L1SY OF
AGENDA
Pismo Beach City Council
A•SMo B c� Tuesday, February 18, 2025
Time Meeting Type Physical Location Virtual Viewing Option 4:00 p.m. Closed Session City Hall None
5:30 p.m. Regular Meeting '2 Council Chamber, City Hall https://us02web.zoom.us/m/84823715585 Live virtual viewing is offered via Zoom.
'Broadcast meeting also available for viewing on cable Channel 20 and online at pismobeach.org/agenda.
0. MEETING INSTRUCTIONS:
These meetings are being conducted in a hybrid format with both in-person and virtual options. Ways to watch these meetings and submit public comment are provided below.
Watch and participate in person:
• Regular Meeting: Visit the Council Chamber at City Hall, 760 Mattie Road, Pismo Beach, CA 93449. • To make Regular Meeting public comment, please submit an optional blue "speaker slip"to staff, the Mayor will ask you to approach the lectern to speak during the public comment period on your item of interest. • To make Closed Session public comment, please be present in the Council Chamber when the Closed Session is publicly convened; the Mayor will call for public comment prior to commencing the closed proceedings.
Watch via Zoom:
• Regular Meeting only: Click this link on any computer or mobile device:
https.IlusO2web.zoom.us/i/84823715585. This URL may also be typed into a web browser.
Listen via telephone:
• Regular Meeting only: Call 1-669-900-6833 to join by telephone audio only. Enter Meeting ID 848 2371 5585 when prompted.
Watch online:
• Regular Meeting only: Visit www.pismobeach.org/agenda and scroll to "Upcoming Events." When the live broadcast begins, an "In Progress"link will appear; click this link to watch the livestream. A recording of the meeting will be available on demand shortly after the meeting ends.
Watch on Channel 20:
• Regular Meeting only: Tune to local cable channel 20 in Pismo Beach; the meeting will be broadcast live.
Meetings are also replayed at 9:00 a.m., 6:00 p.m., and 1:00 a.m. each day the following week.
Submit written comment prior to, or during, the meeting:
• Regular Meeting and Closed Session: In advance of the meeting, written comments may be emailed to citycouncil(o)pismobeach.org or mailed or delivered to the City Clerk's Office, 760 Mattie Road, Pismo Beach, CA 93449. During the Regular Meeting no later than the start of the comment period for your item of interest, written comment may be hand-delivered to staff in the Council Chamber. Emails submitted after the start of the meeting may not be fully considered prior to any action taken on the item.
Submit voicemail comment:
• Regular Meeting and Closed Session: Call 805-773-7005 and leave a voicemail before the meeting.
Voicemails submitted after the start of the meeting may not be fully considered prior to any action taken on the item. This automated voicemail line will not be answered or monitored for other purposes.
Please note:
• In the event a Council Member participates in this meeting by teleconference under the provisions of Government Code Section 54953(o,public comment will be accepted via Zoom, including by telephone audio, as required by law. However, the timing of a request by a Council Member to participate remotely may not allow sufficient time to post an agenda containing information on how the public may participate via Zoom or telephone. In such instances, the City Clerk or another staff member will orally provide such information at the meeting.
• Meetings may begin a few minutes after the scheduled start time. • Meetings will be recorded, except closed sessions;these recordings are public record. • Phone numbers of call-in attendees may be visible to other meeting attendees, or in meeting recordings. • Phone numbers of voicemail commenters may be visible in the public record along with transcripts.
Please contact City Clerk Erica Inderlied at cityclerk(�pisrnobeach.Org with questions.
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 Page 1 of 6
Pismo Beach City Council Agenda February 18, 2025 Special Closed Session-4:00 p.m.
City Hall, 760 Mattie Road, Pismo Beach, CA 93449
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Waage
1. ROLL CALL:
Mayor: Waage
Mayor Pro Tem: Reiss
Council Members: Guthrie, Inman, Newton
2. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) — Council Chamber Item 2.A: Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code §54956.8) Property: 1243 Ocean Boulevard (APN 010-302-013)
1201 Ocean Boulevard (APN 010-302-012)
Agency Negotiator: Jorge E. Garcia
Negotiating Parties: Chapman Estate Foundation
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment
3. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD — Council Chamber
At this time,members of the public may comment on any item appearing on the agenda.
Please adhere to the following procedures when addressing the Council:
•Please limit your comments to 3 minutes or less.
•Unduly disruptive behavior will not be permitted.
Documents submitted to the Council become public record unless otherwise exempt from disclosure.
4. CLOSED SESSION — Closed Meeting Room
The City Council will convene in Closed Session to discuss the items listed under Item 2 above. In accordance with the Brown Act, public access is not permitted for this portion of the meeting.
5. CLOSED SESSION REPORT — Council Chamber
If a regular meeting immediately follows this Closed Session,the Closed Session Report will be made during the regular meeting.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting Time Date Location
Regular Meeting 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, February 18, 2025 Council Chamber, City Hall Council Agenda 2-18-2025 Page 2 of 6
Pismo Beach City Council Agenda February 18, 2025 Regular Meeting-5:30 p.m.
Council Chamber, City Hall, 760 Mattie Road, Pismo Beach, CA 93449 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Waage
1. ROLL CALL:
Mayor: Waage
Mayor Pro Tem: Reiss
Council Members: Guthrie, Inman, Newton
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA
4. PRESENTATIONS
Item 4.A: Presentation: Five Cities Homeless Coalition Update (Janna Nichols)
5. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
At this time,members of the public may comment on any item NOT appearing on the agenda. For items appearing on the agenda, including the Consent Calendar,the public will be invited to make comments during Council consideration of the item. In accordance with state law,matters raised as part of this comment period cannot be discussed or acted upon by the City Council at this time.
However,in response to a matter raised as part of this comment period,the Council may,during Item 13,City Council Comments and Requests,direct staff to assist a speaker,or schedule the matter for consideration on a future agenda.
Please adhere to the following procedures when addressing the Council:
•Please limit your comments to 3 minutes or less.
•Unduly disruptive behavior will not be permitted.
Documents submitted to the Council become public record unless otherwise exempt from disclosure.
6. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT - No action to be taken
7. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT/CLOSED SESSION REPORT- No action to be taken
8. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Air Pollution Control District,SLO County(Newton/Reiss) 10.Integrated Waste Management Authority(Newton/Inman)
2. California Joint Powers Insurance Authority(Reiss/Inman) 11.Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Subcommittee(Inman/Waage)
3. Central Coast Blue Regional Recycled Water Authority 12.Regional Transit Authority, SLO(Waage/Reiss) (Waage/Guthrie) 13.Shell Beach Improvement Group Liaison(Inman/Reiss)
4. Chapman Estate Foundation (Liaison)(Reiss) 14.SLOCOG(Waage/Reiss)
5. Coastal Cities Group, League of CA Cities(Waage) 15.South County Chambers Gov't Affairs(Guthrie/Inman)
6. Conference and Visitors Bureau/LBID Board(Liaison) (Inman) 16.Visit SLO CAL Advisory Committee(Inman)
7. Friends of Price House Liaison(Waage) 17.Water Resources Advisory Committee,SLO(Guthrie/Inman)
8. Hazard Mitigation&Fire Safety(Inman/Waage) 18.Zone 3 Water Advisory Committee,SLO(Guthrie/Inman)
9. Homeless Services Oversight Council(Guthrie/Reiss) (Gout Code Section 53232.3)
9. CONSENT CALENDAR
All Consent Calendar items will be acted upon by a single action of the City Council unless otherwise requested by an individual Council Member for separate consideration.Public comment on Consent Calendar items will be invited prior to action on the Calendar.
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 Page 3 of 6
Pismo Beach City Council Agenda February 18, 2025 Item 9.A: Adoption of Meeting Minutes (Inderlied)
Recommendation:
1. Adopt Minutes of the January 24, 2025 Special Meeting.
2. Adopt Minutes of the February 3, 2025 Special Meeting.
3. Adopt Minutes of the February 4, 2025 Regular and Closed Meeting.
Item 9.13: Payroll Register and Register of Demands (Feeser) Recommendation:
1. Approve the Summary of Payroll Register for January 26, 2025;
2. Approve the Register of Demands for January 17, 2025 and January 24, 2025.
Item 9.C: Monthly Investment Transaction Report of the City's Cash and Investments for December 2024 of Fiscal Year 2025 (Feeser) Recommendation:
No action recommended; for information only.
Item 9.D: Quarterly Investment Report for the Three Months of October through December 2024 — the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 (Feeser) Recommendation:
No action recommended; for information only.
Item 9.E: City Acceptance of the "Crescione Lot," APN 005-163-001 (Graham) Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept fee interest in the Crescione Lot (APN: 005-163-001).
Item 9.F: Notice of Completion for the James Way Beautification Project (Gaglione) Recommendation:
1. Accept the James Way Beautification Project as complete;
2. Authorize the City Manager to sign, and the City Clerk to record, a Notice of Completion for the project.
Item 9.G: Acceptance of Funding Award from the Federal Highway Administration Safe Streets and Roads for All Grant Program; Related Budget Adjustments (Gaglione)
Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a grant agreement with the Federal Highway Administration for $160,000 through the Safe Streets and Roads for All Grant Program and appropriating related budget adjustments in Fiscal Year 2025.
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 Page 4 of 6
Pismo Beach City Council Agenda February 18, 2025 Item 9.1-1: Acceptance of Funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (CaIOES) for the Repair of the Pier Avenue Storm Drain Outfall; Related Budget Adjustments (Gaglione)
Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the acceptance of grant funds in the amount of $620,838.75 from FEMA/CaIOES for the repair of the Pier Avenue storm drain outfall, and appropriating related budget adjustments in Fiscal Year 2025.
10. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS - No earlier than 6:00 p.m.
GENERAL PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS(Mayor/Presiding Officer reserves discretion to set speaking allowances):
1.City staff will present the staff report and recommendation,and respond to technical/clarifying questions from Council;
2. Mayor will open the public hearing,and invite the project applicant, or representative,to present the project(Limited to 10 mins);
3. In an Appeal Hearing,the Mayor will then invite the appellant,or representative,to present their appeal (Limited to 10 mins);
4. Mayor will then ask other interested persons to testify regarding the project(Limited to 3 mins per speaker);
5. Mayor will invite the project applicant,or representative,to make a rebuttal if desired (Limited to 5 mins);
6. In an Appeal Hearing,the Mayor will then invite the appellant,or representative,to make a rebuttal if desired (Limited to 5 mins);
7. Mayor will close the public hearing,following which the Council will deliberate and act on the matter.
Item 11.A: Public Hearing to Consider a Resolution Approving New Development Impact Fees, Effective April 19, 2025 (Feeser)
Recommendation:
1. Conduct a Public Hearing to receive input from the public on the proposed development impact fees;
2. Adopt a Resolution adopting the City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Update Study; making certain findings; and approving new Development Impact Fees for the City of Pismo Beach, effective on April 19, 2025.
Item 11.B: Public Hearing to Review and Adopt Final Funding Recommendations on the County of San Luis Obispo 2025 Action Plan, including Community Development Block Grant Funds (Graham)
Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution making final recommendations to the County of San Luis Obispo for Urban County's 2025 Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant funds.
12. BUSINESS ITEMS - May be reordered and heard prior to Public Hearings None.
13. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS AND REQUESTS - No action to be taken Council Agenda 2-18-2025 Page 5 of 6
Pismo Beach City Council Agenda February 18, 2025
14. ADJOURNMENT
To the following meeting(s). Special and Closed Session times may be subject to change, as noticed. Meetings will be held in a hybrid in-person/virtual format unless otherwise noted:
Meeting Time Date Location
Special Meeting 1:30 p.m. Monday, February 24, 2025 Council Chamber, City Hall Regular Meeting 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, March 4, 2025 Council Chamber, City Hall Regular Council meetings will adjourn by 11:00 p.m. unless four-fifths of the Council votes to continue past that time. If the meeting is adjourned at 11:00 p.m., any remaining agenda items will be continued to the next regular meeting (R-97-04).
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I, Erica Inderlied, City Clerk for the City of Pismo Beach, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing agenda for the February 18, 2025 meeting(s) of the Pismo Beach City Council was posted on February 13, 2025, at City Hall, located at 760 Mattie Road, Pismo Beach, CA, as well as on the City's website. �cal , City Clerk
Al
Meeting Schedule: The City Council of Pismo Beach regularly meets on the first and third Tuesdays of each month at 5:30 p.m., unless otherwise noticed.Closed and Special sessions will be duly noticed as needed.
Council Agendas: Agendas for Regular Meetings are available for public review on the City's website at Psmobeach.org/agenda and upon request from the City Clerk's Office, typically by 4:00 p.m. on the Thursday prior to the meeting,but no later than 72 hours prior to the meeting.Agendas for Closed Sessions and other Special meetings are made available at least 72 hours prior to the meeting when possible, but no later than 24 hours prior to the meeting.
Related Materials: All materials submitted to the Council relating to items on this agenda are open for public inspection unless otherwise exempt by law. Staff reports and attachments published as part of this agenda packet,as well as copies of correspondence received relating to these agenda items and materials distributed at the meeting, may be obtained 1) in the consolidated online Agenda Center at pismobeach.org/agenda,2) in the Access Pismo public records portal at pismobeach.org/accesspismo, 3) by request from the City Clerk at einderlied a( pismobeach.org, or 4) in person at the City Clerk's Office, City Hall, 760 Mattie Road, Pismo Beach, Mon--Fri 8:00 a.m.--5:00 p.m. Please call(805)773-7003 with any questions.
Broadcasting: Regular (televised) City Council meetings are available for viewing 24/7 at pismobeach.org/agenda, broadcast live on Channel 20, and re-broadcast during the week following the meeting on Channel 20 at 9:00 a.m.,6:00 p.m.,and 1:00 a.m.each day.
Use of Equipment: Please contact the City Clerk's Office if requesting to use the chamber equipment during public comment or as part of a scheduled presentation,24 hours prior to the meeting at(805)773-7003.
Notice Regarding Americans with Disabilities Act
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting or if you need agenda documents provided in an alternative format, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 773-7003 as soon as possible prior to the meeting to ensure that reasonable arrangements can be made (28CFR 35.102-
35.104 ADA Title II).
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 Page 6 of 6
\T Y Op
PISMO BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
'0�syo Be
Pc� Agenda Item #9.A
Meeting Date: February 18, 2025
TITLE:
Adoption of Meeting Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Minutes of the January 24, 2025 Special Meeting.
2. Adopt Minutes of the February 3, 2025 Special Meeting.
3. Adopt Minutes of the February 4, 2025 Regular and Closed Meeting.
DISCUSSION:
Attached for the Council's consideration are the draft minutes of the subject meetings for review and adoption.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with the preparation or adoption of meeting minutes.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Minutes of the January 24, 2025 Special Meeting.
2. Draft Minutes of the February 3, 2025 Special Meeting.
3. Draft Minutes of the February 4, 2025 Regular and Closed Meeting.
Submitted by:
Erica Inderlied, City Clerk
City Manager Approval:
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.A-1
Attachment 1
Y
DRAFT MINUTES
- Pismo Beach City Council
A•SMo BEPcs Friday, January 24, 2025
Special Meeting-10:00 a.m.
147 Stimson Avenue, Meeting Room #1, Pismo Beach, CA 93449 The City Council of the City of Pismo Beach met this date in a special session with Mayor Waage presiding.
CALL TO ORDER: 10:01 a.m.
1. ROLL CALL:
Present: Absent:
Mayor Ed Waage None
Mayor Pro Tern Mary Ann Reiss (arrived 10:25 a.m.)
Council Member Marcia Guthrie
Council Member Stacy Inman
Council Member Scott Newton
Staff Present:
Nadia Feeser, Administrative Services Director
David Fleishman, City Attorney
Rosemarie Gaglione, Director of Public Works
Jorge Garcia, City Manager
Scot Graham, Community Development Director
Erica Inderlied, City Clerk
Gordon Jackson, Director of Tourism and Events
Paul Lee, Battalion Chief
Jeff Smith, Chief of Police
Other staff present as noted below
2. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Call for public comment: No comment.
3. AGENDA ITEMS
Item 3.A: Welcome and Overview (Garcia)
Recommendation:
Receive an overview by the City Manager of Workshop purpose and goals.
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.A-2
Attachment 1
Presenting staff:
Jorge Garcia, City Manager
Action: No action.
Item 3.B: City Goals Update Workshop (Garcia)
Recommendation:
Staff to facilitate a goal-setting session to identify Major City Goals and Other Important Objectives for the Fiscal Year 2026 &2027 Budget& Goals Cycle, considering input from the community, Council Member priorities, and the City's fiscal condition.
Presenting staff:
Scot Graham, Community Development Director
Jorge Garcia, City Manager
Paul Lee, Battalion Chief
Jeff Smith, Chief of Police
Supplemental material submitted into the record.
Call for public comment:
Donny Martin commented.
Judy Cotta commented.
Marilee Hyman commented.
Action: Consensus in support of establishing the following Goals and associated Priorities for the Fiscal Year 2026 & 2027 Budget cycle, and identifying selected desired projects within those categories:
1. Quality of Life
Goal statement: Build on community strengths to protect and enhance the city's quality of life.
Priorities:
• Invest in neighborhoods
• Implement community beautification and cleanliness strategies • Complete Addie Street Bathroom expansion
• Complete new Ventana sports courts
• Expand use of existing facilities by considering evening use • Invest in coastal access and bluff repair
Project Ideas:
• Trash cans near transit stops
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.A-3
Attachment 1
• Lighting for sports courts
• Dinosaur Caves Park path amenities and Cliff Avenue parking
2. Streets and Infrastructure
Goal statement: Enhance, beautify, and maintain the City's streets and infrastructure to ensure safety, accessibility, and long-term sustainability.
Priorities:
• Invest in road, sidewalk, and park improvements
• Update the Pavement Management Plan
• Create a pavement maintenance strategy
• Complete a City facility condition assessment and address deferred maintenance
Project Ideas:
• Assess fire survivability of existing City facilities as part of overall facility assessment
• Add sidewalk along 140 Dolliver Street
• Modify pedestrian path near Eldwayen Park
• Evaluate pedestrian crossings at Ocean View Avenue and Price Street
• Hillside landscaping adjacent to Shell Beach sports courts
3. Public Safety
Goal statement: Prioritize the safety and well-being of the community.
Priorities:
• Complete Public Safety Facility
• Reduce wildfire risk and promote fire hardening for the community • Create a lifeguard facility in the downtown
• Focus on retention of Police personnel
• Support technology investments that enhance public safety Project Ideas:
• Evaluate Addie Street pump house as possible location for lifeguard facility
4. Water Resources
Goal statement: Ensure the sustainability of the City's existing water supply and storage, identifying new sources, promoting conservation, and engaging the community.
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.A-4
Attachment 1
Priorities:
• Implement Central Coast Blue
• Pursue outside funding
• Complete construction of Charles Street Reservoir and plan for replacement of one groundwater production well
• Evaluate additional water supplies
• Enhance water conservation measures and rebate programs • Conduct public outreach and education
5. Parking and Circulation
Goal statement: Enhance parking infrastructure, expand inventory, and improve traffic circulation.
Priorities:
• Update the Downtown Study
• Continue to work on downtown parking solutions, including acquiring additional parking assets, and adopt strategies outlined in the Parking Management Plan
• Incorporate parking modifications in the General Plan • Complete and implement the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan • Complete the acquisition of Dolliver Street from the state and make circulation improvements in accordance with the General Plan Circulation Element
6. Development and Housing Access
Goal statement: Foster sustainable community development while supporting efforts to address housing needs and homelessness.
Priorities:
• Complete updates to the Local Coastal Plan, General Plan, and Zoning Code
• Identify affordable housing and workforce housing opportunities • Implement measures to streamline the development process • Support and participate in regional efforts in a collaborative manner • Invest in housing and homelessness assistance where feasible Project Ideas:
• Conduct outreach about, and consider modifications to, the Fagade Rebate Program
In support: 5 Guthrie, Inman, Newton, Reiss, Waage In opposition: 0
Absent: 0
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.A-5
Attachment 1
Abstain: 0
Recused: 0
Item 3.C: Discussion of Various Policies/Programs of Interest Recommendation: Provide direction to staff on topics of interest to be returned for consideration as part of future meeting agendas if appropriate:
1. Advisory Body Member Appointment Process for 2025 (Inderlied)
Presenting staff:
Jorge Garcia, City Manager
Erica Inderlied, City Clerk
Action: Consensus in to provide the following direction to staff:
Conduct interviews of non-incumbent applicants first, with special meetings to be held on February 11, 2025 and February 13, 2025, after which the City Council will provide direction on the interview(s) and/or appointment(s) of incumbent applicants.
In support: 5 Guthrie, Inman, Newton, Reiss, Waage In opposition: 0
Absent: 0
Abstain: 0
Recused: 0
2. Code of Ethics Annual Review (Inderlied)
Presenting staff:
Jorge Garcia, City Manager
Erica Inderlied, City Clerk
Supplemental material submitted into the record.
Action: Consensus to re-affirm the existing Code of Ethics.
In support: 5 Guthrie, Inman, Newton, Reiss, Waage In opposition: 0
Absent: 0
Abstain: 0
Recused: 0
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.A-6
Attachment 1
3. Cal Cities Annual Meeting (Garcia)
Presenting staff:
Jorge Garcia, City Manager
Action: No action.
4. Sales Tax Revenue Discussion on Expenditure and Pavement Work (Eldridge)
Presenting staff:
Eric Eldridge, City Engineer
Jorge Garcia, City Manager
Supplemental material submitted into the record.
Action: Consensus to direct staff to program Measure F sales tax funds for light pavement maintenance in each year/phase of the next paving project, as well as periodically allocating funds to drainage improvements and other infrastructure improvements, in an effort to prolong the life of the pavement, using the Pavement Management Plan to prioritize streets needing work; In any year with unusually high tax revenues, allocate the delta to park and other infrastructure projects.
In support: 5 Guthrie, Inman, Newton, Reiss, Waage In opposition: 0
Absent: 0
Abstain: 0
Recused: 0
5. Public Art Ordinance (Jackson)
Presenting staff:
Nadia Feeser, Administrative Services Director
Jorge Garcia, City Manager
Colleen Ghiglia, Recreation Manager
Scot Graham, Community Development Director
Action:
1. Consensus to direct staff to return with a revised Public Art Ordinance incorporating the following revisions for consideration:
• Increase the public art value "trigger" threshold from $250,000 to $350,000 for both private and municipal projects;
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.A-7
Attachment 1
• Consider capping the required 1% art contribution at a specific dollar amount for municipal projects;
• Eliminate the site-specific requirement for development of art for municipal projects, but encourage it for private projects wherever feasible;
• Provide an opportunity for the City Council to provide direction on the art development, or in-lieu contribution, for a municipal project early in the development process, for example at the time the project is initially budgeted;
2. Identify additional enhancements that may be made to the Public Safety Facility project in the interest of beautification, in lieu of spending 1% of the project budget for a traditional art installation the site.
In support: 5 Guthrie, Inman, Newton, Reiss, Waage In opposition: 0
Absent: 0
Abstain: 0
Recused: 0
6. Update on Neighborhood Protection Zones and General Plan/Local Coastal Program (Graham)
Presenting staff:
Jorge Garcia, City Manager
Scot Graham, Community Development Director
Supplemental material submitted into the record.
Action: No action.
7. Parking on Price Street (Garcia)
Presenting staff:
Jorge Garcia, City Manager
Jeff Smith, Chief of Police
Call for public comment:
Jeanette Vierra commented.
Action: Consensus to direct staff to:
1. Adjust current paid parking hours on Price Street between Pomeroy and San Luis Avenues, including stub streets, such that paid parking Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.A-8
Attachment 1
is enforced between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Friday through Sunday, and return to the Council at the first meeting in October with information about the results for further consideration;
2. Work with the Chamber of Commerce on a survey for the businesses on Price Street related to parking meters.
In support: 5 Guthrie, Inman, Newton, Reiss, Waage In opposition: 0
Absent: 0
Abstain: 0
Recused: 0
8. Council Chamber Dais (Garcia)
Presenting staff:
David Fleishman, City Attorney
Jorge Garcia, City Manager
Jeff Smith, Chief of Police
Supplemental material submitted into the record.
Call for public comment:
Jeanette Vierra commented.
Action: Consensus to direct staff to:
1. Discontinue evaluation of a potential remodel of the Council Chamber and dais to provide a larger space and larger furniture, but pursue replacement of the audience chairs.
2. Conduct an accessibility evaluation for the entrances to the Council Chamber and return with further information on potential improvements.
In support: 5 Guthrie, Inman, Newton, Reiss, Waage In opposition: 0
Absent: 0
Abstain: 0
Recused: 0
4. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS AND REQUESTS
No action.
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.A-9
Attachment 1
5. ADJOURNMENT
At 3:32 p.m.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
Ed Waage, Mayor Erica Inderlied, City Clerk
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.A-10
Attachment 2
Y
DRAFT MINUTES
- Pismo Beach City Council
A•SMo BEPcs Monday, February 3, 2025
Special Meeting-2:00 p.m.
Council Chamber, City Hall, 760 Mattie Road, Pismo Beach, CA 93449 The City Council of the City of Pismo Beach met this date in a special session with Mayor Waage presiding.
CALL TO ORDER: 2:02 p.m.
1. ROLL CALL:
Present: Absent:
Mayor Ed Waage Mayor Pro Tern Mary Ann Reiss
Council Member Marcia Guthrie
Council Member Stacy Inman
Council Member Scott Newton
Staff Present:
Nadia Feeser, Administrative Services Director
Scot Graham, Community Development Director
David Fleishman, City Attorney
Jorge Garcia, City Manager
Rosemarie Gaglione, Public Works Director
Erica Inderlied, City Clerk
Mike James, Assistant City Manager
Paul Lee, Battalion Chief
Other staff present as noted below
2. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Call for public comment: No comment.
12. BUSINESS ITEMS
Item 3.A: Development Impact Fee Study Session (Feeser) Recommendation:
1. Receive information on the overall basic methodology of the Development Impact Fee Update Study;
2. Provide direction on the amount of the proposed fees; and Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.A-11
Attachment 2
3. Provide direction for staff to return to the City Council on February 18, 2025 with the fees as proposed, or any amount less than proposed.
Presenting staff:
Nadia Feeser, Administrative Services Director
Jorge Garcia, City Manager
Guest presenters:
Carlos Villareal, Willdan
Supplemental material submitted into the record.
Action: Consensus to direct staff to return with a resolution allowing the Council to consider establishing the development impact fees as outlined in staff's report, with the following revision:
Revise the fee schedule such that nonresidential DIF fees are set at 25% less than the Maximum Justified Development Impact Fee in the first year (beginning January 2026), thereafter implementing a 5% increase year over year, not compounded, in addition to CPI, through the fifth year (beginning January 2030).
In support: 4 Guthrie, Inman, Newton, Waage
In opposition: 0
Absent: 1 Reiss
Abstain: 0
Recused: 0
4. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS AND REQUESTS
No action.
5. ADJOURNMENT
At 3:22 p.m.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
Ed Waage, Mayor Erica Inderlied, City Clerk
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.A-12
Attachment 3
Y
DRAFT MINUTES
- Pismo Beach City Council
A•SMo BEPcs Tuesday, February 4, 2025
Regular Meeting-5:30 p.m.
Council Chamber, City Hall, 760 Mattie Road, Pismo Beach, CA 93449 The City Council of the City of Pismo Beach met this date in a regular session with Mayor Waage presiding.
CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 p.m.
1. ROLL CALL:
Present: Absent:
Mayor Ed Waage None
Mayor Pro Tern Mary Ann Reiss
Council Member Marcia Guthrie
Council Member Stacy Inman
Council Member Scott Newton
Staff Present:
Nadia Feeser, Administrative Services Director
Scot Graham, Community Development Director
David Fleishman, City Attorney
Jorge Garcia, City Manager
Rosemarie Gaglione, Public Works Director
Erica Inderlied, City Clerk
Gordon Jackson, Director of Tourism and Events
Mike James, Assistant City Manager
Paul Lee, Battalion Chief
Jeff Smith, Chief of Police
Other staff present as noted below
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Waage led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA
No requests to reorder the agenda.
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.A-13
Attachment 3
4. PRESENTATIONS
Item 4.A: Presentation: Police Department CALEA Re-Accreditation (Smith) Presented by Police Chief Smith.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Call for public comment: No comment.
6. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
City Manager Garcia commented on various topics; commended Public Works staff for their recent response to a water line break emergency.
7. CITY ATTORNEYS REPORT / CLOSED SESSION REPORT
City Attorney Fleishman had nothing to report.
8. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
The Council reported on recent and upcoming meetings of various external bodies:
Council Member Inman:
Pismo Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau (CVB) Board / Lodging Business Improvement District (LBID) Advisory Board.
Council Member Newton:
San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) Board.
9. CONSENT CALENDAR
Call for public comment: No comment.
Action: Adopt Consent Calendar.
Motion: Newton
Second: Inman
Vote: The motion passed on the following vote (Items 9.A through 9.D):
Ayes: 5 Newton, Inman, Guthrie, Reiss, Waage
Noes: 0
Absent: 0
Abstain: 0
Recused: 0
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.A-14
Attachment 3
Item 9.A: Adoption of Meeting Minutes (Inderlied)
Recommendation:
Adopt Minutes of the January 21, 2025 Closed and Regular Meeting.
Item 9.13: Payroll Register and Register of Demands (Feeser) Recommendation:
1. Approve the Summary of Payroll Register for January 12, 2025;
2. Approve the Register of Demands for January 10, 2025.
Item 9.C: Fiscal Year 2025 Second Quarter Financial Status Report (Feeser)
Recommendation:
No action recommended; for information only.
Item 9.D: Confirmation of City Goals for Fiscal Years 2026 & 2027 (Garcia) Recommendation:
Confirm the City Goals for Fiscal Years 2026 & 2027 as established by the Council on January 24, 2025.
10. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT
None.
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
12. BUSINESS ITEMS
Item 12.A: 2024 Risk Management Annual Report (James) Recommendation:
Receive the 2024 Risk Management Annual Report as information.
Presenting staff:
Jorge Garcia, City Manager
Mike James, Assistant City Manager
Supplemental material submitted into the record.
Guest presenters:
Tim Karcz, California Joint Powers Insurance Authority
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.A-15
Attachment 3
Call for public comment: No comment.
Action: No action.
13. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS AND REQUESTS
No action.
14. ADJOURNMENT
At 6:03 p.m., to the scheduled Closed Session meeting.
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.A-16
Attachment 3
Special Closed Session—Immediately Following Regular Meeting City Hall, 760 Mattie Road, Pismo Beach, CA 93449
The City Council of the City of Pismo Beach met this date in a special closed session with Mayor Waage presiding.
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Waage called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.
1. ROLL CALL:
Present: Absent:
Mayor Ed Waage None
Mayor Pro Tern Mary Ann Reiss
Council Member Marcia Guthrie
Council Member Stacy Inman
Council Member Scott Newton
Staff Present:
Nadia Feeser, Administrative Services Director
David Fleishman, City Attorney
Jorge Garcia, City Manager
Mike James, Assistant City Manager
2. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
City Attorney Fleishman announced the Closed Session item listed below.
Item 2.A: Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code §54957.6) Agency designated representatives: Jorge E. Garcia
Employeeganization: Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and Pismo Beach Police Officers Association (POA)
Unrepresented Employ: All Unrepresented Employees
3. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Call for public comment: No comment.
4. CLOSED SESSION
The Council retired to Closed Session to consider the above items.
5. CLOSED SESSION REPORT
City Attorney Fleishman would report in the next regular open session that no reportable action was taken on the above item.
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.A-17
Attachment 3
6. ADJOURNMENT
At 8:00 p.m.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
Ed Waage, Mayor Erica Inderlied, City Clerk
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.A-18
\T Y Op
PISMO BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
'0�syo Be
Pc� Agenda Item #9.13
Meeting Date: February 18, 2025
TITLE:
Payroll Register and Register of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Approve the Summary of Payroll Register for January 26, 2025;
2. Approve the Register of Demands for January 17, 2025 and January 24, 2025.
DISCUSSION:
Attached are the Summary of Payroll Register(s) and Register(s) of Demands (Check Registers) noted above, provided for Council approval.
FISCAL IMPACT:
As demonstrated in the attached payroll and check registers.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Payroll Summary
2. Registers of Demands
Submitted by: Nadia Feeser, Administrative Services Director/City Treasurer City Manager Approval:
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.13-1
Attachment 1
A�SM0 BEQ�'2
SUMMARY PAYROLL REGISTER
FOR PERIOD ENDING 01/26/25
CHECKS DATED 01/31/25
PAYROLL CHECKS AND DIRECT DEPOSIT TRANSACTIONS
Checks 557159-557161 3
AC H 125
EARNINGS
REGULAR 387,465.76
HOLIDAY 5,354.70
OVERTIME(Includes Comp Time Payouts) 10,561.54 Administration
Building
Conference&Visitors Bureau
Police Department 7,156.86
Parking
Engineering
Fire
Recreation
Public Works 245.43
Water 1,290.30
Wastewater 1,868.95
Motor Vehicles
Subtotal-Overtime $ 10,561.54
SALARY ADJUSTMENTS 913.77
TRAINING/UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 120.00
OTHER EARNINGS 101,819.45
506,235.22
LESS AUTHORIZED PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS
FEDERAL WITHHOLDING TAX 61,234.85
FICA&MEDICARE 38,727.98
STATE INCOME TAX 22,265.82
STATE DISABILITY INSURANCE 6,053.35
GARNISHMENTS 1,600.74
HEALTH
SUPPLEMENTAL DISABILITY
SECTION 125
PERS 38,196.60
DEFERRED COMPENSATION 575.00
ADDITIONAL LIFE INSURANCE
UNION DUES 822.70
PISMO ATHLETIC CLUB
OTHER
NET PAYROLL $336,758.18
DIRECT DEPOSIT DEDUCTION 333,375.52
NET PAYROLL AFTER ACH DEPOSIT 3,382.66
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.13-2
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach
Final Disbursement List Check Date 01/17/2025
USBANK
ACH/ Vendor Check
Check# Number Payee Amount Description
ACH 10002 Internal Revenue Service $ 101,996.32 Federal Income Tax PD 01/17/25 ACH 11208 SEW Local 620 AFL/CIO 813.13 SEW Dues PD 01/17/25 ACH 11305 Public Employees Retirement System 78,053.65 PERS Retirement EE&ER PD 01/17/25 ACH 12260 dba:Mission Square ICMA Retirement Trust-457 27,188.78 ICMA 457 Deferred Comp EE&ER PD 01/17/25 ACH 12305 Franchise Tax Board 19,562.27 SDI&State Income Tax PD 01/17/25 ACH 12360 CaIPERS 457 Plan 291.67 PERS 457 Deferred Comp ER PD 01/17/25 ACH 12708 dba:Mission Square ICMA Retirement Trust-Roth 575.00 ICMA Roth IRA PD 01/17/25 IRA
ACH 13455 Wex 1,011.33 Fuel for City Vehicles 11/07/24-12/06/24 ACH 14547 Quadient,Inc-Postage 2,500.00 Postage Dec 2024 ACH 14596 Missouri Dept.of Revenue-Taxation Division 273.12 2024 Q4 Withholding Taxes 132316 12628 Dell Marketing LP 1,682.35 Replacement Monitors 132317 12295 Addiction Medicine Consultants,Inc. 425.00 DOT Physicals 132318 14874 Advance Stores Company,Incorporated 17.48 Vehicle Maintenance 132319 14620 ALDSLO LLC 850.00 Leak Detection
132320 12433 Alpha Electrical Service Inc 322.00 WW Electrical Repairs 132321 11382 Applied Technology Group,Inc. 1,835.62 Radio Maintenance 132322 12624 AT&T 9391012187 8,508.80 PSF Internet-12/10/2024-01/09/2025 132323 12623 AT&T 9391012188 3,546.66 Phone Bill 12/10/2024-01/09/2025 132324 13278 AT&T 9391059148 1,808.31 Phone Bill 12/10/2024-01/09/2025 132325 12625 AT&T 9391083592 1,545.49 PD Migration Internet-12/01/2024-12/31/2024 132326 10295 B&B Steel&Supply 47.951 Maintenance Supplies 132327 14807 Richard Blessing 86.50 Reimb:HAZMAT Live Scan Fee 132328 14148 Michael H.Bruffey 1,178.00 Digester Tank Hazmat Testing 132329 12098 Burke&Pace Lumber of Arroyo Grande 87.23 Maintenance Supplies 132330 14414 California State Disbursement Unit 415.38 Tax Withholding Order-PD 01/17/25 132331 14771 California State Disbursement Unit 16.15 Tax Withholding Order-PD 01/17/25 132332 14876 California State Disbursement Unit 784.61 Tax Withholding Order-PD 01/17/25 132333 14995 California State Disbursement Unit 103.84 Tax Withholding Order-PD 01/17/25 132334 14349 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture,Inc 10,380.22 Ventana Tennis Courts Design-Nov 2024 132335 14365 Sean Campbell 409.97 Reimb:Grade III Test Application 132336 14889 Central Coast Security 231.00 Security Services-PBVH 1/11/25 132337 11451 Channel Islands Technology Integrators'Group 17,662.81 IT Professional Services-Dec 2024 132338 14247 Coastal Tree Experts,Inc. 1,450.00 Tree Maintenance 132339 14638 F&H Construction 1,624,776.45 Public Safety Center-October&November 2024 132340 13586 Famcon Pipe&Supply Inc. 3,090.27 Distribution Maintenance 132341 14840 Sean Flavin 2,500.00 Release Encroachment Permit Bond-950 Tulare 132342 13846 Franchise Tax Board-Tax Withholding-2 50.00 Tax Withholding Order PD 01/17/25 132343 13575 Jorge Garcia 547.00 Mileage/M&IE:League of CA Cities Committee Meeting 1/22-1/23/25 132344 12554 Gov Connection,Inc. 672.00 Adobe Licenses 132345 14944 Harris System USA Inc 9,000.00 Harris Wintegrate GL Data Extracts-Dec 2024 132346 14043 Health&Human Resource Center,Inc. 159.80 Employee Assistance Program February 2025 132347 14836 House2Home Interiors,Inc. 1,504.27 Blinds-City Hall Upstairs Office&Public Door 132348 12255 Iron Mountain Information Mgmt,Inc 36.10 Shredding Services 11/26/24-12/24/24 132349 12483 KCI Environmental Inc. 1,116.00 Ocean Blvd Habitat Mitigation-Dec 2024 132350 11833 Keylock Security Specialists 525.17 Security Annex 132351 10428 League Of California Cities 5,753.00 2025 Membership Dues 132352 10175 Life-Assist,Inc. 73.44 Medical Supplies 132353 10656 LN Curtis&Sons 3,387.59 New Fire Engine Accessories 132354 13361 Marborg Industries Santa Barbara 232.30 Portable Restrooms-Addie St 12/09-12/24/24 132355 12163 Michael K Nunley&Associates Inc 1,028.00 Charles Reservoir-Nov 2024 132356 10097 Miners Hardware 624.50 Maintenance Supplies 132357 14878 Nevada State Treasurer 2.00 Tax Withholding Order Fee-PD 01/17/25 132358 12199 Noble Saw,Inc 148.93 Maintenance Supplies 132359 14879 OneSource Distributors LLC 210.72 Maintenance Supplies 132360 12315 Pacific Gas&Electric Company 9,249.56 12/04/24-01/06/25 132361 10633 Pismo Beach Athletic Club Inc 1,313.48 PBAC Dues collected for January 2025 132362 12022 Pismo Beach Police Officer's Association 1,379.88 POA Dues PD 01/17/25 132363 14740 Premier Supply,LLC 127.15 Maintenance Supplies 132364 12335 Procare Janitorial Supply Inc 1,695.79 Janitorial Supplies 132365 14204 S.Chaves Construction,Inc. 2,500.00 Release Encroachment Permit Bond-405 Indio 132366 14999 Max Sadeghian 4,000.00 Release Encroachment Permit Bond-135 Terrace 132367 14877 SCaDU 230.76 Tax Withholding Order-PD 01/17/25 Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.13-3
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach
Final Disbursement List Check Date 01/17/2025
USBANK
ACH/ Vendor Check
Check# Number Payee Amount Description
132368 11168 Sherwin-Williams 12.16 Maintenance Supplies 132369 13913 Silvas Oil Co.,Inc 6,556.77 Diesel&Unleaded Fuel Delivery 1/3/25 132370 12570 SLO Roasted Coffee 50.28 Coffee
132371 12306 State Water Resources Control Board 169.00 Grade II Cert Application 132372 15000 Sandra Stratman 2,500.00 Release Encroachment Permit Bond-110 Seacliff 132373 11549 Tech Time Communications 225.00 Quarterly Alarm Monitoring-Station 63 1st Qtr 2025 132374 12629 Tetra Tech Inc 5,970.00 Map Checking Services-TR 3181-Nov 2024 132375 15001 Frederic&Lisa Hauter Trtee The Hauter Rev Trust 2,500.00 Release Encroachment Permit Bond-129 Seaview 132376 12301 TK Elevator 556.23 Elevator Servicing-City Hall 1/1/25-3/31/25 132377 11001 Toste Construction,Inc. 1,990.00 Asphalt Patching&Paving-350 James Way 132378 12622 USA Bluebook Acct:82507 4,511.48 Water/Lab/WWTPSupplies 132379 14034 Vital Records Holdings,LLC 204.74 Document Storage Jan 2025 132380 12132 White Flag Pest Control Inc 411.001 Pest Control 132381 11997 Whittle Fire Protection 607.00 Semi Annual Inspection-PBVH Kitchen Fire System Total: $ 1,987,858.46
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.13-4
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach
Final Disbursement List Check Date 01/24/2025
US BANK
ACH/ Vendor Check
Check# Number Payee Amount Description
132383 10434 Abalone Coast Analytical Inc $ 401.00 Water Analysis 132384 10446 Achievement House,Inc. 12,504.55 Sidewalk Cleaning Services&Pressure Washing-Dec 2024 Pismo Beach Litter Removal&Clean-up-Dec 2024
Shell Beach Litter Removal&Clean-up-Dec 2024
132385 10341 Alliant Insurance Services Inc-NPB Main 2,270.00 Facility Insurance for Events Oct-Dec 2024 132386 10800 Whitney Almaguer 1,632.00 Instructor:Creative Kids Winter Theater Camp 1/6-1/10/25#11589 132387 11365 American Legal Publishing Corporation 424.44 Ordinance Codification 132388 10147 Arrowhead Scientific,Inc 454.74 Evidence Supplies 132389 12485 ASCAP 445.00 Annual Music License 2025 132390 13460 AT&T Mobility 287284035974 1,185.84 Monthly Phone Service-Dec 2024 132391 14363 AT&T Mobility 287314925891 127.82 iPad Tablet Service-Dec 2024 132392 14832 AT&T Mobility 287339470580 160.96 iPad Mini Internet-Dec 2024 132393 12438 Avila Bay Athletic Club&Spa 1,400.00 Instructor:Avila Bay Club Camp 1/6-1/10/25#11547 132394 UB*01148 JUSTIN BRAZELL(T) 122.40 Refund Check 018499-000,106 FRANCES 132395 12841 Robert Brenman 125.00 Band Member-Senior Dance 1/14/25 132396 10028 Brisco Mill&Lumber Yard 107.75 Maintenance Supplies 132397 12564 Broadcast Music Inc 435.00 Music License Fee 11/01/24-10/31/25 132398 14217 Broken Crown Coffee Co,LLC 312.50 Coffee 132399 13269 Bianka Buchanan 172.00 M&IE:LCW Law Conference 1/29-1/31/25 132400 14766 C&M Western,Inc 281.62 Safety Boots FY25 132401 14855 California's Best Janitorial 21,312.72 Janitorial Services-Dec 2024 132402 11451 Channel Islands Technology Integrators'Group 22,986.56 Monthly Backup Subscriptions/IT Services-Dec 2024 Microsoft 0365-Phone-MDM&Storage Licenses-Dec 2024
Monthly Infrastructure Mgmt&Help Desk-Jan 2025
132403 14188 ClearGov,Inc. 6,533.33 10-year CIP Software Annual Fee FY 2025 132404 11227 Cole Chrysler Dodge 6,309.67 Vehicle Maintenance 132405 14313 Culligan/Santa Maria 847.04 Car Wash Filtration&Service/Drinking Water Dec 2024 132406 12307 Department Of Justice 32.00 Pre-employment Fingerprinting 132407 12790 Diversified Project Services International 2,095.00 Engineering Design Services-Digester#1 Demolition-Dec 2024 132408 14344 Mary Elizabeth Douglas 125.00 Band Member-Senior Dance 1/14/25 132409 12541 Engel&Gray Inc 10,012.39 Composting Biosolids-Dec 2024 132410 13575 Jorge Garcia 578.98 Mileage/M&IE:Cal Cities City Managers Conf 2/5-2/7/25 132411 13980 Garing,Taylor&Associates,Inc. 2,877.50 Eng Design&Surveying-Stimson/Hinds/Oceanview Construction Staking-Stimson/Hinds/Oceanview
132412 10398 Liliana Graham 336.00 Instructor:Ballroom/Latin Dance 12/2-12/30/24#11652 132413 12356 Michael Gruver 333.05 Mileage/M&IE:CA Regional Meeting 1/28-1/29/25 132414 13588 Kenneth John Guge III 408.00 Instructor:Judo 12/2-12/30/24#11654 132415 12653 Dan Herlihy 172.00 M&IE:LCW Law Conference 1/29-1/31/25 132416 UB*01150 ROBERT HINDS 8.01 Refund Check 018820-002,780 PANORAMA 132417 11706 Shirley Horacek 416.00 Instructor:Watercolor-Ink Resist 1/8-1/15/25#11643 132418 13276 InfoSend,Inc. 1,609.02 Processing-Printing-Mailing Utility Bills Dec 2024 132419 13385 IPS Group,Inc. 5,246.48 IPS Transaction Fees-Dec 2024 132420 14749 Michael James 172.00 M&IE:LCW Law Conference 1/29-1/31/25 Mileage/M&IE:Cal Cities City Managers Conf 2/5-2/7/25
132421 14749 Michael James 578.98 Mileage/M&IE:Cal Cities City Managers Conf 2/5-2/7/25 132422 12083 Daniel Johnson 60.00 Reimb:Water Treatment Cert T2 Renewal 132423 UB*01149 KEVIN KREOWSKI(T) 94.32 Refund Check 018806-000,1325 COSTA BRAVA 132424 10175 Life-Assist,Inc. 184.14 Medical Supplies 132425 10656 UN Curtis&Sons 206.04 Fire Supplies 132426 UB*01146 MICHAEL MCELROY(T) 51.28 Refund Check 019470-000,731 PRICE CANYON 132427 14674 McGrath Rentcorp 4,269.5313 Temporary Trailers 330 Main St.-Lease 12/30/24-01/28/25 132428 12279 McMaster Carr 254.16 Equipment Maintenance 132429 13645 MDN Engineering,LLP 6,325.00 Shaffer Lane PIP Construction Observation 2/27-12/21/24 132430 15005 Marcus Mierau 1,000.00 Cash for Grass-117 Capanna 132431 14739 Mike's Coffee and Tea Co. 54.00 Coffee 132432 10097 Miners Hardware 1,194.66 Maintenance Supplies 132433 14405 Mission Linen Supply 3,483.56 Uniforms/Floor Mats/Towels- Dec 2024 132434 11172 Mullahey Ford 375.60 Vehicle Maintenance 132435 14343 ODP Business Solutions,LLC 865.34 Office Supplies 132436 14852 Peter Picchi 926.00 Father/Daughter Dance Custom Decor 132437 10633 Pismo Beach Athletic Club Inc 150.00 CalFire PBAC Dues-Jan 2025 132438 12453 Polydyne,Inc. 4,232.36 Polymer Tote 132439 14857 Caroline Portzel-Vaccaro 748.00 Instructor:Art Workshop 1/2/25#11551 Instructor:Art Workshop 1/3/25#11552
132440 10817 PRP Co Dba PRP Companies 1,655.62 Notice to Appear Citations 132441 12613 Quinn Company 5,604.71 Nehicle Maintenance Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.13-5
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach
Final Disbursement List Check Date 01/24/2025
US BANK
ACH/ Vendor Check
Check# Number Payee Amount Description
132442 11266 San Luis Auto Parts Inc 278.18 Vehicle Maintenance 132443 14738 SCA OF CA,LLC 13,662.62 Street Sweeping Services-Dec 2024 132444 14880 Scherle Specialties LLC 1,979.40 Vehicle Maintenance 132445 14902 T&G Global LLC 58,640.10 Holiday Decorations-Remaining Balance 132446 13530 TCA Tools Inc 56.03 Vehicle Maintenance 132447 13442 Thorn Run Partners 5,000.00 Federal Lobbying Services-Jan 2025 132448 12651 Chris Trimble 172.00 M&IE:LCW Law Conference 1/29-1/31/25 132449 10971 Giles Clayton Tuckfield 5,042.50 Water and Wastewater Financial Plans Update Study-Dec 2024 132450 12493 John Tuzee 399.00 Pismo Beach/California Central Coast Children's Books 132451 12620 Uline 2,018.87 Vehicle Maintenance 132452 12622 USA Bluebook Acct:82507 276.16 W WTP Lab Supplies 132453 12527 Water Systems Consulting Inc 34,658.61 Annual Water Use Report-Dec 2024 NCMA Staff Extension-Dec 2024
Central Coast Blue PM-Dec 2024
Central Coast Blue Feasibility Analysis-Dec 2024
NCMA Management Agreement Update-Dec 2024
132454 UB*01147 JORDAN WHITAKER(T) 52.37 Refund Check 018692-000,1879 COSTA BRAVA 132455 12132 White Flag Pest Control Inc 181.00 Pest Control 132456 14020 Daniel Barrett Wrage 1,340.00 Instructor:Volleyball Camp 1/6-1/9/25#11554 Total: $ 261,043.51
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.13-6
WB
PISMO BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item #9.0
Meeting Date: February 18, 2025
TITLE:
Monthly Investment Transaction Report of the City's Cash and Investments for December 2024 of Fiscal Year 2025
RECOMMENDATION:
No action recommended; for information only.
DISCUSSION:
This report updates the City Council on the City of Pismo Beach's monthly transactions of the City's investment portfolio for the month ending December 31, 2024. California Government Code Section 53607 states that if the authority of the legislative body to invest or reinvest funds for the City is delegated to the City Treasurer, the City Treasurer shall make a monthly report of those transactions to the legislative body. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6505.5, this information is being provided here to the Pismo Beach Public Financing Authority, the Pismo Beach Public Financing Agency, and the Central Coast Blue Regional Recycled Water Authority, through the members of the City Council who sit on those boards.
The attached report includes all transactions of the City's investments managed by the City, including funds invested in various securities and the City's pooled funds invested in various financial instruments.
• Attachment 1 provides a summary of the City's cash, investments, and monthly interest earnings based on book value as of December 31, 2024. • Attachment 2 provides details on the investment transactions for the General Fund Reserve and City Pooled Funds A (for deferred capital projects), including: purchases or deposits; sales, maturities, calls or withdrawals; and interest earnings. • Attachment 3 provides details of the monthly transactions by fund for City Pooled Funds B (for current year expenditures) for the month ending December 31, 2024.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact from the report itself—information only.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Summary Table for ALL Funds, including Book Values and Earnings Data for Investments in Other Financial Instruments
2. For the General Fund Reserve and City Pooled Funds A—Transactions on Investments in Securities
3. For City Pooled Funds B—Summary of monthly transactions by fund Prepared by: Vanessa Garris, Finance Manager
Submitted by: Nadia Feeser, Administrative Service Director/ City Treasurer City Manager Approval:
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 l x 9.C-1
Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach
Attachment 1:Summary Table for All Funds,
including Book Values and Earnings Data for Investments in Other Financial Instruments Actual Year-to-
Current Actual Interest Date Interest
Earnings Earned Earned Ending
Investment Name Name of Institution Type of Investment Rate Book Value December 2024 12/31/24 *Data Sources General Fund Reserves US Bank CDs/GASs/Corp 2.77%avg 8,854,483 $ 19,171 $ 92,790 1 Bonds/Treasuries
City Pooled Funds-A US Bank CDs/GASs/Corp 2.20%avg 46,135,668 (27,846) 435,284 1 Bonds/MBSs/
Treasuries
Total All Securities $ 54,990,151 $ (8,675) $ 528,074 City Pooled Funds-B US Bank Custody 4.34% $ 312,736 $ 10,057 $ 40,111 1 City Pooled Funds-B Local Agency Invest, State Investment 4.62% 401,798 4,548 79,973 2 Fund(LAIF) Pool
City Pooled Funds-B PFM Asset Mgmt JPA Investment Pool 4.73% 13,360,460 53,267 360,459 3 CAMP
City Pooled Funds-B US Bank Checking&Sweep 4.16% 9,553,063 41,175 438,706 4 City Pooled Funds-B $ 23,628,057 $ 109,048 $ 919,249 City Pooled Funds total A+B $ 69,763,726 $ 81,201 $ 1,354,533 Funds Held with Fiscal Bond funds: 2017 Pier Project $ 2,157 $ 2,157 $ 2,196 5 Agent Wilmington Trust
Funds Held with Fiscal Bond funds: 2017 CREB's 679 679 702 5 Agent Wilmington Trust Project
Funds Held with Fiscal Bond funds: 2024 Public Safety 36,893,465 487,705 487,705 5 Agent Wilmington Trust Facility
CalPERS Benefit Trust
OPEB Trust Account CalPERS Benefit Trust Various managed by $ 5,575,679 $ (204,800) $ 231,373 6 Account CalPERS
TOTAL,Cash and Investments at December 31,2024: $ 121,090,188 $ 386,114 $ 2,169,300 TOTAL for City Managed Portfolio,Cash and Investments: $ 78,618,208 $ 100,373 $ 1,447,323 Notes:
*Data Sources for Book Values and Actual Interest Earned:
1 =Monthly investment statement from US Bank
2=Monthly statement from Local Agency Investment Fund
3=Monthly statement from PFM Asset Management LLC
4=Monthly reconciled bank statement from US Bank
5=Monthly statement from Wilmington Trust
6=Monthly statement from CalPERS Benefit Trust Account
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.C-2
Attachment 2
CITY OF PISMO BEACH
Attachment 2: For the General Fund Reserve and City Pooled Funds A Transactions on Investments in Securities
December 31, 2024
INVESTMENT ACTIVITY
PURCHASES OR DEPOSITS
12/10/24 Purchase US Treasury Note $ 2,018,516 12/11/24 Purchase US Treasury Note 1,963,438 12/11/24 Purchase US Treasury Note 2,017,188 12/11/24 Purchase US Treasury Note 1,803,906 12/11/24 Purchase US Treasury Note 1,914,063 12/11/24 Purchase US Treasury Note 1,396,523 12/11/24 Purchase Accenture Capital 393,028
12/11/24 Purchase Citibank 552,195
12/11/24 Purchase Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeis Coco 546,568 12/11/24 Purchase State Street 403,640
12/12/24 Purchase US Treasury Note 1,886,250 12/12/24 Purchase US Treasury Note 1,920,938 12/12/24 Purchase US Treasury Note 1,408,008 12/12/24 Purchase US Treasury Note 1,424,766 12/12/24 Purchase US Treasury Note 1,361,836 12/13/24 Purchase FHLMC Multiclass 554,146
12/13/24 Purchase FHLMC Multiclass 556,682
12/16/24 Purchase Australia New Zealand 800,392 12/16/24 Purchase US Treasury Bill 1,471,165
12/17/24 Purchase FNMA Grd Remic 540,400
Total $ 24,933,646
SALES, MATURITIES, CALLS OR WITHDRAWALS
12/30/24 Matured First National Bank McGregor $ 245,000 Total $ 245,000
ACTIVITY TOTAL $ 24,688,646
INTEREST REVENUE
GENERAL FUND RESERVE INVESTMENTS
Interest Earned on Investments $ 19,171
POOLEDINVESTMENTS
Interest Earned on Investments $ (27,846)
TOTAL INTEREST EARNED $ (8,675)
Data Source: Monthly Download of Transactions from US Bank Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.C-3
Attachment 3
Attachment 3: For City Pooled Funds B-Summary of monthly transactions by fund City of Pismo Beach -Bank Account Proof of Cash for the month ending: 12131/2024 Beginning Ending
Bank Account Description Bank ID Balance Cash Receipts Disbursements Transfers-In Transfers-Out Balance General Checking US Bank $34,610,219 $ 5,510,014 $ (5,567,169) $ 299,420 $(25,299,420) $ 9,553,063 LAIF LAIF 401,798 - 401,798
PFM Asset Management LLC CAMP 13,307,192 53,267 - 13,360,460 Total all Bank Accounts $48,319,209 $ 5,563,281 $ (5,567,169) $ 299,420 $(25,299,420) $ 23,315,321 Beginning Ending
Fund Description Fund# Balance Cash Receipts Disbursements Transfers-In Transfers-Out Balance General Fund
General Fund 1001-10101 15,022,628 (10,004,140) (2,392,939) 2,625,550 General Fund-Reserve 1001-10105 1,366,943 (1,362,827) - 4,116.53 Half Cent Sales Tax Fund 1002 2,755,238 (879,999) 1,875,239 Special Revenue Funds
Gas Tax Fund 2001 389,285 38,551 - 427,836 LTF-Streets 2002 449,202 1,285 450,486 PEG Access Fund 2003 117,552 22 117,575 Police Grant Fund 2004 156,131 18,080 - 174,211 Housing In Lieu Fund 2005 99,046 184 - 99,231 LBID Fund 2006 3,362,386 (2,089,433) (286,183) 986,771 Chapman House 2007 13,784 (2,245) (1,287) 10,253 Capital Projects Funds
Capital Projects Fund 3001 2,584,242 1,522,146 (842,533) 3,263,855 Public Facilities Fund 3002 924 3 - 926 Park Development Fund 3003 390,211 (14,464) - 375,747 Circulation Fund 3101 591,868 7,269 599,137 Development Impact Fee Fund 3102 171,263 9,528 (4,350) 176,441 Developer Impact Fee Fund 3103 175,838 530 - 176,367 Underground Utility Fund 3201 17,384 52 - 17,436 Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.C-4
Attachment 3
Attachment 3: For City Pooled Funds B•Summary of monthly transactions by fund City of Pismo Beach •Bank Account Proof of Cash for the month ending: 12131/2024 Beginning Ending
Fund Description Fund# Balance Cash Receipts Disbursements Transfers-In Transfers-Out Balance Debt Service Funds
Public Finance Authority Fund 4001 -
Public Finance Authority Fund 4002 -
Freeway Foothills AD Fund 4101 804 2 807 Spyglass AD Fund 4102 13,390 40 13,430 Indio-El Portal AD Fund 4112 778 2 780 Visalia Street AD Fund 4113 8,601 26 8,627 Enterprise Funds
Water Enterprise/Tax Fund 610116102 7,681,595 (2,463,265) (905,557) 4,312,773 Water Construction Fund 6103 1,086,522 (392,604) 693,918 Water Expansion Fund 6104 1,003,285 (538,697) 464,588 Water Central Coast Blue JPA 6105 32,169 97 (6,388) 25,878 Wastewater Enterprise Fund 6201 637,991 781,715 (206,513) 1,213,194 Wastewater Construction Fund 6202 1,877,376 187,034 (50,080) 2,014,330 Wastewater Expansion Fund 6203 2,238,448 (1,675,519) 562,930 Wastewater CCB JPA 6204 65,314 197 (12,970) 52,542 LTF-Transit Fund 6301 - -
Pier Operations Fund 6401 (5,267) 36,419 (2,561) 28,591 Parking Fund 6501 1,774,478 (1,880,286) (32,596) (138,404) Internal Service Funds
Technology Service Fund 7101 34,950 114,246 (135,844) 13,351 Motor Vehicle Fund 7201 2,299,474 (992,947) (167,984) 1,138,543 Trust&Agency Funds
SLO County TIMID 8201 50,097 185,028 (164,930) 70,194 Control Funds
Payroll Control Fund 9301 1,432,308 4,868 (365,491) 1,071,686 Interest Control Fund 9302 249,832 (37,709) 212,123 Utility Billing Control Fund 9304 173,136 1,127 174,264 WR Control Fund 9305 -
Total all cash funds 48,319,209 (19,425,683) (5,578,205) 23,315,321 Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.C-5
Attachment 3
Attachment 3: For City Pooled Funds B-Summary of monthly transactions by fund City of Pismo Beach -Bank Account Proof of Cash for the month ending: 12/31/2024 Beginning Ending
Fund Description Fund# Balance Cash Receipts Disbursements Transfers-In Transfers-Out Balance
INVESTMENTS
General Fund
General Fund Money Mrkt Csh 1001-10108 0 272,128 272,128 General Fund-CD's 1001-10404 5,235,033 (245,000) 4,990,033 General Fund-Fed Agency 1001-10405 4,049,000 - 4,049,000 GF Reserve Money Mkt Cash 1001-10109 0 21,440 21,440 GF Reserve-CD's 1001-10403 3,427,967 - 3,427,967 GF Reserve-Fed Agency 1001-10402 2,208,000 2,208,000 GF Reserve-Building 1001-10406 202,000 202,000 GF Reserve-Building-Federal 1001-10146 298,000 298,000 GF Reserve-Risk Mgmt-CD's 1001-10407 150,000 150,000 GF Reserve-Risk Mgmt-Fed Ac 1001-10140 50,000 50,000 GF Corp Bond-Pooled 1001-10141 529,143 529,143 GF Corp Bond-Reserve 1001-10145 500,000 500,000 GF Municipal Bonds Pooled 1001-10142 -
GF Municipal Bonds Reserve 1001-10143
Risk Mgmt Muni Bonds Reserve 1001-10144 - - GF Treasury Note 1001-10410 9,078,789 9,078,789 GF Treasury Bill 1001-10411 1,471,165 1,471,165 GF Reserve Treasury Note 1001-10413 - 2,018,516 2,018,516 GF CREB's Fiscal Agent 1001-10515 (0) - (0) GF-Half Cent Sales Tax CD's 1002-10404 735,000 735,000 GF-Half Cent Sales Tax Fed Ag(1002-10405 500,000 500,000 GF-Half Cent Sales Tax Mny Mk 1002-10108 0 0
Half Cent Sales Tax-Pooled 1002-10141 - - Half Cent Sales Tax-Muni Bond 1002-10142 - - Half Cent Sales Tax Treasury Not 1002-10410 - 1,424,766 1,424,766 Special Revenue Funds
Housing In Lieu-Mny Mkt Csh 2005-10108 (0) 1,333 1,333 Housing In Lieu Fund 2005-10404 385,000 - 385,000 Housing In-Lieu Fed Agencies 2005-10405 140,000 140,000 Housing In-Lieu Treasury Note 2005-10410 - - - LBID Fund-Treasury Note 2006-10410 1,914,063 1,914,063 Capital Projects Funds
Capital Projects Fund-Pooled 3001-10141 403,640 403,640 Capital Proj Fd Mortgage Back SE 3001-10412 556,682 556,682 Park Develop. Fund Mny Mkt 3003-10108 - - Park Development Fund 3003-10404
Park Develop Federal Agencies 3003-10405
Circulation Fees Mny Mkt 3101-10108
Circulation Fees 3101-10404 - - - Develop.ImpactFee Mny Mkt 3102-10108 0 1,078 1,078 Development Impact Fee Fund 3102-10404 245,000 - 245,000 Impact Fees Federal Agencies 3102-10405 - - Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.C-6
Attachment 3
Attachment 3: For City Pooled Funds B-Summary of monthly transactions by fund City of Pismo Beach-Bank Account Proof of Cash for the month ending: 12/31/2024 Beginning
Fund Description Fund# Balance Cash Receipts Disbursements Transfers-In Transfers-Out Ending Balance
INVESTMENTS
Debt Service Funds
Public Fin Fiscal Agent-Pier 4002-10510 920,231 (918,074) 2,157 Public Fin Fiscal Agent-PSF 4002-10511 - 36,893,465 36,893,465 Public Fin Fiscal Agent-CREBs 4002-10515 239,763 (239,084) 679 Visalia Street AD Fund 4113-10108 - 411 411 Visalia Street CD's 4113-10404 100,000 - 100,000 Enterprise Funds
Water Fund Money Mrkt Csh 6101-10108 0 1,714 1,714 Water Fund CD's 6101-10404 735,000 - 735,000 Wtr Fund Federal Agencies 6101-10405 2,155,000 2,155,000 Wtr Fund Corp Bond-Pooled 6101-10141 - - - Water Fund Treasury Note 6101-10410 3,317,461 3,317,461 Water Construction Money Mkt 6103-10108 (0) - (0) Wtr Constr. I'd Corp Bond-Pool 6103-10141 - 393,028 393,028 Water Construction 6103-10404 504,363 - 504,363 Wtr Expansion Fund-Pooled 6104-10141 - 546,568 546,568 Wastewater Fund Money Market 6201-10108 0 4,212 4,212 Wastewater Fund CD's 6201-10404 490,000 - 490,000 Wastewater Fund Fed Agencies 6201-10405 2,100,000 2,100,000 WWtr Fund Corp Bond-Pooled 6201-10141 1,062,000 1,062,000 WWtr Fund Treasury Note 6201-10410 - - - WWtr Expansion Fd Mortgage&6203-10412 - 1,094,546 1,094,546 Parking Enterprise Money Mrkt 6501-10108 (0) 3,145 3,145 Parking Fund Corp Bond-Pooled 6501-10141 500,000 1,352,587 1,852,587 Parking Enterprise 6501-10404 1,225,000 - 1,225,000 Parking Fund Federal Agencies 6501-10405 1,000,000 1,000,000 Parking Fund Treasury Note 6501-10410 - - - Internal Service Funds
MVR Fund Money Mrkt Csh 7201-10108 0 7,275 7,275 MVR Fund CD's 7201-10404 1,526,000 - 1,526,000 MVR Fund Federal Agencies 7201-10405 250,000 - 250,000 MVR Fund Treasury Note 7201-10410 - 1,361,836 1,361,836 CalPers Benefit Trust
OPEB Trust Account 8101-10408 5,781,483 (205,804) 5,575,679 Total all Investments $37,242,982 $ 60,531,886 $ - $ - $ - $ 97,774,867 Total all Funds $85,562,191 $ 41,106,203 $ (5,578,205) $ - $ - $ 121,090,188 Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.C-7
G\T Y OF
PISMO BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
A�syoBt Agenda Item #9.D
Meeting Date: February 18, 2025
TITLE:
Quarterly Investment Report for the Three Months of October through December 2024 — the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year (FY) 2025
RECOMMENDATION:
No action recommended; for information only.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This report updates City Council on the City's investment portfolio as of the quarter ending on December 31, 2024. This report complies with regulations set forth in California State Government Code Section 53646 in which the City Treasurer is required to submit to the legislative body (City Council) a quarterly report containing various information on the City's investments. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6505.5, this information is being provided here to the Pismo Beach Public Financing Authority, the Pismo Beach Public Financing Agency, and the Central Coast Blue Regional Recycled Water Authority, through the members of the City Council who sit on those boards.
The report includes all investments managed by the City, including funds invested in various securities, the City's pooled funds invested in various financial instruments, and funds held in reserve with fiscal agents.
• Table A (Attachment 1) provides a summary of the City's cash, investments, and earnings based on book value as of December 31, 2024.
• Tables B and C (Attachments 2 and 3) provides details on the investment type, issuer, maturity date, book value, market value, and interest rates as of December 31, 2024 for the General Fund Reserve and City Pooled Funds A, respectively.
All of the City's investments and the City's allocation of funds in the various financial instruments comply with State Government Code Sections 53610-53686 and with the City's Investment Policy's primary objective to safeguard the principal. Additionally, the City of Pismo Beach's invested funds as described in this report comply with the City's Investment Policy and meet the City's pooled expenditure requirements for the next six months.
Description of Cash and Investment Accounts
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit (CDs), US Government Agency Securities (CASs), Corporate Bonds (Corp Bonds), US Treasury Notes (Treasuries), and Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBSs)
• General Fund Reserves: The City has three reserves invested in various financial instruments that mature at various periods over the next five years. The total amount invested for these three reserves is $8.85 million, earning a projected 2.77% average interest rate during Fiscal Year (FY) 2025. Specifics of each reserve are provided below:
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.D-1
o General Fund Reserve: The City adopted a Fiscal Policy that maintains a General Fund Reserve of 25% of budgeted annual operating expenditures. This Reserve should be $8.23 million, which is 25% of the FY 2025 budgeted annual operating expenditures. Currently, $8.15 million is invested in various CDs, GASs, Corp Bonds, and Treasuries earning 2.80% on average per year. o City Buildinq Reserve: The City Council created a City Building Reserve of $500 thousand for the maintenance and upkeep of City facilities and buildings. Currently, this Reserve is invested in various CDs and GASs earning on average 2.38% per year during FY 2025.
o Risk Management Reserve: The City Council established a Risk Management Reserve, contributing $50 thousand each year to a maximum of $250 thousand.
Currently, this Reserve is $200 thousand, which is invested in CDs and GASs earning 2.63% on average per year. The remaining $50 thousand will be invested during FY 2025.
• City-Pooled Funds A (for deferred capital projects): Based on the City's 10-year capital plan and the cash flow needs for the next five years, the City has invested $46.14 million in various CDs, GASs, Corp Bonds, MBSs, and Treasuries that mature at various periods over the next five years and have a 2.20% average interest rate during FY 2025.
Other Financial Instruments
City-Pooled Funds B (for current year expenditures): The City follows the practice of pooling cash for all funds in financial instruments. Interest earned on pooled cash and investments is allocated quarterly to the various funds based on the respective fund's average quarterly cash balance. As of December 31, 2024, the City-Pooled Funds B are allocated or invested as described below.
• $13.36 million in PFM Asset Management California Asset Management Program (CAMP) Pool is a California Joint Powers Authority (JPA) is a State investment pool earning 4.73% annually and is the City's main savings account where the majority of cash is held for current year expenditures.
• $9.55 million in U.S. Bank Checking & Sweep: This account is the City's primary checking account and with the addition of a new sweep account, the account earned on average 4.16% in December.
• $402 thousand in Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF): LAIF is a State investment pool earning 4.62% annually and is the City's secondary savings account where the majority of cash is held for current year expenditures. • $313 thousand in the U.S. Bank Custodian: This is where interest from various investments is deposited and also where matured securities are temporarily deposited earning 4.34% annually.
OPEB Trust Account
The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) requires public-sector entities to account for the promise to provide other post-employment benefits (OPEB) over the working life of the employee rather than on a pay-as-you-go basis. The City has an actuarial study performed every two years to determine how much to set aside each year to partially or completely fund the City's future obligations for retiree health costs.
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.D-2
The OPEB Trust Account is the California Employers' Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT) Fund that was set up for the purpose of receiving employer contributions to prefund retiree health and OPEB costs for retirees and their beneficiaries. This trust fund helps finance future costs in large part from the investment earnings provided by CalPERS, rather than the City's restricted investment earnings. The projected earnings are 6.75% per year and fluctuate from quarter to quarter. Until FY 2024, the City's OPEB Trust Account had an unfunded liability, which the City contributed the Actuarial Determined Contribution amount each year to reduce the liability. As of the end of FY 2024, the Account is currently over-funded and the City is seeking reimbursement for current OPEB costs in FY 2025 and will not be contributing any amount to the Account this year. Contributions to the OPEB Trust Account are an asset for the City's future retiree health costs instead of a significant liability on the City's balance sheet.
Portfolio Allocation
Per California Government Code 53600 et seq., and the City's Investment Policy, the City may invest up to a maximum percentage of the entire portfolio of funds in authorized financial instruments. Table 1 and Chart 1 show a summary of the authorized financial instruments, the maximum percentage limits, the book value as of December 31, 2024 of the City's funds, and the percentage of the total City's pooled funds that are invested in each financial instrument.
Table 1: Investment Portfolio as of December 31, 2024
Maximum Book Value as % of
Financial Instrument % of 12/31/24 Portfolio Treasury Notes 100% $ 20,586,595 26%
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit 30% 14,715,363 19% PFM Asset Mgmt CAMP 100% 13,360,460 17%
US Government Agency Obligations 50% 12,750,000 16% Checking Account 100% $ 9,865,800 13%
Corporate Bond 30% 5,286,965 7%
Mortgage Backed Securities 20% 1,651,228 2% Local Agency Investment Fund 100% 401,798 1% $ 78,618,208 100%
Bond funds: Wilmington Trust $ 2,836
OPEB Trust Account 5,575,679
Total Book Value $ 84,196,724
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.D-3
Chart 1: Investment Portfolio as of December 31, 2024
Mortgage Backed Local Agency
Securities, 2% Investment Fund,
Corporate Bond, 1%
7%
Checking Account,
13%
Treasury Notes,
26%
US Government
Agency
Obligations, 16%
Negotiable
Certificates of
Deposit, 19%
PFM Asset Mgmt
CAMP, 17%
Portfolio Liquidity
The portion of the City's portfolio that is managed by the City Treasurer (all accounts except the Bond Funds and OPEB Trust Account) is sufficiently liquid to meet the City's expenditure requirements for the next 6 months. The majority of funds are invested in LAIF, which has a liquidity of one day. Table 2 and Chart 2 illustrate the liquidity of the City's managed portfolio.
Table 2: Liquidity of the City's Managed Portfolio
Liquidity Amount
0 to 30 days $ 23,628,057
FY 2025 7,002,308
FY 2026 12,134,375
FY 2027 12,970,675
FY 2028 10,828,102
FY 2029 8,503,055
FY 2030 3,551,636
$ 78,618,208
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.D-4
Chart 2: Liquidity of the City's Managed Portfolio
FY 2030
o FY 2029
m
FY 2028
FY 2027
FY 2026
FY 2025
0 to 30 days
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Portfolio Amount ($ thousands)
Investment Value
Book Value: The book value represents the initial outlay for an investment and is the amount carried on a balance sheet. In the past quarter ending December 31, 2024, the City's total book value of cash and investments was $121 .09 million. This is $39.38 million greater than the last quarter's ending balance, largely due to the recognition of bond proceeds for the 2024 Public Safety Facility Lease Revenue Bonds. These bonds were issued in July 2024 and the proceeds were recorded in December 2024. In general, there are a number of factors that impact changes in cash and investment balances from quarter to quarter. These changes may include receiving periodic payments (e.g., property taxes are received in December and April), large payments on debt service or capital projects, seasonal revenues and expenditures, and other factors affecting cash flow. Table 3 illustrates the book value as of the quarter ending December 31, 2024 compared to the previous quarter.
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.D-5
Table 3: Book Value Comparison
Book Value as Book Value as of
Investment Name Type of Investment of 12/31/24 9/30/24 Variance General Fund Reserve CDs/GASs/Corp $ 8,854,483 $ 7,658,980 $ 1,195,503 Bonds/Treasuries
City Pooled Funds - A CDs/GASs/ Corp 46,135,668 34,736,551 11,399,117 Bonds/ MBSs/
City Pooled Funds - B $ 23,628,057 $ 33,815,659 (10,187,602) Bond funds Blackrock Federal 36,896,300 1,607 36,894,693 Fund
OPEB Trust Account Benefit Trust Account 5,575,679 5,500,858 74,821 TOTAL $121,090,188 $ 81,713,656 $ 39,376,532 Market Value: The market value represents the current price at which a security can be traded and is the value of an investment comparing the various aspects of the security to other factors in the market such as interest rates. The market value as of December 31, 2024 for CDs, GASs, Corporate Bonds, MBSs, and Treasuries was $54.19 million, which is $800 thousand less than the book value, as illustrated in Table 4. The City expects to hold onto the majority of its investments to maturity and would receive the book value of its investment.
Table 4: Book Value to Market Value Comparison
Book Value as of Market Value as
Investment Name Type of Investment 12/31/24 of 12/31/24 Variance General Fund Reserve CDs/GASs/Corp $ 8,854,483 $ 8,659,719 $ (194,763) Bonds/Treasuries
City Pooled Funds - A CDs/GASs/ Corp 46,135,668 45,530,593 (605,075) Bonds/ MBSs/
Treasuries
Total All Securities $ 54,990,151 $ 54,190,313 $ (799,838) Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.13-6
Investment Earnings and Performance
Interest Earnings: In the past quarter ending December 31, 2024, the City's total interest earnings were a gain of $415 thousand, including a $617 thousand gain in the City's managed portfolio and a $205 thousand loss in OPEB. The estimated interest earnings for FY 2025 are $3.35 million, which is a gain of 3.98% for the year for the City's entire portfolio and a gain of 3.67% for the City's managed portfolio, as illustrated in Table 5.
Note that as the City's cash and investments change, the interest earnings change correspondingly.
Table 5: Estimated Investment Earnings
Actual Estimated
Interest Annual Estimated
Book Value as Earned 2nd Year-to-Date *Data Interest Annual Interest Investment Name Type of Investment of 12/31/24 Quarter Interest Earned Source Earnings Earnings Rate General Fund Reserves CDs/GASs/Corp $ 8,854,483 $ 48,080 $ 92,790 1 $ 215,458 2.43% Bonds/Treasuries
City Pooled Funds-A CDs/GASs/Corp 46,135,668 72,724 435,284 1 943,260 2.04% Bonds/MBSs/
Treasuries
City Pooled Funds-B Checking&Sweep $ 9,553,063 $ 158,856 $ 438,706 4 $ 658,059 6.89% City Pooled Funds-B Various 23,628,057 496,143 919,249 1,725,343 7.30% Bond funds Wilmington Trust 2,836 2,841 2,899 5 5,740 202.39% OPEB Trust Account* Benefit Trust 5,575,679 (204,800) 231,373 6 462,746 8.30% Account
TOTAL $84,196,724 $ 414,988 $ 1,681,595 $ 3,352,547 3.98% Total Managed Portfolio $78,618,208 $ 616,946 $ 1,447,323 $ 2,884,062 3.67% Performance: The projected annual interest earnings rate for FY 2025 is 3.98% for the City's entire portfolio. The projected annual interest earnings rate for FY 2025 is 3.67% for the City's managed portfolio (excludes Bond funds and OPEB Trust Account). This is compared to LAIF, which is earned 4.63% as of December 31, 2024, or the 1-year U.S.
Treasury Note, which earned 4.15% as of December 31, 2024. The following Table 6 lists the various performance measures regarding the various annual earnings rate for the City's entire portfolio, the City's managed portfolio, and the two benchmarks of LAIF and the 1-year U.S. Treasury Note.
Table 6: City Portfolio Investment Earnings Compared to Performance Measures Performance Measure Earnings
Rate
City's Annual Earnings Rate for entire Portfolio 3.98% City's Annual Earnings Rate for Managed Portfolio 3.67% LAIF Average Annual Earnings Rate 4.62%
1-Year U.S. Treasury Note 4.15%
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.D-7
Future Outlook
Recent data indicates that economic activity continues to expand at a steady pace. The unemployment rate has remained stable at historically low levels, reflecting a resilient labor market. While inflation has moderated over the past year, it remains slightly above the Federal Open Market Committee's (FOMC) long-term target.
The FOMC remains committed to achieving maximum employment and maintaining inflation at two percent over the long run. The Committee assesses that the risks to its employment and inflation objectives are becoming more balanced, though uncertainties in the economic outlook persist. It remains vigilant to potential risks on both sides of its dual mandate.
To support its policy goals, the Committee has decided to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 4.25% to 4.50%, following previous adjustments. Future policy decisions will be guided by incoming economic data and their implications for the broader economy.
Market interest rates are still higher than the City's overall portfolio, although declining especially in the longer-term securities. In response, the City Treasurer has rebalanced the portfolio to allocate more idle cash into longer-term investments to capitalize on the currently higher rates through FY 2030, ensuring interest earnings will remain strong.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact from the report itself—information only.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Table A: Summary Table for ALL Funds, including Book Values and Earnings Data for Investments in Other Financial Instruments
2. Table B: For the General Fund Reserve—Basic Data on Investments in Securities
3. Table C: For City Pooled Funds A—Basic Data on Investments in Securities Submitted by: Nadia Feeser, Administrative Services Director/City Treasurer City Manager Approval: ,. t
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.D-8
Attachment 1
City of Pismo Beach
Table A:Summary Table for All Funds,
including Book Values&Earnings Data for Investments in Other Financial Instruments Year-to-Date
Actual Interest Interest
Current Earned 2nd Earned Estimated
Earnings Book Value Quarter Ending Ending 'Data Annual Interest Investment Name Name of Institution Type of Investment Rate as of 12/13/24 12/31/24 12/31/24 Source Earnings" General Fund Reserves US Bank CDs/GASs/Corp 2.77%avg 8,854,483 $ 48,080 $ 92,790 1 $ 215,458 Bonds/Treasuries
City Pooled Funds-A US Bank CDs/GASs/Corp 2.20%avg 46,135,668 72,724 435,284 1 943,260 Bonds/MBSs/
Treasuries
Total All Securities $ 54,990,151 $ 120,803 $ 528,074 $ 1,158,719 City Pooled Funds-B US Bank Custody 4.34% $ 312,736 $ 33,805 $ 40,111 1 73,916 City Pooled Funds-B Local Agency Invest. State Investment Pool 4.62% 401,798 4,548 79,973 2 95,752 Fund(LAIF)
City Pooled Funds-B PFM Asset Mgmt JPA Investment Pool 4.73% 13,360,460 298,935 360,459 3 897,616 CAMP
City Pooled Funds-B US Bank Checking&Sweep 4.16% 9,553,063 158,856 438,706 4 658,059 City Pooled Funds-B $ 23,628,057 $ 496,143 $ 919,249 $ 1,725,343 City Pooled Funds total A+B $ 69,763,726 $ 568,867 $1,354,533 $ 2,884,062 Funds Held with Fiscal Bond funds:Wilmington 2017 Pier Project $ 2,157 $ 2,160 $ 2,196 5 4,356 Agent Trust
Funds Held with Fiscal Bond funds:Wilmington 2017B CREBs 679 681 702 5 1,383 Agent Trust
Funds Held with Fiscal Bond funds:Wilmington 2024 Public Safety 36,893,465 487,705 487,705 975,410 Agent Trust Facility
Calpers Benefit Trust
OPEB Trust Account CaIPERS Benefit Trust Various managed by $ 5,575,679 $ (204,800) $ 231,373 6 462,746 Account CalPERS
TOTAL,Cash and Investments at December 31,2024: $ 121,090,188 $ 902,693 $2,169,300 $ 4,327,957 TOTAL for City Managed Portfolio,Cash and Investments: $ 78,618,208 $ 616,946 $1,447,323 $ 2,884,062 Notes:
"Data Sources for Book Values and Actual Interest Earned:
1=Monthly investment statement from US Bank
2=Monthly statement from Local Agency Investment Fund
3=Monthly statement from PFM Asset Management LLC
4=Monthly reconciled bank statement from US Bank
5=Monthly statement from Wilmington Trust
6=Monthly statement from CalPERS Benefit Trust Account
"Estimated Annual Interest Earnings for the current Fiscal Year(FY)2025:
1.Estimated Earnings on Investments are based on scheduled Interest Payments during FY 2025
2.Estimated Earnings on Other Financial Instruments are based on anticipated average account balances(Book Values)and interest rates during FY 2025.
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.D-9
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach
September 30,2024 QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT
Table B: For the General Fund Reserves-Basic Data on Investments in Securities:
Government Agency Securities,Bank Certificates of Deposit,Corporate Bonds,Treasury Notes CUSIP Issuer Name Coupon Acq Date Maturity Type S&P Par Value Book Value IDC Market Gain/ Days to Value Loss Stated
Maturity
02589ACEO American Express 2.90% 513/2022 4/27/2027 CD 97.542 147,000 143,396 (3,604) 666 (59.76%)
052392BT3 Austin Telco Federal 3.80% 9/21/2022 9/21/2027 CD 99.465 245,000 243,689 (1,311) 813 Credit Union
06406RBA4 Bank New York Mellon 2.05% 1/26/2022 1/26/2027 CD A 95.234 245,000 233,490 (11,510) 575 (32.69%)
07371BWHO Beal Bank Plano Texas 4.70% 6/12/2024 6/612029 CD 102.814 245,000 251,894 6,894 1,437 07371DT23 Beal Bank USA Las 4.70% 6/12/2024 6/612029 CD 102.814 245,000 251,894 6,894 1,437 Vegas Nevada
05600XQL7 BMO Harris Bank 4.45% 5/24/2023 5/24/2028 CD 101.561 139,000 141,158 2,158 1,059 (56.73%)
14042TFP7 Capital One Bank 2.90% 4/27/2022 4/27/2027 CD 97.542 117,000 114,136 (2,864) 666 (47.76%)
24951TAL9 Department of 1.25% 117/2022 1/712027 CD 94.646 50,000 47,327 (2,673) 556 Commerce FCU
(20.41%)
24951TAL9 Department of 1.25% 117/2022 1/712027 CD 94.646 55,000 52,058 (2,942) 556 Commerce FCU
(22.45%)
27004PCV3 Eaglemark Savings Bank 3.25% 6/22/2022 6/2212027 CD 98.211 50,000 48,123 (1,877) 722 (20%)
291916ABO Empower Federal Credit 5.10% 9/29/2023 9/29/2028 CD 103.808 130,000 134,947 4,947 1,187 Union(53.06%)
29367RLM6 Enterprise Bank 0.85% 5/18/2020 5/14/2025 CD 98.759 155,000 153,088 (1,912) (47) (63.27%)
3130APB87 FHLB 1.10% 10/13/2021 10/13/2026 Agency AA+ 94.523 500,000 472,615 (27,385) 470 313OAQZ55 FHLB 2.50% 3/10/2022 3/10/2027 Agency AA+ 96.119 500,000 480,595 (19,405) 618 3130ALYC2 FHLB(19.2%) 1.14% 4/29/2021 4/29/2026 Agency AA+ 95.946 192,000 184,216 (7,784) 303 3130AMCY6 FHLB(2.5%) 1.00% 5/27/2021 5/27/2026 Agency AA+ 95.261 50,000 47,631 (2,370) 331 3130AQAU7 FHLB(24.5%) 1.45% 12/29/2021 12/29/2026 Agency AA+ 94.479 245,000 231,474 (13,526) 547 3130AMCY6 FHLB(25.8%) 1.00% 5/27/2021 5/27/2026 Agency AA+ 95.261 516,000 491,547 (24,453) 331 3130ARF55 FHLB(49%) 2.60% 3/30/2022 3/30/2027 Agency AA+ 96.146 245,000 235,558 (9,442) 638 3130ALYC2 FHLB(5.3%) 1.14% 4/29/2021 4/29/2026 Agency AA+ 95.946 53,000 50,851 (2,149) 303 313MRF55 FHLB(51%) 2.60% 3/30/2022 3/30/2027 Agency AA+ 96.146 255,000 245,172 (9,828) 638 32024JAM5 First Federal Credit 4.40% 2/17/2023 2/17/2028 CD 101.163 191,967 194,190 2,223 962 Union-(78.35%)
33847E3J4 Flagstar Bank 0.90% 5/15/2020 5/15/2025 CD 98.769 245,000 241,984 (3,016) (46) 39573LEM6 Greenstate Credit Union 5.00% 9/26/2023 9/26/2028 CD 103.454 50,000 51,706 1,706 1,184 (20.4%)
46632FRUl JP Morgan Chase Bank 0.70% 1/22/2021 1/22/2026 Corporate Bond AA- 94.885 500,000 474,425 (25,575) 206 50625LBN2 Lafayette Federal Credit 3.25% 6/15/2022 6/15/2027 CD 98.221 245,000 240,641 (4,359) 715 Union
59013KPNO Merrick Bank 1.10% 1119/2021 11/912026 CD 94.763 245,000 232,169 (12,831) 497 835104BZ2 Somerset Tr Cc 1.00% 3/19/2020 3/19/2025 CD 99.278 245,000 243,231 (1,769) (103) 87164X2C9 Synchrony Bank 4.60% 9/15/2023 9/15/2028 CD 102.029 245,000 249,971 4,971 1,173 88413QDL9 Third Federal Savings 3.50% 6/28/2022 6/28/2027 CD 98.788 245,000 242,031 (2,969) 728 Bank
89235MLC3 Toyota Financial Savings 0.95% 7/15/2021 7/15/2026 CD 95.384 245,000 233,691 (11,309) 380 Bank
91282CJN2 US Treasury 4.38% 12/10/2024 11130/2028 Treasury Note 100.041 2,018,516 2,000,820 (17,696) 1,249 Total $ 8,854,483 $ 8,659,719
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.D-10
Attachment 3
City of Pismo Beach
September 30,2024 QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT
Table C: For City Pooled Funds A-Basic Data on Investments in Securities:
Government Agency Securities,Bank Certificates of Deposit,Corporate Bonds,Mortgage-Backed Securities,Treasury Notes CUSIP Issuer Name Coupon Acq Date Maturity Type S&P Par Value Book Value IDC Market Gain/ Days to Value Loss Stated
Maturity
00440KAB9 Accenture Capital 4.05% 12111/2024 10/412029 Corporate Bond AA- 97.063 393,028 388,252 (4,776) 1,557 01025RAN9 Alabama Credit Union 4.35% 2/28/2024 2/28/2028 CD 101.026 245,000 247,514 2,514 973 011852AEO Alaska USA Federal 4.60% 318/2023 3/812028 CD 101.781 245,000 249,363 4,363 982 Credit Union
01664MAB2 All In Federal Credit 4.40% 12120/2022 12/20/2027 CD 101.106 245,000 247,710 2,710 903 Union
01882MAB8 Alliant Credit Union 4.95% 12130/2022 12/30/2027 CD 102.668 245,000 251,537 6,537 913 0255413DA6 American Eagle Bank 1.10% 3/13/2020 3/13/2025 CD 99.352 245,000 243,412 (1,588) (109) 02589ACEO American Egress 2.90% 5/3/2022 4/27/2027 CD 97.542 99,000 96,557 (2,443) 666 (40.24%)
037833AZ3 Apple Inc 2.50% 315/2020 219/2025 Corporate Bond AA+ 99.781 1,062,000 997,810 (64,190) (141) 05253JB59 Australia New Zealand 4.62% 12116/2024 12/16/2029 Corporate Bond AA- 99.159 800,392 793,272 (7,120) 1,630 062119BSO Bank Five Nine(40.82%) 4.60% 4/14/2023 4/13/2028 CD 101.843 100,000 101,852 1,852 1,018 062119BSO Bank Five Nine(59.18%) 4.60% 4/14/2023 4/13/2028 CD 101.843 145,000 147,663 2,663 1,018 06406RBA4 Bank New York Mellon 2.05% 1/26/2022 1/26/2027 CD A 95.234 504,363 480,765 (23,597) 575 (67.31%)
06048WS43 Bank of America Corp 2.00% 2118/2022 8/18/2025 Corporate Bond A- 97.741 500,000 488,705 (11,295) 49 06740KQEO Barclays Bank 3.00% 5/11/2022 5/11/2027 CD 97.736 245,000 239,453 (5,547) 680 05600XQL7 BMO Harris Bank 4.45% 5/24/2023 5/24/2028 CD 101.561 106,000 107,666 1,666 1,059 (43.27%)
05580AW59 BMW Bank North 4.60% 3/10/2023 3/10/2028 CD 101.763 245,000 249,319 4,319 984 America
14042TFP7 Capital One Bank 2.90% 4/27/2022 4/27/2027 CD 97.542 128,000 124,842 (3,158) 666 (52.24%)
14042RQU8 Capital One National 2.90% 4/27/2022 4/27/2027 CD 97.542 50,000 48,775 (1,225) 666 (20.41%)
14042RQU8 Capital One National 2.90% 4/27/2022 4/27/2027 CD 97.542 195,000 190,203 (4,797) 666 (79.59%)
15118RUR6 Celtic Bank 1.35% 412/2020 4/212025 CD 99.249 245,000 243,160 (1,840) (89) 152010CJ4 Centerstate Bank 1.00% 3/30/2020 3/31/2025 CD 99.187 245,000 243,008 (1,992) (91) 12547CAX6 CIBC Bank USA Chicago 4.45% 4/14/2023 4/14/2028 CD 101.375 245,000 248,369 3,369 1,019 17286TAGO Citadel Federal Credit 1.65% 2125/2020 2/27/2025 CD 99.578 245,000 243,966 (1,034) (123) Union
17325FBL1 Citibank 4.88% 12111/2024 11/19/2027 Corporate Bond A+ 100.08 552,195 550,440 (1,755) 872 19058RAE1 Coastal1 Credit Union 4.15% 1/31/2024 1/31/2028 CD 100.434 245,000 246,063 1,063 945 19075JAB4 Cobalt Federal Credit 3.60% 9/15/2022 9/15/2027 CD 98.965 245,000 242,464 (2,536) 807 Union
21688ABH4 Cooperatieve Centrale 4.49% 12111/2024 10/17/2029 Corporate Bond A+ 98.043 546,568 539,237 (7,332) 1,570 Raiffeeis Coco
22551KAU6 Credit Union of Texas 4.40% 1219/2022 12/912027 CD 101.097 245,000 247,688 2,688 892 23204HPB8 Customers Bank 4.50% 6/14/2023 6/14/2028 CD 101.573 245,000 248,854 3,854 1,080 24951TAL9 Department of 1.25% 1/7/2022 1/7/2027 CD 94.646 140,000 132,498 (7,502) 556 Commerce FCU
(57.14%)
254673D94 Discover Bank 3.20% 5/19/2022 5/19/2027 CD 98.175 245,000 240,529 (4,471) 688 27004PCV3 Eaglemark Savings Bank 3.25% 6/2212022 6/22/2027 CD 98.211 195,000 192,494 (2,506) 722 (80%)
291916ABO Empower Federal Credit 5.10% 9/29/2023 9/29/2028 CD 103.808 115,000 119,382 4,382 1,187 Union(46.94%)
29367RLM6 Enterprise Bank 0.85% 5/18/2020 5/14/2025 CD 98.759 90,000 88,872 (1,128) (47) (36.73%)
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.D-11
Attachment 3
City of Pismo Beach
September30,2024 QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT
Table C: For City Pooled Funds A-Basic Data on Investments in Securities:
Government Agency Securities,Bank Certificates of Deposit,Corporate Bonds,Mortgage-Backed Securities,Treasury Notes CUSIP Issuer Name Coupon Acq Date Maturity Type S&P Par Value Book Value IDC Market Gain/ Days to Value Loss Stated
Maturity
30002CAT5 Everett Co-Operative 3.90% 1123/2023 1119/2027 CD 99.97 245,000 244,927 (74) 568 3130ALD76 FHLB 0.70% 2125/2021 2/25/2026 Agency AA+ 96.002 500,000 480,010 (19,990) 240 3130ARGQ8 FHLB 2.88% 4/14/2022 4/14/2027 Agency AA+ 96.66 500,000 483,300 (16,700) 653 3130ANSB7 FHLB 1.00% 9/17/2021 9/17/2026 Agency AA+ 94.585 1,000,000 945,850 (54,150) 444 3130AQAU7 FHLB(14%) 1.45% 12129/2021 12/29/2026 Agency AA+ 94.479 140,000 132,271 (7,729) 547 3130AMS37 FHLB(20%) 1.00% 6/24/2021 6/24/2026 Agency AA+ 95.356 400,000 381,424 (18,576) 359 3130AMCY6 FHLB(25%) 1.00% 5/27/2021 5/27/2026 Agency AA+ 95.261 500,000 476,305 (23,695) 331 313MMS37 FHLB(30%) 1.00% 6/2412021 6/24/2026 Agency AA+ 95.356 600,000 572,136 (27,864) 359 3130AMCY6 FHLB(46.7%) 1.00% 5/27/2021 5/2712026 Agency AA+ 95.261 934,000 889,738 (44,262) 331 313MMS37 FHLB(50%) 1.00% 6/24/2021 6/2412026 Agency AA+ 95.356 1,000,000 953,560 (46,440) 359 3130ARGE5 FHLB(50%) 3.00% 4/21/2022 4/21/2027 Agency AA+ 96.906 250,000 242,265 (7,735) 660 3130ARGE5 FHLB(50%) 3.00% 4/21/2022 4/2112027 Agency AA+ 96.906 250,000 242,265 (7,735) 660 3130AQAU7 FHLB(61.5%) 1.45% 12129/2021 12/29/2026 Agency AA+ 94.479 615,000 581,046 (33,954) 547 3130ALYC2 FHLB(75.5%) 1.14% 4/29/2021 4/29/2026 Agency AA+ 95.946 755,000 724,392 (30,608) 303 3137HB3G7 FHLMC Mltchl 4.86% 12/13/2024 10/25/2028 MBS 100.336 556,682 551,848 (4,834) 1,213 3137RAQ74 FHLMC Mltchl 4.74% 12/13/2024 8/25/2028 MBS 99.984 554,146 549,912 (4,234) 1,152 32024JAM5 First Federal Credit 4.40% 2/17/2023 2117/2028 CD 101.163 53,033 53,659 626 962 Union-(21.65%)
32110YE84 First National Bank 4.60% 9/21/2023 9/21/2028 CD 102.06 245,000 250,047 5,047 1,179 America
33715LED8 First Technology 3.70% 8/19/2022 8/19/2027 CD 99.228 245,000 243,109 (1,891) 780 3136G4J61 FNMA 0.57% 8126/2020 8/26/2025 Agency AA+ 97.582 750,000 731,865 (18,135) 57 3136G4WV1 FNMA 0.75% 6/16/2020 6/16/2025 Agency AA+ 98.343 1,000,000 983,430 (16,570) (14) 3136G431_5 FNMA 0.55% 9/30/2020 9/30/2025 Agency AA+ 97.249 1,000,000 972,490 (27,510) 92 3136BTGM9 FNMA Gtd Remic 2.91% 12117/2024 7/25/2027 MBS 96.207 540,400 538,759 (1,641) 755 39573LEM6 Greenstate Credit Union 5.00% 9/26/2023 9/26/2028 CD 103,454 195,000 201,756 6,756 1,184 (79.6%)
472207AE9 Jeanne D Arc Federal 3.80% 9/30/2022 9/30/2027 CD 99.461 245,000 243,679 (1,321) 822 Credit Union
5121OSSDO Lakeside Bank 1.40% 3/30/2020 3/31/2025 CD 99.269 245,000 243,209 (1,791) (91) 58404DSM4 Medallion Bank Utah 4.40% 6/16/2023 6/16/2028 CD 101,279 245,000 248,134 3,134 1,082 60425SKB4 Minnust Bank 4.25% 51112023 51312027 CD 100.528 245,000 246,294 1,294 672 6169OW68 Morgan Stanley Bank 3.25% 5/19/2022 5119/2027 CD 98.279 245,000 240,784 (4,216) 688 61768ET29 Morgan Stanley Bank 4.35% 31612024 31612029 CD 101.318 245,000 248,229 3,229 1,345 67054NBC6 Numerica Credit Union 4.95% 111412022 111412027 CD 102.531 245,000 251,201 6,201 857 694231AF8 Pacific Enterprise Bank 1.35% 4/912020 419/2025 CD 99.195 245,000 243,028 (1,972) (82) 69506YRG6 Pacific Western Bank 1.35% 4/16/2020 4/16/2025 CD 99.143 245,000 242,900 (2,100) (75) 70962LAS1 Pentagon Federal Credit 0.90% 9/29/2021 9/29/2026 CD 94.709 245,000 232,037 (12,963) 456 Union
79772FAG1 San Francisco Federal 4.35% 21312023 213/2028 CD 101.004 245,000 247,460 2,460 948 Credit Union
8562851<91 State Bank India 2.00% 3/2312022 3/23/2027 CD 95.749 245,000 234,585 (10,415) 631 857449AE2 State Street 4.78% 12111/2024 11123/2029 Corporate Bond AA- 99.69 403,640 398,760 (4,880) 1,607 88241THJ2 Texas Exchange Bank 1.00% 6/1012020 6/13/2025 CD 98.568 245,000 241,492 (3,508) (17) 89236TGT6 Toyota Motor Corp 1.80% 61512020 2/13/2025 Corporate Bond A+ 99.658 257,893 249,145 (8,748) (137) 90348JTH3 UBS Bank USA 1.25% 3/25/2020 3/25/2025 CD 99.281 245,000 243,238 (1,762) (97) Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.D-12
Attachment 3
City of Pismo Beach
September30,2024 QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT
Table C; For City Pooled Funds A-Basic Data on Investments in Securities; Government Agency Securities,Bank Certificates of Deposit,Corporate Bonds,Mortgage-Backed Securities,Treasury Notes CUSIP Issuer Name Coupon Acq Date Maturity Type S&P Par Value Book Value IDC Market Gainl Days to Value Loss Stated
Maturity
90331 HMS9 US Bank National 2.80% 5/29/2020 1127/2025 Corporate Bond A+ 99.814 271,250 249,535 (21,715) (154) 912797MW4 US Treasury 0.00% 1211612024 11712025 Treasury Note 99.943 1,471,165 1,474,159 2,994 (174) 912828M56 US Treasury 2.25% 121111202411/15/2025 Treasury Note 98.289 1,963,438 1,965,780 2,343 138 91282CHX2 US Treasury 4.38% 12/11/2024 8/31/2028 Treasury Note 100.08 2,017,188 2,001,600 (15,588) 1,158 91282CAL5 US Treasury 0.38% 12111/2024 9/30/2027 Treasury Note 89.987 1,803,906 1,799,740 (4,166) 822 91282CCZ2 US Treasury 0.88% 12/1212024 9130/2026 Treasury Note 94.369 1,886,250 1,887,380 1,130 457 91282CFCO US Treasury 2.63% 12112/2024 7131/2029 Treasury Note 92.774 1,408,008 1,391,610 (16,398) 1,492 9128283F5 US Treasury 2.25% 12112/202411/15/2027 Treasury Note 94.547 1,424,766 1,418,205 (6,561) 868 9128282A7 US Treasury 1.50% 12111/2024 8/15/2026 Treasury Note 95.728 1,914,063 1,914,560 498 411 91282CEE7 US Treasury 2.38% 1211112024 3/31/2029 Treasury Note 92.29 1,396,523 1,384,350 (12,173) 1,370 91282CBC4 US Treasury 0.38% 12112120241213112025 Treasury Note 96.293 1,920,938 1,925,860 4,923 184 91282CAD3 US Treasury 0.38% 1211212024 7131/2027 Treasury Note 90.569 1,361,836 1,358,535 (3,301) 761 917352AH9 Utah Community Credit 4.50% 61712023 61712028 CD 103.385 245,000 253,293 8,293 1,073 Union
92891CCP5 Vystar Credit Union 4.45% 9/3012022 9130/2027 CD 101.149 245,000 247,815 2,815 822 98138MCC2 Workers Federal Credit 5.25% 11/15/2023 11/1512028 CD 104.465 245,000 255,939 10,939 1,234 Union
Total $ 46,135,668 $45,530,593
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.D-13
G\T Y OF
PISMO BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
A�syoBt Agenda Item #9.E
Meeting Date: February 18, 2025
TITLE:
City Acceptance of the "Crescione Lot," APN 005-163-001 RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept fee interest in the Crescione Lot (APN: 005-163-001).
DISCUSSION:
The City was approached by representatives of the heirs of former City Council Member Benito "Joe" Crescione in the spring of 2024 regarding donation of real property to the City. The lot is located within Pismo Creek, adjacent to Addie Street, west of the Cypress Street bridge, as shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1. APN 005-163-001
\k'
Because of the lot's location within the creek, it has little utility from a development standpoint, but acquisition of the property by the City would make maintenance of the creek bank along Addie Street as well as the Cypress Street bridge easier.
Conclusion and Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) authorizing the City Manager to accept the deed to the Crescione lot, subject to approval by the City Attorney of the transfer documents.
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.E-1
FISCAL IMPACT:
As the lot is proposed to be donated to the City, there is no direct fiscal impact.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. Quitclaim Deed
Submitted by:
Scot Graham, Community Development Director
City Manager Approval:
1 1
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.E-2
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. R-2025-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PISMO BEACH,
CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT FEE INTEREST IN THE CRESCIONE LOT (APN: 005-163-001)
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 27281 provides that instruments conveying an interest in real property to the City may not be recorded without a Certificate of Acceptance from the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 27281 also provides that the City Council may, by a general resolution, authorize one or more officers to accept instruments conveying an interest in real property by executing a Certificate of Acceptance; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to delegate to the City Manager the authority to accept on behalf of the City a real property interest offered by Giovanna Dela Cruz- Stanfill, Marco Benito Crescione, Mia Francesca Stewart, and Paolo Joseph Crescione.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pismo Beach as follows:
1. That the City Manager may accept, on behalf of the City Council, the fee interest in real property known as the Crescione Lot (APN: 005-163-001), so long as the offer is evidenced by a written instrument or instruments signed by the offering property owner and approved as to form by the City Attorney.
2. The City Clerk shall utilize the Certificate of Acceptance attached as an exhibit to staff's report to the Council dated February 18, 2025, and record the Certificate along with the Quit Claim Deed with the County Recorder.
UPON MOTION OF Council Member , seconded by Council Member the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Pismo Beach this 18tn day of February 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSED:
Approved: Attest:
Ed Waage, Mayor Erica Inderlied, City Clerk
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.E-3
Attachment 1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand on
Erica Inderlied, City Clerk
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.E-4
Attachment 2
RECORDING REQUESTED BY,AND WHEN
RECORDED MAIL TO:
AND MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO:
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road,Pismo Beach,CA 93449
SPACE DIRECTLY ABOVE RESERVED FOR RECORDER USE
DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX$ N/A
EXEMPTION(R&T CODE) 11922 QUIT CLAIM DEED
EXPLANATION A political subdivision of the State of
California is acquiring title.
APN: 005-163-001
Common Address: Undeveloped Land (Lot 14)
Approximately located at
(Signature of Declarant or Agent determining tax) 190 Addle Street Pismo Beach, CA 93449
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, We the GRANTOR(S): Giovanna Dela Cruz-Stanfill, a married woman, Marco Benito Crescione, a married man, Mia Francesca Stewart, a married woman, and Paolo Joseph Crescione, a married man, all as Tenants in Common,
hereby grants via QUIT CLAIM to
GRANTEE(S) the City of Pismo Beach
all that real property situated in the City of Pismo Beach, San Luis Obispo County, State of California, described as follows:
LOT 14, BLOCK 4 OF DOCKERY ADDITION TO THE TOWN
OF PISMO, IN THE CITY OF PISMO BEACH, COUNTY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING
TO MAP RECORDED IN BOOK A, PAGE 106 OF MAPS, IN
THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID
COUNTY.
Giovanna Dela Cruz-Stanfill Marco Benito Crescione
Dated: Dated:
Mia Francesca Stewart Paolo Joseph Crescione
Dated: Dated:
The above signatures must be acknowledged.
CALIFORNIA—Quit Claim Deed
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.E-5
Attachment 2
Government Code §27281 Certification
This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the deed dated from Giovanna Dela Cruz-Stanfill, a married woman, Marco Benito Crescione, a married man, Mia Francesca Stewart, a married woman, and Paolo Joseph Crescione, a married man, all as Tenants in Common
to
the City of Pismo Beach, a political corporation and/or governmental agency is hereby accepted, by the undersigned officer, the City Manager, on behalf of the City Council of the City of Pismo Beach pursuant to authority conferred by resolution R-2025-XXX of the City Council of the City of Pismo Beach adopted on February 18, 2025,
and the grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer.
Dated
By:
Jorge E. Garcia, City Manager
CALIFORNIA—Quit Claim Deed
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.E-6
G\T Y OF
PISMO BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
A�syo Bt Agenda Item #9.F
Meeting Date: February 18, 2025
TITLE:
Notice of Completion for the James Way Beautification Project RECOMMENDATION:
1. Accept the James Way Beautification Project as complete;
2. Authorize the City Manager to sign, and the City Clerk to record, a Notice of Completion for the project.
DISCUSSION:
On September 5, 2023, City Council awarded a contract to JJ Fisher Construction, Inc. (JJ Fisher) for the James Way Beautification Project. The project consisted of removal of the concrete from between the fence line and back of sidewalk on the south side (ocean side) of the street, and installation of new landscaping as well as removal of the raised masonry planters on the north side of the street and installation of new trees.
Conclusion and Recommendation
JJ Fisher has completed the contracted services and the James Way Beautification Project has been completed in accordance with the plans, specifications, and contract documents. Staff recommends that the City Council accept the project as complete and authorize the Notice of Completion (Attachment 1) to be recorded at the County Clerk's office.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with this report.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Notice of Completion
Prepared by:
Erin Olsen, Senior Management Analyst
Submitted by: Rosemarie R. Gaglione, PE, Director of Public Works City Manager Approval: _
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.F-1
Attachment 1
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF PISMO BEACH
760 MATTIE ROAD
PISMO BEACH, CA 93449
NO TRANSFERORS
This document is recorded for the benefit of the City of Pismo Beach, a Municipal Corporation, and is exempt from fee per Government Code Section 27383.
NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE
FOR JAMES WAY BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the City of Pismo Beach in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, as follows:
1. That on the 18t"of February 2025, the project hereunder described was considered completed and accepted by the City Council of the City of Pismo Beach.
2. That the description of said project is the construction of James Way Beautification Project, for the City of Pismo Beach.
3. That the name of the political subdivision controlling said project, and the owner of the land upon which the project was constructed, is the City of Pismo Beach, in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, whose address is 760 Mattie Road, Pismo Beach, CA 93449.
4. That the name of the owner/contractor on said project is JJ Fisher Construction, Inc., P.O. Box 2219, Nipomo, CA 93449.
5. The name of the Surety on the project is The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, 175 Berkley Street, Boston, MA 02116.
1 certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date:
Jorge E. Garcia, City Manager
Attest:
Erica Inderlied, City Clerk
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.F-2
G\T Y OF
PISMO BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
A�syo Bt Agenda Item #9.G
Meeting Date: February 18, 2025
TITLE:
Acceptance of Funding Award from the Federal Highway Administration Safe Streets and Roads for All Grant Program; Related Budget Adjustments RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a grant agreement with the Federal Highway Administration for $160,000 through the Safe Streets and Roads for All Grant Program and appropriating related budget adjustments in Fiscal Year 2025.
DISCUSSION:
The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administers the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) grant program to improve roadway safety by significantly reducing roadway fatalities and serious injuries, with the goal of eventually eliminating them entirely (commonly known as "vision zero").
In May 2024, the City of Pismo Beach applied for grant funding through the SS4A program to fund the creation of a Vision Zero Action Plan. This plan will build off the City's 2020 Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) and Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) to identify and prioritize projects that will reduce or eliminate roadway fatalities and serious injuries for all road users. In September of 2024, the City received notification of the award of$160,000 in Federal funding to complete the plan. Staff worked with FHWA to prepare a grant agreement (Attachment 2). The agreement identifies a City match in the amount of$40,000.
Conclusion and Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) authorizing the City Manager to execute the grant agreement with FHWA for the SS4A grant program, and appropriating related budget adjustments in Fiscal Year (FY) 2025.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impact of approving the attached resolution is an additional $160,000 of grant revenues and expenditures in FY 2025. The total estimated project cost is $200,000, requiring $40,000 in matching funds.
Staff recommends that Council appropriate $200,000 in revenues and expenditures in the General Fund, Public Works, Engineering Division, Safe Streets for All Grant project in FY 2025, including appropriating related transfers between funds, as outlined in Table 1.
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.G-1
Table 1: Fiscal Impact and Budget Revisions
Sources Account FY 2025
Amount
FHWA SSAR Grant program Federal Highway Administration $160,000 City Matching Funds — General Fund GF Contingency Budget 40,000 Total Sources $200,000
Uses FY 2025
Amount
Safe Streets for All SS4A Grant ro'ect Professional Services $200,000 If approved, staff will issue a formal Request for Proposals to complete the Vision Zero Action Plan and will return to Council to award the professional services agreement.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. SS4A Grant Agreement
Prepared by:
Erin Olsen, Senior Management Analyst
Submitted by: Rosemarie R. Galione, PE, Director of Public Works City Manager Approval: f
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.G-2
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. R-2025-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PISMO BEACH,
CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION FOR $160,000
THROUGH THE SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL GRANT PROGRAM AND APPROPRIATING RELATED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR 2025 WHEREAS, the United States Department of Transportation's (USDOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administers the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) grant program; and
WHEREAS, the SS4A grant program strives to improve roadway safety by significantly reducing and eventually eliminating roadway fatalities and serious injuries; and WHEREAS, in September of 2024, the City received notification of the award of$160,000 in Federal funding to complete a Vision Zero Action Plan; and WHEREAS, this plan will build off the City's 2020 Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) and Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) to identify and prioritize projects that will reduce or eliminate roadway fatalities and serious injuries for all road users.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pismo Beach hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute a grant agreement, in substantially the form attached to staff's report dated February 18, 2025, with FHWA for$160,000 through the SS4A grant program.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pismo Beach hereby appropriates the following in the General Fund, Public Works, Engineering Division, Safe Streets for All grant project in FY 2025:
• $160,000 of revenues in the Federal Highway Administration account • $200,000 of expenditures in the professional services account and de-appropriates $40,000 from the General Fund general contingency account, all to support the Safe Streets for All grant project.
UPON MOTION OF Council Member seconded by Council Member the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Pismo Beach this 18t" day of February 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSED:
PAGE 1 OF 2
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 R-2025- 9.G-3
Attachment 1
Approved: Attest:
Ed Waage, Mayor Erica Inderlied, City Clerk
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand on
Erica Inderlied, City Clerk
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.G-4
Attachment 2
U.S.DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1. Federal Award No. 2. Effective Date 3. Assistance 693JJ32540431 See No.16 Below Listings No. GRANT AGREEMENT UNDER THE
20.939 FISCAL YEAR 2024 SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL GRANT PROGRAM
4. Award To 5. Sponsoring Office
City of Pismo Beach U.S.Department of Transportation This agreement is between the United States Department of Transportation's(the"USDOT")Federal Highway 760 Mattie Road Federal Highway Administration Administration(the"FHWA")and the City of Pismo Beach(the"Recipient").
Pismo Beach,CA 93449-2056 Office of Safety This agreement reflects the selection of the Recipient to receive a Safe Streets and Roads for All("SS4A") 1200 New Jersey Avenue,SE Grant for the City of Pismo Beach Vision Zero Action Plan.
Unique Entity Id.:DQFQNATHRK91 HSSA-1,Mail Drop E71-117 TIN No.:95-6000762 Washington,DC 20590 The parties therefore agree to the following:
6. Period of Performance 7. Total Amount ARTICLE 1 Effective Date of Award—36 months Federal Share: $160,000 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS Recipient Share: $40,000
Other Federal Funds: $0 1.1 General Terms and Conditions.
Other Funds: $0
Total: $200,000 (a)In this agreement,"General Terms and Conditions"means the content of the document titled"General Terms and Conditions Under the Fiscal Year 2024 Safe Streets and Roads for All("SS4A")Grant Program,",which is available at hops:// www.transportation.gov/grants/ss4a/grant-agreements under
8. Type of Agreement 9. Authority "Fiscal Year 2024."Articles 7-30 are in the General Terms and Conditions.The General Terms and Grant Section 24112 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Conditions are part of this agreement.
Act(Pub.L.117-58,November 15,2021;also referred
to as the`Bipartisan Infrastructure Law"or"BIL") (b)The Recipient acknowledges that it has knowledge of the General Terms and Conditions.Recipient also states that it is required to comply with all applicable Federal laws and regulations including,but not
10. Procurement Request No. 11. Federal Funds Obligated limited to,the Uniform Administrative Requirements,Cost Principles,and Audit Requirements for HSA250300PR $160,000 Federal Awards(2 CFR part 200);National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA)(42 U.S.C.§4321 et seq.);and Build America,Buy America Act(BIL,div.G§§70901-27).
12. Submit Payment Requests To 13. Accounting and Appropriations Data See Article 5. 15X0174E50.0000.055SR30500.5592000000.41010.61 (c)The Recipient acknowledges that the General Terms and Conditions impose obligations on the Recipient and that the Recipient's non-compliance with the General Terms and Conditions may result in remedial 0066 action,termination of the SS4A Grant,disallowing costs incurred for the Project,requiring the Recipient
14. Description of the Project to refund to the FHWA the SS4A Grant,and reporting the non-compliance in the Federal-government- Creation of a Vision Zero Action Plan that will identify and pri wide integrity and performance system. projects that will reduce or eliminate roadway fatalities and set injuries for all road users.Once completed,this Plan will meet the requirements of SS4A's Comprehensive Safety Action Plan RECIPIENT FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
15. Signature of Person Authorized to Sign 16. Signature of Agreement Officer Signature Date Signature Date
Name:Jorge E.Garcia Name:Hector Santamaria
Title:City Manager Title:Agreement Officer
1 of 16 2of16
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.G-5
ARTICLE 2 ARTICLE 3
APPLICATION,PROJECT,AND AWARD SUMMARY PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Application. 3.1 Summary of Project's Statement of Work.
Application Title: City of Pismo Beach Vision Zero Action Plan Planning and Demonstration Narrative: The City of Pismo Beach will create a Vision Zero Action Plan that will identify and prioritize projects that will most likely reduce or eliminate roadway fatalities and Application Date: 05/16/2024 serious injuries for all road users.Once completed,this Plan will meet all of the requirements of SS4A's Comprehensive Safety Action Plan.The Vision Zero Action Plan will build off the work the City
2.2 Award Amount. accomplished in 2016 when the completed Citywide Transportation Model and Circulation Study SS4A Grant Amount:$160,000.00 (Study)and in 2020 when the completed Systemic Safety Analysis Report(SSAR)and Local Roadway Safety Plan(LRSP)were finalized.While the City plans to utilize the data and information gathered
2.3 Federal Obligation Information. from the Study,SSAR,and LRSP,more in depth planning work more closely aligned to a Vision Zero Action Plan is necessary to bring the City closer to its goal of zero fatalities.
Federal Obligation Type: Single
The project will be completed in one phase.
2.4 Budget Period.
3.2 Project's Estimated Schedule.
Budget Period: See Block 6 of Page 1
2.5 Grant Designation. Action Plan Schedule Designation: Planning and Demonstration
Milestone Schedule Date
Planned Final Plan Publicly Available December 31,2027 Date:
Planned SS4A Final Report Date: December 31,2027
3.3 Project's Estimated Costs.
(a) Eligible Project Costs
Eligible Project Costs
SS4A Grant Amount: $160,000
Other Federal Funds: $0
State Funds: $0
Local Funds: $40,000
In-Kind Match: $0
Other Funds: $0
Total Eligible Project Cost: $200,000
30116 4of16
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.G-6
(c)Indirect Costs Elissa Konove-Division Administrator Agreement Officer's Representative(AOR)
Indirect costs are allowable under this Agreement in accordance with 2 CFR part 200 and the Division Administrator FHWA California Division Office
Recipient's approved Budget Application. In the event the Recipient's indirect cost rate changes,the Recipient will notify FHWA of the planned adjustment and provide supporting documentation for such Sac Capitol Mall,Suite 4-100 Sacramento,CA 95814
adjustment.This Indirect Cost provision does not operate to waive the limitations on Federal funding (916)498-5015 provided in this document.The Recipient's indirect costs are allowable only insofar as they do not cause [email protected] the Recipient to exceed the total obligated funding.
ARTICLE 4 and
Ivy Attah
CONTACT INFORMATION Californiarm
Division Office Lead Point of Contact
Operations Engineer
4.1 Recipient Contact(s). 650 Capitol Mall,Ste.4-100,Sacramento,CA 95814 (916)498-5860
Erin Olsen [email protected]
Senior Management Analyst
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
(805)773-4656 ARTICLE 5
[email protected] USDOT ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION
4.2 Recipient Key Personnel. 5.1 Office for Subaward and Contract Authorization.
Name Title or Position USDOT Office for Subaward and Contract Authorization: FHWA Office of Acquisition and Grants Management
Nate Stong Senior Engineer
SUBAWARDS AND CONTRACTS APPROVAL
4.3 USDOT Project Contact(s). Note:See 2 CFR§200.331,Subrecipient and contractor determinations,for definitions of subrecipient Safe Streets and Roads for All Program Manager (who is awarded a subaward)versus contractor(who is awarded a contract).
Federal Highway Administration Note:Recipients with a procurement system deemed approved and accepted by the Government or by Office of Safety the Agreement Officer(the"AO")are exempt from the requirements of this clause.See 2 CFR 200.317 HSSA-1,Mail Stop: E71-117 through 200.327. 1200 New Jersey Avenue,S.E.
Washington,DC 20590 In accordance with 2 CFR 200.308(f)(6),the recipient or subrecipient shall obtain prior written approval 202-366-2822 from the USDOT agreement officer for the subaward,if the subaward activities were not proposed in the SS4A.FHWA(a),dot.eov application or approved in the Federal award.This provision is in accordance with 2 CFR 200.308(f) (6)and does not apply to procurement transactions for goods and services.Approval will be issued and through written notification from the AO or a formal amendment to the Agreement.
Agreement Officer(AO) The following subawards and contracts are currently approved under the Agreement by the AO.This list Federal Highway Administration does not include supplies,material,equipment,or general support services which are exempt from the Office of Acquisition and Grants Management pre-approval requirements of this clause.
HCFA-42,Mail Stop E62-310
1200 New Jersey Avenue,S.E. 5.2 Reimbursement Requests Washington,DC 20590
HCFASS4Aa,dot.eov (a)The Recipient may request reimbursement of costs incurred within the budget period of this agreement if those costs do not exceed the amount of funds obligated and are allowable under the applicable cost and provisions of 2 C.F.R.Part 200,Subpart E.The Recipient shall not request reimbursement more frequently than monthly.
So116 6of16
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.G-7
(b)The Recipient shall use the DELPHI iSupplier System to submit requests for reimbursement to the ATTACHMENT A payment office.When requesting reimbursement of costs incurred or credit for cost share incurred, PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT INFORMATION the Recipient shall electronically submit supporting cost detail with the SF-270(Request for Advance or Reimbursement)or SF-271 (Outlay Report and Request for Reimbursement for Construction Study Area:City of Pismo Beach Programs)to clearly document all costs incurred.
Table 1:Performance Measure Table
(c)The Recipient's supporting cost detail shall include a detailed breakout of all costs incurred,including direct labor,indirect costs,other direct costs,travel,etc.,and the Recipient shall identify the Federal Measurement share and the Recipient's share of costs.If the Recipient does not provide sufficient detail in a request Frequency and for reimbursement,the Agreement Officer's Representative(the"AOR")may withhold processing Measure Category and Description that request until the Recipient provides sufficient detail. ReportingDeadline (d)The USDOT shall not reimburse costs unless the AOR reviews and approves the costs to ensure that progress on this agreement is sufficient to substantiate payment. Percent of Funds to Underserved Within 120 days (e)In the rare instance the Recipient is unable to receive electronic funds transfers(EFT),payment by Equity Communities: Funding amount(of total after the end of the EFT would impose a hardship on the Recipient because of their inability to manage an account at a [for all Grants] project amount)benefitting underserved period of financial institution,and/or the Recipient is unable to use the DELPHI iSupplier System to submit communities,as defined by USDOT performance their requests for disbursement,the FHWA may waive the requirement that the Recipient use the DELPHI iSupplier System.The Recipient shall contact the Division Office Lead Point of Contact for Within 120 days instructions on and requirements related to pursuing a waiver. Costs Project Costs: Quantification of the cost q P g after the end of the of each eligible project carried out using
(f) The requirements set forth in these terms and conditions supersede previous financial invoicing [for all Grants] the grant period of requirements for Recipients. performance Lessons Learned and Recommendations: Within 120 da s
Lessons Learned and Y
Description of lessons learned and any
ARTICLE 6 Recommendations recommendations relating to future after the end of the of
SPECIAL GRANT TERMS projects or strategies to prevent death and Period n [for all Grants] performance
serious injury on roads and streets.
6.1 SS4A funds must be expended within five years after the grant agreement is executed and DOT obligates the funds,which is the budget period end date in section 10.3 of the Terms and Conditions and section 2.4 in this agreement.
6.2 The Recipient demonstrates compliance with civil rights obligations and nondiscrimination laws,including Titles VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,and accompanying regulations.Recipients of Federal transportation funding will also be required to comply fully with regulations and guidance for the ADA,Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,and all other civil rights requirements.
6.3 SS4A Funds will be allocated to the Recipient and made available to the Recipient in accordance with FHWA procedures.
6.4 The Recipient of a Planning and Demonstration Grant acknowledges that the Action Plan will be made publicly available and agrees that it will publish the final Action Plan on a publicly available website.
7of16 8of16
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.G-8
ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT C
CHANGES FROM APPLICATION RACIAL EQUITY AND BARRIERS TO OPPORTUNITY Describe all material differences between the scope,schedule,and budget described in the application and the 1. Efforts to Improve Racial Equity and Reduce Barriers to Opportunity. scope,schedule,and budget described in Article 3.The purpose of Attachment B is to clearly and accurately document any differences in scope,schedule,and budget to establish the parties'knowledge and acceptance of The Recipient states that rows marked with"X"in the following table align with the application:
those differences.See Article 11 for the Statement of Work,Schedule,and Budget Changes. If there are no changes,please insert"N/A"after"Scope,""Schedule,"or"Budget."If there are changes to the budget,please A racial equity impact analysis has been completed for the Project.(Identify a complete the table below.Otherwise,leave the table below blank. report on that analysis or,if no report was produced,describe the analysis and its results in the supporting narrative below)
Scope:N/A The Recipient or a project partner has adopted an equity and inclusion program/plan or has otherwise instituted equity-focused policies related to X project procurement,material sourcing,construction,inspection,hiring,or Schedule:Schedule described in the application was 01/01/2025 through 01/01/2026.The proposed schedule other activities designed to ensure racial equity in the overall delivery and shown in Article 3 is 01/01/2025 through 01/01/2028.This change includes an additional 24 months to account implementation of the Project.(Identify the relevant programs,plans,or for consultant procurement and project close out activities. policies in the supporting narrative below) The Project includes physical-barrier-mitigating land bridges,caps,lids,linear Budget:N/A parks,and multimodal mobility investments that either redress past barriers to opportunity or that proactively create new connections and opportunities for underserved communities that are underserved by transportation.(Identify the The table below provides a summary comparison of the project budget. relevant investments in the supporting narrative below.) The Project includes new or improved walking,biking,and rolling access for Application Section 3.3 individuals with disabilities,especially access that reverses the disproportional Fund Source S / S % impacts of crashes on people of color and mitigates neighborhood bifurcation. (Identify the new or improved access in the supporting narrative below) Previously Incurred Costs The Project includes new or improved freight access to underserved (Non-Eligible Project Costs) communities to increase access to goods and job opportunities for those Federal Funds underserved communities.(Identify the new or improved access in the Non-Federal Funds supporting narrative below) Total Previously Incurred Costs The Recipient has taken other actions related to the Project to improve racial Future Eligible Project Costs equity and reduce barriers to opportunity,as described in the supporting narrative below.
SS4AFunds The Recipient has not yet taken actions related to the Project to improve racial Other Federal Funds equity and reduce barriers to opportunity but intends to take relevant actions Non-Federal Funds described in the supporting narrative below.
Total Future Eligible Project The Recipient has not taken actions related to the Project to improve racial Costs equity and reduce barriers to opportunity and will not take those actions under Total Project Costs this award.
2. Supporting Narrative.
The City has planned race-neutral measures including arranging solicitations and times for the presentation of bids in ways that facilitate participation by DBEs,encouraging prime contractors to subcontract portions of the work that they might otherwise perform themselves,and providing technical assistance and support services to facilitate consideration of DBEs. 9 of 16 10 of 16
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.G-9
ATTACHMENT D The Recipient has taken other actions to consider climate change and CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS environmental justice impacts of the Project,as described in the supporting narrative below.
1. Consideration of Climate Change and Environmental Justice Impacts. The Recipient has not yet taken actions to consider climate change and The Recipient states that rows marked with"X"in the following table align with the application: environmental justice impacts of the Project but will take relevant actions described in the supporting narrative below.
The Project directly supports a Local/Regional/State Climate Action Plan that The Recipient has not taken actions to consider climate change and X results in lower greenhouse gas emissions.(Identify the plan in the supporting environmental justice impacts of the Project and will not take those actions narrative below.) under this award.
The Project directly supports a Local/Regional/State Equitable Development Plan that results in lower greenhouse gas emissions.(Identify the plan in the 2. Supporting Narrative. supporting narrative below)
The Project directly supports a Local/Regional/State Energy Baseline Study The City has an adopted Climate Action Plan that results in lower greenhouse gas emissions.(Identify the plan in the ( https://accesspismo.pismobeach.ore WebLink/DocView.aspx.7 id=472145&dbid=0&reoo).The Project
supporting narrative below) will support this plan in reducing Greenhouse Gase Emissions by prioritizing active transportation options such as improving and expanding the City's bicycle and pedestrian network,sustainable The Recipient or a project partner used environmental justice tools,such as the infrastructure and improving public transit access.
EJScreen,to minimize adverse impacts of the Project on environmental justice communities.(Identify the tool(s)in the supporting narrative below) The Project supports a modal shift in freight or passenger movement to reduce emissions or reduce induced travel demand.(Describe that shift in the supporting narrative below)
The Project utilizes demand management strategies to reduce congestion, induced travel demand,and greenhouse gas emissions.(Describe those strategies in the supporting narrative below.)
The Project incorporates electrification infrastructure,zero-emission vehicle infrastructure,or both.(Describe the incorporated infrastructure in the supporting narrative below)
The Project supports the installation of electric vehicle charging stations. (Describe that support in the supporting narrative below.) The Project promotes energy efficiency.(Describe how in the supporting narrative below)
The Project serves the renewable energy supply chain.(Describe how in the supporting narrative below)
The Project improves disaster preparedness and resiliency(Describe how in the supporting narrative below)
The Project avoids adverse environmental impacts to air or water quality, wetlands,and endangered species,such as through reduction in Clean Air Act criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases,improved stormwater management,or improved habitat connectivity.(Describe how in the supporting narrative below.)
The Project repairs existing dilapidated or idle infrastructure that is currently causing environmental harm.(Describe that infrastructure in the supporting narrative below.)
The Project supports or incorporates the construction of energy-and location- efficient buildings.(Describe how in the supporting narrative below) The Project includes recycling of materials,use of materials known to reduce or reverse carbon emissions,or both.(Describe the materials in the supporting narrative below.)
Itofl6 12of16
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.G-10
ATTACHMENT E The Recipient or a project partner participates in a State/Regional/Local LABOR AND WORKFORCE comprehensive plan to promote equal opportunity,including removing barriers to hire and preventing harassment on work sites,and that plan demonstrates
1. Efforts to Support Good-Paying Jobs and Strong Labor Standards action to create an inclusive environment with a commitment to equal opportunity,including:
The Recipient states that rows marked with"X"in the following table align with the application: a. affirmative efforts to remove barriers to equal employment The Recipient demonstrate,to the fall extent possible consistent with the law,an opportunity above and beyond complying with Federal law; effort to create good-paying jobs with the free and fair choice to join a union and b. proactive partnerships with the U.S.Department of Labor's Office incorporation of high labor standards.(Identify the relevant agreements and of Federal Contract Compliance Programs to promote compliance describe the scope ofactivities they cover in the supporting narrative below) with EO 11246 Equal Employment Opportunity requirements and meet the requirements as outlined in the Notice of Funding The Recipient or a project partner has adopted the use of local and economic Opportunity to make good faith efforts to meet the goals of 6.9 X hiring preferences in the overall delivery and implementation of the Project. percent of construction project hours being performed by women (Describe the relevant provisions in the supporting narrative below) and goals that vary based on geography for construction work hours The Recipient or a project partner has adopted the use of registered and for work being performed by people of color; apprenticeships in the overall delivery and implementation of the Project. c. no discriminatory use of criminal background screens and (Describe the use of registered apprenticeship in the supporting narrative affirmative steps to recruit and include those with former justice below.) involvement,in accordance with the Fair Chance Act and equal The Recipient or a project partner will provide training and placement opportunity requirements; programs for underrepresented workers in the overall delivery and d. efforts to prevent harassment based on race,color,religion,sex, implementation of the Project.(Describe the training programs in the sexual orientation,gender identity,and national origin; supporting narrative below) e. training on anti-harassment and third-party reporting procedures covering employees and contractors;and
The Recipient or a project partner will support free and fair choice to join a f. maintaining robust anti-retaliation measures covering employees union in the overall delivery and implementation of the Project by investing in and contractors. workforce development services offered by labor-management training (Describe the equal opportunity plan in the supporting narrative below) partnerships or setting expectations for contractors to develop labor-management training programs.(Describe the workforce development services offered by The Recipient has taken other actions related to the Project to create good- labor-management training partnerships in the supporting narrative below) paying jobs with the free and fair choice to join a union and incorporate strong The Recipient or a project partner will provide supportive services and cash labor standards.(Describe those actions in the supporting narrative below) assistance to address systemic barriers to employment to be able to participate The Recipient has not yet taken actions related to the Project to create good- and thrive in training and employment,including childcare,emergency cash paying jobs with the free and fair choice to join a union and incorporate strong assistance for items such as tools,work clothing,application fees and other labor standards but,before beginning construction of the project,will take costs of apprenticeship or required pre-employment training,transportation and relevant actions described in the supporting narrative below. travel to training and work sites,and services aimed at helping to retain The Recipient has not taken actions related to the Project to improving good- underrepresented groups like mentoring,support groups,and peer networking, paying jobs and strong labor standards and will not take those actions under (Describe the supportive services and/or cash assistance provided to trainees this award. and employees in the supporting narrative below.)
The Recipient or a project partner has documented agreements or ordinances in 2. Supporting Narrative. place to hire from certain workforce programs that serve underrepresented groups.(Identify the relevant agreements and describe the scope of activities The City of Pismo Beach has adopted a Purchasing Policy which includes the Local Business Preference they cover in the supporting narrative below) Policy designed to offset competitive disadvantages suffered by Local Businesses. 13of16 14of16
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.G-11
ATTACHMENT F ATTACHMENT G
CRITICAL SECURITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND RESILIENCE CIVIL RIGHTS AND TITLE VI
1. Recipient Type Designation.
1. Efforts to strengthen the Security and Resilience of Critical Infrastructure against both Physical and Cyber Threats. Recipient Type Designation: Existing Existing Award Program: Federal Project#ER-32L0(040)and ER-32L0(043) The Recipient states that rows marked with"X"in the following table are accurate:
The Recipient demonstrates,prior to the signing of this agreement,effort to consider and address physical and cyber security risks relevant to the 2. Title VI Assessment Information. transportation mode and type and scale of the activities. This section is not applicable because the Recipient Type Designation is`Existing." The Recipient appropriately considered and addressed physical and cyber security and resilience in the planning,design and oversight of the project,as determined by the Department and the Department of Homeland Security.
For projects in floodplains: The Recipient appropriately considered whether the project was upgraded consistent with the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard,to the extent consistent with current law,in Executive Order 14030, Climate-Related Financial Risk(86 FR 27967),and Executive Order 13690, Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for Further Solicit and Considering Stakeholder Input 80 FR 6425).
2. Supporting Narrative.
N/A
15of16 16of16
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.G-12
G\T Y OF
PISMO BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
A�syoBt Agenda Item #9.H
Meeting Date: February 18, 2025
TITLE:
Acceptance of Funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (CaIOES) for the Repair of the Pier Avenue Storm Drain Outfall; Related Budget Adjustments RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the acceptance of grant funds in the amount of $620,838.75 from FEMA/CaIOES for the repair of the Pier Avenue storm drain outfall, and appropriating related budget adjustments in Fiscal Year 2025.
DISCUSSION:
The City Council declared a state of emergency on January 11, 2023, via Resolution 2023-001 1, ratifying the Emergency Services Director's proclamation of a local emergency in response to the January 2023 winter storms. The storms, which began the first week of January, took a toll on the community, causing damages due to flooding, bluff erosion, strong winds, and other storm related damages.
One site that received damage is the Pier Avenue storm drain outfall. Heavy rainfall, along with wind and wave action, dislodged a 30-foot section of the pipe which was swept away leaving only the concrete thrust block on the beach. The Pier Avenue storm drain outfall site has been approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for a permanent repair project to replace the outfall pipe that was washed away during the storm. The funds were obligated on October 4, 2024 (Attachment 2) and staff will be working with a consultant to prepare a construction bid package. Construction is anticipated to take place early summer of 2025.
Conclusion and Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) authorizing the acceptance of funds in the amount of $620,838.75 from FEMA/CaIOES for the Pier Avenue Storm Drain Outfall project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impact of approving the attached Resolution is $620,838.75 in grant revenues and expenditures in Fiscal Year (FY) 2025. This includes $496,671 in federal funds and $124,167.75 in State funds through the California Disaster Assistance Act. The City received both the Federal and State funding in December 2024. The total estimated project cost is $662,228, requiring $41,389.25 in City matching funds.
Staff recommends that the Council appropriate $662,228 in revenues and $662,288.00 in the Capital Projects Fund, Public Works, Engineering Division, Pier Avenue Storm Full URL:
https://accesspismo.pismobeach.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=459337&dbid=0&repo=Laserfiche Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.1-1-1
Drain Outfall project in FY 2025, including appropriating related transfers between funds, as outlined in Table 1.
Table 1: Fiscal Impact and Budget Revisions
Sources Account FY 2025
Amount
FEMA/CaIOES Federal — Public Assistance FEMA grants $496,671.00 FEMA/CaIOES State California Disaster State Gov't Grants 124,167.75 Assistance Act
General Fund (GF)
City Matching Funds — General Fund transfer - GF 41,389.25 Contingency Budget
Total Sources $662,288.00
Uses FY 2025
Amount
Pier Avenue Storm Drain Outfall project Storm Drain $662,228.00 The actual project cost for the construction will not be known until the project has been advertised and construction bids are received. At that time, staff will return to City Council to award a construction contract and adjust the budget if necessary.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. Notification of Obligation and Payment
Prepared by:
Erin Olsen, Senior Management Analyst
Submitted by: Rosemarie R. Gaglione, PE, Director of Public Works City Manager Approval:
f ~k
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.H-2
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. R-2025-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PISMO BEACH,
CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $620,838.75 FROM FEMA/CALOES FOR THE REPAIR OF THE PIER
AVENUE STORM DRAIN OUTFALL, AND APPROPRIATING RELATED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS IN FISCAL YEAR 2025
WHEREAS, the City Council declared a state of emergency on January 11, 2023 in response to the January 2023 winter storms; and
WHEREAS, heavy rainfall, along with wind and wave action dislodged a 30-foot section of the Pier Avenue storm drain pipe which was swept away leaving only the concrete thrust block on the beach; and
WHEREAS, staff worked with FEMA to approve the Pier Avenue storm drain outfall site for a permanent repair project to replace the pipe that was washed away during the storm; and
WHEREAS, the funds were obligated on October 4, 2024 and construction is anticipated to take place early summer of 2025.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pismo Beach hereby authorizes the acceptance of funds in the amount of $620,838.75 from FEMA/CaIOES for the Pier Avenue Storm Drain Outfall project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pismo Beach hereby appropriates the following in the Capital Projects Fund, Public Works, Engineering Division, Pier Avenue Storm Drain Outfall project in FY 2025:
• $496,671.00 of revenues in the FEMA Reimbursement account • $124,167.75 of revenues in the State Government Grants account • $41,389.25 of transfers in from the General Fund to the Capital Projects Fund • $662,228.00 of expenditures in the Storm Drain Account • related transfers between funds
and de-appropriates $41,389.25 from the General Fund general contingency account, all to support the Pier Avenue Storm Drain Outfall project.
UPON MOTION OF Council Member seconded by Council Member the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Pismo Beach this 18t" day of February 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.1-1-3
Attachment 1
RECUSED:
Approved: Attest:
Ed Waage, Mayor Erica Inderlied, City Clerk
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand on
Erica Inderlied, City Clerk
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.1-14
Attachment 2
GAVIN NEWSOM Cal OES Benjamin Fine
GOVERNOR NANCY WARD Page 2
�J OF EMERGENCY
DIRECTOR
OF EMERGENCY SERVICES 11/27/24
November 27,2024 Payment For Disaster numbers 4407 and forward,funds will be paid in accordance with Process- the following disbursement table:
Benjamin Fine Continued
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Pismo Beach,City of Federal Funds
760 Mattie Road Project Status Disbursement Process State Funds Disbursement Process Pismo Beach,CA 93449 Small Projects less Automatic advance of state share and than 100% Automatic advance of federal administrative allowance.Retention complete share. held until 100%complete.
Subject: Notification of Obligation and Payment Automatic payment of state share and Public Assistance and CDAA Grants Program Small Projects Automatic payment of federal administrative allowance.Retention 100%complete share.FEMA-4683-DR-CA,Cal OES ID:079-57414 held until closeout.
Large Projects less Advance administrative allowance only.
All funds(less retention)will be
Dear Benjamin Fine than low. All other funds(less retention)will be complete paid on a reimbursement basis. paid on a reimbursement basis.
Obligation The California Governor's Office of Emergency Services has attached Notification the Project Application Summary and Exhibit C for Package#1245. Large Projects Automatic payment of federal Automatic payment of state share and Please see the Table below for further obligation details. 1007ocomplete share for entire project administrative allowance.
Obligation Package/DSR Cumulative Amount For this Package,payment will be automatically disbursed as follows:
Details Obligation Amount Obligated
Federal-Public Assistance $496,671.00 $523,648.76 Payment Details Amount Automatically Paid State-California Disaster $136,584.53 $136,584.53 Federal-Public Assistance $496,671.00 Assistance Act(CDAA)
Total $633,255.53 $660,233.29 State-CDAA $124,167.75 Payment For Disaster numbers 4382 and prior,funds will be paid in accordance with the Total $620,838.75 Process following disbursement table:
For those large projects with a work completion of less Than 100 percent,a Reimbursement Project Status Federal Funds State Funds Disbursement Process Request form has also been included with this Package.
Disbursement Process
Small Projects less Automatic advance of federal Automatic advance of state share and Federal and State funds will be issued separately by the State Controller's Office.Please be than 100% share administrative allowance.Retention held advised that state warrants have a one-year period of negotiability. complete until 1007.complete.
Small Projects Automatic payment of federal Automatic payment of state share and Required To receive funds,the following forms must be on file with our office:
1007.complete share administrative allowance.
Documents
Large Projects All funds(less retention)will be Advance administrative allowance only. Form Received by Cal less than 10017 paid on a reimbursement basis All other funds(less retention)will be paid OES? complete on a reimbursement basis. Project Assurances for Federal Assistance Yes
(Cal OES 89)
Large Projects Automatic payment of federal Automatic payment of state share and Designation of Applicants Agent Resolution 1007.complete share for entire project administrative allowance. Yes (Cal OES 130)
SAM.gov Active Registration Yes
FFATA Financial Disclosure(Required Fiscal
Year Annually)(2018 and forward) No
Payee Data Record(STD.204) Yes
3650 SCHRIEVER AVENUE•MATHER,CA 95655
3650 SCHRIEVER AVENUE•MATHER,CA 95655 RECOVERY FINANCIAL PROCESSING UNIT RECOVERY FINANCIAL PROCESSING UNIT (916)845-8110•(916)636-3880 FAX (916)845-8110•(916)636-3880 FAX
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.1-1-5
Attachment 2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GAVIN NEWSOM,Governor
Benjamin Fine Cal DES ID: 079-57414
11/27/24 WOES Supplement Number: 1245 Program As a requirement of this program,a special fund for the deposit of the OF EMERGENCY EENll— Requirements- state warrant must be established upon receipt of any advance funding. Disaster Number: 4683 General Under no circumstances are expenditures to be made for any damages other than those approved in this application.Any funds received in PROJECT APPLICATION APPROVAL excess of current needs or approved amounts,or those found owed as a result of an audit or final inspection,must be refunded to the State within CALIFORNIA DISASTER ASSISTANCE ACT PROGRAM 30 days upon receipt of an invoice from the California Governor's Office 1.SUBRECIPIENT'S NAME 2 AUTHORIZED AGENT of Emergency Services. AND ADDRESS
Federal Pismo Beach,City of Benjamin Fine
As a recipient of federal funds,your organization is subject to the Federal Single 760 Mattie Road Director of Public Program Audit Act of 1984 and the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996.Part of your report Audit requirements under the Act and Amendments include the preparation of a Pismo Beach CA 93449 Works/City Engineer Requirements Schedule of Expenditures of Federal awards.The following information is provided to assist in the accurate completion of the Schedule: 13.PROJECT SUMMARY CATEGORY OF WORK AMOUNT APPROVED BY STATE Federal Grantor Agency U.S.Department of Homeland Security-Federal A-DEBRIS REMOVAL $0 Emergency Management Agency B-EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE MEASURES $0 Pass-Through Agency California Governor's Office of Emergency Services C-ROAD SYSTEMS REPAIRS $0 Assistance Listings Program Title Public Assistance Grants Assistance Listings Number 97.036 D-DIKES,LEVEES&FLOOD CONTROL $124,167.75 Pass-Through Grantor's Number FEMA-4683-DR-CA,Cal OES ID:079-57414 WORKS E-PUBLIC BUILDINGS $0
Appeal Please compare the enclosed obligated Project Worksheet(s)(PW)with your F-UTILITIES $0 Process copy of the original PW(s).In accordance with Title 44 Code of Federal G-OTHER $0 Regulations,Section 206.206,if you disagree with FEMA's obligated amount(s)or H-FIRE SUPPRESSION $0 scope of work for the Version 0 PW(s)addressed in this Package,you must Z-FEDERAL ADMINISRATIVE COSTS $0 appeal FEMA's determination within 60 days from the date of obligation.The Obligation Summary appeal must contain documented justification supporting your position and be Dam.Cat. Supplement# FEMA DSR#/PW# Total Obligation addressed to the Assistant Director of Recovery at the below mailing address.
Please submit your letter of appeal electronically via FEMA's Grants Portal. D:Water Control Facilities 1245 PW-1464-0 $124,167.75
California Governor's Office of Emergency Services Desc:S/L Project Threshold Recovery Division,Public Assistance Subtotal for Category: $124,167.75 3650 Schriever Avenue
ADMINISTRATIVE
Mather,California 95655
ALLOWANCE: $12,416.78
Questions Please note,for all other PW versions,you will receive notification under TOTAL THIS $136,584.53 and separate cover from Cal OES's Public Assistance Section. SUPPLEMENT:
Inquiries TOTAL NOW APPROVED
For appeal assistance,contact Public Assistance at(916)845-8200 or FOR APPLICATION: $136,584.53 [email protected] assistance regarding this letter, SIGNATURE:
contact the Recovery Financial Processing Unit's main line at(916)845-8110, or email address at [email protected].
DATE APPROVED:
RECOVERY FINANCIAL PROCESSING UNIT
Enclosure(s) �CDAA Form 1a(7/21)OES
aSubrecipient's Project File
3650 SCHRIEVER AVENUE•MATHER,CA 95655
RECOVERY FINANCIAL PROCESSING UNIT
(916)845-8110•(916)636-3880 FAX
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.1-1-6
Attachment 2
Organization Name Pismo Beach,City of(079-57414-00)
Type City or Township Government
FIPS Code 079-57414-00
DUNS Number 077980001
PNP No
FEIN Number 95-6000762
UEI Number
Recipient California Governor's Office of Emergency Services(CeIOES) Region Region IX OK
Eligibility Status Eligible 079-57414-00 '*AMD kS are not accurate— p of RPAs 0 aiww�x.w.a.eaa ..,na..x.a.n�.si r.a-.rwn aw.. o aiw.w x. also inaa ri of Eligible Events 2 ow a„a sw.on 11145"at ss,o.-s.. 1411111 .a..=..aw..1-111111" : ...n:oa.... t sa.waos
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.H-7
Attachment 2
m
Pro;ectp P/Wg Category Process work Actual status %cost Last Date Total Project Department of Homeland Security Step Completion Completion share Obligated cost Federal Emergency Management Agency Percentage Date
711230 1464D-Water Control Obligated 0% Active 75% 10/4/202416:16 $662,228.00 General Info Facilities
Project# 711230 P/W# 1464 Project Type Specialized Project Category D-Water Control Facilities Applicant Pismo Beach,City of(079-57414-00) Project Title Pier Avenue Storm Drain Outfall Event 4683DR-CA(4683DR) Project Size Small Declaration Date 1/14/2023
Activity 7/14/2024 Incident Start Date 12/27/2022 Completion Date Incident End Date 1/31/2023
Process Step Obligated
Damage Description and Dimensions
The Disaster#4683DR,which occurred between 12/27/2022 and 0113112023,caused:
Damage#1311929;Pier Avenue Storm Drain Outfall
The City of Pismo Beach is located in the southem portion of San Luis Obispo County,in the Central Coast area of California.Heavy rainfall on January 9,2023,generated large surface flows that,along with wind and verve action,dislodged a 30-foot-long corrugated metal storm drainage pipe from a bluff above the Pacific Ocean adjacent to Ocean Boulevard at Pier Street.The pipe section was swept away with only the concrete thrust block remaining.
General Facility Information:
• Facility Type:Drainage Channels
• Facility:Pier Avenue Storm Drain Outfall
• Facility Description:42 inch CMP storm drain,buried pipe carries drainage Water from city streets.Outfall is on the Shell Beach Pacific Ocean bluff.
• Approx.Year Built:1973
• Location Description:Near the intersection of Pier Street and Ocean Blvd in the city of Pismo Beach, San Luis Obispo County,California.
• GPS Latitude/Longitude:35.15284,-120.66968
• Purpose:Flood Control
• Shape:circular 42 inch diameter
• Dimensions(top)Width(ft):3.5
• Dimensions(top)Depth(ft):3.5
• Quantity of Material Deposited by Incident:0
General Damage Information:
• Date Damaged:1/9/2023
• Cause of Damage:washed away due to overland flow and Wind&wave action Facility Damage:
• storm drain,1 each of 42 inch CMP pipe,30 FT long x42 IN in diameter,washed away due to overland flow and wind&wave action,0%work completed.
Date Downloaded:11/6(24 11:19pm PST 1 of 8
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.1-1-8
Attachment 2
Final Scope
3. All work will be completed within the applicants ROW.If staging of equipment and materials would be needed,that work will be 1311929 Pier Avenue Storm Drain Outfall staged within the applicants ROW.
Work to be Completed
4. Disposal of Work to be Completed demolition and construction generated material is expected to be deposited at a nearby The applicant will utilize contract and(or)force account for repairs to Pier Avenue Storm Drain Outfall to restore this facility back to location(landfill).Final location(s)will be provided by Applicant" its pre-disaster,function and capacity within(in-kind)the exsting footprint
5. All borrow or fill material must come from pre-exsting stockpiles,material reclaimed from maintained roadside ditches Thmst Block: (provided the designed width or depth of the ditch is not increased),or commercially procured material from a source existing prior to the event.For any FEMA-funded project requiring the use of a non-commercial source or a commercial source that was not A.Remove&Replace 1 EA concrete thrust block @ drain outfall location. permitted to operate prior to the event(e.g.a new pit,agricukural fields,road ROWS,etc.)in whole or in part,regardless of cost,the Applicant must notify FEMA and the Recipient prior to extracting material.FEMA must review the source for compliance with all B.Install 1 EA reinforced concrete thrust block underjundion of existing-to-new pipe(See Scope Note#1) applicable federal environmental planning and historic preservation laws and executive orders prior to a subrecipient or their contractor commencing borrow extraction.Consultation and regulatory permitting may be required.Non-compliance with this requirement mayjeopardize receipt of federal funding.Documentation of borrow sources utilized is required at closeout..) Drain Outfall Culvert Pipe:
A.Install 30 LF of 42 IN drain oulfall metal culvert pipe atop thrust blocks 406 HMP Scope B.Irrstall 42 IN bend at end of drain outfall metal culver pipe DIM 1311929(Cal.D)Pier Ave.Storm Drain Outfall(Pier Ave/Ocean Blvd.)The sub-applicant has decided not to participate in C.Install metal coupling and anchor straps at remaining-to-new pipe intersection PA/HM at this time.PA/HM:NO MIT.406 Narrative Complete.
D.Install metal coupling and(2)anchor straps at end of outfall pipe @ bend Work to be Completed Total:$247,115.56
CEF Total:$662,228.00
Scope Notes:
1. 30 LF of 42 IN metal oulfall pipe washed away leaving 40 LF suspended in midair.When storm waves washed away the lower pipe section,runoff out of the remaining section eroded away the supporting native embankment material underneath where the pipe junctions used to sit.To reestablish pipe support at this junction location(see photos),a 2nd reinforced concrete thrust block is estimated for installation,to include a junction collar&metal strap bolt be down of pipe to thrust block.
Project Notes:
1. In accordance with FEMA's Simplified Procedures,the project scope and cost were developed from IRS Means and will be certified by the Applicant using the Small Permanent Work Project Certifications and Acknowledgements form.See attachment labeled:SP 711230 Cost Estimate CEF.xlsx
2. Project Cost Estimating Format(CEF)estimate was completed using IRS Means estimate costs.See attachment Iabele�FP 711230 Cost Estimate CEF.x/sx
Date Downloaded:11/6(24 11:19pm PST 2 of 8 Date Downloaded:11/6(24 11:19pm PST 3 of 8 Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.1-1-9
Attachment 2
cost Award Information I
Code Quantity Unit Total Cost Section Version Information 9000(CEF Cost Estimate) 1.00 1Lump Sum 1$662,228.00 1Uncompleted Version Eligibility Current Bundle Project Cost Federal Share Date # Status Location Number Amount Share Obligated Obligated CRC Gross Cost $662,228.00 0 Eligible Awards In $662,228.00 75% $0.00 Total 406 HMP Cost $0.00 Progress
Total Insurance Reductions $0.00 Drawdown History CRC Net Cost $662,228.00 EMMIE Drawdown Status As of Date IFMIS Obligation#I Expenditure Number Expended Date Expended Amount Federal Share(75.00%) $496,671.00 No Records Non-Federal Share(25.00%)$165,557.00
Obligation History
Version# I Date Obligated I Obligated Cost I Cost Share IFMIS Status IFMIS Obligation# 0 10/4/2024 1$496,671.00 75% Accepted 14683DRCAP00014641 Date Downloaded:11/6(24 11:19pm PST 4 of 8 Date Downloaded:11/6(24 11:19pm PST 5 of 8 Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.1-1-10
Attachment 2
receive from its insurer(s).In the event that any insurance proceeds are received for these expenses those proceeds must be Subgrant Conditions reduced from FEMA Public Assistance funding to ensure no duplication of benefits has occurred. • As described in Title 2 Code of Federal Regulations(C.F.R.)§200.333,financial records,supporting documents,statistical records and all other ran-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three(3) No duplication of benefits from insurance is anticipated for work described in this application.In the event any part or all casts are years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or,for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or paid by an insurance policy,a duplication of benefits from insurance will occur.Applicant must notify grantee and FEMA of such annually,from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report,respectively,as reported to the Federal recoveries and the Sub-Grant award amount must be reduced by actual insurance proceeds. awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient.Federal awarding agencies and pass-through entities must not impose any other record retention requirements upon ran-Federal entities.Exceptions are stated in 2 C.F.R. §200.333(a)—(f)(1)and(2).All records relative to this project are subject to examination and audit by the State,FEMA and No insurance requirements will be mandated for the damages ircluded in this project.Insurance requirements are specific to the Comptroller General of the United States and must reflect work related to disaster-specific casts. permanent work to replace,restore,repair,reconstruct,or construct buildings,contents,equipment,and vehicles(FEMA • In the seeking of proposals and letting of contracts for eligible work,the Applicant(Subrecipient must comply with its Local, Recovery Policy FP 206-086-1).
State(provided that the procurements conform to applicable Federal law)and Federal procurement laws,regulations,and procedures as required by FEMA Policy2 CFR Part 200,Procurement Standards,§§317-326. • When any individual item of equipment purchased with PA funding is no longer needed,or a residual inventory of unused No insurance Narrative will be produced or uploaded into documents or attachments. supplies exceeding$5,000 remains,the subrecipient must follow the disposition requirements in Title 2 Code of Federal Regulations(C.F.R.)§200.313-314.
• The terms of the FEMA-State Agreement are incorporated by reference into this project under the Public Assistance award No O&M is required for the facilities represented on this project. and the applicant must complywith all applicable laws,regulations,policy,and guidance.This includes,among others,the Robert T.Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act;Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations;FEMA Policy No.104-009-2,Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide;and other applicable FEMA policy and guidance. Malik Harness • The DHS Standard Terms and Conditions in effect as of the declaration date of this emergency declarations or major Public Assistance Insurance Specialist I CRC West disaster,as applicable,are incorporated by reference into this project under the Public Assistance grant,which flow down from the Recipient to subrecipients unless a particulartern or condition indicates otherwise. • The Uniform Administrative Requirements,Cost Principles,and Audit Requirements set forth at Title 2 Code of Federal O&M Requirements Regulations(C.F.R.)Part 200 applyto this project award under the Public Assistance grant,which flow down from the Recipient to all subrecipients unless a particular section of 2 C.F.R.Part 200,the FEMA-State Agreement,or the terms and conditions of this project award indicate otherwise.See 2 C.F.R.§§200.101 and 110. l There are no Obtain and Maintain Requirements on Pier
• The subrecipient must submit a written request through the Recipient to FEMA before it makes a change to the approved Avenue Storm Drain Outfall. scope of work in this project.If the subrecipient commences work associated with a change before FEMA approves the change,it will jeopardize financial assistance for this project.See FEMA Policy No.104-009-2,Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide.
406 Mitigation
• Pursuant to section 312 of the Stafford Act,42 U.S.C.5155,FEMA is prohibited from providing financial assistance to any enfitythat receives assistance from another program,insurance,or any other source forthe same work.The subrecipient agrees to repay all duplicated assistance to FEMA if they receive assistance for the same work from another Federal There is no additional mitigation information on Pier Avenue agency,insurance,or any other source.If an subrecipient receives funding from another federal program for the same Storm Drain Outfall. purpose,it must notify FEMA through the Recipient and return any duplicated funding.
Insurance Environmental Historical Preservation Is this project compliant with EHP laws,regulations,and Additional Information executive orders? 02/28/2024 EHP Conditions
Property insurance coverage for the Water Control Facilities represented on this project are not insured or insurable.No insurance relief is anticipated.No Obtain and Maintain requirement will be made. Any change to the approved scope of work will require re-evaluation for compliance with NEPA and other Laws and Executive Orders.
• This review does not address all federal,state and local requirements.Acceptance offederal funding requires recipient to comply with all federal,state and local laws.Failure to obtain all appropriate federal,state and local environmental permits FEMA requires the Applicant to take reasonable efforts to pursue claims to recover insurance proceeds that it is entitled to and clearances mayjeopardize funding.
Date Downloaded:11/6r24 11:19pm PST 6 of 8 Date Downloaded:11/6r24 11:19pm PST 7 of 8 Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.H-11
Attachment 2
• Ifground disturbirg activities occur during construction,applicant will monitor ground disturbance and if any potential archaeological resources are discovered,will immediately cease construction in that area and notify the State and FEMA. • CAA:The Clean Air Act.Copies of any permits/authorizations,or consultation documentation should be forwarded to FEMA Last Name First Name Title Emarls Phones for Inclusion in the administrative record.Failure to comply with these conditions mayjeopardlze the receipt of federal Feeser Nadia Administrative Services Director [email protected],Work WWork k(Desk)
funding.
• EO 11988:The Subrecipient must coordinate with the local floodplain administrator and obtain any required permits prior to Olsen Erin Senior Management Analyst [email protected],Workk(Desk) initiating work.Coordination correspondence with the Floodplain administrator,including any required permits,and implementation documentation to any permit conditions need to be forwarded to the State and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project files. Stoehr Chad Engineer [email protected],Work (Desk) EHP Additional Info
There is no additional environmental historical preservation on Pier Avenue Storm Drain Outfall.
Final Reviews
Final Review
Reviewed By AUCOIN,ANDREW Z Reviewed On 08/10/2024 12:11 PM PST Review Comments
No comments available for the Final Reviewstep
Recipient Review
Reviewed By Renert,Joey Reviewed On 08/15/2024 10:40 AM PST Review Comments
ticosting and scope are accurate,this project looks good to proceed to the Applicant for review and signature.
Project Signatures
Signed By Olsen,Erin Signed On 08/15/2024
Date Downloaded:11/6/24 11:19pm PST 8 of 8
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 9.1-1-12
G\T Y OF
PISMO BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
A�syo sEP Agenda Item #11.A
Meeting Date: February 18, 2025
TITLE:
Public Hearing to Consider a Resolution Approving New Development Impact Fees, Effective April 19, 2025
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Conduct a Public Hearing to receive input from the public on the proposed development impact fees;
2. Adopt a Resolution adopting the City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Update Study; making certain findings; and approving new Development Impact Fees for the City of Pismo Beach, effective on April 19, 2025.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Pismo Beach has a development impact fee (DIF) schedule that is charged to developers to mitigate the impacts of development upon public facilities and infrastructure. These fees were most recently updated in 2019. Since 2019, the fees have been updated annually based on various economic indicators. It is best practice to update the DIF schedule in a comprehensive review every five to ten years to review existing development and future growth and reflect the latest 10-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
DIFs are essential to mitigate the impacts of growth and development within the city.
These fees have supported numerous projects to date, including: State Water Supply; the Public Safety Facility project; the Central Coast Blue project; parkland and park facilities; a proposed new parking garage; Price Street, Dolliver Street, and Shell Beach Road multi-use trail; and critical water and wastewater capital projects. These fees allow the City to reduce the need to subsidize the costly development impacts on the city from General Fund taxpayer dollars, water and wastewater rate payers, and other funds, and free up the City's other funds to be able to complete other projects.
The City selected Willdan Financial Services (Willdan) to complete the DIF update based on past experience with the most recent study. Willdan worked with City staff to gather data about the city and determine various methods to update the DIF schedule. Based on Willdan's City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Update Study (Study, Attachment 2), the DIFs are increasing to reflect an updated project list based on the current 10-Year CIP and changes in demand for facilities from the various types of development projects that may occur in the City. The majority of the increase is due to the updated cost of the Public Safety Facility and the recycled water project, Central Coast Blue. All other facility categories reflect a decrease in costs.
Timeline
February 3, 2025 Special Council Meeting Study Session: Willdan and City staff presented the Study, including its methodology and the proposed maximum justified DIF Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-1
schedule, for the Council's consideration. After reviewing the information, the Council provided direction on modifying the proposed fees and requested that staff return with a revised fee schedule.
February 4, 2025 Community Workshop: On February 4, 2025, staff held a public workshop to gather feedback on the proposed DIF schedule from key stakeholders.
Invitations were extended to the American Institute of Architects Central Coast, the Home Builders Association of the Central Coast, and the SLO County Builders Exchange. Prior to the workshop, the February 3, 2025 Council Study Session staff report and the draft Study were emailed to these stakeholder groups.
February 18, 2025 Public Hearing: Based on feedback from the Council and the public workshop, staff has prepared a revised DIF schedule for the Council's consideration.
During the public hearing on February 18, 2025, the Council will review the proposed schedule and decide whether to adopt a resolution implementing the new rates.
Effective Date of New Rates: The amended rates are proposed to be effective April 19, 2025, 60 days after the resolution is adopted. However, in order to keep fee adjustments in line with other fee adjustments that occur on July 1 and January 1, staff recommends moving the effective date of the new rates to July 1, 2025. Staff will adjust the fees as outlined in the "City Council Direction to Reduce Commercial Fees to Promote Development" section of this report and in the Resolution (Attachment 1). Additionally, starting in January 2026, fees will be updated annually based on various inflation factors.
What are Development Impact Fees?
Development Impact Fees (DIFs) are fees charged by local governments and imposed on new or re-development projects for the purpose of providing new or expanded public facilities required to serve increased demand from that development. The primary policy objective of a DIF program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Although growth also imposes operating costs, there is not a similar system to generate revenue from new development for services.
Authority to Collect Development Impact Fees
The City collects development impact fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. The City programs development impact fee-funded capital projects through its 10-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Using a CIP allows the City to identify and direct its fee revenue to public facilities projects that will accommodate future growth. By programming fee revenues to specific capital projects, the City can help ensure a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues as required by the Mitigation Fee Act.
On January 1, 2022, California implemented new requirements for jurisdictions using impact fees under Assembly Bill (AB) 602, adding Section 66016.5 to the Government Code. The law outlines guidelines for nexus studies, which analyze the connection between fees and development impacts. Nexus studies must identify existing and Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-2
proposed levels of service for public facilities and justify changes in service levels. If an existing fee is increased, the original fee's assumptions and collections must be reviewed.
Fees for housing developments must be calculated proportionately to unit square footage to ensure a reasonable relationship to development burdens. Studies adopted after July 1, 2022, must follow these guidelines, with large jurisdictions also required to include a capital improvement plan. These measures aim to standardize and justify impact fee assessments. This attached study provides compliance for these new requirements.
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Update Study The primary purpose of the Study is to calculate and present fees that will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities, as new development creates increases in service demands. The Study provides the necessary nexus between the cost of providing a facility or service and the needs created by the new development, in accordance with the City's General Plan Facilities and Services Element. In addition, the General Plan Growth Management Element states that: "All new development within Pismo Beach shall be required to pay its proportionate share for existing or proposed public facilities." The City's General Plan is available online at pismobeach.org/generalplan'.
How are Fees Developed?
The Study provides the methodology for how DIFs are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The Study breaks the methodology into six steps:
1. Estimate existing development and future growth: Identify a base year for existing development and a growth forecast that reflects increased demand for public facilities;
2. Identify facility standards: Determine the facility standards used to plan for new and expanded facilities;
3. Determine facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount of planned facilities, and identify the share required to accommodate new development;
4. Determine the cost of facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount and the share of the cost of planned facilities required to accommodate new development;
5. Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facilities costs per unit of new development to calculate the development impact fee schedule; and
6. Identify alternative funding requirements: Determine if any non-fee funding is required to complete projects.
Results: Maximum Justified Fees
Based on the Study, the maximum justified DIF schedule is shown in Table 1 below.
These fees would support all or a portion of the identified capital projects in the report from now until Fiscal Year (FY) 2050. The fee schedule includes a separate Table A, an alternative recycled water(water&wastewater) DIF schedule for larger water meter sizes Full URL: http://Pismobeach.org/109/General-Plan
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-3
with 15% or more water flow beyond "normal" at the discretion of the Public Works Director.
The main table with all the various facilities assumes "normal"water flow and the alternate fee schedule (Table A) is for"greater"water flow. The majority of development is expected to fall into the normal water flow fee schedule. Water flow is based on the meter size. For example, the single family detached dwelling meter size, 1", is the standard, or normal, water flow at which 25 gallons per minute flows through the meter. A larger meter may trigger the use of a separate, more applicable fee schedule, or Table A.
Table A provides the proposed fee schedule for any development type with larger meters.
A 1" meter is rated at 25 gallons per minute. A 2" meter is rated at 80 gallons per minute, which is 3.2 the water flow accommodated by a 1" meter. Thus the 2" meter fee would be
3.2 times more costly (at $54,444 for both Recycled Water facilities) than the $17,014 for the 1" meter. Use of this table should be limited to private project proposals where the Public Works Director or designee determines that the private project proposal will have water demands or use that will be 15% or greater beyond the application of water demand in gallons per day identified in the main table in which case the City shall impose the larger of either the Normal Fee Schedule or Table A (Alternate Fee Schedule).
Table 1: Maximum Justified Development Impact Fee Schedule Parks- Water
General Fire Land Park System State Recycled Recycled Government Police Protection Acquisition Improve- Wastewater Improve- Water Water Water Circulation Land Use Facilities Facilities Facilities (Quimby) ments Facilities ments Supply Water Wastewater Facilities Total Residential(per Square Foot)
Single Family $ 1.29 2.96 1.37 $ 6.95 3.00 0.59 0.65 $ 3.13 $ 2.92 $ 5.81 $ 3.36 $ 32.03 Multifamily 1.89 4.33 2.00 10.17 4.39 1.01 0.76 3.72 3.47 6.90 4.30 42.94 Mobile Home 1.34 3.07 1.41 7.20 3.11 0.69 0.35 1.67 1.56 3.10 3.74 27.24 Nonresidential(Per 1,000 square feet,hotel room or RV Park Space) RetaillSeruice $ 1,423 $ 6,942 $ 7,373 NA NA $ 777 $ 989 $4,817 $ 4,488 $ 8,935 $ 11,660 $47,404 Office 2,188 10,674 11,337 NA NA 777 989 4,817 4,488 8,935 14,694 58,899 Light Industrial 778 3,798 4,034 NA NA 777 989 4,817 4,488 8,935 6,958 35,574 Self Storage 778 3,798 4,034 NA NA 777 989 4,817 4,488 8,935 1,605 30,221 Self Storage(Indoor
778 3,798 4,034 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1,605 10,215 water use only)'
Hotel/Motel 872 4,256 4,521 NA 3,269 777 1,039 5,010 4,668 9,292 5,231 38,935 RV Park Space 872 4,256 4,521 NA 3,269 396 822 3,998 3,725 7,416 5,385 34,660 For Self Storage(Indoor water use only)any housing units in the facility are charged at the residential rates per square foot.
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-4
Table A: Maximum Justified Alternate Recycled Water(Water&Wastewater)Development Impact Fee Schedule for Larger Water Meter Sizes with 15%or More Water Flow beyond"Normal" at the discretion of the Public Works Director/Cit En ineer Recycled Recycled Water
Normal Water Flow Water(Water) (Wastewater)
Water Demand Cost per EDU Development Cost per EDU Development Water Meter Size (Gallons Per Total
Minute) Factor (V Meter) Impact Fee per (V Meter) Impact Fee per Meter Size Meter Size(One-
One-Time Time
1"Meter 25 1 $ 7,585 $ 7,585 $ 15,100 $ 15,100 $ 22.685 1 '/z"Meter 50 2 7,585 15,170 15,100 30,200 45,370 2"Meter 80 3.2 7,585 24,272 15,100 48,320 72,592 3"Meter 240 9.6 7,585 72,816 15,100 144,960 217,776 4"Meter 420 16.8 7,585 127,428 15,100 253,680 381,108 6"Meter 920 36.8 7,585 279,128 15,100 555,680 834,808 8"Meter 1,600 64 7,585 485,440 15,100 966,400 1,451,840 10"Meter 2,500 100 7,585 758,500 15,100 1,510,000 2,268,500 12"Meter 3,3001 1321 7,585 1,001,2201 15,100 1,993,200 2,994,420 Compared to the current fees, the change in proposed DIFs are largely due to updated costs of the Public Safety Facility and the recycled water project, Central Coast Blue. The Public Safety Facility reflects the current cost of the project, including the debt service schedule. The Central Coast Blue project reflects an updated cost due to the changes in partner agencies of the project, where the City of Pismo Beach is now the only agency supporting and benefiting from this project. Although the most recent version of this project reflects a smaller scale project, with no other partner agencies, the cost of the project for the City has increased. All other facilities have decreased based on changes in projects and facilities and their respective costs to required to serve new development as well as updated growth demand factors. The explanations listed provide a high-level explanation of the change in fees from the current to the proposed fees. These explanations do not include all the changes detailed throughout the Study in the comprehensive fee update.
City Council Direction to Reduce Nonresidential Fees to Promote Development On February 3, 2025, the City Council held a public study session to review the DIF Update Study and directed staff to return on February 18, 2025, with a revised fee schedule. Given the proposed increase in nonresidential fees-particularly for the Office land use-the Council discussed reducing all commercial (nonresidential) DIF fees by 25% to encourage commercial development. The Council also directed phasing in a non- compounding 5% annual increase up to 25%, along with annual California Department of General Services California Construction Cost Index (CCCI) and State Water Supply annual adjustments.
In response, City staff prepared a revised fee schedule (Table 2) for Council consideration. This schedule reduces all nonresidential DIF fees by 25% from the Maximum Justified Development Impact Fees, with the initial rates taking effect on April 19, 2025. Staff recommends implementing the phased 5% annual increase up to 25%, not compounding, for all non-residential land-use categories' DIFs, beginning in January 2026, with the last increase occurring in January 2030.
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-5
Table 2 includes the revised fee schedule with a reduction in nonresidential DIFs by 25%.
Table 2: Revised Proposed Development Impact Fees With 25% Reduction in Commercial Fees
Parks- Water
General Fire Land Park System State Recycled Recycled Government Police Protection Acquisition Improve- Wastewater Improve- Water Water Water Circulation Land Use Facilities Facilities Facilities (Quimby) ments Facilities ments Supply Water Wastewater Facilities Total Residential(per Square Foot)
Single Family $ 1.29 2.96 1.37 $ 6.95 3.00 0.59 0.65 $ 3.13 $ 2.92 $ 5.81 $ 3.36 $ 32.03 Multifamily 1.89 4.33 2.00 10.17 4.39 1.01 0.76 3.72 3.47 6.90 4.30 42.94 Mobile Home 1.34 3.07 1.41 7.20 3.11 0.69 0.35 1.67 1.56 3.10 3.74 27.24 Nonresidential(Per 1,000 square feet,hotel room or RV Park Space) Retail/Service $ 1,067 $ 5,207 $ 5,530 NA NA $ 583 $ 742 $3,613 $ 3,366 $ 6,701 $ 8,745 $35,553 Office 1,641 8,006 8,503 NA NA 583 742 3,613 3,366 6,701 11,021 44,174 Light Industrial 584 2,849 3,026 NA NA 583 742 3,613 3,366 6,701 5,219 26,681 Self Storage 584 2,849 3,026 NA NA 583 742 3,613 3,366 6,701 1,204 22,666 Self Storage(Indoor 584 2,849 3,026 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1,204 7,661 water use only)l
Hotel/Motel 654 3,192 3,391 NA 2,452 583 779 3,758 3,501 6,969 3,923 29,201 RV Park Space 654 3,192 3,391 NA 2,452 297 617 2,999 2,794 5,562 4,039 25,995 For Self Storage(Indoor water use only)any housing units in the facility are charged at the residential rates per square foot.
Table A: Alternate Recycled Water(Water&Wastewater)Development Impact Fee Schedule for Larger Water Meter Sizes with 15%or More Water Flow be and"Normal" at the discretion of the Public Works Direct r/Citv En ineer Recycled Recycled Water
Normal Water Flow Water(Water) (Wastewater)
Water Demand Cost per EDU Development Cost per EDU Development Water Meter Size (Gallons Per Total
Minute) Factor (1"Meter) Impact Fee per (1"Meter) Impact Fee per Meter Size Meter Size(One-
One-Time Time
1"Meter 25 1 $ 5,689 $ 5,689 $ 11,325 $ 11,325 $ 17,014 1 '/z"Meter 50 2 $ 5,689 11,378 $ 11,325 22,650 34,028 2"Meter 80 3.2 $ 5,689 18,204 $ 11,325 36,240 54,444 3"Meter 240 9.6 $ 5,689 54,612 $ 11,325 108,720 163,332 4"Meter 420 16.8 $ 5,689 95,571 $ 11,325 190,260 285,831 6"Meter 920 36.8 $ 5,689 209,346 $ 11,325 416,760 626,106 8"Meter 1,600 64 $ 5,689 364,080 $ 11,325 724,800 1,088,880 10"Meter 2,500 100 $ 5,689 568,875 $ 11,325 1,132,500 1,701,375 12"Meter 3,3001 132 $ 5,689 750,9151 $ 11,3251 1,494,900 2,245,815 Comparison to Other Communities
A DIF survey was conducted for neighboring or similar communities to Pismo Beach.
Charts 1 through 3, respectively, compare the Pismo Beach Single-Family Residential fees assuming building size of 2,500 square feet, the Pismo Beach Multi-Family Unit fees assuming a 1,100-square-foot unit, and the Pismo Beach Retail/Commercial fees assuming a 10,000-square-foot building with those of neighboring communities. The survey includes DIF schedules in effect during January 2025. The Study's proposed DIFs Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-6
are on the upper end of DIFs when comparing these fees with other communities' Single- Family Residential fees. Note that the timing of annual increases based on various indices occurs in July for the majority of communities on the chart, whereas Pismo Beach updates DIFs for inflators each January. As such, the City's proposed fees may end up in the upper-middle end of DIFs in the last half of the calendar year. The City of Pismo Beach has the highest property values in the County, has State Water supply costs, is moving forward with the Central Coast Blue recycled water project, and includes other improvements compared to other agencies in the comparison charts.
Chart 1: Comparison of Development Impact Fees per Single Family Unit
$90,000
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
a�60
10 or �1 � 0 a1 ��r1
a e� �.0 o
�. 50
O� � 0 o C-1 �o ooa090 °fo 4 .",o o Qo nr
�
`O
0 G� GSA
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-7
Chart 2: Comparison of Development Impact Fees per Multi-Family Unit (1,100 sq. feet)
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
Sao a°�o oa°r �0�1 �"IN Q�a� �oa� �,0�1 ��r1 ��•c\ �49
01�a
Chart 3: Comparison of Development Impact Fees per
Retail/Commercial (10,000 sq. feet)
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
���ao a oto nor o°� �o� ���•c� �o\ °°a� �e�1 ���•�1 5 t
Qacp ��� lea
0 G� GSA
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-8
Council Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council hold a Public Hearing and receive input from the public on the proposed development impact fees. Then, following said Public Hearing, if Council determines to approve the proposed DIFs, adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) approving the Development Impact Fees Schedule (Attachment 1.A) and Study (Attachment 2), respectively, effective on April 19, 2025.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impact of implementing the proposed DIF schedule is a proposed $87.75 million over 25 years from Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 to FY 2050. These revenues are essential to mitigate the impacts of growth and development within the city and would support the City's 10-year CIP. Some key capital projects included in the Study are: State Water Supply; the Public Safety Facility project; the Central Coast Blue project; parkland and park facilities; a proposed new parking garage; Price Street, Dolliver Street, and Shell Beach Road multi-use trail; and critical water and wastewater capital projects. These fees will only cover the portion of these projects that are attributable to growth and development. In addition, these fees are collected over a period of 25 years, where the projects will likely be paid for using other sources, then reimbursed over time from these fees as they are collected.
Since the most recent DIF Study in 2019, these fees have supported numerous projects to date, including: the State Water project costs; the Central Coast Blue project, Shell Beach Streetscape project; the energy efficient project, Downtown sidewalk pavers, several wastewater lift station projects, several water reservoir projects, several traffic improvements, and supporting the Housing in Lieu Fee Fund. These fees allow the City to reduce the need to subsidize the costly development impacts on the City from General Fund taxpayer dollars, water and wastewater rate payers, and other funds, and frees up the City's other funds to be able to complete other projects.
In order to keep up with inflation as these fees are set based on today's dollar value, staff proposes that the proposed development impact fees be automatically adjusted effective January 1 of each year (starting with January 1, 2026) by the following:
• For State Water Supply costs, the cost per acre-foot per year (AFY) shall include a
5.0% increase to reflect the State Water Supply costs associated with the Central Coast Water Authorities' Series 2016A refunding revenue bonds with an interest rate of 5.0%
• For all other categories, percent change over 12 months in California Department of General Services California Construction Cost Index (CCCI), for the twelve months ended in October prior to January 1
• For all non-residential land-use categories' DIFs, add a 5% increase up to 25%, not compounding, beginning in January 2026, with the last increase occurring in January 2030.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-9
1.A Development Impact Fee Schedule Effective April 19, 2025
2. City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Update Study 1/27/25 Submitted by: Nadia Feeser, Administrative Services Director City Manager Approval:
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-10
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. R-2025-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PISMO BEACH,
CALIFORNIA ADOPTING THE CITY OF PISMO BEACH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY; MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS; AND APPROVING NEW
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR THE CITY OF PISMO BEACH, EFFECTIVE ON APRIL 19, 2025
WHEREAS, the City has a development impact fee (DIF) schedule that is charged to developers to mitigate the impacts of development upon public facilities, which underwent a comprehensive update in 2019; and
WHEREAS, since 2019, the fees have been updated annually based on various economic indicators; it is best practice to update the DIF schedule in a comprehensive review every five to ten years to review existing development and future growth and reflect the current 10-year Capital Improvement Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City conducted a comprehensive update of the DIF schedule, selecting Willdan Financial Services (Willdan) to complete the DIF update, and Willdan worked with City staff to gather data about the city and determine various methods to update the DIF schedule; and
WHEREAS, on February 3, 2025, the City Council held a Special Council Meeting Study Session to review Willdan's City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Update Study (Study) and provide direction to staff on the proposed DIF schedule; the updated study incorporating Council's comments from that meeting is attached to staff's report to the Council dated February 18, 2025; and .
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2025, City staff and Willdan presented information at a community meeting and received input from the public regarding the proposed DIF schedule; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a Public Hearing on February 18, 2025 to receive input on the proposed Study and DIF schedule (Exhibit A).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pismo Beach hereby finds and resolves that:
1. Findings.
A. The purpose of the proposed DIFs is to raise capital revenues necessary to mitigate the cost of a various City infrastructure and facilities required because of additional demands from continued development.
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-11
Attachment 1
B. The DIFs will be used only to pay for the portion of the various City infrastructure that supports new development within those land-uses and infrastructure categories.
C. There is a reasonable relationship between the use of the DIFs, and the developments on which the fee is imposed as identified in the Study (attached to staff's report dated February 18, 2025). The fees will be used only to pay for the portion of the various City facilities that support new development within the City of Pismo Beach.
D. There is a reasonable relationship between the need for the development identified in the Study for which the impact fee schedule is calculated, and the types of development on which these fees are imposed. The relationships between various types of development and the demand for additional facilities from new development are specified in the Study.
E. There is a reasonable relationship between the amounts of the fees, and the facility costs needed to support the development projects on which the fee is imposed.
F. After review and consideration of the Study and the testimony received at the Public Hearing, the City Council hereby approves the Study, and incorporates the same into this resolution.
2. Service Areas. The service areas for the DIF Schedule (Exhibit A) based on the Study are uniform throughout the City.
3. Amount of the Impact Fees. The amounts of the new DIFs are set forth in the DIF Schedule (Exhibit A). The number and type of units of development to be used as a basis for charging impact fees to a development project will be determined by the Director of Community Development or the City Engineer as needed.
4. Annual Adjustments. Unless other action is taken by the City Council, the amounts of the DIFs will automatically be adjusted effective January 1 of each year (starting with January 1, 2026) by the following:
• For State Water Supply costs, the cost per acre-foot per year (AFY) shall include a 5.0% increase to reflect the State Water Supply costs associated with the Central Coast Water Authorities' Series 2016A refunding revenue bonds with an interest rate of 5.0%
• For all other categories, percent change over 12 months in California Department of General Services California Construction Cost Index (CCCI), for the twelve months ended in October prior to January 1
• For all non-residential land-use categories' DIFs, add a 5% increase up to 25%, not compounding, beginning in January 2026, with the last increase occurring in January 2030.
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-12
Attachment 1
5. Changes in Estimated Costs. If the actual or estimated costs of the needed facility change substantially from the proposed project, the Administrative Services Director shall review the impact fee to determine whether the changes in costs have a meaningful effect on the amounts of the impact fees needed. If so, the Administrative Services Director shall, within sixty(60) days, recommend to the City Council a revised impact fee.
6. Separate Accounts. The Administrative Services Director shall deposit fees collected pursuant to this resolution in separate accounts for the facility types for which these impact fees are collected. Within 180 days of the close of each fiscal year, the Administrative Services Director shall make available to the public an accounting of the funds as provided for in Section 66006(b) of the Government Code, and the City Council shall review that information at its next regular public meeting.
7. Effective Date. The resolution shall become effective upon adoption. The fee imposed by this resolution shall be effective on April 19, 2025, which is compatible with the Government Code Section 66017 requirement that the new fee become effective not less than 60 days after adopted.
8. Savings and Interpretation Clause. This resolution shall not be interpreted in any manner to conflict with controlling provisions of state law, including, without limitation, the Constitution of the State of California. If any section, subsection or clause of this resolution shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining sections, subsections and clauses shall not be affected thereby. If this resolution, or any section, subsection or clause of this resolution shall be deemed unconstitutional or invalid as applied to a particular appeal, the validity of this resolution and its sections, subsections and clauses in regards to other contracts shall not be affected.
UPON MOTION OF Council Member , seconded by Council Member , the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Pismo Beach this 18tn day of February 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSED:
Approved: Attest:
Ed Waage, Mayor Erica Inderlied, City Clerk
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-13
Attachment 1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand on
Erica Inderlied, City Clerk
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-14
Attachment 1.A
Pismo Beach Development Impact Fees, Effective April 19, 2025 Parks- Water Recycled
General Fire Land Park System State Recycled Water Government Police Protection Acquisition Improve- Wastewater Improve- Water Water (Wastewater) circulation Land Use Facilities Facilities Facilities (Quimby)' ments Facilities ments Supply (Water)4 ° Facilities Total Residential(per Square Foot)
Single Family or ADU 3 $ 1.29 2.96 1.37 $ 6.95 3.00 0.59 0.65 $ 3.13 $ 2.92 $ 5.81 $ 3.36 $ 32.03 Multifamily 1.89 4.33 2.00 10.17 4.39 1.01 0.76 3.72 3.47 6.90 4.30 42.94 Mobile Home 1.34 3.07 1.41 7.20 3.11 0.69 0.35 1.67 1.56 3.10 3.74 27.24 Nonresidential(Per 1,000 square feet, hotel room or RV Park Space) Retail/Service $ 1,067 $ 5,207 $ 5,530 NA NA $ 583 $ 742 $3,613 $ 3,366 $ 6,701 $ 8,745 $ 35,553 Office 1,641 8,006 8,503 NA NA 583 742 3,613 3,366 6,701 11,021 44,174 Light Industrial 584 2,849 3,026 NA NA 583 742 3,613 3,366 6,701 5,219 26,681 Self Storage 584 2,849 3,026 NA NA 583 742 3,613 3,366 6,701 1,204 22,666 Self Storage(Indoor water use 584 2,849 3,026 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1,204 7,661 only)Z
Hotel/Motel 654 3,192 3,391 NA 2,452 583 779 3,758 3,501 6,969 3,923 29,201 RV Park Space 654 3,192 3,391 NA 2,452 297 617 2,999 2,794 5,562 4,039 25,995 All fees are applicable to all new development, redevelopment (intensification of land-use), and additions to existing buildings that create additional dwelling units or additional non- residential floor area.
1 Parks-Land Acquisition:This fee is charged under the Quimby Actfor development occurring in subdivisions or charged under the Mitigation Fee Act for development not occurring in subdivisions. A residential project either pays the fee under the Quimby Act,or the Mitigation Fee Act,not both.
2 For Self Storage,any housing units in the facility are charged at the residential rate corresponding with the type of dwelling unit being built(single family or multifamily). 3 For ADUs,impact fees are consistent with State Law and City of Pismo Beach Ordinances 0-2020-006 and 0-2020-007.There shall be no impact fees or public facility fees assessed for a permit to construct an ADU where the new floor area is less than 750 square feet.Where the new floor area is 750 square feet or greater, impact fees shall be equal to the square footage of the ADU multiplied by the Single Family Residential square foot fee. 4 In the event that the Public Works Director or his/her designee determine that the private project proposal will have water demands or use that will be 15%or more beyond the application of water demand in gallons per day identified in the above Development Impact Fee(DIF)Schedule for"normal water flow",the City shall impose the larger of either the above DIF Schedule (Normal Fee Schedule) or Table A(Alternate Fee Schedule).
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-15
Attachment 1.A
Table A: Alternate Recycled Water(Water&Wastewater) Development Impact Fee Schedule for Larger Water Meter Sizes with 15% or More Water Flow beyond"Normal' at the discretion of the Public Works Director/City En ineer Recycled Recycled Water
Normal Water Flow Water(Water) (Wastewater)
Water Demand Cost per EDU Development Cost per EDU Development Water Meter Size (Gallons Per Total Minute) Factor (V Meter) Impact Fee per (V Meter) Impact Fee per Meter Size Meter Size(One-
(One-Time) Time)
1" Meter 25 1 $ 5,689 $ 5,689 $ 11,325 $ 11,325 $ 17,014 1 '/2" Meter 50 2 $ 5,689 11,378 $ 11,325 22,650 34,028 2" Meter 80 3.2 $ 5,689 18,204 $ 11,325 36,240 54,444 3" Meter 240 9.6 $ 5,689 54,612 $ 11,325 108,720 163,332 4" Meter 420 16.8 $ 5,689 95,571 $ 11,325 190,260 285,831 6" Meter 920 36.8 $ 5,689 209,346 $ 11,325 416,760 626,106 8" Meter 1,600 64 $ 5,689 364,080 $ 11,325 724,800 1,088,880 10" Meter 2,500 100 $ 5,6891 568,8751 $ 11,3251 1,132,500 1,701,375 12" Meter 3,300 132 $ 5,6891 750,9151 $ 11,3251 1,494,900 2,245,815 Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-16
Attachment 2
CITY OF PISMO BEACH
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE UPDATE
STUDY
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
JANUARY 27, 2025
W I LLDAN
FINANCIAL SERVICES
Oakland Office Corporate Office Other Regional Offices 1939 Harrison Street 27368 Via Industria Aurora, CO Suite 430 Suite 200 Orlando, FL
Oakland, CA 94612 Temecula, CA 92590 Phoenix, AZ Tel: (510) 832-0899 Tel: (800) 755-6864 Plano, TX Fax: (510) 832-0898 Fax: (888) 326-6864 Washington, DC www.willdan.com
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-17
Attachment 2
This page intentionally left blank.
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-18
Attachment 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................... 4 Background and Study Objectives 4
Facility Standards and Costs 4
Use of Fee Revenues 5
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary 5
Other Funding Needed 7
1 . INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 8 Public Facilities Financing in California 8 Study Objectives 8
Fee Program Maintenance 9
Study Methodology 9
Types of Facility Standards 9
New Development Facility Needs and Costs 10
Organization of the Report 11
2. GROWTH FORECASTS ............................................................... 12 Land Use Types 12
Existing and Future Development 13
Occupant Densities 15
3. GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES............................................ 16 Service Population 16
Existing Facility Inventory 17
Planned Facilities 17
Cost Allocation 18
Existing Level of Service 18
Future Level of Service 19
Use of Fee Revenue 19
Fee Schedule 19
4. POLICE FACILITIES.................................................................... 21 Service Population 21
Existing Facility Inventory 22
Planned Facilities 22
Cost Allocation 23
Existing Level of Service 23
Future Level of Service 24
Use of Fee Revenue 24
Non-Fee Funding Required 25
Fee Schedule 25
5. FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES .................................................... 27 1 1 LLDAN
F LNCi FRVIC
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-19
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Service Population 27
Existing Facility Inventory 28
Planned Facilities 28
Cost Allocation 29
Existing Level of Service 29
Future Level of Service 29
Use of Fee Revenue 30
Non-Fee Funding Required 30
Fee Schedule 31
6. PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES ............................................ 33 Service Population 33
Existing Park and Recreation Facilities Inventory 33 Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs 35
Park Facility Standards 35
Quimby Act Standard 35
City of Pismo Beach Park Facilities Standards 36
Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development 36 Parks and Recreation Facilities Cost per Capita 37
Use of Fee Revenue 37
Fee Schedule 38
7. WASTEWATER FACILITIES .......................................................... 40 Wastewater Demand 40
EDU Generation by New Development 40
Facility Needs and Costs 41
Cost per EDU 42
Alternative Funding Sources 42
Fee Schedule 43
8. WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS................................................ 44 Water Demand 44
EDU Generation by New Development 45
Facility Needs and Costs 45
Cost per EDU 46
Fee Schedule 46
State Water Supply Costs 47
State Water Supply Fee Schedule 48
Projected State Water Supply Fee Revenue 48
9. RECYCLED WATER FACILITIES ................................................... 50 Recycled Water Demand 50
EDU Generation by New Development 51
Recycled Water Facility Cost Allocation 51
Fee Schedule 52
10. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION FACILITIES........................................ 55 1 1 LLDAN
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-20
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Trip Demand 55
Trip Demand Growth 56
Project Costs and Cost Allocation 57
Fee per Trip Demand Unit 58
Fee Schedule 58
11 . AB 602 REQUIREMENTS............................................................ 60 Compliance with AB 602 60
66016.5. (a) (2)- Level of Service 60
66016.5. (a) (4)—Review of Original Fee Assumptions 61 66016.5. (a) (5)—Residential Fees per Square Foot 61 66016.5. (a) (6)—Capital Improvement Plan 61
12. IMPLEMENTATION...................................................................... 62 Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 62
Inflation Adjustment 62
Reporting Requirements 62
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 62
13. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS.................................................. 63 Purpose of Fee 63
Use of Fee Revenues 63
Benefit Relationship 63
Burden Relationship 64
Proportionality 64
APPENDIX ......................................................................................... 65 1 1 LLDAN
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-21
Attachment 2
Executive Summary
This report summarizes an analysis of development impact fees needed to support future development in the City of Pismo Beach through 2050. It is the City's intent that the costs representing future development's share of public facilities and capital improvements be imposed on that development in the form of a development impact fee, also known as a public facilities fee. The public facilities and improvements included in this analysis are divided into the fee categories listed below:
■ General Government Facilities Fire Protection Facilities ■ Wastewater Facilities ■ Recycled Water Facilities • Police Facilities Parks and Recreation Facilities ■ Water Facilities ■ Traffic and Circulation Facilities Background and Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a development impact fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Although growth also imposes operating costs, there is not a similar system to generate revenue from new development for services. The primary purpose of this report is to calculate and present fees that will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities, as new development creates increases in service demands.
The City collects public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules contained herein.
The City programs development impact fee-funded capital projects through its Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Using a CIP allows the City to identify and direct its fee revenue to public facilities projects that will accommodate future growth. By programming fee revenues to specific capital projects, the City can help ensure a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues as required by the Mitigation Fee Act.
Facility Standards and Costs
There are three approaches typically used to calculate facilities standards and allocate the costs of planned facilities to accommodate growth in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act requirements.
The existing inventory approach is based on a facility standard derived from the City's existing level of facilities and existing demand for services. This approach results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This approach is used to calculate the parks and recreation facilities fees in this report.
The planned facilities approach allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facilities that serve new development to the increase in demand associated with new development. This approach is appropriate when specific planned facilities that only benefit new development can be identified, or when the specific share of facilities benefiting new development can be identified. Examples include street improvements to avoid deficient levels of service or a wastewater trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. This approach is used for the general government facilities, wastewater facilities, water, recycled water and traffic and circulation facilities fees in this report.
�W 1 LLDAN 4
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-22
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update The system plan approach is based on a master facility plan in situations where the needed facilities serve both existing and new development. This approach allocates existing and planned facilities across existing and new development to determine new development's fair share of facility needs. This approach is used when it is not possible to differentiate the benefits of new facilities between new and existing development. The system plan is based on increasing facility standards, so the City must find non-impact fee revenue sources to fund existing development's fair share of planned facilities. This approach is used to calculate the police facilities and fire protection facilities fees in this report.
Use of Fee Revenues
Impact fee revenue must be spent on new facilities or expansion of current facilities to serve new development. Facilities can be generally defined as capital acquisition items with a useful life greater than five years. Impact fee revenue can be spent on capital facilities to serve new development, including but not limited to: land acquisition, construction of buildings, construction of infrastructure, the acquisition of vehicles or equipment, information technology, software licenses and equipment.
In that the City cannot predict with certainty how and when development within the City will occur within the planning horizon of this study, the City may need to update and revise the project lists funded by the fees documented in this study. Any substitute projects should be funded within the same facility category, and the substitute projects must still benefit and have a relationship to new development. The City could identify any changes to the projects funded by the impact fees when it updates its CIP. The impact fees could also be updated if significant changes to the projects funded by the fees are anticipated.
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary
Table E.1 summarizes the development impact fees that meet the City's identified needs and comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. �W 1 LLDAN 5
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-23
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update E.1: Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary
Parks- Water
General Fire Land Park System State Recycled Recycled Government Police Protection Acquisition Improve- Wastewater Improve- Water Water Water Circulation Land Use Facilities Facilities Facilities (Quimby) ments Facilities ments Supply Water Wastewater Facilities Total Residential(per Square Foot)
Single Family $ 1.29 2.96 1.37 $ 6.95 3.00 0.59 0.65 $ 3.13 $ 2.92 $ 5.81 $ 3.36 $ 32.03 Multifamily 1.89 4.33 2.00 10.17 4.39 1.01 0.76 3.72 3.47 6.90 4.30 42.94 Mobile Home 1.34 3.07 1.41 7.20 3.11 0.69 0.35 1.67 1.56 3.10 3.74 27.24 Nonresidential(Per 1,000 square feet, hotel room or RV Park Space) Retail/Service $ 1,423 $ 6,942 $ 7,373 NA NA $ 777 $ 989 $4,817 $ 4,488 $ 8,935 $ 11,660 $ 47,404 Office 2,188 10,674 11,337 NA NA 777 989 4,817 4,488 8,935 14,694 58,899 Light Industrial 778 3,798 4,034 NA NA 777 989 4,817 4,488 8,935 6,958 35,574 Self Storage 778 3,798 4,034 NA NA 777 989 4,817 4,488 8,935 1,605 30,221 Self Storage(Indoor
water use only)
� 778 3,798 4,034 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1,605 10,215 Hotel/Motel 872 4,256 4,521 NA 3,269 777 1,039 5,010 4,668 9,292 5,231 38,935 RV Park Space 872 4,256 4,521 NA 3,269 396 822 3,998 3,725 7,416 5,385 34,660 For Self Storage(Indoor water use only)any housing units in the facility are charged at the residential rates per square foot.
Sources: Tables 3.6,4.7,5.7,6.7,7.5,8.5,8.7,9.4,9.5 and 10.5.
W I LLDAN 6
Council gendaH2-,18-2025 11.A-24
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Other Funding Needed
Impact fees may only fund the share of public facilities related to new development in Pismo Beach. They may not be used to fund the share of facility needs generated by existing development or by development outside of the City. As shown in Table E.2, approximately $228 million in additional funding will be needed to complete the facility projects the City currently plans to develop. The "Additional Funding Required" column shows non-impact fee funding required to fund a share of the improvements partially funded by impact fees. Non-fee funding is needed because these facilities will serve both existing and development new development.
The City will need to develop alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the planned facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to: existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.
Table E.2: Non-Impact Fee Funding Required
Projected Additional
Net Project Impact Fee Funding
Fee Category Cost, Revenue Required
General Government Facilities $ 2,220,069 $ 2,220,069 $ - Police Facilities 45,557,968 7,033,344 38,524,624 Fire Protection Facilities 19,429,362 5,262,000 14,167,362 Parks - Land Acquisition (Quimby) 8,524,542 8,524,542 - Park Improvements 6,635,107 6,635,107 - Wastewater Facilities 9,722,021 1,522,589 8,199,432 Water System Improvements 11,106,211 1,808,600 9,297,611 State Water Supply 89,898,796 17,505,900 72,392,896 Recycled Water(Water) 11,443,245 8,179,600 3,263,645 Recycled Water(Wastewater) 23,233,255 16,284,400 6,948,855 Traffic Facilities 88,072,698 12,775,370 75,297,328 Total $315,843,274 $87,751,520 $228,091,753 Total project cost net of existing fund balances.
Sources: 3.3,4.6,5.6,6.5,7.3,8.3,8.6,8.8,9.3,9.5 and 10.3. �W 1 LLDAN 7
� sEH� Es
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-25
Attachment 2
1 . Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommodate new development in the City of Pismo Beach. This chapter provides background for the study and explains the study approach under the following sections:
■ Public Facilities Financing in California;
• Study Objectives;
■ Fee Program Maintenance;
■ Study Methodology; and
■ Organization of the Report.
Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 40 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Three dominant trends stand out:
■ The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996; ■ Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses; and
• Steep reductions in federal and state assistance.
Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of"growth pays its own way." This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing ratepayers and taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees also known as public facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes require the approval of property owners and are appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property. Development impact fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit all development jurisdiction-wide. Development impact fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption.
Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Policy F-2 of the Facilities and Services Element states, "The City shall establish impact fee programs to the extent that a nexus can be demonstrated between the cost of providing a facility or service and the needs created by new development." Policy GM-2 of the Growth Management Element of the General Plan states: "All new development within Pismo Beach shall be required to pay its proportionate share for existing or proposed public facilities." The primary purpose of this report is to update the City's impact fees based on the most current available facility plans and growth projections. The proposed fees will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities as new development leads to increases in service demands. This report supports the General Plan policies stated above.
The City collects public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules presented in this report.
�W 1 LLDAN $
� sEH� Es
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-26
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Pismo Beach is forecast to see moderate growth through this study's planning horizon of 2050.
This growth will create an increase in demand for public services and the facilities required to deliver them. Given the revenue challenges described above, Pismo Beach has decided to continue to use a development impact fee program to ensure that new development funds its share of facility costs associated with growth. This report makes use of the most current available growth forecasts and facility plans to update the City's existing fee program to ensure that the fee program accurately represents the facility needs resulting from new development.
Fee Program Maintenance
Once a fee program has been adopted it must be properly maintained to ensure that the revenue collected adequately funds the facilities needed by new development. To avoid collecting inadequate revenue, the inventories of existing facilities and costs for planned facilities must be updated periodically for inflation, and the fees recalculated to reflect the higher costs. The use of established indices for each facility included in the inventories (land, buildings, and equipment), such as the Engineering News-Record, is necessary to accurately adjust the impact fees. For a list of recommended indices, see Chapter 12.
While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for annual or periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, it is recommended to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available. For further detail on fee program implementation, see Chapter 12.
Study Methodology
Development impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The six steps followed in this development impact fee study include:
1. Estimate existing development and future growth: Identify a base year for existing development and a growth forecast that reflects increased demand for public facilities;
2. Identify facility standards: Determine the facility standards used to plan for new and expanded facilities;
3. Determine facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount of planned facilities, and identify the share required to accommodate new development;
4. Determine the cost of facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount and the share of the cost of planned facilities required to accommodate new development;
5. Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facilities costs per unit of new development to calculate the development impact fee schedule; and
6. Identify alternative funding requirements: Determine if any non-fee funding is required to complete projects.
The key public policy issue in development impact fee studies is the identification of facility standards (step #2, above). Facility standards document a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for new facilities. Standards ensure that new development does not fund deficiencies associated with existing development.
Types of Facility Standards
There are three separate components of facility standards:
�W 1 LLDAN 9
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-27
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update ■ Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth, for example, park acres per thousand residents, square feet of library space per capita, or gallons of water per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of service such as the vehicle volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio used in traffic planning. ■ Design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected demand, for example, park improvement requirements and technology infrastructure for City office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our approach incorporates the cost of planned facilities built to satisfy the City's facility design standards.
■ Cost standards are an alternate method for determining the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost standards are useful when demand standards were not explicitly developed for the facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be analyzed based on a single measure (cost or value) and are useful when different facilities are funded by a single fee program. Examples include facility costs per capita, cost per vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per day.
New Development Facility Needs and Costs
A number of approaches are used to identify facility needs and costs to serve new development.
This is often a two-step process: (1) identify total facility needs, and (2) allocate to new development its fair share of those needs.
There are three common methods for determining new development's fair share of planned facilities costs: the system plan method, the planned facilities method, and the existing inventory method. Often the method selected depends on the degree to which the community has engaged in comprehensive facility master planning to identify facility needs.
The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages of each method is summarized below:
Existing Inventory Method
The existing inventory method allocates costs based on the ratio of existing facilities to demand from existing development as follows:
Current Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Development Demand - $/unit of demand
Under this method new development will fund the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. By definition the existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is often used when a long- range plan for new facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual CIP and budget process, possibly after completion of a new facility master plan. This approach is to calculate the parks and recreation facilities fees in this report.
Planned Facilities Method
The planned facilities method allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facility costs to demand from new development as follows:
Cost of Planned Facilities
New Development Demand - $/unit of demand
This method is appropriate when planned facilities will entirely serve new development, or when a fair share allocation of planned facilities to new development can be estimated. An example of the �W I LLDAN 10
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-28
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update former is a wastewater trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. An example of the latter is expansion of an existing library building and book collection, which will be needed only if new development occurs, but which, if built, will in part benefit existing development, as well.
Under this method new development will fund the expansion of facilities at the standards used in the applicable planning documents. This approach is used for the general government facilities, wastewater facilities, water, recycled water and traffic and circulation facilities fees in this report.
System Plan Method
This method calculates the fee based on: the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities, divided by demand from existing plus new development:
Value of Existing Facilities + Cost of Planned Facilities Existing + New Development Demand = $/unit of demand This method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that benefits both existing and new development. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire station solely to new development when that station will operate as part of an integrated system of fire stations that together achieve the desired level of service.
The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies.
Often facility standards based on policies such as those found in General Plans are higher than the existing facility standards. This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency required to bring existing development up to the policy-based standard. The local agency must secure non-fee funding for that portion of planned facilities required to correct the deficiency to ensure that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee. This approach is used to calculate the police facilities and the fire protection facilities fees in this report.
Organization of the Report
The determination of a public facilities fee begins with the selection of a planning horizon and development of growth projections for population and employment. These projections are used throughout the analysis of different facility categories and are summarized in Chapter 2.
Chapters 3 through 10 identify facility standards and planned facilities, allocate the cost of planned facilities between new development and other development, and identify the appropriate development impact fee for each of the following facility categories:
• General Government Facilities 0 Fire Protection Facilities • Wastewater Facilities Recycled Water Facilities ■ Police Facilities ■ Parks and Recreation Facilities ■ Water Facilities ■ Traffic and Circulation Facilities Chapter 11 describes how this study complies with the requirements of AB 602.
Chapter 12 details the procedures that the City must follow when implementing a development impact fee program. Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in California Government Code Sections 66016 through 66018.
The five statutory findings required for adoption of the proposed public facilities fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act are documented in Chapter 13. �W I LLDAN 11
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-29
Attachment 2
2. G rowth Forecasts
Growth projections are used as indicators of demand to determine facility needs and allocate those needs between existing and new development. This chapter explains the source for the growth projections used in this study based on a 2024 base year and a planning horizon of 2050.
Estimates of existing development and projections of future growth are critical assumptions used throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows:
■ The estimate of existing development in 2024 is used as an indicator of existing facility demand and to determine existing facility standards. • The estimate of total development at the 2050 planning horizon is used as an indicator of future demand to determine total facilities needed to accommodate growth and remedy existing facility deficiencies, if any. • Estimates of growth from 2024 through 2050 are used to (1) allocate facility costs between new development and existing development, and (2) estimate total fee revenues.
The demand for public facilities is based on the service population, dwelling units or nonresidential development creating the need for the facilities.
Land Use Types
To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the fee, growth projections distinguish between different land use types. The land use types for which impact fees have been calculated for are defined below. • Single family: Detached and attached one-unit dwellings (Includes single family homes and townhomes). Fees are calculated per square foot of living space. ■ Multifamily: All attached multifamily dwellings including duplexes and condominiums. Fees are calculated per square foot of living space. ■ Mobile Home: All prefabricated mobile dwelling units. Fees are calculated per square foot of living space.
• Retail/Service: All commercial, office, retail, educational, institutional and service development.
■ Office: All general, professional, and medical office development. ■ Light Industrial: All business park, light manufacturing and other light industrial development.
• Self-Storage: Facilities providing self-storage space. ■ Hotels: Commercial lodging facilities providing temporary accommodation. ■ RV Park Spaces: Facilities providing temporary accommodation for recreational vehicles
Some developments may include more than one land use type, such as a mixed-use development with both multifamily and commercial uses. In those cases, the facilities fee would be calculated separately for each land use type.
The City has the discretion to determine which land use type best reflects a development project's characteristics for purposes of imposing an impact fee and may adjust fees for special or unique uses to reflect the impact characteristics of the use. If a project results in the 12 � 1 LLDAN
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-30
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update intensification of use, at its discretion, the City can charge the project the difference in fees between the existing low intensity use and the future high intensity use.
Existing and Future Development
Table 2.1 shows the estimated number of residents, dwelling units, employees, and building square feet in Pismo Beach, both in 2024 and in 2050. The base year estimates of household residents and dwelling units comes from the California Department of Finance. Projected residents in 2050 has been calculated based on the assumed increase in housing units identified in the 2020-28 Housing Element multiplied by the assumed density per unit type as calculated from data from the American Community Survey.
Base year employees were estimated based on the latest data from the US Census' OnTheMap application and exclude 234 local government employees. Estimates of workers in 2050 are based on the SLOCOG Regional Growth Forecast "Low" scenario, allocated to the land use categories based on the current proportion of workers. Retail/service employees are constrained to a 20% increase based on City expertise.
13 � 1 LLDAN
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-31
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 2.1: Existing and New Development
2024 2050 Increase
Residents 7,830 8,576 746
Dwelling Units 1
Single Family 4,131 4,350 219
Multifamily 1,031 1,238 207
Mobile Home 725 725
Total 5,887 6,313 426
Employment 2
Retail/Service 2,860 3,591 731
Office 319 501 182
Light Industrial 206 323 117
Total 3,385 4,415 1,030
Equivalent Building Square Feet (OOOs)3
Retail/Service 1,349 1,694 236
Office 98 154 56
Light Industrial 178 278 101
Total 1,625 2,126 393
Lodgina
Hotel Rooms 1,921 2,800 879
RV Spaces 701 701 -
Total 2,622 3,501 879
Excludes"group quarters"resident populations.Existing residents and dwelling unit estimate from DOF data. Estimates of total residents and housing units in 2050 calculated based on existing density per unit type multiplied by the increase in housing units.Increase in housing units by type estimated based on inventory of realistic unit yield from 2020-28 Housing Dement.
2 Estimate of 3,628 total w orkers from US Census'OnTheMap.ces.census.gov. 243 local government w orkers are excluded from that figure.Estimates of w orkers in 2050 based w ith SLOCOG Regional Grow th Forecast"Low"scenario, allocated based on current proportions. Increase in retail/service employment reduced by 20%based on input from City staff.
3 Equivalent building square feet estimated by dividing workers by employment density assumptions in Table 2.2.
Sources:California Department of Finance(DOF)Table E-5,2024;OnTheMap Application, http://onthemap.ces.census.gov; 2050 Regional Growth Forecast for San Luis Obispo County,SLOCOG,2017;City of Rsmo Beach 2020-2028 Housing Dement;Willdan Financial Services.
14 � 1 LLDAN
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-32
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Occupant Densities
Fees in this report are calculated to be charged per residential square feet, nonresidential building square feet or by commercial lodging units. Occupant density assumptions ensure a reasonable relationship between the size of a development project, the increase in service population associated with the project, and the amount of the fee.
Occupant densities (residents per dwelling unit or workers per building square foot are the most appropriate characteristics to use for most impact fees. The fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely represents the probable occupant density of the development.
The average occupant density factors used in this report are shown in Table 2.2. The residential density factors are based on data for Pismo Beach from the 2022 U.S. Census' American Community Survey.
The nonresidential occupancy factors are derived from data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.
Table 2.2: Occupant Density
Residential
Single Family 1.55 Residents per dwelling unit
Multifamily 0.96 Residents per dwelling unit
Mobile Home 0.89 Residents per dwelling unit
Nonresidential
Retail/Service 2.12 Employees per 1,000 square feet Office 3.26 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Light Industrial 1.16 Employees per 1,000 square feet Self Storage 1.16 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Hotel/Motel 1.30 Occupancy per room'
RV Park Space 1.30 Occupancy per space'
Assumes 65%occupancy,and two visitors per room or RV space.
Sources: U.S.Census Bureau,2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; rrETrip Generation Manual, 11th Ed.;Willdan Financial Services. 15 � 1 LLDAN
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-33
Attachment 2
3. General Government Facilities
The purpose of this fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of general government facilities. City facilities are generally defined as the administrative and public works facilities needed by the City to operate as a municipality. A fee schedule is presented based on the existing facilities standard of general government facilities in the City of Pismo Beach to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs.
Service Population
City facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City's service population including residents and workers.
Table 3.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for general government facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. The 0.31-weighting factor for workers is based on a 40-hour workweek divided by the total number of non-work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development yields a lesser demand for general government facilities.
Table 3.1: General Government Facilities Service Population A B AxB=C
Weighting Service
Persons Factor Population
Residents
Existing (2024) 7,830 1.00 7,830
New Development (2024-2050) 746 1.00 746
Total (2050) 8,576 8,576
Workers
Existing (2024) 3,385 0.31 1,000
New Development (2024-2050) 1,030 0.31 300 Total (2050) 4,415 1,300
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2024) 8,830
New Development (2024-2050) 1,046
Total (2050) 9,876
Workers are weighted at 0.31 of residents based on a 40 hour workweek out of a possible 128 non-w ork hours in a week(40/128=0.31)
Sources:Table 2.1;Willdan Financial Services.
�W 1 LLDAN 16
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-34
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Existing Facility Inventory
The general government facilities inventory is comprised of various facilities including a City Hall, library, Veteran's Hall, former City Hall, Corporation Yard and various vehicles and equipment. In total the City owns approximately $45.6 million worth of general government facilities. Table 3.2 displays the City's existing inventory of general government facilities. The estimates of the cost per acre for the various properties included in this table were provided by the City for use in this analysis. The replacement costs for buildings and vehicles are based on the replacement costs indicated in the City's insured property schedule.
Table 3.2: Existing General Government Facilities Inventory Replacement
Inventory Unit Unit Cost Cost
Land(acres'
City Hall 0.98 acres $ 3,485,477 $ 3,415,768 Former City Hall 1.78 acres 3,485,477 6,204,149 City Corporate Yard 14.51 acres 563,758 8,180,134 Veterans'Hall 2.57 acres 563,758 1,448,070 Pismo Pier Parking Annex 1.26 acres 563,758 710,336 330 Main Street 0.14 acres 10,189,740 1,450,000 320 Main Street 0.07 acres 18,258,427 1,300,000 Shell Beach Library 0.19 acres 563,758 107,114 Subtotal-Land 21.50 $ 22,815,571
Buildings(souare feet)
City Corporate Yard-Maintenance Building 9,672 sq. ft. $ 185 $ 2,138,000 City Corporate Yard-Paint Storage Building 256 sq. ft. 66 22,575 City Corporate Yard-Streets/Parks Building 2,720 sq. ft. 101 364,022 City Hall 15,747 sq. ft. 446 7,902,100
City Hall -Building A 4,718 sq. ft. 309 1,488,000 Former City Hall 13,335 sq. ft. 421 5,620,000
Veterans Hall-Bello Street 9,773 sq. ft. 285 2,879,000 Veterans'Hall-Leeward Ave 4,047 sq. ft. 264 1,084,700 Shell Beach Library2 - sq. ft. - -
Subtotal-Buildings 60,268 sq. ft. 21,498,397
Vehicles 25 vehicles $ 53,168 $ 1,329,200 Total Value-Existing Facilities $ 45,643,168
Value per acre based on an analysis of recently sold land w ithin City limits. z Shell beach library square footage included in Veteran's Hall-Leeward Ave. 3 Building Values include building and contents
Sources:City of Pismo Beach,CBIZ Property Schedule,2024;Willdan Financial Services.
Planned Facilities
Table 3.3 summarizes the planned general government facilities needed to serve the City through 2050, as identified in the City's CIP and IT Master Plan. The City plans to numerous upgrades to expand the capacity of existing general government facilities. New facilities costs are estimated to total approximately $2.2 million through 2050, net of existing impact fee fund balances.
�W 1 LLDAN 17
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-35
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 3.3: Planned General Government Facilities and Equipment Project Name Description Estimated Cost Upgrade of the capacity of the City's digital video storage to meet new Digital Video Storage state standards $ 220,000 Construct additional driveway to the Addie Street Parking allowing for additional on street parking on Addie Street past where the bollards Addie Street Parking&Access Improvements are currently located 100,000 Finance Records Retention Compliance for General Ledger and Finance Records GL Payroll Payroll 30,000
Equipment to make the electronic plan check process more efficient Electronic Plan Check Equip and provide increased customer service 60,000 Financial Management System Impementation of electronic timecards 77,574 Permitting software upgrade Replacement or enhancement of the City's permitting software 175,000 Upgrading the operating systems of the City's virtual servers to provide Server Upgrades the latest cybersecurity patches and support 15,200 IT Room Improvements City Hall IT Room improvements 40,000 Financial Mgmt System Electronic travel forms and reimbursement process 25,000 Focuses on process review and plan to improve the budget creation Budget Process Improvements process. 15,000 Downtown wireless network for public safety,smart city initiatives and Downtown Public and Staff Wireless possible public use. 200,000 Conduct a needs assessment and work with vendor to
develop/implement an improvement plan that closes functionality Enterprise Asset Management System Improvements gaps. 100,000 Improvements to internal/inter-departmental online communications Intranet and resources 40,000
Close functional gaps,implement new modules,integrations and end Human Resources System user training 75,000 Kiosks Automated citizen service kiosks 25,000 Install state of the art data storage systems to improve reliability and resiliency of the City's IT systems.System improvements are also City Data Storage Systems needed to meet and enforce new records management policies. 101,686 Kiosks Automated citizen service kiosks 25,000 Land Management System Gap Analysis and
Improvements Identified in Technology Master Plan 175,000 Fleet Management System Identified in Technology Master Plan 50,000 Electronic Content Management System(ECMS)
Improvements Identified in Technology Master Plan 150,000 Time and Attendance System Identified in Technology Master Plan 50,000 ERP Gap Analysis and Utilization Improvements Identified in Technology Master Plan 125,000 Smart Parking(Meter and Management) Identified in Technology Master Plan 100,000 GIS Assessment and Plan Identified in Technology Master Plan 50,000 Internet Bandwidth Identified in Technology Master Plan 100,000 Energy Efficiency Project New CREBs See Appendix Table A.1 329,128 Total $ 2,453,588
Less Existing Fund Balance 233,519
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 2,220,069
Source:Qty of Pis=Beach Ten-Year Capital Improvement Ran And Major Expenditures for FY 2024-2033;li Master Plan;Appendix Table A.1;Willdan Financial Services.
Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 3.4 expresses the City's current general government facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only.
18 W"W I LLDAN
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-36
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 3.4: General Government Facilities Existing Standard Value of Existing Facilities $ 45,643,168
Existing Service Population 8,830
Cost per Capita $ 5,169
Facility Standard per Resident $ 5,169
Facility Standard per Worker 1,602
Based on a weighing factor of 0.31.
Sources: Tables 3.1,3.2 and 3.3.
Future Level of Service
Table 3.5 shows the cost per capita needed to fully fund the planned facilities by new development. The level of service indicated by the planned facilities is lower than the existing standard level of service. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing the net cost of planned facilities by the increase in population.
Table 3.5: General Government Facilities Planned Facilities Standard
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 2,220,069 Growth in Service Population (2024 to 2050) 1,046
Cost per Capita $ 2,122
Cost Allocation per Resident $ 2,122
Cost Allocation per Worker 658
Based on a weighting factor of 0.31.
Sources: Tables 3.1,3.2 and 3.3.
Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use general government facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, and equipment that are part of the system of general government facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 3.3 Fee Schedule
Table 3.6 shows the maximum justified general government facilities fee schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The fee per average sized �W 1 LLDAN 19
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-37
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update residential unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a residential unit.
The total fee includes a two-percent (2.0%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting.
In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, two-percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.
Table 3.6: General Government Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C=AxB D=Cx0.02 E=C+D F=E/Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee' Charge'°s Total Fees Sq. Ft.3 Residential
Single Family $ 2,122 1.55 $ 3,290 $ 66 $ 3,356 $ 1.29 Multifamily 2,122 0.96 2,038 41 2,079 1.89 Mobile Home 2,122 0.89 1,889 38 1,927 1.34
Nonresidential
Retail/Service $ 658 2.12 $ 1,395 $ 28 $ 1,423 1.42 Office 658 3.26 2,145 43 2,188 2.19 Light Industrial 658 1.16 763 15 778 0.78 Self Storage 658 1.16 763 15 778 0.78
Hotel/Motel 658 1.30 855 17 872 0.87 RV Park Space 658 1.30 855 17 872 0.87
Fee per dwelling unit,per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential,or per room for hotel. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2)impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes average single family unit is 2,589 square feet.Assumes average mulfitamily unit is 1,100 square feet.Assumes average mobile home is 1,440 square feet.
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 3.5.
�W 1 LLDAN 20
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-38
Attachment 2
4. Police Facilities
The purpose of this fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of police facilities.
A fee schedule is presented based on the planned facilities standard of police facilities in the City of Pismo Beach to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs.
Service Population
Police facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City's service population including residents and workers.
Table 4.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for police facilities. To calculate the service population for police facilities, residents are weighted at 1.00. The use of a worker demand factor of 0.66 for workers in Pismo Beach is based on an analysis of police department call data, categorized by land use, in the City from between August 2023 and 2024.
Annual calls for service at residential land uses were divided by the residential population to yield an annual calls-per-capita factor. Dividing annual calls for service at nonresidential areas by annual employment in the City yielded a comparable per-capita factor. The ratio of the worker per capita factor to the resident per capita factor is the worker demand factor used in the analysis.
Table 4.1: Police Facilities Service Population
A B AxB=C
Weighting Service
Persons Factor Population
Residents
Existing (2024) 7,830 1.00 7,830
New Development (2024-2050) 746 1.00 746 Total (2050) 8,576 8,576
Workers
Existing (2024) 3,385 0.66 2,200
New Development (2024-2050) 1,030 0.66 700 Total (2050) 4,415 2,900
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2024) 10,030
New Development (2024-2050) 1,446
Total (2050) 11,476
Workers are weighted at 0.66 of residents based on an analysis of calls for service within the City betw een August 2023 and August 2024.
Sources:Table 2.1;Willdan Financial Services.
�W 1 LLDAN 21
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-39
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Existing Facility Inventory
The City's police facilities inventory is comprised of the police station and various vehicles and equipment. In total the City owns approximately $10.3 million worth of police facilities. Table 4.2 displays the City's existing police facility inventory. The estimates of the cost per acre for the various properties included in this table were provided by the City for use in this analysis. The replacement costs for buildings and vehicles are based on the replacement costs indicated in the City's insured property schedule.
Table 4.2: Existing Police Facilities Inventory
Inventory Unit Unit Cost Value
Police Station
Land' 0.89 acres $ 3,485,477 $ 3,102,000
Police Station 7,947 sq. ft. 707 5,616,700
Police Carport 2,900 sq. ft. 109 315,486
Vehicles 22 vehicles 55,800 1,227,600
Total Existing Facilities $10,261,786
Land values provided by the City of Pismo Beach.
Sources:City of Pismo Beach;Willdan Financial Services.
Planned Facilities
Table 4.3 summarizes the planned police facilities needed to serve the City through 2050, as identified by the City. The City plans to build a new public safety center and make various upgrades to its existing law enforcement technology systems. The public safety facility will be jointly shared by the police and fire departments. The portion of the facility costs associated with the police department are shown below. The City estimates that 69.7% of the facility will be used for police purposes. The cost of the public safety center also includes financing costs and the discounted value of future interest payments, in order to reflect the true cost that the City will incur to build the facility. In total, planned police facilities costs are estimated to total approximately $45.6 million through 2050, net of existing impact fee fund balances. 22 � 1 LLDAN
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-40
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 4.3: Planned Police Facilities and Equipment
Project Name Estimated Cost
Security Camera System $ 340,000
Police Scheduling and Time Tracking System 80,000
Evidence Management System 30,000
Electronic Ticketing/Citation System 50,000
Drone Programs 20,000
Radio System Upgrades 245,000
Subtotal $ 765,000
Public Safety Center $ 39,475,000
Financing Costs 1,830,407
Discounted Value of Future Interest Payments 23,096,358 Total Cost - Public Safety Center $ 64,401,765 Allocation to Police Facilities 69.7%
Subtotal - Public Safety Center Police Allocation $ 44,888,031 Subtotal - Project Costs $ 45,653,031
Less Exsting Fund Balance 95,062
Net Cost of Planned Police Facilities $ 45,557,968 Source:City of Bsmo Beach.
Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 4.4 expresses the City's current police facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only. Once the planned facilities have been constructed and new development has increased the City's service population the resulting facility cost per capita will be higher than the cost per capita shown in Table 4.4. The increased facility standard is needed to ensure that the City has adequate facilities to provide police services to the City. 23 � 1 LLDAN
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-41
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 4.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities $ 10,261,786
Existing Service Population 10,030
Cost per Capita $ 1,023
Facility Standard per Resident $ 1,023
Facility Standard per Worker' 675
Based on a weighing factor of 0.66.
Sources: Tables 4.1 and 4.2;Willdan Financial Services.
Future Level of Service
Table 4.5 shows new development's projected per capita investment in police facilities at the planning horizon. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon.
The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.66 to determine the value per worker.
Table 4.5: Police Facilities System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities $ 10,261,786
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 45,557.968
Total System Value (2050) $ 55,819,754
Future Service Population (2050) 11,476
Cost per Capita $ 4,864
Cost Allocation per Resident $ 4,864
Facility Standard per Worker' 3,210
Based on a weighing factor of 0.66.
Sources: Tables 4.1,4.2 and 4.3;Willdan Financial Services.
Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use police facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, and equipment that are part of the system of police facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 4.3
�W 1 LLDAN 24
� sEH� Es
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-42
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Non-Fee Funding Required
Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in Pismo Beach. Impact fee revenue may not be used to increase the level of service provided to existing development. Therefore, impact fee revenue will not fully fund the planned police facilities and some non-fee funding will be required. Table 4.6 shows the projected fee revenue and the non-fee funding required through buildout. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue, approximately $38.5 million in non-fee funding will be needed to complete the planned police facilities.
The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the planned police facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.
Table 4.6: Non-Impact Fee Funding Required
Cost per Capita $ 4,864
Growth in Service Population (2024-2050) 1,446
Fee Revenue $ 7,033,344
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 45,557,968
Additional Funding Required $ 38,524,624
Sources:Tables 4.1 and 4.5.
Fee Schedule
Table 4.7 shows the maximum justified police facilities fee schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The fee per average sized residential unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a residential unit.
The total fee includes a two-percent (2.0%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting.
In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, two-percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.
�W 1 LLDAN 25
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-43
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 4.7: Police Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C=AxB D=Cx0.02 E=C+D F=E/Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee' Charge 1,2 Total Fee Sq. Ft.3 Residential
Single Family $ 4,864 1.55 $ 7,539 $ 151 $ 7,690 2.96 Multifamily 4,864 0.96 4,669 93 4,762 4.33 Mobile Home 4,864 0.89 4,329 87 4,416 3.07 Nonresidential
Retail/Service $ 3,210 2.12 $ 6,806 $ 136 $ 6,942 6.94 Office 3,210 3.26 10,465 209 10,674 10.67 Light Industrial 3,210 1.16 3,724 74 3,798 3.80 Self Storage 3,210 1.16 3,724 74 3,798 3.80 Hotel/Motel 3,210 1.30 4,173 83 4,256 4.26 RV Park Space 3,210 1.30 4,173 83 4,256 4.26 Fee per dwelling unit,per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential,or per roomfor hotel. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2)in-pact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes average single family unit is 2,589 square feet.Assumes average mulfitamily unit is 1,100 square feet.
Assumes average mobile home is 1,440 square feet.
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 4.5.
�W 1 LLDAN 26
� sEH� Es
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-44
Attachment 2
5. Fire Protection Facilities
The purpose of the fire impact fee is to fund the fire protection facilities needed to serve new development. An impact fee is presented based on the planned facilities standard of fire protection facilities per capita.
Service Population
Fire protection facilities are used to provide services to both residents and businesses in the City of Pismo Beach. The service population used to determine the demand for fire protection facilities includes both residents and workers. Table 5.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for fire protection facilities. To calculate the service population for fire protection facilities, residents are weighted at 1.00. The use of a worker demand factor of 1.52 for workers in Pismo Beach is based on an analysis of police department call data, categorized by land use, in the City in 2022 and 2023. Annual calls for service at residential land uses were divided by the residential population to yield an annual calls-per-capita factor. Dividing annual calls for service at nonresidential areas by annual employment in the City yielded a comparable per-capita factor.
The ratio of the worker per capita factor to the resident per capita factor is the worker demand factor used in the analysis.
Table 5.1: Fire Protection Facilities Service Population A B AxB=C
Weighting Service
Persons Factor' Population
Residents
Existing (2024) 7,830 1.00 7,830
New Development (2024-2050) 746 1.00 746 Total (2050) 8,576 8,576
Workers
Existing (2024) 3,385 1.52 5,100
New Development (2024-2050) 1,030 1.52 1,600 Total (2050) 4,415 6,700
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2024) 12,930
New Development (2024-2050) 2,346
Total (2050) 15,276
Workers are weighted at 1.52 of residents based on an analysis of calls for service within the City between January 2022 and December 2023.
Sources:Table 2.1;Willdan Financial Services.
�W 1 LLDAN 27
F tinN a sENv�E,
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-45
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Existing Facility Inventory
Table 5.2 presents an inventory of existing fire protection facilities, including land, two station buildings, vehicles and apparatus in Pismo Beach. The estimates of the cost per acre for the various properties included in this table were provided by the City for use in this analysis. The replacement costs for buildings and vehicles are based on the replacement costs indicated in the City's insured property schedule. In total, the replacement cost of the City's existing fire protection facilities is$14.8 million.
Table 5.2: Existing Fire Protection Facilities Inventory Replacement
Inventory Unit Unit Cost Cost
Fire Station 63
Land 0.22 acres $ 7,521,964 $ 1,655,000
Building 288 sq. ft. 48 13,796
Subtotal $ 1,668,796
Fire Station 64
Land' 2.44 acres $ 3,485,477 $ 8,505,000
Building 3,848 sq. ft. 503 1,933,899 Subtotal $ 10,438,899
Vehicles and Apparatus $ 2,731,200
Total Value, Existing Facilities $ 14,838,895
Sources:City of Pismo Beach,CBIZ Property Schedule,2024;Willdan Financial Services.
Planned Facilities
Table 5.3 summarizes the planned public facilities needed to serve the City through 2050, as identified by the City. The City plans to construct a new public safety center. The facility will be jointly shared by the police and fire departments. The portion of the facility costs associated with the police department are shown below. The City estimates that 30.3% of the facility will be used for fire department purposes. The cost of the public safety center also includes financing costs and the discounted value of future interest payments, in order to reflect the true cost that the City will incur to build the facility. In total, planned fire protection facilities costs are estimated to total approximately$19.4 million through 2050, net of existing impact fee fund balances. �W 1 LLDAN 28
F tinN a sENv�E,
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-46
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 5.3: Planned Fire Protection Facilities
Project Name Estimated Cost
Public Safety Center $ 39,475,000
Financing Costs 1,830,407
Discounted Value of Future Interest Payments 23,096,358 Total Cost - Public Safety Center $ 64,401,765 Allocation to Fire Facilities 30.3%
Total Cost of Planned Facilities 19,513,735
Less Existing Fund Balance 84,373
Total Cost of Planned Facilities $ 19,429,362
Source:City of Pismo Beach.
Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 5.4 expresses the City's current fire protection facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only.
Once the planned facilities have been constructed and new development has increased the City's service population the resulting facility cost per capita will be higher than the cost per capita shown in Table 5.4. The increased facility standard is needed to ensure that the City has adequate facilities to provide police services to the City.
Table 5.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities $ 14,838,895
Existing Service Population 12,930
Cost per Capita $ 1,148
Facility Standard per Resident $ 1,148
Facility Standard per Worker 1,745
Based on a weighing factor of 1.52.
Sources: Tables 5.1 and 5.2; Willdan Financial Services.
Future Level of Service
Table 5.5 shows new development's projected per capita investment in police facilities at the planning horizon. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon. �W 1 LLDAN 29
F tinN a sENv�E,
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-47
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 1.52 to determine the value per worker.
Table 5.5: Fire Protection Facilities System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities $ 14,838,895
Value of Planned Facilities 19,429,362
Total System Value (2050) $ 34,268,257
Future Service Population (2050) 15,276
Cost per Capita $ 2,243
Cost Allocation per Resident $ 2,243
Facility Standard per Worker' 3,409
Based on a weighing factor of 1.52.
Sources: Tables 5.1,5.2 and 5.3; Willdan Financial Services.
Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use fire protection facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, and equipment that are part of the system of fire protection facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 5.3.
Non-Fee Funding Required
Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in Pismo Beach. Impact fee revenue may not be used to increase the level of service provided to existing development. Therefore, impact fee revenue will not fully fund the planned fire protection facilities and some non-fee funding will be required. Table 5.6 shows the projected fee revenue and the non-fee funding required through buildout. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue, approximately $14.2 million in non-fee funding will be needed to complete the planned fire protection facilities.
The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the planned fire protection facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants. �W 1 LLDAN 30
F tinN a sENv E,
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-48
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 5.6: Non-Impact Fee Funding Required
Cost per Capita $ 2,243
Growth in Service Population (2024-2050) 2,346
Fee Revenue $ 5,262,000
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 19,429,362
Additional Funding Required $(14,167,362)
Sources:Tables 5.1 and 5.5.
Fee Schedule
Table 5.7 shows the maximum justified fire protection facilities fee schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The fee per average sized residential unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a residential unit.
The total fee includes a two-percent (2.0%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting.
In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, two-percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.
�W 1 LLDAN 31
F tinN a sENv�E,
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-49
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 5.7: Fire Protection Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C=AxB D=Cx0.02 E-C+D F=E/Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Feel Charge°2 Total Feel Sq. Ft.3 Residential
Single Family $ 2,243 1.55 $ 3,477 $ 70 $ 3,547 1.37 Multifamily 2,243 0.96 2,153 43 2,196 2.00 Mobile Home 2,243 0.89 1,996 40 2,036 1.41
Nonresidential
Retail/Service $ 3,409 2.12 $ 7,228 $ 145 $ 7,373 7.37 Office 3,409 3.26 11,115 222 11,337 11.34 Light Industrial 3,409 1.16 3,955 79 4,034 4.03 Self Storage 3,409 1.16 3,955 79 4,034 4.03 Hotel/Motel 3,409 1.30 4,432 89 4,521 4.52 RV Park Space 3,409 1.30 4,432 89 4,521 4.52 Fee per dwelling unit,per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential,or per room for hotel. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2)impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes average single family unit is 2,589 square feet.Assumes average mulfitamily unit is 1,100 square feet.Assumes average mobile home is 1,440 square feet.
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 5.5.
�W 1 LLDAN 32
F tinN a sENv�E,
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-50
Attachment 2
6. Park and Recreation Facilities
The purpose of the parkland and park facilities impact fee is to fund the park facilities needed to serve new development. The maximum justified impact fee is presented based on the existing standard of park and recreation facilities per capita.
Service Population
Table 6.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for park and recreation facilities. Fees in-lieu of parkland dedication charged under the Quimby Act, can only be charged to residential development. Fees for the improvement of parkland, charged under the Mitigation Fee Act can also be charged to nonresidential development. In this case, the City's existing fee program charges park improvement fees to residential development and to hotels and RV park spaces. This analysis weights demand for guests at 50%that of demand of a resident.
Table 6.1: Parks and Recreation Facilities Service Population A B AxB=C
Weighting Service
Persons Factor' Population
Residents
Existing (2024) 7,830 1.00 7,830
New Development (2024-2050) 746 1.00 746 Total (2050) 8,576 8,576
Guests 2
Existing (2024) 3,409 0.50 1,700
New Development (2024-2050) 1,143 0.50 600 Total (2050) 4,552 2,300
Combined
Existing (2024) 9,530
New Development (2024-2050) 1,346
Total (2050) 10,876
Hotel and RV guests assumed to create half the demand for parks and recreation facilities compared to residents.
2 Rooms and RV sites multiplied by occupancy factors from Table 2.2.
Sources:Table 2.1;Willdan Financial Services.
Existing Park and Recreation Facilities Inventory
The City of Pismo Beach owns and maintains several park and recreation facilities throughout the city. Table 6.2 summarizes the City's existing parkland inventory in 2024. All facilities are located within the City limits. The inventory also includes open space land and distinguishes the acreage accordingly. In total, the inventory includes a total of 89.65 acres of parkland and open space. �W 1 LLDAN 33
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-51
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 6.2: Existing Parkland Inventory
Open
Assessor's Developed Space
Description Parcel No. Park Acres Acres Total Acres Boosinger Park 005-018-006 0.34 - 0.34
Boosinger Park 005-018-018 0.13 - 0.13
Boosinger Park 005-018-017 0.13 - 0.13
Boosinger Park 005-018-016 0.13 - 0.13
Boosinger Park 005-018-019 0.12 - 0.12
Chumash Park 005-281-024 37.05 - 37.05
Dinosaur Caves Park 005-251-007 10.00 - 10.00 Highland Park 005-385-055 2.85 - 2.85 Ira Lease Park 005-143-006 0.56 - 0.56 Mary Harrington Park 005-145-001 0.98 - 0.98 Ocean Park 010-243-037 0.57 - 0.57
Palisades Park 010-551-048 2.10 - 2.10
South Palisades Park 010-142-025 0.36 - 0.36 South Palisades Park 010-142-012 0.48 - 0.48 Ira Lease Park 005-143-008 0.24 - 0.24 Bluff(Ocean between Capistrano/Placentia) 010-302-001 0.08 - 0.08 Ebb Tide Park 010-143-015 0.72 - 0.72 Memory Park 010-505-017 0.15 - 0.15
South Palisades Park 010-141-051 0.65 - 0.65 South Palisades Park 010-141-028 0.41 - 0.41 Price Historical Park 005-271-019 4.10 - 4.10 Shell Beach Park 010-144-024 1.04 - 1.04
Sports Complex 005-271-003 4.47 - 4.47
Sports Complex 005-271-003 1.64 - 1.64
Spyglass Park 010-051-002 1.22 - 1.22
Spyglass Park 010-051-001 1.60 - 1.60
Tennis Courts 005-036-008 0.30 - 0.30 Tennis Courts 010-551-049 2.45 - 2.45 Open Space 005-282-062 - 4.64 4.64
Open Space 005-242-027 - 1.13 1.13
Open Space 005-381-081 - 0.77 0.77
Open Space 005-031-023 - 0.51 0.51
Open Space 010-043-009 - 1.14 1.14
Open Space 010-051-011 - 1.55 1.55 Open Space 010-144-023 - 0.74 0.74
Open Space 010-141-044 - 0.46 0.46
Open Space 010-141-041 - 0.10 0.10 Open Space Ventana 005-281-025 - 3.77 3.77 Grand Total 74.85 14.80 89.65
Source:City of Pismo Beach.
*�W I LLDAN 34
I-sEH� Es
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-52
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs
Table 6.3 displays the unit costs necessary to develop parkland in Pismo Beach. Land acquisition is estimated at $2.3 million per acre based on an analysis of sold land within the City in the previous ten years, as reported by CoStar. An estimate of $985,900 per acre for standard parkland improvements was used based on the assumption for park improvement costs from the prior fee study, adjusted for inflation into 2024 dollars. In total, this analysis assumes a cost of $3.3 million to acquire and improve an acre of parkland in Pismo Beach.
Table 6.3: Parkland Unit Costs
Share of
Cost per Parkland
Acre Costs
Standard Park Improvements' $ 985,900 30%
Land Acquisition 2,285,400 70%
Total Cost per Acre $3,271,300 100%
Note:Figures have been rounded.
Based on assumed park improvement costs from 2018 impact fee study,adjusted for inflaltion to 2024 based on ENR's Construction Cost Index. 2 Value per acre based on an analysis of recently sold land within City limits.
Sources:Willdan Financial Services.
Park Facility Standards
Park facility standards establish a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for expanded park facilities. Information regarding the City's existing inventory of existing parks facilities was obtained from City staff.
The most common measure in calculating new development's demand for parks is the ratio of park acres per resident. In general, facility standards may be based on a jurisdiction's existing inventory of park facilities, or an adopted policy standard contained in a master facility plan or general plan. Facility standards may also be based on a land dedication standard established by the Quimby Act.1
Quimby Act Standard
The Quimby Act specifies that the dedication requirement must be a minimum of 3.0 acres and a maximum of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. A jurisdiction can require residential developers to dedicate above the three-acre minimum if the jurisdiction's existing park standard at the time it adopted its Quimby Act ordinance justifies the higher level (up to five acres per 1,000 residents).
The standard used must also conform to the jurisdiction's adopted general or specific plan standards.
The Quimby Act only applies to land subdivisions. The Quimby Act would not apply to residential development on future approved projects on single parcels, such as apartment complexes and other multifamily development.
1 California Government Code§66477.
�W 1 LLDAN 35
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-53
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update The Quimby Act allows payment of a fee in lieu of land dedication. The fee is calculated to fund acquisition of the same amount of land that would have been dedicated.
The Quimby Act allows use of in-lieu fee revenue for any park or recreation facility purpose.
Allowable uses of this revenue include land acquisition, park improvements including recreation facilities, and rehabilitation of existing park and recreation facilities.
City of Pismo Beach Park Facilities Standards
To calculate new development's need for new parks, municipalities commonly use a ratio expressed in terms of developed park acres per 1,000 residents. Table 6.4 documents the City's Quimby Act standard. Because the City's standard is over five acres per 1,000 residents, the applicable standard is the maximum allowed under the Quimby Act of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. Fees for development not occurring in subdivisions charged under the Mitigation Fee Act will also be calculated at the 5.0 acres per 1,000 resident standard for consistency, but will also include weighted overnight guests in the service population.
Table 6.4: Parkland Standards
Mitigation Fee Act
Quimby Acti (Improvements)2
Improved Park Acreage 74.85 74.85
Service Population 8,072 9,530
Existing Standard (Acres per 1,000 Capita) 9.27 7.85 Policy Standard (Quimby Act)3 5.00 5.00
Service population consists of residents only as of the last Federal Census(2020). 2 Service population consists of residents plus weighted guests. 3 A maximum standard of 5 acres per 1,000 capita is allow ed under the Quimby Act. The standard under the Mitigation Fee Act is capped at the same figure to be consistent.
Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6.2.
Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development
Table 6.5 shows the park facilities needed to accommodate new development at the standard of
5.0 acres per 1,000 capita. To achieve the standard by the planning horizon, new development must fund the acquisition of 3.73 acres and the improvement of the equivalent of 6.73 parkland acres, at a total cost of approximately$15.2 million.
�W 1 LLDAN 36
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-54
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 6.5: Park Facilities to Accommodate New Development Calculation Parkland Improvements Total
Parkland(Quimby Act), Improvements(Mitigation Fee Act)
Facility Standard(acres/1,000 capita) A 5.00 5.00 Service Population Growth(2024-2050)' B 746 1,346 Facility Needs (acres) C=(B11,000)xA 3.73 6.73 Average Unit Cost(per acre) D $ 2,285,400 $ 985,900 Total Cost of Parkland To Serve New Development E=CxD $ 8,524,542 $ 6,635,107 $15,159,649 Service population growth for the Quimby Act only includes residential development in subdivisions. Service population growth for the park improvement fee includes residents and weighted guests.
Sources:Tables 6.1 and 6.3.
Parks and Recreation Facilities Cost per Capita
Table 6.6 shows the cost per capita of providing new parkland and park facilities at the 5.0-acre facility standard. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements. First, the per acre unit costs are multiplied by the acreage standards to determine the total amount of costs needed to serve 1,000 residents for land and improvements. Then, those costs are divided by 1,000 to determine the cost needed to serve one resident. Finally, the improvement costs per resident are weighted at 0.50 to represent the cost to serve one overnight guest.
Table 6.6: Park Facilities Cost per Capita
Land Improvements
Calculation Quimby Fee Impact Fee Impact Fee
Parkland Investment (per acre) A $ 2,285,400 $ 2,285,400 $ 985,900 Facility Standard (acres per
1,000 service pop.) B 5.00 5.00 5.00 Total Cost per 1,000 capita C=Ax B $ 11,427,000 $ 11,427,000 $ 4,930,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Cost per Resident D=C/1,000 $ 11,427 $ 11,427 $ 4,930 Cost per Guest E=D x 0.50 $ 2,465
Sources: Tables 6.3 and 6.5.
Use of Fee Revenue
The City plans to use park and recreation facilities fee revenue to purchase parkland or construct improvements to add to the system of park facilities that serves new development. The City may only use impact fee revenue to provide facilities and intensify usage of existing facilities needed to serve new development.
�W 1 LLDAN 37
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-55
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Fee Schedule
To calculate fees by land use type, the investment in park facilities is determined on a per resident basis for both land acquisition and improvement. This investment factor (shown in Table
6.7) is the investment per capita based on the unit cost estimates and facility standards.
Table 6.7 shows the maximum justified park and recreation facilities fee based on the policy standard of 5.0 acres per capita under the Quimby Act and under the Mitigation Fee Act, respectively. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per dwelling unit using the occupancy density factors from Table 2.2. The fee per average sized residential unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a residential unit.
The total fee includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, two-percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.
�W 1 LLDAN 38
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-56
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 6.7: Park Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
A B C=AxB D=CX0.02 E=C+D F=E/Average
Cost Per Base Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Densi Feel Charge'°2 Total Fee' Sq. Ft.' Quimby Act-Subdivisions
Residential-Single Family
Parkland $ 11,427 1.55 $ 17,712 $ 354 $ 18,066 $ 6.95 Improvements 4,930 1.55 7,642 153 7,794 3.00 Total $ 25,860 $ 9.95
Residential-Multifamily
Parkland $ 11,427 0.96 $ 10,970 $ 219 $ 11,189 $ 10.17 Improvements 4,930 0.96 4,733 95 4,827 4.39 Total $ 16,017 $ 14.56
Residential-Mobile Homes
Parkland $ 11,427 0.89 $ 10,170 $ 203 $ 10,373 $ 7.20 Improvements 4,930 0.89 4,388 88 4,475 3.11 Total $ 14,849 $ 10.31
Mitigation Fee Act-Infill
Residential-Single Family
Parkland $ 11,427 1.55 $ 17,712 $ 354 $ 18,066 $ 7.01 Improvements 4,930 1.55 7,642 153 7,794 3.03 Total $ 25,860 $ 10.04
Residential-Multifamily -
Parkland $ 11,427 0.96 $ 10,970 $ 219 $ 11,189 $ 4.34 Improvements 4,930 0.96 4,733 95 4,827 1.87 Total $ 16,017 $ 6.21
Residential-Mobile Homes
Parkland $ 11,427 0.89 $ 10,170 $ 203 $ 10,373 $ 4.03 Improvements 4,930 0.89 4,388 88 4,475 1.74 Total $ 14,849 $ 5.77
Hotel Room or RV Park Space
Improvements 2,465 1.30 3,205 64 $ 3,269 Total $ 3,269
Fee per dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space,hotel room or RV Park Space. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2)impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes average single family unit is 2,589 square feet.Assumes average mulfitamily unit is 1,100 square feet.Assumes average mobile home is 1,440 square feet.
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 6.6.
�W 1 LLDAN 39
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-57
Attachment 2
7. Wastewater Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for wastewater related facilities to accommodate growth within the City of Pismo Beach. It documents a reasonable relationship between new development and a wastewater fee to fund wastewater facilities that serve new development.
Wastewater Demand
Estimates of new development and its consequent increased wastewater demand provide the basis for calculating the wastewater facilities fee. The need for wastewater facilities improvements is based on the wastewater demand placed on the system by development. A typical measure of demand is a flow generation rate, expressed as the number of gallons per day generated by a specific type of land use. Flow generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City's system of wastewater improvements because they represent the average rate of demand that will be placed on the system per land use designation.
Table 7.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors based on flow generation by land use category. The flow generation estimates consistent with the City's prior impact fee studies. EDU factors express demand for wastewater facilities in terms of the demand created by a single-family dwelling unit.
Table 7.1: Wastewater Demand by Land Use
Average
Flow
Land Use Type Generation' EDU
Residential
Single Family 196 1.00
Multifamily 144 0.73
Mobile Home 128 0.65
Nonresidential
Retail/Service 100 0.51
Office 100 0.51
Light Industrial 100 0.51
Self Storage 100 0.51
Hotel/Motel 100 0.51
RV Park Space 50 0.26
Gallons per day per dwelling unit(DU),thousand square feet(KSF), hotel/motel room or RV park space.
Sources:City of Rismo Beach,Development Impact Fee Update Study, MAXIMUS,2004;Willdan Financial Services.
EDU Generation by New Development
Table 7.2 shows the estimated EDU generation from new development through 2050. New development will generate approximately 1,019 new EDUs inside the city limits, representing
12.2-percent of total wastewater demand in 2050.
�W 1 LLDAN 40
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-58
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 7.2: Wastewater Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units EDU Projected
EDU Existing Growth Existing Growth in
Factor DU/KSF DU/KSF EDUs EDUs Total Residential
Single Family 1.00 4,131 219 4,131 219 4,350 Multifamily 0.73 1,031 207 753 151 904
Mobile Home 0.65 725 - 471 471
Subtotal 5,887 426 5,355 370 5,725
Nonresidential
Retail/Service 0.51 1,349 236 688 120 808
Office 0.51 98 56 50 29 79
Light Industrial 0.51 178 101 91 52 143 Hotel Rooms 0.51 1,921 879 980 448 1,428 RV Spaces 0.26 701 - 182 - 182
Subtotal 4,247 1,272 1,991 649 2,640
Total 7,346 1,019 8,365
Percent of Total 87.8% 12.2% 100.0%
Per dwelling unit(residential)or thousand building square feet(nonresidential)or hotel room.
Sources:Tables 2.1 and 7.1,Willdan Financial Services.
Facility Needs and Costs
Table 7.3 identifies the planned wastewater facilities to be funded by the fee. Some projects benefit both existing and new development, and others only benefit existing development.
Projects that do not benefit new development are not allocated to the impact fee. All other project costs are allocated to the impact fee based on new development's proportional share of demand in 2050.
In addition to project costs, the present value of the cost of existing and future debt service is also funded partially through this fee. For future debt service, since the project costs are listed in the CIP, a share of the interest costs is included in the calculation. For existing debt service where the projects are not listed in the CIP, a share of the present value of future debt service payments (including interest and principal)are allocated to the impact fee.
In total, over $1.5 million worth of wastewater facilities projects is allocated to new development through this methodology.
�W 1 LLDAN 41
� sEH� Es
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-59
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 7.3: Planned Wastewater Facilities
Cost
Allocation to Allocated to
Total New New
Project Cost Development Development
Capital Improvement Projects
Addie Street Force Main $ 200,000 12.2% $ 24,400 Advanced Metering Infrastructure 2,500,000 12.2% 305,000 Sea Ridge Court Force Main location 600,000 12.2% 73,200 Update Sewer System ManagementPlant (SSMP) 250,000 12.2% 30,500 Sunset and Pismo Oaks Lift Station 2,000,000 12.2% 244,000 Infiltration Inflow 81,380 12.2% 9,900
Wastewater Master Plan 150,000 12.2% 18,300 Sludge Dewatering 2,047,136 12.2% 249,800
Subtotal $ 7,828,516 $ 955,100
Debt Service Costs
Five Cities Lift Station $ 1,482,831 12.2% $ 180,905 Pismo Oaks Lift Station 191,917 12.2% 23,414 Park Cypress Interceptor 14,646 12.2% 1,787 Energy Efficiency Project 2,962,154 12.2% 361,383 Subtotal $ 4,651,548 $ 567,489
Total Cost $12,480,064 $ 1,522,589
Discounted to 2024 dollars. See Appendix Table A.S. Principal and interest costs are included because project costs are not included in the CIP.
Source:City of Pismo Beach Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plan And Major Expenditures for FY 2024-2033 Cost per EDU
The cost of planned facilities allocated to new development in Table 7.3 is divided by the total growth in EDUs to determine the cost per EDU. Table 7.4 details the results of this calculation.
Table 7.4: Cost per EDU
Cost Allocated to New Development $ 1,522,589
Growth in EDUs 1,019
Cost per EDU $ 1,494
Sources:Tables 7.2 and 7.3.
Alternative Funding Sources
The City will use existing revenue sources or develop new sources to fund future facilities not required to accommodate growth, to improve existing facility standards, or to fund existing development's fair share of facilities. The City must raise $8.2 million needed to fund the �W 1 LLDAN 42
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-60
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update wastewater facilities representing existing development's existing deficiencies identified in Table
7.3 with non-fee revenue sources, net of existing impact fee fund balances. Likely potential sources of revenue include existing or new general fund revenues or existing or new taxes. Any new special tax would require two-thirds voter approval. Any new assessments or property- related charges would require majority property owner approval.
Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for wastewater facilities is shown in Table 7.5. The cost per EDU is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the EDU factors shown in Table 7.1.
The total fee includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and citywide administrative support, (2) capital planning, programming, project management costs associated with the share of projects funded by the facilities fee, and (3) fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
Table 7.5: Wastewater Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
A B C=AxB D=CX0.02 E=C+D E11,000
Cost Per EDU Base Admin Fee per
EDU Factor Feel Charge,2 Total Feel Sq. Ft.3 Residential
Single Family $ 1,494 1.00 $ 1,494 $ 30 $ 1,524 0.59 Multifamily 1,494 0.73 1,091 22 1,113 1.01 Mobile Home 1,494 0.65 971 19 990 0.69
Nonresidential
Retail/Service $ 1,494 0.51 $ 762 $ 15 $ 777 $ 0.78 Office 1,494 0.51 762 15 777 0.78
Light Industrial 1,494 0.51 762 15 777 0.78 Self Storage 1,494 0.51 762 15 777 0.78 Hotel/Motel 1,494 0.51 762 15 777 0.78 RV Park Space 1,494 0.26 388 8 396 0.40 Fee per dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential,or hotel room or RV space. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses. 3 Assumes average single family unit is 2,589 square feet.Assumes average mulfitamily unit is 1,100 square feet.Assumes average mobile home is 1,440 square feet.
Sources:Tables 7.1 and 7.4;Willdan Financial Services.
�W 1 LLDAN 43
� sEH� Es
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-61
Attachment 2
8. Water System Improvements
This chapter details an analysis of the need for water system facilities to accommodate growth within the City of Pismo Beach. It documents a reasonable relationship between new development and a water fee to fund water facilities that serve new development.
Water Demand
Estimates of new development and its consequent increased water demand provide the basis for calculating the water facilities fee. The need for water facilities improvements is based on the water demand placed on the system by development. A typical measure of demand is a flow generation rate, expressed as the number of gallons per day generated by a specific type of land use. Flow generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City's system of water improvements because they represent the average rate of demand that will be placed on the system per land use designation.
Table 8.1 shows the calculation of EDU demand factors based on flow generation by land use category. The flow generation estimates are consistent with the City's prior impact fee studies.
EDU factors express demand for water facilities in terms of the demand created by a single-family dwelling unit.
Table 8.1: Water Demand by Land Use
Average Flow
Land Use Type Generation' EDU
Residential
Single Family 169 1.00
Multifamily 85 0.50
Mobile Home 50 0.30
Nonresidential
Retail/Service 100 0.59
Office 100 0.59
Light Industrial 100 0.59
Self Storage 100 0.59
Hotel/Motel 104 0.62
RV Park Space 83 0.49
Gallons per day per dwelling unit,KSF,hotel/motel room or RV park space.
Sources:City of Rismo Beach; Willdan Financial Services. 44 � 1 LLDAN
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-62
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update EDU Generation by New Development
Table 8.2 shows the estimated EDU generation from new development through 2050. New development will generate approximately 1,100 new EDUs inside the current city limits.
Table 8.2: Water Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units EDU Projected
EDU Existing Growth Existing Growth in
Factor' (DU/KSF) (DU/KSF) EDUs EDUs Total Residential
Single Family 1.00 4,131 219 4,131 219 4,350 Multifamily 0.50 1,031 207 516 104 619
Mobile Home 0.30 725 218 218
Subtotal 5,887 426 4,864 323 5,187 Nonresidential
Retail/Service 0.59 1,349 236 796 139 935
Office 0.59 98 56 58 33 91
Light Industrial 0.59 178 101 105 60 165
Hotel Rooms 0.62 1,921 879 1,191 545 1,736 RV Spaces 0.49 701 - 343 - 343
Subtotal 4,247 1,272 2,493 777 3,270 Total 7,357 1,100 8,457
Percent of Total 87.0% 13.0% 100.0%
Per dwelling unit(residential)or thousand building square feet(nonresidential).
Sources:Tables 2.1 and 8.1,Willdan Financial Services.
Facility Needs and Costs
Table 8.3 identifies the planned water facilities to be funded by the fee. Some projects benefit both existing and new development, and others only benefit existing development. Projects costs are allocated to the impact fee based on new development's proportional share of demand in 2050, except for the Well 23 repair project. That project is allocated to new development based on the capacity expanding characteristics of the project.
In total, approximately $1.8 million worth of water facilities projects is allocated to new development through this impact fee.
45 � 1 LLDAN
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-63
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 8.3: Planned Water Facilities
Cost
Allocation to Allocated to
New New
Project Description Estimated Cost Development' Development Water System Improvements
Bello-Price/Hwy 101 Waterline Upgrade $ 1,913,400 13.0% $ 248,700 New Production Well 6,360,000 13.0% 826,800
Advanced Metering Infrastructure 2,500,000 13.0% 325,000 Water Operations Building Addition 1,500,000 13.0% 195,000 Booster Station VFD's 149,235 13.0% 19,400
Citywide Water Master Plan 250,000 13.0% 32,500 Outlet Center Ramp Waterlines: 410,800 13.0% 53,400 Cypress Waterline upgrade 400,000 13.0% 52,000 Urban Water Master Plan 160,000 13.0% 20,800 Well 23 Repairs' 500,000 7.0% 35,000
Total $ 14,143,435 $ 1,808,600
7%of the Well 23 repairs is associated with new capacity for the Central Coast Blue project.
Source:City of Rsmo Beach Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plan And Major Expenditures for FY 2024-2033;Table 8.2, Willdan Financial Services.
Cost per EDU
Table 8.4 calculates a cost per EDU associated by dividing the total cost of projects allocated to new development identified in Table 8.3, by the growth in EDUs identified in Table 8.2.
Table 8.4: Cost per EDU
Water System Storage and Distribution Projects
Cost Allocated to New Development $ 1,808,600
Growth in EDUs 1,100
Cost per EDU $ 1,644
Sources: Tables 8.2 and 8.3.
Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for water facilities is shown in Table 8.5. The cost per EDU is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the EDU factors shown in Table 8.1.
The total fee includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and citywide administrative support, (2) capital planning, programming, project management costs associated with the share of projects funded by the facilities fee, and (3) fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
�W 1 LLDAN 46
� sEH� Es
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-64
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 8.5: Water System Improvements Impact Fee
A B C=AxB D=CX0.02 E=C+D El1,000
Cost Per EDU Base Admin Fee per
EDU Factor Feet Charge',2 Total Feel Sq. Ft.3 Residential
Single Family $ 1,644 1.00 $ 1,644 $ 33 $ 1,677 0.65 Multifamily 1,644 0.50 822 16 838 0.76
Mobile Home 1,644 0.30 493 10 503 0.35 Nonresidential
Retail/Service $ 1,644 0.59 $ 970 $ 19 $ 989 $ 0.99 Office 1,644 0.59 970 19 989 0.99 Light Industrial 1,644 0.59 970 19 989 0.99 Self Storage 1,644 0.59 970 19 989 0.99 Hotel/Motel 1,644 0.62 1,019 20 1,039 1.04 RV Park Space 1,644 0.49 806 16 822 n/a Per dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential or per hotel room. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2)impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes average single family unit is 2,589 square feet.Assumes average mulfitamily unit is 1,100 square feet.Assumes average mobile home is 1,440 square feet.
Sources:Tables 8.1 and 8.4;Willdan Financial Services.
State Water Supply Costs
In addition to the water system improvement costs shown in Table 8.3, the City must also fund the infrastructure costs of the state water supply project. The state water projects supply 2,132 acre-feet per year at an estimated cost of$89.9 million through 2050. Table 8.6 summarizes the costs.
Table 8.6: State Water Supply Costs
Annual State Water Project Payment' $ 3,457,646
Years to 2050 26
Total State Water Project Costs to 2050 $89,898,796
Added Water Supply (AFY)2 2,132
Cost per Acre Foot through 2050 $ 42,166
' Based on FY 2024 payment for State Water Supply and Lopez Water. 2 Acre feet per year includes 1,240 AFY from state water and 892 AFY from Lopez Lake.
Sources:City of Rsmo Beach;Development Impact Fee Update Study,MAXIMUS, 2004;Willdan Financial Services.
47� 1 LLDAN
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-65
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update State Water Supply Fee Schedule
Table 8.7 displays the State Water Supply fee. The cost per acre-foot from Table 8.6 is multiplied by the demand per unit to determine the fee per unit of development. The demand per unit in terms of acre feet is derived from the flow generation factors from Table 8.1.
The total fee includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and citywide administrative support, (2) capital planning, programming, project management costs associated with the share of projects funded by the facilities fee, and (3) fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
Table 8.7: State Water Supply Impact Fee Schedule
Demand
Acre Feet Cost per Base 2%Admin Total Fee per per Year' Acre Foot Feel Charge2 s Fee2 Sq. Ft.4 Residential
Single Family 0.19 $ 42,166 $ 7,982 $ 160 $ 8,142 $ 3.13 Multifamily 0.10 42,166 4,015 80 4,095 3.72 Mobile Home 0.06 42,166 2,362 47 2,409 1.67 Nonresidential
Retail/Service 0.11 $ 42,166 $ 4,723 $ 94 $ 4,817 $ 4.82 Office 0.11 42,166 4,723 94 4,817 4.82 Light Industrial 0.11 42,166 4,723 94 4,817 4.82 Self Storage 0.11 42,166 4,723 94 4,817 4.82 Hotel/Motel 0.12 42,166 4,912 98 5,010 5.01 RV Park Space 0.09 42,166 3,920 78 3,998 n/a Average gallons per day from Table 8.1 converted to average acre feet per year. 325,851 gallons per acre foot. 2 Fee per dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential,or hotel room or RV space. 3 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2)impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting,mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes average single family unit is 2,589 square feet.Assumes average mulfitamily unit is 1,100 square feet.
Assumes average mobile home is 1,440 square feet.
Sources:Tables 8.1 and 8.6; Willdan Financial Services.
Projected State Water Supply Fee Revenue
Table 8.8 displays a projection state water supply fee revenue. The fees per unit from Table 8.7 are multiplied by the growth in units from Table 2.1. In total, the fee will generate $17.5 million through 2050.
�W 1 LLDAN 48
� sEH� Es
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-66
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 8.8: Projected Fee Revenue
Projected Projected
Fee per Growth Fee
Land Use Unit (DU/KSF) Revenue
Residential
Single Family $ 7,982 219 $ 1,748,058
Multifamily 4,015 207 831,105
Mobile Home 2,362 - -
Subtotal $ 2,579,163
Nonresidential
Retail/Service $ 4,723 236 $ 1,114,628
Office 4,723 56 264,488
Light Industrial/Self Storage 4,723 101 477,023
Hotel/Motel 4,912 879 4,317,648
RV Park Space 3,920 - -
Subtotal $ 6,173,787
Total $17,505,900
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 8.7;Willdan Financial Services. �W 1 LLDAN 49
� sEH� Es
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-67
Attachment 2
9. Recycled Water Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for recycled water facilities to accommodate growth within the City of Pismo Beach. It documents a reasonable relationship between new development and a recycled water fee to fund recycled water facilities that serve new development.
Recycled Water Demand
Estimates of new development and its consequent increased water demand provide the basis for calculating the recycled water facilities fee. The need for recycled water facilities improvements is based on the water demand placed on the system by development. A typical measure of demand is a flow generation rate, expressed as the number of gallons per day generated by a specific type of land use. Flow generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City's system of water improvements because they represent the average rate of demand that will be placed on the system per land use designation.
Table 9.1 shows the calculation of EDU demand factors based on flow generation by land use category. The flow generation estimates are consistent with the City's prior impact fee studies.
EDU factors express demand for water facilities in terms of the demand created by a single-family dwelling unit.
Table 9.1: Recycled Water Demand by Land Use
Average
Flow
Land Use Type Generation' EDU
Residential
Single Family 169 1.00
Multifamily 85 0.50
Mobile Home 50 0.30
Nonresidential
Retail/Service 100 0.59
Office 100 0.59
Light Industrial 100 0.59
Self Storage 100 0.59
Hotel/Motel 104 0.62
RV Park Space 83 0.49
Gallons per day per dwelling unit,KSF,hotel/motel room or RV park space.
Sources:City of Rismo Beach; Willdan Financial Services. �W 1 LLDAN 50
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-68
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update EDU Generation by New Development
Table 9.2 shows the estimated EDU generation from new development through 2050. New development will generate approximately 1,100 new EDUs inside the current city limits.
Table 9.2: Recycled Water Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units EDU Projected
EDU Existing Growth Existing Growth in
Factor' (DU/KSF) (DU/KSF) EDUs EDUs Total Residential
Single Family 1.00 4,131 219 4,131 219 4,350 Multifamily 0.50 1,031 207 516 104 619
Mobile Home 0.30 725 218 218
Subtotal 5,887 426 4,864 323 5,187 Nonresidential
Retail/Service 0.59 1,349 236 796 139 935
Office 0.59 98 56 58 33 91
Light Industrial 0.59 178 101 105 60 165
Hotel Rooms 0.62 1,921 879 1,191 545 1,736 RV Spaces 0.49 701 - 343 - 343
Subtotal 4,247 1,272 2,493 777 3,270 Total 7,357 1,100 8,457
Percent of Total 87.0% 13.0% 100.0%
Per dwelling unit(residential)or thousand building square feet(nonresidential).
Sources:Tables 2.1 and 9.1,Willdan Financial Services.
Recycled Water Facility Cost Allocation
Table 9.3 identifies the planned recycled water facilities to be funded by the fee. The planned recycled water facility will partially be based on improvements to the existing wastewater treatment plant, and partially based on improvements to the water system. As such, costs are allocated to water and wastewater functions. The total cost of each function is divided by the total annual recycled water gallons provided by the recycled water facility to determine the cost per gallon of recycled water. This figure is multiplied by the number of days per year to determine the annual cost per gallon.
�W 1 LLDAN 51
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-69
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 9.3: Planned Recycled Water Facilities
Project Description Water Wastewater
Net AFY Returned as Pumped Potable Water 300 300 Gallons per Acre Foot (G/AF) 325,851 325,851 Total Annual Recycled Water in Gallons 97,755,300 97,755,300 Cost of Recycling Plant, Reservoir, Pipes and Wells' $ 11,443,245 $ 23,233,255 Cost per Single Gallon (rounded) $ 0.12 $ 0.24 Days in a Year 365 365
Cost for a Gallon per Day (GPO)over a Year $ 43.80 $ 87.60 Total cost is$57,326,000 pluss$500,000 for pipelines to connect to City infrastructure.Assumes$23,149,500 is grant funded.
Sources: City of Pismo Beach Wastewater Capital Improvement Program;Willdan Financial Services.
Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fees for recycled water facilities is shown in Table 9.4 and Table 9.5.
Table 9.4 shows the fee for the water share of the facility, and Table 9.5 shows the fee for the wastewater share of the facility. The cost per gallon from Table 9.3 is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the demand factors shown in Table 9.1. The total fee includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and citywide administrative support, (2) capital planning, programming, project management costs associated with the share of projects funded by the facilities fee, and (3) fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
�W 1 LLDAN 52
� sEH� Es
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-70
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 9.4: Recycled Water Facilities Impact Fee -Water Share A B C=AxB D=CX0.02 E=C+D El1,000
Cost Per
Gallon Gallons Base Admin Fee per
per Day per Day Feel Charge 1,2 Total Feel Sq. Ft.3 Residential
Single Family $ 44 169.00 $ 7,436 $ 149 $ 7,585 $ 2.92 Multifamily 44 85.00 3,740 75 3,815 3.47 Mobile Home 44 50.00 2,200 44 2,244 1.56 Nonresidential
Retail/Service $ 44 100 $ 4,400 $ 88 $ 4,488 $ 4.49 Office 44 100 4,400 88 4,488 4.49
Light Industrial 44 100 4,400 88 4,488 4.49
Self Storage 44 100 4,400 88 4,488 4.49
Hotel/Motel 44 104 4,576 92 4,668 4.67
RV Park Space 44 83 3,652 73 3,725 n/a Per dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential or per hotel room. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2)impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes average single family unit is 2,589 square feet.Assumes average mulfitamily unit is 1,100 square feet.Assumes average mobile home is 1,440 square feet.
Sources:Tables 9.1,9.4 and 9.5;Willdan Financial Services. �W 1 LLDAN 53
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-71
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 9.5: Recycled Water Facilities Impact Fee -Wastewater Share A B C=AxB D=CX0.02 E=C+D El1,000
Cost Per
Gallon Gallons Base Admin Fee per
per Day per Day Feel Charge 1,2 Total Feel Sq. Ft.3 Residential
Single Family $ 88 169.00 $14,804 $ 296 $ 15,100 $ 5.81 Multifamily 88 85.00 7,446 149 7,595 6.90 Mobile Home 88 50.00 4,380 88 4,468 3.10 Nonresidential
Retail/Service $ 88 100 $ 8,760 $ 175 $ 8,935 $ 8.94 Office 88 100 8,760 175 8,935 8.94
Light Industrial 88 100 8,760 175 8,935 8.94
Self Storage 88 100 8,760 175 8,935 8.94
Hotel/Motel 88 104 9,110 182 9,292 9.29
RV Park Space 88 83 7,271 145 7,416 n/a Per dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential or per hotel room. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2)impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes average single family unit is 2,589 square feet.Assumes average mulfitamily unit is 1,100 square feet.Assumes average mobile home is 1,440 square feet.
Sources:Tables 9.1,9.4 and 9.5;Willdan Financial Services.
Table 9.6 projects the recycled water facilities fee revenue. The fee per single family unit is multiplied by the growth in EDUs to estimate the water and wastewater portions of the recycled water facilities fee, respectively. In total, the fees will generate approximately$24.4 million.
Table 9.6: Recycled Water Facilities Fee - Revenue Projection Water Wastewater Total
Projected Growth in EDUs 1,100 1,100
Fee per EDU $ 7,436 $ 14,804
Recycled Water Facilities Fee Revenue $ 8,179,600 $16,284,400 $24,464,000 Sources:Tables 9.2,9.4 and 9.5.
�W 1 LLDAN 54
� sEH� Es
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-72
Attachment 2
10. Traffic and Ci rcu lation
Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for traffic and circulation facilities to accommodate new development. The chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the impact fee for funding of these facilities.
Trip Demand
The need for traffic and circulation facilities is based on the trip demand placed on the system by development. A reasonable measure of demand is the number of average daily vehicle trips, adjusted for the type of trip. Vehicle trip generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City's system of street improvements across all modes because alternate modes (transit, bicycle, pedestrian)often substitute for vehicle trips.
The two types of trips adjustments made to trip generation rates to calculate trip demand are described below:
■ Pass-by trips are deducted from the trip generation rate. Pass-by trips are intermediates stops between an origin and a final destination that require no diversion from the route, such as stopping to get gas on the way to work. • The trip generation rate is adjusted by the average length of trips for a specific land use category compared to the average length of all trips on the street system.
These adjustments allow for a holistic quantification of trip demand that takes trip purpose and length into account for fee calculation purposes.
Table 10.1 shows the calculation of trip demand factors by land use category based on the adjustments described above. Data is based on extensive and detailed trip surveys conducted in the San Diego region by the San Diego Association of Governments. The surveys provide one of the most comprehensive databases available of trip generation rates, pass-by trips factors, and average trip length for a wide range of land uses. Though urban development patterns differ between San Diego and the City of Pismo Beach, the use of this data is appropriate as a means of allocating trips across multiple land use categories. It should be noted that the projections of current and future trip generation in this report are based on data specific to the City of Pismo Beach.
�W 1 LLDAN 55
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-73
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 10.1: Trip Rate Ad'ustment Factors
Total Average Adjust- Trip
Primary Diverted Excluding Trip ment PM Peak Demand Trips' Trips' Pass-by' Length Factor ITE Category HourTrips° Factors A B C=A+B D E=CxD F G=ExF
Residential
Single Family 86% 11% 97% 7.9 1.11 Single Family Housing(210) 0.94 1.04 Multifamily 86% 11% 97% 7.9 1.11 Apartment(220) 0.51 0.57 Mobile Home 86% 11% 97% 7.9 1.11 Mobile Home Park (240) 0.58 0.64 Nonresidential
Service/Retail 47% 31% 78% 3.6 0.41 Shopping Center(820) 3.40 1.39 Office 77% 19% 96% 8.8 1.22 General Office(710) 1.44 1.76 Industrial 79% 19% 98% 9.0 1.28 General Light Industrial(110) 0.65 0.83 Mini Storage 79% 19% 98% 9.0 1.28 Mini Warehouse(151) 0.15 0.19 Resort/Hotel 58% 38% 96% 7.6 1.06 Hotel(310) 0.59 0.63 RV Park Space 86% 11% 97% 7.9 1.11 Mobile Home Park (240) 0.58 0.64 Percent of total trips. Primary trips are trips w ith no midw ay stops,or"links". Diverted trips are linked trips w hose distance adds at least one mile to the primary trip. Pass-by trips are links that do not add more than one rrile to the total trip. 2 In miles. Based on SANDAG data.
3 The trip adjustment factor equals the percent of non-pass-by trips multiplied by the average trip length and divided by the systemwide average trip length of 6.9 miles.
4 Trips per dwelling unit or per 1,000 building square feet or per hotel room 5 The trip demand factor is the product of the trip adjustment factor and the trip rate.
Sources: San Diego Association of Governments,Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region,April 2002;Institute of Traffic Engineers,Trip Generation,11th Edition;Willdan Financial Services.
Trip Demand Growth
The planning horizon for this analysis is 2050. Table 10.2 lists the 2024 and 2050 land use assumptions used in this study. The trip demand factors calculated in Table 10.1 are multiplied by the existing and future dwelling units and building square feet to determine the increase in trip demand attributable to new development.
�W 1 LLDAN 56
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-74
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 10.2: Land Use Scenario and Trip Generation
PM Peak 2024 Growth 2024 to 2050 Total -2050 Hour Trip Units/ Units/ Units/
Land Use Rate 1,000 SF Trips 1,000 SF Trips 1,000 SF Trips Residential
Single Family 1.04 4,131 4,310 219 229 4,350 4,539 Multifamily 0.57 1,031 584 207 117 1,238 701 Mobile Home 0.64 725 467 725 467
Total 5,887 5,361 426 346 6,313 5,707 Nonresidential
Retail/Service 1.39 1,349 1,881 345 480 1,694 2,361 Office 1.76 98 172 56 99 154 271
Light Industrial 0.83 178 148 100 83 278 231
Hotel Rooms 0.63 1,921 1,201 879 550 2,800 1,751 RV Park Spaces 0.64 701 451 - - 701 451 Subtotal 4,247 3,853 1,380 1,212 5,627 5,065 Total 9,214 1,558 10,772
85.5% 14.5% 100.0%
Sources:Tables 2.1 and 10.1.
Project Costs and Cost Allocation
Cost estimates for traffic and circulation facilities needed to serve new development are summarized in Table 10.3. The City identified the projects and project costs in its CIP. A share of each project is allocated to new development, based on new development's proportional share of trip demand in 2050. In total, $12.8 million worth of traffic and circulation projects are allocated to new development through this fee.
�W 1 LLDAN 57
� sEH� Es
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-75
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Table 10.3: Planned Street Improvements
Cost
Allocation to Allocated to
New New
Project Name Total Cost Development Development Downtown Parking Structure $ 40,000,000 14.5% $ 5,800,000 Dolliver/Pomeroy Ped Scramble 50,000 14.5% 7,250 Shell Beach Road Multi Use Path: (Terrace to Spyglass) 15,000,000 14.5% 2,175,000 Shell Beach Road Sidewalk 850,000 14.5% 123,250 Dolliver Price Street Streetscape(Butterfly Grove;to Shell Beach Road) 15,000,000 14.5% 2,175,000 Price Street Beautification and Improvements 5,000,000 14.5% 725,000 Signalize Bello/Price Canyon Rd Construction 1,000,000 14.5% 145,000 Parking Structure Land Purchase 3,200,000 14.5% 464,000 Shell Beach Parking 2,000,000 14.5% 290,000 Parking Kiosk Machines 326,000 14.5% 47,270 Hinds/Ocean View Ped Path 180,000 14.5% 26,100 Promenade Extension 5,000,000 14.5% 725,000 ADA Improvements 500,000 14.5% 72,500
Total Cost of Planned Facilities $ 88,106,000 $ 12,775,370 Source:City of Rsmo Beach Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plan And Major Expenditures for FY 2024-2033 Fee per Trip Demand Unit
Every impact fee consists of a dollar amount, or the cost of projects that can be funded by a fee, divided by a measure of development. In this case, all fees are first calculated as a cost per trip demand unit. Then these amounts are translated into housing unit(cost per unit)and employment space (cost per 1,000 square feet or room) by multiplying the cost per trip by the trip generation rate for each land use category. These amounts become the fee schedule.
Table 10.4 calculates the cost the cost per trip demand unit by dividing the total project costs attributable to new development summarized in Table 10.3, by the total growth in trips calculated in Table 10.2.
Table 10.4: Cost per Trip to Accommodate Growth
Fee Program Share of Planned Facilities Costs $ 12,775,370 Growth in Trip Demand 1,558
Cost per Trip $ 8,200
Sources:Tables 10.2 and 10.3.
Fee Schedule
Table 10.5 shows the maximum justified traffic and circulation facilities fee schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The proposed fees are based on the costs per trip shown in Table 10.4. The cost per trip is multiplied by the trip demand factors in Table 10.1 to determine a fee per unit of new development. The total fee includes a two-percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative �W 1 LLDAN 58
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-76
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, two-percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.
Table 10.5: Circulation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
A B C=AxB D=Cx0.02 E=C+D El1,000
Trip
Cost Per Demand Admin Fee per
Land Use Trip Factor Base Feel Charge' z Total Feel Sq. Ft.3 Residential
Single Family $ 8,200 1.04 $ 8,556 $ 171 $ 8,727 $ 3.36 Multifamily 8,200 0.57 4,642 93 4,735 4.30 Mobile Home 8,200 0.64 5,279 106 5,385 3.74
Nonresidential
Service/Retail $ 8,200 1.39 $ 11,431 $ 229 $ 11,660 $ 11.66 Office 8,200 1.76 14,406 288 14,694 14.69 Industrial 8,200 0.83 6,822 136 6,958 6.96 Mini Storage 8,200 0.19 1,574 31 1,605 1.61 Resort/Hotel 8,200 0.63 5,128 103 5,231 n/a
RV Park Space 8,200 0.64 5,279 106 5,385 n/a
Fee per dwelling unit,per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential or per hotel room. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for(1)legal,accounting,and other administrative support and(2)impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection,revenue and cost accounting,mandated public reporting,and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes average single family unit is 2,589 square feet.Assumes average mulfitamily unit is 1,100 square feet.Assumes average mobile home is 1,440 square feet.
Sources: Tables 10.1 and 10.4;Willdan Financial Services. �W 1 LLDAN 59
� sEH� Es
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-77
Attachment 2
11 . AB 602 Requirements
On January 1, 2022, new requirements went into effect for California jurisdictions implementing impact fees. Among other changes, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the Government Code, which set guidelines for impact fee nexus studies. Four key requirements from that section which concern the nexus study are reproduced here:
66016.5. (a) (2) When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate.
66016.5. (a) (4) If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee.
66016.5. (a) (5) A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. 66016.5. (a) (6) Large jurisdictions shall adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study.
Compliance with AB 602
The following sections describe this study's compliance with the new requirements of AB 602. 66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service
1. For the park impact fees calculated under the existing standard methodology, the fees are calculated such that new development funds facilities at the existing level of service.
The existing level service in terms of the existing facility investment per capita is shown in Table 6.6.
2. For the fees calculated under the system standard methodology, the maximum justified fees represent an increase in the facility level of service. The fees calculated under this methodology are fire protection, and police facilities fees. The increased level of service is required to fund new development's fair share of identified planned facilities New development will not fund the entirety of the increase in level of service, rather, it will fund a share of the increased level of service represented by the planned facilities. The City will have to fund existing development's share of the increased level of service through any other funding source. Each chapter for facility fee categories that are increasing the level of service includes a table that shows the existing level of service and future level of service in terms of facility investment per capita.
3. For fees calculated under the planned facilities methodology, the fees are calculated to ensure that the level of service does not fall to unacceptable levels. The fees calculated under this approach are the circulation, sewer facilities, water facilities and recycled water facility fees. The City identified the projects needed to serve the City through the planning horizon.
60 � 1 LLDAN
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-78
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update 66016.5. (a) (4) — Review of Original Fee Assumptions
Willdan extensively reviewed the City's prior impact fee studies while conducting this fee analysis.
Notably this study differs from the 2018 study in several ways:
1. This study uses a planning horizon of 2050, compared to the planning horizon of 2040 used in the prior study.
2. Cost assumptions have been updated to current dollars. The costs in the 2018 study were considerably lower than current market costs for construction of new facilities and the acquisition of land.
3. This study made use of the most current project lists and inventories of existing facilities where relevant.
Table 11.1 displays an accounting of annual revenue collected between FY2019-20 and F2022- 23 for the impact fees included in this analysis.
Table 11.1: Annual Collected Impact Fee Revenue
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Government(including Fire and Police) $ 717,189 $ 901,409 $ 484,076 $ 365,710 Circulation 53,606 162,752 186,006 94,744
Water Facilities 299,083 433,492 3,405,171 3,037,224 Wastewater Facilities 146,217 337,416 624,964 2,758,042 Parks 497,793 594,249 289,688 309,615
Source:City of Pismo Beach.
66016.5. (a) (5) — Residential Fees per Square Foot
Impact fees for residential land uses are calculated per square foot for all fee categories and comply with AB 602.
66016.5. (a) (6) — Capital Improvement Plan
The Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study is comprised of the identified planned facilities within each facility fee chapter. Planned facilities identified in this document are sourced from the City's current adopted CIP, master plans and other relevant documents. Adoption of this nexus study would approve the planned facilities identified herein as the Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study.
�W 1 LLDAN 61
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-79
Attachment 2
12. Implementation
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process
Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in the California Government Code section 66016. Adoption of an impact fee program requires the City Council to follow certain procedures including holding a public hearing. The impact fee nexus study must first be adopted at a public hearing to comply with AB 602. That public hearing must be noticed at least 30 days in advance.
Data, such as an impact fee report, must be made available at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. The City's legal counsel should be consulted for any other procedural requirements as well as advice regarding adoption of an enabling ordinance and/or a resolution. After adoption there is a mandatory 60-day waiting period before the fees go into effect.
Inflation Adjustment
The City can keep its impact fee program up to date by periodically adjusting the fees for inflation.
Such adjustments should be completed regularly to ensure that new development will fully fund its share of needed facilities. We recommend that the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI) be used for adjusting fees for inflation.
While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, the City will also need to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available.
Reporting Requirements
The City complies with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.
For facilities to be funded by a combination of public fees and other revenues, identification of the source and amount of these non-fee revenues is essential. Identification of the timing of receipt of other revenues to fund the facilities is also important.
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP
The City maintains a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to plan for future infrastructure needs.
The CIP identifies costs and phasing for specific capital projects. The use of the CIP in this manner documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of those revenues.
The City may decide to alter the scope of the planned projects or to substitute new projects as long as those new projects continue to represent an expansion of the City's facilities. If the total cost of facilities varies from the total cost used as a basis for the fees, the City should consider revising the fees accordingly
�W 1 LLDAN 62
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-80
Attachment 2
13. Mitigation Fee Act Findings
Public facilities fees are one-time fees typically paid when a building permit is issued and imposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of public facilities fees the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025, establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs.
The Act requires local agencies to document five findings when adopting a fee.
The five statutory findings required for adoption of the public facilities fees documented in this report are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the preceding chapters. All statutory references are to the Act.
Purpose of Fee
■ Identify the purpose of the fee (§66001(a)(1) of the Act).
Development impact fees are designed to ensure that new development will not burden the existing service population with the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The purpose of the fees proposed by this report is to provide a funding source from new development for capital improvements to serve that development. The fees advance a legitimate City interest by enabling the City to provide public facilities to new development.
Use of Fee Revenues
■ Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in §65403 or§66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the facilities for which the fees are charged(§66001(a)(2) of the Act).
Fees proposed in this report, if enacted by the City, would be used to fund expanded facilities to serve new development. Facilities funded by these fees are designated to be located within the City's sphere of influence. Fees addressed in this report have been identified by the City to be restricted to funding the following facility categories: general government facilities, police facilities, fire protection facilities, parks and recreation facilities, wastewater facilities, water facilities, recycled water facilities and traffic and circulation facilities.
Benefit Relationship
■ Determine the reasonable relationship between the fees' use and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed(§6600 1(a)(3) of the Act).
The City will restrict fee revenue to the acquisition of land, construction of facilities, infrastructure and buildings, and purchase of related equipment, furnishings, vehicles, and services used to serve new development. Facilities funded by the fees are expected to provide a citywide network of facilities accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development.
Under the Act, fees are not intended to fund planned facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies. Thus, a reasonable relationship can be shown between the use of fee revenue and the new development residential and non-residential use classifications that will pay the fees. �W 1 LLDAN 63
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-81
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Burden Relationship
• Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types of development on which the fees are imposed(§66001(a)(4) of the Act).
Facilities need is based on a facility standard that represents the demand generated by new development for those facilities. For each facility category, demand is measured by a single facility standard that can be applied across land use types to ensure a reasonable relationship to the type of development. For some facility categories service population standards are calculated based upon the number of residents associated with residential development and the number of workers associated with non-residential development. To calculate a single, per capita standard, one worker is weighted less than one resident based on an analysis of the relative use demand between residential and non-residential development.
The standards used to identify growth needs are also used to determine if planned facilities will partially serve the existing service population by correcting existing deficiencies. This approach ensures that new development will only be responsible for its fair share of planned facilities, and that the fees will not unfairly burden new development with the cost of facilities associated with serving the existing service population.
Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts provides a description of how service population and growth forecasts are calculated. Facility standards are described in the Facility Standards sections of each facility category chapter.
Proportionality
■ Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fees amount and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed(§66001(b) of the Act).
The reasonable relationship between each facilities fee for a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated new development growth the project will accommodate. Fees for a specific project are based on the project's size. Larger new development projects can result in a higher service population resulting in higher fee revenue than smaller projects in the same land use classification. Thus, the fees ensure a reasonable relationship between a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project.
See Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts, or the Service Population sections in each facility category chapter for a description of how service populations or other factors are determined for different types of land uses. See the Fee Schedule section of each facility category chapter for a presentation of the proposed facilities fees.
64 � 1 LLDAN
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-82
Attachment 2
Appendix
Appendix Table A.1: Energy Efficiency Project Debt
General
Payment(Real Wastewater Government
Year Annual Debt Discount Factor Dollars) Allocation (901/6) Allocation (100/6) 2025 $ 309,478 0.97 $ 300,464 $ 270,417 $ 30,046 2026 309,478 0.94 291,712 262,541 29,171 2027 309,478 0.92 283,216 254,894 28,322 2028 309,478 0.89 274,967 247,470 27,497 2029 309,478 0.86 266,958 240,262 26,696 2030 309,478 0.84 259,183 233,264 25,918 2031 309,478 0.81 251,634 226,470 25,163 2032 309,478 0.79 244,305 219,874 24,430 2033 309,478 0.77 237,189 213,470 23,719 2034 309,478 0.74 230,281 207,252 23,028 2035 309,478 0.72 223,573 201,216 22,357 2036 309,478 0.70 217,061 195,355 21,706 2037 309,478 0.68 210,739 189,665 21,074 $ 4,023,211 $ 2,962,154 $ 329,128
Sources:City of Rsmo Beach;Willdan Financial Services.
�W 1 LLDAN 65
� sEH� Es
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-83
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Appendix Table A.2: Present Value of Interest on Public Safety Facility Debt Service
Interest Interest
Payment Discount Payment
Date Payment Principal (nom. dollars) Factor' (real dollars) Public Safety Facility
2025 $2,390,100 $ 610,000 $ 1,780,100 0.97 $ 1,728,252 2026 2,389,600 640,000 1,749,600 0.94 1,649,166 2027 2,387,600 670,000 1,717,600 0.92 1,571,847 2028 2,389,100 705,000 1,684,100 0.89 1,496,301 2029 2,388,850 740,000 1,648,850 0.86 1,422,312 2030 2,386,850 775,000 1,611,850 0.84 1,349,899 2031 2,388,100 815,000 1,573,100 0.81 1,279,074 2032 2,387,350 855,000 1,532,350 0.79 1,209,651 2033 2,389,600 900,000 1,489,600 0.77 1,141,654 2034 2,389,600 945,000 1,444,600 0.74 1,074,918 2035 2,387,350 990,000 1,397,350 0.72 1,009,475 2036 2,387,850 1,040,000 1,347,850 0.70 945,355
2037 2,385,850 1,090,000 1,295,850 0.68 882,411
2038 2,386,350 1,145,000 1,241,350 0.66 820,679
2039 2,389,100 1,205,000 1,184,100 0.64 760,029
2040 2,388,850 1,265,000 1,123,850 0.62 700,346
2041 2,385,600 1,325,000 1,060,600 0.61 641,680
2042 2,389,350 1,395,000 994,350 0.59 584,076
2043 2,389,600 1,465,000 924,600 0.57 527,286
2044 2,386,350 1,535,000 851,350 0.55 471,372
2045 2,389,600 1,615,000 774,600 0.54 416,386
2046 2,390,000 1,680,000 710,000 0.52 370,544
2047 2,387,800 1,745,000 642,800 0.51 325,701
2048 2,388,000 1,815,000 573,000 0.49 281,878
2049 2,385,400 1,885,000 500,400 0.48 238,994
2050 2,385,000 1,960,000 425,000 0.46 197,070
Total $23,096,358
'Discount rate assumed to be 3.0%per year.
Source:City of Pismo Beach;Willdan Financial Services.
�W 1 LLDAN 66
� sEH� Es
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-84
Attachment 2
City of Pismo Beach Development Impact Fee Study Update Appendix Table A.3: Present Value of
Interest on Future Wastewater Debt
Issuance
Discount Payment
Date Payment Factor' (real dollars)
Five Cities Lift Station
2025 82,947 0.97 $ 80,531
2026 82,947 0.94 78,186
2027 82,947 0.92 75,908
2028 82,947 0.89 73,697
2029 82,947 0.86 71,551
2030 82,947 0.84 69,467
2031 82,947 0.81 67,444
2032 82,947 0.79 65,479
2033 82,947 0.77 63,572
2034 82,947 0.74 61,720
2035 82,947 0.72 59,923
2036 82,947 0.70 58,177
2037 82,947 0.68 56,483
2038 82,947 0.66 54,838
2039 82,947 0.64 53,241
2040 82,947 0.62 51,690
2041 82,947 0.61 50,184
2042 82,947 0.59 48,723
2043 82,947 0.57 47,304
2044 82,947 0.55 45,926
2045 82,947 0.54 44,588
2046 82,947 0.52 43,289
2047 82,947 0.51 42,029
2048 82,947 0.49 40,804
2049 82,947 0.48 39,616
2050 82,947 0.46 38,462
Total $ 1,482,831
Pismo Oaks Lift Station
2025 41,906 0.97 $ 40,685
2026 41,906 0.94 39,500
2027 41,906 0.92 38,350
2028 41,906 0.89 37,233
2029 41,906 0.86 36,148
Total $ 191,917
�W 1 LLDAN 67
� sEH� Es
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.A-85
G\T Y OF
PISMO BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
A�syo��Pc� Agenda Item #11.13
Meeting Date: February 18, 2025
TITLE:
Public Hearing to Review and Adopt Final Funding Recommendations on the County of San Luis Obispo 2025 Action Plan, including Community Development Block Grant Funds
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution making final recommendations to the County of San Luis Obispo for Urban County's 2025 Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant funds.
DISCUSSION:
Staff recommends Council conduct a public hearing to take public comment and review and adopt a Resolution approving final funding recommendations for the 2025 Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding. The 2025 Action Plan is a component of the Urban County of San Luis Obispo 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan (Plan).
The draft Plan may be downloaded from the County of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department webpage.1
To comply with federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements, the County prepares the Plan, which identifies funding policies and objectives for the annual allocations of HUD grant programs, including the CDBG program.
On December 3, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution R-2024-073 making its draft recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for the use of the City's 2025 CDBG funds, estimated at $28,873. These funds include $3,753 for County administrative costs, for a net amount available estimated to be $25,120 (including the City's administrative costs of $2,021). This number must be considered an estimate because HUD has not released the final 2025 allocation amounts. The County will make the appropriate adjustments once the final amount is received. The Council's recommendation consisted of $4,331 being allocated to the 5 Cities Homeless Coalition (5CHC) for the Homeless Prevention, Rapid Re-Housing, and Subsistence Payments program and $18,768 to the Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo County (CAPSLO) for the Minor Home Repair program. The City will also provide the allocated administrative funds in the amount of $2,021 to CAPSLO, bringing their total funding to $20,789.
More information regarding each of the programs proposed for funding can be reviewed in the December 3, 2024 staff report, which is available from the Access Pismo public records portal at: pismobeach.org/accesspismo 2
1 Full URL: https://www.slocounty.ca.qov/communitydevelopment.aspx 2 Full URL:
htt s//acce s ,s obeach.orq/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=501819&dbid=0&repo=Laserfiche Councilga 11.13-1
Conclusion and Recommendation
In accordance with the City's commitment to participating in the Urban Counties Program, staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing to take public comment on the Plan and the 2025 Action Plan, and then adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) approving final funding recommendations for the Community Development Block Grant program.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with staff's recommendation. CDBG funding is not received by or expended by the City, therefore it has no effect on the City's budget. The total estimated amount of CDBG funding is estimated to be $28,873 and includes $3,753 for County administrative costs and $2,021 for City administrative costs. The funding recommendation includes the City awarding its administrative costs to CAPSLO for the Minor Home Repair program.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
Prepared by:
Brian Schwartz, Contract Planner
Submitted by: Scot Graham, Community Department Director City Manager Approval:
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.13-2
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. R-2025-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PISMO BEACH,
CALIFORNIA MAKING FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO URBAN COUNTY'S 2025 ACTION PLAN FOR COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2023, the City of Pismo Beach entered into a Cooperative Agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo to implement the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 federal legislation relating to housing and community development activities administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development; and
WHEREAS, on December 3, 2024, the City Council of the City of Pismo Beach held a duly-noticed public hearing and considered testimony for the allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)funds for inclusion in the San Luis Obispo County Draft 2025 Action Plan, adopted Resolution R-2024-073 making draft funding recommendations and forwarded those draft recommendations to the County Board of Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, on February 18, 2025, the City Council of the City of Pismo Beach in a duly- noticed public hearing considered testimony for the allocation of Community Development Block Grant funds for inclusion in the County of San Luis Obispo 2025 Action Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pismo Beach hereby recommends the County of San Luis Obispo include the following programs for funding in the 2025 Action plan:
1. 5 Cities Homeless Coalition's San Luis Obispo County Rapid Re Housing/Homeless Prevention: $4,331.00
2. Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo County, Inc.'s Minor Home Repair: $20,789.00, inclusive of the City's allocated administrative funds BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pismo Beach hereby authorizes the City Manager to forward the above recommendations to the County of San Luis Obispo and make minor revisions to funding amounts for the 2025 CDBG Program if the City's actual CDBG allocation is different than expected.
UPON MOTION OF Council Member seconded by Council Member the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Pismo Beach this 18t" day of February 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.113-3
Attachment 1
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSED:
Approved: Attest:
Ed Waage, Mayor Erica Inderlied, City Clerk
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand on
Erica Inderlied, City Clerk
Council Agenda 2-18-2025 11.13-4