marcelino Reynante: “I’m done”
Art Amarillas: “I yield to our attorney.”
Ronald Stevens, Sr.: “I yield to my attorney.”
Daniel Adams II: “I also yield to my attorney.”
Deek Segovia: I’m a representative of Chapter 982 of the Vietnam Veterans of America. I’ve been here before so the City Council knows of the situation we have but there may be a lot of people who don’t know.

Where this starts for me is when the Vietnam veterans first started coming home, we were not allowed … because ‘ours was not a war’, as was told to us. It took some years to open up the doors to the Vietnam veterans. In the meantime, we created our own organization, ‘Vietnam Veterans of America’. With that, many things happened…PTSD was determined, Agent Orange, many things we speak about. What happened to us then, back in the 60’s and 70’s, we thought it was all behind us until we started a chapter.

In 2006, 2007 – we were formal. Initially, we were meeting at the Cultural Center, Joe Talougan, but we got too big for that…we moved to the Simpatia…then got too big for that. Joe Battara, Commander of Post 371 at that time, invited us to that Building. He said, ‘You are veterans, you belong here.’ But then the ‘powers that be’ ousted Joe. After that, we came in on a Saturday for a regular meeting and the place was all decorated. The new commander, John Velasquez, said to us, June 28, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 16 of 22 ‘Oh, you guys can’t meet here today. If I can rent this building and make money, I’ll do that over veterans.’ That’s the attitude from way back.

John Velasquez asked us then, ‘Why do you have to be Vietnam Veterans of America? Why can’t you be Legionnaires?’ I am a Legionnaire with Post 66. A lot of our members are with American Legion, VFW, DAD, all mixed just like the American Legions are. We’re all mixed but we were not welcomed here. In those days we had 70-80 people and we needed that large hall. But he (John Velasquez) said that we could use the bar area. That wasn’t workable so we had to leave there because we didn’t know enough at the time to approach the City. We didn’t know that.

So, we left, and we met at the school. We paid them but they allowed us to meet there. In 2012, our chapter imploded, and we relocated to the VFW in Santa Maria until we were welcomed back.

John Archuleta, one of our officers at the time, worked out a way to get back to Guadalupe, our home, using the Senior Center. We’ve been meeting there ever since for about four (4) years now.

We’ve never been invited to the Veterans Building. The gentleman spoke up here about the City of Paso Robles, the City of Santa Ynez, Santa Maria…we are not those cities. We are Guadalupe. The City of Guadalupe, the City Council and the community have always backed the veterans. At our first function at the city parking lot, now the Veterans Memorial Plaza, we served 1,500 people. A lot had never been here before because of the reputation we had. So, the community and the City have always been with us.

There have been some rumors since all of this started two (2) years ago. Rumors were out there that the City was ‘anti-veterans’. Shirley Boydstun, God bless her, I love her…she wrote an article about how the City was kicking the veterans out of the building and they would be homeless. I called her and we talked. I asked her why she wrote that? What were you thinking? She said, “This is what I was told.” Who told her that? I have my guess…can I prove it? No, and I’m not going to ask her.

Those kinds of rumors are hurting the City…they’re hurting themselves, the American Legion. They’re making an embarrassment of themselves.

That BBQ pit was made by Louie Navarro…it was on wheels. When his son-in-law, a highly decorated Vietnam veteran, passed away, the family was charged to use that building for this veteran. And they were going to be charged $500 to use that BBQ pit which Louie Navarro made. It’s just unjust.

I don’t care about the facts and figures thrown out. We’re from here…we’re Guadalupe. We don’t need a bar. They weren’t making a lot of money on the bar. And what happened to their liquor license. Why do they have to apply for another liquor license? If they didn’t have a liquor license, how were they selling liquor there before? And if they did have a liquor license, what happened to it? Who accounts for that? There are people to report this to, but who reports it? Who is the commander?
I started the American Legion Riders out of Post 371. But because of the issues dealing with the commander there, I told the guys, “I’m out of here. I have a better invitation to ride with an ALR in June 28, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 17 of 22 San Luis Obispo where there’s no oppression. The attorney should never mention 371 and 982 together again because we’re not together. We’ve never been invited…we tried to set up an MOU with them years ago and was turned down. The City owns the building…the City wants to open up the building for all of us to use. 982 doesn’t want to be under the thumb of 371.

It's very upsetting to me because of what we had to go through back then. We have several members in this room who were there with me in the beginning who are still there. And we still have this issue with the American Legion. They want to be all welcoming now asking to get together. No, the talking stuff is over. Let’s move on. We’d love to do functions with the American Legion here in town. We get invited to Atascadero to do functions with them…with Arroyo Grande…with Santa Maria, but we don’t get invited by this commander of this Post.

I used to say it’s one person…but not anymore. It’s all of 371 because if you stand for this injustice, you’re with him. You can’t sit on the fence. It’s just very disturbing to me when I walk into that building, after being treated the way we have by that commander, to have to go in there and see a life-size cut-out of himself up on the balcony, looking down at us. I don’t know how you in the 371 can deal with a personality like that, but you do. No one says anything. We’re veterans, too. And we have every right to use that building without being under the thumb of 371.

Mr. Marcelino Reynante then spoke. He said, “We let the group come into the building. We came in after the meeting and found our stuff removed. Right? They had taken down John’s thing and stuck it back in the office. They took down the American Legion stuff and put it on a table. They put up their signs. And we went, ‘This is what they want to do?’ They put up their signs…this is our group…this is not the American Legion. That’s just some of the things that happen. If that’s what you’re going to do when you come in…you don’t remove the other peoples’ stuff…you don’t take down stuff and move your stuff in place. If you want to put stuff up, come in and let’s discuss it.

That’s the proper thing to do. You don’t just remove the stuff that the American Legion already has out there and put it on the table. Or take down John’s cut-out and put it in the backroom. Is that reasonable? You come in and say, ‘Here we are. We have the facility.’ You have the facility, but you don’t like the looks of it. “
Mr. Segovia responded to Mr. Reynante’s comments. He said, “First of all, it’s not an American Legion building. It’s a city building. And are they the only ones who can decorate the hall? Put their stuff up? It seems to me like that control they want, is that everything there is done. You can’t move anything. If you can have your sign there, I can have my sign here. Even with that cut-out, it was reported as being destroyed which it never was. That’s not my property. I folded up things there.

That’s not an American Legion room. They have a room over there, but they want this room, too.

So, it’s a bit childish to think that ‘this is mine and you can’t move it’. If I clear it with the City and tell the City everything that we’re doing in there, if they have an objection, then the City will object, and I’ll listen to them. They’re the owners of this building…you can’t decorate every room in there and say, ‘Oh, it has to stay because we’re American Legion.’ I’m American Legion, also…” June 28, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 18 of 22 At this point, Mr. Reynante started to speak but was interrupted by Mr. Segovia. Mayor Julian then asked Mr. Reynante if he wanted to comment. Mr. Reynante said, “You want to talk about childish things. They come in the building, and they decide to remove some of our material that’s already there. If you don’t want the material there, let’s sit down and have a discussion. Don’t just remove it. Put it on the table. Take the signs down, fold them up and put it the office or something. But if you want to talk about childish, that’s childish. If something’s not the way you want it, let’s sit down and have a discussion. We didn’t have a discussion…they just decided to remove things themselves.” Mayor Julian added, “Deek asked me if he could remove the sign. I approved and told them to turn it around. So, he wasn’t at fault for that…he asked me.” The mayor had additional comments. “I belong to the American Legion, Post 371. Back in the late 60’s, early 70’s, our population was around 2,200-2,300. And 220 individuals served in the military, during the Vietnam era. At least 14 from one street served in Vietnam. People don’t need to be treated like that. Mr. Dorwin brought it up and said why don’t we meet. That’s great, but we haven’t been able to do that. To me, this will move it forward…this MOU. Any further comments?” City Attorney Sinco said, “It’s not an MOU, it’s a policy. There may be a possibility to negotiate an MOU in the future, but we’re ready to move forward and recommend adoption of the City policy.

We can always enter into an MOU, in addition to that, and perhaps change some of the policy if it was agreed upon.” He added, “Mr. Dorwin and I have exchanged numerous emails about the issues.

I know the cases he cited. I have a different interpretation, otherwise I wouldn’t have brought this item forward for your consideration. I don’t think this document is arbitrary and capricious. If we have to litigate, I’m very comfortable and I want to say for the record that I’m prepared to defend the City’s actions.”
CM Ramirez said that, in the past, there were comments that the locks have been changed. City Attorney Sinco said that we have possession of the building and have access now, after the termination. It’s not addressed in the policy, but it’s somewhat implied.

CM Robles questioned the definition of the term, veteran, and asked if there was one specific definition. Mr. Dorwin asked to speak at this time. He said, “California has a definition in the Government Code. There are eligibility requirements to being considered a Vietnam veteran. The American Legion has the most inclusive and loosest standards. They allow anyone who was in a conflict, up to an including Vietnam and the Cold War. Anyone who served from 1941 on for American Legion membership. “
CM Robles had other comments. He spoke about his father coming here from the Philippines. He said “During WW II, if you ever look at the ‘Day of Infamy’ speech, President Roosevelt scratched out ‘Guam and the Philippines’ but both were attacked on that same date. The Filipinos, stateside, petitioned the government to go back and fight Japan’s occupation. They were granted under a segregated unit. My father fought in the 2nd Filipino Battalion. He’s interned in the Guadalupe Cemetery. Would he be considered a veteran?”
June 28, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 19 of 22 City Attorney Sinco responded that he believed so. He cited a definition from the California’s Military & Veterans’ Code a definition that would apply. Mr. Dorwin added, “If your father fought after 1941, he would be eligible for American Legion membership.” Mr. Segovia said that there were 14 sets of brothers from Guadalupe who served in Vietnam. He also added a correction to what Mr. Dorwin said…Vietnam Veterans of America is the only group chartered by Congress.

The following emails were sent in on this item:

Shirley Boydstun: A lot of history is involved in the MOU, most of it spot-on. Please see page 9 of 9.

The RANCHO DE GUADALUPE Historical Society has not received notice to not pay rent to the American Legion Post #371. See also the OLD schematic of the building. The Museum of the Historical Society is in space designated as 12. Spaces 10 and 11 are contiguous with that main building and are not storage spaces. MANY years ago, the “city” had an office in space 11 with access from the outside corridor. That door is no longer operable. (Email received 6/25/22) Shirley Boydstun: Mrs. Pelton asked me to reiterate that space 10 and space 11 are part of the Rancho de Guadalupe Historical Society Museum, space 12 and are NOT storage spaces. We wish to avoid any confusion in future deliberations. Thank you. (Email received 6/26/22) Todd Bodem: To Shirley Boydstun: I sent a message over to you folks. It must have got lost in the ‘shuffle’. This is an official notice telling you to hold off on paying rent until then this gets settled between both parties. Would you like your memo discussed tomorrow night? Thanks. (Email sent 6/27/22)
Penny Chamoussis: Concerns Regarding American Legion Post #371, Guadalupe, CA

Finances: First and foremost is my concern regarding the finances of Post 371 under the leadership of John Velasquez. It is my understanding that when asked for the Post’s Federal Tax Identification Number for purposes of a charitable donation, Mr. Velasquez cited an invalid number and when pressed further, he did not have the information. Is the Post collecting funds utilizing an invalid tax exemption for non-profit organizations? Does the Post even have a valid Tax Identification Number? Have they been illegally collecting funds as a tax-exempt non-profit organization?
I have personally witnessed Mr. Velasquez disbursing funds from an Auxiliary account without consent or authorization from the auxiliary for an event that was neither explained to nor authorized by the Auxiliary. The auxiliary was never reimbursed for these funds which amounted to over $800.

No explanation was ever offered to the auxiliary for this event.

Liquor License. Did the Post have a liquor license to operate the bar? If so, was the license sold and if so, was this sale authorized by the membership of the American Legion members? Was there a motion, what was the number, who proposed the motion, etc. What happened to these funds? June 28, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 20 of 22 Mr. Velasquez controlled all activities that occurred at the Memorial Building, including all funds generated by rental of the building. Was any of this money ever accounted for or given to the City of Guadalupe since the building does belong to the city? Post By Laws: It is also my understanding that all American Legion Posts maintain valid By Laws voted upon by the members of the Post. When asked for said by Laws Mr. Velasqez stated that Post 371 does not have any By Laws. Election of officers, meetings, membership/dues, collection and/or disbursements of funds, and/or any other operations that are governed by by laws.

Building Access: Mr. Velasquez has installed locks on every door in the building and maintains the only set of keys. Other Veteran Organizations are not allowed to access any storage space or other meeting rooms in spite of the fact that they are not being used by American Legion.

Given the fact that the Veterans Memorial Building is owned by the City of Guadalupe, allegedly for the use and benefit of all veterans, why are all veterans not allowed access to the building including all meeting rooms and equitable storage? Why aren’t all veteran organizations allowed use of the facilities for fund raising as well? Where do all the funds from the events held by Mr. Velasquez go? Who are they benefitting and how are these funds accounted for? I believe this is a particularly important topic given the fact that the American Legion is a non-profit organization governed by both federal and state laws. Where is the accountability? (Email received 6/27/22) Rob Doty: We are writing to you today to request fair treatment of our local Guadalupe Firefighters.

It has come to my attention that an MOU offer from the City has demanded pay cuts, loss of incentives, and schedule changes unprecedented in the fire service. They are already the lowest paid department in the county, and inflation is hurting the average worker already. Remove this offer, and please consider treating these workers fairly. Other departments/numerous employees are being hired and receiving pay raises this year. We thank you for consideration on this matter. Thank you. Signed, Robert and Teresa Doty (Email received 6/28/22) Cherri Robinson: I am writing to you today to request fair treatment of our local Guadalupe Firefighters. It has come to my attention that an MOU offer from the City has demanded pay cuts, lost of incentives, and schedule changes unprecedented in the fire service. They are already the lowest paid department in the county, and inflation is hurting the average worker already. Remove this offer, and please consider treating these workers fairly. Other departments/numerous employees are being hired and receiving pay raises this year. I thank you for consideration on this matter. Signed, A Concerned Citizen (Email received 6/28/22) Note: Copies of the Deed, dated August 12, 1931 and the Deed, signed November 22, 1994 are on the City’s website.

With no further discussion, the mayor asked if there was a motion. City Attorney Sinco said, “With correction to the zip code and the changes mentioned made to the policy itself.” June 28, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 21 of 22 Motion was made by Council Member Costa, Jr. and seconded by Council Member Robles to adopt Resolution No. 2022-60 with noted changes to the policy. Roll Call: All Ayes Motion passed.

Mayor Julian then said, “I had a friend, a Vietnam vet, who died about four (4) years ago from Agent Orange. He would come to the meetings here in Guadalupe, but he stopped coming. I asked him why he stopped coming. He said because they carry guns…because they get irritated…they get mad.

This is the time to get mad and time to work to move forward and have that building available to all veterans and the community. Thank you all for being here.”

16. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Philip Sinco:
a. Downtown Residential Parking Permit: schedule for July 12th meeting (City Attorney) b. Cannabis Timeline: was for July 12th meeting - move to “Other Unscheduled Items” (City Attorney)
c. Other Cannabis Item (no title given): schedule for July 12th meeting (City Attorney) d. Pasquini Lease Agreement: schedule for July 26th meeting (Public Works) Todd Bodem: Approve GANN limits: schedule for July 12th meeting on Consent Calendar

17. ANNOUNCEMENTS – COUNCIL ACTIVITY/COMMITTEE REPORTS
CM Ramirez:

Charter reached out regarding broadband. Looking to have a Broadband Advisory Council with Guadalupe Business Association, and others.

Microenterprise Program: on July 9th at 2:00 p.m. is the ending of the Microenterprise “folks”.

Unsure of festivities but Certificates of Completion will be handed out.

18. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION MEETING
The meeting is being adjourned to closed session. Item to be discussed: Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Subdivision (b) of Government Code section 54957) Title: City Attorney.

Motion was made by Council Member Ramirez and seconded by Council Member Cardenas to adjourn to closed session. 5-0 Motion passed. Meeting adjourned to closed session at 8:17 p.m.

CLOSED SESSION

19. Public Employee Performance Evaluation
(Subdivision (b) of Government Code section 54957)
Title: City Attorney
June 28, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 22 of 22

20. ADJOURNMENT TO OPEN SESSION MEETING
Motion was made by Council Member Costa, Jr. and seconded by Council Member Ramirez to adjourn to open session. 5-0 Motion passed. Meeting adjourned to open session at 8:49 p.m.

21. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS
No reportable action.

22. ADJOURNMENT
Motion was made by Council Member Ramirez and seconded by Council Member Costa, Jr. to adjourn. 5-0 Motion passed. Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.

Prepared by: Approved by:
________________________________ ____________________________________ Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk Ariston Julian, Mayor
June 15, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 1 of 13

MINUTES
City of Guadalupe
Special Meeting of the Guadalupe City Council
Wednesday, June 15, 2022, at 6:00 pm
City Hall, 918 Obispo Street, Council Chambers

1. ROLL CALL:

Council Member Liliana Cardenas
Council Member Gilbert Robles
Council Member Eugene Costa Jr.

2. MOMENT OF SILENCE
The mayor asked to continue to remember those suffering in Ukraine and for any personal wishes you may have.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION FORUM
Each person will be limited to a discussion of three (3) minutes or as directed by the Mayor.

Cynthia Reyes: Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Cynthia Reyes and I’m the VicePresident of the Guadalupe Firefighters Association and wife of Fire Engineer, Guadalupe Reyes. Up to this point, I’ve been reluctant to speak to you on a delicate matter on the Fire Department. With a background in finance and construction, I absolutely understand budgets and the need to meet the bottom line. However, there is something missing in these dialogues that I feel, not only as my duty as Vice-President but my duty as a wife and member of the community to shed some light on.

As firefighters for this community, these men have set aside their personal lives, time after time, to uphold the lives of this community. They’ve missed holidays, birthdays and special occasions to be there, 24/7 for you and your loved ones. Is it not enough for their families to have to worry that today they get the big call that they won’t be coming home? Is it not enough that they miss Agenda Item No. 7D
June 15, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 2 of 13 important dates in their own lives to report for duty around the clock that now the same families have to worry if today’s the day their spouse or partner is going to be fired from the job that they’ve devoted their entire lives to?
The quick answer has continued to be that ‘we’re not going to dismantle the department’. But when members are being written up for no reason…when they’re told they are not allowed to public events and can’t speak up to HR to report misconduct…when they’re being told you either take a pay cut or you walk…when they’re slowly being mentally broken down to the point of wanting to quit and aren’t even allowed to train on their own time with their own money, you tell me what is the underlying message?
The department is not a business. Overtime is not overtime when there is a refusal to hire additional personnel but there still needs to be a crew around the clock to respond to calls. I understand the department has only six members and you still expect them not to work overtime to provide around the clock care…when all other departments seem to have funds for additional staffing. The budget for all public safety entities, for that matter, should not be a negotiable matter regardless of the bottom line. Peoples’ lives should not be negotiable, especially in a community which may not be able to afford medical care.

This community needs a department with qualified personnel. It is absolutely appalling that the City has chosen to pinpoint only certain members’ salaries to try and prove a point of over expenditures.

Because, truly, if you want to talk about salaries, we should look at miscellaneous expenditures and salaries across all departments, not just Fire.

Let’s talk about numbers because a solution is really simple. There’s 18% of the budget allocated to Fire and a whopping 42% for Police. A 10% reallocation would leave the Police Department with 32% and bring Fire to a respectable budget of 28% to be able to hire additional staff to meet specific guidelines. Additionally, reallocating the vacant position of Emergency Preparedness Coordinator to the position of Fire Chief, who may also perform emergency preparedness duties, would give all parties the opportunity to fulfill their jobs accordingly.

Keep in mind what they are requesting is nothing more than the bare minimum required in this field, not only to protect the City appropriately, but also to put food on the table for their families. This information is only to draw attention to matters that were being contorted before being presented to you. And Council, I do not fault you. I only fault the foggy glasses that you are being made to see out of. You, the Council, are public servants just as these men here. It may be naïve of me, but I still believe that you meant the oath that you took to serve this community. And I believe that when given the opportunity to look beyond those foggy glasses, you’ll see that this isn’t a matter of ‘you versus them’. It’s only a matter of having an effective entity to serve your community as a unit.” Ryan Mack: Council, All Concerned…Hi, Guad Fire Captain here (Off-Duty). I wanted to firstly say thanks for having to sit through yet another speech of mine, in as many days. I have a clear objective tonight…in fact it has never been clearer since all the pieces seem to fit now. I understand your concern regarding overtime. I hear your concern for reliable sources of revenue. I appreciate your reluctance to participate in controversial politics. So tonight, I bring a new promise. I promise on my reputation that everything I say tonight is 100% factual and may God himself strike me down if I lie about what I am presenting tonight. Let’s get started… June 15, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 3 of 13 I believe you think the Fire Department is being paid too much. But I also believe you all are being given inaccurate information. So, before anything I am obliged to ask, since I have not been able to get this information so far…, Miss Lorena? Finance Director? May I ask you a general question? Would you remember receiving a $200,000 check? If so, has the City received a check from the state for the Dixie Fire regarding the Fire Department’s service last year? Thank you.

It has been publicly stated that the Fire Department abuses overtime. Overtime is a simple math equation. Manpower vs hours needed vs lack of coverage. Also noteworthy…All Fire Department overtime is approved by the Public Safety Director. The PD overtime is three times as much, but why is that not a problem? In fact, one Sergeant on the PD side makes more than the Public Safety Director and accrued $80,000 in overtime alone. So why is our $100,000 overtime budget an issue? I can speculate that it is a red herring. A fake issue. It is the cost of safety. Here are the real five (5) facts I have for you tonight:
1) Overtime is not a trigger word; it should make the Council happy. The Fire Department made $200,000 on one incident last year, and the City profited $100,000. If we go to mutual aid fires, we will make you money. I have the proof here tonight for anyone who would like it. The overtime budget has never reflected it.
2) No firefighter took home $140,000 last year (net). This is a number generated on the cost of the City for this employee. It does not account for:
a) Taxes-30% roughly
b) Medical & Benefits
c) Owed backpay
d) Hours worked
i. If an average civilian employee works 40 hours a week, that equals 1900 hours per year.
ii. If a firefighter works 53 hours a week, overtime kicks in by law through no fault of his/her own. This is the law. The Fire Captain on blast (which was not me) worked between 3,000- and 4,000-hours last year. Double what is expected of a normal employee. So how is that even comparable?
3) If you all deny having threatened the Fire Department about going volunteer, then you have a rogue negotiator, and he needs to be fired. I also have proof of this here tonight. His name is Che Johnson.
4) We are the lowest paid Fire Department in the County. A salary survey conducted two years ago proves that and continues to this day. I also have that proof available to anyone interested. Do I get paid less than firefighters I command on mutual aid incidents? Yes. Do I complain? No.

But I am not ok with pay cuts to existing positions. N. O. 5) The public stated Public Safety was priority #1. This is a big one. How any votes do you need to convince you that is what they want? We have a petition that says at least 500 more on top of the 80 that filled out that survey agree. If you hire a Battalion Chief in conjunction with an Emergency Preparedness Coordinator, you are setting the City up for failure. A Fire Chief will not fix everything, true…but it is a step in the right direction.

June 15, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 4 of 13 My request is simple. Do what is right. Not what is easy. The public is speaking. It is now in your hands to decide if you will listen. Thank you.

Charlie Martinez: I’m Vice-President of California Professional Firefighters, 5th District and also a retired Vandenberg firefighter. I’ve worked side-by-side with Guadalupe Fire on several occasions.

A letter was sent to you by Julianne Hill from Taylor Farms about a recent incident they had in Salinas which could have resulted in catastrophic loss. (Mayor Julian indicated that that letter was on the back table.) That incident was mitigated before it got to be bad because they have a full-time staffed Salinas Fire Department that are on-the-spot professionals. What if that happened here in Guadalupe? Would the staff here for that? With the funding that you have for the Fire Department? That would be a completely different scenario.

Let me switch over to something more real, like a house fire. There are a lot of new houses being built all the time. A single room that catches fire…it takes about 6 to 8 minutes before it flashes over.

That means that there’s fire, from the top to the bottom, wall-to-wall…an unlivable, very dangerous scenario to go into to fight fire. As firefighters, we have a ‘2-on-2’ policy for safety. If you don’t have proper staffing, you have to wait for the next engine to show up. We’ve already gone over the details when Santa Maria FD or SB County Fire will be on the scene. By that time, that house is gone. Price of a house? About $500,000-$600,000.

Last time I talked here, you talked a lot about what happens on medicals. You can’t put a price on that. I just ask that we do the right thing by our Fire Department…we do the right thing with our cops, giving them some money, some funding, the City needs it. Our firefighters also need that love.

They also need that support. They also need funding because, God forbid, you lose a house…that could be somebody’s livelihood, where they live. God forbid somebody’s in that building…now you lose a life as well. Some things to consider when you make decisions on funding. Thank you.

Albert Nunez: I just wanted to speak tonight just to respond to the young woman’s comments last night about overtime. Ryan’s already covered a lot of that but the overtime that I understand that happens in a Fire Department is because of what’s called in the industry, ‘constant manning’.

They’re committed to be ‘manned’ at all times. Overtime is created because you have X number of staff. Sometimes while that staff is due for a shift, they’re sick, a family member’s sick, they need to leave, they’re not able to show up for their shift. So, you have to ask someone who’s already on the shift to work another shift. Or call someone in who’s already worked their allotment of hours that week and now you have overtime.

It made sense to me when someone explained it to me. I wasn’t sure where the information was coming from last night when the young woman was speaking. Then I thought that she’s looking at numbers. She read off numbers and said how much it is…and look how much it is…that’s a big number and that’s something you can etch away at. Well, actually, no, I don’t think you can.

It’s the cost of doing business…to be ‘constantly manned’. You can’t just etch away those numbers.

They’re there for a reason. That’s all wanted to say tonight. I didn’t know who else was speaking but I thought it was important to address that overtime is not just a line item that you can explain away and delete. Thank you.

June 15, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 5 of 13 Letter from Taylor Farms: (dated June 15, 2022)
Dear Mayor Julian, Council Members & Staff,
At Taylor Farms, our employees and staff are our greatest and most valuable resource. Our produce facility operates 24/7 covering two production shifts with maintenance and sanitation personnel on site during down time. We have as many as 600-700 employees on site during peak seasons. Over 40% of our work force also resides in the city of Guadalupe full-time along with their families.

A recent large-scale fire incident at our facility in Salinas is a stark reminder of the importance of a well-trained, local fire department. Fire personnel were on site within minutes and had good familiarity with our facility and layout. Due to the quick response of Salinas Fire Chief, Michele Vaugan, and her team, there were thankfully no injuries or lives lost. Had response times been any greater, it could have been much different outcome. Response times of fire, medical, auto and other emergency personnel during crisis situations are critical as every minute counts.

For these reasons, Taylor Farms supports the full-time local fire department in Guadalupe and the need for a Fire Chief that will foster growth, training, and support for the current staff.

Sincerely,
Julianne Hill
Senior Director, Customer Fulfillment
Taylor Farms retail, Inc. – Guadalupe

REGULAR BUSINESS

5. FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 PROPOSED BUDGET FOR BUDGET WORKSHOP.

Ms. Lorena Zarate, Finance Director, began the workshop by saying that one of the goals of the City Council is to have a balanced budget for FY 2022-2023 and to prioritize a build-up of reserves.

She started by going through the General Fund and its proposed budget. Of the various departments funded by the General Fund, the following were over budget by the noted percentage (Amended Budget FY 21-22 v Proposed Budget FT 22-23):

Department Percentage Over
Administration 11%
Finance 8%
Building Maintenance 16%
Police 17%
Fire 7%
Parks & Recreation 20%
Building & Safety (Planning) 4%
Non-Departmental 17%
Those departments that were under budget were the following:

June 15, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 6 of 13 Department Percentage Under
City Council -16%
City Attorney -8%
Cannabis -100%
The difference between the budgeted revenues and budgeted expenditures is $985,184. Reduction in the proposed expenditures needs to occur in order to build addition reserves.

General Fund Revenue, per proposed budget:

Taxes: Expected revenues = $3,873,967 (Similar to FY 2021-22 budget) Sales Tax = $549,435 + $691,731 (Measure N)
Property Tax = $1,620,801
Remaining tax revenue – projections based on estimated data thru April 2022 Building & Planning: Expected revenues = $472,950 (-49% from FY 2021-22 budget) Public Safety: Expected revenues = $338,500 (-37% from FY 2021-22 budget) Other Revenue: Expected = $1,065,023 (+21% over FY 2021-22 budget) -includes an Estimated $100,000 from cannabis, calculated based on HdL correspondence.

ARPA Transfer: $484,413
Overall, the preliminary draft of the budget includes estimates revenues for the General Fund in the amount of $6,761,712, a 4% decrease compared to prior year budget.

General Fund Expenditures:

City Council = $12,680 (16% decrease from FY 2021-22 budget) Administration = $539,000 (11% increase)
City Attorney = $110,000 (8% decrease)
Finance = $594,683 (8% increase)
Non-Departmental = $778,507 (17% increase) (This department includes expenses such as professional services (audit fees), IT services, property and liability insurance, payment of interfund loans, etc.)
Building Maintenance = $377,794 (16% increase)
Police = $3,218,800 (17% increase) (Includes 50% of Director of Public Safety) June 15, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 7 of 13 Fire = $1,428,900 (7% increase) (Includes 50% of Director of Public Safety) Parks & Recreation = $390,172 (20% increase)
Building & Permits = $296,360 (4% increase)
Cannabis = This department was not previously included in the budget. There are no additional fees to be paid to HdL at this time.

The preliminary budget has estimated expenditures for the General Fund at $7,746.896 which is approximately an increase of 12% over FY 2021-22 budget.

General Fund Conclusion: For FY 2022-23, with estimated expenditures of $7,746,896, about 12 % greater than FY 2021-22, and estimated revenues of $6,761,712, expenditures exceed revenues by $985,184, resulting in the General Fund being in the red by approximately ($158,000) for FY 2022- 2023.

City staff had proposed a variety of items currently in the proposed budget that could be reduced or deferred, lessening expenditures for budgeted revenues to reach, at least, a breakeven point. Some of those items were:

Parks & Recreation Manager and unfilled Maintenance Lead positions: fund thru ARPA = about $168,100 reduced.

Eliminate 3% COLA for unrepresented employees = about $8,800 reduced.

Renew City Administrator’s contract at same salary (not 20% increase) = $31,800 reduced.

Defer filling three positions in PD: two (2) police officers and the Emergency Coordinator for one year = $319,800 reduced; if deferred for six (6) months = $159,900 reduced.

Postpone filling the Associate Planner position = $10,000 reduced (re-evaluation pending) Eliminate the Battalion Chief position = $148,000 reduced.

Eliminate certain improvements at O’Connell Park & Tognazzini Park = $190,000 reduced.

Eliminate temporary intern positions for public safety = $22,000 reduced.

Eliminate turf replacement match = $40,000 reduced.

Re-allocate use of ARPA funds for certain proposed expenditures, such as PPE supplies, reduce auditorium, public works conference room and finance office upgrades, generator, etc.

The proposed items listed to reduce expenditures, not including the reallocation of ARPA and reduction of operating supplies across all departments, may result in a total reduction of costs of about $1,010,200. Ms. Zarate concluded, “With the proposed budget where expenditures exceed revenues, the City may not be sustainable. City staff is seeking Council’s direction.” June 15, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 8 of 13 The meeting resumed with Mayor Julian starting the discussion on the list of items recommended to reduce or defer for possible costs savings. He said that having turf at O’Connell Park wasn’t necessary. He also said that because there was very little use of Tognazzini Park, the proposed $190,000 for improvements could be reviewed.

There was discussion of the unfilled Facilities/Parks Maintenance Lead position. It was recognized that both City facilities and parks needed attention, but what were ways to deal with that. The mayor asked how can Public Works and Parks expand roles to cover at Le Roy and O’Connell Parks? Ms. Shannon Sweeney gave three possibilities: 1) contract work out, though not reflected in the budget; 2) have two separate lead functions, or 3) take one Lead and current Maintenance Workers; change the unfilled Lead to a Maintenance Worker, small reduction. This would end up folding parks and facilities maintenance back under Public Works. Mr. Bodem said, “Negligible savings with the third option.” Mayor Julian concurred.

The next topic involved Public Safety, specifically two positions: Emergency Preparedness Coordinator and Battalion Chief. Chief Cash made the correction that the Battalion Chief position was approved. He also said that Police is currently at 50% staffing and Fire is at 100%. He mentioned the length of time it takes in recruiting for Public Safety positions. It was discussed to use some ARPA funds and possibly Police 152 Fund monies.

Mayor Julian said, “Disaster preparedness person. We had one before. Funds are still in the budget and is unfilled.” Chief Cash stressed importance in that position as there were deficiencies in training.

The mayor then said, “You’re an expert in disaster but can’t do police, fire and emergency preparedness. We heard what people want in Fire. We want what works well in the City. Trying to get to a Fire Chief. Fire Department doesn’t want a Battalion Chief. So how do we figure that out?” CM Ramirez suggested that we look at “status quo” now. He referred back to the list of recommendations to eliminate or defer certain items and suggested going with that list. He gave some examples, such as keeping the Recreation Services Manager funded through ARPA, honor what has been negotiations (COLAs), keep steps increases at status quo. He said to look past this year but be proactive beyond.

Mayor Julian said, “You heard me in the past. The Recreation Services Manager should be in the General Fund budget. I do believe that we’ll see positive income. Look at a special district for just Recreation, or Fire, or Police. Hove a vote on bonds, etc. We have to get through the initial hump.

Look at December and review budget then.”
There was more discussion on the Emergency Preparedness Coordinator. The mayor asked, “If it’s budgeted at $109, 000…half of that would be $54,000…what happens if filling that position is delayed?” Chief Cash said that delaying the hiring, things fall on him. He stressed that it was imperative to have someone in that position. He said, “If we had a Battalion Chief, we could delay hiring this position.”
CM Cardenas said, “There’s a huge gap. Shows how reliable we are on one-time fundslike Pasadera.

We need to be as minimal as we can to stay afloat. I’m okay with accepting all recommendations on the list. We can look at the budget half-way through the year. We can look even further to reduce, June 15, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 9 of 13 maybe step increases. We have unknown costs that we don’t have numbers for, like workers’ compensation. To be at break-even, we have to look at $1M. This doesn’t involve any reserves.” Mr. Bodem commented, “On Pasadera, once the bridge is built, there will be five (5) more years of build-out. We’ll be strong. Cannabis won’t be a cure-all. I feel we must have the Associate Planner position approved. The Building and Planning Department is the hub. It brings in monies, applicant fee payback. The contract person, Larry Appel, is at $200 per hour. If he retires, we’d need to hire another contract person. It makes sense to have an in-house planner.” More discussion on the list of recommendations to eliminate or defer items. The mayor said to keep the $40,000 for turf replacement match and COLAs. Mr. Bodem said he wasn’t sure about step increases. Ms. Zarate then said, “Everything on the list, except 3% COLAs for unrepresented employees, freezing step increases and on Public Safety, delay six (6) months or one year.” CM Ramirez suggested delaying up to a year. Chief Cash pushed for recruiting and filling positions that had already been funded as he said he only had five (5) police officers in the field, and also to roll the Battalion Chief position into the Emergency Preparedness Coordinator position and not take anything out of ARPA.

CM Cardenas said, “What’s proposed? Defer two (2) police officers and the Emergency Preparedness Coordinator.” More discussion took place where Chief Cash stressed need to start recruiting now as it takes six (6) months for police officers with hires at the end of the year. CM Ramirez added hiring only if contingent on budget at that six-month review period. Chief asked again for the two (2) police officers and the Emergency Preparedness position. But CM Cardenas added, “$900,00 is not there.

We need to close the gap. We need to defer.”
Chief mentioned that if positions are deferred, overtime will result. More discussion about recruiting or deferring police officers, Battalion Chief and Emergency Preparedness positions continued between CM Cardenas and Chief Cash. CM Cardenas went back to the list of recommendations to defer or eliminate. She said, “Go with the recommendations, except COLAS. These two police officers would be for later. This would get you to eight (8).” Ms. Zarate then said, “Draft includes eight (8). Instead of having ten, keep eight (8) for six (6) months.” Mr. Robert Doty, from the audience, asked to speak. He said, “I have a simple question. Combine the Public Safety Director and Battalion Chief positions into Fire Chief. Relieves duty of Police Chief…hire a Fire Chief to answer to the City Council. Emergency Preparedness, $109K…Battalion Chief, $148K?” Mr. Bodem responded, “Could probably get a Fire Chief…relieve on emergency preparedness…Chief has that expertise.”
CM Costa, Jr. asked Fire Captain Ryan Mack to return to the podium. Mr. Mack stressed that he was off duty. CM Costa Jr.’s question was why doesn’t the Fire Department want a Battalion Chief, rather than a Fire Chief? Mr. Mack said that there’s an important distinction – a Fire Chief can “represent the guys”.…staff couldn’t. If he answers to a boss under the City Council…nothing would get done.

Fire Chief would have executive level training, like on budgeting.” He felt it would be very easy to find a Fire Chief at the same cost for the Emergency Preparedness Coordinator or Battalion Chief.

CM Costa, Jr. mentioned the City having had a part-time Fire Chief in the past. He suggested looking at that again or maybe getting a Battalion Chief who can grow into a Fire Chief. He questioned if June 15, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 10 of 13 that was a possibility. Mr. Mack said, “This is my personal opinion. If the Battalion Chief had a seat at the table, that would be okay.” Mr. Albert Nunez gave some information on a Fire Chief’s salary.

He said, “It’s estimated at around $85,000 to $125,000, with benefits. The median salary is $92,000, with a high of $101,000. Emergency Preparedness position is $109,000. There’s a bigger payoff…representation…would be able to lobby for his/her people.” He added that there was a parttime Fire Chief before with an Assistant Fire Chief who was his father.

Vince C., from the Vandenberg Space Force Base Fire Department spoke. He said, “We’re all professionals. I’m looking from the outside, looking at the budget. This department has engines from 2000-2005. No ARPA money. Lompoc has $8M in surplus cannabis. If you take ARPA away, there still is $3M surplus. The Fire Department is only 7% of the budget. Increase public safety. Chief is not a Fire Chief. You need a Fire Chief, not a Police Chief to run the Fire Department. Keeping things even is not even. If you don’t hire, there’s overtime…common math. The most important part here is to hire a Fire Chief. You can’t replace a Fire Chief with a Battalion Chief. Fire Chief and Police are equal.”
Mayor Julian then said, “Five (5) years ago, we were in the red. The Grand Jury still says we’re not a viable entity. Tim Ness, retired City of Santa Maria City Manager, helped us out. One of the firefighters had an issue with the part-time Fire Chief, Jack Owens. There should be a Fire Chief, but where’s the money for that? Combining the Battalion and Emergency Preparedness Coordination? I believe that we need a Fire Chief. Chief Cash does an excellent job.” Ms. Zarate suggested hiring either a Fire Chief or Battalion Chief using $50,000 from ARPA funds.

She said, “That would be half. Review in six (6) months and look at sustainability. Hire in January…we’ll have an idea of cannabis, taxes, etc. There’s consensus for the need for a Fire Chief.

Use the $50,000 but we’d need to think of later.”
CM Cardenas didn’t agree saying, “Go back to the same issue…one-time money for recurring costs.

Looking at the overall city…how can we fund a position and tell an employee that the job may be over in six (6) months. If we do that, there needs to be transparency for the employee that it is a grant-funded position. I still suggest status quo for now.” The mayor reiterated that ARPA money is “one-time money”.

Mr. Bodem said, “Prioritize wants…status quo.” Mayor Julian said, “This goes back to our goals. We need to hone in on ‘getting into the black’. How do we reallocate? How does discussion of Fire Chief meld into the FY 2023-24? CM Ramirez again said, “Status quo is important to note. We’re not arguing about needing a Fire Chief but give the City time to re-evaluate how we’re doing. Once we have greener pastures, we can make things happen. I’m happy with current structure, but we have to focus on getting into the black. This year = Status Quo – follow the list of recommendations. We have two (2) people agreeing.”
Ms. Teresa Doty spoke, “If you have monies funded, why can’t you use that money for a Fire Chief?” Mayor Julian repeated, “If we look at the budget, we’re $1M in the hole.” Mr. Bodem agreed saying that we simply don’t have the revenue. Ms. Cynthia Reyes asked, “Would ‘status quo’ include 42% of the budget for the Police Department?” Mr. Bodem said that it would not and reiterated that the Council and City staff are looking at all things.

June 15, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 11 of 13 Ms. Zarate summarized saying, “Then everything on the list, except COLAs and freeze on step increases. I’ll bring the budget back with changes for the June 28th meeting.” She then continued explaining other funds in the budget as follows:

Some Other/Special Funds:

Public Safety Special Funds: Similar to prior year revenue. No expenses currently budgeted.

Streets Special Funds:

Measure A: Budgeted revenues = $676,942 (+17% from FY 2021-22 budget) Budgeted expenses = $1,256,847 (+2% from FY 2021-22 budget) Gas Tax: Budgeted revenues = $351,812 (+12% from FY 2021-22) Budgeted expenses = $705,353 (+17% from FY 2021-22 budget) Transfers for capital improvement = estimated at $701,000 for street rehabilitation.

SB1 RMRA: Budgeted revenues = $190,494 (+23% from FY 2021-22 budget) Budgeted expenses = $380,000 (related to transfers for capital improvements for street rehabilitation.

LTF-Roads: Budgeted revenues = $9,270 (+23% from FY 2021-22 budget) Budgeted expenses = $8,800, transfers for capital improvements for sidewalk repairs.

ASHC Pedestrian: Budgeted revenues = $200,000 from ASHC grant for 11th Street Multimodal path design project.

Enterprise Funds:

Water Operating Fund: Budgeted revenues = $2,262,014 (-3% from FY 2021-22 budget) Budgeted expenses = $2,742,806 (+6% from FY 2021-22 budget) Water Capital Fund: Revenue was estimated to reflect expected impact fees from the Pasadera Development, 8 lots and standby charges. $1,065,387 budgeted transfer for capital improvement projects.

Wastewater Operating Fund: Budgeted revenues = $2,269,300 (+1% from FY 2021-22 budget) Budgeted expenses = $2,502,415 (+34% from FY 2021-22 budget) Wastewater Capital Fund: Revenue was estimated to reflect expected impact fees from the Pasadera Development, 8 lots and a grant from IRWM for effluent pump station rehabilitation. $1,843,208 budgeted transfer for capital improvement projects.

Transit: Budgeted revenues = $2,566,305 (includes CARES Act, and various grants) Budgeted expenses = $2,867,472, which includes $1,800,000 for infrastructure improvements, to Include EV bus and charging and Amtrak train station design.

June 15, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 12 of 13 Miscellaneous Special Funds:

Library Fund: Revenue is estimated to reflect expected impact fees from Pasadera and a $5,000 transfer from General Fund.

Budgeted expenses = Was $15,000 for library fund rent costs but with a $4,000 donation from Friends of the Guadalupe Library, revised to $11,000.

Capital Facilities Fund: Houses monies from People Self Help Housing and Pasadera Development impact fees. Staff prepared a program of projects for Councils approval as to the use of the funds, which includes $70,000 for public safety equipment and $459,537 for capital improvements.

Public Facilities Fund & Park Development Fund: Both funds are budgeted to receive funds from the Escalante Meadows development.

City Hall Equipment Fund: Budgeted revenues = $25,000.

Budgeted expenses = $25,000.

Traffic Fees Fund: Budget includes a $120,000 transfer for capital improvement, specifically for street rehabilitation.

CDBG Fund: Expected grant funding for various projects, such as Le Roy Park Phase 2 = $1.7M, Central Park = $4,887,084, and Urban Forest = $170,734.

Lighting & Landscape District Funds: Budgeted revenues and expenditure estimates are based on prior year information, with exception for expenditure for additional Pasadera Lot 5 for electrical and landscaping.

Successor Agency Fund: Budgeted revenues, include a CDBG grant of $5.1M for the Royal Theatre, and expenditures are based on prior year information, with exception of the Royal Theatre capital project.

Capital Improvement Projects: With Council’s approval, the City plans on completing $20,228,699 in FY 2022-23 for public improvements.

ARPA: The City’s total award was $1,860,000, of which half, $930,930, was received in June 2021. The other half is expected this summer. The total amount of $1,710,434 was approved and allocated by Council. By the end of June 2022, estimate of $330,606 will have been spent. $1,222,218 is proposed budget for next FY 2022-23, with $484,413 to be used to fund the General Fund expenditures. $30,806 is to fund Los Amigos de Guadalupe and $707,000 is to fund capital projects.

Mayor Julian commented, “On ‘Miscellaneous Special Funds’, capital improvement, the American Legion repair, $70,000…this is not Enterprise Fund so these dollars can be moved.” June 15, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 13 of 13 Ms. Zarate repeated that changes will be made to the General Fund and any other miscellaneous changes which will then be brought back for Council’s review and approval with the resolution at the June 28th meeting.

Mayor Julian’s final comment, “We heard good comments in making decisions that are good for the City.”

6. ADJOURNMENT
Motion was made by Council Member Ramirez and seconded by Council Member Cardenas to adjourn the meeting. 5-0 Passed. Meeting was adjourned at 8:14 p.m.

Prepared by: Approved by:
_____________________________ _______________________________ Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk Ariston Julian, Mayor

Page 1 of 2 ends

Agenda Item No. 7E

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of July 12, 2022
_Hannah Fuentes_______________ __________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Hannah Fuentes, Recreation Services Manager Todd Bodem, City Administrator SUBJECT: Co-ed Adult Volleyball League
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-61 approving the Co-ed Adult Volleyball League program.

BACKGROUND:

Drop-in volleyball has been occurring on Wednesday nights with a consistent group of people and continues to grow in its numbers. Many participants have expressed their desire to compete in a league run by the city. Starting with a co-ed League would allow the Recreation Department to assess if there are enough participants to add multiple divisions the next year. It would also give members of the community, whether playing or not, the opportunity to gather together and socialize while also promoting healthy living.

DISCUSSION:

The Co-ed Adult Volleyball League proposal is as follows:
• Co-ed Volleyball League
o Length of Season: Eight (8) weeks with additional week for playoffs o Number of participants on roster:
 Minimum: 9
 Maximum: 15
o Participant Ages: 16+
o Dates: September 8th – November 3rd
o Location: City Hall Auditorium
o Registration Fee per Team:
 Resident Team (At least 5 players must show proof of residency) - $380  Non-resident Team - $495

Page 2 of 2 ends

o Registration Timeline:
 Opens: July 13th
 Deadline: August 22nd
o Referee Fee per Game: $15 per team
The proposed registration fees were created based on the following costs: administrative time, referee assigner time, and game supplies. The fee is set per team. These fees would give the Recreation Department a starting point to work from for future volleyball league program registration fees. If the city decides in the future that prices need to be altered, those updated fees would be presented to the council for approval.

The City of Guadalupe’s referee assigner would assign referees to the City of Guadalupe’s adult volleyball league. The assigned referee of the game would be paid $15 from each team playing for a total of $30 per game.

A minimum of four (4) teams would be needed to run the league. A roster would require at least nine (9) individuals and no more than 15. A team manager would need to be established to start a team. It would be the team manager’s responsibility to complete the team entry/roster form. The team manager would be responsible for collecting the registration fee and participation waivers from all members on the roster and submit them to the Recreation Services Manager.

Individuals that would like to participate who do not have a team would submit a free agent sign-up form to the Recreation Services Manager. After receiving the form, the Recreation Services Manager would then add the individual to an existing team and give the manager of that team the individual’s contact information.

The program would be advertised for two (2) months prior to the first game with flyers throughout the community, on the city website, and on the Royal Theatre marquee. Registration would begin July 13th and the deadline to register would be August 22nd.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The registration fees are structured to cover all costs associated with the program.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Co-ed Adult Volleyball League Cost Breakdown

2. Co-ed Adult Volleyball League Rules

3. Resolution No. 2022-61
Adult Volleyball
League
Location Dates Weeks for Season
Auditorium 09.08-11.03 9
Expenses
Cost Quantity Total
Volleyball - Game Ball $68.00 2 $136.00
Est. # of Teams 6
Game Hours 3
Staff
hrs. rate #ofstaff total
Admin 40 $ 31.00 1 $ 1,240.00
Referee Assigner 40 $ 22.50 1 $ 900.00
Total $ 2,140.00
Total Expenses $2,276.00
part. Per team per team
Registration Fee 9 $ 379.33
Resident Fee Non-resident Cost Per Part. Res.

Guadalupe $ 379.33 $ 494.33 $ 42.15
ATTACHMENT 1
1 RECREATION AND PARKS DEPARTMENT
Adult Volleyball Rules and Regulations

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Recreation and Parks Department........................................................................................................................................ 1 Adult Volleyball Rules and Regulations........................................................................................................................... 1 Table of Contents..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Registration.............................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Communications...................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Eligibility ................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Rosters..................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Make-ups and Forfeits............................................................................................................................................................. 4 Playoffs.................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Rules of play................................................................................................................................................................................ 5 APPENDIX A. PROTEST PROCEDURES................................................................................................................................ 9 APPENDIX B. DUTIES OF THE OFFICIAL ............................................................................................................................ 9 ATTACHMENT 2
2 REGISTRATION
A. Where
Registration occurs at The City of Guadalupe Recreation & Parks Department Office, 918 Obispo Street.

The office is located next to the Auditorium. (9 am to 4 pm Monday-Friday) All leagues are filled on a first-come, first-served basis. No space is guaranteed for any team. Mail in registration is not accepted.

Registration closes when all slots are filled.

B. Fees
$380.00 Payment for a resident team and $495.00 payment for a non-resident team is due at time of registration. To be considered a resident team, the team must have at least 5 players with proof of Guadalupe residency. All checks for league fees should be made payable to “City of Guadalupe.” Any returned checks will result in the team being dropped from the league. Visa, MasterCard and American Express are also accepted. All fees must be paid in full.

C. Registration
Game nights are not guaranteed. Inappropriate team names will not be allowed (this includes play on inappropriate words or slang). Team names that are deemed inappropriate will be re-named by staff. A Manager’s Agreement must be turned in by each team prior to the start of the season. It is included with the In Person Registration Forms.

IN PERSON – A registration form must be completed in full and presented at the time of registration.

Payment will not be accepted unless accompanied by the registration form.

D. Managers Meeting
All NEW teams are required to have a manager or team representative attend the Managers Meeting prior to the start of the league. Meeting days and times will be noted on the league Registration Form. If a manager fails to attend a Manager Meeting or sign and turn in the Manager Agreement the team will dropped from the league and fees will not be refunded.

COMMUNICATIONS
Parks and Recreation Adult Sports Staff value comments and encourage communication regarding issues involving the league. However, due to the sheer number of players in the league, it can be difficult to field all correspondence. Therefore, we ask that Managers are the spokesperson for the team and all team communication is funneled through the manager. Correspondence received directly from players will generally not be responded to.
3 ELIGIBILITY
The team manager/coach is responsible for enforcement and adherence to the following eligibility rules:
• Players in all adult sports leagues must be 16 years of age to participate in the league. (Players under age 18 must complete a minor waiver/parental consent form to play). • All players must bring identification to each game. At any time, players may be asked to prove identity. Managers are strongly encouraged to keep copies of players’ identifications to alleviate any problems during identification checks.

ROSTERS
A. EACH SEASON a team roster must be completed and signed by all players by the registration deadline.

Teams that falsify the roster will be disqualified from the league and fees will not be refunded. Any team without a signed roster at the start of the first league game will not be allowed to play and will forfeit all games until a team roster is turned in.

B. Co-ed rosters are limited to 15 players.

C. A player’s name and signature on the participant’s waiver confirms full understanding of the waiver and release of liability form as well as all league rules and regulations.

D. Adding Players -- If a roster has not exceeded the maximum player limit, players may add names to the roster by filling out an add form. Add forms must either be turned into the office or to the umpire prior to the player playing in a game. There is no fee for adding players.

E. Dropping Players – If a roster has reached the player limit and the Manager wishes to add a player, players may be dropped from the roster by filling out a drop form. Drop forms must either be turned into the office or umpire. PLEASE NOTE: once a player is dropped from the roster they may not be added back to the roster for the duration of the season. There is no fee for dropping players.

F. No roster changes can be made after the 3rd week. In some instances, players may be added and dropped after the 3rd week, but it is at Recreation and Parks staff’s discretion. Contact Recreation Services Manager if you wish to make a change after the 3rd week as some exceptions may apply.

G. Any player wishing to change from one team to another during the season must obtain written permission from both team managers and the Recreation Services Manager. Approval must be obtained from the Guadalupe Recreation and Parks Department and add/drop forms must be submitted. 4 H. Players cannot play on two teams within the same league on the same night. Any player in violation of this rule will be suspended for one game, and all teams involved will forfeit all games the player has played in.

MAKE-UPS AND FORFEITS
Games cancelled due to a forfeit or other unforeseen circumstance are a possibility. Staff will do their best to schedule make-up games; however, because of the tight schedule make-ups are not always possible. Forfeited Games will be scored 3-0. Therefore, teams will not receive a credit/refund for cancelled games, nor will they be charged for forfeited games. The league fee reflects this possibility.

Any team forfeiting two games in a season without giving prior notice will be dropped from the league and fees will not be refunded.

PLAYOFFS
A. The playoff notifications are done by e-mail and a phone call to the qualifying teams.

B. In leagues with five or more teams, the top four teams (based on regular season records) will play in a one-week, single elimination playoff for the championship.

C. In leagues with four or less teams, only the top 2 teams will play in a playoff for the championship after an 8-week season.

D. Regular Season Tie Breaker System between two teams is as follows:

1. If one of the two tied teams forfeited against the other team during the season, they automatically lose the tie-breaker

2. Head to Head

3. Least runs against Head to Head

4. Least runs against for all games

5. Coin Toss
E. Regular Season Tie Breaker System between three or more teams is as follows:

1. If any of the tied teams forfeited against one of the other tied teams, they automatically lose the tie breaker

2. Head to Head (must win head to head series of all teams involved)

3. Least runs against Head to Head

4. Least runs against for all games

5. Random Drawing
5 RULES OF PLAY
RULE 1. THE GAME

EQUIPMENT
Personal equipment must be furnished by the teams or participants.

FORFEITED GAMES
A forfeited game shall be declared by the referee in favor of the team not at fault if a team fails to have the minimum number players required to start. A team has ten minutes from the scheduled game start time to have at least eight players on the field. The referee’s game clock is the sole judge of game time.

The game clock will not start during this grace period. Once both teams have the minimum of 4 players needed to play, the game clock will start.

NOTE:

1. Out of courtesy, team mangers are asked to notify both the opposing manager and the league administrator in advance of a forfeit. Make-up games may be rescheduled based on availability, no guarantees. Refunds/Credits will NOT be given if make-up games are not scheduled.

2. Any team forfeiting two games in a season without giving advance notice will be dropped from the league and fees will not be refunded.

3. When a forfeit is declared, teams involved may use the field, however, the umpire will not officiate the game. Games played after a forfeit are played at the team’s own risk.

RULE 2. TEAM PLAYERS

1. A team may have a maximum of twelve (12) players on its roster.

2. All players must be 16 years of age or older. Those under 18 must provide a parent signed liability waiver and consent form 7 business days prior to the first game.

3. No player may play on more than one (1) team in his/her division. • Players from the same league may substitute for a team in their same league only if the opposing manager approves it and signs off on the score sheet indicating his/her approval prior to the game. • Managers have every right to decline substitutes from the same league. • Players must play only for their original team for playoff games. • A player cannot be a permanent substitute for another team in the same league they already play in.

4. Teams must consist of players around the same skill level as the league they are registered in. 6 • League divisions are designed to create competitive and fair play amongst different talent levels.

Using players from higher skill divisions goes against this principle and the purpose of our league.

Managers are responsible for making sure their team only has players at the skill level they are registered for and not having players from our higher skilled leagues play on their lower division teams.
• Players who are listed on another roster in a higher division will be handled on a case by case basis.

Generally, they may not play in any lower leagues.

5. All teams must have a team roster with a signature of all players on their team. If a player is not on the roster the official will not allow him/her to play.

6. All players must be added by the 3rd league game. Changes must be made with the Recreation Services Manager 24 hours prior to the game.

RULE 3. SUBSTITUTIONS

1. There will be no time outs for substitutions, except in the case of injury. An established serving order must be set before the game begins.

2. Substitutions can rotate into the back row on every side out, but you must keep this pattern the same the entire game.

3. No free substitution will be permitted, except when a team is short starting player(s), when the player(s) shows up they may enter after a side out and must start in the back row.

4. See above section for substituting for teams in your own league.

RULE 4. PLAY

1. A lift will be called if a player obviously throws, catches, or slings the ball.

2. A foot fault will be called if the player’s entire foot is beyond the center line.

3. All line shots are considered good.

4. Players may not touch the net during play, with the exception of the USVBA blocking rule.

5. Hair contact is allowed. If ball knocks net into the player, it is allowed.

6. Balls may be played out of the net.

7. It is legal for a player to hit the ball with any part of their body.

8. Back row players may not hit the ball over the net from in front of the ten (10) foot line if the ball is completely above the plain of the net.

9. Attack blocking a set is not permitted.

10. Co-Ed Inter-Change is allowed. Back row male may block but not attack.

11. Blocks do not count as a hit.

12. Only front row players may block. (with the exception of the Co-Ed Inter-Change rule) Co-Ed leagues and above, if your team contacts the ball more than once (after the block) to send it over the net, a female must contact the ball.

13. On the third hit over, players can completely place his/her hand over the net for a block as long as the third ball striker touches it first.
7 14. All leagues must rotate on all side outs (includes first serve)

15. Multiple contact is allowed on any first ball (no double hit can be called) over the net provided the ball is not lifted.

16. Sets and Double Calls – We allow an official judgment call on spins if the setter is making an “athletic attempt” at the ball.

RULE 5. MATCH PLAY

1. Warm Up Period – Teams are allowed 3 – 5 minutes of warm up between games dependent on time. This excludes the first game of the night.

2. Game time is scheduled time.

3. Game Balls – teams are allowed to play with personal balls if both managers agree to it prior to the game. Game balls cannot be switched during the game unless there is an equipment failure.

4. Forfeit time is 5 minutes after game time.

5. A team that forfeits more than twice in a season will not be able to register for the following season.

6. game maximum of 27 points. Thus, if score is tied 26 all, the next team to score wins.

7. Each team will be permitted one (1) 30-second time out per game.

8. There is one (1) minute between games.

9. A match will be 3 games to 25 points, with rally scoring being used. If the first two games of the match last 40 minutes or more, the third game will be up to 15 points with rally scoring being used.

There will be a 17-point cap. Both teams will be notified before the start of the third game.

10. Rally scoring consists of one (1) point being scored on every serve regardless of who is the serving team.

11. Start of Game: Official will write down the time the match begins. Both captains will be notified at the start of the match.

12. The serving team will be determined by a coin toss. The winner having the choice to serve or choose sides.

13. The team not serving first for the first game will serve first the second game. Teams will subsequently alternate.

14. Players must be in their starting positions during the serve then they may move about the court.

RULE 6. SERVICE

1. Officials will allow adequate time for teams to set up defensively before blowing the service whistle.

2. Let serves (serves touching the net) are legal.

3. It is illegal to serve out of order or before the whistle is blown.

4. The server must contact the ball within 8 seconds after the referee whistles for serve.

5. If the server steps on the line or into the court before hitting the ball, they lose the serve. If the ball is thrown as part of the serve, lands without being touched, it is considered a service tossing error, the 8 referee authorize service again and the server must execute it within 5 seconds. One service tossing error is permitted per rotation.

6. When a serving error is made, all points served during that serve will be forfeited, if discovered during play. When the error is discovered after the serving turn is completed, no penalty shall be assessed.

Positions must be returned to the proper established order.

7. No blocking or spiking the serve will be allowed.

RULE 7. PLAYOFFS AND CHAMPIONSHIP

1. League playoff information will be noted on the schedule.

2. Playoff notification and brackets will be completed after the last scheduled games and qualifying team managers will be notified.

3. Playoff games are best of three and championship games are best of five unless otherwise noted on your playoff schedule.

4. Playoff game maximum point cap remains the same as league play.

5. Team roster will be checked prior to start of playoff games. Only players listed on team roster are permitted to play.

6. If teams are tied for a final spot in the playoffs, the tie breaking method will be as follows: 1) head to head, 2) total points scored between teams involved in tie, and 3) coin toss.

RULE 8. PLAYER CODE OF CONDUCT
UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT Managers/coaches are responsible for the conduct of their players/teams at all times. All players are accountable for their behavior before, during and after a game.

A player may be suspended for unsportsmanlike conduct at any time.

EJECTED PLAYERS Any player ejected twice in the same year, that player is prohibited from participating in The Guadalupe Recreation and Parks Adult Sports Leagues for one year.

SUSPENDED PLAYERS The Guadalupe Recreation and Parks Department maintains the right to determine the length of suspension for any violation. Penalties listed below are minimum sanctions.

A. ONE GAME SUSPENSION: Unsportsmanlike conduct such as equipment throwing, abusive language, and “trash” talking,
B. LEAGUE SUSPENSION: Unsportsmanlike conduct such as fighting with other players, flagrant contact with other players and excessive abusive language directed at an official.

C. ONE YEAR SUSPENSION: Two ejections in one-year, flagrant contact with an official, 9 threatening an official.

ALCOHOL, VAPING, DRUG AND TOBACCO USE
Alcoholic beverages may NOT be consumed in the park premises prior to, during, or after any scheduled games. The game will be forfeited by the team observed consuming alcoholic beverages. A second offense results in the team being dropped from the league and fees will not be refund. If the umpire/staff feel the safety of the participants and/or spectators is in jeopardy, they have the right to cancel, delay, or shorten the game. Parks and Recreation staff members are advised to contact police whenever alcohol consumption is witnessed. Use of tobacco, vaping devices and drug use is also NOT permitted during the play of a game. Tobacco and / or vaping products may NOT be used in the dug-out or on the field during game time.

RULE 9. CO-ED RULES

1. No team shall start a game with less than 4 players (minimum 2 females). There can never be more than 4 males on the at a time.

APPENDIX A. PROTEST PROCEDURES
PROTESTS THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED ARE:

Use of an illegal player may be protested at any time and can affect games already played. The Guadalupe Recreation and Parks Department will determine the player’s status and notify all managers affected by the decision. Penalty for use of an illegal player is a one-year suspension of the player from all City league games. Teams using an illegal player will forfeit all games in which the player participated in.

PROTESTS THAT WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED ARE:

Protests that are based solely on the disagreement of an official’s decision, for example: accuracy of judgment, technical calls or protests regarding a ruling which would have little or no effect on subsequent play or the final outcome of a game.

THE PROTEST MUST BE FILED WITHIN 24 HOURS
A formal written protest must be received in writing at The Guadalupe Recreation and Parks Department Administrative offices (918 Obispo Street) within 24 hours of the game in question.

DECISIONS REGARDING PROTEST are made at the league commissioner’s discretion and cannot be appealed.

APPENDIX B. DUTIES OF THE OFFICIAL
The Guadalupe Recreation and Parks Department furnishes one game official. The official is completely in charge of the game. Discussion of any game or official’s decisions is made with team managers only. 10 TEAM AGREEMENT Scorekeepers are not provided; therefore, the official will use a flip score to keep track of points scored. If the umpire is late or does not show, teams may agree to play the game with a mutually agreed upon volunteer official (player or spectator),or contact the league commissioner to have the game rescheduled.

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-61

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE APPROVING THE

CO-ED ADULT VOLLEYBALL LEAGUE
WHEREAS, the City of Guadalupe has had a long history and love for sports activities in our community; and
WHEREAS, an important step in developing a sports/recreation program for the City would be a co-ed adult volleyball league; and
WHEREAS, this co-ed volleyball league would not only allow for enjoyment of the sport of volleyball but would present an opportunity to gather together while promoting healthy living; and
WHEREAS, the season, including playoffs, will run for nine (9) weeks with participants aged 16 and above; and
WHEREAS, the team registration fee is set for both residents and non-residents with each team to have between 9 to 15 participants; and
WHEREAS, the fees are structured to cover all costs associated with the program.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Guadalupe that the Co-Ed Adult Volleyball League is approved.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting on 12th day of July 2022, by the following vote:

MOTION:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

I, Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk of the City of Guadalupe DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 2022-61, has been duly signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of the City Council, held July 12, 2022, and that same was approved and adopted.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2 of 2 ends

ATTEST:
________________________________ ______________________________ Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk Ariston Julian, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Philip F. Sinco, City Attorney

PLANNING DEPARTMENT
City of Guadalupe
918 Obispo Street
P.O. Box 908
Guadalupe, CA 93434
Tel (805) 356-3903
To: Mr. Mayor and City Councilmembers
From: Larry Appel, Contract Planning Director
Date: July 1, 2022 Planning Report Covering June 2022

MINISTERIAL PROJECTS
Zoning Clearances Approved 1
Zoning Clearances Denied 0
Zoning Verification Letters 0
Business Licenses Approved 1
Business Licenses Denied 0
ADUs approved 4

DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS
The following projects are in for Planning Department review and have been worked on during April:
 Sign Ordinance – Went into effect on May 9th.
 General Plan Update – .Mitigated ND to be circulated for public review in July, waiting for Spanish translation before public release
 2020-003-GPZ/2020-101-LLA Almaguer - LAFCo hearing tentatively set for August 11, 2022.
 2021-098-TTM/2021-099-TTM - DJ South tract maps being processed. Applications deemed Complete for processing 1-28-22 for TTM -098, working on final conditions of approval before staff report is prepared with Resolution Approved by CC on May 10, 2022. TTM -099 remains incomplete for processing
 2022-001-GPZ La Guardia Townhomes deemed Complete for processing.  2022-016-GPZ Snowy Plover map and design review remain Incomplete  2022-027-CUP/2022-030-DR - Conditional Use Permit for Patrick Kimbell to allow 24 affordable apartments in a Street. Second Incomplete Application letter sent June new 3- story building and Design Review to allow renovation of upstairs space for three apartments at 823 Guadalupe. Second Incomplete June 16, 2022.
 2022-034-CUP - Conditional Use Permit for Central Coast Processing, LLC to allow processing, bulk packaging, and transportation of cannabis at 151 Obispo Street. Application under review. . Incomplete Application letter sent May 18, 2022.  2022-037-CUP - Conditional Use Permit for Hwy - 1 General Auto Repair, to allow auto repair shop at 333 Guadalupe Street. Incomplete Application letter sent on May 22, 2022.

If any Councilmember is interested in a particular project or would like to know its status, please let me know and I would be happy to provide the information Agenda Item No. 7F 1.

Ministerial Permit Report– June 2022
(Reported 7-1-2022)
Zoning Clearance Approvals
2022-053-ZC Dish Wireless antennas 695 Guadalupe St
ADU Approvals
2022-041-ZC Pereyra ADU 415 Degasparis St
2022-044-ZC LeBlanc ADU 4422 Fir St
2022-047-ZC Pereira ADU Maryknoll Dr
2022-050-ZC Torres ADU 539 Campodonico St
Business License Approvals
Centro Comunitario Mixteco Meetings & Seminary 4444 La Joya Business License Denials
None
Guadalupe City Planning Department
Planning Processing Summary for June 2022
(7-1-22 update)
Case No. Name Submittal
Date
Comp. Date Status OK for Bldg.

Permit Issuance
2021-099-TTP $$ DJ Farms South
Tract map
Sept 2021 Incomplete
10-1-2021
Staff dealing with issues of RxR
crossings and emergency access.

NO
2020-101-LLA $$ Almaguer

LLA/GPZ
Oct 2020 Complete LAFCo approval set for August 11th NO N/A
$$ thru SB2 grant
General Plan
Update
2019 City
Council
authorization
N/A Mitigated ND to be released for public
review in July after document is
translated into Spanish
N/A
2022-001-GPZ
2022-002-DR
2022-003-LM
La Guardia
Townhomes
1/28/22 Complete
6-20-22
Project deemed Complete for processing.

Tentatively set for July 26th Council
meeting.

NO
2022-016-GPZ
2022-017-DR
2022-018-VTTM
Snowy Plover 3-10-22 Incomplete
4-09-22
Project deemed Incomplete for
processing.

NO
2018 -133 OA
No$
Sign Ordinance 2/24/20 N/A Ordinance went into effect June 9th. N/A 2022-027-CUP
2022-030-DR
Kimbell
Apartments
2nd INC June
16, 2022
24 new apartments with three apartments
in converted second floor
NO
2022-034-CUP Central Coast
Processing
INC May 18 30-day review of new application NO
No$ = unreimbursed planning work
$ = projects where a fixed fee has been paid
$$ = projects where a variable fee / deposit is made and the applicant is billed for time beyond the initial deposit // 7-1-22
Agenda Item No. 7F 2.

1 Public Works/Engineering Report
June 2022
Development
Pasadera
On June 7, City received markups on Lot 1S public improvement plans and grading from the consultant. A comment letter including comments on the public improvement plans and the grading plans was sent back to Pasadera on June 28. City staff sent Pasadera a punch list of final elements necessary for the City to take over maintenance and operation of public facilities in Lot 5N. At this time, the goal is for the City to assume operation and maintenance of streetlights, streets, sidewalk, water, sewer and parks in Lot 5N by August 1. Punch list items include slurrying the streets, repairing concrete, as-built drawings, final map, and other minor repairs.

Other
Reviewed two encroachment permits in June.

On June 24, reviewed the third submittal from T-Mobile for a generator at the elevated tank site.

Facilities
City Hall
On June 6 and 7, coordinated with contractor to fix the emergency exit signs in the City Hall auditorium. These lights were incorrectly wired and did not function as intended. They function properly now. On June 6, the auditorium stage ceiling and windowsills were repaired.

Public Works submitted paperwork to PG&E on the electrical schedule and revised site plan regarding the new electric service to the Police Department wing on June 17. On June 20, the City received notice that our application had been successfully submitted. On June 30, City approved the expenditure of $3,031.77 for PG&E to design their portion of the installation of this service. Some of the hardware necessary to complete the City’s portion of the installation was done by a contractor on July 9.

The RFQ for City Hall auditorium painting was issued on June 20 to 10 local contractors holding C-33 (painting) certification. Site visits were requested by three contractors. Questions were answered on June 30. Bids will be opened on July 10.

Agenda Item No. 7F 3.
2 Senior Center
Public Works staff assisted facilities by coordinating the repairs needed for the kitchen sink in order to meet County health permit requirements. These repairs were completed on June 28.

General
Special projects
Public Works staff worked on several special projects requested by others along with normal tasks of emptying streets trash cans twice a week, daily street inspection, bulky trash pickup, and weekly cleaning of the pedestrian bridge in the month of June including:

• June 2: assisted Parks Department by excavating sewer lateral for O’Connell Park restrooms to identify and address problems due to ongoing clogging. Installed one cleanout and planned for two additional cleanouts to meet building code requirements and to facilitate future maintenance on this line.
• June 3: removed dead skunk from Obispo Street, trimmed a tree branch covering the speed sign on Main Street, filled potholes on second, Pioneer, and Tognazzini. • June 6: addressed weeds on north sidewalk of Highway 166. Coordinated contractors performing work throughout town, including Ace Tree Service trimming trees, Central Coast Playgrounds finishing the O’Connell Park play structure, Schwind Electric fixing the emergency exit signs in the City Hall auditorium, IM International repairing the windowsills in the City Hall auditorium, and the third-party contractor for Southern California Gas beginning pavement repair on 5th street. • June 7: worked with Schwind electric to gather information requested by PG&E for the upgrade of the electrical service at the Police Department and begin the installation of hardware necessary for this upgrade. Installed new bus shelter on Guadalupe Street and Olivera.
• June 8: began installation of new bus shelter at West Main and Montez Court. • June 9: coordinated contractors performing work, including Schwind Electric installing components for upgraded Police Department electrical service, and IM International making repairs at City Hall auditorium. Demolished the bus shelter at Obispo Street and 4th Street. Met with plumbing contractor to discuss sink modifications necessary to meet County environmental health permit requirements. Reviewed data collection requirements for Clean California litter control grant reimbursement. • June 10: completed installation of bus shelter at West Main and Montez Court. • June 13: completed installation of bus shelter at Obispo and 4th Street. 3 • June 14: weeded throughout town. Verified functionality of new LED light at bus shelter at Senior Center. Coordinated for quote on sink improvements at Senior Center as needed for Health Permit.
• June 15: eased congestion associated with detour around W. Main St. waterline replacement by arranging for no parking signs along detour route. Ordered new pedestrian bridge signage. Picked up new signs for bus shelters. • June 20: walk-through with potential bidder on City Hall painting project. • June 22: installed new signs and schedules at Senior Center and O’Connell Park bus shelters.
• June 23: helped Police Department troubleshoot phone system outage. Problem was traced back to somebody unplugging the phone system.
• June 24: coordinated repair of O’Connell Park irrigation booster pump. • June 27: completed installation of new bus shelter, signs and lighting act for the 5th and Tognazzini bus stop. Assisted Parks staff with LeRoy Park bathroom repairs. Coordinated with contractor for the completion of tree trimming.
• June 28: assisted facilities staff by coordinating repairs for Senior Center kitchen sink to meet environmental health permit requirements. Assisted facilities staff by responding to an odor complaint at senior center. Called in pest control. The problem was assumed to be a dead rat. Turns out the problem was rotting food. Replaced liners in all the trash receptacles on Guadalupe Street.
• June 29: set up parking signs along second Street detour to accommodate W. Main St. waterline replacement street shut down. Coordinated delivery of trash receptacles for Guadalupe Street, bus stops and Tognazzini Park to corporation yard. These trash cans will be delivered to their specific locations in the upcoming weeks, once the forklift is rented. Demolish and disposed of bus shelter from Flower and Elm. • June 30: replaced the trash receptacle bids along Guadalupe Street. Updated the dates on the no parking signs associated with the W. Main St. waterline replacement detour.

Filled pothole at Pioneer and Tognazzini.

The Public Works Director participated in the following meetings in June:
• June 1: participated in Engineering Technician interviews. • June 2: SBCAG technical advisory committee meeting, webinar on County drought plan requirements for small water systems, Santa Barbara County water partnership training. • June 3: preliminary budget review meeting.
• June 7: meeting to discuss possible regional grant for turf rebate program. • June 8: meeting with Waste Management and CalRecycle to discuss performance-based source separated collection service, meeting with Taylor Farms. • June 9: PG&E wildfire safety webinar.
• June 13: discuss results of Central Park design services RFP. 4 • June 14: meeting with County to discuss resiliency grant opportunity. This grant opportunity may help fund completion of our climate change plan. • June 15: new phone system training.
• June 16: second interview with potential engineering technician candidate, field meeting with W. Main St. waterline replacement contractor and inspector. • June 17: transit discussion in preparation for July 1 route change. • June 21-23: JPIA Public Works Academy.
• June 27: meeting with CalFire to finalize details associated with the urban tree plan grant. • June 28: regional water efficiency program meeting. Meeting with consultant to discuss details associated with the 2022 pavement rehabilitation program design. • June 30: follow-up meeting to discuss possible regional grant for turf program.

Trees
The contractor completed trimming trees on June 27.

On June 27, the City received the paperwork to initiate the CalFire grant 8GA21448 in the amount of $170,734.49 for the preparation of an urban tree plan, assessment of existing trees, and the planting of 76 trees in town. The City has until June 30, 2026 to complete this work.

Parks
LeRoy Park
On June 6, worked with architect to more fully understand the cost estimate for the phase 2 project.

O’Connell Park
Installation of the play structure for O’Connell Park was completed June 6. A very successful ribbon-cutting was held on June 11.

Central Park
On June 13, staff discussed the results of the review of proposals for Central Park design. All agreed to move forward with negotiating with highest points winner, Pacific Coast Land Design, Inc. Staff contacted this company on June 20 to discuss negotiation. The company responded on June 23 with some questions to help fine-tune their revised proposal. City staff answered those questions in a phone call on June 30. A revised proposal and updated schedule is expected the first week in July.
5 Solid Waste
SB 1826
On June 15, prepared letters to the 64 customers in Guadalupe who may be affected by the mandatory commercial organics recycling portion of AB1826. Customers received a letter informing them that they may be affected by the regulation, and a waiver application to submit it they believe that they are exempt.

SB 1383
On June 9, received a check in the amount of $20,820 from CalRecycle for the purchase of kitchen pails for the collection of kitchen organics for recycling.

Streets
Street Rehabilitation
Staff met with the consultant on June 28 to confirm project scope, discuss the engineer’s estimate, and develop a schedule. Staff has expanded the scope of this project to include rehabilitation of 5th Street between Tognazzini and Campodonico, striping of Obispo Street and W. Main St., and digouts on the road leading to the wastewater treatment plant. The consultant will be submitting a contract amendment request to accommodate this additional work.

Transit
EV bus
On June 23, city staff received a letter of intent from 3CE awarding the City up to $250,000 toward the purchase of an electric bus. The City has 30 days from receipt of this letter to either issue a PO for this purchase or request an extension.

Service Changes
In June, the City worked closely with the contract transit provider, SMOOTH to finalize details on the service changes occurring on July 1. A press release was issued on June 29. These service changes were advertised in local media throughout the month of June.

Bus Shelters
In June, bus shelters, signs, and lighting were installed at bus stops at W. Main St. and Montez Court, 5th and Tognazzini, Guadalupe Street and Olivera Street, and Obispo and 4th Street. Trash receptacles for the bus stops were delivered to the City’s corporation yard on June 30.

Water
Planning
The City received a check on June 23 in the amount of $23,333.18 from the IRWM DAC – I grant program for partial reimbursement of the preparation of the Water Master Plan. The final check 6 for this grant program is expected in July for the retainage on the grant program in the amount of $21,816.51. Receipt of this retainage amount will close out this grant.

Distribution
Rotated Leroy Park fire hydrant on June 22 by 180° so that the hydrant outlets are facing proper direction per fire department needs.

West Main Street Water Line Project
This project involves replacing approximately one-thousand feet of 4-inch pipe with 12-inch pipe on West Main Street from Guadalupe Street to Pioneer Street and will improve fire flows to the middle school. Project construction began June 13. By the end of the month, the main was constructed. Work in July includes tie-ins, services, and street patching. This project is scheduled to be completed by July 15.

Operations
In June, one of the variable frequency drives failed at the blending facility at 303 Obispo St. City staff evaluated replacing versus repairing this drive. The most cost-effective approach is to repair it at this time. After getting three quotes to do this work, most cost-effective was from Electricraft for $14,150. An agreement to perform this work was signed on June 28.

Wastewater
Regulatory
No overflows occurred in June 2022.

The wastewater treatment plant experienced two violations the month of June. Both were settleable solids excursions caused by the sludge blanket going over the clarifier weirs, most likely due to higher than anticipated flows through the Biolac system. These violations highlight the need for automated flow adjustment. This is budgeted for the upcoming fiscal year, in the project named the AIPS vault.

Effluent Pump Station Rehabilitation
This project involves the rehabilitation of the effluent pump station at the wastewater treatment plant. It is partially funded through an Integrated Regional Water Management Program (IRWMP) grant. The contractor has already received a Notice to Proceed on this project. Due to the long lead time associated with PG&E review of the electrical installation and the time needed for pump manufacture, construction for this project was rescheduled for February 2022. However, due to supply chain issues, project construction has been delayed to July 2022. The pumps arrived on March 28. Now, we are awaiting the electrical equipment associated with this project. City staff approved payment for procurement of the pumps in the amount of $79,000 because these pumps have been purchased and delivered to the wastewater treatment plant. The contractor is simply waiting for PG&E approval before begin construction. 7 Pioneer Lift Station Rehabilitation
On June 30, the City received information from the Integrated Regional Water Management Program (IRWMP) that the Proposition 1 Round 2 Santa Barbara County IRWM project screening subcommittee is recommending project funding for the Pioneer Lift Station Rehabilitation project in the amount of $990,000.00.

Grit Chamber Repairs
The City received a quote on June 9 from the distributor for the grit chamber manufacture for the replacement of the grit classifier. The cost of replacement of these parts is $123,041. The City will be moving forward with this repair which will allow the grit chamber to be put back in service and help protect the Biolac system from undue wear and tear from the buildup of grit. This will be sole-sourced because these parts are proprietary to the system. Although this repair is pricey, it will save the system long-term in the reduction of electrical costs, replacement of diffusers, and manual cleanout of grit from the Biolac chamber.
8 Project
Numbers
2021-22
Amended
Budget
2021-2022
Spent June 2022 Update
100 Buildings089-104 Financial Accounting Software 100,000 $ Installation in progress. 089-105 General Plan Update 130,738 $ 62,959 $ Final draft review complete 089 – 106 Public facilities master plan (include parks and library) 90,000 $ Not started089 – 107 American Legion wood repair 70,000 $ Not started089 – 108 Building improvements (painting, roof repair, locks, utilities) 145,000 $ 5,861 $ Consultant completed CH draft assessment report. Meeting scheduled for July 14 200 Parks
089-201 Leroy Park (Community Center and Site) 5,618,760 $ 5,550,657 $ Completed 089 – 203 Parks Improvements (BBQ, plumbing, play grounds) 120,000 $ 96,026 $ Parks signs, drinking fountain, horseshoe pit fence & mutt mitt stations installed. O'Connell play installed. Rubberization deferred to next FY due to supply chain issues. 300 Streets, Sidewalks, Bicycle Facilities089-307 La Guardia and Gularte Lanes Pedestrian Improvements 179,537 $ AHSC grant awarded. 089 – 308 2021 Pavement rehabilitation 1,461,200 $ 1,004,813 $ Completed. 089 – 309 Sidewalk repairs 91,800 $ 91,652 $ Completed. 089 – 310 11th St. safe routes to school 133,270 $ AHSC grant awarded. 089 – 311 Storm drain improvements 40,000 $ Research started.400 Water 089-406 Elevated Tank Repairs/evaluate antenna revenue 295,000 $ 4,998 $ Inspection complete. Ladder fabrication drawings found 089-407 Advanced metering infrastructure phase 1 200,000 $ Project to be restructured and rebid next fiscal year 089-408 SCADA improvements 50,000 $ 10,000 $ Programming completed to reduce electrical costs. 089 – 409 West Main Street water line 450,000 $ 177,000 $ Construction started June 13. Scheduled completion date July 15 500 Wastewater089-503 Effluent Irrigation Pump Station Rehabilitation (Construction) 522,821 $ 79,800 $ Construction scheduled for 7/2022, delayed due to supply chain issues. 089-504 Hwy 1 Lift Station 1,000,000 $ Deferred to FY 22-23. Awaiting Caltrans permit. 089-505 Sewer Main Improvements 1,600,000 $ 1,198,411 $ Completed 089-506 Grit system replacement $ 400,000
Pumps serviced. Auger and hopper slated for replacement. Once done, system expected to be operational. Replacement of whole system not needed. 089-507 WWTP equipment (tractor, maintenance boat, AIPS vault) 420,000 $ 20,000 $ Maintenance boats purchased. Awaiting fabrication 600 Transit
089-601 Infrastructure improvements 91,729 $ 65,841 $
Bus shelter installation ongoing. 5th and Tognazzini pad poured. Signs, lighting, and trash recepticles delivered.

Transfer to CIP fund 089: 13,209,855 $ 8,368,018 $
Completed.

City of Guadalupe
Capital Improvement Projects Budget - Fiscal Year 21-22

PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
MAYOR’S REPORT
July 12, 2022
(Information below may be subject to change)

1. Agreements with the various groups, such as the Boys & Girls Club, Allan Hancock College, and SER Jobs for Progress, Veterans Hall MOU are ongoing.

2. Resource Fair – LOS PUENTES UNIDOS
Here is a special Note from the Mayor stating that Guadalupe will have the pleasure of hosting an event on Saturday July 23, 2022, which includes a live Theatre Presentation by the Fresno youth organization, Community Center for the Arts and Technology. This group, supported by SER Jobs For Progress, is a community-based organization in Fresno serving the Spanish/Mixteco population in the San Joaquin Valley. The theatrical live play is performed by Fresno’s CCAT kids participating in the program. This live play will address the struggles by vulnerable populations not only in the San Joaquin Valley but here as well. This short but powerful play is performed by Fresno youth ages 8 - 12 years of age and highlights the loss of life and tremendous medical issues due to the pandemic our nation is currently experiencing but specifically, the Latino/Mixteco population. CCAT operations concentrates on the total family as will be highlighted in the short plays noted in the attached flyer (Attachment 1).

The goal of this Resource Fair is to bring together local service agencies dealing with Covid-19 health impacts and brings to reality in the play, the mental health stresses the vulnerable populations experiences now and over the past several years.

Many service agencies are asked to help identify to local residents, the services available to Santa Maria Valley residents. The Director of CCAT, Armando Valdez’s effort is to help local residents identify medical, mental health, safety net programs and other services focusing on services to the Latino/Mixteco population. Booths will be set up outside the courtyard for attendees to visit to obtain information what type of services are offered locally for our local population.

CCAT will be arriving in Guadalupe with about 35 youth and chaperones. The entire stage set-ups, audio and sound, visuals, and the actual play is organized and produced by youth, 14 and younger. Note: grandmother in the play, is a grandmother! Attached is a brief introduction as to the Resource Fair: The goal of CCAT is to gather service organizations so that local residents are able to access needed services. 50 or so school backpacks with school supplies, will be given to youth and family members. Free door prize drawings will be offered in-between performances. (Please refer to the resource Fair Itinerary).

Agenda Item No. 10
Lastly, the Mayor ask that Community Health Centers of the Central coast provide information on health services and mental health resource information. The “Forgotten Souls” Acts I and II, will have an impact on the need for medical and mental health services. Thus, providers who can offer this information is important.

This LOS PUENTES UNIDOS effort hopes to bring Fresno Youth and Family together with local youth and family.

Contact information is noted on the flyer. Please contact Hannah Fuentes, Recreation Services Manager, City of Guadalupe, 805-356-3906 for more information. I am also available to answer any questions you may have.

Lastly, thank CHC and all addressed here, for your continued support of all residents in both San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara County: Especially Guadalupe and Santa Maria areas.

3. Funding in the State Budget
On behalf of Senator Monique Limón, the State is pleased to inform the City Council that the Senator was successful in securing the following funding in this year’s 2022-23 state budget:
• $5 million to the City of Guadalupe for the renovation of the historical Royal Theatre. • $3 million for the Community Services Center portion of the Escalante Meadows lowincome housing development.

The Mayor replied that this is, “Super great news………This funding and renovations will add jobs, and life to the City of Guadalupe, especially our downtown area. We are blessed and thanks to you, Senator Limon.”

4. Former Al’s Union Remedial Action Completion Certification (995 Guadalupe, Street) BACKGROUND:

On Friday, July 1, 2022, the City received a letter confirming the completion of a site investigation and corrective action for the underground storage tank formerly located at the above-described location.

The City currently owns the property, but unlike the Royal Theater property, the City must depart from it, hopefully to a qualified developer. However, City staff is not aware of any requirement that we simply sell it to the first person who expressed an interest in buying, or that we must just put it on the market and sell it to the highest bidder. If we enter into compensation agreements with the taxing entities and include selling Al's Union parcel to a developer who will develop the property so that it creates taxable value that will benefit the taxing entities over the years (far more than, say, a vacant lot), they might even agree to allow us to sell the property at below fair market value (if that were necessary).

There have been many inquiries and opinion about whether the City should offer this lot for sale using the” Request-for-Proposals approach or to the highest bidder. It might behoove the City to advise any potential purchasers that the City would like to see the property developed for some tourist friendly development (including a parking structure, maybe), and see what proposals come in. Or rather, the City could offer the property for a low price in exchange for one of these preferred developments…..more to decide on this.

Someone approached the City seeing about a boutique hotel, in particular, to get folks to come into town, spend some money, then leave happy. With the train stopping right in town, folks from down South may love to take the train up for the weekend and stay in a new and upcoming place. City staff was also approached by a developer, including a parking lot since we will need better parking as the City develops and starts to draw more tourists, etc. City staff now thinks we have an opportunity here to encourage a development that would be a major benefit after one reads the information below as the property can now be developed.

ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION:

It is generally understood that this parcel was quit claimed to the City of Guadalupe Redevelopment Agency (RDA). When the State law changed and RDA’s were basically eliminated, this property City of Guadalupe’s property. Thus, as far as the Santa Barbara Environmental Health (EHS) knows the City owns it and can sell it. Since it is commercial property, California Real Estate law requires due diligence on the part of any buyer. That typically means at a minimum a phase I, or records search. The records will include the California Water Board’s Leaking Underground Fuel Tank (LUFT) case and that it was once a service station. There is plenty of information in the LUFT case on GeoTracker, so no need for additional soil and groundwater assessment. There exists enough information for buyers to make an informed decision regarding the former service station, without triggering, more assessment work.

Thus, the City should be sure to disclose the site history and the cleanup and closure information on GeoTracker. The state policy requires EHS to evaluate threats based upon current land use, which was commercial so if it stays commercial it should be fine to sell.

If the land use is going to change, perhaps into residential, then they should have a simple soil management plan to handle any impacted soils that could potentially be found. This is just good planning to keep things moving if they are redeveloping.

Private parties sell during the LUFT process and often indemnify the buyer, but in this case the site has already been closed. They may ask the City to handle any impacted soils found during the next 6-months, during which time the City might still be eligible for LUFT reimbursement, but City staff will confirm that with the UST-CUF staff. It may be that the City Attorney will consult with an attorney who specializes in real estate and RDA law as it relates to the disposition of this property.

Attachment 2, highlighted in yellow, is the parcel identification map of the approximately 50’ x 300’ parcel located along Guadalupe Street and 10th Street across from the Veterans Memorial Building.

5. 3CE Front of the Meter Storage (FMES)
3CE Staffer Warren Tomlinson was hired to manage their FMES phase I effort with the goal of placing to total of 20 MW to 25 MW of battery storage in 1-5 MW chunks across their service territory. In September of last year, the City identified possible locations for one of these assets inside Guadalupe. City staff is not optimistic of a location but will chat about these sites, 3CEs efforts and answer any question you may have. Please let me know when you have time, and I will make myself available.

6. Housing Element – General Plan Cycle Six Grant Seeking From the Planning Director’s reading of the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD), it appears that we could request funds for a Climate Action Plan (CAP) and have it covered by the CDBG Planning Grant. City staff can start working on an RFP in about three weeks (after finishing a staff report, Resolution, Ordinance, etc. for Alvarez apartment project). The Planning Director will make it clear that we won't be able to award a contract until after we know if we receive the CDBG grant.

The City just got a proposal back for the Housing Element and it was almost $249K! City staff has no idea of how expensive a CAP will be, but if we can get $250K towards it, that would make it easier for the Council to decide what to do.

Given that Guadalupe is 69.04% Low and Moderate Income, Planning Activities that serve to facilitate housing development, public facility and/or infrastructure development to support residential neighborhoods are considered eligible under the Planning Grant category. If the Climate Action Plan will do that, then preparation of the Climate Action Plan is an allowable activity to apply for under the 2022 CDBG NOFA Planning Grant solicitation.

7. Street Calming Ideas – Pasadera/Other Areas of the City Recently, there has been some ‘chatter’ about the speeding in Pasadera. The streets in the Pasadera development are currently the responsibility of the developer. The public streets are estimated to be transferred over to the city in August/September 2022. Public Works has provided a list to include needed punch list items/completions and street upgrades before their transfer i.e., slurry seal, etc. How do we pay for these safety measures? City staff is looking at possible other methods to explore, including having the affected property owners pay for such devices by way of city policies regarding speed calming measures throughout the City.

8. Charter/Spectrum Issues
As you know, the City is experiencing issues with the audio from our cable viewers. City staff/consultants are saying that based on the tests performed, everything up to the fiber connection was good. The County does not want anything to do with the older equipment, so the TEAM is looking at ways to find someone like Charter/Spectrum to replace the old faulty equipment.

On Thursday, June 30, 2022, the technicians from charter cable have been working on the feed issue and correcting some line issues they found during their inspection. City staff was recently told that the city channel is no longer transmitting because the City does not have an active account with Charter enterprise for the local channel broadcasting. Based on the records, they identified the issue about 4-5 months ago, and the city did not renew the broadcasting contract. So, the service was terminated a few months ago. They advised that if the service is needed, the city representative needs to call Charter enterprise and reactivate the account.

END OF REPORT
ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 1 of 3 ends

Agenda Item No. 11

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of July 12, 2022
___________________________________ ____________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Philip F. Sinco, City Attorney Todd Bodem, City Administrator SUBJECT: Consideration of Rescinding Selection of Second Commercial Cannabis Business Permit Applicant – Retail (Element 7)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council:
(1) by motion, rescind its decision made on April 26, 2022, selecting Element 7 as the second “prevailing candidate” for a Commercial Cannabis Business Permit Applicant; and (2) select a date where all five (5) members of the City Council will be present for another inperson presentation by Element 7 and The Roots Dispensary.

BACKGROUND:

At the April 12, 2022, City Council meeting, the City Council took two actions concerning selection of Commercial Cannabis Business (CCB) permit applicants: (1) the Council decided to select only two applicants to move forward in the process of applying for and obtaining CCB permits; and (2) the Council selected SloCal Roots Management LLC dba Root One as one of these two “prevailing candidates” (the term used in Guadalupe Municipal Code Chapter 9). The Council was not able to select the second prevailing candidate at this meeting, however, due to the lack of majority support for any of the four remaining CCB permit applicants.

During the Council’s deliberations on this item, Mayor Julian and Council member Robles stated their support for BDSF 1 Holdings LLC dba Element 7 Guadalupe (“Element 7”). Council members Ramirez and Cardenas indicated support for LGBA Management LLC dba The Roots Dispensary (“The Roots Dispensary”). Council member Costa indicated his support for either Guadalupe Erudite Ventures dba HerbNJoy or Guadalupe Community Project LLC dba Mr. Nice Guy, but no other Council member stated support for selecting either of these two CCB applicants to move forward in the process. As a result, the Council did not have a majority to approve the second prevailing candidate at this meeting, but it was able to narrow down the selection from the four (4) remaining CCB permit applicants to The Roots Dispensary and Element 7. The Council directed City staff to request that these two CCB permit applicants make another presentation to the Council focusing on the community benefit and neighborhood plan portions of their applications. Council members Ramirez and Cardenas, in particular, identified these areas of focus for the CCB permit applicants presentations.

Philip F. Sinco

Page 2 of 3 ends

The additional presentations from The Roots Dispensary and Element 7 took place at the April 26, 2022, City Council meeting. Council member Ramirez and Council member Costa were not present at this meeting; however, because a quorum of the Council was present, it was legally permissible for the Council to move forward with the presentations and make its decision concerning which of the two CCB applicants would be selected to move forward in the process. This is what occurred. After each CCB permit applicant made their presentations and answered questions from the Council, the City Council deliberated and ultimately selected Element 7 (on a 3-0 vote) as the second of the two prevailing candidates to move forward in the process. Council member Cardenas initially indicated support for The Roots Dispensary during the Council’s deliberations but voted with the majority on the motion to select Element 7.

Subsequently, several weeks later, it came to the attention of the City Attorney that Council member Ramirez had sent an email to Mayor Julian and City Administrator Bodem after 10 p.m. on Monday, April 25, 2022 (i.e., the night before the Council meeting on April 26th). A copy of this email is attached to this staff report as Attachment 1. Council member Ramirez’ email stated his opinion concerning various matters that were on the Council’s agenda for the April 26th meeting, including his opinion that The Roots Dispensary should be selected as the second prevailing candidate. Unfortunately, this email was inadvertently not included as part of the public record at the April 26th meeting. The City Attorney determined that the failure to include this email as part of the public record at the April 26th meeting resulted in a procedural irregularity that requires the City Council to consider rescinding the decision it made at that meeting to select Element 7 as the second prevailing candidate.

DISCUSSION:

While it may have been Council member Ramirez’ intent that his email be included as part of the public record for the April 26th meeting, this was not completely obvious. Council member Ramirez did not definitively state that he wanted the email included as part of the public record: he simply stated, “[p]lease feel free to share this email out during the meeting.” Moreover, this sentence was stated near the end of a lengthy email. In any case, the failure to include the email as part of the public record was inadvertent.

Reasonable minds can differ, and undoubtedly, some interested parties and/or members of the public may have a different opinion than the one expressed here; but the City Attorney is of the opinion that the failure to include Council member Ramirez’ email as part of the public record at the April 26th meeting was an inadvertent mistake, and not an attempt to influence the Council’s decision in favor or one candidate or the other. Yet, as stated above, this mistake resulted in a procedural irregularity which must be addressed.

Clearly, in light of the totality of the circumstances, Council member Ramirez’ email should have been included as part of the public record of the April 26th Council meeting. This was his apparent intention, and while his email could not have been used as a way for him to cast his vote (nor was it required to be read aloud), including it as part of the record may have had an effect on the vote that was taken, or it may have resulted in a decision by the Council to continue the vote to another meeting.

For this reason, the City Attorney strongly recommends that the City Council rescind its prior decision of April 26th in favor of Element 7. In addition, it is recommended that the Council select a future meeting where both Element 7 and The Roots Dispensary will be invited to make another presentation

Page 3 of 3 ends

to the City Council focusing on the community benefit and neighborhood plan portions of their applications.

While there is a preference for “finality” for governmental decisions, subject to reasonably exceptions, a legislative body has the inherent authority to rescind its prior decisions. In addition, Guadalupe Municipal Code section 9.22.120 provides, in part, that:

The City reserves the right to reject any or all applications for a cannabis business permit.

Prior to such permit issuance, the City may modify, postpone, or cancel any request for applications, at any time without liability, obligation, or commitment to any party, firm, or organization, to the extent permitted under California law. Persons submitting applications assume the risk that all or any part of the program, or any particular category of permit potentially authorized under this chapter, may be cancelled at any time prior to permit issuance….

The CCB permit does not issue until a conditional use permit has been obtained and only after a mutually agreeable community benefit agreement has been entered into. The decision made to allow Element 7 to move forward in the process to obtain a CCB permit is only that: permission to move forward in the process. No CCB permit has been issued, and therefore, there is little restriction on the Council’s ability to rescind its previous decision.

FISCAL IMPACT
Minimal. The applicant fees for Commercial Cannabis Business Permit applications were set in an amount estimated to cover the cost of completing the selection process. While the completion of the process has been delayed and will result in a higher cost to the City for this component of the process, the delay is not significant from a fiscal perspective.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Email from Council member Ramirez dated April 25, 2022.

ATTACHMENT 1
Agenda Item No. 12

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of July 12, 2022
_Hannah Fuentes_______________ __________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Hannah Fuentes, Recreation Services Manager Todd Bodem, City Administrator SUBJECT: Le Roy Park Community Center Mural Contest
RECOMMENDATION:

The Recreation and Parks Commission recommends that the City Council select the finalist from the top three submissions for the Le Roy Park Community Center Mural.

BACKGROUND:

As part of the renovation of the LeRoy Park and Community Center, the contractor’s scope of work included the completion of a mural on the gym entrance wall. The City, the design team, and the contractor agreed that the funds for the mural, which were in the contractor’s budget, would be donated to Los Amigos de Guadalupe (LADG), for the purpose of creating a local art competition which would award funds to a local artist who would design and paint the mural.

LADG marketed the competition throughout the community, utilizing social media, the Royal Theatre marquee, Guadalupe Union School District parent notification systems, and flyers distributed around the community (restaurants, library, etc.). All marketing tools included the email address for Recreation Services Manager Hannah Fuentes so that submissions could be sent to her. Four designs were submitted to Ms. Fuentes through email.

Ms. Fuentes presented the submissions anonymously to the Recreation and Parks Commission. The commission then eliminated one submission and ranked the remaining three based on their relevance to the Guadalupe community.

DISCUSSION:

The Recreation and Parks Commission ranked the submissions in the following order based on the corresponding notes:

1. Submission #2
a. Liked the depiction of children playing various sports and the reference to Guadalupe’s history by including the 1950s agriculture poster. However, the artist would need to redesign as the doors on the front of the building are glass and the commission would like to keep them clear to allow natural light inside.

2. Submission #4
a. Liked the reference to Guadalupe’s history as they included Chumash natives, Spanish explorers, 1950s dancers and cars, the water tower, the agriculture fields, and the dunes.

3. Submission #3
a. Liked the depiction of a diverse community. However, they noted that the submission was “busy” or had a lot going on.

The three finalists were informed of the date of final selection as well as the Recreation and Parks Commission meeting that they have been requested to attend for inquiries, feedback, and/or revisions.

Upon City Council selection, the finalist (hereinafter artist) will attend the Recreation and Parks Commission meeting, take any feedback into consideration, and return to the next Recreation and Parks Commission meeting to present their final draft of their mural.

At that time, LADG will award the artist with the first half of the allotted $5,000. The first $2,500 will be awarded to allow the finalist to use the funds to pay for supplies needed to complete the mural. The remaining $2,500 will not be awarded until after the completion of the mural. If the artist requests more funds than the initial $2,500 before completion of the mural, LADG will request that the artist submit receipts showing the use of the money towards mural supplies. After receiving the receipts, LADG will award $1,000 at a time from the remaining $2,500 if needed for more supplies. After completion of the mural, the artist will be awarded the remaining amount for their work.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No fiscal impact has been identified. The $5,000, which LADG has deposited into its bank account, offered for the contest winner was already budgeted in the city’s plan for the renovation of the community center at LeRoy Park.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Submission #2 Description

2. Submission #2 Art

3. Submission #4 Description

4. Submission #4 Art

5. Submission #3 Description

6. Submission #3 Art
ATTACHMENT 1
I
,·
\
ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 3

ATTACHMENT
4 ATTACHMENT 5
ATTACHMENT 6
Agenda Item No. 13

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of July 12, 2022

________________________________ __________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Michael Cash, Director of Public Safety Todd Bodem, City Administrator SUBJECT: Establishing a downtown residential permit parking pilot project in the 1000 block of Guadalupe Street.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-62 establishing a pilot program for the 1000 block of Guadalupe Street.

BACKGROUND:

As reported to the City Council at its meeting on May 10, 2022, Public Safety staff had received a city departmental request to enforce the downtown posted, “No Overnight Street Parking between the hours of 12 midnight and 6 a.m.” parking regulation to enable the weekly Friday morning street sweeping contracted activity. In connection with this request, City police officers issued parking citations for illegally parking in the area after hours. Several residents who reside in the 1000 block of Guadalupe St. complained about these citations, and stated there are no available off-street parking spaces for them to park. These residents requested assistance from the City with this problem.

Staff determined that within this one-block location, 1000 Guadalupe Street, only four (4) residential units do not have off-street parking. The Director of Public Safety reported at the May 10th Council meeting about this situation and requested direction from the Council on how to proceed. Information concerning how other cities have handled similar parking issues, including permit parking programs, was provided.

The City Council directed staff to develop a permit parking program that would allow the residents at these four (4) residential units located in the 1000 block of Guadalupe street to legally park their vehicles overnight with the exception of Friday mornings before 6 a.m. so that street sweeping can be performed.

DISCUSSION:

California Vehicle Code §22507 provides that cities may, by resolution, designate streets upon which adjacent businesses and residents and their guests may have preferential parking privileges via a permit system, while other parking is restricted. If such a permit parking system is established, Section 22507

Page 1 of 2 ends

Michael Cash

Page 2 of 2 ends

requires that signs or markings giving adequate notice of the permit parking system must be posted before the resolution applies.

In response to Council’s previous direction given at the May 10th Council meeting, and consistent with Vehicle Code §22507, staff has developed a pilot permit parking program exclusive for the 1000 block of Guadalupe Street. The program authorizes highly limited permit parking--possible only for the four residences that lack onsite parking. If this pilot program is successful, it could be expanded to other areas in the City that face similar challenges. If the pilot program is not successful, the Council could eliminate it.

The attached resolution would create a pilot permit parking program for the 1000 block of Guadalupe Street, and contemplates that the Department of Public Safety would work with other city departments to:
• get necessary signs and post them
• create a form for residents to fill out
• create a permit form
• administer the program.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Establishing the pilot parking program will have a negligible impact on the general fund. There will a slight cost to the general fund for staff time related to creation of the form for the pilot parking program, but because the program only applies to four (4) residences, this cost is minimal.

ATTACHMENT:

1. Resolution No. 2022-62 establishing a pilot program for the 1000 block of Guadalupe Street. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-62

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A PILOT PERMIT PARKING PROGRAM FOR THE 1000 BLOCK OF GUADALUPE STREET
WHEREAS, under California Vehicle Code §22507, cities may by resolution designate streets upon which adjacent businesses and residents and their guests may have preferential parking privileges via a permit system, while other parking is restricted; and WHEREAS, Section 22507 requires that signs or markings giving adequate notice of the permit parking system must be posted before the resolution applies; and WHEREAS, the City has previously prohibited parking between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 6:00 a.m. in the 1000 Block of Guadalupe Street, and has provided notice of this restriction via signage; and
WHEREAS, the City has arranged for street sweeping on the 1000 Block of Guadalupe Street on Friday mornings; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received a report from the Director of Public Safety indicating that four of the residential units on the 1000 Block of Guadalupe Street do not have available onsite parking onsite; and
WHEREAS, the City has received written complaints about the lack of available parking from several area residents who have received parking citations; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to establish a pilot program that will allow residents of the 1000 Block of Guadalupe Street and their guests who do not have onsite parking to apply based on hardship for permits to park on Guadalupe Street during restricted hours except as specified; and
WHEREAS, the City Council intends to retain prohibitions on parking on Guadalupe Street during the hours when the street is swept.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Guadalupe:

SECTION 1: The 1000 Block of Guadalupe Street is hereby designated as a street on which preferential parking permits may be issued to residents for their use and for the use of their guests.

SECTION 2: The Director of Public Safety is authorized and directed to post signs or markings giving notice of the designation and restrictions.

ATTACHMENT 1
2 SECTION 3: The Director of Public Safety is authorized and directed to issue permits to residents who apply on forms supplied by the City and demonstrate hardship due to absence of parking on the lot where they reside.

SECTION 4: The signs and permits described in this resolution shall also give notice that, notwithstanding the preferential parking permit, all persons are prohibited from parking on the 1000 Block of Guadalupe Street during the hours when the street is being swept.

SECTION 5: The permits described in this resolution shall also give notice that the program authorizing preferential parking is a pilot program which is subject to revision or cancellation in the future by the City Council.

SECTION 6: The City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance of the intent of this document is maintained.

In doing so, the City Clerk shall consult with the City Administrator and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of Guadalupe held on July 12, 2022, by the following roll call vote:

MOTION:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

I, Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk of the City of Guadalupe DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being C.C. Resolution No. 2022-62 has been duly signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of the City Council, held on July 12, 2022, and that same was approved and adopted.

ATTEST:
__________________________________ __________________________________ Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk Ariston Julian, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Philip F. Sinco, City Attorney

Page 1 of 2 ends

Agenda Item No. 14

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of July 12, 2022
________________________________ __________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Michael Cash, Director of Public Safety Todd Bodem, City Administrator SUBJECT: Approval to Reinstate the Public Safety Intern Program RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council provide approval for the Guadalupe Department of Public Safety to reinstate the Public Safety Intern positions.

BACKGROUND:

In March 2022, the City of Guadalupe’s Department of Public Safety developed and implemented the Public Safety Intern positions with City Council approved ARPA funds. This highly competitive internship program is open to undergraduate students interested in public safety and pursuing a degree in Public Administration, Homeland Security, Criminal Justice, Emergency Medical Services, Emergency Management, Fire Technology, or a related field.

Interns receive hands-on learning experiences, as they will be fully integrated into the Department and are assigned projects related to public safety, communications, or community preparedness. Interns also prepare reports, research, recommendations, and correspondence on behalf of the Public Safety Department.

Participants in the program are assigned a mentor who is an experienced public safety professional.

All applicants met the following minimum requirements:
• Enrolled or plan to enroll as a full-time undergraduate student (a minimum of 12 units) in a Community College, four-year college or university during the Fall Semester or Quarter. • Minimum of 3.0 cumulative GPA preferred.
• Strong oral and written communication skills; detailed-oriented; creative thinker and ability to strategize and solve complex problems.
• Proficient in Microsoft Office applications
The program is geared to prepare and provide experience to community youth for careers in the public safety field.

Michael Cash

Page 2 of 2 ends

DISCUSSION:

The Department of Public Safety is seeking City Council approval to reinstate the current three (3) Public Safety Interns.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Re-establishing the Public Safety Intern Program will have no additional impacts to the general fund.

Funding for the Public Safety Interns will continue through the Fire Department, “Part-time Employee” - budget line item, 01-4220-0125. Each of the three (3) intern positions is budgeted for $11,000 per year and the current budget is balanced out at $35,000.

This budget line item has historically been paid to Part-Time Firefighters. Recruitment for Part-Time Firefighters is currently low to non-existent due to numerous full-time job opportunities for firefighters.

Utilizing these funds for area youth employment and development, increases their job readiness, they gain valuable job exposure and experience, and they contribute back to the community they live in.

Utilizing and repurposing these existing and budgeted funds, is no additional cost or correction to the General Fund.

ATTACHMENT:

1. Resolution No. 2022-63 Reinstating the Public Safety Intern Program. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-63

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE, CALIFORNIA,

REINSTATING THE PUBLIC SAFETY INTERN PROGRAM
WHEREAS, In March 2022, the City of Guadalupe’s Department of Public Safety developed and implemented the Public Safety Intern positions with City Council approved ARPA funds; and WHEREAS, this highly competitive internship program is open to undergraduate students interested in public safety and pursuing a degree in Public Administration, Homeland Security, Criminal Justice, Emergency Medical Services, Emergency Management, Fire Technology, or a related field; and
WHEREAS, interns receive hands-on learning experiences, as they will be fully integrated into the Department and are assigned projects related to public safety, communications, or community preparedness. Interns also prepare reports, research, recommendations, and correspondence on behalf of the Public Safety Department; and
WHEREAS, the program is geared to prepare and provide experience to community youth for careers in the public safety field; and
WHEREAS, the re-establishing the Public Safety Intern Program will have no additional impacts to the general fund; and
WHEREAS, the funding for the Public Safety Interns will continue through the Fire Department, “Part-time Employee” - budget line item, 01-4220-0125. Each of the three (3) intern positions is budgeted for $11,000 per year and the current budget is balanced out at $35,000; and WHEREAS, the budget line item has historically been paid to Part-Time Firefighters, but recruitment for Part-Time Firefighters is currently low to non-existent due to numerous full-time opportunities for firefighters; and
WHEREAS, the utilizing these funds for area youth employment and development, increases their job readiness, they gain valuable job exposure and experience, and they contribute back to the community they live in.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Guadalupe:

SECTION 1. The position classification titled “Public Safety Intern” is hereby reinstated and approved as outlined in Attachment 2 to this Resolution (Public Safety Intern Recruitment Description).

SECTION 2. Staff is authorized to reinstate the three (3) current Public Safety Interns within the existing allocated funding for the Department of Public Safety’s budget for FY 2022-23.

ATTACHMENT 1
2 SECTION 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance of the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the City Clerk shall consult with the City Administrator and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of Guadalupe held on July 12, 2022, by the following roll call vote:

MOTION:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

I, Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk of the City of Guadalupe DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being C.C. Resolution No. 2022-63 has been duly signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of the City Council, held on July 12, 2022, and that same was approved and adopted.

CITY OF GUADALUPE

PUBLIC SAFETY INTERNSHIP PROGRAM
07/12/22
SALARY:
$18.00 per hour or Course Credit (per higher education institution) SCHEDULE:

All interns will be expected to work 8-20 hours per week for a minimum of ten consecutive weeks.

POSITION SUMMARY:

The City of Guadalupe’s Public Safety Department is currently taking applications for the Public Safety Intern position. Public Safety’s highly competitive internship program is open to undergraduate students interested in public safety and pursuing a degree in Public Administration, Homeland Security, Criminal Justice, Emergency Medical Services, Emergency Management, Fire Technology, or a related field.

Interns will receive hands-on learning experiences, as they will be fully integrated into the Department and will be assigned projects related to public safety, communications, or community preparedness. Interns will also prepare reports, research, recommendations, and correspondence on behalf of the Public Safety Department.

All participants in this program will be assigned a mentor who is an experienced public safety professional. Interns will have access to City hosted emergency management training and related meetings as available at no cost.

ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT:

The Department of Public Safety acts on behalf of the Mayor and the City Council on all matters of city-wide public safety, police, fire, emergency planning, training, mitigation, recovery, and Emergency Operations Center (EOC) readiness. The Department strives to coordinate and manage Citywide emergency management activities with the goals of increasing the safety and preparedness of Guadalupe residents and visitors.

ATTACHMENT 2
QUALIFICATIONS/REQUIREMENTS:

All applicants must meet the following minimum requirements:
• Enrolled or plan to enroll as a full-time undergraduate student (a minimum of 12 units) in a Community College, four-year college or university during the 2021 Fall Semester or Quarter.
• Minimum of 3.0 cumulative GPA preferred.
• Strong oral and written communication skills; Detailed-oriented; Creative thinker and ability to strategize and solve complex problems.
• Proficient in Microsoft Office applications
APPLICATION PROCESS: Go to our website at www.ci.guadalupe.ca.us to download an application and send to City of Guadalupe, Attn: HR/, 918 Obispo Street, P.O. Box 908, Guadalupe, CA 93434. Include a cover letter, resume, and writing sample.

OPEN UNTIL FILLED
Equal Opportunity Employer
Agenda Item No. 15

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of July 12, 2022
_______________________________
Prepared by:

Todd Bodem, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Agreement for Animal Control Services between County of Santa Barbara and the City of Guadalupe – Fiscal Years 2022-2027
RECOMMENDATION:

Thatthe City Council approve and authorize the Mayor to sign the Agreement for Animal Control Services between the County of Santa Barbara and the City of Guadalupe for Fiscal Years 2022-2027.

BACKGROUND:

The County Animal Control Services contract expired June 30, 2022. The County has provided a contract for the next 5-year period of service from July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2027. The new contract incorporates cost recovery measures in the form of a phase-in of cost increase over the period of the contract. While significant as a percentage increase over the costs of services for the current fiscal year (4.5% the first year, and variable increase estimated at 6% to 6.5% for each of the next four years), the overall dollar value is not compelling enough to warrant other animal control options at this time. The past few years have seen very small increases to the Animal Control Services contract, with increases for the past two years being less than the Consumer Price Index (CPI), or about 2% each year prior. The opportunity to phase in (and lock in) cost increases over the next several years allows the City to adequately plan for and budget increased costs.

The Agreement provides that the County’s Division of Animal Services shall perform both field and shelter services including, but not limited to, impounds, shelter boarding, euthanasia, injured animal care, dead animal pick-up and disposal, code enforcement, and twenty-four-hour emergency service requests.

At this time the City cannot provide the same level of services for the amount charged through the Agreement. All other terms and conditions remain the same as in the Agreement for Animal Control Services for Fiscal Year 2021-2022. After speaking to the Public Safety Director and some of the City staff, they indicated that the services provided by the County have been satisfactory in providing animal services control, however, noting that sometimes it is difficult the reach them immediately. More concerning for the City is the cost for these services in recent years let alone the higher rate of increase accelerating in the years ahead.

Page 1 of 3 ends

Page 2 of 3 ends

DISCUSSION:

The County Board of Supervisors is pursuing full cost-recovery based on population with the County’s contracted animal services, and in April voted to phase in significantly higher costs over the next five years, beginning July 1st. Over the five-year span, Guadalupe’s cost is projected to escalate about 33% percent to $83,556.

There were no negotiations with the County of Santa Barbara for this contract. County staff sent the City the new contract agreement on Friday, June 10th (Attachment 1). The contract is a five-year agreement with a 60-day termination clause (Section 16.2 of Attachment 1). By City code, the City is required to have such services.

All the other cities in Santa Barbara County have decided to sign the five-year agreement, It is City staff’s understanding that Santa Maria and even Lompoc are recommending, in their proposed Fiscal Year 2022-2023 budgets, to continue their contracts in a status quo arrangement until a potential termination of the contract and a transition to in-house field service and contracted shelter services, which is something both cities have been exploring.

The Public Safety Director indicated that there is no cost-effective way for Guadalupe to provide a comprehensive animal service program in-house as the cost for the City for its own in-house program would exceed that demanded by the County.

The County has long provided a full range of animal control services for the City and its residents; from field and shelter services to emergency animal-related services, animal bite investigations, quarantines, rabies management and licensing. As it pertains to Northern Santa Barbara County, the County provides animal control filed and boarding services to the cities of Santa Maria and Guadalupe, as well as the unincorporated area of Santa Barbary County, out of its shelter on Foster Road.

In late 2021, the City joined with all other contracting cities in writing letters to the County requesting to open negotiations about the expense (Attachment 2). While Guadalupe wants to continue providing its residents and businesses with a full complement of animal services, the County’s own metrics do not show an overall increase in demand for services, and costs are increasing rapidly. The County acknowledged these letters, however, did not open negotiations; therefore, most of the cities were taken aback.

It is Guadalupe’s understanding that due to the significant contract increase in cost over the next five years, and to promote long-term financial stability, Santa Maria is recommending that preparations begin for a possible transition of animal services partnership from the current contract with the County Public Health Department to the City and bring a possible alternative to provide animal services and contracting for shelter services. Guadalupe City staff will perform an analysis to explore options to best serve the residents and community with our neighbors.

Page 3 of 3 ends

Alternatives:

No viable alternatives exist currently, so City staff recommends adopting this contract agreement. The City of Santa Maria is remaining in a status quo arrangement until they decide to give the required notice of contract termination upon meeting certain milestones, such as the logistics of recruiting, hiring, training, purchasing specialized vehicles, facilities, and other steps. City staff is in contact with Santa Maria to see if there may be an opportunity to partner with their program if it comesto fruition and then determine a cost benefit analysis between other options versus the County’s program.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Fiscal Year 2021-2022 animal control services contract amount cost was $61,900. The cost for the service Fiscal Year 2022-23 is $64,740 or an estimated 4.5% increase, with increases of approximately

6.5% each year following. Adequate funds have been appropriated in the Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget for this item.

Below the subsequent fiscal year increases:

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Agreement for Animal Control Services between County of Santa Barbara and City of Guadalupe for Fiscal Years 2022-2027

2. October 2021 Letter from City to Public Health Department Animal Services Revenue Agreement – City of Guadalupe Page 1

AGREEMENT FOR ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES
between

COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
and

CITY OF GUADALUPE
THIS AGREEMENT (hereafter Agreement) is made by and between the County of Santa Barbara, a political subdivision of the State of California (hereafter COUNTY) and City of Guadalupe, a municipal corporation in Santa Barbara County (hereafter CITY) wherein COUNTY agrees to provide and CITY agrees to accept the services specified herein.

WHEREAS, CITY, mindful of its duties and responsibilities to protect and maintain the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens and provide for the humane care of animals, finds it necessary to regulate and control the enforcement of Animal Control Ordinances within the CITY; and WHEREAS, CITY has determined that the best interest of the CITY would be served by having the animal control services provided by the COUNTY; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 101400 of the Health and Safety Code, COUNTY and CITY may contract for the performance by COUNTY employees for any or all functions relating to and in connection with the enforcement of local health and sanitation laws; and
WHEREAS, historically the County has subsidized CITY’s costs for these animal control services using Tobacco Settlement and COUNTY General Fund dollars. On April 19, 2022, the COUNTY Board of Supervisors directed the COUNTY to phase out the County’s General Fund subsidy calculated based on FY 21-22 fiscal year over a five-year period to alleviate the financial burden on CITY and add a 2.5% Consumer Price Index increase.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein, the parties agree as follows:

The County agrees, through its Animal Services division (“Animal Services”) to provide animal services to the City as set forth herein and in the attached Service Level Request (EXHIBIT A), as it may be amended by the parties from time to time.

Such services shall comply with applicable County ordinances, the municipal code of the City and the statutes of the State of California. The County will provide only those services set forth in the attached Service Level Request (EXHIBIT A) and Municipal Code Enforcement (EXHIBIT C).

1. DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE
Paige Batson at phone number (805) 319-8646 is the representative of COUNTY and will administer this Agreement for and on behalf of COUNTY. Todd Bodem at phone number (805) 356-3891 is the authorized representative for CITY. Changes in designated representatives shall be made only after advance written notice to the other party.

ATTACHMENT 1
Animal Services Revenue Agreement – City of Guadalupe Page 2

2. NOTICES
Any notice or consent required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties in writing, by personal delivery, or with postage prepaid by first class mail, registered or certified mail, or express courier service, as follows:

To COUNTY: Paige Batson, Deputy Director, Community Health 548 W. Foster Road
Santa Maria, CA 93455
(805) 319-8646
To City: Todd Bodem, City Administrator
918 Obispo
Guadalupe, CA 93434
(805) 356-3891
or at such other address or to such other person that the parties may from time to time designate in accordance with this Notices section. If sent by first class mail, notices and consents under this section shall be deemed to be received five (5) days following their deposit in the U.S. mail. This Notices section shall not be construed as meaning that either party agrees to service of process except as required by applicable law.

3. SCOPE OF SERVICES
COUNTY agrees to provide services to CITY in accordance with the Service Level Request (EXHIBIT A) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The COUNTY is contracting to enforce the CITY codes listed in Exhibit C.

4. TERM
The term of this Agreement shall be from July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2027.

5. COMPENSATION OF COUNTY
For services rendered between the period of July 1, 2022, and June 30, 2027, City shall pay County in accordance with terms of Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Invoices shall be delivered quarterly to the CITY either by email or to the address specified in Section 2, NOTICES above. Unless otherwise specified on EXHIBIT B, payment shall be net thirty (30) days from presentation of invoice.

6. INTERPRETATION/APPLICATION OF CITY CODES
City shall be responsible for the legal work associated with the interpretation and prosecution of its ordinances, and defense of the ordinance content and application.

7. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
The parties hereto, in the performance of this Agreement, will be acting in their individual governmental capacities and not as agents, employees, partners, joint venturers, or associates of one another. The parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. The employees or agents of one party shall not be deemed or construed to be the employees or agents of the other party for any purpose whatsoever.

Without limiting the foregoing, the City shall advise the County's Division of Animal Services in the implementation and enforcement of its code pursuant to this Agreement.

Animal Services Revenue Agreement – City of Guadalupe Page 3

8. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
CITY covenants that CITY presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of services required to be performed under this Agreement. CITY further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by CITY.

9. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
All reports and documents prepared by County under this Agreement are the joint property of the City and the County.

No materials produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subject to copyright in the United States or in any other country except as determined at the sole discretion of COUNTY. COUNTY shall have the unrestricted authority to publish, disclose, distribute, and otherwise use in whole or in part, any reports, data, documents or other materials prepared under this Agreement.

10. NO PUBLICITY OR ENDORSEMENT
CITY shall not use COUNTY’s name or logo or any variation of such name or logo in any publicity, advertising or promotional materials. CITY shall not use COUNTY’s name or logo in any manner that would give the appearance that the COUNTY is endorsing CITY. CITY shall not in any way contract on behalf of or in the name of COUNTY. CITY shall not release any informational pamphlets, notices, press releases, research reports, or similar public notices concerning the COUNTY or its projects, without obtaining the prior written approval of COUNTY.

11. COUNTY PROPERTY AND INFORMATION
All of COUNTY’s property, documents, and information provided for CITY’s use in connection with the services shall remain COUNTY’s property, and CITY shall return any such items whenever requested by COUNTY and whenever required according to the Termination section of this Agreement. CITY may use such items only in connection with providing the services. CITY shall not disseminate any COUNTY property, documents, or information without COUNTY’s prior written consent.

12. INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE

12.1 Indemnification.

In lieu of and notwithstanding the pro rata risk allocation which might otherwise be imposed between the parties pursuant to Government Code Section 895.6, the parties agree that all losses or liabilities incurred by a party shall not be shared pro rata but instead all parties agree that pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, each of the parties hereto shall fully defend, indemnify and hold each of the other parties, their officers, board members, employees and agents, harmless from any claim, expense or cost, damage or liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of the acts or omissions of the indemnifying party, its officers, board members, employees or agents, under or in connection with or arising out of any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to such party under this Agreement. No party, nor any officer, board member, employee or agent thereof shall be responsible for any damage, claim, expense, cost, or liability occurring by reason of the acts or omissions of other parties hereto, their officers, board members, employees or agents, under or in connection with or arising out of any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to such other parties under this Agreement

12.2 Insurance.

Each party recognizes and accepts the other party is self-insured. Either party may purchase commercial insurance to cover their exposure hereunder, in whole or in part.

Animal Services Revenue Agreement – City of Guadalupe Page 4

13. NONDISCRIMINATION
COUNTY hereby notifies CITY that COUNTY's Unlawful Discrimination Ordinance (Article XIII of Chapter 2 of the Santa Barbara County Code) applies to this Agreement and is incorporated herein by this reference with the same force and effect as if the ordinance were specifically set out herein and CITY agrees to comply with said ordinance.

14. NONEXCLUSIVE AGREEMENT
CITY understands that this is not an exclusive Agreement and that COUNTY shall have the right to negotiate with and enter into contracts with others to provide the same or similar services as those provided to CITY as the COUNTY desires.

15. ASSIGNMENT
COUNTY shall not assign any of its rights nor transfer any of its obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of CITY and any attempt to so assign or so transfer without such consent shall be void and without legal effect and shall constitute grounds for termination.

16. TERMINATION

16.1 For Cause. In the event of a material breach of this Agreement, either party may initiate termination of the Agreement. The aggrieved party shall serve the other party with a thirty (30) day notice to cure the breach.

The notice must specify in detail the nature of the alleged material breach, including the supporting factual basis and any relevant documentation. (i) A material breach by COUNTY may include, but not be limited to, COUNTY’s failure to meet the requirements described in Exhibit A of this Agreement; (ii) A material breach by CITY may include, but not be limited to, failing to make timely payments as required by this Agreement.

The party receiving the notice shall have ten (10) days from the date of receipt to respond to the alleged breach by either requesting in writing a meeting with the noticing party, curing the breach, or if the breach is of such a nature that it cannot be reasonably cured within thirty (30) days, commence curing the breach within said period and notifying the other party of the actions taken. If a meeting is requested by the party receiving the notice, it shall be scheduled within ten (10) days of the date notice is received. If corrective action is not taken by the party receiving notice, or the parties do not reach an agreement during the notice period, the parties shall deliver to each other all data, estimates, graphs, summaries, reports, and all other records, documents or papers as may have been accumulated or produced by the other party in performing this Agreement, whether completed or in process, and this Agreement shall terminate upon completion of the thirty (30) day notice period, at the option of the noticing party, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement.

16.2 For Convenience. COUNTY or CITY may terminate this Agreement upon sixty (60) days written notice.

Following notice of such termination, COUNTY shall cease work and notify CITY as to the status of its performance.

16.3 Notwithstanding any other payment provision of this Agreement, CITY shall pay COUNTY for service performed to the date of termination to include a prorated amount of compensation due hereunder less payments, if any, previously made. The foregoing is cumulative and shall not affect any right or remedy which COUNTY may have in law or equity.

17. NONAPPROPRIATON OF FUNDS
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, in the event that no funds or insufficient funds are appropriated or budgeted by federal, state or COUNTY governments, or funds are not otherwise available for services in the fiscal year(s) covered by the term of this Agreement, then COUNTY will notify CITY of such occurrence and COUNTY may terminate or suspend this Agreement in whole or in part, with or without a prior notice period. Subsequent to termination of this Agreement under this provision, COUNTY shall have no obligation to provide services with regard to the remainder of the term.

Animal Services Revenue Agreement – City of Guadalupe Page 5

18. SECTION HEADINGS
The headings of the several sections, and any Table of Contents appended hereto, shall be solely for convenience of reference and shall not affect the meaning, construction or effect hereof.

19. SEVERABILITY
If any one or more of the provisions contained herein shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, then such provision or provisions shall be deemed severable from the remaining provisions hereof, and such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision hereof, and this Agreement shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein.

20. REMEDIES NOT EXCLUSIVE
No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to COUNTY is intended to be exclusive of any other remedy or remedies, and each and every such remedy, to the extent permitted by law, shall be cumulative and in addition to any other remedy given hereunder or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or otherwise.

21. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE
Time is of the essence in this Agreement and each covenant and term is a condition herein.

22. NO WAIVER OF DEFAULT
No delay or omission of COUNTY to exercise any right or power arising upon the occurrence of any event of default shall impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver of any such default or an acquiescence therein; and every power and remedy given by this Agreement to COUNTY shall be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient in the sole discretion of COUNTY.

23. ENTIRE AGREEMENT AND AMENDMENT
In conjunction with the matters considered herein, this Agreement contains the entire understanding and agreement of the parties and there have been no promises, representations, agreements, warranties or undertakings by any of the parties, either oral or written, of any character or nature hereafter binding except as set forth herein.

This Agreement may be altered, amended or modified only by an instrument in writing, executed by the parties to this Agreement and by no other means. Each party waives their future right to claim, contest or assert that this Agreement was modified, canceled, superseded, or changed by any oral agreements, course of conduct, waiver or estoppel.

24. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS
All representations, covenants and warranties set forth in this Agreement, by or on behalf of, or for the benefit of any or all of the parties hereto, shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of such party, its successors and assigns.

25. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW
CITY shall, at itssole cost and expense, comply with all County, State and Federal ordinances and statutes now in force or which may hereafter be in force with regard to this Agreement. The judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, or the admission of CITY in any action or proceeding against CITY, whether COUNTY is a party thereto or not, that CITY has violated any such ordinance or statute, shall be conclusive of that fact as between CITY and COUNTY.

Animal Services Revenue Agreement – City of Guadalupe Page 6

26. CALIFORNIA LAW AND JURISDICTION
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Any litigation regarding this Agreement or its contents shall be filed in the County of Santa Barbara, if in state court, or in the federal district court nearest to Santa Barbara County, if in federal court.

27. EXECUTION OF COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and each of such counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original; and all such counterparts, or as many of them as the parties shall preserve undestroyed, shall together constitute one and the same instrument.

28. AUTHORITY
All signatories and parties to this Agreement warrant and represent that they have the power and authority to enter into this Agreement in the names, titles and capacities herein stated and on behalf of any entities, persons, or firms represented or purported to be represented by such entity(ies), person(s), or firm(s) and that all formal requirements necessary or required by any state and/or federal law in order to enter into this Agreement have been fully complied with. Furthermore, by entering into this Agreement, CITY hereby warrants that it shall not have breached the terms or conditions of any other contract or agreement to which CITY is obligated, which breach would have a material effect hereon.

29. SURVIVAL
All provisions of this Agreement which by their nature are intended to survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement shall survive such termination or expiration.

30. PRECEDENCE
In the event of conflict between the provisions contained in the numbered sections of this Agreement and the provisions contained in the Exhibits, the provisions of the Exhibits shall prevail over those in the numbered sections. (Signatures on following pages)
Animal Services Revenue Agreement – City of Guadalupe Page 7 Agreement for Animal Control Services between the County of Santa Barbara and City of Guadalupe.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement to be effective on July 1, 2022.

ATTEST: COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA:

Joan Hartmann Mona Miyasato
County Executive Officer
Clerk of the Board
By: By:

Deputy Clerk Chair, Board of Supervisors
Date:

RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: APPROVED AS TO ACCOUNTING FORM:

Van Do-Reynoso, MPH, PhD
Public Health Department
Director
Betsy M. Schaffer, CPA
Auditor-Controller
By: By:

Department Head Deputy
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Rachel Van Mullem
County Counsel
Greg Milligan, ARM
Risk Manager
By: By:

Deputy County Counsel Risk Management
Animal Services Revenue Agreement – City of Guadalupe Page 8 Agreement for Animal Control Services between the County of Santa Barbara and City of Guadalupe.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement to be effective on July 1, 2022.

CITY OF GUADALUPE
ATTEST:

By: ______________________________________________________ Ariston Julian, Mayor
City of Guadalupe
Date: _______________
Animal Services Revenue Agreement – City of Guadalupe Page 9

EXHIBIT A

SERVICE LEVEL REQUEST
DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meaning as set forth below:

1. IMPOUND: Taking physical custody of an animal that has been taken to the County Animal Shelter or relocated. For purposes of this definition, “IMPOUND” refers the County’s receipt of animals that are brought to the County Animal Shelter by City residents as well as animals that have been brought to the County Animal Shelter by Animal Control Officers acting within the scope of their duties.

2. SHELTERING SERVICES: Providing food, water, enrichment, and humane housing for an impounded animal, and the cleaning and disinfecting of such housing.

3. ROUTINE VETERINARY CARE WHILE IN COUNTY CUSTODY: Shall include intake vaccines, deworming, flea control, general exam, rabies vaccine, general medications, and bandage changes.

4. EUTHANASIA: The humane killing of an animal by lethal injection.

5. DEAD ANIMAL DISPOSAL: Disposing of all dead animals brought to the County Animal Shelter by City staff or a resident of the City.

6. RABIES SPECIMEN TESTING: Deceased animal specimens submitted by City to County for the purpose of rabies testing. Brain specimen will be extracted by County staff and testing conducted by the Public Health Laboratory.

Animal Sheltering Services
The County will impound animals, humanely maintain impounded animals, and if necessary, euthanize animals in accordance with applicable law. In addition, the City authorizes the County to enforce the specific City ordinances provided in Exhibit C. The location of this service will be at the discretion of the County.

The County shall provide animal sheltering services to the City for all those animals originating within the boundaries of the City (whether picked up in the City or dropped off at the County’s animal shelter) as a result of:
confiscation, requests for euthanasia, owner surrender, owner return, pick-up of stray animals and transfers. For animals originating in the City, the County shall provide the following animal care services: return to home and reunification of animals with owners, community safety net counseling and resource options to keep animals with their families, impoundment of stray animals, impoundment of protective custody animals, impoundment of dogs who pose a risk to public safety, sheltering services, boarding, enrichment, quarantine, veterinary services, euthanasia services, animal adoptions, foster program, disposal of dead animals, volunteer management, return-to-field services for cats and related administrative services.

Impounded animals will be vaccinated and provided necessary care, microchipping, food and shelter in accordance with the provisions of state law. The animal’s picture will be posted on the Santa Barbara County Animal Services’ (“SBCAS”) website as soon as practicable to assist the City’s residents in reclaiming a missing pet. The owner or person entitled to the custody of any animal originating within the boundaries of the City and impounded at a County animal shelter can redeem such animal by paying applicable fees according to the SBCAS approved schedule of rates and fees accruing up to the time of such redemption.

The County, in its sole and exclusive discretion, shall determine the public and non-public hours of operation and the staffing of the County animal shelters.

Animal Services Revenue Agreement – City of Guadalupe Page 10 Field Services
The County shall provide the City with the following field services as may be required: responding to calls for service; pick up of dead animals; capture and transportation of animals; emergency humane euthanasia of animal in the field as required to alleviate suffering; permit compliance and other inspections; pre-hearing investigation of nuisance complaints; post-nuisance hearing compliance checks; investigation of potential cases of animal abuse and mistreatment; investigation of potential animal nuisances in violation of the Santa Barbara County Code (Chapter 7) or an equivalent municipal code provision; assistance with animal evacuations due to disaster or emergency; and similar or related field services.

The County, in its sole and exclusive discretion, shall determine the hours of operation for all field services and the order of priority in which these services will be provided.

Rabies Control: The County shall provide the City with the following rabies control program as may be required: response and investigation of reported animal bite and intimate contact cases to establish that there is compliance with state mandated quarantine procedures. This includes a follow-up contact to verify the health of the animal after quarantine. Shelter quarantine will be at the discretion of the County.

The County will be responsible for processing deceased animal specimens submitted by City to County for the purpose of rabies testing. Brain specimens will be extracted by County staff and testing will be conducted by the Public Health Laboratory.

Vicious and Restricted Dogs Hearings: The County shall provide the City with the services of one Hearing Officer to conduct vicious and restricted dog hearings in accordance with the applicable City municipal code provision(s). The County’s Vicious and Restricted Dog services under this Agreement shall extend to appeals of its Hearing Officer’s determinations pursuant to California Food and Agricultural Code Section 31622. In such appeals, County Counsel may represent County in defense of its Hearing Officer’s determination. In such appeals, County Counsel represents the County; the parties do not intend to create an attorney-client relationship between the City and the County Counsel’s Office.

Animal License and Permit Services
The County shall provide the City with animal license services for applicable cat or dog licenses within the boundaries of the City. The County shall mail license renewal notices to the animal owner of record; and when the renewal and payment are received, the County will process licenses. City residents can use the County’s online web licensing feature. Licenses will be required before the County will release an animal to a resident of the City.

The County shall provide the City with permit services for kennels, catteries, groomers, and mobile groomers within the boundaries of the City. The County shall mail permit renewal notices to the business owner of record; and when the renewal and payment are received, the County will process the permit.

Animal Services Revenue Agreement – City of Guadalupe Page 11

EXHIBIT B

PAYMENT ARRANGEMENTS

CITY OF GUADALUPE
A. City shall pay for services rendered under this Agreement for FYs 22-23 through 26-27 in the amounts shown in the table below, billed in four equal quarterly payments. Quarterly payments to COUNTY shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of invoice.

B. Payment for services shall be made based upon the scope contained in EXHIBIT A as determined by County.

C. In the event of early termination of this Agreement in accordance with Section 16, CITY shall reimburse the outstanding COUNTY General Fund contribution that would have been recovered in subsequent years had the Agreement not been terminated. CITY’s allocation of COUNTY General Fund reimbursement is $14,200 to be repaid over 5 years.

Annual Amounts for Fiscal Years July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2027 Animal Services Revenue Agreement – City of Guadalupe Page 12

EXHIBIT C

MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT
ORDINANCE NO. 2006-375
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE REPEALING TITLE 6 OF THE GUADALUPE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING THE UPDATED TITLE 6 -- ANIMALS Chapter 6.04
Regulation of the Keeping of Animals Within City Limits Sections:

6.04.010 DEFINITIONS

6.04.020 POUND MASTER

6.04.030 IMPOUNDMENT OF ANIMALS

6.04.040 TRESPASSING; SEIZURE

6.04.050 RECORD OF IMPOUNDMENT

6.04.060 DUTIES OF ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER

6.04.070 AUTHORITY OF ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER

6.04.080 ANIMAL CARE

6.04.090 LIMITS ON NUMBER OF DOGS

6.04.100 EXCESSIVE NOISE, NUISANCE

6.04.110 RUNNING AT LARGE PROHIBITED

6.04.120 ANIMAL BITES

6.04.130 ANIMALS BITTEN BY OTHER ANIMALS

6.04.140 BRINGING ANIMAL INTO CITY

6.04.150 DOGS; LICENSE REQUIRED

6.04.160 ISSUANCE OF LICENSE

6.04.170 IMPOUNDMENT OF UNLICENSED DOGS

6.04.180 CONFINEMENT OF DOGS LESS THAN FOUR MONTHS OF AGE

6.04.190 REDEMPTION OF IMPOUNDED ANIMALS

6.04.200 IMPOUNDMENT FEES

6.04.210 PROHIBITION OF FOWL, LIVESTOCK AND WILD ANIMALS

6.04.220 DISPOSITION OF IMPOUNDED ANIMALS

6.04.230 COMMERCIAL ANIMAL ESTABLISHMENTS

6.04.240 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

6.04.250 KENNEL PERMIT

6.04.260 BREEDER PERMIT

6.04.270 BREEDER ADVERTISING

6.04.280 REPORTING OF DOG RECORDS

6.04.290 SPAY/NEUTER COMPLIANCE FOR SHELTER ANIMALS

6.04.300 POTBELLIED PIGS AS HOUSEHOLD PETS

6.04.310 PROHIBITION OF DANGEROUS OR VICIOUS ANIMALS

6.04.320 PROCEDURE TO DETERMINE IF ANIMAL IS
Animal Services Revenue Agreement – City of Guadalupe Page 13

DANGEROUS/VICIOUS

6.04.330 IMPOUND NOTICE

6.04.340 CONDUCT OF HEARING

6.04.350 HEARING DECISION

6.04.360 DISPOSITION OF A DANGEROUS OR VICIOUS ANIMAL

6.04.370 PROCEDURE IF ANIMAL IS NOT FOUND

DANGEROUS/VICIOUS
ATTACHMENT 2

Guadalupe City CouncilJuly 12, 2022

Guadalupe City Council
July 12, 2022