San Luis Obispo City Council
April 19, 2022

4YD RECYCLE 6X WEEKLY COMM RECYCLING $ 206.63
6YD RECYCLE 3X WKLY COMM RECYCLING $ 151.30
6YD RECYCLE 6X WKLY COMM RECYCLING $ 285.06
8 YD RECYCLE 3X WKLY COMM RECYCLING $ 181.17
8 YD RECYCLE 5X WKLY COMM RECYCLING $ 290.53
CMML RECY 32G 2X WKLY COMM RECYCLING $ 12.45
CMML RECY 32G 3X WKLY COMM RECYCLING $ 16.94
CMML RECY 32G 4X WKLY COMM RECYCLING $ 21.45
CMML RECY 32G 5X WKLY COMM RECYCLING $ 25.97
CMML RECY 32G 6X WKLY COMM RECYCLING $ 30.45
CMML TRIP CHARGE COMM RECYCLING $ 18.10
COMM RECY 64 GAL 2X WKLY COMM RECYCLING $ 16.91
COMM RECY 64GAL 6X WKLY COMM RECYCLING $ 38.39
COMM RECY 96GAL 2X WKLY COMM RECYCLING $ 22.54
COMM RECY 96GAL 3X WKLY COMM RECYCLING $ 31.02
COMM RECY 96GAL 4X WKLY COMM RECYCLING $ 39.49
COMM RECY 96GAL 5X WKLY COMM RECYCLING $ 47.95
COMM RECY 96GAL 6X WKLY COMM RECYCLING $ 56.42
LOOSE CARDBOARD COMM RECYCLING $ 9.61
6YD RECYCLE 4X WKLY COMM RECYCLE $ 195.89
EXTRA RECYCLE COMM RECYCLE $ 4.49

1.5YD RECYCLE 5X WKLY COMM RECYCLE $ 90.29
2YD RECYCLE 5X WEEKLY COMM RECYCLE $ 104.97
8 YD RECYCLE 4X WKLY COMM RECYCLE $ 235.85
LOOSE CARDBOARD COMM RECYCLE $ 9.54
3YD CARDBOARD 5X WKLY COMM RECYCLING $ 138.86
COMMERCIAL MAINT FEE ADJUSTMENT $ 27.13
TAX LIEN CERT. MAIL FEE ADJUSTMENT $ 4.08

DISPOSAL
WHITE GOODS DISPOSAL $ 33.88
WHITE GOODS DISPOSAL $ 33.61
MATTRESS DISPOSAL $ 19.93

Rate Comparisons for Garbage Service
Service Size San Luis Obispo (current) San Luis Obispo (Proposed) Pismo Beach 1 South County Urban 1 Arroyo Grande 1 Atascadero Templeton San Miguel Paso Robles2 City of Santa Maria 3,4 Santa Barbara County (Northern)4 City of Santa Barbara 20 Gallon 11.14 $ 13.23 $
35 Gallon $ 17.78 $ 21.11 $ 17.31 $ 25.60 $ 19.46 $ 28.55 $ 31.40 $ 28.33 $ 30.90 $ 25.84 $ 45.3065 Gallon $ 35.56 $ 42.22 $ 34.63 $ 34.04 $ 25.29 $ 44.50 $ 45.01 $ 44.48 $ 51.12 30.69 $ 27.89 $ 56.1595 Gallon $ 53.35 $ 63.34 $ 51.94 $ 47.46 $ 31.13 $ 55.77 $ 45.95 $ 61.06 $ 57.25 34.81 $ 29.86 $ 67.002 yard (1X WK) $ 168.15 $ 199.64 $ 120.91 $ 129.25 $ 122.10 $ 146.79 $ 129.54 $ 103.98 $ 168.68 166.72 $ 167.72 $ 248.79Notes:1 Scheduled increases in 1/1/2022 2 Paso Robles does 40 gallon cart pricing3 65 gallon Scheduled to increase to $32.70 in 1/1/22 and $34.71 in 7/1/22, and 95 gallon Scheduled to increase to $38.07 in 1/1/22 and $41.34 in 7/1/224 Weekly Trash pick-up but every other week recycling and green waste pick-up.

City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum
City of San Luis Obispo
Council Agenda Correspondence
DATE: April 19, 2022
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Matt Horn, Director of Public Works
VIA: Derek Johnson, City Manager
SUBJECT: ITEM 6d – COMMUNITY WORKFORCE AGREEMENT: PHASE 2 DATA

ANALYSIS, OUTREACH, AND DRAFT POLICY DEVELOPMENT
Staff received the following questions, with staff’s response shown in italics:
1) Question: Is there any time sensitivity to completing CWA negotiations for any City projects.

Answer: Yes, very much so. For instance, if Council adopted staff’s recommendation and requires CWA for the three projects as noted the negotiations for the Cultural Arts District Parking Structure would have to be concluded and approved by Council no later than August 2022 so that contract specification language for compliance with the CWA can be created for inclusion in the project specifications. It is important to note that each month this project is delayed, the cost of that delay in construction cost are presently estimated at $200,000 per month. This key point is identified in the presentation to Council tonight as a key next step. If more time is needed to develop the CWA, the Cultural Arts District Parking Structure may need to be removed from CWA consideration or risk delaying the delivery of that project. Any increased delivery cost for the parking structure will likely need to be borne by the parking fund and likely need to be mitigated by increasing parking rates.
2) Question: Could there be a future process to permanently incorporate CWA language into the City’s Capital Improvement Plan considerations for appropriate projects in the future? Could appropriate projects be determined by size, duration of construction or type of construction? Answer: Council could modify the recommended action, or provide direction to staff with a motion tonight, in a variety of ways so that it incorporates the CWA evaluation in the Capital Programs Budgeting process by requiring CWA evaluation for:

1. Projects over a certain dollar amount and/or;

2. Projects that historically do not have good local worker participation and/or;

3. Council could also direct staff to report out local labor hours as a Key Performance Indicator for capital project delivery.

Community Workforce Agreement Page 2
3) Question: Can staff collect data on local worker numbers on City Capital Projects and report back to Council on a regular basis? Answer: Yes. Through the construction contracting process and certified payroll the City has this data and information and can summarize and report to Council on a regular basis so that success could be monitored and contracting trends observed. That is how the information in the Agenda Report about local worker utilization was generated.
4) Question: A Council Member reached out directly to specific Unions who stated they were unaware that this Agenda Item was before Council. What outreached occurred for this agenda item?
Answer: At the September 2021 Study Session staff and Council discussed and Council confirmed the Stakeholder list for this work effort. This list was the basis for the Project Plan describing the outreach. Regarding this Agenda Item, during our March 31st meeting with the Tri-Counties Building and Construction Trades Council we informed them that we would be presenting to Council on April 19th they indicated they would provide outreach to their membership. The Tri-Counties Building and Construction Trades Council Executive Secretary, Joshua Medrano, was also included in the distribution list when the agenda was published as were all stakeholders. Staff relied on the representative groups, such as the Chamber of Commerce and Tri-Counties Building and Construction Trades Council to provide this information to their memberships they represent. 5) Question: If Council chooses Alternative 1, are we still able to ensure that projects under $15M pay prevailing wage to all employees? Answer: All workers on all City capital projects are required to be paid prevailing wage, regardless of union status; that’s state law and isn’t influenced by coverage by a CWA.
6) Question: It sounds like many non-union firms don’t always provide benefits (health and pension) to their employees. Instead, they sometimes provide higher wages and expect that the employees will purchase insurance and save for retirement. Is it possible to negotiate contracts with non-union firms to NOT do that?
Answer: From the City’s local contractor outreach efforts, information was not requested regarding their company’s practice of providing retirement of medical packages to their employees. If local contracting companies are not providing a retirement or medical insurance, this is not something that we could legally require or address in our bid specifications for capital projects.

Community Workforce Agreement Page 3
7) Question: With the WRRF agreement, did we attempt to negotiate a clause that would allow for workers to get their benefits from the employer, if provided, rather than the employer having to pay those fees to the union? Is this something we would try to negotiate this time, to lessen the burden of using the union process for non-union companies?
Answer. Staff is unaware of any successful negotiations to remove requirements for the payment of fringe benefits to the union for employees subject to a CWA who already receive pension or other fringe benefits from their non-union employer. The Council obviously could give negotiating direction to staff to pursue such a term if that is the consensus of the Council majority, but it is staff’s understanding based on prior negotiations and discussions with others who have negotiated CWAs that union representatives are not amenable to such terms. 8) Question: Do we have any data on the use of CWAs and their impact on increasing workers from under-represented groups in projects (women, veterans, minorities, etc.)?
Answer: The Council could direct staff to negotiate provisions designed to maximize recruitment from underrepresented groups, but for the purpose of economic development and supporting the local workforce, staff has not conducted any analysis and does not have the data to forecast the likelihood of successfully enhancing under-represented group participation via the CWA mechanism or how such terms might relate to the Council’s local worker employment objective.

Question: Do non-union employers pay twice for benefits (ie, they pay for health insurance for an employee, and then they also have to contribute to the union as well, for insurance). Has this been our experience with the WRRF? Have we received information from any of the contractors that they are paying double benefits? Or that there have been any gaps in coverage? Answer: The awarded prime contractor for the WRRF project was union, so a CWA likely has minimal cost impacts to them and their employees as it would be no change from normal business practices.

The concern with health insurance by non-union employers is the potential for gaps in coverage for employees as well as additional costs to the employer. The State Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) establishes basic hourly rates and fringe benefit amounts (health, pension, vacation/holiday, training, etc.) that must be provided to the employee by the employer. Non-union contractors must provide benefits of equivalent value as the fringe benefit amounts established by DIR or pay those benefits directly to employees as wages. On CWA covered projects, non-union contractors must pay these fringe benefits to the union trust on their employee’s behalf and may also choose to maintain payments to their own fringe benefit package (i.e. “double pay”). If a non-union employer chooses to do this, an employee can choose to receive fringe benefits (such as healthcare) through the trades or keep an employer provided plan if they have one.

Community Workforce Agreement Page 4
If their employees’ project work is less than the vesting period, an employer may either continue to pay fringes through their own program AND make the Union contribution, to keep employees whole, at a “double” (or at least increased) cost to the employer, or they may cease making their existing contributions to their plan and direct those funds to the union, potentially resulting in the same cost to the employer, but a loss to the employees who won’t see those benefits if they don’t work a project long enough to vest. It’s not different from the contributions from employers for employees that never vest and never get a benefit that all pension funds rely on (e.g., PERS vesting takes five years and if an employer contributes for four and the employee leaves public employment and never draws a pension, the pension fund benefits from those employer contributions, but the non-vesting employee does not).

See Packet Page 1136 and 1137 for additional discussion of Wages and Benefits.

Item 6d
Department: Public Works
Cost Center: 5001
For Agenda of: 4/19/2022
Placement: Business
Estimated Time: 60 Minutes
FROM: Matt Horn, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Brian Nelson, Deputy Director of Public Works and City Engineer SUBJECT: COMMUNITY WORKFORCE AGREEMENT: PHASE 2 DATA ANALYSIS,

OUTREACH, AND DRAFT POLICY DEVELOPMENT

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize staff to negotiate a Community Workforce Agreement with the Tri-Counties Building and Construction Trades Council to include the Cultural Arts District Parking Structure (vertical construction component only), Prado Road Interchange, and Public Safety Center projects, including a 60% local worker participation goal and excluding prevailing wage services provided through professional services agreements.

REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The 2021-23 Financial Plan includes the Major City Goal (MCG) of Economic Recovery, Resiliency & Fiscal Sustainability. The MCG intends to implement a strategic approach focused on economic resiliency by supporting a thriving local economy in addition to practicing fiscal responsibility, paying down unfunded pension liabilities, and investing in critical infrastructure.

One of the work programs included in the Financial Plan to advance this MCG (Item 1.1f)1 is establishment of an internal working group to research and develop various methods to support the participation of local contractors, local vendors, and local labor in public projects through workforce agreements, local purchasing requirements, and alternative project delivery methods. This report focuses on the evaluation and potential policy framework for a community workforce agreement (CWA).

1 MCG Item 1.1f: "Hire a consultant, support legal review, and establish an internal working group and hire a consultant to research methods to support local contractors, local vendors, and labor through workforce agreements, local purchasing requirements, alternative project delivery methods, and other options to support local businesses and employees. The Community Services Group will be leading this effort".

Item 6d
CWAs are “pre-hire” collective bargaining agreements between a project owner (City), contractors that perform the project work and building and construction trade unions. A CWA establishes standard terms and conditions of employment for workers on a qualified construction project, including work conditions, hiring procedures, wages and benefits, management rights, dispute resolution procedures, and procedures to prevent work stoppages. In addition, CWAs often include provisions to promote participation in covered projects by targeted workers and demographics, including local residents, apprentices, historically underutilized or underrepresented residents or groups, and veterans. In the context of furthering the MCG, Council has provided input to staff that a top priority objective of any City CWA should be local worker participation requirements and enhancement of employment of local residents on City public projects, without compromising quality and expertise on City projects.

Following a Council Study Session held in September 2021, staff performed extensive stakeholder outreach and analyzed actual local hiring totals for the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects to determine historical local worker participation.

The stakeholder outreach process, historical CIP project review, and the resulting staff recommendation are informed by these efforts and are detailed in the body of this report.

DISCUSSION

1. Background

1.1.Workforce Agreement Task in Major City Goal
With the adoption of the 2021-23 Financial Plan, Council established a Major City Goal (MCG) of Economic Recovery, Resiliency, and Fiscal Sustainability. To help achieve this goal, Council outlined a specific task to research methods to support the participation of local contractors, local vendors, and local labor in public projects through workforce agreements, local purchasing requirements, and alternative project delivery methods.

This work effort has been broken into three general phases:

Phase 1 (complete). Council Study Session to provide input and guidance on the work effort and develop a project plan based on Council feedback. The Study Session was held in September 2021.

Phase 2 (current phase). As framed by input and guidance from the phase one Study Session, develop a policy framework for Community Workforce Agreements (CWAs), alternative project delivery, and local purchasing. Within this policy framework, identify CWA negotiating objectives for Council consideration.

Phase 3. Council consideration of programs and policies, and direction for implementation of the same.

Item 6d
Based on direction received from Council in the phase one Study Session, this report focuses on the evaluation and potential policy framework for CWAs; local purchasing is part of an item being brought forward by the Finance Department and scheduled for the May 17th Council meeting. Alternative project delivery methods are currently under evaluation as part of the implementation of the Management Partners CIP Process Improvement study.

1.2.Definition and Purpose of a CWA
CWAs, sometimes referred to as Project Labor Agreements, or Project Stabilization Agreements, are "pre-hire" collective bargaining agreements between a project owner, contractors and building and construction trade unions. A CWA establishes standard terms and conditions of employment for a qualified construction project, including work conditions, hiring procedures, wages and benefits, management rights, dispute resolution procedures, and procedures to prevent work stoppages. In addition, CWAs often include provisions to promote participation in covered projects by targeted workers and demographics, including local residents, apprentices, historically underutilized or underrepresented residents or groups, and veterans. CWAs can apply to a single project, projects with budgets over a specified threshold, different types of projects, or all projects undertaken by a project owner. CWAs must be included in the bid documents for covered projects, and the provisions apply to the prime contractor and subcontractors of every tier.

1.3.City Experience with a CWA
The City previously negotiated and entered into a CWA with the Tri-Counties Building and Construction Trades Council (Trades Council) for the SLO Water Plus Project (i.e., WRRF Upgrade) in December 2018, completed in advance of project bidding, with the primary objective defined by the Council of maximizing the employment of local residents. This was the first such agreement the City has approved. The agreement included a local worker participation goal of 30%.

By February 2022, approximately 79% of all labor hours (141,200 hours) on the SLO Water Plus Project (WRRF) have been performed by workers residing in San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Monterey, and Ventura Counties (defined in the CWA as "local workers"), representing a significant reinvestment of construction funds into the local economy.

Table 1 presents the labor hours worked by residents of each tier on the SLO Water Plus Project.

Item 6d
Table 1. SLO Water Plus Project Labor Hours by Tier
No. Tier Description Labor Hours % of Total Labor
Hours
1 1 City of San Luis Obispo 7,551 6%
2 2 San Luis Obispo County 65,042 46%
3 3 Monterey and Santa Barbara Counties 39,341 28%
4 4 Ventura County 46 <1%
5 N/A Non-Local 29,263 21%
6 TOTAL 141,243 100%

1.4.CWA Alignment with Major City Goal
The City's ongoing Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes numerous construction projects that will provide the infrastructure required for economic vitality, neighborhood wellness, housing, transportation, sustainability, active and passive recreation, public safety, cleanliness, and other basic amenities. In November 2020, voters approved a

1.5% local sales tax (Measure G-20) that replaced the previous 0.5% local sales tax. The increased revenue from passage of Measure G-20 added about $15 million to the annual General Fund capital budget, allowing for a more expansive Capital Improvement Plan.

The public projects included in the City's CIP present an opportunity to continue enhancing the employment of local residents by negotiating a CWA with the Trades Council that includes a local worker participation goal. Key considerations regarding potential CWA implementation for the City’s CIP projects are described in Attachment A.

1.5.Council Study Session Feedback
A Study Session was held in September 2021 to present strategies identified by staff to support the local economy and to receive feedback from Council on the work program.

The Study Session included a guided discussion with a series of questions intended to determine Council’s preferred strategies and implementation priorities, and to inform the subsequent phases of the work program. The following feedback/direction was provided to staff during the Study Session:

1. Council supported analysis and implementation of the draft strategies as separate work efforts.

2. Council confirmed that its primary objective in considering implementation of a more broadly applicable CWA is to prioritize employment of local workers.

3. Council recommended using the SLO Water Plus CWA as a model for a future CWA.

4. Council recommended the CWA evaluation include consideration of appropriate cost thresholds and types of projects for inclusion in the CWA.

5. Council identified additional stakeholders to be included in the stakeholder outreach effort.

Item 6d
Additional feedback from individual Councilmembers regarding the potential inclusion of participation goals for women, veterans, underserved populations, and Cuesta graduates was also provided. This CWA evaluation is focused on the employment of local workers and analysis of additional targeted worker demographics can be evaluated as a separate work effort upon direction from Council.

At the conclusion of the Study Session, staff outlined the plan for Phase 2 of the work program including stakeholder outreach and a review of the City’s past and current CIP to inform policy recommendations for consideration by Council.

2. Stakeholder Outreach
Following the phase one Study Session, staff began the stakeholder outreach process.

A Stakeholder Outreach Plan was prepared consistent with the City’s Public Engagement and Noticing (PEN) Manual. The Stakeholder Summary presented in Table 2 below was prepared as a part of the Stakeholder Outreach Plan and was used to guide the stakeholder outreach effort.

Table 2. Stakeholder Summary
No. Stakeholder Communication Objective
1 SLO Chamber of Commerce Inform and Consult
2 Downtown SLO Inform
3 Public Works Contractors Inform and Consult
4 Local Consultants Inform and Consult
5 SLO County Builders Exchange Inform and Consult
6 Tri-Counties Building and Construction Trades
Council
Inform, Consult,
Collaborate
7 Central Coast Labor Council Inform
8 Cuesta College Inform
9 Hancock College Inform
10 Cal Poly Inform
An informational document with responses to frequently asked questions (FAQ) was developed by staff and shared with each stakeholder to provide background on CWAs and the relationship between CWAs and the MCG. This FAQ document in included with the report as Attachment B. The following sections provide additional detail on the outreach efforts for each stakeholder group.

Item 6d

2.1.Local Business Associations
Downtown SLO and SLO Chamber of Commerce
Downtown SLO and the SLO Chamber of Commerce were identified as potential stakeholders because they represent the interests of many local businesses. Downtown SLO and the SLO Chamber of Commerce were briefed by staff and provided with a copy of the FAQ document for additional information.

SLO County Builders Exchange
The SLO County Builders Exchange (Builders Exchange) is a non-profit contractors association whose membership includes over 500 contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers in the local construction industry. The Builders Exchange provides numerous services to its membership, including distribution of public and private bid opportunities and training for construction-related topics such as prevailing wage requirements, public works bidding requirements, and safety certifications.

Staff met with the Builders Exchange Executive Director and several Officers to inform the organization of the City’s CWA evaluation effort and to solicit the group’s feedback.

The Builders Exchange expressed opposition to implementation of a CWA citing the following concerns: 1) limitations on ability to utilize core workforce, 2) qualifications of union referrals, 3) implementation costs, 4) reduced efficiency, 5) loss of worker contributions to union pension programs, 6) reduced competition, 7) lack of local union workers required to meet local worker participation goals, 8) increased risk of work stoppages and strikes, and 9) reduced opportunities for local contractors to participate.

2.2.Public Works Contractors
Public works contractors were identified as a key stakeholder group as implementation of a CWA will significantly change the requirements for bid award and employment of craft labor on City projects, which directly impacts the employers (i.e., construction contractors) who provide craft labor to the City. Staff prepared a list of questions that were posed to contractors via video conference and phone survey. The survey included a series of simple questions intended to facilitate aggregation and reporting of responses along with open-ended questions that provided respondents an opportunity to provide additional feedback. The questions were crafted to determine how implementation of a CWA would affect respondents’ future pursuit of City public projects.

Item 6d
To identify a representative group of contractors to engage, staff tabulated information for all public projects with bid closing dates between January 2018 and September 2021.

The low bidders were identified and a group of contractors who were awarded different project types (e.g., street improvements, buildings and structures, bridges, wet utilities, etc.) and sizes (e.g., $1-$250K, $250K-$1M, and $1M-$5M) were selected. Sixteen contractors were contacted and twelve participated in the survey. One respondent (Cal Portland) was not initially identified as a potential survey participant, but contacted Public Works staff after learning of the City’s CWA evaluation efforts from colleagues. Survey respondents represent 51% of low bidders for all public projects awarded between January 2018 and September 2021 (78 total projects). Table 3 presents the contractors who participated in the survey and the number of City projects constructed by each from January 2018 to September 2021.

Table 3. Public Works Contractors Surveyed by Staff
No. Name Number of City Projects
1 Souza Corporation 11
2 R. Burke Corporation 9
3 Specialty Construction 4
4 Toste Construction, Inc. 3
5 Lee Wilson Electric 3
6 VSS International 3
7 Papich Construction 2
8 Smith MEP 2
9 Taylor Jane 1
10 Cushman Contracting Corporation 1
11 MGE Underground 1
12 Cal Portland 0
13 TOTAL 40
Questions posed to the public works contractor stakeholder group are presented below along with a summary of the feedback received. The first several questions were included to determine each respondent’s familiarity with CWAs along with their labor contract signatory status. As described in Attachment A, CWAs affect non-union contractors more than union contractors. Establishing whether the respondents were current signatories to a union agreement helped staff gauge responses to subsequent questions in the survey.

Questions 1-3 are presented in Table 4 below along with the responses received.

Item 6d
Table 4. Public Works Contractor Survey Responses
No. Question Yes No
1 Are you familiar with CWAs and the associated requirements? 83% 17% 2 Have you ever worked under a CWA? 42% 58%
3 Are you a union signatory contractor? 58% 42%
The remaining survey questions and responses are described in greater detail in the following sections.

Question 4: Would you be more likely, less likely, or as likely to bid City projects if subject to a CWA?
This question was included in the survey to determine if contractors who have historically bid on City projects would be more, less or equally likely to bid on future City projects if subject to the requirements of a CWA. The responses to this question are presented in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Likelihood of Surveyed Contractors to Bid CWA-Covered Projects The respondent who indicated its company would be more likely to bid noted that a CWA would deter inexperienced contractors from bidding. The respondent noted that in general, contractors who aren’t experienced with public works construction can underbid projects because they don’t understand the complexity of prevailing wage and public contract code requirements, which decreases experienced contractors’ chances of being the lowest responsive bidder.

As Likely
33%
More Likely
8%
Less Likely
59%

Item 6d
Respondents who indicated they would be less likely to bid CWA-covered projects expressed concern with 1) limitations to employing their core workforce, 2) lack of certifications for union-referred workers required for performance of the work (e.g., hazardous materials transportation), 3) impacts to employer provided healthcare and pension benefits for employees, 4) jurisdictional issues, and 5) reduced efficiency.

Concerns raised by multiple respondents are discussed at the end of this section of the report.

Respondents who indicated they would be as likely to bid CWA-covered projects noted CWAs are consistent with their current business practices. These respondents were all union-signatory contractors.

Question 5: Would a CWA increase, decrease, or not affect your bid price? This question was included in the survey to determine how a CWA would affect bid pricing for future City projects. While qualitative, responses to this question provide some indication of how bid prices would be affected if a CWA were implemented. The responses to this question are presented in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2. Potential Impact of CWA on Contractor Bid Price Respondents who indicated a CWA would increase their bid price noted the following: 1) presumed decrease in competitive bids, 2) increased administrative requirements, 3) penalties for non-compliance with targeted worker participation goals, 4) double payment of benefits, 5) increased risk, 6) union dues, 7) reduced efficiency, 8) decreased quality, 9) impacts to safety program, and 10) unfunded union pension liability. Concerns raised by multiple respondents are discussed at the end of this section of the report.

No Change
25%
Increase
67%
Decrease
8%

Item 6d
The respondent who indicated a CWA would reduce their bid price noted that they would be more competitive on a CWA-covered project. Respondents who indicated a CWA would not impact their bid price noted the following: 1) prevailing wage rates are the same on all public projects, regardless of union affiliation; 2) CWAs are consistent with current bidding and employment practices for union signatory contractors.

Question 6: What percentage of your craft workers are 1) City of San Luis Obispo residents, 2) San Luis Obispo County residents, 3) Santa Barbara or Monterey County residents, 4) Ventura County residents, and 5) residents of other areas? As previously noted, the SLO Water Plus CWA defines “local workers” as residents of the City of San Luis Obispo or San Luis Obispo, Monterey, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties. The intent of this question was to determine where craft worker employees of contractors who have historically constructed City projects reside. Of the surveyed contractors, an average of 89% of their craft workers are local workers as defined in the SLO Water Plus CWA. Responses to this question have been averaged and are presented in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3. Location of Contractor Craft Workforce
Question 7: In your opinion, does a CWA benefit the covered project? The intent of this question was to determine if respondents were generally supportive of CWA implementation and to provide an opportunity to share additional feedback. Four of the 12 respondents, or 33%, believed CWAs benefit covered projects. Respondents who believe CWAs are beneficial noted the following: 1) increased participation by local workers, 2) skilled workforce from union trades, 3) increased employment opportunities for union workers who have dedicated their careers to the construction trades, 4) union benefits, and 5) increased quality of work.

City of SLO
4%
SLO County
60%
SB/Monterey
County
23%
Ventura
County
2% Non-Local
11%

Item 6d
Respondents who believed CWAs do not benefit covered projects expressed the following concerns: 1) lack of provisions to consider participation by local vendors and materials suppliers; 2) reduced efficiency, productivity, quality, and safety from core workforce limitations; 3) reduced competition; 4) increased project cost; 5) fewer bidding opportunities for non-union contractors; 6) local workers are already being employed without a CWA; 7) absence of local contractors for specialty work; 8) unfair advantage to union contractors; 9) increased administrative burden; 10) reduced employment of local workers; 11) fewer union workers available for union contractors if workers dispatched to non-union contractors on covered projects; 12) lack of local subcontractors who would be willing to sign CWA; and 13) concern with ability to end union affiliation after single project agreement. Key concerns shared by multiple respondents are discussed in the following section.

Public Works Contractor Outreach Summary
Contract or opinions regarding CWA implementation were mixed, and not clearly divided based on union affiliation. While 58% of respondents were union signatories, only 33% believed CWAs benefit covered projects, 58% would be less likely to bid CWA-covered projects, and 67% indicated CWAs would increase their bid price. Issues raised by contractors during the outreach process are discussed in greater detail below.

Core Workers
Attachment A includes detailed information on CWA hiring procedures, core worker limitations, and a comparison of impacts to union and non-union contractors. In short, construction unions are designated as the exclusive source of craft labor on CWAcovered projects. This requirement does not impact union contractors, because they only employ union members and rely on union hiring halls to refer workers to their projects when needed. Non-union contractors are limited in their ability to employ their regular workforce on CWA-covered projects. CWAs limit the number of existing employees who meet the negotiated qualification requirements, or “core workers”, non-union contractors can employ on a project (typically three to six) and require all other workers be referred from union hiring hall out of work lists.

Several contractors who participated in the survey noted that limitations on core worker employment would reduce efficiency, increase risk, and reduce quality. These concerns are related to the integration of union-referred workers, with whom the contractor has no previous work history, into the contractor’s long-standing workforce. According to several respondents, efficiency is impacted when workers don’t have prior experience with the specific work being performed by the contractor or with the unique ways in which the contractor typically performs its work. Replacing a contractor’s long-standing, experienced employees with workers who have never worked for the contractor increases risk and can potentially impact quality and safety.

Item 6d
One respondent who performs pavement rehabilitation work throughout the Western United States noted that six of the nine workers it typically employs in its paving crew are required to hold a commercial driver license with a hazardous materials endorsement, which requires a federal background check. They expressed concerns that truck drivers with these classifications are difficult to find and might not be available through the union referral system. CWAs typically allow unions 48 hours to dispatch workers to employers when requested, after which the employer can hire workers from another source if the union is unable to refer workers. The paving contractor noted that this waiting period can impact project schedules and create logistical challenges when trying to fill open positions if the union referral system is unable to dispatch certified workers.

Benefits
CWAs require that all contractors, regardless of their union affiliation, pay fringe benefit contributions to union trust funds on behalf of their employees working on the CWA project. Attachment A includes additional information regarding benefits on CWAcovered projects. Several non-union contractors expressed concern with the union trust fund contribution requirement for pension benefits. Union pension plans require a minimum vesting period (typically 10,000 hours or five years) before participants can redeem retirement benefits. Non-union craft workers might not work sufficient hours on a CWA-covered project to become vested in a union pension fund, especially for shorter duration projects or for contractors who perform limited scope on covered projects. This would result in a significant loss of income for the employee who doesn’t become vested, as the pension fringe benefit can be between 8% and 20% of the employee’s total hourly rate, depending on the worker classification (e.g., laborer, cement mason, carpenter, etc.). Attachment C provides additional information on prevailing wages and fringe benefits for a select group of construction craft worker classifications. Several surveyed contractors stated they would continue providing a retirement benefit to their employees in addition to making union trust fund contributions to mitigate the pension vesting issue, resulting in additional cost to the employer and likely to be passed on to the City.

Respondents also voiced concern with the union trust fund contribution requirement for medical benefits. These contractors currently provide medical benefits to their employees and requiring their workers to change healthcare plans can result in coverage gaps, changes to in-network providers, and changes to covered prescriptions. For contractors with limited scope/short duration work on CWA-covered projects, employees would potentially be required to exit their employer’s medical plan, join the union plan, then exit the union plan and re-join the employer’s plan at the conclusion of the CWA-covered work. Respondents noted that this transition is difficult for employees and their families, and several contractors stated they would continue providing a medical benefit to their employees in addition to making union trust fund contributions to address this issue, resulting in additional cost to the employer and likely to be passed on to the City.

Item 6d

2.3.Local Consultants
CWA provisions apply to all employers providing prevailing wage labor on covered projects, including consulting firms. The City has traditionally employed consultants through professional services agreements to provide construction inspection, surveying, and materials testing services. Construction inspection, surveying, and field materials testing are work classifications covered by the state prevailing wage determinations and would be subject to the requirements of a CWA.

Like the public works contractor outreach described in the preceding section, staff prepared a list of questions that were posed to consultants via video conference and phone survey. The survey included a series of simple questions intended to facilitate aggregation and reporting of responses along with open-ended questions that provided respondents an opportunity to provide additional feedback. The questions were crafted to determine how implementation of a CWA would affect respondents’ future pursuit of City projects.

Seven of the ten consultants who provide on-call soils and materials testing, construction management, and land surveying services to the Public Works Department were contacted. All seven firms who were contacted by staff participated in the survey. Table 5 lists the firms who participated in the survey with staff.

Table 5. Local Consultants Surveyed by Staff
No. Firm Name Services Provided
1 Cannon Construction Management/Surveying
2 Earth Systems Pacific Soils and Materials Testing
3 Filippin Engineering Construction Management
4 GeoSolutions Soils and Materials Testing
5 Kitchell CEM, Inc. Construction Management
6 MNS Engineers, Inc. Construction Management
7 Wallace Group Construction Management/Surveying
Questions posed to the local consultant stakeholder group are presented below along with a summary of the feedback received. The first several questions were included to determine each respondent’s familiarity with CWAs along with their union signatory status. Questions 1-3 are presented in Table 6 below along with the responses received.

Table 6. Local Consultant Survey Responses
No. Question Yes No
1 Are you familiar with CWAs and the associated requirements? 71% 29% 2 Have you ever worked under a CWA? 43% 57%
3 Are you a union signatory contractor? 0% 100%

Item 6d
The remaining survey questions and responses are described in greater detail in the following sections.

Question 4: Would you be more likely, less likely, or as likely to provide professional services on City projects if subject to a CWA? This question was included to determine if consultants who have historically provided prevailing wage services on City projects under professional services agreements would be more, less, or equally likely to participate in future City projects if subject to the terms and conditions of a CWA. The responses to this question are presented in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4. Likelihood of Surveyed Consultants to Participate in CWA-Covered Projects The respondent who indicated its company would be as likely to participate in CWAcovered projects noted their standard practice of subcontracting all prevailing wage services. The respondent noted that if it was unable to find a subcontractor willing to sign on to the CWA or if they were required to self-perform prevailing wage services, they would be less likely to participate.

As Likely
14%
More Likely
0%
Less Likely
86%

Item 6d
Respondents who indicated they would be less likely to participate in CWA-covered projects noted the following concerns: 1) increased risk and professional liability exposure by employing union referrals with no existing relationship to employer and unfamiliarity with employer-specific work practices; 2) increased costs associated with reduced efficiency, increased oversight, CWA administrative requirements, and potential for duplication of employer paid benefits costs resulting from payment of employee fringe benefits to union trust; 3) staff attrition by employees who do not want to be affiliated with unions; 4) significant learning curve associated with compliance with union requirements; and 5) limitations on employees who can be dispatched to covered projects (i.e., only employees who have registered with union can be dispatched). Several respondents who indicated they would be less likely to participate on CWA-covered projects further clarified they would not participate in City projects if subject to the requirements of a CWA.

Question 5: Would a CWA increase, decrease, or not affect the cost of your services?
This question was included in the survey to determine how a CWA would affect the cost of soils and material testing, construction inspection, and surveying on future City projects. It is noted that the response to this question is qualitative and does not reflect the extent to which pricing for professional services would be affected. The responses to this question are presented in Figure 5 below.

Figure 5. Potential Impact of CWA on Cost of Professional Services No Change
29%
Increase
71%
Decrease
0%

Item 6d
Respondents who indicated a CWA would not affect their cost of service noted that prevailing wage requirements are the same on all public projects, regardless of whether a CWA is in place. Respondents who indicated a CWA would increase the cost of their services noted the following concerns: 1) increased administrative costs, 2) increased insurance costs, 3) increased exposure to professional liability claims, 4) double payment of benefits, 5) time associated with verifying work performed by union referrals, 6) overhead costs of union enrollment and union dues, and 7) four-hour minimum shift required by union master labor agreements regardless of time spent on site.

Question 6: What percentage of your prevailing wage employees are 1) City of San Luis Obispo residents, 2) San Luis Obispo County residents, 3) Santa Barbara or Monterey County residents, 4) Ventura County residents, and 5) residents of other areas?
The intent of this question was to determine where prevailing wage employees of consultants who have historically participated in City projects reside. Of the surveyed consultants, an average of 93% of prevailing wage employees met the criteria of local workers as defined in the SLO Water Plus CWA. Responses to this question have been averaged and are presented in Figure 6 below.

Figure 6. Location of Consultant Prevailing Wage Workforce Question 7: In your opinion, does a CWA benefit the covered project? The intent of this question was to determine if respondents were generally supportive of CWA implementation and to provide an opportunity to share additional feedback. Two of the seven respondents, or 29%, believed CWAs provided benefits to the construction craft workers on covered projects, but not to professional service providers.

City of SLO
21%
SLO County
65%
SB/Monterey
County
6%
Ventura
County
1%
Non-Local
7%

Item 6d
Five of the seven respondents, or 71%, believed CWAs did not benefit covered projects.

Feedback supporting this position included the following: 1) construction unions are the only beneficiaries, 2) increased cost, 3) increased risk, 4) not appropriate for the local market, 5) adversely impacts ability for local businesses to participate in covered projects, 6) counter to the City’s goal of helping local businesses, 7) inherent conflict of interest with unions representing both quality assurance/quality control staff (e.g., inspection, materials testing, soil testing, surveying) and craft workers performing the work, 8) risk of decreased quality, 9) reduced opportunities for non-union companies to participate, 10) majority of local contractors and consultants are non-union, and 11) risk of preferring employment of workers from out of the immediate area (i.e., City and County of San Luis Obispo) even though technically considered “local” by CWA. Key concerns from this stakeholder group are discussed in the next section.

Local Consultant Outreach Summary
Most of the surveyed consultants (86%) stated they would be less likely, or unwilling, to provide services on City projects if CWA requirements apply to their prevailing wage staff.

Issues raised by consulting firms during the outreach process are discussed in greater detail below.

Core Workers
Surveyed consultants voiced concern with limitations on their ability to utilize their core workforce on CWA-covered projects, similar to the concerns raised by contractors.

Construction management firms noted their prevailing wage inspection staff have specific experience and skillsets that allow them to successfully perform their field duties.

Respondents believe inspectors referred by the union hiring hall are unlikely to have the same qualifications and experience, which they believe increases the employer’s risk.

Respondents conveyed that this increased risk would require additional oversight by professional/salaried staff and might require redundant inspection positions, according to respondents.

Consulting firms who provide prevailing wage surveying services to the City emphasized the importance of team dynamics in the efficient and accurate performance of their work.

Typical survey crews are small (two to four employees), and respondents believe introducing new workers (i.e., union referrals) into a survey crew would potentially reduce efficiency and require additional oversight to verify the accuracy of the work products.

Item 6d
Benefits
Surveyed consultants voiced similar concerns as contractors regarding the requirement to pay fringe benefits to union trusts for their employees on CWA-covered projects.

Consultants noted 1) possible lapses in health insurance coverage when moving between employer and union-provided plans, 2) inability to work sufficient hours to vest in union pension programs resulting in certain payments made to the union, with no benefit realized by employees and 3) the likelihood that employers would need to effectively double-pay benefits to reduce impacts to their staff, adding employer paid benefit costs to the costs of service. Attachment C includes a summary of prevailing wages for construction inspectors and land surveyors, including the fringe benefits that would be paid to the union trust on behalf of the employee on CWA-covered projects.

Respondents also highlighted the intermittent nature of the prevailing wage services they provide on public projects, and the resulting complications for the provision of benefits to employees. For example, the City routinely requests special inspection or soils testing at discrete hold points as detailed in the construction specifications (e.g., structural welding, soil compaction testing, etc.). The on-call service provider dispatches an inspector to perform the required inspection, which typically only requires four to eight hours out of a 40-hour work week. Several respondents noted that the limited time spent on a CWAcovered project in a typical work week would necessitate the double-payment of benefits, as employees would not qualify for union benefits when not working full time on the CWAcovered project.

2.4.Higher Education
Cal Poly, Cuesta College, and Allan Hancock College were identified by City Council as potential stakeholders to be included in the outreach effort. Each organization was contacted and invited to participate in a discussion with staff to explore the potential alignment between CWAs and university programs/initiatives. Feedback was not provided as part of the initial outreach effort, but additional outreach can be performed if Council decides to move forward with CWA implementation.

2.5.Construction Trades Organizations
The Tri-Counties Building and Construction Trades Council (Trades Council) is a principal stakeholder for this project as the primary negotiating party with the City for the CWA.

Staff met with Trades Council representatives following the September 2021 Study Session to discuss the Trades Council’s objectives, review direction provided by Council during the Study Session, and to discuss next steps. A draft CWA was transmitted by the Trades Council in February 2022, with suggested modifications, for review by City staff.

Consistent with Council’s feedback, the draft CWA is based on the SLO Water Plus CWA, with several changes based on outreach and data analysis and to be discussed with the Trades Council if Council directs staff to proceed with negotiations on final terms.

Item 6d
The Central Coast Labor Council (Labor Council) was identified as a potential stakeholder by City Council during the phase one Study Session. Staff met with the Executive Director of the Labor Council and discussed the City’s CWA evaluation effort. The Executive Director indicated that the Labor Council would likely be more engaged with elected officials to generate support for a CWA if negotiations proceed.

2.6.Outreach Summary
A broad range of stakeholders were engaged during the outreach process, including those who will be most directly impacted by the implementation of a CWA (i.e., contractors and consultants). The outreach process helped identify many important considerations that have informed the recommendations presented later in this report.

3. Historical CIP Analysis
An analysis of past CIP projects was performed to identify the location of bidders who have historically bid on City projects and to determine the types of projects for which a CWA would be most effective in increasing employment of local workers. Fourteen public projects of varying types and costs completed between January 2018 and September 2021 were selected for review. Table 7 lists the projects included in this analysis along with project cost, project asset type, the prime contractor, and location of the prime contractor.

Table 7. CIP Projects Selected for Review
No. Project Name Project
Cost
Project
Asset Type
Project
Type
Prime
Contractor
Location
of Prime
Contractor
1 City Facility
HVAC
≤ $250K Asset
Maintenance
or
Replacement
Buildings
and
Structures
Smith MEP Santa
Maria
2 Meadow Park
Pathway
Maintenance
≤ $250K Asset
Maintenance
or
Replacement
Bicycle
Paths
Souza
Construction
San Luis
Obispo
3 Mission Plaza
Railing 2021
≤ $250K Asset
Maintenance
or
Replacement
Parks and
Recreation
Taylor Jane
Construction
LP
Nipomo
4 Swim Center
Bath House
Roof Repair
≤ $250K Asset
Maintenance
or
Replacement
Buildings
and
Structures
American
Foam Experts
Herald
5 Wash Water
Supply Tank
No. 2
≤ $250K Asset
Maintenance
or
Replacement
Wet Utilities Paso Robles
Tank, Inc
Hemet

Item 6d
No. Project Name Project
Cost
Project
Asset Type
Project
Type
Prime
Contractor
Location
of Prime
Contractor
6 Bullock CMP $250K -
$1M
Asset
Maintenance
or
Replacement
Wet Utilities Souza
Construction
San Luis
Obispo
7 Islay Park
Playground
$250K -
$1M
Asset
Maintenance
or
Replacement
Parks and
Recreation
RE Schultz Orange
8 Sinsheimer
Irrigation and
Stadium
Drainage
$250K -
$1M
Asset
Maintenance
or
Replacement
Parks and
Recreation
Empire
Landscaping
Inc
Davis
9 Concrete
Streets
$250K -
$1M
Asset
Maintenance
or
Replacement
Street
Improvemen
ts
R. Burke
Corporation
San Luis
Obispo
10 Anholm Phase
1A
$250K -
$1M
New Asset Street
Improvemen
ts
Lee Wilson
Electric
Arroyo
Grande
11 South Hills
Radio Site
Upgrades
$250K -
$1M
New Asset Buildings
and
Structures
Specialty
Construction
San Luis
Obispo
12 Casa Stenner
Murray
Waterline
Project
$1M -
$5M
Asset
Maintenance
or
Replacement
Wet Utilities S Chavez
Construction
San Luis
Obispo
13 RRST Taft to
Pepper
$1M -
$5M
New Asset Bicycle
Paths
Souza
Construction
San Luis
Obispo
14 South Broad
Street
Pavement
Improvements
$1M -
$5M
Asset
Maintenance
or
Replacement
Street
Improvemen
ts
Papich
Construction
Company
Arroyo
Grande
The location of craft workers who worked on the selected projects was determined by reviewing certified payroll reports (CPRs). CPRs list the hours worked by each employee during the reporting period (typically one week), along with the zip code of the worker’s residence. Once the CPR data was compiled, local worker participation was analyzed based on project type, project size, and the location of the prime contractor. Local workers were defined as residents of the city of San Luis Obispo or San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Monterey, and Ventura Counties, consistent with the SLO Water Plus CWA.

Item 6d

3.1.Local Worker Participation by Project Asset Type
CIP projects in the City budget are categorized by project asset type and are identified as either 1) New Assets or 2) Asset Maintenance and Replacements. New Assets are the construction and/or installation of new capital facilities or assets such as roads, water treatment equipment, new water or sewer pipelines, or new buildings and facilities. Asset Maintenance and Replacements are the repair, replacement, or rehabilitation of existing capital assets. Examples of Asset Maintenance and Replacement projects include street resurfacing, playground equipment replacement, and pipeline rehabilitation. Of the 14 projects listed in Table 7, 11 are Asset Maintenance or Replacement and three are New Asset project asset types.

The projects in Table 7 were grouped by project asset type to compare local worker participation percentages. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 8.

Table 8. Local Worker Participation by Project Asset Type No. Project Asset Type
Local
Worker
Hours
Total Labor
Hours
Local Worker
Participation
1 New Assets 12,134 12,762 88%
2 Asset Maintenance or
Replacement 21,310 24,343 95%
3 TOTAL 33,444 37,105 90%
The data shows that 88% of all labor hours on New Asset projects were performed by local workers and 95% of all labor hours on Asset Maintenance or Replacement projects were performed by local workers.

Further analysis was performed on Asset Maintenance or Replacement projects as this project asset type comprises a significant portion of the CIP budget. Bidder location data was compiled for all 68 Asset Maintenance and Replacement projects with bid closing dates between January 2018 and September 2021. Figure 7 presents the location of the low bidders for these projects.

Item 6d
Figure 7. Bidder Location for Asset Maintenance and Replacement Project Asset Type As the figure illustrates, 79% of the low bidders for the City’s Asset Maintenance and Replacement projects are located in the City of San Luis Obispo or San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties. Contractors based in the City were awarded 50% of the Asset Maintenance and Replacement projects for which bidder information was compiled. This finding is noteworthy, as it shows that contractors based in the City are constructing most of the City’s Asset Maintenance and Replacement projects.

In summary, local contractors constructed most of the Asset Maintenance and Replacement projects in the January 2018 to September 2021 review period, with 50% of all projects constructed by contractors based in the City. Of the 11 Asset Maintenance and Replacement projects reviewed in detail by staff, 95% of all labor hours were performed by local workers. This analysis indicates local contractors are primarily employing local workers, a finding that is supported by additional data presented later in the report.

City of San
Luis Obispo
50%
County of San
Luis Obispo
19%
Santa Barbara
County
9%
Ventura
County
1%
Other
21%

Item 6d

3.2.Local Worker Participation by Project Type
The selected projects were grouped by type to determine average local worker participation percentages. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 9.

Table 9. Local Worker Participation by Project Type
No. Project Type
Local
Worker
Hours
Total Labor
Hours
Local Worker
Participation
1 Buildings & Structures 1,024 1,337 84%
2 Bicycle Paths 9,802 10,183 96%
3 Parks and Recreation 1,166 3,619 32%
4 Wet Utilities 12,890 13,156 98%
5 Street Improvements 6,755 6,765 99%
6 TOTAL 33,444 37,105 90%
In general, the local worker participation percentages were high for all project types with the exception of Parks and Recreation projects. Local worker participation percentages were lower for this group because two of the three projects included were awarded to non-local contractors (i.e., contractors not based in San Luis Obispo, Monterey, Santa Barbara, or Ventura Counties).

Of the Parks and Recreation projects analyzed (See Table 7), 78% (7 out of 9) of bidding contractors were local, with a non-local contractor being the low bid on only the Sinsheimer Irrigation and Stadium Drainage Project. The low bid contractor on Islay Hill Park Playground was local, however, was found to have submitted a non-responsive bid2, resulting in the project being awarded to the second-low bidder, who was non-local. If the awarded contractors were local, it is likely the local worker participation percentage would have been largely consistent with the other project types in Table 9.

In total, the local worker participation for all projects reviewed was 90%.

2 To be considered responsive, a bid must comply in material respects with the invitation for bids. On Islay Park Playground, the low bid contractor was deemed non-responsive because they failed meet the minimum qualifications, including recent park construction experience with a city, county, state, or federal agency.

Item 6d

3.3.Local Worker Participation by Project Cost
The selected projects were grouped by size to determine average local worker participation percentages. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 10.

Table 10. Local Worker Participation by Project Cost
No. Project Cost Local Worker
Hours
Total Labor
Hours
Local Worker
Participation
1 ≤ $250K 2,909 3,448 84%
2 $250K - $1M 7,216 9,917 73%
3 $1M - $5M 23,319 23,741 98%
4 TOTAL 33,444 37,105 90%
Local worker participation percentages were high for each project cost category, with an average of 90% for all projects analyzed. Local worker participation percentages were lower for the $250K - $1M cost category because this category included the two Parks and Recreation projects constructed by non-local contractors described in the preceding section.

3.4.Large Project Comparison
Staff reviewed and compiled CPR data for the Los Osos Valley Road Overpass Project (LOVR Project) for comparison with the SLO Water Plus Project. Like the SLO Water Plus Project, the LOVR Project is a large project (i.e., cost >$15M) constructed by a nonlocal contractor, however, the LOVR Project was constructed without a CWA in place.

Table 11 presents local worker participation data for the LOVR and SLO Water Plus Projects.

Table 11. LOVR Project and SLO Water Plus Local Worker Participation No. Project Local Worker
Hours
Total Labor
Hours
Local Worker
Participation
1 LOVR Project 41,190 59,985 69%
2 SLO Water Plus* 111,980 141,243 79%
*SLO Water Plus labor hours reported through February 2022.

The data shows that most of the labor hours on the LOVR Project were performed by local workers, and local worker participation was significantly higher than the 30% goal typically set forth in a CWA.

Item 6d

3.5.Local Worker Participation by Prime Contractor Location A list of all contractors who were awarded public projects between January 2018 and September 2021 was tabulated to determine the contractor’s location. Of the 78 projects awarded during this period, approximately 70% were awarded to local contractors (i.e., contractors based in San Luis Obispo, Monterey, Santa Barbara, or Ventura Counties).

The results of this analysis are presented in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Location of Prime Contractor for Past City Projects To determine if local contractors typically utilize local workers, the selected CIP projects listed in Table 7 were grouped by prime contractor location and the local worker hours were tabulated. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 12.

Table 12. Local Worker Participation by Prime Contractor Location No. Prime Contractor
Location
Local Worker
Hours
Total Labor
Hours
Local Worker
Participation
1 Local 33,021 33,690 98%
2 Non-Local 423 3,415 12%
3 TOTAL/AVERAGE 33,444 37,105 76%
The data confirms that most of the labor hours on projects constructed by local prime contractors were performed by local workers. In addition, the local hours presented in Table 12 are inclusive of subcontractor labor hours which indicates local contractors are also utilizing the services of local subcontractors.

City of San
Luis Obispo
49%
County of San
Luis Obispo
22%
Santa Barbara
County
8%
Ventura
County
1%
Other
20%

Item 6d

3.6.Summary and Discussion
The historical CIP analysis indicates local workers are performing most of the work on City public projects, regardless of project type or size. The one exception to this finding is for Parks and Recreation projects, where local workers performed 32% of the total labor hours for the selected projects. As previously noted, reduced local worker participation for this project type is attributed to the location of the prime contractors for the selected projects, two of which were non-local. Although local worker participation was lower for the selected Parks and Recreation projects, it was higher than the local worker participation goal typically set forth in CWAs (30%).

The analysis also indicates local contractors primarily employ local workers. Of the 14 past CIP projects reviewed, ten were constructed by local contractors and 98% of all labor hours were performed by local workers. Local workers only performed 12% of all work hours on the four CIP projects constructed by non-local contractors. Analysis of the LOVR Project – the second largest CIP project in City history – indicates 69% of all labor hours were performed by local workers. This finding is noteworthy as the LOVR Project was a large, multi-year project constructed by a non-local contractor without a CWA in place.

4. Fiscal Analysis
The impact of CWA implementation on construction bids is difficult to quantify and beyond the scope of this report to evaluate comprehensively. Proponents of CWAs believe that these agreements reduce costs by improving labor reliability, increasing quality, and preventing schedule delays. Opponents argue that CWAs increase costs by reducing competition, increasing administration requirements, and requiring payment of fringe benefits to union trust funds. The only way to conclusively determine the impact of CWAs on construction bids is through a parallel bid process, whereby a pilot project would be advertised for bids both with and without a CWA requirement. This approach has been suggested by other agencies currently evaluating CWA implementation including Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties, however it is unclear if such a bidding arrangement would ultimately be acceptable to the agencies and the Trades Council.

This section of the report focuses on the costs that are more readily quantifiable including costs to support CWA negotiation, costs to incorporate CWA requirements into the City’s standard construction contract and standard specifications, costs to develop procedures for CWA implementation, and costs to administer the CWA during construction. Budget for outside legal counsel and consultant staff to support these efforts, except for CWA administration, is included in the FY 21-23 Financial Plan.

4.1.CWA Negotiation
CWA negotiation will require participation from the Community Services Group, the City Attorney’s office, outside legal counsel, and consultant staff. While both Council and the Trades Council have expressed support of using the SLO Water Plus CWA as a template for negotiations, certain provisions of the agreement will likely require additional negotiation based on direction provided by Council.

Item 6d

4.2.Development of Contract and Standard Specification Language If implemented, CWA provisions must be developed and incorporated into the City’s standard construction contract documents so prospective bidders and subcontractors will be aware of their obligations regarding the agreement. Language is typically included in the bid advertisement, bid form, agreement, and the front-end documents to detail CWA requirements. In addition, the complete CWA is included in the contract documents as part of the front-end documents or as an appendix. It is recommended that a specification be developed to detail the targeted worker participation requirements, as the procedures for meeting participation goals and reporting requirements are typically not explained in detail in the CWA. The targeted worker specification will increase the likelihood of meeting the participation goals set forth, increase transparency in the process, and facilitate accountability of all parties to the agreement.

Development of CWA provisions for the City’s standard construction contract documents will require participation from the Community Services Group, the City Attorney’s office, outside legal counsel, and consultant staff.

4.3.CWA Procedure Development
If a CWA is implemented, procedures must be developed to facilitate uniform application of the agreement for all covered projects so the City meets its obligations as set forth in the CWA. Development of CWA implementation procedures will require participation from the Community Services Group and consultant staff.

Table 13 presents the estimated costs for CWA negotiation, contract/specification language development, and CWA procedure development.

Table 13. Estimated Cost of CWA Implementation
The total cost for CWA implementation is estimated to be between $64,000 and $115,000.

RESOURCE Low High Low High Low High
Community Services Group $ 6,000 $ 10,000 $ 5,000 $ 10,000 $ 8,000 $ 15,000 City Attorney $ 4,000 $ 5,000 $ 2,000 $ 4,000 $ - $ -
Outside Counsel $ 14,000 $ 28,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Outside Consultant $ 8,000 $ 14,000 $ 9,000 $ 13,000 $ 8,000 $ 16,000 SUBTOTAL $ 32,000 $ 57,000 $ 16,000 $ 27,000 $ 16,000 $ 31,000 TOTAL $64,000 - $115,000
Contract/Specification
Development CWA Negotiation CWA Procedure Development
TASK

Item 6d

4.4.CWA Administration
CWAs require that the project owner designate a Community Workforce Coordinator to act as the owner’s agent and to facilitate implementation and compliance with the CWA.

The Community Workforce Coordinator can be a member of the owner’s staff, but an outside contractor with specific experience administering CWAs is typically used. In many cases, the Community Workforce Coordinator can also provide labor compliance oversight, a function typically performed by City staff. It is assumed the City will hire an outside consultant to serve as the Community Workforce Coordinator if a CWA is implemented.

CWAs include provisions for the establishment of a Joint Administrative Committee (JAC, Committee) comprised of representatives from the owner and representatives from the building trades. The JAC meets regularly to discuss issues associated with the CWA including project issues, safety concerns, contractor relations, and disputes. The frequency of the JAC meetings is left to the discretion of the Committee, but meetings are typically held on a quarterly basis. It is anticipated that the City’s representatives on the JAC will include Community Services Group staff and the City’s Community Workforce Coordinator.

The City can require the construction contractor to retain the services of a Jobs Coordinator to assist the contractor in meeting its obligations for targeted worker participation. The Jobs Coordinator coordinates with the construction trades, apprenticeship programs, and local workforce development agencies to identify potential workers that meet the criteria necessary to qualify as a targeted worker for employment on the covered project. The Jobs Coordinator assists the contractor in the preparation of reports including targeted worker hiring status reports and manpower utilization plans. It is anticipated that the contractor will retain the services of an outside consultant to serve as its Jobs Coordinator if the negotiated CWA includes participation requirements for demographics other than local residents.

Staff contacted several consulting firms who specialize in CWA administration and labor compliance to determine the estimated cost for CWA administration. Several factors impact CWA administration costs including project duration, number of subcontractors, familiarity of contractors with CWA requirements, and number of covered projects.

Estimated administrative costs range from 0.25% to 5% of total construction cost, with lower percentages for large, multi-year projects and higher percentages for small, short duration projects.

Item 6d
For example, CWA administration costs for the $110 million SLO Water Plus Project are approximately $312,000, or 0.3% of the total construction cost. CWA administration costs for a 6-month, $250,000 project are estimated to be approximately $12,500, or 5% of the total construction cost. The total cost of CWA administration will ultimately depend on the number, size, and duration of projects covered by the agreement. Notably, much of the administrative work is based on time; the time that the CWA coordinator will need to spend each month reviewing CPRs, compiling local worker numbers, verifying core worker requirements, and coordinating with the construction contractors and construction trades.

5. Recommendations and Alternatives
The extensive stakeholder outreach process provided valuable insight into the practical considerations of CWA implementation, including potential impacts to the local contracting and consulting community. Review of the City’s past CIP projects helped quantify historical local worker participation and helped identify opportunities to support local worker participation on future City projects. The stakeholder outreach process and historical CIP review informed staff’s recommendation and the alternatives presented in the following sections. Section 5 includes staff’s recommendation for CWA-covered projects as well as alternatives for implementation based upon project budget thresholds.

Section 6 includes recommended exclusions based upon type of work.

Item 6d

5.1.Recommendation – CWA for Legacy Projects
As funded and approved for construction, authorize staff to negotiate a Community Workforce Agreement with the Tri-Counties Building and Construction Trades Council to include the Cultural Arts District Parking Structure (vertical construction component only), Prado Road Interchange, and Public Safety Center projects, including a 60% local worker participation goal and excluding3 prevailing wage services provided through professional services agreements.

Staff recommends Council consider implementing a CWA for the Cultural Arts District Parking Structure (vertical construction and off-site improvements contract only4), Prado Road Interchange, and Public Safety Center projects. The total construction cost of these “legacy projects” is estimated to be approximately $153 million, or 46% of the City’s total CIP budget over the next five years. These projects are large, complex, multi-year efforts involving multiple construction trades that would realize the greatest benefit from the uniform work conditions, dispute resolution procedures, and work stoppage protections afforded by a CWA. The Cultural Arts District Parking Structure is scheduled to begin vertical construction in Fall 2023 with a two-year construction timeframe, and both the Prado Interchange and Public Safety Center are in preliminary design stages and scheduled to begin construction in FY25/26 with multi-year construction timeframes.

These projects are also likely to be awarded to non-local contractors, as few local contractors have the requisite experience and bonding capacity to undertake the work.

As noted in previous sections of the report, non-local contractors are more likely to employ non-local workers, and a CWA could promote local worker participation on these large City projects.

Limiting the CWA to legacy projects would reduce CWA implementation costs as compared to a CWA that applied more broadly to City public projects. CWA administration as a percentage of construction cost for these large budget, multi-year projects is estimated to be less than CWA administration costs as a percentage of construction cost for numerous, smaller budget projects. In addition, City staff time to implement CWA requirements on covered projects would be reduced.

3 See Section 6 for discussion of recommended exclusions. These may be considered as negotiating parameters within each project budget threshold.
4 The Cultural Arts District Parking Structure Project is separated into three contracts: 1) Phase 1A PG&E Utility Relocation 2) Phase 1B On-Site Demolition, Clearing, and Grading and 3) Phase 2 Vertical Structure and Offsite Improvements. Phase 1A and 1B include work similar to asset maintenance and replacement projects (utility relocations, demolition, grading, etc.) and are anticipated to be competitive projects for bidding amongst local contractors utilizing local workers.

Item 6d

5.2.Alternative 1 – CWA with $15 Million Threshold
Authorize Staff to negotiate a Community Workforce Agreement with the TriCounties Building and Construction Trades Council to include projects with an estimated construction cost of $15 million or greater, including a 60% local worker participation goal and excluding5 emergency projects and prevailing wage services provided through professional services agreements.

As an alternative, Council could consider implementing a CWA for all City projects with an estimated construction cost of $15 million or greater. A $15 million cost threshold would include the three legacy projects described in the preceding section and the Prado Road Bridge and Road Widening Project (Prado Road Bridge Project). Table 14 presents the public projects in the City’s 5-year CIP grouped by cost category.

Table 14. Public Projects in City 5-Year CIP Grouped by Cost No. Project Cost Number of
Projects Total Budget Percent of 5-Year CIP
1 ≤ $250K 139 $20,413,161 6%
2 $250K - $1M 54 $37,096,965 12%
3 $1M - $5M 26 $66,404,147 21%
4 $5M - $15M 2 $12,450,000 4%
5 >$15M 4 $184,061,231 57%
6 TOTAL 226 $320,425,504 100%
Staff does not recommend this alternative as including the Prado Road Bridge Project in the CWA would likely result in reduced project participation by local contractors who have successfully constructed similar City projects in the past, and by extension, reduce local worker participation. Similar projects constructed by local contractors include Marsh Street Bridge Replacement and the Orcutt Tank Farm Roundabout.

5 See Section 6 for discussion of recommended exclusions. These may be considered as negotiating parameters within each project budget threshold.

Item 6d

5.3.Alternative 2 – CWA with $5 Million Threshold
Authorize Staff to negotiate a Community Workforce Agreement with the TriCounties Building and Construction Trades Council to include projects with an estimated construction cost of $5 million or greater, including a 60% local worker participation goal and excluding6 maintenance and rehabilitation projects, emergency projects, and prevailing wage services provided through professional services agreements.

Council could also consider implementing a CWA for all City projects with an estimated construction cost of $5 million or greater. A $5 million cost threshold would include the four projects described in the preceding sections along with the Mission Plaza Primary Plaza Area Improvements and the WRRF and Wastewater Collections Shop Project.

Staff does not recommend this alternative due to the lack of historical local worker participation data for projects with construction costs between $5 million and $15 million.

It is unclear if local worker participation for projects in this cost range will be low and whether local worker participation would increase with a CWA. Average local worker participation for projects reviewed by staff in the $1 million to $5 million cost range was 98%, and 69% of all labor hours on the $16 million LOVR Project were performed by local workers. Staff anticipates that projects in the $5 million to $15 million cost range, including the Prado Road Bridge Project, are likely to be bid by local contractors who have historically used high percentages of local workers. Local contractors are expected to be less likely to pursue City projects if covered by a CWA.

If Council moves forward with an alternative to the staff recommendation, a $15 million threshold (i.e., Alternative 1) would be more appropriate to help ensure local contractor participation on City projects valued between $5 million and $15 million. At Council’s direction, staff can track labor hours on projects with construction costs of $5 million or more and return to Council with an analysis of local work hours and recommendations for the possible expansion of CWA coverage. Such an approach would give staff the opportunity to establish baseline local worker participation statistics and identify opportunities to enhance local worker participation where appropriate.

6 See Section 6 for discussion of recommended exclusions. These may be considered as negotiating parameters within each project budget threshold.

Item 6d

5.4.Alternative 3 – No CWA
Direct staff not to negotiate a Community Workforce Agreement with the TriCounties Building and Construction Trades Council.

Council could consider not implementing a CWA on future public projects. Staff does not recommend this alternative as the three legacy projects recommended for inclusion in a CWA and these projects are likely to be constructed by non-local contractors, which have historically used more non-local workers based on staff’s review of past public projects.

A CWA could promote local worker participation on these legacy projects which comprise 46%, or $153 million, of the City’s CIP budget over the next five years.

If Council does choose this alternative, staff recommend ongoing tracking of local contractor participation on capital projects as well as ongoing analysis of local labor usage on awarded contracts, which would result in data collection equivalent to Section 3 of this report. This accumulated date could be shared with Council in conjunction with Budget Supplement as a Key Performance Indicator.

6. Negotiating Parameters
Staff recommends Council consider the following negotiating parameters if staff is directed to proceed with CWA implementation, regardless of the recommendation or alternative selected.

6.1.Professional Services
Staff recommends that all prevailing wage services procured through professional services agreements, including inspection, land surveying, and materials testing be excluded from coverage by a CWA. As is the case with most agreements, the City must maintain its authority over quality, budget and schedule (QA/QC) and professional services are often the mechanism by which the City ensures that these essential key elements are satisfied.

As such, Staff recommends that all prevailing wage services procured through professional services agreements, including inspection, land surveying, and materials testing be excluded from coverage by a CWA, regardless of the recommendation or alternative selected by Council. The City has built trusted relationships with local consulting firms who provide these services, and these partnerships are critical to the successful delivery of the City’s CIP. Including professional services in the CWA would impact the City’s ability to retain the most qualified firms to perform essential quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) functions on the City’s behalf, jeopardizing the City’s ability to ensure projects have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.

Item 6d
Local consultants contacted by staff during the stakeholder outreach process raised valid concerns regarding CWA core worker and benefits provisions, which increase consultant cost, risk, and professional liability exposure. If a CWA is implemented, local consultants will be less likely to continue providing prevailing wage services to the City, which would reduce local worker participation rather than increase it.

Exclusion of inspection and materials testing services is consistent with the previously negotiated CWA for the SLO Water Plus Project. Staff is recommending that land surveying also be excluded from coverage by the CWA. Like inspection and materials testing, land surveying is a key QA/QC function that is best performed by a firm with experienced staff procured by the City through a competitive process.

6.2.Emergency Projects
Staff recommends emergency repair projects be excluded from the scope of the agreement if a cost threshold is established for CWA coverage. The City must preserve its ability to procure construction services as quickly as possible in the event of an emergency without additional administrative requirements, in accordance with the existing emergency purchasing policy in the Financial Management Manual. The additional time required to administer and enforce CWA requirements on emergency projects would compromise the City’s ability to respond to emergencies as efficiently and cost effectively as possible. Staff recommends emergency repair projects be excluded from the scope of the agreement regardless of the construction cost threshold.

6.3.Maintenance and Repair Projects (Projects <$15 million) Staff recommends Maintenance and Repair projects be excluded from the scope of the agreement if a cost threshold less than $15 million is established for CWA coverage (i.e., Alternative 2). Contractors located in the City constructed 50% of the Maintenance and Repair projects advertised by the City during the January 2018 to September 2021 period reviewed by staff. Of the 11 past CIP projects reviewed in detail by staff, 95% of all labor hours were performed by local workers. Maintenance and rehabilitation projects are routinely constructed by local contractors using local workers and a CWA is unlikely to increase local worker participation for these types of projects.

In addition, rehabilitation projects such as street resurfacing and wastewater collection system lining are often performed by specialty contractors who rely heavily on their core workforce to perform their work efficiently and effectively.

Item 6d

6.4.Local Worker Participation Goal
If Council decides to implement a CWA, staff recommends a minimum local worker participation goal of 60% be established. Review of local worker participation on a representative sample of recent City projects indicates 90% of all labor hours were performed by local workers. Of the cost categories reviewed, the lowest local worker participation percentage was for projects with a cost between $250,000 and $1 million, where 73% of all labor hours were performed by local workers. Historical local worker participation percentages for projects of all types and sizes is well above the 30% local worker participation goal typically set forth in CWAs and included in the SLO Water Plus CWA. The local worker participation goal should be established such that implementation of a CWA supports the continued employment of local workers, consistent with historical employment of local workers on City projects. This goal should be achievable based on the local work hours measured for the SLO Water Plus Project and historical local worker participation on City projects.

Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
Council adopted the FY21/23 Financial Plan at the June 1, 2021, meeting. Included within the programs and projects identified within Major City Goal (MCG) of Economic Recovery, Resiliency, and Fiscal Sustainability was a task/action with Strategic Approach #1.1f, which stated:
"Hire a consultant, support legal review, and establish an internal working group and hire a consultant to research methods to support local contractors, local vendors, and labor through workforce agreements, local purchasing requirements, alternative project delivery methods, and other options to support local businesses and employees. The Community Services Group will be leading this effort".

A Study Session was held in September 2021 to present strategies identified by staff to support the local economy and to receive feedback from Council on the work program.

The Study Session included a guided discussion with a series of questions intended to determine Council’s preferred strategies and implementation priorities, and to inform the subsequent phases of the work program. Reference the Background section of the report for additional information.

Policy Context
There are no existing policies in place for Community Workforce Agreements. The recommendations and alternatives of this report provide a policy framework for Council consideration.

Public Engagement
Public engagement/stakeholder outreach discussed in body of report.

Item 6d

CONCURRENCE
The Administration Department, City Attorney, and Community Services Group concur with the recommendations of this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the recommended action in this report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378.

NEXT STEPS
If directed by Council, staff will initiate CWA negotiations with the Trades Council in accordance with the negotiating parameters established by Council. The City Attorney has retained the services of outside legal counsel to assist with negotiations. If staff and the Trades Council are able to reach an agreement, the negotiated CWA will be provided to Council for review and approval. If an agreement with the Trades Council cannot be reached, staff will return to Council for further direction.

Once the CWA has been adopted, staff will procure the services of a Community Workforce Coordinator to facilitate implementation and administration of the agreement.

Public Works staff will coordinate with the City Attorney’s office to develop construction contract provisions and specifications describing CWA requirements. Public Works staff will develop internal procedures to be used by City staff to help ensure uniform application of CWA requirements on all covered projects.

As noted previously, use of alternative project delivery methods and local purchasing policies can also provide the opportunity for the City to make progress on the MCG of Economic Recovery, Resiliency & Fiscal Sustainability. Updates on both strategies are as follows:

1. Staff is currently considering alternative project delivery methods as a part of the broader Capital Improvement Process effort. With the exception of certain energy saving projects, use of anything other than the design-bid-build methods requires amendment to both the municipal code and City Charter. During the Study Session in September 2021, the Council indicated general support for the use of alternative project delivery methods but expressed a desire for more analysis of the pros and cons of the alternatives. Due to the need for additional Council followup and the time that it takes to prepare a successful ballot measure for Charter amendment, staff is tentatively planning to work towards a ballot measure during the November 2024 statewide general election to allow for the use of alternative delivery methods, pending additional analysis and direction from Council.

2. On May 17th, the Finance Department will bring forward an item to seek Council’s consideration of policy updates that would broaden local vendor preferences for City purchases.

Item 6d

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2021-22
Funding Identified: Yes
Fiscal Analysis:

Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $ 105,000 $ $70,000 $
Water Fund $ 26,250 22,500
Sewer Fund $ 26,250 22,500
Parking Fund $ 17,500 15,000
Total $ 175,000 $ $130,000 $
The appropriated budget for FY2021-22 allocated $175,000 in operating budget to hire necessary consultant support for this ongoing effort, with costs proportionally shared between the General Fund and three enterprise funds – Water, Sewer, and Parking.

Currently, $45,000 has been obligated for consultant support of this work effort including legal services consisting of CWA contract negotiation support, with a remaining budget of $130,000. In the near term, remaining budget may be utilized for implementation of the Council preferred action, including work to develop procedures for implementation of CWAs on covered projects. The costs of implementation in the long term, which include consultant support for CWA contract oversight during project construction, would be applied to the covered Capital Projects and be incorporated into the project construction budget.

ALTERNATIVES
These alternatives are discussed extensively above in the body of the report.

1. Authorize Staff to negotiate a Community Workforce Agreement with the Tri-Counties Building and Construction Trades Council to include projects with an estimated construction cost of $15 million or greater, including a 60% local worker participation goal and excluding emergency projects and prevailing wage services provided through professional services agreements.

2. Authorize Staff to negotiate a Community Workforce Agreement with the Tri-Counties Building and Construction Trades Council to include projects with an estimated construction cost of $5 million or greater, including a 60% local worker participation goal and excluding rehabilitation projects, emergency projects, and prevailing wage services provided through professional services agreements.

3. Direct staff not to negotiate a Community Workforce Agreement with the Tri-Counties Building and Construction Trades Council.

Item 6d

ATTACHMENTS
A – City Capital Improvement Program CWA Evaluation
B – CWA Frequently Asked Questions Document
C – Public Works Prevailing Wage and Fringe Benefit Summary

Date: March 16, 2022
To: Brian Nelson
City Engineer/Deputy Director of Public Works
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
CC: Matt Horn, Public Works Director
Prepared by: Justin Pickard, Water Systems Consulting, Inc.

Subject: City Capital Improvement Program Community Workforce Agreement Evaluation Introduction
The purpose of this memorandum is to review typical provisions in community workforce agreements (CWAs) and evaluate the potential impacts of key provisions on the delivery of capital improvement projects by the City of San Luis Obispo (City). The memorandum is not intended to be an exhaustive review of every provision included in CWAs or to provide an opinion on the merit of a City-wide CWA.

Please note that the content of this memorandum is based largely on the previous CWA analysis prepared by the City and WSC for the SLO Water Plus (i.e., WRRF Upgrade) Project. It has been updated to reflect the City’s recent experiences on the SLO Water Plus Project and discussions with other public agencies in the Central Coast who have recently evaluated or negotiated CWAs.

Background
CWAs are pre-hire collective bargaining agreements that establish standard terms and conditions that apply to a specific construction project. CWAs are typically negotiated between the project owner and the local building trades council or individual construction trades, although CWAs can be directly negotiated between contractors and construction trades. The general contractor and subcontractors of any tier must agree to be bound by the requirements of the agreement prior to performing any work on a CWA-covered project.

Key CWA provisions include the establishment of uniform work conditions, hiring procedures, wages and benefits, management rights, dispute resolution procedures, and procedures to prevent work stoppages. In addition, CWAs often include provisions to promote participation in covered projects from targeted workers and demographics including local residents, apprentices, historically underutilized residents and businesses, at-risk persons, veterans, minority-owned businesses and disadvantaged business enterprises.

It is important to note that CWAs typically only apply to the employment of workers in the construction trades who are represented by unions, and work classifications for which prevailing wage rates have been determined by the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). CWA coverage would not extend to the provision of professional services by consultants where work classifications and prevailing wage determinations have not been established by the DIR or to City employees.

Standard CWA Provisions
The following sections detail typical provisions included in CWAs, and potential considerations for the City’s CIP projects regarding each provision.

Work Conditions
Uniform Work Conditions
CWAs commonly include provisions to establish uniform work conditions across each of the construction trades providing craft labor on the covered project. Conditions typically covered include work hours, holidays, meal periods, break periods, overtime and double-time pay, shifts, and shift differential pay.

For contractors that are signatory to the unions, the Master Labor Agreement (MLA) with each individual trade sets forth standard work conditions. The MLA for each trade can include slightly different provisions related to work conditions, and a CWA can serve to standardize these conditions across all trades and simplify the management process. For example, a CWA could specify City holidays as the non-working days to be observed on covered projects by all construction trades, rather than each trade recognizing different holidays which could lead to inefficiencies in the delivery of the work.

Many of the work conditions typically covered in CWAs are also addressed in the California Labor Code including shift lengths, meal and break periods, and overtime/double-time pay. In addition, the construction contract sets forth allowable work hours and holidays observed by the project owner. In the absence of a CWA, California Labor Code and the construction contract will establish the work conditions for the project in question.

City CIP Project Considerations
Standard work conditions provisions in a CWA are not anticipated to provide a significant benefit on the City’s CIP projects, as many of the provisions typically included are addressed in the California Labor Code and the construction contract documents.

Hiring Procedures
Union Recognition
CWAs designate trade unions and the local or regional building trades council as the exclusive source of craft labor on covered projects and the exclusive bargaining representatives for craft workers. In addition, employers must recognize the jurisdiction and scope of work specific to each trade as established in each MLA.

Referral Systems
CWAs require that established union referral systems be used exclusively to obtain craft labor on covered projects. If a union referral system is unable to refer workers within a defined period of time (typically 48 hours), contractors are allowed to hire employees from other sources. CWAs do not discriminate between union and non-union workers; however, non-union workers must register with the union hiring hall to become eligible for assignment to a covered project and must become a member of the union while working on a CWA-covered project. Union membership may include payment of regular union dues, although requirements for contribution of unions dues has recently changed based on the recent Janus decision by the U.S. Supreme Court (Janus v. AFSCME, 2018).

Core Workers
CWAs limit the number of workers that non-union contractors can employ on a project without utilizing the union hiring hall system. These employees are termed “core” workers, and typically include key positions such as foremen. Employees must meet specific requirements to be considered a core worker including being recently active on the contractor’s payroll (i.e., for 60 of the 100 working days immediately prior to the award of the contract), possessing licenses required for the performance of the project work, and having the ability to safely perform the duties and functions of the trade for which they are providing craft labor.

Non-union contractors can hire core workers on a one-to-one ratio with employees referred by the union hiring hall up to a maximum number of core workers. For example, the contractor can hire a member of its core workforce first, followed by an employee referred from the union hiring hall second, then another member of its core workforce. This process continues until the maximum number of core workers specified in the CWA is reached. Core worker provisions do not apply to union signatory contractors.

Union and Non-Union Contractor Comparison
For union contractors and on CWA-covered projects, MLAs clearly define the scope of work that can be performed by each individual trade, and workers are not allowed to work outside of their classification/jurisdiction. Non-union contractors on projects not covered by a CWA can allow their employees to perform a wider range of tasks. For example, a non-union employee can perform functions of multiple trades (e.g., laborer, operating engineer, cement mason), provided they are paid the appropriate prevailing wage rate for each classification while performing the work.

Hiring procedures included in CWAs limit the ability of non-union contractors to utilize their core workforce on covered projects. CWAs establish the maximum number of core workers that a non-union contractor can employ on a project and require non-union contractors to use union referral systems exclusively for obtaining craft labor. While non-union workers can register with the union and become eligible to work on the project, they are subject to the hiring hall rules of each specific trade. Union hiring halls maintain out-of-work lists, and members are typically dispatched to projects based on the order in which they registered with the hiring hall (i.e., first come, first served). It is important to note that the hiring procedures and hiring hall rules are specific to each local union.

Hiring procedures in CWAs do not significantly impact union signatory contractors. Signatory contractors routinely use union referral systems to obtain craft labor and can request specific employees by name, rather than requesting workers from the out-of-work list for each trade. In addition, core worker provisions do not apply to union contractors and union contractors are able to utilize their core workforce without limitation. Exceptions can include specific requirements in MLAs that restrict or limit participation of “traveling” union members from their home union to the local union at the project location.

City CIP Project Considerations
The impact of CWA hiring procedure provisions on the City’s CIP projects depends largely on whether prospective contractors are signatory to the individual unions. Non-union contractors will be impacted by limits placed on their ability to utilize their core workforce. Union contractors will not be significantly impacted by the hiring procedure provisions as the procedures reflect their standard work practices.

Specialty Subcontractors
In general, CWA hiring procedures will likely impact smaller, specialty subcontractors more than the general contractor and major subcontractors, depending on the size of the project. Specialty subcontractors (e.g., roofers, glaziers, tile installers, sheet metal workers, etc.) typically have a smaller role relative to the overall scope of project in question, provide fewer employees and fewer craft hours, and are more likely to be local contractors. Non-union specialty contractors with a small workforce rely more heavily on their core workers, and limitations on their ability to fully utilize their core workforce will disproportionately affect their ability to effectively perform their subcontracted scope of work. In addition, small non-union contractors often do not fully understand the CWA requirements when submitting subcontract bids and may refuse to sign the required letter of assent before beginning work on a CWA-covered project. This can result in cost and schedule impacts associated with subcontractor substitutions.

Careful consideration should be given to the impacts of a CWA on smaller specialty contractors if the City decides to move forward with an agreement. Negotiations with the building trades should include a discussion of potential exemptions from the typical CWA hiring provisions and core worker restrictions for small and specialty subcontractors performing limited scope on the City’s CIP projects.

Construction Inspection
Construction inspectors and other personnel performing quality assurance and quality control functions will also be impacted by the hiring procedures set forth in a CWA, as construction inspection is a prevailing wage classification and construction inspectors are represented by the Operating Engineers Union. Construction inspectors are typically employed by a third-party construction manager through a professional services agreement with the City. While professional services are exempt from CWAs, construction inspection is a prevailing wage classification, and personnel performing quality control and quality assurance functions would be subject to the provisions of the CWA, including the hiring procedures discussed in the preceding paragraphs.

An evaluation of the inspection needs for each of the City’s CIP projects and the CIP as a whole will be important to further evaluate the impacts of a CWA on construction inspection. When inspection is to be performed in-house by Utilities and Public Works employees, the CWA will not have an impact.

When inspection is to be performed by a third-party construction management or inspection firm through a professional services agreement, the CWA will have a considerable impact. When soliciting proposals for third-party construction management and inspections services, the City’s evaluation of respondents will be partially based on the qualifications of the proposed inspection staff. Construction inspectors must have experience commensurate with the complexity of the CIP projects for which they are being retained to support. As providers of professional services, most construction management firms are not signatory to construction unions and non-union firms will be subject to standard CWA hiring procedures, including core worker provisions. These provisions will impact the construction manager’s ability to utilize its inspection staff on the City’s projects and will require the firm to obtain a portion of its inspection staff through the union referral system described in the preceding paragraphs.

Construction inspection is not a commodity service – inspector qualifications and specific experience with the improvements being constructed is critical to the successful performance of the work.

Employment of union inspectors presents significant risk to the construction manager, as the inspector’s qualifications are unknown, and the employer retains the liability for performance of the inspector’s duties.

Specialty Inspection and Materials Testing
Construction management firms subcontract with specialty inspection and materials testing firms to inspect portions of the work (e.g., reinforced concrete, masonry, welding, high-strength bolting, soils, coatings, etc.) that require special certifications (e.g., International Code Council (ICC), American Concrete Institute (ACI), Certified Welding Inspector (CWI), etc.) in accordance with the contract documents and code requirements. The City also contracts directly with specialty inspection firms and maintains a list of on-call providers. Specialty inspection firms also perform materials testing in off-site laboratories. CWAs present unique challenges for specialty inspection and materials testing firms, as the hiring provisions require employment of inspectors from the union hiring hall, who might not have the requisite experience or certifications to perform the required inspection. Additional concerns regarding employer liability and worker’s compensation insurance coverage present significant risk and barriers to participation on CWA-covered projects for non-union specialty inspection and materials testing firms.

On the SLO Water Plus Project, the only local, full-service specialty inspection and materials testing firm expressed their unwillingness to provide services on the project if the CWA provisions extended to construction inspection and quality assurance. If the City had not successfully negotiated the exclusion of inspection and quality assurance from the SLO Water Plus CWA, specialty inspection and materials testing services would likely have been required from as far away as Ventura County (the nearest unionsignatory specialty inspection and materials testing firm), resulting in significant additional cost to the City for travel time as well as considerable logistical challenges associated with timely performance of specialty inspections.

Professional Land Surveying
Like construction inspection, land surveying is a prevailing wage classification and providers of professional surveying services to the City would be subject to the provisions of the CWA including, but not limited to, core worker limitations and payment of fringe benefits to union trust funds. Employer concerns regarding employer liability and insurance requirements for workers referred by the union as described in the sections above would likely also extend to professional surveying firms.

Should the City elect to move forward with a CWA, negotiations with the building trades should include a discussion of potential exemption from the typical CWA hiring provisions and core worker restrictions for project staff performing quality assurance work, including construction inspectors, specialty inspectors, and materials testers.

Wages and Benefits
Wages
Wages for craft workers on public works projects are paid in accordance with applicable state and federal prevailing wage rates. CWAs do not supersede applicable prevailing wage rates and wages paid to craft workers are the same for CWA and non-CWA projects.

Benefits
The DIR establishes basic hourly rates and fringe benefit amounts that must be provided to the employee by the employer. Fringe benefits include health and welfare, pension, vacation/holiday, training, and “other” benefits. “Other” benefits include contributions to management relations boards, industry advancement funds, and other miscellaneous initiatives specific to each trade. Non-union contractors must provide benefits of equivalent value as the fringe benefit amounts established by the DIR or pay fringe benefits directly to their employees as wages. Training benefits must be paid directly to a State-approved apprenticeship program and are not paid directly to the employee as wages.

Union contractors provide fringe benefit payments on behalf of their employees directly to union trusts, who in turn provide benefits to their members. As with non-union contractors, training benefits must be paid directly to a State-approved apprenticeship program and are not paid directly to the union trust fund. In addition, some union MLAs require contractor contributions to industry advancement funds and various union trust funds. These contributions are made on a per hour basis for each employee.

Union and Non-Union Contractor Comparison
On CWA-covered projects, all contractors, regardless of union affiliation, must pay fringe benefit contributions directly to the union trust fund for each employee for the duration of the project. Union contractors are not affected by this requirement as it reflects their normal business practice and is in alignment with the MLAs between the construction trades and union employers.

The extent to which payment of fringe benefits to union trusts affects non-union contractors depends largely on the benefits employers offer to their employees. If non-union contractors provide benefits such as 401k plans, paid vacation, or health insurance, these benefits would no longer be provided through the employer and would be provided through the union trust. For non-union contractors that pay fringe benefit contributions directly to employees as wages, the contractors would begin making these payments to the union trust on their employees’ behalf.

For non-union contractors that do not provide benefits to their employees, fringe benefits are paid in the form of wages. Employees have the freedom to purchase their own health insurance or invest in savings and retirement as they see fit.

Information published by the United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that union workers have greater participation rates in medical benefit plans than non-union workers, 79% versus 46%, respectively. In addition, union workers have greater participation rates in retirement plans than non-union workers, 82% versus 47%, respectively (United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017).

City CIP Project Considerations
Union members must work a minimum number of hours to become vested in union pension programs (typically 10,000 hours or 5 years). Non-union workers for whom fringe benefits are paid to the union trust by their employer on City CIP projects might not work sufficient hours to become vested and may not ultimately realize any benefit from the trust fund contributions made on their behalf. This issue may be more pronounced for non-union specialty subcontractor employees performing limited scope on the City’s projects (e.g., roofers, glaziers, tile installers, etc.). These employees will likely not work sufficient hours to become vested in union trust funds because they will be performing a discrete scope of work that will be completed in a short period of time on the project.

For non-union workers performing limited scope for a limited period of time on the City’s CIP projects, employers may elect to continue providing their standard retirement and health benefits while also providing fringe benefit payments directly to the union trust. Provision of benefit payments to both the union trust and directly to the employee can result in increased costs to the employer. In addition, employer contributions to industry advancement and various union trust funds as required by MLAs would result in additional cost to the employer.

If the City decides to consider a CWA for all CIP projects above a specified value, negotiations with the building trades should include a discussion of potential exemptions from the required union trust fund benefit payments for small contractors performing limited scope on the City’s projects or for contractors whose employees work insufficient hours to become vested in union pension programs.

Management Rights
CWAs include provisions detailing the rights maintained by management under the agreement. CWAs typically give management exclusive rights to plan and direct the work; hire, layoff, and promote employees; determine the number of employees required to prosecute the work; determine means and methods of construction; select craft foremen; and assign and schedule the work. The intent of these provisions is to preserve the ability of management to perform key duties that are critical to the successful performance of work under the covered project.

City CIP Project Considerations
Management rights provisions are not anticipated to impact the City’s CIP projects. These provisions are simply intended to clearly express to signatories that contractors retain the right to manage the labor force on a covered project as they see fit.

Work Stoppages
CWAs include provisions expressly prohibiting strikes, picketing, work stoppages, slowdowns, and lockouts to ensure the continued performance of work and to prevent schedule delays on covered projects, with limited exceptions. When employers and employees are unable to agree on the terms and conditions of employment, employees may implement work stoppages such as strikes or slowdowns and employers can implement lockouts. Work stoppages are used to compel either the employer or the employees to agree to the terms and conditions of employment in dispute. Some CWAs allow unions to withhold craft labor in the event a contractor is delinquent in payment of its weekly payroll or payments to the union trust.

Work stoppages can significantly impact a construction project as they interrupt the availability of craft labor and delay performance of the work. Union employees are prevented from striking on the basis of economic conditions when bound by an active collective bargaining agreement and can only strike after a good faith effort has been made at collective bargaining. Union employees are not constrained in their ability to strike on the basis of unfair labor practices when certain conditions are met. It is beyond the scope of this memorandum to detail the circumstances and laws surrounding employers’ and employees’ ability to implement work stoppages.

City CIP Project Considerations
The construction trades in California have a long history of successful collective bargaining with the construction industry. A review of work stoppage data compiled by the United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics did not identify any work stoppages by the construction trades in California involving 1,000 or more workers over the last ten years (United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021). Work stoppages resulting from a lapse in the collective bargaining agreements between the construction trades and the construction industry do not present a significant risk to delivery of the City’s CIP.

Previous public works projects constructed by the City have been picketed by the construction trades, and in isolated incidents, workers have refused to cross picket lines. In the event of a picket at one of the City’s construction sites, union workers might refuse to cross picket lines, impacting performance of the work. A CWA would expressly prohibit strikes, picketing, and work stoppages and would mitigate this concern. It is recommended that additional analysis be performed to better understand the membership rules of each trade regarding the ability of union members to cross picket lines. This analysis would help quantify the risk of a work slowdown resulting from a picket if a CWA is not in place for the City’s CIP projects.

Dispute Resolution
Dispute resolution provisions are included in CWAs to establish a uniform and timely process to resolve project issues without slowing down or stopping the work. Disputes regarding the jurisdiction of individual trades are settled in accordance with the Plan for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in the Construction Industry (the Plan). The Plan is a broadly recognized dispute resolution procedure established by the AFL-CIO and construction employer associations that has been in place since 1984.

When a jurisdictional dispute between trades arises on a project covered by a CWA (e.g., laborer versus pipefitter scope for the installation of underground pipelines), the issue is referred to the Plan for settlement. CWAs include provisions that prohibit work slowdowns and stoppages while jurisdictional disputes are being resolved.

CWAs also include provisions related to resolution of grievances and disputes not specifically related to jurisdictional issues. CWAs establish a defined, step-wise process for dispute resolution that encourages resolution of project issues on the lowest possible level. The dispute resolution process typically culminates with arbitration if not settled at a lower level. As with jurisdictional disputes, parties to a CWA cannot stop or slow down the work as a result of a grievance or dispute.

City CIP Project Considerations
It is difficult to evaluate the impacts of CWA dispute resolution provisions on the City’s CIP projects.

Disputes on construction projects are typically resolved informally by the general contractor and subcontractor management teams or through the formal dispute resolution and claims process detailed in the contract documents on non-CWA projects. Labor disputes that impact performance of the work rarely occur on public works construction projects and are rarely elevated to the project owner.

Jurisdictional issues are more likely to arise between union contractors or on CWA-covered projects where workers are not allowed to work outside of their classification, but where the scope of work for multiple trades overlaps. For example, the scope of work for both laborers and pipefitters includes installation of piping in water and wastewater treatment facilities. This overlap in scope may result in a jurisdictional dispute depending on the amount of work in question and the willingness of the trades to pursue resolution through the Plan. If a contractor signatory to the laborers union on a project assumes laborers will install the mechanical piping and uses prevailing wage rates for laborers in its bid, but the piping work is later found to be within the jurisdiction of the pipefitters at pipefitter prevailing wage rates, the contractor would incur significant additional costs. The contractor would be required to pay the difference in the prevailing wage rate between laborers and pipefitters for all hours worked as restitution, and pipefitter hourly rates are approximately 30% higher than laborer hourly rates. Nonunion contractors on projects not subject to CWA agreements would not be faced with a jurisdictional dispute and could elect to perform the work with laborers; however, the pipefitters could file a complaint with the DIR that the workers were not being paid the appropriate prevailing wage rate, which would be subject to an investigation by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement.

On the SLO Water Plus Project, the prime contractor assigned the pipe installation scope of work to the laborers in accordance with their obligations under the MLA with the laborers. The pipefitters union claimed jurisdiction over the pipe installation scope of work and alleged the City and the contractor did not comply with the requirements of the City’s Community Workforce Agreement. The issue was ultimately resolved, but required significant effort from the City, its Program Manager and its Community Workforce Coordinator.

Targeted Worker Participation
Many CWAs include provisions to increase participation in covered projects by targeted workers.

Targeted workers typically include local residents, apprentices, at-risk persons, veterans, and disadvantaged business enterprises. CWAs establish goals for the percentage of total craft hours on the covered project to be performed by the targeted workers. Construction contractors can be required to retain the services of a jobs coordinator, who works with the contractor, unions, local workforce development agencies, and apprenticeship programs to help the contractor meet the participation goals for each demographic set forth in the agreement.

CIP Project Considerations
Targeted worker provisions can be effective in increasing participation in the WRRF Project by the targeted demographics and developing the local workforce. The success of targeted worker participation provisions depends on commitment to the process by all parties to the CWA through ongoing and active management. Absent a CWA, unions are not able to prioritize dispatch of targeted workers and must follow their normal referral procedures as defined in the MLA.

On the SLO Water Plus Project, the local worker participation goal of 30% has consistently been exceeded, and 79% of all craft hours performed on the project to date have been by local workers. It is important to note that the definition of a “local worker” in the SLO Water Plus CWA is not limited to City of San Luis Obispo residents. Residents of San Luis Obispo County, Santa Barbara County, Monterey County and Ventura County are all considered local workers. Unions refer workers to the WRRF Project based on a tiered system, with priority given to the lowest tier. The tiers are defined as follows: Tier 1 – City of San Luis Obispo; Tier 2 – County of San Luis Obispo; Tier 3 – Santa Barbara and Monterey Counties; and Tier 4 – Ventura County.

Cost
Impacts of a CWA on construction costs are difficult to quantify and are beyond the scope of this memorandum to assess. Proponents of CWAs assert that these agreements save money while opponents argue that CWAs increase project costs. Information regarding the arguments on both sides of this issue is readily available through previously published articles and research. The City will need adequate budget for CWA negotiation, contract document development, development of standard procedures to facilitate uniform CWA application on all City projects, and budget to retain the services of a CWA administrator to administer the CWA on behalf of the City.

SLO Water Plus Project Experience
The City entered into a CWA with the Tri Counties Building and Construction Trades Council (Trades Council) for the SLO Water Plus Project in December 2018. A summary of key takeaways and lessons learned from the SLO Water Plus Project to date is as follows:
 The City successfully negotiated the exclusion of construction inspection and materials testing from the scope of the CWA as described in previous sections of this memorandum. Exclusion of construction inspection and materials testing prevented significant cost and logistical challenges for provision of inspection services by the City’s construction manager.  The pipefitters union claimed jurisdiction over pipe installation work assigned to the laborers by the contractor. While not elevated to a formal jurisdictional claim, resolution required significant coordination by the City and its Community Workforce Coordinator.  The contractor informally expressed challenges with securing subcontractor bids for portions of the work (e.g., elevators, architectural metal work and finishes, etc.) related to the Water Resource Center (WRC), which could be attributed to the CWA. In the absence of subcontractor bids for this work, the contractor used conservative placeholder numbers in its bid, increasing the cost of the WRC additive alternate bid item, which ultimately exceeded the City’s available budget.
 Local worker participation through the end of February 2022 is 79% – over 2.5 times the 30% goal set forth in the agreement.
 Of the 26 contractors who have worked on the SLO Water Plus Project through February 2021, six were non-union contractors performing relatively minor scopes of work (e.g., fencing, asbestos abatement, welding, demolition and concrete pumping).  CWA administration services are estimated to be $312,000 (based on a 42-month construction duration), or 0.3% of the original construction contract amount.

Other Agency Experience
Several public agencies in the Central Coast have recently negotiated, or are in the process of negotiating, CWAs for specific projects or for projects over a specified value. The following sections provide some background and discussion on these CWAs based on WSC’s research and discussions with project owners.

South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District
The South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD) entered into a Community Workforce Agreement (CWA) with the Trades Council in August 2019 for their Wastewater Treatment Plant Redundancy Project. The CWA is modeled after the City’s WRRF Project agreement, including exclusion of inspection and quality assurance from the scope of the CWA. Inspection and quality assurance were excluded after vocal opposition from consultants pursuing construction management services for the project.

The District received outside funding from the USDA Rural Development Loan Program, and USDA was reluctant to affirm compatibility of the CWA with their loan program. The District ultimately received approval from USDA, and construction started in January 2021. Like the WRRF, pipefitters claimed jurisdiction over the project mechanical work although the work was assigned to the laborers by the general contractor. The dispute has been settled informally by the District and its Community Workforce Coordinator. The District has not had any significant issues or concerns since the start of construction, though the project is in the early stages of construction.

The Port of Hueneme
The Port of Hueneme entered into a CWA with the Trades Council in December 2018 for all projects with estimated construction costs of $250,000 or greater. Port representatives noted that on isolated occasions for specialized projects (e.g., dredging, waterside construction, etc.), local workers did not have the requisite skillsets to perform the work, requiring workers from out of the area. The Port acknowledged increased costs associated with fulfilling administrative requirements of the CWA but noted implementation of the agreement has been straightforward and employment of local workers has been a benefit to the neighboring communities.

The City of Santa Barbara
The City of Santa Barbara finalized a CWA with the Trades Council in July 2021 for all projects with estimated construction costs of $5 million or greater. The City reviewed certified payroll reports from past public works projects and discovered a relatively high participation rate from local workers on projects with a construction cost of $5 million or more (55-60%). The City ultimately included a 50% local worker participation goal in the final CWA.

Negotiations between the City of Santa Barbara and the Council centered around local worker participation goals, core worker hiring procedures, the maximum number of core workers allowed, exemption from union trust contribution requirements for local contractors, and exclusion of construction inspection and quality assurance from the scope of the agreement.

Santa Barbara County
Santa Barbara County (County) has been actively negotiating a CWA with the Trades Council for the last year. Previous negotiations between the County and the Trades Council for the Northern Branch Jail Project in 2014 stalled when the Operating Engineers Union declined to sign the negotiated agreement.

The County chose not to finalize an agreement that did not include all of the construction trades, as the Operating Engineers could still effect a work stoppage, which diminished the benefits of the agreement from the County’s perspective.

The County used the City of Santa Barbara CWA as a starting point for negotiations with the Trades Council. Current negotiations have focused on the CWA cost threshold, exemption of inspection and materials testing from the CWA, benefits, and exclusion of MLAs from being incorporated by reference.

The Trades Council has proposed a $5 million project cost threshold consistent with the City of Santa Barbara CWA and the County has proposed a $10 million threshold. The $10 million threshold has been suggested to reduce impacts to local contractors who typically bid County projects while maximizing potential CWA benefits on larger projects that are more likely to be bid by non-local contractors.

County staff is advocating for exclusion of inspection and materials testing scope from the agreement for similar reasons as those described earlier in this report.

The County has also proposed that existing employee benefits programs provided by non-union contractors be allowed to remain in place, rather than mandatory union trust fund contributions. The County has taken this position to address contractor concerns with the time required to vest in union pension programs, the disruption associated with changing health care providers from existing employer plans to new union plans, and the risk of potential underfunded pensions and ongoing underfunded pension liability.

County staff is advocating for removal of CWA language that incorporates MLAs from all signatory unions by reference. The County is concerned with 1) provisions in specific MLAs that might not be compatible with County Code (e.g., mandatory employment of persons of a certain age), 2) the burden for non-union contractors to become familiar and comply with numerous MLAs for the trades, 3) the fact that the County is not a party to the MLA negotiations, and 4) risk associated with MLAs expiring during the term of the CWA, and new MLA requirements becoming effective that were not initially known.

Recommendations
The following sections describe various issues for the City to consider when evaluating the merit of a CWA for its CIP projects.

Alignment with Major City Goals
A CWA could be one component of a suite of solutions intended to enhance local economic vitality that could include utilization of local vendors, amendments to the City charter to prioritize purchasing from local businesses and alternative project delivery. While a CWA could help achieve economic vitality goals for large projects, it might not be the most appropriate approach for smaller projects where other tools would be more successful.

Review of Historical Local Worker Participation
The City should review certified payroll reports for past City CIP projects to determine historical local worker participation percentages. A better understanding of historical local worker participation would facilitate negotiations with the building trades and establish a baseline that could be compared to future projects if covered by a CWA.

Agreement Provisions
The following provisions should be considered when negotiating a CWA with the local building trades:
 Inspection, Materials Testing and Land Surveying – Inclusion of inspection and quality assurance in the CWA will fundamentally change the way the City secures these services from professional consulting firms. The City should evaluate these potential impacts to determine whether to pursue exclusion of this scope from the CWA.
 Construction Value – The cost threshold for CWA-covered projects could be tied to an index (e.g., CPI or ENR CCI) or a percentage of the City’s Sewer Fund to account for cost variability over time. Alternatively, the City could identify 2-3 of its largest CIP projects that are conducive to a CWA and limit the agreement to a specific list of projects rather than a cost threshold.  Sunset Clause – The CWA should be allowed to expire within a reasonable time frame, allowing the City to evaluate alignment of the agreement with City goals and performance of projects completed under the CWA.
 Core Workers – Increasing the number of core workers that non-union contractors can hire will reduce barriers to entry.
 Equivalent Benefits – Consideration of equivalent benefits paid by non-union contractors and exemption from union trust funds will reduce barriers to entry for non-union contractors.  Regional Projects – The CWA should exclude projects with regional partnerships or projects where other public agencies provide project funding. As the City considers future regional water supply projects with multiple stakeholders, this exclusion could be important for stakeholder alignment.

Works Cited
United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017, July 21). Economic News Release.

Retrieved from United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics:
www.bls.gov/news.release/ebs2.nr0.htm
United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021, April 6). Work Stoppages.

Retrieved from United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics:
https://www.bls.gov/web/wkstp/monthly-listing.htm

Background
With the adoption of the 2021-23 Financial Plan, the Major City Goal of Economic Recovery, Resiliency & Fiscal Sustainability was formalized. The objective of this Goal is to continue supporting economic recovery for all from the COVID-19 pandemic and support a thriving local economy by supporting local businesses, arts, and culture; downtown vitality; practicing fiscal responsibility; paying down unfunded pension liabilities; and investing in critical infrastructure.

To help achieve this goal, a work program has been included in the Financial Plan which is aimed at maximizing the benefit of City expenditures to the local economy by supporting local businesses and workers.

The work program will evaluate several potential alternatives including community workforce agreements, local purchasing policies, and alternative project delivery methods. This document provides background and responses to frequently asked questions regarding community workforce agreements.

Frequently Asked Questions
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Workforce Agreements
1 What is a community workforce agreement?
A community workforce agreement, or CWA, is a
collective bargaining agreement between a project
owner (in this case, the City of San Luis Obispo) and
construction trade unions. The agreement establishes
standard terms and conditions of employment for
the covered construction project(s) including work
conditions, hiring procedures, wages and benefits,
management rights, dispute resolution procedures,
and procedures to prevent work stoppages. CWAs are
also known as project labor agreements or community
stabilization agreements.

How would a CWA benefit the local economy?
CWAs can be crafted to include provisions aimed at
promoting participation in covered projects by targeted demographics such as local residents. Including local
hiring goals in the City’s public works contracts with a CWA could increase participation in City projects by
local workers, creating job opportunities and keeping
construction dollars in the local economy.

What are potential disadvantages of a CWA?
CWAs designate construction unions as the sole source
of labor on covered projects. Union referral of workers to employers can be a significant change to the normal
business practices of non-union contractors and
consultants. The City would also be required to hire a
third-party CWA administrator to oversee and implement
the agreement, which would increase project costs.

How could the City increase participation in its public projects by local workers without a CWA? Potential alternatives to a CWA include local hiring mandates, local worker participation goals with good faith efforts, and bonus/incentive payments for local worker participation.

Has a CWA ever been used on a City project?
A CWA with a local hiring goal of 30% is currently being used on the City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) Project. To date, 77% of all labor hours on the project have been performed by local workers.

How would a CWA affect my business?
If your business provides prevailing wage labor on City projects (contractors and consultants), you would be subject to the terms and conditions of the CWA including the requirement that workers be referred from the union hiring hall. Non-union employers can use their core employees (i.e., long standing workers) on a one-to-one ratio with workers referred by the union hiring hall up to a maximum number of core employees (typically 3-5). After the core employee limit is reached, all workers must be referred by the union hiring hall.

In addition, employers must pay fringe benefits to the union trust fund on behalf of their employees rather than providing employer benefit packages or paying fringe benefits to employees as additional wages. If your business provides goods or professional services (non-prevailing wage), you would not be affected by a CWA.

Is there a difference in hourly pay rates on projects with CWAs? No. California law requires that craft workers on public projects be paid prevailing wage rates established by the California Department of Industrial Relations, regardless of whether a CWA is in place.

Do I have to become a union signatory contractor/consultant to work on a CWA-covered project?
No. All companies, regardless of union affiliation, can work on CWA-covered projects although you must agree to the terms and conditions of the CWA prior to performing any work. You and your employees may also be required to pay dues and fees to a union while working on a CWA-covered project.

What is the schedule for the potential implementation of a CWA? City staff are currently compiling background information and performing stakeholder outreach. A staff report detailing the findings and considerations related to CWAs will be presented to City Council in Spring 2022.

How can I provide feedback or ask additional questions? Contact the Acting City Engineer, Brian Nelson, at [email protected]. 2

Community Workforce Agreement: Phase 2 Data Analysis, Outreach and Draft Policy Development Attachment C – Prevailing Wage and Fringe Benefit Summary Construction craft workers on public projects in California are paid prevailing wage rates established by the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). Prevailing wage rates are comprised of a base hourly rate and fringe benefits for health and welfare, pension, vacation and holiday, training, and “other” benefits. Prevailing wages are based on worker classification (e.g., laborer, carpenter, cement mason, etc.) and the location where the work is being performed (e.g., Northern California, Southern California, etc.). Attachment A includes additional information on prevailing wage rates. The purpose of this exhibit is to provide a breakdown of prevailing wage rates and fringe benefits along with a description of the disposition of fringe benefits on CWA-covered projects. Table A presents a breakdown of base hourly rates and fringe benefits for select worker classifications.

Table A. Prevailing Wages for Select Construction Craft Worker Classifications Employers on public projects must pay their workers wages and benefits with a value equivalent to the prevailing wage rate published by the DIR. On CWA-covered projects or for union-signatory contractors, all fringe benefits (except training) must be paid to a union trust fund on behalf of the employee. Training fund contributions are made directly to a State-approved apprenticeship program. Absent a CWA, employers can pay fringe benefits directly to their employees as wages, or they can provide medical, retirement, and vacation benefits with a value equivalent to the prevailing wage rate.

Classification
Basic
Hourly
Rate
Amount
% of
Total
Hourly
Rate
Amount
% of
Total
Hourly
Rate
Amount
% of
Total
Hourly
Rate
Amount
% of
Total
Hourly
Rate
Amount
% of
Total
Hourly
Rate
Total
Fringes
Total
Fringes as
% of Total
Hourly Rate
Total
Hourly
Rate
Carpenter $ 44.44 $ 8.00 12% $ 5.66 8% $ 7.16 10% $ 2.44 4% $ 0.62 1% $ 23.88 35% $ 68.32 Laborer - Group 1 $ 37.43 $ 8.10 13% $ 10.32 17% $ 4.87 8% $ 0.61 1% $ 0.70 1% $ 24.60 40% $ 62.03 Operating Engineer - Group 1 $ 49.65 $ 11.85 15% $ 13.15 17% $ 3.60 5% $ 0.39 0.5% $ 1.05 1% $ 30.04 38% $ 79.69 Construction Inspector - Group 1 $ 50.43 $ 11.85 15% $ 13.15 16% $ 3.60 4% $ 0.39 0.5% $ 1.05 1% $ 30.04 37% $ 80.47 Land Surveyor - Instrumentman $ 51.86 $ 11.85 14% $ 13.15 16% $ 4.65 6% $ 0.15 0.2% $ 1.15 1% $ 30.95 37% $ 82.81

FRINGE BENEFITS
Health and Welfare Pension Vacation and
Holiday Other Training

As described in the staff report, many local contractors and consultants expressed concern that their employees would not work enough hours on a CWA-covered project to become vested in a union pension program, and the employee pension contributions would effectively be lost. Vesting in union pension funds typically requires five years, or 10,000 hours. Several local contractors and consultants stated they would continue providing a retirement benefit to their employees (either as wages or a retirement account contribution) to mitigate this loss of income.

To help quantify the potential cost impact of this issue, Table B presents the pension fringe benefit contributions for select worker classifications in a typical month (20 working days, 8 hours per day).

Table B. Example Pension Fringe Benefit Contribution Calculation The pension fringe benefit represents a significant portion of the total compensation for construction craft workers, and the potential loss of the pension contribution because of the union vesting requirement on CWA-covered projects would negatively impact craft workers. In addition, potential double-payment of the pension fringe benefit to mitigate the loss of income would be a significant expense for employers.

Classification Total
Hourly Rate
Pension
Fringe
Benefit
($/hr)
Hours
Worked Total Pay Total Pension Contribution
Carpenter $ 68.32 $ 5.66 160 $ 10,931.20 $ 905.60
Laborer - Group 1 $ 62.03 $ 10.32 160 $ 9,924.80 $ 1,651.20 Operating Engineer - Group 1 $ 79.69 $ 13.15 160 $ 12,750.40 $ 2,104.00 Construction Inspector - Group 1 $ 80.47 $ 13.15 160 $ 12,875.20 $ 2,104.00 Land Surveyor - Instrumentman $ 82.81 $ 13.15 160 $ 13,249.60 $ 2,104.00

City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum
City of San Luis Obispo
Council Agenda Correspondence
DATE: April 19, 2022
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Rick Scott, Police Chief
VIA: Derek Johnson, City Manager
SUBJECT: Item # 6e. - Council Correspondence regarding the Ordinance approving the Military Use policy in accordance with AB 481
This correspondence is regarding the item at the April 18, 2022, City Council meeting related to the new legislation governing the use of military equipment by the Police Department titled AB 481. To date no public questions have been received for follow up.

The information and materials were circulated with both the Police Advisory Committee (formerly PACT) and the Police Roundtable. A few questions for clarification on the department’s (AB 481) policy. Below is a summary of the questions posed to the department and our response to date which are indicated in italics. There will be a few minor changes to our proposed policy based on good feedback received thus far.

1. Q: Who (which position in the department, not necessarily a named individual) will be deemed the Equipment Coordinator?
a. The “Police Administrative Captain” will be the Chief’s designee and named in the proposed policy.

2. Q: What will the process be for acquisition and funding of each piece of equipment? a. Acquisition: See next question referencing approval below. b. Funding: There is no change for funding. All equipment we currently have is essentially funded until replacement is needed. We work through our existing budgetary process for this and request funding when items are expended or worn and become non-serviceable.

3. Q: What will be the approval process for new equipment? a. Yes, any NEW (not previously approved) equipment must go back to Council for approval via the ordinance process. We cannot buy anything Council has not reviewed and approved via this process. Ideally, this would happen once a year along with the annual military equipment report. If the need should arise for additional equipment, we did not previously seek approval for, then we will come back to Council.

Item 6e – Staff Agenda Correspondence Page 2

4. Q: What will the public process be for filing a complaint and what will be the documentation and follow-up processes for those complaints? Who will manage that process?
a. A specific section will be added to the proposed policy covering the process outlining and referring community members to our existing and robust complaint process which meets the elements of the law. Ideally it is not good practice to restate an existing policy within a policy as this will create opportunities for inconsistencies and significant version control issues and confusion for the public and staff.

5. Q: AFSC California Healing Justice reviewed policies from other cities. Could you please let us know if any of the concerns below are applicable to our policy? a. The San Luis Obispo Police Department and its policies are in alignment with AB 481. We reviewed numerous model policies including Sacramento PD. The AFSC document mostly parallels AB 481, but we are strictly following the mandates in the law which is best practice and required. b. The first line of AFSC letter states, “Policies complying with AB 481 should describe uses that are not authorized.” This is not a direct quote from the law and to better address the question is to have the actual verbiage from AB 481. AB 481 in Chapter 12.8 7070 (d)(2) states “Military equipment use policy means a publicly released, written document governing the use of military equipment by a law enforcement agency or a state agency that addresses, at minimum, all of the following. (2) The purposes and authorized uses for which the law enforcement agency or the state agency proposes to use each type of military equipment.” Attachment A of SLOPD’s Policy 709 does this as it lists the proposed and authorized use for each item of equipment.
c. The next section highlighted is from the AFSC document and not AB 481, “Policies should clearly state to whom deployments will be reported and how records will be kept.” AB 481 Chapter 12.8 7072 specifically outlines what is required by law. …The annual military equipment report shall, at a minimum, include the following information for the immediately preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment:

1. A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use.

2. A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment.

3. The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the military equipment use policy, and any actions taken in response.

Item 6e – Staff Agenda Correspondence Page 3

4. The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the annual military equipment report.

5. The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment.

6. If the law enforcement agency intends to acquire additional military equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment.

7. SLOPD Policy 709.8 closely follows AB 481 Chapter 12.8 7072 processes for reporting the use of this equipment as required by this law providing this information to Council annually. d. The last highlighted section from AFSC’s letter states, “Adequate enforcement of military equipment policies requires ordinances with a private right of action.” SLOPD Policy 709.3 (e) and 709.9 both outline our policy which ensures community engagement. Additionally, Policy 709.3 (g) ensures that the community can register a complaint or question regarding the use of military equipment. A complaint would follow our established complaint process Policy 1019. This will be better specified in our proposed policy for tomorrow.

6. Q: On page 1 of the policy, the listing of “military equipment” seems to include all items listed in AB 481. Are there specific items which we would not want for our City and should exclude within the policy? Perhaps specific assault weapons or LRAD’s?
a. Yes, all items listed in the law that are not being requested are by default not authorized already. Page 1 of our policy does list all items from AB 481.

The reason is Policy 709.1.1 is the “Definitions” section of the policy and we are adhering to the law outlined in AB 481. Our policy recognizes and adopts AB 481 in its entirety.
b. The Department thoughtfully determined what minimum equipment is necessary to carry out our duties and responsibilities as a department. The Department have been discerning in determining what equipment is needed and are not requesting at this time any new equipment that the department does not already possess and for which the department has governing policies.
c. The use of equipment and tools outlined in this report is very rare. In these rare and extreme circumstances, it would only be used to protect the welfare of community members and peace officers. For example, we do not have an LRAD and this is something that we found is not appropriate for our community along with many other items we are not requesting. If we continue with the policy as written, an LRAD and many other pieces of military equipment (not requested) will not be allowed for use by the department as intended.

Item 6e – Staff Agenda Correspondence Page 4

7. Our comprehensive Use of Force policies were developed over years of robust research and input and most recently in partnership with a nationally well know Jewish activism group Bend the Arc and model policies from the ALCU to ensure we are not using force or any weapons disproportionately against any members of our community to include black, brown, or any marginalized members. The equipment in this law (481) and others are merely tools only, their use is governed exclusively in our stringent and Use of Force policy.

8. The following is an excerpt from the Council Agenda Report that addresses the statement from AB 481: “It is important to note that the use of equipment and tools as outlined in this report is very rare. The Police Department has policies in place to deescalate situations and only uses force as needed to protect public safety. Nevertheless, many of these tools have been tested in the field and are used in very rare and life-threatening situations to protect public health and safety by LEAs to enhance resident and officer safety. The ability to use these items during rare and extreme circumstances are to protect the welfare of residents and peace officers within the City of San Luis Obispo.”
Attachment A - Military Equipment Policy 04/18/2022

San Luis Obispo Police Department
San Luis Obispo PD CA Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/01/03, All Rights Reserved. Military Equipment - 1 Published with permission by San Luis Obispo Police
Department
Policy
709
Military Equipment
709.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the approval, acquisition, funding, and reporting requirements regarding military equipment as defined in Government Code § 7070 (Government Code § 7070; Government Code § 7071; Government Code § 7072). 709.1.1 DEFINITIONS
Definitions related to this policy include (Government Code § 7070):

Governing body – The San Luis Obispo City Council (“City Council”).

Military equipment – Includes, but is not limited to, the following as defined in Government Code § 7070(c):
• Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. • Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. • High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), two-and-one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. • Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants. • Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units. • Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. • Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. This does not include a handheld, one-person ram.
• Firearms and ammunition of_.50 caliber or greater, excluding standard-issue shotguns and standard-issue shotgun ammunition.
• Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than_.50 caliber, including firearms and accessories identified as assault weapons in Penal Code § 30510 and Penal Code § 30515, with the exception of standard-issue handguns.
• Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles. • Noise-flash diversionary devices and explosive breaching tools. • Munitions containing tear gas or OC, excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.
• TASER® Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and long-range acoustic devices (LRADs).
• Kinetic energy weapons and munitions.
• Any other equipment as determined by City Council to require additional oversight.

Pursuant to Government Code § 7070(c), the following are not military equipment:
• Police versions of standard consumer vehicles
• Unarmored all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and motorized dirt bikes • Items designed to remove a lock, such as bolt cutters, or a handheld ram designed to be operated by one person

San Luis Obispo Police Department
San Luis Obispo PD CA Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/01/03, All Rights Reserved. Military Equipment - 2 Published with permission by San Luis Obispo Police
Department
• Standard issue shotguns
• Standard issue shotgun ammunition
• Standard issue service weapons and ammunition of less than .50 caliber • Standard service-issued handheld pepper spray
• General equipment not designated as prohibited or controlled by the federal Defense Logistics Agency
709.2 POLICY
It is the policy of the San Luis Obispo Police Department that members of this department comply with the provisions of Government Code sections 7070 through 7075 with respect to the approval for, acquisition, funding, and use of, and reporting regarding military equipment. 709.3 MILITARY EQUIPMENT COORDINATOR
The Police Administrative Captain is designated as the Military Equipment Coordinator by the Chief of Police and shall have all duties and responsibilities herein to include, but are not limited to:
(a) Acting as liaison to City Council for matters related to the requirements of this policy. (b) Identifying department equipment that qualifies as military equipment in the current possession of the department, or the equipment the department intends to acquire that requires approval by City Council.
(c) Conducting an inventory of all department military equipment at least annually. (d) Collaborating with any allied agency that may use military equipment within the jurisdiction of San Luis Obispo Police Department (Government Code § 7071). (e) Preparing for, scheduling, and coordinating the annual community engagement meeting, as outlined in section 709.8 of this policy, to include:

1. Publicizing the details of the meeting.

2. Preparing for public questions regarding the department’s funding, acquisition, and use of military equipment.
(f) Preparing the annual military equipment report for submission to the Chief of Police and ensuring that the report is made available on the department website (Government Code § 7072).
(g) Establishing the procedure for a person to register a complaint or concern, or how that person may submit a question about the use of a type of military equipment by the department, and how the department will respond in a timely manner. 709.4 MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
The qualifying equipment for the department is listed in Attachment A to this policy.

San Luis Obispo Police Department
San Luis Obispo PD CA Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/01/03, All Rights Reserved. Military Equipment - 3 Published with permission by San Luis Obispo Police
Department
709.5 APPROVAL
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall obtain approval from the City Council by way of an ordinance adopting the military equipment policy. As part of the approval process, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall ensure the proposed military equipment policy is submitted to City Council and is available on the department website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue (Government Code § 7071). The military equipment policy must be approved by City Council prior to engaging in any of the following (Government Code § 7071):
(a) Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to 10 USC § 2576a. (b) Seeking funds for military equipment, including but not limited to applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers.
(c) Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.
(d) Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the jurisdiction of this department. (e) Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by City Council.
(f) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of military equipment.
(g) Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided above. 709.6 COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Military equipment in the possession of the department shall not be used by any other law enforcement agency or member in this jurisdiction unless the military equipment is approved for use in accordance with this policy.

This policy recognizes the need for agencies to provide assistance to each other, whether in ongoing, combined, or regional operations, occasional planned operations, or in exigent circumstances. Where applicable to the provisions of Government Code § 7070 through § 7075, such assisting agencies shall comply with their respective military equipment use policies when rendering assistance and with any directions for use of department military equipment given by department command.

San Luis Obispo Police Department
San Luis Obispo PD CA Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/01/03, All Rights Reserved. Military Equipment - 4 Published with permission by San Luis Obispo Police
Department
709.7 EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES
This policy also recognizes that there may be very limited or extreme instances where incidents of extraordinary nature could demand the need for incident commanders to authorize Department personnel to use equipment not specified in this policy. This decision must be made depending on the totality of the circumstances, including due regard for the public’s safety, officer safety, respecting civil rights, the seriousness of the situation, and other information available at that time.

Should such extreme instances occur that call for members of this Department to use equipment not specified in this policy, the incident commander shall, if practical, notify the Chief of Police via the chain of command prior to deploying such equipment and the use of such equipment shall be documented in an appropriate report. Should such circumstances occur, the Chief of Police, or his/her designee, shall notify the City Council as soon as practical, and document any such uses in the required annual report.
709.8 ANNUAL REPORT
Upon approval of a military equipment policy, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall submit a military equipment report to City Council for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use (Government Code § 7072).

The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on the department website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The report shall include all information required by Government Code § 7072 for the preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment in department inventory.

The annual military equipment report shall, at a minimum, include the following information for the immediately preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment:
(a) A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use. (b) A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment.
(c) The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the military equipment use policy, and any actions taken in response. (d) The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the annual military equipment report.
(e) The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment. (f) If the department intends to acquire additional military equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment.

San Luis Obispo Police Department
San Luis Obispo PD CA Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/01/03, All Rights Reserved. Military Equipment - 5 Published with permission by San Luis Obispo Police
Department
709.9 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual report, the Department shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the general public may discuss and ask questions regarding the annual military equipment report and the Department’s funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment. At the meeting, the Department shall discuss the report and respond to questions regarding the Department’s funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment (Government Code §7072). 709.10 MILITARY EQUIPMENT COMPLAINT PROCESS
Trust and transparency to the community we serve is paramount to our community-oriented policing philosophy. Maintaining an active exchange of ideas and feedback is integral to the harmonization of this collaborative initiative. The most effective way to partner with our community on these important topics is to provide a safe and transparent means by which we listen to feedback and engage concerns on the necessary tools we are entrusted with to serve our community. Building and maintaining trust is predicated on first listening to concerns, giving a voice through dialogue, and swiftly acting on areas where we can improve.

Pursuant to 709.3 (g) of this policy, all formal complaints, questions, or inquiries received by the department, regardless of manner, pertaining to the use or misuse, possession, or acquisition of any item defined by this policy and/or AB 481 as Military Equipment shall be referred to Lexipol policy 1019 Personnel Complaints. Any complaint related to the misuse of Military Equipment is deemed serious in nature and will be investigated thoroughly and as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with the stringent procedures and processes as directed by Lexipol policy 1019.

Complaints received under 709.10 will be thoroughly documented and dispositions recorded per Lexipol policy 1019. All complaints, regardless of findings and/or disposition, shall be aggregated annually and reported to the Chief of Police for inclusion into the department’s annual Military Equipment Report presented to Council.

Item 6e
Department: Police
Cost Center: 8001
For Agenda of: 4/19/2022
Placement: Public Hearing
Estimated Time: 30 Minutes
FROM: Rick Scott, Police Chief
Prepared By: Fred Mickel, Lieutenant
SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE SAN LUIS OBISPO POLICE DEPARTMENT MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY 709

RECOMMENDATION
Introduce an Ordinance entitled, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy” and approving continued use of military equipment by the agency in accordance with Assembly Bill No. 481.

DISCUSSION
Assembly Bill 481 (Attachment A), codified at Government Code sections 7070 through 7075 requires all law enforcement agencies (LEA) in the State of California to obtain approval from the applicable governing body, via adoption of a “military equipment” use policy by ordinance (Attachment B), prior to the LEA funding, acquiring, or using military equipment. The purpose of this item is for the San Luis Obispo Police Department (SLOPD) is for the City Council adoption of the Military Equipment Use Policy – Lexipol Policy 709 (Attachment C), in order to allow SLOPD to continue to use the vital equipment specified therein.

It is important to note that the use of equipment and tools as outlined in this report is very rare. The Police Department has policies in place to deescalate situations and only uses force as needed to protect public safety. Nevertheless, many of these tools have been tested in the field and are used in very rare and life-threatening situations to protect public health and safety by LEAs to enhance resident and officer safety. The ability to use these items during rare and extreme circumstances are to protect the welfare of residents and peace officers within the City of San Luis Obispo.

The term “military equipment”, as used in AB 481, in fact does not necessarily indicate equipment that has been used by the military. Pursuant to AB 481, items deemed to be “military equipment” include, but are not limited to, unmanned aerial or ground vehicles, armored vehicles, command and control vehicles, pepper balls, less lethal shotguns, less lethal 40mm projectile launchers, long-range acoustic devices, and diversionary devices.

Item 6e
SLOPD is committed to using the most up to date tools and equipment to safeguard the residents of San Luis Obispo. Many of the items deemed to be “military equipment” by AB 481 are in fact deployed by SLOPD, and LEA’s across the country, in order to specifically reduce risk to community members. These items provide peace officers in rare and extreme circumstances with the ability to safely resolve volatile situations which otherwise might rise to the level of a lethal force encounter. To that end, the items at issue in this report, and accompanying Military Equipment Use Policy, also provide SLOPD’s peace officers with vital tools that facilitate compliance with its stringent use of force policy.

There is significant interest in ensuring that law enforcement continues to have access to equipment that will provide peace officers as many options as possible to safeguard lives, ensure safety, and protect civil liberties. The use of the tools identified below are vital to SLOPD’s mission and will continue to be strictly regulated through internal processes and oversight.

The proposed ordinance seeks to approve the SLOPD’s Lexipol Policy 709, which constitutes SLOPD’s Military Equipment Use Policy. Lexipol 709 Attachment C outlines each item identified in Government Code section 7070, that is currently owned by the City. Lexipol also includes the current use of each item (Attachment A). These particular items, and their stated uses, have been in place prior to the implementation of AB 481.

Future acquisitions of any item deemed to be “military equipment” will require a further public meeting, policy update, and Council approval.

The proposed Lexipol 709 safeguards the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties. Lexipol 709 ensures that there are safeguards, including transparency, oversight, and accountability measures in place. For instance, Lexipol 709.3 requires that SLOPD’s Military Equipment Coordinator will ensure that SLOPD complies with Lexipol 709 and will conduct an annual audit of military equipment. Violations of Lexipol 709 will be corrected when discovered. Members of the public are provided guidance and a process per the policy on how to register complaints for violations. All items which result in a use of force will be investigated, as is already required by existing SLOPD policy.

There are no reasonable alternatives to the items listed below. SLOPD has not discovered alternative items that can achieve the same objectives of officer and civilian safety. Each item’s necessity is further described below:

Unmanned remotely piloted powered aerial vehicle: Unmanned aerial systems (UAS) are necessary as they provide visibility to high-risk locations. Without the use of a UAS, peace officers would have to deploy to high-risk locations which would increase the risk to the officers and members of the public. The UAS system is designed to enter small spaces, such as enclosed structures, as well as to provide overhead observations of wooded areas and other structures located in often times crowded spaces. These UAS are also used to help locate and rescue people in open space areas. There are no known alternatives which could be used to safely access these locations.

Item 6e
Unmanned remotely controlled ground vehicle: Unmanned ground robots are used for reconnaissance during critical incidents to assist in providing visibility in areas where it would be unsafe to send a peace officer. This system can also be used to defuse or move potentially hazardous items. Not having access to this item would require the use of peace officers to engage in high-risk tasks. There is no known alternative to this system.

Armored personnel carriers, that have a breaching or entry apparatus: Armored vehicles are used to provide ballistic protection to officers and residents during rescue, critical incidents and other hazardous situations. These vehicles allow officers closer access to high-risk situations while substantially reducing the physical risk to the officers and citizens. These vehicles are built on commercial vehicle chassis and are primarily a reinforcement of civilian commercial vehicles. As such, there are no reasonable alternatives to providing the same level of ballistic protection. This vehicle for example was used in Montecito during the mud and debris flows to extract stranded individuals.

Command and control vehicles: The mobile incident command vehicle (MIC) is an unarmored vehicle equivalent to a commercial recreational vehicle. It is equipped with specific communication and audio-visual devices to assist in command and control of a critical incident. This vehicle allows for mobile incident command and use of the Incident Command Systems facilitating the best possible on scene decision-making by key leaders. It provides for mobility, sheltering, and logistical support, restroom facilities and power. There is no known alternative for the MIC which provides the same amount of mobility and support at one location in a quick deploying package. The MIC for example would be used during a hostage event or to stage an Incident Command associated with a mass casualty incident or during a fire, earthquake, or flood.

Shotgun Breaching Tools, slugs: Shotgun breaching tools are used to defeat locked, barricaded or fortified locations allowing officers to conduct rescues or high risk forceable entries. This includes but is not limited to rescuing hostages. These items allow peace officers to quickly enter a structure when time is of the essence. This would include but not limited to an active shooter or kidnapping or hostage situation. In such situations time is of the essence and it would not be feasible to wait for other delayed access to the structure. There are alternatives which are used for low risk and/or non-fortified situations.

This includes handheld battering rams. However, this alternative does not afford the same level of protection or speed that such equipment provides when necessary. As such there is no reasonable alternative to these items when they are used and required.

Specialized firearms and ammunition including assault weapons: Patrol rifles, Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) rifles, and sniper rifles enable officers, when in compliance with the SLOPD’s Use of Force Policy, to address medium to long distance threats, or those threats who are heavily armed, armored or both. Further, in both short and longdistance deployments, they allow officers precision shot placement minimizing the risk to officers and innocent residents. There are no known alternatives to these weapons that will provide the same level of distance or precision.

Item 6e
Distraction/ Diversionary Devices: These devices are used as a distraction device in order to disorient or divert the suspect’(s) attention away from sensitive persons or officers. This can allow officers to gain safer access to a high-risk situation, giving extra time to assess and analyze existing threats. This can prevent injury to officers and residents. These devices can often lead to a safer resolution and allow officers to take a resident into custody without force. There is no known alternative to a flashbang when it is necessary.

Chemical Agents and pepper ball: Chemical Agents and pepper ball are less lethal methods used to address violent or riotous crowds when there is a risk of physical safety.

They are also used to safely extract a suspect from a fixed location or safely detain a suspect who poses a risk of violence to officers or other persons. This allows peace officers to deploy a less lethal chemical agent into a structure where other weapons would not be capable of doing so. These weapons are less lethal and afford peace officers an added option to avoid lethal force encounters. When these items are reasonable and necessary for use, there is no other alternative. Penal Code 13652 and Department Policy 466 created a new standard in the use of chemical agents, pepper ball, and kinetic energy projectiles (40mm projectile launchers) for responding to public assemblies, protests, or demonstrations. Chemical agents and kinetic energy projectiles to disperse any assembly, protest, or demonstration, shall only be deployed by officers who have received POST training for crowd control if the use is objectively reasonable to defend against a threat to life or serious bodily injury to any individual, including any peace officer, or to bring an objectively dangerous and unlawful situation safely and effectively under control, and only in accordance with the requirements outlined in the law and Department policy. 40mm projectile launchers: The 40mm launcher affords the ability to use less lethal chemical agents and impact munitions. This allows officers to address a threat from a greater distance and provides an alternative option for deadly force when reasonable.

When necessary, there is no alternative to these less lethal weapon systems.

Policy Context
The City does not currently have any policies that govern military equipment.

Public Engagement
This item is a business item for the April 19, 2022, City Council meeting and will follow all required postings and notifications. The public will have the opportunity to provide comment on this item at or before the meeting.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended action in this report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines sec. 15378.

Item 6e

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2022-23
Funding Identified: Yes
Fiscal Analysis:

Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $ $ $ $
State
Federal
Fees
Other:

Total $ $ $ $
There is no impact on the City’s General Fund associated with this ordinance. There are no new financial considerations for existing military equipment and munitions. The items deemed as “military equipment” are already in the Police Departments approved operating budget.

ALTERNATIVES
Council could decide not to approve the ordinance. This action is not recommended by staff because there are no reasonable alternatives to the items listed above. SLOPD has not discovered alternative items that can achieve the same objectives for officer and resident safety. Each item’s necessity was further described above.

ATTACHMENTS
A - Copy of Assembly Bill 481 Funding, Acquisition, and Use of Military Equipment B - Draft Ordinance adopting Policy 709 Military Use Equipment C - Policy 709 Military Use Equipment

Assembly Bill No. 481
CHAPTER 406
An act to add Chapter 12.8 (commencing with Section 7070) to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, relating to military equipment. [Approved by Governor September 30, 2021. Filed with
Secretary of State September 30, 2021.]
legislative counsel’sdigest
AB 481, Chiu. Law enforcement and state agencies: military equipment:
funding, acquisition, and use.

Existing law designatesthe Department of General Services asthe agency for the State of California responsible for distribution of federal surplus personal property, excepting food commodities, and requiresthe department to, among other things, do all things necessary to the execution of its powers and duties asthe state agency for the distribution of federal personalsurplus property, excepting food commodities, in accordance with specified federal law. Existing law, the Federal Surplus Property Acquisition Law of 1945, authorizes a local agency, as defined, to acquire surplus federal property without regard to any law which requires posting of notices or advertising for bids, inviting or receiving bids, or delivery of purchases before payment, or which preventsthe local agency from bidding on federalsurplus property.

Existing federallawauthorizestheDepartment ofDefense to transfersurplus personal property, including arms and ammunition, to federal or state agenciesfor use in law enforcement activities,subject to specified conditions, at no cost to the acquiring agency.

This bill would require a law enforcement agency, defined to include specified entities, to obtain approval of the applicable governing body, by adoption of a military equipment use policy, as specified, by ordinance at a regular meeting held pursuant to specified open meeting laws, prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment, as defined. The bill would also require similar approval for the continued use of military equipment acquired prior to January 1, 2022. The bill would allow the governing body to approve the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment within its jurisdiction only if it determines that the military equipment meets specified standards. The bill would require the governing body to annually review the ordinance and to either disapprove a renewal of the authorization for a type, as defined, of military equipment or amend the military equipment use policy if it determines, based on an annual military equipment report prepared by the law enforcementagency, as provided, that the military equipment does not comply with the abovedescribed standards for approval. The bill would specify these provisions do not preclude a county orlocalmunicipality fromimplementing 92 MA

Ch. 406 — 2 —
additional requirements and standards related to the purchase, use, and reporting of military equipment by local law enforcement agencies.

This bill would also require a state agency, as defined, to create a military equipment use policy before engaging in certain activities, publish the policy on the agency’s internet website, and provide a copy of the policy to the Governor or the Governor’s designee, as specified. The bill would also require a state agency that seeks to continue use of military equipment acquired prior to January 1, 2022, to create a military equipment use policy.

This bill would also include findings that the changes proposed by this bill address a matter ofstatewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

By adding to the duties of local officials with respect to the funding, acquisition, and use of military equipment, this bill would impose a statemandated local program.

The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and containsfindings demonstrating that the enactment furthersthe constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requiresthe state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of thefollowing:
(a) The acquisition of military equipment and its deployment in our communities adversely impacts the public’s safety and welfare, including increased risk of civilian deaths, significant risks to civil rights, civil liberties, and physical and psychological well-being, and incurment of significant financial costs. Military equipment is more frequently deployed in lowincome Black and Brown communities, meaning the risks and impacts of police militarization are experienced most acutely in marginalized communities.
(b) The public has a right to know about any funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment by state or local government officials, as well as a right to participate in any government agency’s decision to fund, acquire, or use such equipment.
(c) Decisions regarding whether and how military equipment isfunded, acquired, or used should give strong consideration to the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties, and should be based on meaningful public input.
92

— 3 — Ch. 406
(d) Legally enforceable safeguards, including transparency, oversight, and accountability measures, must be in place to protect the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties before military equipment is funded, acquired, or used.
(e) The lack of a public forum to discuss the acquisition of military equipment jeopardizes the relationship police have with the community, which can be undermined when law enforcement is seen as an occupying force rather than a public safety service.

SEC. 2. Chapter 12.8 (commencing with Section 7070) is added to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, to read:

Chapter 12.8. Funding,Acquisition, and Use of Military
Equipment
7070. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitionsshall apply:
(a) “Governing body” means the elected body that oversees a law enforcement agency or, if there is no elected body that directly oversees the lawenforcement agency,the appointed body that oversees a lawenforcement agency. In the case of a law enforcement agency of a county, including a sheriff’s department or a district attorney’s office, “governing body” means the board of supervisors of the county.
(b) “Law enforcement agency” means any of the following:
(1) A police department, including the police department of a transit agency, school district, or any campus of the University of California, the California State University, or California Community Colleges. (2) A sheriff’s department.
(3) A district attorney’s office.
(4) A county probation department.
(c) “Military equipment” means the following:
(1) Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. (2) Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. However, police versions of standard consumer vehicles are specifically excluded from this subdivision.
(3) High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), commonly referred to as Humvees, two and one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. However, unarmored all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and motorized dirt bikes are specifically excluded from this subdivision.
(4) Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants and utilize a tracked systeminstead ofwheelsforforwardmotion. (5) Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units. (6) Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. (7) Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. However, items designed to remove a lock, such as bolt cutters, 92

Ch. 406 — 4 —
or a handheld ram designed to be operated by one person, are specifically excluded from this subdivision.
(8) Firearms of .50 caliber or greater. However, standard issue shotguns are specifically excluded from this subdivision.
(9) Ammunition of .50 caliber or greater. However,standard issue shotgun ammunition is specifically excluded from this subdivision. (10) Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including assault weapons as defined in Sections 30510 and 30515 of the Penal Code, with the exception of standard issue service weapons and ammunition of less than .50 caliber that are issued to officers, agents, or employees of a law enforcement agency or a state agency. (11) Anyfirearmorfirearmaccessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles.
(12) “Flashbang” grenades and explosive breaching tools, “tear gas,” and “pepper balls,” excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.
(13) Taser Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and the Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD).
(14) The following projectile launch platforms and their associated munitions: 40mm projectile launchers, “bean bag,” rubber bullet, and specialty impact munition (SIM) weapons.
(15) Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.
(16) Notwithstanding paragraphs(1) through (15), “military equipment” does not include general equipment not designated as prohibited or controlled by the federal Defense Logistics Agency.
(d) “Military equipment use policy” means a publicly released, written document governing the use of military equipment by a law enforcement agency or a state agency that addresses, at a minimum, all of the following:
(1) A description of each type of military equipment, the quantity sought, its capabilities, expected lifespan, and product descriptions from the manufacturer of the military equipment.
(2) The purposes and authorized uses for which the law enforcement agency or the state agency proposes to use each type of military equipment. (3) The fiscal impact of each type of military equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment and estimated annual costs of maintaining the equipment.
(4) The legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use. (5) The training, including any course required by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, that must be completed before any officer, agent, or employee ofthe law enforcement agency or the state agency is allowed to use each specific type of military equipment to ensure the full protection of the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties and full adherence to the military equipment use policy.
(6) The mechanisms to ensure compliance with the military equipment use policy, including which independent persons or entities have oversight 92

— 5 — Ch. 406
authority, and, if applicable, what legally enforceable sanctions are put in place for violations of the policy.
(7) For a law enforcement agency, the procedures by which members of the public may register complaints or concerns or submit questions about the use of each specific type of military equipment, and how the law enforcement agency will ensure that each complaint, concern, or question receives a response in a timely manner.
(e) “State agency” means the law enforcement division of every state office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, and commission or other state body or agency, except those agencies provided for in Article IV (except Section 20 thereof) or Article VI of the CaliforniaConstitution. (f) “Type” means each item that shares the same manufacturer model number.
7071. (a) (1) A law enforcement agency shall obtain approval of the governing body, by an ordinance adopting a military equipment use policy at a regular meeting of the governing body held pursuant to the BagleyKeene Open Meeting Act (Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2) or the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5), as applicable, prior to engaging in any of the following:
(A) Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to Section 2576a of Title 10 of the United States Code.
(B) Seeking funds for military equipment, including, but not limited to, applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers. (C) Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.
(D) Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the territorial jurisdiction of the governing body.
(E) Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body pursuant to this chapter.
(F) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek fundsfor, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of, military equipment. (G) Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided by this paragraph.
(2) No later than May 1, 2022, a law enforcement agency seeking to continue the use of anymilitary equipment thatwas acquired priorto January 1, 2022, shall commence a governing body approval process in accordance with this section. If the governing body does not approve the continuing use ofmilitary equipment, including by adoption pursuant to thissubdivision of a military equipment use policy submitted pursuant to subdivision (b), within 180 days ofsubmission ofthe proposedmilitary equipment use policy to the governing body, the law enforcement agency shall cease its use of 92

Ch. 406 — 6 —
the military equipment until it receives the approval of the governing body in accordance with this section.
(b) In seeking the approval of the governing body pursuant to subdivision (a), a law enforcement agency shall submit a proposed military equipment use policy to the governing body and make those documents available on the law enforcement agency’s internet website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue. (c) The governing body shall consider a proposed military equipment use policy as an agenda item for an open session of a regular meeting and provide for public comment in accordance with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2) or the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5), as applicable.
(d) (1) The governing body shall only approve a military equipment use policy pursuant to this chapter if it determines all of the following:
(A) The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety. (B) The proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties. (C) If purchasing the equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
(D) Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance. (2) In order to facilitate public participation, any proposed or final military equipment use policy shall bemade publicly available on the internetwebsite of the relevant law enforcement agency for aslong asthe military equipment is available for use.
(e) (1) The governing body shallreview any ordinance that it has adopted pursuant to thissection approving the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment at least annually and, subject to paragraph (2), vote on whether to renew the ordinance at a regular meeting held pursuant to the BagleyKeene Open Meeting Act (Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2) or the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5), as applicable.
(2) The governing body shall determine, based on the annual military equipment report submitted pursuant to Section 7072, whether each type of military equipment identified in that report has complied with the standards for approval set forth in subdivision (d). If the governing body determinesthat a type ofmilitary equipmentidentified in that annualmilitary equipment report has not complied with the standards for approval set forth in subdivision (d), the governing body shall either disapprove a renewalof the authorization forthattypeofmilitary equipment orrequiremodifications 92

— 7 — Ch. 406
to the military equipment use policy in a manner that will resolve the lack of compliance.
(f) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) to (e), inclusive, if a city contracts with another entity for law enforcement services, the city shall have the authority to adopt a military equipment use policy based on local community needs.
7072. (a) A law enforcement agency that receives approval for a military equipment use policy pursuant to Section 7071 shallsubmit to the governing body an annual military equipment report for each type of military equipment approved by the governing body within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The law enforcement agency shall also make each annual military equipment report required by thissection publicly available on its internet website for as long asthe military equipment is available for use.The annualmilitary equipment report shall, at a minimum, include the following information for the immediately preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment:
(1) A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use.
(2) A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment.
(3) The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the military equipment use policy, and any actions taken in response. (4) The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the annual military equipment report.
(5) The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment. (6) If the law enforcement agency intends to acquire additionalmilitary equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment.
(b) Within30 days ofsubmitting and publicly releasing an annualmilitary equipment report pursuant to thissection, the law enforcement agency shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the general public may discuss and ask questions regarding the annual military equipment report and the law enforcement agency’s funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment. 7073. (a) A state agency shall create a military equipment use policy prior to engaging in any of the following:
(1) Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to Section 2576a of Title 10 of the United States Code.
(2) Seeking funds for military equipment, including, but not limited to, applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers. (3) Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.
92

Ch. 406 — 8 —
(4) Collaborating with a law enforcement agency or anotherstate agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the territorial jurisdiction of the governing body.
(5) Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body pursuant to this chapter.
(6) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, or to apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of, military equipment. (7) Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided by this subdivision.
(b) No later than May 1, 2022, a state agency seeking to continue the use of any military equipment that was acquired prior to January 1, 2022, shall create a military equipment use policy.
(c) A state agency that is required to create a military equipment use policy pursuant to this section shall do both of the following within 180 days of completing the policy:
(1) Publish the military equipment use policy on the agency’s internet website.
(2) Provide a copy of the military equipment use policy to the Governor or the Governor’s designee.
7074. The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring adequate oversight of the acquisition and use of military equipment is a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this chapter appliesto all cities, including charter cities and shall supersede any inconsistent provisions in the charter of any city, county, or city andcounty. 7075. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude a county or local municipality from implementing additional requirements and standards related to the purchase, use, and reporting of military equipment by local law enforcement agencies.

SEC. 3. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of this act, which adds Chapter 12.8 (commencing with Section 7070) to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, furthers, within the meaning of paragraph (7) ofsubdivision (b) of Section 3 ofArticle I of the California Constitution, the purposes of that constitutional section as it relates to the right of public access to the meetings of local public bodies or the writings of local public officials and local agencies. Pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the Legislature makes the following findings:

Requiring local agencies to hold public meetings prior to theacquisition of military equipment further exposes that activity to public scrutiny and enhances public accessto information concerning the conduct of the people’s business.

SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district under this act would 92

— 9 — Ch. 406
result from a legislative mandate that is within the scope of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the CaliforniaConstitution.

O
92

O ______
ORDINANCE NO. _____ (2022 SERIES)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS

OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE
POLICY
WHEREAS, On September 30, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsome signed into law Assembly Bill 481, codified at California Government Code sections 7070 through 7075, relating to the use of military equipment by law enforcement agencies; and WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 481 requires law enforcement agencies to obtain approval of the applicable governing body, by an ordinance adopting a military equipment use policy at a regular meeting of the governing body held pursuant to applicable California open meeting laws, before a law enforcement agency can take certain actions related to the acquisition, funding, deployment, or other use of military equipment. The term “military equipment” is defined in California Government Code section 7070(c); and WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 481 allows the applicable governing body to approve a military equipment use policy, and the acquisition, funding, deployment, or other use of military equipment by law enforcement within its jurisdiction as provided in the policy, only if the governing body makes specified determinations as provided in California Government Code section 7071(d)(1); and
WHEREAS, certain approved military equipment, used by law enforcement in an authorized manner, can assist law enforcement to accomplish its fundamental mission to safeguard the public welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties of the community it serves; and
WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo Police Department does not currently have, and has not had in the past, a military equipment use policy; and WHEREAS, The San Luis Obispo Police Department has proposed a military equipment use policy (“Proposed Policy”), pursuant to California Government Code sections 7070 through 7075, which, if approved, will be included in San Luis Obispo Police Department Policy Manual as Policy No. 709; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with California Government Code sections 7071(a)(2) and 7071(b), on March 18, 2022 the San Luis Obispo Police Department submitted the Proposed Policy to the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo City (“Council”), the governing body with oversight authority over the San Luis Obispo Police Department budget, and, further, on the same date, published the Proposed Policy for public review on the San Luis Obispo Police Department internet website and the City of San Luis Obispo internet website; and

Ordinance No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 2
O ______
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:

SECTION 1. Findings and Determinations. The Council hereby finds, declares and determines the following:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

2. Based on the information provide to Council at the public meeting to consider the Proposed Policy, including, but not limited to, the Proposed Policy, the City staff report, staff input provided at the meeting, all public comments and input provided at the meeting, all agenda correspondence, and all written submissions provided to Council in advance of or at the meeting, Council finds and determines as follows:
a. The military equipment identified in the Proposed Policy is necessary because there are no reasonable alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer, civilian and community safety;
b. The Proposed Policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties; and
c. The military equipment to be purchased, as identified in the Proposed Policy, is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer, civilian and community safety.

SECTION 2. Adoption of Policy. Based on the above Findings and Determinations, the Proposed Policy is approved and adopted as San Luis Obispo Police Department Policy No. 709. The San Luis Obispo Chief of Police shall have authority, without further Council action, to amend the Policy to the extent necessary to clarify the Policy or to comply with subsequent changes in the law, to the extent such amendments do not require Council action.

SECTION 3. Publication. Within fifteen (15) days after its passage, the City Clerk shall cause a summary of this ordinance to be published at least once, with the names of those city council members voting for and against the ordinance, in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the city.

Ordinance No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 3
O ______
SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be considered a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity and enforceability of the other provisions of this Ordinance.

INTRODUCED on the ____ day of ________, 2022, AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the ____ day of __________, 2022, on the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
__________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
_________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on _____________________. __________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk

San Luis Obispo Police Department
San Luis Obispo PD CA Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/01/03, All Rights Reserved. Military Equipment - 1 Published with permission by San Luis Obispo Police
Department
Policy
709
Military Equipment
709.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the approval, acquisition, funding, and reporting requirements regarding military equipment as defined in Government Code § 7070 (Government Code § 7070; Government Code § 7071; Government Code § 7072). 709.1.1 DEFINITIONS
Definitions related to this policy include (Government Code § 7070):

Governing body – The San Luis Obispo City Council (“City Council”).

Military equipment – Includes, but is not limited to, the following as defined in Government Code § 7070(c):
• Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. • Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. • High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), two-and-one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. • Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants. • Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units. • Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. • Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. This does not include a handheld, one-person ram.
• Firearms and ammunition of_.50 caliber or greater, excluding standard-issue shotguns and standard-issue shotgun ammunition.
• Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than_.50 caliber, including firearms and accessories identified as assault weapons in Penal Code § 30510 and Penal Code § 30515, with the exception of standard-issue handguns.
• Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles. • Noise-flash diversionary devices and explosive breaching tools. • Munitions containing tear gas or OC, excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.
• TASER® Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and long-range acoustic devices (LRADs).
• Kinetic energy weapons and munitions.
• Any other equipment as determined by City Council to require additional oversight.

Pursuant to Government Code § 7070(c), the following are not military equipment:
• Police versions of standard consumer vehicles
• Unarmored all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and motorized dirt bikes

San Luis Obispo Police Department
San Luis Obispo PD CA Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/01/03, All Rights Reserved. Military Equipment - 2 Published with permission by San Luis Obispo Police
Department
• Items designed to remove a lock, such as bolt cutters, or a handheld ram designed to be operated by one person
• Standard issue shotguns
• Standard issue shotgun ammunition
• Standard issue service weapons and ammunition of less than .50 caliber • Standard service-issued handheld pepper spray
• General equipment not designated as prohibited or controlled by the federal Defense Logistics Agency
709.2 POLICY
It is the policy of the San Luis Obispo Police Department that members of this department comply with the provisions of Government Code sections 7070 through 7075 with respect to the approval for, acquisition, funding, and use of, and reporting regarding military equipment. 709.3 MILITARY EQUIPMENT COORDINATOR
The Chief of Police shall designate a member of this department to act as the military equipment coordinator. The responsibilities of the military equipment coordinator include, but are not limited to:
(a) Acting as liaison to City Council for matters related to the requirements of this policy. (b) Identifying department equipment that qualifies as military equipment in the current possession of the department, or the equipment the department intends to acquire that requires approval by City Council.
(c) Conducting an inventory of all department military equipment at least annually. (d) Collaborating with any allied agency that may use military equipment within the jurisdiction of San Luis Obispo Police Department (Government Code § 7071). (e) Preparing for, scheduling, and coordinating the annual community engagement meeting, as outlined in section 709.8 of this policy, to include:

1. Publicizing the details of the meeting.

2. Preparing for public questions regarding the department’s funding, acquisition, and use of military equipment.
(f) Preparing the annual military equipment report for submission to the Chief of Police and ensuring that the report is made available on the department website (Government Code § 7072).
(g) Establishing the procedure for a person to register a complaint or concern, or how that person may submit a question about the use of a type of military equipment by the department, and how the department will respond in a timely manner.

San Luis Obispo Police Department
San Luis Obispo PD CA Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/01/03, All Rights Reserved. Military Equipment - 3 Published with permission by San Luis Obispo Police
Department
709.4 MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
The qualifying equipment for the department is listed in Attachment A to this policy. 709.5 APPROVAL
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall obtain approval from the City Council by way of an ordinance adopting the military equipment policy. As part of the approval process, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall ensure the proposed military equipment policy is submitted to City Council and is available on the department website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue (Government Code § 7071). The military equipment policy must be approved by City Council prior to engaging in any of the following (Government Code § 7071):
(a) Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to 10 USC § 2576a. (b) Seeking funds for military equipment, including but not limited to applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers.
(c) Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.
(d) Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the jurisdiction of this department. (e) Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by City Council.
(f) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of military equipment.
(g) Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided above. 709.6 COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Military equipment in the possession of the department shall not be used by any other law enforcement agency or member in this jurisdiction unless the military equipment is approved for use in accordance with this policy.

This policy recognizes the need for agencies to provide assistance to each other, whether in ongoing, combined, or regional operations, occasional planned operations, or in exigent circumstances. Where applicable to the provisions of Government Code § 7070 through § 7075, such assisting agencies shall comply with their respective military equipment use policies when rendering assistance and with any directions for use of department military equipment given by department command.

San Luis Obispo Police Department
San Luis Obispo PD CA Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/01/03, All Rights Reserved. Military Equipment - 4 Published with permission by San Luis Obispo Police
Department
709.7 EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES
This policy also recognizes that there may be very limited or extreme instances where incidents of extraordinary nature could demand the need for incident commanders to authorize Department personnel to use equipment not specified in this policy. This decision must be made depending on the totality of the circumstances, including due regard for the public’s safety, officer safety, respecting civil rights, the seriousness of the situation, and other information available at that time.

Should such extreme instances occur that call for members of this Department to use equipment not specified in this policy, the incident commander shall, if practical, notify the Chief of Police via the chain of command prior to deploying such equipment and the use of such equipment shall be documented in an appropriate report. Should such circumstances occur, the Chief of Police, or his/her designee, shall notify the City Council as soon as practical, and document any such uses in the required annual report.
709.8 ANNUAL REPORT
Upon approval of a military equipment policy, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall submit a military equipment report to City Council for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use (Government Code § 7072).

The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on the department website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The report shall include all information required by Government Code § 7072 for the preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment in department inventory.

The annual military equipment report shall, at a minimum, include the following information for the immediately preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment:
(a) A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use. (b) A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment.
(c) The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the military equipment use policy, and any actions taken in response. (d) The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the annual military equipment report.
(e) The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment. (f) If the department intends to acquire additional military equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment.

San Luis Obispo Police Department
San Luis Obispo PD CA Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/01/03, All Rights Reserved. Military Equipment - 5 Published with permission by San Luis Obispo Police
Department
709.9 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual report, the Department shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the general public may discuss and ask questions regarding the annual military equipment report and the Department’s funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment. At the meeting, the Department shall discuss the report and respond to questions regarding the Department’s funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment (Government Code §7072).

Policy 709: Military Equipment
Attachment A
Attachment A - Page 1

MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY

1. Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS): An unmanned aircraft along with the associated equipment necessary to control it remotely.
a. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost. i. DJI MAVIC MINI, cost: $500 each, quantity: 1. Miniature UAS that weighs approximately 249 grams and is able to record video and audio with approximately 30 minutes of flight time.
ii. DJI MAVIC ENTERPRISE DUAL, no cost, received a donation from the community which paid the entire $4,500 each, quantity: 1. UAS that has a color and inferred camera as well as audible speaker and light. Capable of video recording and weighs approximately 899 grams, approx. 30 minutes of flight time.
iii. DJI MAVIC ENTERPRISE DUAL ADVANCED, no cost, received County Homeland Security Grant that paid the entire $6,500 each, quantity: 1.

UAS that has a color and inferred camera as well as audible speaker and light. Capable of video recording and weighs approximately 899 grams, approx. 30 minutes of flight time.
b. Purpose
To be deployed when its view would assist officers or incident commanders with the following situations, which include but are not limited to:
i. Major collision investigations.
ii. Search for missing persons.
iii. Natural disaster management.
iv. Crime scene photography.
v. SWAT, tactical or other public safety and life preservation missions. vi. In response to specific requests from local, state, or federal fire authorities for fire response and/or prevention.
c. Authorized Use
Only assigned operators who have completed the required training and received a Part 107 Remote Pilot Certificate, shall be permitted to operate any UAS during approved missions.
d. Expected Life Span
All UAS equipment, 3-4 years.
e. Fiscal Impact
Annual maintenance and battery replacement cost is approximately $ 2,000.

Policy 709: Military Equipment
Attachment A
Attachment A - Page 2
f. Training
All Department UAS operators are licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration for UAS operation. In addition, each operator must attend training updates throughout the year.
g. Legal and Procedural Rules
Use is established under FAA Regulation 14 CFR Part 107, and department policy. It is the policy of the SLOPD to utilize UAS only for official law enforcement purposes, and in a manner that respects the privacy of our community, pursuant to State and Federal law.

2. Robots: A remotely controlled unmanned machine that operates on the ground, which is utilized to enhance the safety of the community and officers. a. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost. i. ICOR TECHNOLOGIES, no cost, received Count Homeland Security Grant that paid the entire $64,000 each, quantity: 1. The ICOR Mini Caliber robot is designed for rapid tactical missions, the robot is simple to operate and quick to deploy for searching rooms, hallways, stairwells, and confined spaces. With rubber tracks and articulating front and rear flippers, the Mini-CALIBER effortlessly climbs stairs. It also includes an extendible rotating claw arm that simplifies opening door handles. b. Purpose
To be used to remotely gain visual/audio data, deliver the Crisis Negotiation Team (CNT) phone, open doors, and clear buildings.
c. Authorized Use
Only assigned operators who have completed the required training shall be permitted to operate the robots.
d. Expected Life Span
Robot, 8-10 years.
e. Fiscal Impact
Annual maintenance and battery replacement cost is approximately $ 1000.00 f. All robot operators receive inhouse training on the use and deployment of the robot. All robot operators are required to train monthly with the robot. g. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the SLOPD to utilize a robot only for official law enforcement purposes, and in a manner that respects the privacy of our community, pursuant to State and Federal law.

3. Armored Vehicles: Commercially produced wheeled armored personnel vehicle utilized for law enforcement purposes.

Policy 709: Military Equipment
Attachment A
Attachment A - Page 3
a. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost. i. LENCO BEARCAT, no cost, received Count Homeland Security Grant that paid the entire $156,000. The City had to pay a onetime vehicle registration fee of $13,000, quantity: 1. The Lenco Bearcat, is an armored vehicle that seats 10-12 personnel with open floor plan that allows for rescue of down personnel. It can stop various projectiles, which provides greater safety to citizens and officers beyond the protection level of shield and personal body armor.
b. Purpose
To be used in response to critical incidents to enhance officer and community safety, improve scene containment and stabilization, and assist in resolving critical incidents. c. Authorized Use
The use of armored vehicles shall only be authorized by a watch commander or SWAT commander, based on the specific circumstances of a given critical incident. Armored vehicles shall be used only by officers trained in their deployment and in a manner consistent with Department policy and training.
d. Expected Life Span
Lenco Bearcat 15 years
e. Fiscal Impact
Annual maintenance cost of approximately $4200.00
f. Training
All driver/operators shall attend formalized instruction and be trained in vehicle operations and practical driving instruction.
g. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the Department to utilize armored vehicles only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law.

4. Mobile Incident Command Vehicle (MIC): A vehicle used mobile office that provides shelter, access to Department computer systems, and restroom facilities during extended events.
a. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost. i. 2011 PACE AMERICAN, no cost, trailer was donated by the City of Arroyo Grande covering the entire estimated cost of $30,000. The City had to pay $ 50,000 to outfit as a MIC, quantity: 1. The MIC can also be utilized for SWAT/CNT and other critical incidents, preplanned large events, searching for missing persons, natural disasters, and community events.

Policy 709: Military Equipment
Attachment A
Attachment A - Page 4
b. Purpose
To be used based on the specific circumstances of a given critical incident, large event, natural disaster or community event that is taking place. c. Authorized Use
Only officers trained in their deployment and operations in a manner consistent with Department policy and training are authorized to operate the MIC. Situations which the MIC is authorized for use would include but not be limited to critical incidents, emergencies and natural disasters.
d. Lifespan
The MIC, 20-year lifespan on trailer structure. IT upgrades needed every 5-7 years to maintain systems.
e. Fiscal Impact
Annual maintenance cost is approximately $2000.00
f. Training
The driver/operator shall receive training in the safe towing and handling of the vehicle. g. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the Department to use the MIC only for official law enforcement purposes, and in accordance with California State law regarding the operation of motor vehicles.

5. 40 MM Launchers and Rounds: 40MM Launchers are utilized by department personnel as a less lethal tool to launch impact rounds.
a. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost. i. DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, 40MM SINGLE SHOT LAUNCHER, #1425, cost $1100 each, quantity: 20. The 40MM Single Launcher is a tactical single shot launcher that features an expandable ROGERS Super Stoc and an adjustable Integrated Front Grip (IFG) with light rail. It will fire standard 40mm less lethal ammunition, up to 4.8 inches in cartridge length. It will launch a 40MM less lethal round up to 131 feet and is only authorized to be used by officers who have received training from POST certified instructor.
ii. DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, 40MM CS FERRET, cost $23 per round, quantity: 16. The ferret round is deployed from a 40mm launcher and contains CS gas. The ferret is used to deploy CS gas from a safe distance.
iii. DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, 40MM EXTENDED RANGE DIRECT
IMPACT, cost $18 per round, quantity: 48. A less lethal light weight expanding foam projectile used for longer distances.

Policy 709: Military Equipment
Attachment A
Attachment A - Page 5
iv. BYRNA, 40MM DIRECT IMPACT BIP ROUND, cost $23 per round, quantity: 110. A less lethal light weight expanding foam projectile. b. Purpose
To limit the escalation of conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable.
c. Authorized Use
Situations for use of the less lethal weapon systems may include, but are not limited to:
i. Self-destructive, dangerous and/or combative individuals. ii. Riot/crowd control and civil unrest incidents.
iii. Circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained. iv. Potentially vicious animals.
v. Training exercises or approved demonstrations.
d. Lifespan
DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, 40MM SINGLE SHOT LAUNCHER, #1425 – 15 years.

DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, 40MM CS FERRET – 5 years.

DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, 40MM EXTENDED RANGE DIRECT – 5 years.

BYRNA, 40MM DIRECT IMPACT BIP ROUND – 5 years.
e. Fiscal Impact
Annual maintenance is approximately $10 for each launcher.

No annual maintenance for munitions.
f. Training
Sworn members utilizing 40MM less lethal chemical agents or impact rounds are trained in there use by POST certified less lethal and chemical agents’ instructors. g. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the SLOPD to utilize the 40mm only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.

6. 40MM Launching Cup: Cups that attaches to 12 gauge less lethal shotguns which allow officers to launch canisters of chemical agents or smoke. a. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost. i. COMBINED SYSTEMS LC5 Gas LAUNCHING CUP, cost $300 each, quantity 1. The LC5 Launching cups can be attached to virtually any 12ga

Policy 709: Military Equipment
Attachment A
Attachment A - Page 6
shotgun and the munition is launched with our Safariland model 1210 launching cartridge.
b. Purpose
To limit the escalation of conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable.
c. Authorized Use
Situations for use of the less lethal weapon systems may include, but are not limited to:
i. Self-destructive, dangerous and/or combative individuals. ii. Riot/crowd control and civil unrest incidents.
iii. Circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained. iv. Potentially vicious animals.
v. Training exercises or approved demonstrations.
d. Lifespan
Combined Systems LC5 40MM Launching Cup - 25 years.
e. Fiscal Impact
No annual maintenance.
f. Training
Officers utilizing the launching cups are trained by POST certified chemical agents instructors.
g. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the SLOPD to utilize the 40mm only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.

7. Distraction Devices: A device used to distract dangerous persons. a. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost. i. DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, model 8902 Distraction Device, cost $90 each, quantity: 14. A low roll distraction device that produces a loud bang with a bright light. Ideal for distracting dangerous suspects during a hostage rescue, room entry or other high-risk arrest situations. ii. LIBERTY DYNAMIC, Reloadable Noise Flash Diversion Device, cost $130 each, quantity: 12. A low roll distraction device that produces a loud bang with a bright light. Ideal for distracting dangerous suspects during a hostage rescue, room entry or other high-risk arrest situations.

Policy 709: Military Equipment
Attachment A
Attachment A - Page 7
iii. LIBERTY DYNAMIC, Reload for Noise Flash Diversion Device, cost $45 each, quantity: 24. This is the reload for the distraction device once it has been used.
iii. COMBINED TACTICAL SYSTEMS, model 7290-9 Distraction Device, cost $210 each, quantity: 11. A low roll distraction device that produces nine separate loud bangs with a bright light. Ideal for distracting dangerous suspects during a hostage rescue, room entry or other highrisk arrest situations. b. Purpose
A distraction device is ideal for distracting dangerous suspects during assaults, hostage rescue, room entry or other high-risk arrest situations. To produce atmospheric overpressure and brilliant white light and, as a result, can cause short-term (6 - 8 seconds) physiological/psychological sensory deprivation to give officers a tactical advantage. c. Authorized Use
Diversionary Devices shall only be used:
i. By officers who have been trained in their proper use. ii. In hostage and barricaded subject situations.
iii. In high-risk warrant (search/arrest) services where there may be extreme hazards to officers.
iv. During other high-risk situations where their use would enhance officer safety.
v. During training exercises.
d. Lifespan
DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, model 8902 Distraction Device - 5 years.

LIBERTY DYNAMIC, Noise Flash Diversion Device – 5 years.

COMBINED TACTICAL SYSTEMS, model 7290-9 Distraction Device – 5 years e. Fiscal Impact
No annual maintenance.
f. Training
Prior to use, officers must attend divisionary device training that is conducted by Post certified instructors.
g. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the SLOPD to utilize diversion devices only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law regarding the use of force.

Policy 709: Military Equipment
Attachment A
Attachment A - Page 8

8. Rifles: Guns that are fired from shoulder level, having a long spirally grooved barrel intended to make bullets spin and thereby have greater accuracy over a long distance. a. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost. i. Barrett .50 Caliber rifle, Model 82A1M, no cost, rifle was donated covering the entire estimated cost of $8500 each, quantity: 1. A semi-automatic rifle used by officers assigned to the SWAT team as snipers. The use of the rifle is reserved for disabling a vehicle in incidents where lethal force is justified, and no other reasonable means exist to stop the vehicle to protect innocent life.
ii. Barret .50 Caliber Ammunition, M33 661gr rifle round, cost $10 per round, quantity 70. A FMJ bullet designed to penetrate barriers. iii. Daniel Defense .308 caliber rifle, Model DD5, cost $4,500 each, quantity:

2. A highly accurate and durable semi-automatic rifle used by officers assigned to the SWAT team as snipers.
iv. Hornady .308 Caliber Ammunition, 168gr ELD TAP, cost $1.25 per round, quantity: 1800. A highly accurate round designed to penetrate common barriers but prevent overpenetration.
v. Heckler & Koch 9mm SMG, Model MP5, cost $2,500 each, quantity 6. A full-automatic submachine gun that fires a pistol cartridge. It has a barrel longer than a pistol, but shorter than a rifle, which provides a trained SWAT officer better control inside of structure with greater accuracy than a handgun.
vi. Hornady 9mm Ammunition, 135gr Critical Duty, cost $0.56 per round, quantity: 7000. This ammo features a specially designed hollow-point tip that reliably expand while passing through a variety of barriers. vii. Winchester 9mm Ammunition, 115g FMJ, cost $0.35 per round, quantity:
13000. This ammunition is designed for range practice and provides a reliable round at a cost-effective price.
viii. Colt 5.56 caliber rifle, Model M4, cost $1,900 each, quantity 9. A fullautomatic rifle that fires an intermediate-power cartridge (5.56) which is more powerful than a standard pistol but less powerful than a standard rifle. It is a short-barreled rifle which provides a trained SWAT officer better control inside of structures with greater accuracy than a handgun. ix. Colt 5.56 caliber rifle, Model AR-15, cost $1,800 each, quantity 55. A semi-automatic rifle that fires an intermediate-power cartridge (5.56) which is more powerful than a standard pistol but less powerful than a standard rifle. It is a short-barreled rifle which provides a trained officer better control inside of structures with greater accuracy than a handgun. x. Hornady 5.56 Ammunition, 75gr TAP SBR, cost $0.85 per round, quantity: 5200. This ammo features a specially designed bullet that

Policy 709: Military Equipment
Attachment A
Attachment A - Page 9
reliably expand while passing through a variety of barriers, without overpenetration. The powder is specially formulated to work in short, barreled rifles.
xi. Winchester .223 Ammunition, 55g FMJ, cost $0.20 per round, quantity:
9500. This ammunition is designed for range practice and provides a reliable round at a cost-effective price.
b. Purpose
To be used as precision weapons to address a threat with more precision and/or greater distances than a handgun, if present and feasible.
c. Authorized Use
Only members that are POST certified are authorized to use a rifle. d. Lifespan
Barrett .50 Caliber rifle, Model 82A1M - 15 years.

Barret .50 Caliber Ammunition, M33 661gr rifle round – 5 years.

Daniel Defense .308 caliber rifle, Model DD5 – 15 years.

Hornady .308 Caliber Ammunition, 168gr ELD TAP – 5 years.

Heckler & Koch 9mm SMG, Model MP5 – 15 years.

Hornady 9mm Ammunition, 135gr Critical Duty – 5 years.

Winchester 9mm Ammunition, 115g FMJ – 5 years.

Colt 5.56 caliber rifle, Model M4 – 15 years.

Colt 5.56 caliber rifle, Model AR-15 – 15 years.

Hornady 5.56 Ammunition, 75gr TAP SBR – 5 years.

COMBINED TACTICAL SYSTEMS, model 7290-9 Distraction Device – 5 years.

Winchester .223 Ammunition, 55g FMJ – 5 years.
e. Fiscal Impact
Annual maintenance is approximately $20 for each firearm.

No annual maintenance for ammunition.
f. Training
Prior to using a rifle, officers must be certified by POST instructors in the operation of the rifle. Additionally, all members that operate any rifle are required to pass a range qualification two times a year.
g. Legal and Procedural Rules

Policy 709: Military Equipment
Attachment A
Attachment A - Page 10
It is the policy of the SLOPD to utilize rifles only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law regarding the use of force.

9. Chemical Agent and Smoke Canisters: Canisters that contain chemical agents that are released when deployed.
a. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost. i. COMBINED TACTICAL SYSTEMS, SMOKE CANISTER (5210 B), cost $38 each, quantity: 18. When deployed, the canister emits a cloud of smoke used to cover or conceal movement. The canister is baffled to reduce the risk of fire and is indoor safe.
ii. COMBINED TACTICAL SYSTEMS, Triple-PHASER CS CANISTER (5231), cost $44 each, quantity: 33. The canister consists of three separate canisters pressed together with separating charges between each. When deployed, the canisters separate and land approximately 20 feet apart allowing for an increased dispersal area of CS gas. The canister is designed for outdoor use in crowd control situations. iii. COMBINED TACTICAL SYSTEMS, Riot CS Canister (5230), cost $40 each, quantity: 34. When deployed the canister emits CS gas. The canister is designed for outdoor use or indoor use with a burn safe. iv. COMBINED TACTICAL SYSTEMS, Baffled Riot CS Canister (5230B), $40 each, quantity: 6. When deployed the canister emits CS gas. The canister is designed for outdoor use or indoor use. The canister is baffled to reduce the risk of fire and is indoor safe. This canister can be used with the COMBINED TACTICAL SYSTEMS LC5 Launcher to deploy gas from a safe distance.
b. Purpose
To limit the escalation of conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable. Situations for use of the less lethal weapon systems may include, but are not limited to:
i. Self-destructive, dangerous and/or combative individuals. ii. Riot/crowd control and civil unrest incidents.
iii. Circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained. iv. Potentially vicious animals.
v. Training exercises or approved demonstrations.
c. Authorized Use
Only officers who have received POST certification in the use chemical agents are authorized to use chemical agents.
d. Lifespan

Policy 709: Military Equipment
Attachment A
Attachment A - Page 11
COMBINED TACTICAL SYSTEMS, SMOKE CANISTER (5210 B) - 5 years.

COMBINED TACTICAL SYSTEMS, Triple-PHASER CS CANISTER (5231) – 5 years.

COMBINED TACTICAL SYSTEMS, Riot CS Canister (5230) – 5 years.

COMBINED TACTICAL SYSTEMS, Baffled Riot CS Canister (5230B) – 5 years. e. Fiscal Impact
No annual maintenance
f. Training
Sworn members utilizing chemical agent canisters are certified by POST less lethal and chemical agents instructors.
g. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the SLOPD to utilize chemical agents only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.

10. PepperBall Launcher: A device that discharges irritant projectiles. a. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost. i. PEPPERBALL SX LAUNCHER, cost $950 each, quantity: 5. The SX is a compressed-air powered launcher designed to fire non-lethal PepperBall projectiles.
ii. PEPPERBALL LIVE PROJECTILE, cost $2.38 per round, quantity: 1200.

The LIVE projectile contains 2% PAVA pepper powder, and is designed for direct impact and area saturation, especially in confined, interior spaces. Discharged from a PepperBall Launcher, the projectile has a velocity of 280-350 FPS. The projectile has a direct impact of 60ft and an area of saturation of 150+ft. The projectile contains 0.5% PAVA Powder. iii. PEPPERBALL GLASS BREAKER PROJECTLE, cost $2.90 per round, quantity: 50. The GLASS BREAKER is designed to break glass in tactical situations. Discharged from a PepperBall Launcher it is loaded one at a time.
b. Purpose
To limit the escalation of conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable. Situations for use of the less lethal weapon systems may include but are not limited to:
i. Self-destructive, dangerous and/or combative individuals. ii. Riot/crowd control and civil unrest incidents.
iii. Circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained.

Policy 709: Military Equipment
Attachment A
Attachment A - Page 12
iv. Potentially vicious animals.
v. Training exercises or approved demonstrations.
c. Authorized Use
Only those officers who have been trained in the use of PepperBall launchers are authorized to use the PepperBall launchers.
d. Lifespan
PEPPERBALL SX LAUNCHER - 15 years.

PEPPERBALL LIVE PROJECTILE – 5 years.

PEPPERBALL GLASS BREAKER PROJECTLE – 5 years.
e. Fiscal Impact
Annual maintenance is approximately $25 for each launcher.

No annual maintenance for munitions.
f. Training
Sworn members utilizing PepperBall launchers and projectiles are trained in there use by POST certified less lethal and chemical agents instructors. g. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the SLOPD to utilize PepperBall only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.

11. Shotgun Breaching Tools: Tools that are used to conduct an explosive breach. a. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost. i. REMINGTON 870 EXPRESS BREACHING SHOTGUN, cost $800 each, quantity: 1. This weapon allows for breachers to safely utilize shotgun breaching rounds in order to destroy deadbolts, locks, and hinges. The stand-off that is attached to the end of the barrel allows for positive placement of the gun into the correct position and vents gases to prevent overpressure.
ii. BENELLI M4 BREACHING SHOTGUN, cost $1,900 each, quantity: 1.

This weapon allows for breachers to safely utilize shotgun breaching rounds in order to destroy deadbolts, locks, and hinges. The stand-off that is attached to the end of the barrel allows for positive placement of the gun into the correct position and vents gases to prevent overpressure. iii. ROYAL ARMS TESAR-2 BACK CAP 425 GRAIN COPPER FRANGILBE BREACHING ROUND, cost $4.50 per round, quantity: 94. The round is

Policy 709: Military Equipment
Attachment A
Attachment A - Page 13
fired from a breaching shotgun and is used to destroy deadbolts, locks and hinges.
b. Purpose
To safely gain entry into a structure.
c. Authorized Use
Shotgun breaching may only occur after authorization by the Incident Commander or SWAT Commander in the field, and during training exercises. d. Lifespan
REMINGTON 870 EXPRESS BREACHING SHOTGUN - 15 years.

BENELLI M4 BREACHING SHOTGUN – 15 years.

ROYAL ARMS TESAR-2 FRANGILBE BREACHING ROUND – 5 years. e. Fiscal Impact
Annual maintenance is approximately $10 for each shotgun.

No annual maintenance for munitions.
f. Training
All officers who use shotgun breaching tools shall be certified by POST instructors in the operation and use of shotgun breaching.
g. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the SLOPD to utilize breaching tools only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law.

12. Defense Logistics Disposition (DLA) Services (formerly DRMO) Equipment:

Reutilized equipment donated to state and local governments as well as law enforcement agencies. The following items were received from the military at no cost.

1. Detachable weapon magazines
a. Description, quantity, and capabilities.
i. COLT 30 round magazines chambered for .233/5.56 caliber rifles, quantity: 533.
b. Purpose
These magazines are for use with Department issued AR-15 rifles. c. Authorized Use
Only members that are POST certified are authorized to use an issued AR-15 rifle may be issued these magazines.

Policy 709: Military Equipment
Attachment A
Attachment A - Page 14
d. Lifespan
Approximately 10 years
e. Fiscal Impact
None. Once they are not functional, they will be returned to the military or disposed of.
f. Training
These magazines are used in conjunction with the issuing and training of officers in the AR-15 rifle.
g. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the SLOPD to utilize these magazines only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law regarding the use of force.

2. Reflex rifle sights
a. Description, quantity, and capabilities.
i. AIM POINT Reflex Optics, quantity: 80. A reflector sight or reflex sight is an optical sight that allows the user to look through a partially reflecting glass viewer to identify where a weapon system is pointed. It is the primary aiming device for modern rifles. b. Purpose
A safer and more accurate sighting system for rifles.
c. Authorized Use
Only members that are POST certified are authorized to use a rifle equipped with a reflex sighting system.
d. Lifespan
Approximately 10-15 years
e. Fiscal Impact
None. Once they are not functional, they will be returned to the military or disposed of.
f. Training
Officers are trained in the use of these optics in conjunction with being certified by a POST instructor in the operation of the rifle it is affixed to. g. Legal and Procedural Rules

Policy 709: Military Equipment
Attachment A
Attachment A - Page 15
It is the policy of the SLOPD to utilize these optics only for official law enforcement purposes.

3. Backup rifle iron sights
a. Description, quantity, and capabilities.
i. MAG-PULL flip-up rear sights, quantity: 60. Back-up sighting system.
b. Purpose
Foldable rear sight for aiming a rifle in the event the electronic optic fails. c. Authorized Use
Only members that are POST certified are authorized to use a rifle that is equipped with this rear sight.
d. Lifespan
Approximately 10-15 years
e. Fiscal Impact
None. Once they are not functional, they will be returned to the military or disposed of.
f. Training
Officers are trained in the use of these sights in conjunction with being certified by a POST instructor in the operation of the rifle it is affixed to. g. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the SLOPD to only utilize these sights official law enforcement purposes.

4. Laser range finder
a. Description, quantity, and capabilities.
i. Laser range finder, quantity: 3. The range finder determines the distance between two points so calculations can be made to determine trajectory of rounds fired by a precision rifle team member.
b. Purpose
A laser range finder is a distance measuring tool.
c. Authorized Use

Policy 709: Military Equipment
Attachment A
Attachment A - Page 16
Only members that are POST certified in the use of a long-range rifle are authorized to use a laser range finder in conjunction with their assigned rifle system.
d. Lifespan
Approximately 10-15 years
e. Fiscal Impact
None. Once they are not functional, they will be returned to the military, and we will source a replacement through the DLA.
f. Training
Officers are trained in the use of these laser range finders in conjunction with being certified by a POST instructor in the operation of the long-range rifle system.
g. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the SLOPD to utilize these laser range finders only for official law enforcement purposes.

5. Infrared transmitter
a. Description, quantity, and capabilities.
i. Infrared transmitters are small blinking infrared lights that attach to a 9-volt battery, quantity: 80. Infrared transmitters emit an infrared light that can be seen using night vision illuminators. b. Purpose
Infrared transmitters are used by tactical teams in conjunction with night vision equipment. The transmitters are used to identify objects and/or locations that can only be seen with the use of night vision equipment. c. Authorized Use
Only members that trained in the use of night vision equipment are authorized to use the infrared transmitters.
d. Lifespan
Approximately 10-15 years
e. Fiscal Impact
None. Once they are not functional, they will be returned to the military, and we will source a replacement through the DLA.
f. Training

Policy 709: Military Equipment
Attachment A
Attachment A - Page 17
Use of infrared transmitters are deployed at the direction of the SWAT team commander for use during tactical operations. Officers deploying the Infrared transmitters receive periodic training in the proper deployment of the transmitters. g. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the SLOPD to utilize these infrared transmitters only for official law enforcement purposes.

6. Image intensifier, (Night vision)
a. Description, quantity, and capabilities.
i. Night vision goggles, quantity: 4. Night vision allows officers to see in low light conditions.
b. Purpose
Used by SWAT in low light conditions during critical incidents when traditional lighting tools such as flashlights would be unsafe to use. c. Authorized Use
Only members trained in the use of night vision equipment are authorized to use the equipment. These devices are assigned to SWAT and are used at the direction of the SWAT commander.
d. Lifespan
Approximately 10 years
e. Fiscal Impact
None. Once they are not functional, they will be returned to the military, and we will source a replacement through the DLA.
f. Training
Prior to using night vision, officers receive POST approved training in the operation of night vision. Additionally, all members that deploy night vision equipment train with them several times each year.
g. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the SLOPD to utilize night vision only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law regarding the use of force.

7. Toxicological Agents Protective Coveralls
a. Description, quantity, and capabilities.
i. Rubber coated coveralls, quantity: 20. Coveralls used to protect officers during an incident involving chemical/biological contaminants

Policy 709: Military Equipment
Attachment A
Attachment A - Page 18
b. Purpose
Toxicological Agents Protective Coveralls are used by officers to protect against chemical/biological contaminated environments.
c. Authorized Use
Members of the Department are authorized to use the protective equipment during their response to any situation where chemical/biological contaminants are suspected.
d. Lifespan
Approximately 10 - 15 years
e. Fiscal Impact
None. Once they are not functional, they will be returned to the military, and we will source a replacement through the DLA.
f. Training
Officers are trained in the proper use of the protective coveralls on a five-year rotation.
g. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the SLOPD to utilize this protective equipment for official law enforcement purposes.

8. Illuminator, Target Pointer, Aiming Laser
a. Description, quantity, and capabilities.
i. EOTECH laser aiming device, quantity: 18. This is a multifunction visible and infrared laser aiming device with laser illuminator.
b. Purpose
The laser aiming device is used by SWAT members who are deploying a rifle while using night vision goggles. When using night vision, it becomes the primary aiming device for a rifle.
c. Authorized Use
Only members of SWAT who have received training in the proper use of the aiming device are authorized to use a rifle equipped with a EOTECH laser aiming device.
d. Lifespan
Approximately 10-15 years
e. Fiscal Impact

Policy 709: Military Equipment
Attachment A
Attachment A - Page 19
None. Once they are not functional, they will be returned to the military, and we will source a replacement through the DLA.
d. Training
Prior to using the sights, officers must be certified by POST instructors in the operation of the rifle the laser aiming device is affixed to. Additionally, all members that operate any rifle are required to pass a range qualification two times a year.
e. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the SLOPD to utilize laser aiming devices only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law regarding the use of force.