San Luis Obispo City Council
August 16, 2022

Avila Ranch CFD No. 2017- 1 ( Services)
Rate and Method ofApportionment and Manner of Collerciton of Special Tax October 11, 2017
Annual Infrastructure Costs" means for each Fiscal Year, the total cost of ( 1) Authorized Facilities and ( 2) any amounts needed to cure actual or estimated delinquencies in Special Taxes for the current or previous Fiscal Year.

Annual Services Costs" means for each Fiscal Year, the total cost of ( 1) Authorized Services, 2) Administrative Expenses, and ( 3) any amounts needed to cure actual or estimated delinquencies in Special Taxes for the current or previous Fiscal Year.

Assessor' s Parcel Map" means an official map of the County Assessor designating parcels by Assessor' s Parcel Number.

Assessor' s Parcel Number" means the Parcel and Parcel number as recorded by the County Assessor on the equalized tax roll.

Authorized Facilities" means those facilities, as listed in the resolution forming the CFD Authorized Services" mean those services, as listed in the resolution forming the CFD.

Base Year" means the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2019.

Building Permit" means a permit issued by the City for the construction of a Residential Use structure.

Building Square Foot( age)" has the same meaning as that defined for the School Mitigation Fee by California Government Code Section 65995 for "Assessable Space," which is " all of the square footage within the perimeter of a residential structure, not including any carport, walkway, garage, overhang, patio, enclosed patio, detached accessory structure, or similar area" as determined upon issuance of the initial Building Permit.

FD" means the Avila Ranch Community Facilities District No. 2017- 1 ( Services) of the City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California.

City" means the City of San Luis Obispo in San Luis Obispo County, California.

Council" means the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo acting for the CFD under the Act.

County" means the County of San Luis Obispo, California.

County Assessor' s Parcel" means a lot or Parcel with an assigned Assessor's Parcel Number in the maps used by the County Assessor in the preparation of the tax roll.

Developed Parcel" means any Taxable Parcel with a Building Permit issued for Residential Uses.

Development Plan" means a condominium plan, apartment plan, site plan, or other development plan that identifies such information as the type of structure, acreage, square footage, or number of Units that are approved to be developed on Single Family Parcels and Multifamily Residential Use Parcels.

Final Map Parcel" means a Parcel designated for development as a single- family residence which is part of a Final Subdivision Map.

A- 2 0- 1642

Avila Ranch CFD No. 2017- 1 ( Services)
Rate and Method of Apportionment and Manner of Collerciton of Special Tax October 11, 2017
Final_ Subdivision Man" means a recorded map designating the final Parcel Subdivision for individual single family residential Parcels.

Fiscal Year" means the period starting July 1 and ending the following June 30.

Infrastructure 5 ecial Tax" means the Special Tax identified in Attachment 1 for each Land Use Category identified to fund the costs of Authorized Facilities. The Infrastructure Special Tax is increased by the Infrastructure Special Tax Escalation Factor in each Fiscal Year following the Base Year.

Infrastructure Special Tax Escalation Factor" means a factor of 2 percent in any Fiscal Year following the Base Year by which the Special Tax for the previous Fiscal Year will be increased for the current Fiscal Year.

Llnd_Use Category" means the categories of taxable land uses shown in Attachment 1.

Large_ Lot Parcel" means a Parcel created by a Large Lot Subdivision Map.

Large LQt SubdivisionMap" means a recorded subdivision map creating Parcels by land use.

However, the Large Lot Subdivision Map does not delineate Single -Family Parcels. A Final Subdivision Map will create individual Single Family Parcels.

Market -Rate Unit" means a Unit that is not an Affordable Unit.

Maximum Annual 5 eci l Tax" means the greatest amount of Special Tax that can be levied against a Parcel in a given Fiscal Year. The Maximum Annual Special Tax is the sum of the Fiscal Services Special Tax and Infrastructure Special Tax assigned to each Taxable Parcel.

Maximum Annual Special Tax Revenue" means the greatest amount of revenue that can be collected in total from a group of Parcels ( such as Developed Parcels) by levying the Special Tax.

M lti, €amity" or "Multifamily Residential Use" means any Parcel or Development Project designated or developed for more than one residential dwelling unit per parcel. Such uses may consist of apartments, condominiums, townhomes, time- share units, row houses, duplexes, or triplexes.

Municipal Costs Index" means the index published by American City & County.

Other Land Use" means a Parcel with land uses other than Residential Uses. Such Parcels are Tax -Exempt Parcels
Parcel" means any County Assessor' s Parcel in the CFD based on the equalized tax rolls of the County.

Public Parcel" means any Parcel that is or is intended to be publicly owned, as designated in any final map that is normally exempt from the levy of general ad valorem property taxes under California law, including public streets; schools; parks; and public drainageways, landscaping, wetlands, greenbelts, and open space.

Remainder Parcel" means a Parcel that is created as the result of the recordation of a Large Lot Parcel Map or Final Small Lot Subdivision Map, which results in a Parcel within the boundaries of a Large Lot Parcel, that has not been mapped for final development approval. Such a A- 3 0- 1642

Avila Ranch CFD No. 2017- 1 ( Services)
Rate and Method of Apportionment and Manner of Collerciton of Special Tax October 11, 2017
Remainder Parcel may contain taxable and tax-exempt uses, such as Residential Uses, and Public Parcels, such as school or park sites. Once designated as a Remainder Parcel, such Parcel will be considered a Large Lot Parcel for the purposes of future Subdivisions and for the provisions of Sections 4 through 6.

Residential Use" means a Parcel designated for residential use, such as single family residential units, residential condominiums, townhouses, Multifamily Residential Uses, or apartments.

RMA" means the Rate and Method of Apportionment of the Special Tax.

Services Special Tax" means the Special Tax identified in Attachment 1 for each Land Use Category identified to fund the costs of Authorized Services. The Services Special Tax is increased by the Services Special Tax Escalation Factor in each Fiscal Year following the Base Year.

Services Special Tax Escalation Factor" an annual percentage increase in the Fiscal Mitigation Special Tax and Local Area Special Tax based upon the Consumer Price Index ( CPI) prior calendar year annual average, San Francisco, All Urban Consumers ( CPI -U) Index), the CPI ( prior calendar year annual average, Pacific West Cities, All Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers), or the Municipal Cost Index annual average, whichever is greater, but not exceeding four ( 4) percent.

Single Family, Parcel" means, in any Fiscal Year, all Parcels in the CFD for which a building permit was issued or may be issued for construction of a Unit that is a single family residential, residential condominium, or townhouse Unit.

Special Tax( es)" mean( s) any tax levy under the Act in the CFD.

Subdivision" or "Subdivided" means a division of a Parcel into two or more Parcels through the Subdivision Map Act process. A Subdivision may also include the merging of two or more Parcels to create new Parcels.

Tax Collection Sghedule" means the document prepared by the Administrator for the County Auditor -Controller to use in levying and collecting the Special Taxes each Fiscal Year.

Taxable Parcel" means any Parcel that is not a Tax -Exempt Parcel.

Tax- Exem t Parcel" means a Parcel not subject to the annual Special Tax. Tax -Exempt Parcels include Public Parcels, Undeveloped Parcels, and Other Use Parcels.

Certain privately -owned Parcels also may be exempt from the levy of annual Special Taxes including common areas owned by homeowner's associations or property owner associations, wetlands, detention basins, water quality ponds, and open space, as determined by the Administrator.

Undeveloped Parcel" means a Parcel that is a Large Lot Parcel or Remainder Parcel.

Unit" means ( a) for Single Family Parcel dwelling unit; and ( b) for Multifamily Residential Use Parcel, such as an individual residential unit in an apartment building.

A- 4 0- 1642

Avila Ranch CFD No. 2017- 1 ( Services)
Rate and Method ofApportionment and Manner of Collerciton of Special Tax October 11, 2017

3. Duration of the Special Tax
Parcels in the CFD will remain subject to the Services Special Tax in perpetuity.

Parcels in the CFD will be subject to the Infrastructure Special Tax through FY 2035- 36.

If the Special Tax ceases to be levied, the City will direct the County Recorder to record a Notice of Cessation of Special Tax. Such notice will state that the obligation to pay the Special Tax has ceased and that the lien imposed by the Notice of Special Tax Lien is extinguished. The Notice of Cessation of Special Tax, in addition, will identify the book and page of the Book of Maps of Assessment and Community Facilities Districts where the map of the boundaries of the CFD is recorded.

4. Administrative Tasks
Administrative tasks required of the Administrator are discussed below:

A. Annual Special Tax Escalation. The Administrator shall increase the Fiscal Mitigation Special Tax and Local Area Special Tax by the Services Special Tax Escalation Factor in each Fiscal Year following the Base Year. The Administrator shall increase the Infrastructure Special Tax Infrastructure Special Tax Escalation Factor in each Fiscal Year following the Base Year.

B. Assignment of the Maximum Annual S cial Tax to Taxable Parcels. As Taxable Parcels are Subdivided or combined, the Administrator will assign the Maximum Annual Special Tax to each new Taxable Parcel based on the records of the City:

1. Assignment of the Maximum Annual Special Tax to Developed Parcels. The Services Special Tax and Infrastructure Special Tax are assigned to Developed Parcels using the following procedures.
a. Identify the Building Square Footage for the Residential Use for the Taxable Parcel, as identified in the Building Permit.
b. Identify the Land Use Category for the Taxable Parcel based upon the Residential Use type and Building Square Footage in Attachment 1.

C. Assign the Services Special Tax for the Taxable Parcel based upon the Land Use Category using the criteria identified in Sections 4. 113. 1. a and 4. 113. 1. b, and as increased by the Services Special Tax Escalation Factor and Infrastructure Special Tax Escalation Factor.
d. Assign the Infrastructure Special Tax for the Taxable Parcel based upon the Land Use Category using the criteria identified in Sections 4. 113. 1. a and 4. 6. 1. b, and as increased by the Infrastructure Special Tax Escalation Factor. e. Sum the Services Special Tax and Infrastructure Special Tax to determine the Maximum Annual Special Tax for the Taxable Parcel.

A- 5 0- 1642

Avila Ranch CFD No. 2017- 1 ( Services)
Rate and Method ofApportionment and Manner of Collerciton of Special Tax October 11, 2017

2. Assianment of the Max13nu111 Annual S ecial Tax to Final Map Parcels, The Services Special Tax and Infrastructure Special Tax are assigned to Final Map Parcels using the following procedures.
a. Assign the Services Special Tax for the Final Map Parcel, as shown in Attachment 1, and as increased by the Services Special Tax Escalation Factor. b. Assign the Infrastructure Special Tax for the Final Map Parcel, as shown in Attachment 1, and as increased by the Infrastructure Special Tax Escalation Factor.

C. Sum the Services Special Tax and Infrastructure Special Tax to determine the Maximum Annual Special Tax for the Taxable Parcel.

3. Assignment of the Maximum Annual Special Tax to Undeveloped Parcels. Undeveloped Parcels are not subject to the Maximum Annual Special Tax.

C. Affordable Units that Become Market Rate Units. If, in any Fiscal Year, a Unit that previously had been designated as an Affordable Unit no longer qualifies as such, the City shall update the Affordable Unit Listing by denoting the change in status of the Unit, together with the effective date thereof. The Maximum Annual Special Tax on the Unit that no longer qualifies as an Affordable Unit shall be increased to double the amount that would have applied in that Fiscal Year if the Unit had remained as an Affordable Unit.

In subsequent Fiscal Years, this increased Maximum Annual Special Tax shall continue to escalate by the Tax Escalation Factor.

D. Conversion of a Tax- Exem t Parcel to aTaxable Parcel. If a Tax -Exempt Parcel is not needed for public use and is converted to a taxable use or transferred to a private owner, it shall become subject to the Special Tax. The Maximum Annual Special Tax for such a Parcel will be assigned according to the provisions of Section 4. A and 4. 6.

E. Taxable Parcel Acquired by a Public Agency. A Taxable Parcel acquired by a public agency shall be reclassified as a Tax -Exempt Parcels and is no longer subject to the Special Tax levy.

F. Maintenance of Parcel Records. The Administrator will maintain a development status for each Parcel within the CFD as Parcels are Subdivided and developed. The record will contain the Assessor' s Parcel Number, Land Use Category, number of Units per Taxable Parcel, the Fiscal Mitigation Special Tax, Local Area Special Tax, Infrastructure Special Tax, and Maximum Annual Special Tax for each Taxable Parcel.

S. Assignment of the Maximum Annual Special Tax
A. Classification of Parcels. By June 30 of each Fiscal Year, using the Definitions in Section 2, the Administrator shall cause:

1. Each Parcel to be classified as a Taxable Parcel or Tax -Exempt Parcel.

2. Each Parcel to be classified as a Developed Parcel, Final Map Parcel, or an Undeveloped Parcel.

A- 6 0- 1642

Avila Ranch CFD No. 2017- 1 ( Services)
Rate and Method of Apportionment and Manner of Collerciton of Special Tax October 11, 2017
B. Assirinn-rent of the Maximum Annual Special Tax to Taxable Parcels. The Maximum Annual Special Tax will be assigned to each Taxable Parcel each Fiscal Year using the procedures not all steps may be applicable for each such Parcel) in Section 4.

6. Calculating Annual Special Taxes
The Administrator will compute the Annual Costs and determine the annual Special Tax levy for each Taxable Parcel based on the assignment of the Special Tax in Section S. The Administrator will then determine the tax levy for each Taxable Parcel using the following process:

A. Compute the Annual Services Costs using the definition of Annual Services Costs in Section

2. B. Calculate the Services Special Tax levy for each Taxable Parcel by the following steps Step 1: Compute 100 percent of the Services Special Tax revenue for all Developed Parcels.

Step 2: Compare the Annual Services Costs with the amount calculated in the previous step.

Step 3: If the Annual Services Costs are lower than the amount calculated in Step 1, decrease proportionately the Services Special Tax levy for each Developed Parcel until the revenue from the Special Tax levy equals the Annual Services Costs.

Step 4: If the Annual Services Costs are greater than the amount calculated in Step 1, increase proportionately the Services Special Tax levy for each Final Map Parcel until the revenue from the Special Tax levy equals the Annual Services Costs, or 100 percent of the Services Special Tax for all Final Map Parcels, if needed to fund Annual Services Costs.

C. Compute the Annual Infrastructure Costs using the definition of Annual Infrastructure Costs in Section 2
D. Calculate the Infrastructure Special Tax levy for each Taxable Parcel by the following steps:

Step 1: Compute 100 percent of the Infrastructure Special Tax revenue for all Developed Parcels.

Step 2: Compare the Annual Infrastructure Costs with the amount calculated in the previous step.

Step 3: If the Annual Infrastructure Costs are lower than the amount calculated in Step 1, decrease proportionately the Infrastructure Special Tax levy for each Developed Parcel until the revenue from the Special Tax levy equals the Annual Infrastructure Costs.

Step 4: If the Annual Infrastructure Costs are greater than the amount calculated in Step 1, increase proportionately the Infrastructure Special Tax levy for each Final Map Parcel until the revenue from the Special Tax levy equals the Annual Services Costs, or 100 percent of the Services Special Tax for all Final Map Parcels, if needed to fund Annual Infrastructure Costs.

A- 7 0- 1642

Avila Ranch CFD No. 2017- 1 ( Services)
Rate and Method ofApportionment and Manner of Collerciton of Special Tax October 11, 2017
E. Sum the amount determined in Sections 6. 113 and 6. 113 above.

F. Levy on each Taxable Parcel the amount calculated in Section 6. E above.

G. Prepare the Tax Collection Schedule and, unless an alternative method of collection has been selected pursuant to Section 9, send it to the County Auditor requesting that it be placed on the general, secured property tax roll for the Fiscal Year. The Tax Collection Schedule will not be sent later than the date required by the Auditor for such inclusion.

The Administrator will make every effort to correctly calculate the Special Tax for each Parcel. It will be the burden of the taxpayer to correct any errors in the determination of the Parcels subject to the tax and their Special Tax assignments.

7. Interpretation, Application and Appeal of Special
Tax Formula and Procedures
Any taxpayer who feels that the amount of the Special Tax assigned to a Parcel is in error may file a notice with the Administrator appealing the levy of the Special Tax. The Administrator will then promptly review the appeal, and if necessary, meet with the applicant. If the Administrator verifies that the tax should be modified or changed, the Special Tax levy will be corrected and, if applicable in any case, a refund will be granted.

Interpretations may be made by Resolution of the Council for purposes of clarifying any vagueness or ambiguity as it relates to the Special Tax rate, the method of apportionment, the classification of properties, or any definition applicable to the CFD.

Without Council approval, the Administrator may make minor, non -substantive administrative and technical changes to the provisions of this Exhibit that do not materially affect the rate, method of apportionment, and manner of collection of the Special Tax for purposes of the administrative efficiency or convenience or to comply with new applicable federal, state or local law.

S. Prepayment of the Special Tax Obligation
The Special Tax for a Taxable Parcel may not be prepaid. The Special Tax is collected to fund Authorized Services in perpetuity, or until the Council determines that the Special Tax should no longer be collected.

9. Manner of Collection
The Special Tax will be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ad valorem property taxes, provided, however, that the Administrator or its designee may directly bill the Special Tax and may collect the Special Tax at a different time, such as on a monthly or other periodic basis, or in a different manner, if necessary, to meet the City' s financial obligations.

A- 8 0- 1642

Avila Ranch CFD No. 2017-1 ( Services)
Rate and Method ofApportionment and Manner of Collerciton of Special Tax October 11, 2017
Attachment 1
Avila Ranch CFD No. 2017- 1 ( Services)
Maximum Annual Special Tax - Base Year of FY 2018-19
No. of Services Infrastructure Maximum Annual
Land Use Category Units Special Tax Special Tax Special Tax f1) i2] [ 3] [ 4]
Single Family Residential - >_1, 500 Sq. Ft. 322 $ 2, 749. 80 $ 300. 00 $ 3, 049. 80 Single Family Residential - < 1, 500 Sq. Ft. 76 $ 1, 832. 86 $ 200.00 $ 2, 032. 86 Multifamily Residential - >_1, 500 Sq. Ft. 38 $ 2, 749.80 $ 300. 00 $ 3, 049. 80 Multifamily Residential - < 1, 500 Sq. Ft. 252 $ 1, 832. 86 $ 200. 00 $ 2, 032. 86 Affordable Multifamily Residential 32 $ 916. 43 $ 100. 00 $ 1, 016.43 Undeveloped Parcels [ 5]
Other Land Uses $ 0. 00 $ 0. 00 $ 0. 00
Public and Deed Restricted Land $ 0. 00 $ 0. 00 $ 0. 00 att1"
1] This Special Tax rate will be increased by the Services Special Tax Escalator in each Fiscal Year following the Base Year of FY 2018- 19.
2] This Special Tax rate will be increased by the Infrastructure Special Tax Escalator in each Fiscal Year following the Base Year of FY 2018- 19.
3] This Special Tax may be collected in each Fiscal Year through FY 2035- 36. This Special Tax will no longer be collected following FY 2035-36.
4] Beginning with FY 2035-39, the Maximum Annual Special Tax will be equal to the Services Special Tax as the Infrastructure Special Tax will no longer be collected beyond FY 2035- 36.. 5] Undeveloped Parcels are Final Map Parcels without a Building Permit.

A- 9 0- 1642

Ordinance No. 1642 ( 2017 Series)

EXHIBIT B
Exhibit B
City of San Luis Obispo CFD No. 2017- 1 ( Services)
Draft List of Authorized Services
List of Authorized Services
The authorized services to be funded from the levy and collection of annual special taxes include those set forth below in addition to the costs associated with collecting and administering the special taxes, annually administering the District, and costs associated with forming the District.

The authorized services to be funded include:

1. Maintenance and lighting of parks, parkways, streets, roads, and open space.

2. Flood and storm protection services, including, but not limited to, the operation and maintenance of storm drainage systems.

3. Police protection services, including, but not limited to, criminal justice services. However, criminal justice services shall be limited to providing services for jails, detention facilities, and juvenile halls.

4. Fire protection and suppression services, and ambulance and paramedic services.

5. Maintenance and operation of any real property or other tangible property with an estimated useful life of five or more years that is owned by the local agency or by another local agency pursuant to an agreement entered into under Section 53316. 2.

List of Authorized Facilities
The authorized facilities to be funded from the levy and collection of annual special taxes include;

1. Local park, recreation, parkway, and open -space facilities.

2. The district may also finance the construction or undergrounding of water transmission and distribution facilities, natural gas pipeline facilities, telephone lines, facilities for the transmission or distribution of electrical energy, and cable television lines to provide access to those services to customers who do not have access to those services or to mitigate existing visual blight.

3. The district may also finance the acquisition, improvement, rehabilitation, or maintenance of any real or other tangible property, whether privately or publicly owned, for flood and storm protection services, including, but not limited to, storm drainage and treatment systems and sandstorm protection systems.

4. A community facilities district may also finance the purchase, construction, expansion, improvement, or rehabilitation of any real or other tangible property with an estimated useful life of five years or longer or may finance planning and design work that is directly related to the purchase, construction, expansion, or rehabilitation of any real or tangible property. The facilities need not be physically located within the Dstrict. 01642

Item 7a
Department: Utilities
Cost Center: 601
For Agenda of: 8/16/2022
Placement: Business
Estimated Time: 30 Minutes
FROM: Aaron Floyd, Utilities Director
Prepared By: Mychal Boerman, Utilities Deputy Director - Water SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION OF GOVERNOR’S EMERGENCY DROUGHT

MANDATES

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt a Draft Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, declaring that the City enter into Stage 2, the “Warning Stage”, of its 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan;” and

2. Authorize staff to implement water demand reducing measures outlined within Stages one and two, the “Warning” and “Watch” stages, of its Water Shortage Contingency Plan.

POLICY CONTEXT
The Water and Wastewater Management Element of the City’s General Plan contains policies related to how the City plans for and utilizes its water supplies. Policy A 6.2.2 states that “Mandatory water conservation measures as described in the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan, included in the City’s Urban Water Management Plan, may be implemented when the City’s water supplies are projected to last five years or less”.

While the City’s water supplies are currently projected to last more than five years, as documented in the 2022 Water Supply and Demand Assessment, recent action by the State of California has required that all Urban Water Purveyors, including the City of San Luis Obispo, implement the demand management measures outlined within Stage 2 of their water shortage contingency plans, regardless of actual water supply. Had that State of California not mandated this, the City would not have met its adopted thresholds for implementing its Water Shortage Contingency Plan and would not be requesting the implementation of mandatory water conservation measures at this time.

DISCUSSION
Background
On March 28, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Executive Order N-7-22, which directed the California State Water Board (Water Board) to consider adopting emergency regulations for urban water conservation in response to multiple consecutive belowaverage rainfall years.

Item 7a
On May 24, 2022, the California State Water Board adopted an emergency regulation increasing restrictions on water use across the State. The requirements, which are summarized below, are anticipated to remain in effect until June 10, 2023, unless the Water Board modifies, readopts, or ends the implementation requirements before this date.

Emergency Regulation Requirements Impacting the City

1. Urban Water Suppliers must implement the water demand reduction actions outlined within Stage 2 of their water shortage contingency plans.

2. The irrigation of “non-functional turf” using potable water must be ceased for all commercial, industrial, and institutional sectors.

City’s Adopted 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan Water Demand Reduction Actions and Increased Public Outreach
On June 15, 2021, the City Council voted unanimously to adopt the 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) which outlines the measures that the City may take to reduce water demand during a declared (in this instance by the State) water shortage. As a result of recent State mandates, the City is required to implement its adopted water demand reduction actions outlined within the “Warning Stage” of its WSCP. Because the WSCP is a progressive plan, in which later stages build upon the actions of earlier stages, measures within the first stage of the WSCP. The actions outlined within the first two stages of the City’s WSCP include the following:

1. Acceleration of water audit programs for all customer classes

2. Identification of the largest water users in each sector and contacting each for complementary water audits

3. Increasing water waste patrols

4. Conduct water use surveys

5. Implementing rebate programs (under development)

6. Hosting workshops on effective irrigation practices

7. Limiting outdoor watering to the hours between 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM

8. Requiring restaurants to only serve water upon request

9. Restricting the use of decorative water features and fountains The Utilities Department’s Water Resources section will be responsible for the implementation of the above-mentioned water demand reduction measures. Most of these measures can be implemented immediately or within the next few months. They do require the City Council to pass a resolution, declaring that the City is entering the Warning Stage of its WSCP. The adoption of this resolution will allow the City to take enforcement action on non-compliant parties via the enforcement processes outlined in the City’s municipal code.

Item 7a
In addition to the demand reduction measures described above, the WSCP also calls for various forms of increased public outreach to assist in water demand reduction. As part of the 2022-23 Budget Supplement the City Council approved a budget increase of $40,000 for additional drought-related public outreach, $18,440 for additional funding for temporary utility billing section support, $117,760 for supplemental staffing support within the Water Resources section, and $30,000 for water conservation rebate programs. This increased funding will ensure that the actions outlined within the WSCP can be executed effectively. No additional funding is being requested as part of this staff report.

Non-Functional Turf Irrigation Ban at Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Sites While the City does not currently have restrictions on the irrigation of turf, the Water Board’s recent action included a ban on the irrigation of “non-functional turf” at commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) sites. Per the State’s regulations, CII sites include “homeowners’ associations, common interest developments, community service organizations, and other similar entities but does not include the residences of these entities’ members or separate interests”.

Non-functional turf is
defined as “turf that is
solely ornamental and not
regularly used for human
recreational purposes or
for civic or community
events. Nonfunctional turf
does not include sports
fields and turf that is
regularly used for human
recreational purposes or
for civic or community
events”. City staff have
designed and mailed a
direct-mail postcard to all
of the City’s commercial,
industrial, and
institutional customers in
order to raise awareness
of this new State requirement. The new requirement is not required to be monitored or enforced upon by the City, but the City is expected to assist with raising awareness of the new regulations within the community. Should a CII property within the City violate the state’s requirement to cease irrigation of non-functional turf, they could be subject to fines of $500 per day or more from the State of California.

Figure 1 - Non-functional Turf Mailer

Item 7a
Impacted City Facilities
The City has a minimal number of facilities
that are anticipated to be affected by the
State’s mandatory conservation order. City
Hall, Fire Station #1, the Ludwick
Community Center, and the Police
Department have turf areas that are
classified as “non-functional” in nature.

Irrigation of these turf areas has been
discontinued and landscaping signs have
been posted in these areas to help build
public awareness about why the turf is no
longer irrigated and has been allowed to
die. The Utilities Department has additional
signs available if CII customers within the
City would like one for their turf areas.

Protection of Trees and Public Health and Safety
Both the City’s WSCP and the new state regulations specifically allow for the continued irrigation of trees within the community. The State’s new regulations provide that “the use of water is not prohibited by this section to the extent necessary to ensure the health of trees and other perennial non-turf plantings or to the extent necessary to address an immediate health and safety need”. No enforcement action will be taken on customers who are irrigating trees in order to keep them alive.

Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
On June 15, 2021, the City Council adopted the 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan which outlined the measures the City would take in case of a water shortage emergency.

On June 7, 2022, the City Council adopted the 2022-23 Budget Supplement which provided funding for the water demand reduction measures outlined within the City’s WSCP.

Public Engagement
The City’s Utilities Department has been conducting various public outreach efforts to educate members of the public regarding the new water use restrictions. These efforts include the following:

1. Direct mail postcard to all commercial, industrial, and Institutional customer notifying them of the new ban on irrigation of non-functional turf.

2. Update to the City’s drought webpage which outlines all current water use restrictions.

3. Radio advertisement on local English and Spanish speaking radio stations.

4. Social media and City website articles outlining new regulations.

5. A water-wise landscapes campaign to highlight community efforts to reduce outdoor water use, to promote water-wise landscape renovations, and to raise awareness of the State’s drought regulations.

Figure 2 - City Hall “California Gold” Sign

Item 7a
In addition to public education about the new requirements, Utilities staff posted a website update and social media articles about the new regulations to be discussed at the City Council meeting. These postings will allow community members to plan early for meeting attendance and public comment.

CONCURRENCE
The City’s Public Works Department concurs with the information contained in this report, including the designation of non-functional turf at select City facilities.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15307 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources) because the proposed drought restrictions which are authorized by state law (Water Conservation Emergency Regulations), are proposed for water conservation purposes, and include procedures for protection of the environment.

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
Water Fund $194,480 $0 $194,480 $0
Sewer Fund $6,720 $6,720
State
Federal
Fees
Other:

Total $201,200 $0 $201,200 $0
As outlined in the Budget Supplement, the City Council approved a one-time budget increase of $40,000 for additional drought-related public outreach, $13,440 for additional funding for temporary utility billing section support, $117,760 for supplemental staffing support within the Water Resources section, and $30,000 for water conservation rebate programs. In full the City Council approved $201,200 in additional drought-related funding in relation to the actions outlined within this staff report. No additional funding is being requested as part of this staff report.

Item 7a
Though staff is not aware of any additional restrictions as of the writing of this report, the drought conditions are ongoing and could require further action to address additional State mandates. Staff will continue to monitor the situation and return to Council for additional resource allocation, should the need arise.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Council could decide not to implement the water demand saving actions outlined within the City’s WSCP. This action is not recommended by staff because such action could result in fines for the City and the loss of future opportunities to pursue low-interest loans and grant financing from the State.

2. Council could decide to implement additional measures to those outlined in the WSCP. This action is not recommended by staff because the City’s water supplies are sufficient to meet current demands and without regulations from the State of California, the City would not have met water supply conditions necessary to trigger the implementation of the WSCP.

ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Resolution Declaring Stage 2 Water Shortage Contingency Plan

R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2022 SERIES)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS

OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THAT THE CITY ENTER INTO
STAGE 2, THE “WARNING STAGE”, OF ITS 2020 WATER SHORTAGE

CONTINGENCY PLAN
WHEREAS, the State of California is experiencing its third consecutive year of drought; and
WHEREAS, on June 15, 2021, the City Council voted unanimously to adopt the 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan; and
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2022, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-7- 22, directing the California State Water Board to consider adoption of emergency water conservation regulations; and
WHEREAS, on May 24, 2022, the California State Water Board adopted an emergency regulation mandating increased restrictions on water use across the state; and
WHEREAS, the City’s total water use is substantially lower than the statewide average and within all water use requirements established by the State of California; and WHEREAS, the City’s water supplies are estimated to provide greater than five years of water to the community, and are therefore sufficient as to not warrant entering into a declared water shortage, outside of the state requiring such action; and WHEREAS, the State’s recently adopted emergency water conservation regulations require that water agencies enact the water demand reducing measures established within Stage 2 of their Water Shortage Contingency Plans (i.e., the “Warning Stage” of the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan), regardless of local water supply conditions; and
WHEREAS, City Municipal Code Section 13.07.030 – Council water conservation powers, grants the City Council the authority, via adoption of a resolution, to enact the water reducing measures contained within Section 13.07.030 of the Municipal Code, which are in alignment with the “Warning Stage” of the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that:

SECTION 1. Declaration. In compliance with State of California water conservation regulations, the City of San Luis Obispo hereby declares that it must enter into Stage 2, the “Warning Stage” of its City Council approved Water Shortage Contingency Plan.

Resolution No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 2
R ______
SECTION 2. Authority. As outlined in the City’s Municipal Code and Water Shortage Contingency Plan, during the declaration of a water shortage, the City has the authority to restrict water use and leverage appropriate penalties for unauthorized water use in alignment with the measures outlined within the Water Shortage Contingency Plan and City municipal code.

Upon motion of Council Member ___________, seconded by Council Member ___________, and on the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _______________ 2022. ___________________________
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

Item 7b
Department: Police
Cost Center: 8001
For Agenda of: 8/16/2022
Placement: Business
Estimated Time: 60 Minutes
FROM: Rick Scott, Police Chief
Prepared By: Brian Amoroso, Administrative Captain
SUBJECT: POLICE DEPARTMENT 2020/2021 CRIME COMPARISON AND UPDATE

RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the 2020/2021 Police Department Crime Report.

POLICY CONTEXT
The Police Department presents a crime report annually to the City Council that compares crime to the previous year and provides a general update on department activities.

REPORT-IN-BRIEF
On August 16, 2022, staff will provide the City Council with a presentation (Attachment A) and update regarding Police Department activities for 2021. This update will provide Council with information regarding community outreach, crime, police operations, homelessness, traffic, noise, and downtown activity. The purpose of the 2020/2021 Crime Report is to discuss crime trends and is not intended to be an operational or policy overview of the Department.

At the conclusion of 2021, the Police Department saw a 10% increase in violent crime and a 14% increase in property crime, resulting in a 13% increase in Part I crime overall as compared to 2020. Part I crime increased 7% overall in 2021 when compared to 2019, the last non-COVID year.

The presentation on August 16th will highlight the department’s success with crime prevention efforts, review some of the challenges the department faced in 2021, detail some of the reasons San Luis Obispo experienced increases in crimes, discuss the Police Department’s continued community outreach, review noise related calls for service and briefly discuss some of the ongoing challenges from 2021. At the beginning of FY 2022, police staffing was at 91.5 FTEs. Sworn staffing allocation remained static through 2021, however a new lead records clerk position was added and filled in early 2022. With “authorized” staffing remaining nearly the same, the department faced a significant deficit in “available” staffing, working severely shorthanded for a majority of the year.

DISCUSSION

Item 7b
Community Outreach:

The Police Department is incredibly fortunate to have a community in San Luis Obispo that is engaged in the dialogue and work related to the challenges, perceptions and critical partnerships needed to establish a safer community. One of the Police Department’s primary goals is to reduce harm. We reduce harm by reducing crime and victimization, reducing traffic collisions, increasing multi-modal safety, strengthening our regional partnerships, strengthening the health and well-being of our employees, and strengthening our relationship with the community we serve.

To exceed our goal of reducing harm by strengthening our community/police relationship, we continue to improve programs like the PAC (Police Advisory Committee) and the Police Roundtable. Both collaborations helped build community trust, strengthen partnerships with marginalized communities and increase lines of communications and collaboration between Law Enforcement and community stakeholders. In 2022, Chief Scott has begun reforming these work groups by bolstering their purpose and adding new community partnerships to further build upon the success of the past and forge creative paths for a stronger future.

In 2021, the Police Department continued the partnership with the City Homelessness Response Manager and other City Departments, Transitions Mental Health, County Behavioral Health, and the Sheriff’s Department to address concerns surrounding homelessness and impacts within our community. This multi-agency approach has proven to be a successful endeavor as we all look for reasonable, fair, and commonsensed solutions to homelessness county-wide.

Lastly, police officers assigned to neighborhoods continued to focus proactive policing efforts on current issues and neighborhood safety. Outreach was already in place, such as the neighborhood officer program, neighborhood outreach and civility efforts, Cal Poly partnerships, and those have and will continue to grow. The COVID-19 pandemic created challenges in the neighborhoods as many families social distanced by staying at home and the public health orders prohibited gatherings for most of the year. The second half of 2021 saw life return to more “normal” patterns of activity, both downtown and throughout the city.

Crime:

Like most cities in California, San Luis Obispo has seen a rise in crime in most categories in 2021, largely due to the steep reduction in crime during 2020 caused by the pandemic, coupled with reduced enforcement options available to officers as a result of legislative changes, jail booking policies and bail reform.

San Luis Obispo experienced a 10% increase in violent crime and a 14% increase in property crime, with a 13% increase in Part I* crime overall. Throughout 2021, the Police Department saw a 32% decrease in the number of reported sexual assaults over 2020, and a 27% decrease in commercial burglaries, while residential burglaries increased by 30%, vehicle theft increased by 49% and theft related calls (general and theft from vehicle) increased 15%.

Item 6b
PART I CRIMES (2020 vs. 2021)
Violent Crime Property Crime
2020 2021 % Change 2020 2021 % Change
Homicide 1 2 100% Commercial
Burglary 171 125 -27%
Rape 37 25 -32% Residential
Burglary 113 147 30%
Robbery 28 33 18% Theft from Vehicle 392 439 12%
Agg. Assault 139 165 19% Stolen Vehicle 117 174 49%
General Theft 827 959 16%
Total Year Violent 205 225 10% Total Year
Property 1620 1844 14%
Total Part I Crime 1825 2069 13%
Table 1
PART I CRIMES (2019 vs. 2021)
Violent Crime Property Crime
2019 2021 % Change 2019 2021 % Change
Homicide 0 2 100% Commercial
Burglary 173 125 -28%
Rape 39 25 -36%
Residential
Burglary 104 147 41%
Robbery 34 33 -3% Theft from Vehicle 434 439 1%
Agg. Assault 114 165 45% Stolen Vehicle 74 174 135%
General Theft 953 959 1%
Total Year Violent 187 225 20% Total Year
Property 1738 1844 6%
Total Part I Crime 1925 2069 7%
Table 2
The COVID-19 pandemic is directly responsible for many of the call for service and crime trends seen in 2021. During the height of the pandemic, officers were responding to priority calls for service, but restricted in proactive enforcement as the Police Department balanced continued enforcement with the need to maintain a healthy officer core to respond to emergencies. As the community emerged from pandemic restrictions, activity and calls for service returned to a more “normal” level. The most common call for service in 2021 was 911 abandon phone calls, followed by suspicious circumstances, welfare checks and disorderly individuals.

Item 6b
Figure 1
The Police Department saw a large increase in calls for service in 2021, to the highest total on record. Call volume increased 14% in 2021 from 2020 and 32% since 2009, with officer staffing remaining virtually identical in the same timeframe. 9-1-1 ABANDON, 7727,
32%
Suspicious, 3793, 16%
Welfare Check, 2079, 9%
Disorderly, 2078, 8%
Assist Req, 2007, 8%
Alarm Audible, 1391, 6%
Trespassing, 1378, 6%
Loitering, 1262, 5%
Noise Party, 1190, 5%
ABAND VEHICLE, 1186,
5%
Top 10 Call Natures - 2021

Item 6b
Figure 2
Police Operations:

The Police Department began research, implementation and training of software used to track stop data in accordance with AB953, the racial and identity profiling act (RIPA). Data collection began on 01/01/2022 and the first reporting period will conclude on 12/31/2022, with the final upload to the Department of Justice due in April of 2023; reportable data will be available at that time for 2022 stop data.

Records:

In the Records Division, the number of reports processed increased from 5,685 in 2020 to 6220 in 2021 (9% increase). The number of citations processed by the Records Division decreased from 3,215 in 2020 to 2751 in 2021 (14% decrease). The number of Public Records Act requests decreased, from 66 in 2020 to 52 in 2021. Two records clerks were in training for much of 2021 and have now completed the training program.

Property:

In the Property Division, the number of evidence items booked decreased from 7,551 in 2020 to 7,136 in 2021 (5.5% decrease). Discovery orders processed decreased from 939 in 2020 to 667 in 2021 (29% decrease). WatchGuard videos recorded increased from 54,877 in 2020 to 58,999 in 2021 (7.5% increase). WatchGuard Video/Cases booked in as evidence increased from 1,253 in 2020 to 1,380 in 2021 (10% increase). The numbers are by case number, not by the number of videos in each case, which can be upwards of 10-15 videos per case.

Item 6b
Dispatch:

In the Communications Center, which managers 911 and non-emergency calls, the city experienced an increase regarding the number of calls into the center. The number of calls received increased by 6%, from 104,636 in 2020 to 110,787 in 2021. Calls for service (Police and Fire combined) increased by 13% from 38,289 in 2020 to 43,138 in 2021. Dispatch has had several vacancies throughout 2021 due to retirements and resignations. We hired several lateral dispatchers and they have quickly completed the training program and become solo dispatchers.

Investigations:

In the Investigations Bureau, the number of cases assigned for follow up by an Investigator decreased from 303 in 2020 to 296 in 2021 (2% decrease). The Special Enforcement Team (SET – four Officers) has been staffed at 50% capacity for 2021, and they have handled multiple complex investigations and special enforcement objectives including the largest narcotics related seizure in Department history. The death of Detective Benedetti and injury to Detective Orozco in 2021 had a significant effect on the continuity of the bureau. The Investigations Bureau is back to full staffing but operating at a reduced capacity as several employees continue to process the loss of Detective Benedetti.

Staffing:

In 2021, the Department worked with significantly reduced staffing for most of the year due to retirements, COVID leave including quarantine and illness, numerous long-term on-duty injuries and recruitment and retention challenges. Several specialty units operated at a reduced staffing level including CAT, Bicycle Teams, Special Enforcement Team (SET), and the Traffic Unit.

During 2021, the Department hired nine (9) Officers, one Records Clerk and one Dispatcher to fill vacancies. The Police Department lost approximately 25,853 hours due to illness, vacation, on-duty injuries, and other assorted leave types. This total equates to a loss of twelve and a half officers (21% of total officers) for the year. The average uniformed officer handles roughly 900 calls for service per year assuming full staffing levels. As a result of unscheduled vacancies, the department operated at approximately 70% capacity for a majority of the year, and even significantly lower at times. Patrol staffing was largely made up by overtime which is not a long term or healthy strategy to support operations.

Item 6b
Figure 3
Hiring to fill vacancies was a priority in the second half of 2021. The Police Department completed an updated recruiting video, strengthened our outreach on social media, and implemented an aggressive recruitment drive including hiring bonuses for lateral candidates. These efforts were highly successful, and we finished 2021 with all officer positions filled, although several were in field training or attending the police academy.

We will be continuing to hire in 2022 to fill retirements, vacancies created by any officers leaving the department and potential vacancies as several Officers (currently eight or 13%) remain on long-term industrial injury leave. Long term injuries create challenges for the department as we are forced to work short for extended periods of time and must fill shifts with overtime to maintain adequate staffing levels until the Officers return to work or are medically retired.

Homelessness:

This past year the police department responded to numerous complaints regarding the increase in transient camp occupancies and locations. In addition, park facilities have become an area of concern as homeless individuals have attempted to camp in the parks, erecting tents, and other structures. The Community Action Team, City Rangers and patrol officers increased their presence in known transient camp locations and parks to enforce municipal and penal code violations committed in their presence.

The challenge law enforcement often faces is when there is no law or city code violation being committed, but there is considerable nuisance oriented or dangerous behavior.

Being homeless in a space open to the public is not a crime. We have continued to educate and encourage the public and business owners to contact the police department when they observe safety hazards or violations being committed. 43 (70%)
6 (9%)
12 (21%)
Sworn Officer Staffing 2021
Officers Vacancy Sick/IOD/Vacation
61 Total Officers

Item 6b
COVID-19 continued to create additional challenges throughout the year as several court rulings, temporary zero-bail reform, and statewide guidelines prevented the booking of some offenders in the county jail. The Police Department worked closely with city staff to conduct several large camp cleanups where hazardous and unsanitary conditions existed.

The Police Department faced several challenges related to homelessness throughout 2021 including an extended closure of 40 Prado due to a COVID-19 outbreak, an ongoing lawsuit related to homeless policies, procedures and enforcement, and the announcement of the retirement of our dedicated social worker who partners with the CAT team to provide homeless outreach and offering of services. He ultimately returned to service with the Police Department in 2022 on a contract basis to help guide the direction of the CAT team.

In evaluating calls for service pertaining to the homeless population during 2021 (to include contacts as suspects, victims, or witnesses) these contacts increased by 97 for a total of 7,441; an increase of 1% compared to 2020. In 2021 overall calls for service increased by 14%. Homeless related calls for service accounted for 20% of all calls for service citywide, down from 22% in 2020.

Figure 4
The Police Department continued to receive complaints regarding adverse behavior by homeless individuals in the downtown, city parks and other facilities and in the creeks and open space.
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
City wide CFS Count 30818 30360 29974 31928 32738 33106 32421 31376 32,665 37124 Homeless CFS 4307 4645 4498 5503 6285 7102 7591 7032 7344 7441 % of Total 14% 15% 15% 17% 19% 21% 23% 22% 22% 20%
0 5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
Homeless CFS vs. Total CFS
City wide CFS Count Homeless CFS % of Total

Item 6b
Many of these behaviors can be attributed to substance abuse, mental illness, or a combination of both. In 2018, the Police Department added a full-time mental health specialist to the Community Action Team (CAT). Transitions Mental Health Association (TMHA) was awarded the contract from County Behavioral Health. After several successful years of service, the mental health specialist left TMHA in early 2022. TMHA is currently in the process of interviewing for two new mental health specialists to work with our CAT team in the near future. Downtown homeless calls for service increased in 2021 by 166 calls to 1316, representing 18% of all downtown calls for service. Although downtown homeless calls for service increased from 2020, they are still below the levels seen each year since 2016.

Figure 5
Downtown:

Downtown calls for service increased by 21% in 2021, which was expected as COVID-19 restrictions were lifted, and community members returned to the downtown corridor for shopping and recreation. The percentage of calls downtown related to total calls for service remained steady at 10% for 2021 compared to 2020. Except for 2020, downtown calls for service remain at the lowest levels seen in the past 10 years. 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Citywide Homeless CFS 4307 4645 4498 5503 6285 7102 7591 7032 7344 7441 Downtown Homeless CFS 901 956 1016 1214 1404 1509 1557 1366 1150 1316 % of Total 21% 21% 23% 22% 22% 21% 21% 19% 16% 18%
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Downtown Homeless CFS vs. Citywide Homeless CFS

Item 6b
Downtown safety will continue to be a priority for Bicycle Officers, CAT and all of our patrol officers. In 2021, the department saw a modest 1% increase in officer-initiated calls, which is directly attributed to the continued staffing challenges we faced at the Officer rank throughout the year. Staffing has improved in early 2022 and we expect officerinitiated calls to rise throughout the year.

Figure 6
Downtown officers continue to utilize crime prevention through environmental design techniques while partnering with Public Works, Downtown SLO and local businesses to improve conditions such as lighting, landscape, building maintenance, fencing, programming, and traffic flow. By addressing some of these issues the city and local businesses can deter criminal activity. Currently there are 17 public cameras placed throughout the city, with the majority used in the downtown core and city parks, and used temporarily for large events, protests, and rallies.

Traffic:

The Police Department saw a significant increase in traffic related issues for 2021.

Vehicle collisions increased by 39%, pedestrian involved collisions increased 68%, and collisions involving bicycles increased 57%. The increase in vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle collisions in 2021 correlates directly to the COVID-19 pandemic and the stay-athome order and shutdown of most businesses and services throughout the City, which resulted in lower than normal statistics in 2020.
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
City wide CFS Count 30818 30360 29974 31928 32738 33106 32421 31376 32665 37124 Downtown CFS 5123 4102 4211 4424 4950 5076 4828 4053 3105 3744 % of Total 17% 14% 14% 14% 15% 15% 15% 13% 10% 10%
0 5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
Downtown CFS vs. Total CFS

Item 6b
Comparing accident data from 2019 (most recent non-covid year) shows that in 2021 vehicle collisions decreased 32%, pedestrian involved collisions increased 3%, and bicycle involved collisions decreased 18%. SLOPD has continued to focus on public outreach related to bicycle safety and primary collision factors related to these accidents.

Traffic Statistics
2019 2020 %Diff 2021 %Diff
Collisions 588 288 -51% 399 39%
Pedestrian 31 19 -39% 32 68%
Bicycle 44 23 -48% 36 57%
Traffic Cites 4090 2522 -38% 2408 -5%
Warnings 4793 2633 -45% 2304 -12%
DUI Arrests 226 114 -50% 108 -5%
Total 9697 5557 -43% 5219 -6%
Table 3
In 2021, SLOPD received a $120,000 grant through the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) which funded:

1. 21 saturation patrols

2. 10 traffic enforcement operations

3. Six distracted driving operations

4. Nine bicycle/pedestrian operations

5. Two DUI Checkpoints
Traffic and patrol continue to collaborate with public works as we examine collision prone locations in the city to address through education, enforcement, and engineering efforts.

In 2021, there was:
 5% decrease in traffic citations issued
 12% decrease in warnings
 4,712 traffic stops completed, compared to 5,155 in 2020, a 9% decrease Two of the three traffic Officer positions were vacant due to staffing for the entirety of 2021, and we had severely limited staffing and proactive patrols due to the COVID-19 pandemic and multiple work-related injuries. These factors drastically reduced the amount of time and effort our Officers spent on traffic enforcement. DUI arrests decreased by 5% in 2021, from 114 to 108, largely attributed to the reduced capacities and other COVID related restrictions of the bars and restaurants in the city. Staffing levels at the Department have improved through aggressive recruiting and hiring efforts in 2021 and early 2022. The traffic unit is now staffed with two motorcycle Officers and one Sergeant. The third motorcycle Officer has been assigned to the unit and will work traffic enforcement full-time as soon as staffing allows.

Item 6b
Noise:

Party related noise complaints decreased by 7% in 2021 to 1417 and is within 15% of the all-time low in party related noise complaints since tracking began in 1998. 2021 saw the easing of COVID restrictions and many residents returned to the community for dining and nightlife activity.

Figure 7
The popular party registration program returned in 2021 and continued to prove successful. The Department received 257 party requests and approved 169 events. Of the approved events, 23 received a warning call and just 4 (2%) were issued citations.

PARTY REGISTRATION

YEAR SUBMITTED APPROVED DENIED WARNING CALL CITATION
2017 35 24 11 5 0
2018 115 99 27 9 1
2019 339 242 91 38 3
2020 36 33 6 1 0
2021 257 169 88 23 4
Table 4
2238
2013
1644
1729
1841
1779
1571
1483 1439
1228
1518
1417
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Noise Complaints

Item 6b
The Police Department continued efforts building upon past initiatives and campus partnerships. Police Department staff continued to participate in a virtual summer orientation for incoming Cal Poly Freshmen and parents. These virtual presentations provided staff with the opportunity to “front load” incoming students and their supporters with information on living in SLO, city laws that are important to know and how to stay safe.

Neighborhood officers continue to be engaged in community outreach, providing education, and conducting problem-oriented policing at locations before calls for service are generated. Neighborhood officers also visit properties that have had multiple noise violations to help educate residents and encourage wise social event planning. A wide variety of messaging methods are used by the police department to reach residents: social media ads, doorhangers, posters/flyers, e-blasts, presentations, media releases and participation in the Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC).

Lastly, the partnerships with Cal Poly and Cuesta College continue to provide many more opportunities for the noise and neighborhood wellness messaging. Information shared is dispersed through many different avenues including, student government, housing, Greek life, athletics, clubs, and off-campus programs.

Conclusion:
2021 was unprecedented with the continued response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the tragic death of Detective Luca Benedetti. The Police Department was challenged as we balanced providing emergency services to the community, maintaining a safe work environment for our employees, educating, and enforcing constantly changing public health order regulations and supporting our employees as we mourned the loss of Detective Benedetti. Staffing remained a challenge for the majority of the year and employees worked many extra hours to ensure community safety. Our staff has worked hard to ensure our department remains supported, physically and emotionally healthy, and continues to provide high quality police services to our community.

Addressing and reducing crime will continue to be a major priority for the Police Department in 2022. After significant increases in crime that peaked in 2016, the implementation of numerous crime reduction initiatives and community programs have resulted in a 19% decrease in Part 1 crime through 2020, but those figures began to rise in 2021. Property crimes continue to be a significant issue within the city, and throughout the state. Theft from unsecured vehicles and residences continue to be a problem within the city, along with jail booking and bail reform changes that have made it even more difficult to hold criminals accountable for their actions and remove them from our community, even temporarily.

Continued education has helped with decreasing the trend, which we will continue throughout 2022. These measures will include directed patrols targeted at problem locations, utilization of focused enforcement and undercover operations to apprehend criminals engaged in or looking for crimes of opportunity and using print media, social media and community meetings to educate our citizens to reduce victimization and increase awareness. We will continue to work to reduce crime and safeguard the community, while ethically policing in an ever-changing legal and procedural landscape.

Item 6b

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
This item will be presented at the August 16, 2022 City Council meeting and follow all required notifications and posting. The public is able to comment 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.

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2021
Funding Identified: Yes
The Police Department is funded through the General Fund’s annual budget appropriation adopted by the City Council. All efforts within the report are covered through the annual program allocations as outlined in the City’s Financial Plan.

ALTERNATIVES
The City Council could choose not to receive and file the report. This is not recommended as the report provides a record of key crime related statistics and trends that are important for policy makers and the public to be aware of in our community.

ATTACHMENTS
A - 2020/2021 Annual Crime Report Presentation

Police Department
2020/2021 Crime Report
Chief of Police Rick Scott and Captain Brian Amoroso

Recommendation
Receive and file the 2021 Police
Department crime report.

Current Projects

1. Crime prevention and response to calls for service

2. Supporting COVID-19 recovery operations

3. Continue working with community partners on homeless issues

4. Supporting major city goals including diversity, equity and inclusion, housing and homelessness, climate action and fiscal sustainability

5. Improve recruitment and retention of employees

6. Develop a new community engagement framework for the Police Department

7. Develop a new 5-year strategic plan

Accomplishments

1. Maintained a high quality of life and community
safety given the constraints presented by COVID,
jail booking policies and bail reform

2. COVID-19 response/EOC operations/return to
normalcy

3. Peer Support/Employee Wellness program
development to aid employees in the aftermath of
critical incidents

4. Development of emergency staffing plan to assist in
recruitment and retention

5. Expansion of the Community Action Team (CAT)

Community Outreach
 Primary goal is to reduce community harm
 Reduce crime and victimization
 Reduce traffic collisions
 Increase multi-modal safety
 Strengthening health and safety of employees and community relationships
 Successful restart of both the PAC (Police Advisory
Committee) and the Police Roundtable
 Building new and strengthening collaborations with our community partners to reduce the impact of homelessness within San Luis Obispo

Evolving Challenges
 Covid-19 significantly augmented the basic delivery of police services
 Isolation dramatically changed social patterns and norms  PD forced to prioritize employee health to ensure
adequate staffing at all times
 Social gatherings and community events were largely
prohibited and/or discouraged
 Second half of 2021 – Life returned to more “normal”
patters to include increases in crimes of opportunity

Available Resources
 PD has had some success in recruiting, but outpaced
by rise in calls for police services
 Authorized staffing static at 91.5 FTEs
 Available staffing notably diminished 20% - 30%
 Demand for police services has returned to more
normal levels however, staffing resources continue to
be strained

Crime Report at a Glance
 Concluded 2021 with 10% increase in violent crime and 14% increase in property crime
 This equates to an aggregate 13% increase in Part I
crimes when compared to 2020
 Part I crimes increased half as much when compared to 2019 (pre-covid)
 Most metrics are up, however,
 32% decrease in Sexual Assault
 27% decrease in Commercial Burglaries

Interpreting the Data
 California and the Nation experiencing rise in crime
 Notable contributors:
 Reduced enforcement options from Covid
 Restricted jail bookings and acceptance
 Zero bail = no arrest for all minor offenses
 Covid restrictions lifting as police operations and
enforcement are returning to “normal” levels

Violent Crime in CA 2020
(Murder, Rape, Aggravated Assault, Robbery)
 Violent Crime in SLO increased 10% in 2021 compared
to 2020, driven by increases in aggravated assault and
robbery
 Violent Crime CA – 4.37/1000 (2020)
 Violent Crime SLO 4.27/1000 (2020)
 Violent Crime SLO 4.68/1000 (2021)
1 0
Statewide statistics for 2021 not yet released

(Residential, Commercial and Vehicle Burglary, Theft, Vehicle Theft)  The property crime rate in SLO increased 14% in
2021
 SLO Property crime percentages in 2021 are 76%
larceny (theft and vehicle burg), 15% burglary, 9%
auto thefts
 Property Crime CA 21.1/1000 (2020)
 Property Crime SLO 33.7/1000 (2020)
 Property Crime SLO 38.4/1000 (2021)
1 1
Property Crime in CA 2020
Statewide statistics for 2021 not yet released

Calls for service have increased 14% in 2021 and 37% since 2010

2021 Call for Service by Type
13 9-1-1 ABANDON, 7727,
32%
Suspicious, 3793, 16%
Welfare Check, 2079,
9%
Disorderly, 2078, 8%
Assist Req, 2007, 8%
Alarm Audible, 1391,
6%
Trespassing, 1378, 6%
Loitering, 1262, 5%
Noise Party, 1190, 5%

ABAND VEHICLE,
1186, 5%
Top 10 Call Natures - 2021

Crime Comparison
2020 / 2021
1 4
2020 2021 %Dif
Murder 1 2 100%
Rape 37 25 -32%
Robbery 28 33 18%
Agg. Assault 139 165 19%
Burglary 284 272 -4%
Larceny 1219 1398 15%
Motor Veh. Theft 117 174 49%
Part 1 Violent 205 225 10%
Part 1 Property 1620 1844 14%
Total Part 1 1825 2069 13%

Crime Comparison
2019 / 2021
1 5
2019 2021 %Dif
Murder 0 2 200%
Rape 39 25 -36%
Robbery 34 33 -3%
Agg. Assault 114 165 45%
Burglary 277 272 -2%
Larceny 1387 1398 1%
Motor Veh. Theft 74 174 135%
Part 1 Violent 187 225 20%
Part 1 Property 1738 1844 6%
Total Part 1 1925 2069 7%
* Part 1 Crime increased 2% overall if vehicle theft removed

Motor Vehicle Theft

Traffic - 2020 / 2021
17 2020 2021 %Dif
Collisions 288 399 39%
Pedestrian 19 32 68%
Bike 23 36 57%
Traffic Cites 2522 2408 -5%
Pedestrian 287 259 10%
Bike 157 308 96%
Warnings 2633 2304 -13%
DUI Arrests 114 108 -5%

Traffic - 2019 / 2021
18 2019 2021 %Dif
Collisions 588 399 -32%
Pedestrian 31 32 3%
Bike 44 36 -18%
Traffic Cites 4090 2408 -41%
Pedestrian 610 259 -57%
Bike 230 308 34%
Warnings 4763 2304 -52%
DUI Arrests 226 108 -52%

Noise 2020/ 2021
2019 2020 %Dif 2021 %Dif
Noise
Complaints 1228 1518 24% 1417 -7%
Cites 149 337 126% 143 -58%
DACS 376 96 -74% 146 52%
UTL 113 146 29% 148 1%
Neg. Violation 559 951 70% 907 -5%
Landlord Cites 84 65 -23% 39 -40%
19 Page 357 of 418
Noise Complaints Since 2010
20 2238
2013
1644
1729
1841
1779
1571
1483 1439
1228
1518
1417
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 NSPY 2010-2021

Year Submitted Approved Denied Warning Call Citation
2017* 35 24 11 5 0
2018 115 99 27 9 1
2019 339 242 91 38 3
2020 36 33 6 1 0
2021 257 169 88 23 4
Party Registration Since Inception
APPLICATIONS REC’D 257
APPROVED 169
DENIED 88
• LATE SUBMITTAL 40
• PREMISED 28
• COMMON AREA 0
• NOT IN CITY 1
• DAY REQUESTED NOT ELIGIBLE 19
• 2 PRIOR PHONE WARNINGS 0
PHONE WARNINGS 23
CITATIONS ISSUED 4

Homeless SLO
City & County
SLO City 2015 2017 2019 2022
Sheltered 158 189 156 137
Unsheltered 324 222 326 248
Total 482 411 482 385
SLO County 2015 2017 2019 2022
Sheltered 392 345 311 292
Unsheltered 1123 780 1172 1156
Total 1515 1125 1483 1448

Homeless Calls for Service
2021 – 20% of all calls for service were related to homelessness 23 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
City wide CFS Count 30818 30360 29974 31928 32738 33106 32421 31376 32,665 37124 Homeless CFS 4307 4645 4498 5503 6285 7102 7591 7032 7344 7441 % of Total 14% 15% 15% 17% 19% 21% 23% 22% 22% 20%
0 5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
Total CFS vs. Homeless CFS
City wide CFS Count Homeless CFS % of Total

Downtown Calls for Service
2021 – 10% of all calls for service occurred downtown
24 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
City wide CFS Count 30818 30360 29974 31928 32738 33106 32421 31376 32665 37124 Downtown CFS 5123 4102 4211 4424 4950 5076 4828 4053 3105 3744 % of Total 17% 14% 14% 14% 15% 15% 15% 13% 10% 10%
0 5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000 Total CFS vs. Downtown CFS

Homeless CFS vs. Downtown Homeless CFS
2021 - 18% of all Homeless Calls for Service occurred in Downtown 25 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Citywide Homeless CFS 4307 4645 4498 5503 6285 7102 7591 7032 7344 7441 Downtown Homeless CFS 901 956 1016 1214 1404 1509 1557 1366 1150 1316 % of Total 21% 21% 23% 22% 22% 21% 21% 19% 16% 18%
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Citywide Homeless CFS vs. Downtown Homeless CFS

Mental Health Related
Calls for Service
2021 - 21% increase in Mental Health calls
Calls Transported %Transported
2016 288 88 31%
2017 303 111 37%
2018 207 103 50%
2019 252 119 47%
2020 282 128 45%
2021 342 149 44%

43 (70%)
6 (9%)
12 (21%)
Sworn Officer Staffing 2021
Officers Vacancy Sick/IOD/Vacation
61 Total Officers

Current Challenges
 COVID-19 Fatigue and after-effects
 Ongoing Staffing Challenges
 Time required to hire and train new Officers to solo status  Worked with a sustained Officer deficit of 30% for the entire year  Employee wellness/peer support
 Homelessness and Mental Health
 Resources
 Policy
 Crime and nuisance behavior
 New Technology
 NIBRS/CIBRS Reporting
 RIPA Stop Data Collection
 E-Collision/E-Citation

Notable Legislation
 SB2 Police Officer decertification
 AB89 Peace Officer minimum qualifications
 SB16 Increases transparency over Peace Officer
misconduct records
 AB26 Guidelines for reporting excessive force
 AB481 Military equipment use policy
 AB490 Policy update: positional asphyxia
 AB958 Prohibits law enforcement gangs

Employee Recognition
 Throughout the pandemic, nearly all employees had to
physically come to work to keep the City safe at risk to their own health and safety
 All ranks of the Department worked extensive overtime to ensure sufficient personnel to respond to all calls
 Employees have endured an incredibly stressful multi-year period of unprecedented LE challenges:
 COVID-19
 Protests and Police Reform
 Loss of Detective Luca Benedetti in the line-of-duty

Looking Ahead
 Primary focus on addressing and reducing negative crime trends
 Community education and partnerships to help reduce
crimes of opportunity
 Advancing data smart solutions for increased actionable data and flexible staffing
 Right-sizing and diversifying staffing to increase both sworn and non-sworn response to quality-of-life issues
 Explore enhanced community policing strategies such as neighborhood districts and neighborhood-based initiatives

Recommendation
Receive and file the 2021 Police
Department crime report.

QUESTIONS?

Item 8a
Department: Public Works
Cost Center: 5201
For Agenda of: 8/16/2022
Placement: Study Session
Estimated Time: 60 minutes
FROM: Matt Horn, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Austin O’Dell, Interim Transit Manager
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION: TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS

RECOMMENDATION
Receive a report updating Council on SLO Transit and the Transit Program Analysis, which was recently completed by IBI Group.

POLICY CONTEXT
The City’s Transit Program has a crucial role in the Major City Goal (MCG) for Climate Action, Open Space & Sustainable Transportation as well as the MCG for Economic Recovery, Resiliency & Fiscal Sustainability. Specifically, Strategy 4.4 of the work plan for the Climate Action, Open Space & Sustainable Transportation MCG has the objective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by planning and investment in transit service enhancements and transit fleet electrification, in order to achieve the mode‐share split objectives identified in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Strategy 1.7 of the work plan for Economic Recovery, Resiliency & Fiscal Sustainability specifically identifies the need to review SLO Transit’s operations and infrastructure to determine if there may be benefits to sharing infrastructure and equipment or centralizing services to provide increased community services at the same or reduced purchasing requirements.

REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The purpose of this report is to introduce the Transit Program Analysis report that was completed by IBI Group on behalf of the City. The Transit Program Analysis report reviewed the City’s Transit Program organizational structure, identified funding and partnerships opportunities, reviewed the regulatory environment, and provided eight recommendations for Council’s consideration.

DISCUSSION
Background
The City of San Luis Obispo’s operates a fixed route transit service that allows for convenient access from neighborhoods to major shopping centers, local schools (including Cal Poly), and medical offices from one of the eight fixed routes. The City’s transit service is branded as SLO Transit. SLO Transit is managed by the City’s Transit Program within the Public Works Department.

Item 8a
Operations and maintenance of transit services is completed by contract and the City currently contracts with First Transit to provide these services to the community. SLO Transit provides the City’s transit needs and complements the countywide services by the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA), which provides more regional transit service.

With the recent completion of the new RTA transit facility on Prado Road, questions were raised; were opportunities for SLO Transit and RTA to partner on shared infrastructure to lower transit overhead costs for both agencies since RTA’s new facility is located roughly 1,500 feet from SLO Transit’s maintenance yard? This, coupled with the impacts of the pandemic and staffing vacancies on the City’s Transit Service program, created an opportune time for a Transit Program Analysis.

In November 2021, proposals were solicited from qualified firms to prepare a study of the City’s Transit Program to analyze the organizational structure, to identify funding and partnerships opportunities, review the regulatory environment, and provide recommendations on these topics. Staff secured the services from IBI Group to prepare the study.

It should be noted that the Transit Program Analysis is a different work effort than the Transit Innovation Study that staff is currently soliciting proposals for. The Transit Innovation Study will look at new trends in transit technology, delivery methods, and transportation technology to increase transit route efficiencies and mode share.

Moreover, it will analyze what efforts and funding are required to revitalize public transit after the unprecedented changes in ridership following the worldwide pandemic which have created unique challenges across the industry.

Transit Program Analysis Report Highlights
Included as Attachment A to this report is the Transit Program Analysis that was completed by IBI Group. The overall finding of the report is that the City’s Transit Program is outperforming other transit agencies in the County. These Key Performance Indicators are shown page 7 of Attachment A. This section highlights the major sections of the report.

1. Key Performance Indicators (KPI) – SLO Transit Top System The Transit Program Analysis compared operating and financial data with other transit systems in the County. The consultant sourced the data from the Transportation Development Act (TDA) performance audits and the National Transit Data Base (NTD). When comparing SLO Transit with peers in the County, SLO Transit leads the County with total number of passengers serviced, provides more total hours of service, and covers the most distance at the lowest cost per vehicle hour of operation.

Providing a high level of service at the lowest cost in the County has allowed SLO Transit to exceed the state mandate to recover at least 20% of operating cost by use fee or what is referred to as farebox recovery. Based on these KPIs, the SLO Transit is the top performing transit system in the County. More information concerning these KPIs can be found on page 7 of the Transit Program Analysis (Attachment A).

Item 8a

2. Evaluation of Opportunities.

The Transit Program Analysis looked at opportunities for collaboration and outsourcing. The study evaluated eight scenarios and reviewed impacts, benefits, opportunities, constraints, and drawbacks of each. The scenarios range from status quo or doing nothing to full consolidation with RTA and having one entity provide transit service to the community. Excluding these two scenarios, the remaining six scenarios have independent utility meaning each alternative could be implement or not implemented without invalidating the remaining scenarios. Please refer to page 30 of the Transit Program Analysis (Attachment A) for the complete analysis of each scenario.

3. Recommendations.

Based on the KPIs for SLO Transit and no clear efficiencies or improvements as a result the study did not recommend consolidation with RTA. Below is the list of recommendations in the report with the corresponding status:
# Recommendation
1 Recommendation: Annually review fare structure relative to ridership and quarterly farebox recovery ratio trends.

Status: This is a best practice for transit operators and this action is planned to continue.

Next Steps: No new action is needed. This work is operationalized, included in the Transit Program’s workplan and done quarterly.
2 Recommendation: Negotiate new Cal Poly zero-fare program payments that capture fully allocated cost of Cal Poly ridership. The agreement should reserve the right to annually review payments based on changes in allocated costs.

Status: The City recently approved an agreement with Cal Poly for service for the next two years. Future contract negotiations are on-going.

Next Steps: The current agreement approved by Council on July 19, 2022, is a two year agreement and increases funding to the City each year. Staff will continue to meet with Cal Poly to ensure this remains a priority for each agency and a new agreement is ready for execution in two years.
3 Recommendation: Utilize Capital Cost of Contracting provisions allowed by FTA to capitalize certain contractor preventative maintenance. This reduces the local match requirement compared to FTA funding for operations.

Status: Recommendation has been implemented.

Next Steps: No new action is needed. This work is operationalized and included in the Transit Program’s workplan.

Item 8a
4 Recommendation: Develop a grants team including retaining a dedicated transit grants specialist to develop an annual program of grant research, education, positioning and preparation, and application, as well as post-award administration and reporting. The grants specialist would help determine when partnering opportunities with other agencies might be advantageous to win grant funds from FTA, State of California, or another grantor agency. An increase in grant funding could reduce reliance on other existing sources, or shift revenues among program needs.

Status: This recommendation is currently under development as staff is developing a plan to reorganize several vacant positions in Transit with the intent of addressing this recommendation as well as increasing the fiscal management resources for both the Transit, Bicycle, and Parking Services programs. It should be noted that while the City has used a consultant grant writer with much success in the last several years for many programs, this work differs as there is a need for staff to focus on the continued administration and reporting on the transit grants. Since a majority of all transit funding is State and Federal grants the required administration and reporting work is considerable.

Next Steps: Once the reorganization plan is complete, staff will begin the position job descriptions, complete any meet and confer obligations with any represented positions and begin implementation.
5 Recommendation: Work with RTA to identify opportunities for joint procurement and/or use, such as fuel contracts, specialized maintenance outsourcing (e.g. body work, deep cleaning), or common assets (e.g. bus washing) Status: Staff is currently working to address this recommendation with several new grant funded electric transit vehicles purchases.

Next Steps: Staff will continue to work with the RTA on this opportunity. 6 Recommendation: Evaluate the potential to monetize city transit assets to generate increased local revenue, such as public fueling/EV charging, and external advertising at key transit stop locations. Work to prioritize city funding and investment in infrastructure such as roadway rehabilitation and bike/ped amenities at strategic locations most frequented by bus routes.

Status: No action has been taken with this recommendation as of this report. Based upon the level of analysis that was completed with this recommendation and staff’s estimate of the level of funding the recommendation could provide, it is recommended that this action be deferred to an unspecified future date and future work plan.

Next Steps: None

Item 8a
7 Recommendation: Hold discussions with SLOCOG and RTA regarding current regional funding policies and procedures. One possible area of discussion can be on the TDA-LTF allocation process. Rather than RTA currently receiving a share of each jurisdiction’s LTF apportionment “off the top”, the LTF based on population can first be allocated to the local jurisdictions by the COG. Each RTA member agency independently reviews their respective budgeted cost share of services provided by RTA and then locally approves the amount to fund the regional agency. While this entails additional steps above current process during the TDA claims and typically results in similar outcomes, it provides an additional layer of funding allocation so that the city can evaluate their impacts on a council level and approve of RTA budget changes prior to fund disbursement. This method is practiced by other transit JPAs/districts in the state. This recommendation is detailed in Attachment A pages 33, 34
Status: No action has been taken with this recommendation as of this report. Staff plan to include this work effort in the 2023-25 Financial Plan work programs.

Next Steps: With the 2023-25 Financial Plan budget include work program tasks to develop further regional funding policies and procedures 8 Recommendation: Continue building a strong brand for SLO Transit. The current labor shortage is hurting transit, and while the public general views transit favorably, conveying a strong brand that communicates good service and integrates well in a multimodal environment could draw further interest and more investment in the transit program.

Status: Strong branding for SLO Transit is in progress and on-going. The current work in this area is planned to be supplemented by future recommendations received by the future Short Range Transit Plan and the Transit Innovation Study.

Next Steps: Identify this as a need in the Transit Innovation Study to ensure transit innovation recommendations include any opportunities to increase branding.

Current Challenges
The most immediate need for SLO Transit is to restore pre-pandemic level of service to the community. The primary obstacle to achieving this level of service is the local and national shortage of transit drivers. First Transit, the City’s contractor that provides operations and maintenance services for SLO Transit, is making every effort to recruit new drivers to restore service.

Currently, First Transit employs 22 drivers and needs 32 drivers to provide pre-pandemic levels of service. In May 2022, the City Council amended the agreement with First Transit to allow First Transit to increase driver wages. Increased wages have been successful in increasing First Transit retention of existing drivers but there has not been a large increase in new drivers being hired. Despite the challenges, ridership is recovering.

Current Total Ridership has increased by 154% from the prior year which is 64% below historic ridership pre-pandemic. As service is restored, ridership will continue to increase.

The push for public ridership this fall will be paramount to reestablishing public ridership after the pandemic.

Item 8a
Moving Forward
COVID-19 changed the landscape in the manner how goods and services are provided in nearly all industries during the “shut down” and the current recovery period. Transit is no different. SLO Transit will be exploring improvements and new delivery mechanisms to adapt to the current community needs and expectations. The Short-Range Transit Plan and the Transit Innovation Study will explore innovated technology and delivery mechanisms that include reduced headways, micro transit, express bus routes, signal priority, and other trends. The Short-Range Transit Plan will be completed in conjunction with the RTA and RTA is taking the lead to procure the consultant team and develop the project plan in consultation with the SLO Transit.

Once a more definitive timeline is available for each work effort, this information will be made available as part of the outreach work. The Transit Innovation Study is currently advertising for proposals from consultant teams for the second time as no proposals were received during the first advertisement. Once a consultant team is selected and timeframes are better known, this information will be communicated out as part of this plans outreach work as well.

Additionally, there are needs to improve the City’s transit facilities including technology, electrification, and bus stops to attract and retain riders. This effort is currently being scoped as a work program item for the for the 2023-25 Financial Plan, Council will be presented a project to rehabilitate and improve the Downtown Transit Center. This project is currently planned to update SLO Transit facilities to mirror facilities that were recently installed by the County of San Luis Obispo in conjunction with RTA. Improvements to the new passenger waiting areas and shelters are planned to be coupled with security cameras, new real time schedule displays and trip planning, improved lighting, and new restroom facilities. In addition to these passenger amenities, electric transit vehicles chargers are planned to be installed as well as replacing portions of damaged roadways due to repetitive large vehicle loading.

Transit Innovation Study
Fall 2022 Receive Proposals
Early Spring 2023 Study
Complete
Short Range Transit Plan
Winter 2023 RFP
Spring 2023 Select Consultant
Early Fall 2023 Study
Complete

Item 8a
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
With the 2021-23 Financial Plan, Council approved the workplan for the Major City Goals.

This item directly supports tasks identified in the strategies.

Public Engagement
This is an administrative item, so no outside public engagement was completed. Public comment can be provided to the City Council through written correspondence prior to the meeting and through public testimony at the meeting.

CONCURRENCE
The Public Works Department concurs with the content and 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 Sec. 15378.

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: N/A Budget Year: 2021-22
Funding Identified: N/A
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 fiscal impact related to the study session itself. All recommendations and resulting work efforts will be brought to the City Council through the budgeting effort and included in the requested budget appropriations.

ALTERNATIVES
Council could provide alternate direction regarding consolidation of services with RTA. This is not recommended as SLO Transit KPIs for performance exceed other local agencies.

ATTACHMENTS
A - Transit Program Study

City Transit Program Analysis and
Assessment
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
by IBI Group
May 2022

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................2

1.1 Overview of Transit System.....................................................................................2

2.0 Organizational Structure/Governance............................................................................8

2.1 SLO Transit............................................................................................................8

2.2 San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG)...........................................9

3.0 Partnerships/Finance ....................................................................................................10

3.1 Local Transit Funding Sources ..............................................................................10

3.1.1 Passenger Fares.......................................................................................10

3.1.2 California Polytechnic State University – San Luis Obispo Zero Fare Agreement.................................................................................................13

3.1.3 Transportation Development Act (TDA)....................................................14

3.1.4 G-20 Measure ...........................................................................................15

3.2 State Transit Funding Sources ............................................................................15

3.2.1 Senate Bill 1 ............................................................................................15

3.2.2 State Transit Assistance Fund ................................................................15

3.2.3 State of Good Repair ..............................................................................17

3.2.4 Proposition 1B – Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account.................................................................19

3.2.5 California Air Resources Board – Low Carbon Transit Operations Program ..................................................................................................................19

3.3 Federal Revenue Sources ...................................................................................21

3.3.1 FTA Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Funding Program................21

3.3.2 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ................22

3.3.3 FTA Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities Program..................................23

3.3.4 Congestion Management and Air Quality Improvement Program ............23

3.4 Future Revenue Considerations ..........................................................................24

3.5 Expenditures ..........................................................................................................24

3.5.1 Operating Expenditures ............................................................................24

3.5.1 Capital Expenditures .................................................................................25

4.0 Regulatory Environment...............................................................................................26

4.1 Federal Requirements ...........................................................................................26

4.2 State Requirements ...............................................................................................27

4.3 Transit’s Role in Sustainability ............................................................................28

5.0 Opportunities – Collaboration/Outsourcing .................................................................30

5.1 Status Quo ...........................................................................................................30

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 1

5.2 Collaboration of Discretionary Grant Applications ...............................................31

5.3 Collaboration of Auxiliary Functions ....................................................................31

5.4 Capital Cost of Contracting..................................................................................32

5.5 Cooperative Procurements ..................................................................................32

5.6 Alternative Delivery ................................................................................................33

5.7 Regional Discretionary Funding Amendments ......................................................33

5.8 Consolidation with RTA..........................................................................................34

6.0 A Way Forward - Recommendations ............................................................................35

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 2

1.0 Introduction
The City of San Luis Obispo (SLO) retained the consulting firms IBI Group and Michael Baker International to assist with an analysis and assessment of the City’s transit program, SLO Transit. The assessment of the transit program includes organization, structure/governance, finances, partnerships, infrastructure, regulatory environment, and personnel with an eye on both outsourcing opportunities and the identification of alternate program structures.

This opportunity comes at a time of ongoing success and significant challenges for the City’s transit system.

1.1 Overview of Transit System
SLO Transit commenced service in April 1974. The transit system is administered through the City’s Public Works Department and overseen by a transit manager and support staff. The City contracts with First Transit for operations and maintenance of the transit system. The contract was executed in June 2016 for a three-year term from July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2020. The agreement includes three one-year contract extension options.

Based on the 2019 American Community Survey, 5-
Year Estimates, the city’s population was 47,302, of
which 13.2 percent was age 65 or older. The 2021
population was estimated to be 46,058 as reported by
the California Department of Finance (DOF). Of the
whole population, 99 percent live within a 0.25-mile of a public transit route, reflecting very good overall coverage by SLO Transit.

As illustrated in Figure 1.1, SLO Transit operates a total of eight regular routes on weekdays and four routes on weekends, as well as a San Luis Drive Tripper, Laguna Tripper, and Highland Tripper on academic weekdays, 6 Express (6X) on Thursday (September–November), and a Downtown Trolley Thursday year-round, Friday (June–Labor Day), and Saturday (April– October). Of the eight regular routes, four routes are aligned clockwise, and the others are aligned counterclockwise. SLO Transit partners with the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA), which operates the Runabout ADA complementary paratransit service for qualified riders with mobility-related disabilities.

Cal Poly students, faculty, and staff comprise about 64 percent of the transit system’s riders based on a three-year average. The university encourages its students, faculty, and staff to utilize SLO Transit. A transit service agreement has been in place between the City and the university since 1985. The service agreement involves the payment of funds for service by Cal Poly to the City for discount fares at no cost to the rider. The provided Cal Poly funding is derived from parking citation revenue on the campus.

In November 2017, SLO Transit implemented the sale of digital bus passes via the Token Transit smartphone app. Riders can download the app via their smartphone, create an account, and start purchasing their digital bus passes. All SLO Transit pass categories are available for purchase through the app.

The pandemic-driven impact
on transit ridership is an
opportunity to accelerate
innovations in service
design.

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 3
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and statewide Shelter-in-Place order issued on March 19, 2020, SLO Transit implemented its weekend service schedule, and all tripper and trolley services were suspended until further notice. Effective August 3, 2020, SLO Transit implemented summer service on both its “A” and “B” routes. The FY 2018-2020 triennial performance audit recommended that the City pursue a new transit service agreement with Cal Poly that reflects the post-COVID-19 operating environment.

Figure 1.1: SLO Transit Map

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 4
The City commissioned the SLO Transit Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP), which was adopted in August 2016. The cornerstone of the SRTP has been the clockwise-counterclockwise route alignment that was implemented by SLO Transit. The service plan also recommended expansion of the transit program to half-hour bus service to support the growing ridership demand and alleviate peak ridership loads, enhancing rider experience, and to foster and support further ridership growth.

The transit division used Remix during the development of the SRTP. Remix is a transit data and analysis platform that helps to determine the impacts of transit route design on scheduling and the built environment. After the adoption of the SRTP, the City retained Remix to fine-tune timepoints along the routes. Remix has also served as a powerful public communication tool.

Performance measures and indicators for SLO Transit reflect the strong sustained ridership base while operating costs saw modest increases. The average annual increase in operating costs was 4.8 percent for the review period. Pre-pandemic, the SRTP had noted that the negotiated costs with the contract provider were lower than previously expected over the fiveyear life of the service contract.

The system underwent route restructuring in FY 2017 as part of the implementation of the 2016 SRTP adopted in August 2016. Ridership decreased 16.5 percent in FY 2018 from 1,131,879 to 945,288 trips due to some route restructuring resulting in fewer transfers. Ridership increased

3.9 percent in FY 2019 to 981,995 trips.

Data showed an initial decline in ridership due to an increase in fares and a more efficient route alignment, which generated fewer one-way trips from transfers. SLO Transit received no complaints after the service implementation. New routes were implemented in response to student body growth at Cal Poly. Routes 6A/6B were streamlined to be more conducive to the change in travel patterns and demand from Cal Poly. Route 1A began service to the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport on November 2, 2017. Savings in fuel cost also permitted reinvestment in additional later hour bus runs.

Operating cost per
hour, which is a
measure of cost
efficiency, increased

21.1 percent from
$89.06 in FY 2017 to
$107.89 in FY 2020
based on audited
operating cost data. In
consideration of the
COVID-19 pandemic
impacts toward the
end of FY 2020, cost
per hour was $78.11
in the first quarter, $73.41 in the second quarter, $75.05 in the third quarter, and $114.76 in the fourth quarter, when the statewide Shelter-in-Place order was in full effect. The average cost per hour in FY 2020 was $85.33.

Table 1.1 presents SLO Transit key performance indicators (KPIs) for the period FY 2017 through FY 2020.

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 5
Table 1.1: SLO Transit KPIs (FY2017 - FY2020)
Performance Data and Indicators FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 %
Change
FY 2017-
2020
Operating Cost* $3,090,324 $3,387,490 $3,522,076 $3,547,711 14.8% Total Passengers 1,131,879 945,288 981,995 715,383 -36.8% Vehicle Service Hours 34,698 37,535 39,599 32,882 -5.2% Vehicle Service Miles 437,145 382,799 441,483 372,376 -14.8% Employee FTEs 44 33 33 49 11.4%
Passenger Fare Revenue** $658,601 $690,168 $759,450 $630,067 -4.3% Operating Cost per Passenger $2.73 $3.58 $3.59 $4.96 81.6% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Hour $89.06 $90.25 $88.94 $107.89 21.1% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Mile $7.07 $8.85 $7.98 $9.53 34.8% Passengers per Vehicle Service Hour 32.6 25.2 24.8 21.8 -33.3% Passengers per Vehicle Service Mile 2.59 2.47 2.22 1.92 -25.8% Vehicle Service Hours per Employee 788.59 4,691.88 1,319.97 671.06 -14.9% Average Fare per Passenger $0.58 $0.73 $0.77 $0.88 51.4% Fare Recovery Ratio 21% 20% 22% 18% -16.7%
Consumer Price Index - (CPI-West
Region, BLS) 2.5% 3.6% 2.7% 1.2%
Note: Figures in percentage change column may not equate to the annual numbers due to rounding.

Source: Annual Fiscal & Compliance Audits; National Transit Database; Transit Operators Financial Transactions Reports; Internal Ops
*Audited operating costs exclude depreciation
**Audited passenger fare revenues include advertising and other income.

Transit Fleet: SLO Transit has 17 vehicles in revenue service. All vehicles in revenue service are wheelchair accessible with tie-downs in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), as well as have front-loading bicycle racks. Table 1.2 summarizes the SLO Transit fleet.

The two, 2007Gillig 30’ (low floor) diesel buses will be replaced by two electric buses: one in July 2022 and the second in the fall of 2022.

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 6
Table 1.2: SLO Transit Fleet
Source: 2020 SLO Transit Fleet Inventory; National Transit Database Facilities: The SLO Transit operations and maintenance facility is located at 29 Prado Road. The primary passenger facility is the Downtown Transit Center adjacent to City Hall. SLO Transit serves over 170 bus stops, of which 66 have benches and an additional 46 have shelters and benches.

SLO Transit Relative to County Peers: Table 1.3 presents key performance indicators for SLO County transit providers.

Of note:
✓ SLOT has the highest ridership (total passengers).
✓ SLOT has the lowest cost per vehicle service hour (VSR) except for Morro Bay. ✓ SLOT has the lowest operating cost per passenger.
✓ SLOT operates the greatest number of VSRs per full-time (employee) equivalent (FTE). ✓ SLOT has the highest farebox ratio.

Conclusion: SLO Transit’s KPIs relative to both industry norms and SLO County peers, performs effectively and efficiently. Further, as presented in the following section, SLO Transit also provides greatest number of vehicle service hours per full time equivalent, relative to County peers.

Further, as presented in Table 1.3, SLO Transit outperforms RTA in performance measures especially in terms of cost per VSH hour (76.83% less) and farebox ratio (16.09% more).

Year Make/Model Quantity Fuel Type Seating
2007 Gillig 30’ Low Floor 2 Diesel 23 (2 W/C)
2008 Double K Trolley 1 Unleaded 24 (2 W/C)
2008 Gillig 35’ Low Floor 2 Diesel 32 (2 W/C)
2008 Gillig 40’ Low Floor 4 Diesel 36 (2 W/C)
2009 Alexander Dennis Double Decker 1 Diesel 81 (2 W/C) 2011 El Dorado Aero Elite Cutaway 1 Unleaded 28 (2 W/C) 2012 Gillig 40’ Low Floor 1 Diesel 36 (2 W/C)
2013 Gillig 40’ Low Floor 2 Diesel 36 (2 W/C)
2017 Gillig 40’ BRT Low Floor 3 Diesel 36 (2 W/C)
Total 17

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 7
Table 1.3: SLO County Performance by Agency
RTA Fixed
Route
Pase Express Paso DAR Runabout SoCo Fixed
Route
Avila Atascadero Morro Bay
Operating Cost $ 3,522,076 $ 5,702,031 $ 707,777 $ 126,587 $ 3,271,234 $ 1,317,274 $ 74,383 $ 404,193 $ 304,776 Total Passengers 981,995 700,433 109,410 2,576 39,848 22,528 9,184 12,826 38,755 Vehicle Service Hours 39,599 36,256 6,168 1,242 26,594 13,847 738 4,542 5,088 VSH per FTE 1,320 740 685 621 700 1,065 738 1,136 1,272 Vehicles Service Miles 441,483 104,077 85,888 10,515 444,322 219,113 15,812 45,329 45,211 FTEs 30 49 9 2 38 13 1 4 4
Passenger Fare Revenues $ 759,450 $ 1,031,700 $ 136,762 $ 5,909 $ 162,618 $ 152,755 $ 8,786 $ 37,499 $ 40,987 Operating Cost per Passenger $ 3.59 $ 8.14 $ 6.47 $ 49.14 $ 82.09 $ 58.47 $ 8.10 $ 31.51 $ 7.86 Operating Cost per VSH $ 88.94 $ 157.27 $ 114.75 $ 101.92 $ 123.01 $ 95.13 $ 100.79 $ 88.99 $ 59.90 Operator Cost per VSM $ 7.98 $ 54.79 $ 8.24 $ 12.04 $ 7.36 $ 6.01 $ 4.70 $ 8.92 $ 6.74 Passengers per VSH 24.80 19.32 17.74 2.07 1.50 1.63 12.44 2.82 7.62 Passengers per VSM 2.22 6.73 1.27 0.24 0.09 0.10 0.58 0.28 0.86 Vehicle Service Hours per Employee 1,319.97 739.92 685.33 621.00 699.84 1,065.15 738.00 1,135.50 1,272.00 Average Fare per Passengers $ 0.77 $ 1.47 $ 1.25 $ 2.29 $ 4.08 $ 6.78 $ 0.96 $ 2.92 $ 1.06 Farebox Ratio 21.56% 18.09% 19.32% 4.67% 4.97% 11.60% 11.81% 9.28% 13.45% Indicator SLOT
RTA SoCo

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 8

2.0 Organizational Structure/Governance
The organizational assessment task is an introspective evaluation of how the City delivers transit services in the context of both the city and regional operating environment.

2.1 SLO Transit
SLO Transit is a municipal system administered through the City’s Public Works Department and overseen by a transit manager and two staff. The City contracts with First Transit for operations and maintenance of SLO Transit.

The City’s Transit Manager position has primary responsibility for the development, implementation and expansion of the City’s operation and maintenance of the City’s public transport system, which includes: the SLO Transit fixed route bus system; taxicab system; administration of federal, state, and local transportation grants; and the City’s participation in the San Luis Obispo Regional Transportation Authority (RTA). The Transit Manager oversees a Transit Coordinator and Transit Assistant.

The San Luis Obispo City Council is the governing body for SLO Transit. The City Council has four elected council seats and one elected Mayor. The City has a City Manager who serves at the pleasure of the City Council. The Mass Transportation Committee (MTC) is an advisory committee of city residents who are appointed by the City Council. The Transit Program hosts quarterly meetings with the MTC to report on the status of service and request recommendations to improve productivity of the transit services, including short-range transit plans, the unmet transit needs process, and monitoring transportation performance improvement recommendations and measuring progress through monthly statistical data provided by First Transit. MTC will make recommendations on service changes, fare changes, and other actionable items to City Council for approval.

Current First Transit (contractor) personnel are composed of a general manager, one operations manager, one maintenance manager, one safety manager, 17 drivers, 3 dispatchers, 2 road supervisors, one full-time maintenance technician and one part-time maintenance technician.

Five drivers are classified as casual part-time employees. Non-exempt employees are represented and covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with Teamsters Local 986.

Vehicle hours per full time equivalent (FTE), which measures labor productivity, decreased 14.9 percent from 788.59 hours to 671.06 hours between the FY 2017 and FY 2020.

As presented in Figure 2.1, SLO Transit provides greatest number of vehicle service hours per full time equivalent, relative to regional peers.

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 9
Figure 2.1: Vehicle Service Hours per Full Time Equivalent -
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
SLOT RTA Fixed Route Pase Express Paso DAR Runabout SoCo Fixed Route Avila Atascadero Morro Bay VSH/FTE VSH per FTE (FY2019)

2.2 San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG)
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) serves as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for SLO Transit and the county. The RTPA is responsible for the county’s improved productivity of the transit services, including short-range transit plans, the unmet transit needs process, and monitoring transportation performance improvement recommendations and measuring progress through monthly statistical data provided by the contract operator.

SLOCOG is responsible for allocating federal and state funds, planning for the future and facilitating the collaboration of all levels of government, interested parties and residents toward a common goal: to improve the quality of life in San Luis Obispo County.

SLOCOG is an association of local governments in San Luis Obispo County, which is made up of seven cities (Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach, and San Luis Obispo) and the County of San Luis Obispo.

The organization’s central purpose is to examine common regional problems and suggest solutions. SLOCOG’s prime responsibilities include transportation planning and funding for the region, while also serving as a forum for the study and resolution of regional issues.

In addition to preparing the region’s long-range transportation plan, SLOCOG plans and provides funding for public transit services, highway and roadway improvements, other alternative methods of transportation, and prepares the Regional Housing Needs Allocation and the Sustainable Communities Strategy as part of the Regional Transportation Plan.

Every two years1, SLOCOG is responsible for developing and adopting a Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) -- a five-year program for planned transportation projects. The program includes a listing of recommended capital outlays for transportation improvements, including new facilities, rehabilitation, and operational improvements using Regional Improvement Program funds available to the San Luis Obispo region. The RTIP is one of two programming documents for development of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), the other document being the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program developed by Caltrans.
1 The final 2022 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) was approved January 5, 2022.

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 10

3.0 Partnerships/Finance
The City receives its funding from fare revenues generated from its fixed-route service mode as well as contributions from local, state, and federal grant programs. The funding sources discussed in this section include both actual and projected revenue sources from the latest adopted budget supporting operations and capital. Table 3.1 summarizes the revenues received and projected.

3.1 Local Transit Funding Sources

3.1.1 Passenger Fares
One of the largest direct local revenue sources is derived from SLO Transit’s farebox, which helps support operations and meet state-required performance measures. Farebox revenues are composed of cash fares sold on the bus, passes purchased at various vendors (including City Hall Finance counter, SLO Chamber of Commerce, Boo Boo Records, Laguna Middle School, and SLO High School), and digital passes purchased through the Token Transit mobile app. Fares encompass six fare categories: General, Senior (65-79 years old)/Disabled, VIP (80+ years old), Children (under 5 years old), Trolley General, and Trolley Senior/Disabled. One, three, five, seven, and thirty-one-day general passes are available for purchase as well as sixteen-ride general passes. Additionally, thirty-one day and fifteen-ride senior/disabled passes are available for purchase. Student, regional, and Downtown Access passes are also available.

Fares by category and available passes are shown in Table 3.2.

The one- to seven-day passes and the regional day passes are sold on the buses. The Downtown Access Pass is available to riders who work in downtown San Luis Obispo. Identification is required for senior, disabled, and student fares. Seniors aged 80 or older who are VIP pass holders have unlimited free rides on all SLO Transit fixed routes. VIP pass applicants can obtain a special photo ID card in person from SLORTA or show their valid ID. VIP passes must be obtained in person at SLORTA’s main office or SLO Regional Rideshare.

In November 2017, SLO Transit implemented the sale of digital bus passes via the Token Transit mobile app. Riders can download the app via their smartphone, create an account, and start purchasing their digital bus passes. All SLO Transit pass categories are available for purchase through the app. App users show or flash their pass to the driver from their smartphones as proof of payment. Token Transit also has the added benefit of allowing users to send digital bus passes to others electronically. Middle school students are the biggest users of the app followed by choice riders.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, fare collection was suspended on March 23, 2020, in addition to other safety changes on the bus. SLO Transit reinstated fare collection effective July 1, 2020.

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 11
Table 3.1: SLO Transit Financial Plan, FY 2018 through FY 2022 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Revenues
Federal FTA 5307- Operating $1,441,620 $1,484,870 $917,175 $552,077 $1,897,234 FTA 5339 $132,084 0 0 0 0
CMAQ $761,000 0 0 0 0
CARES 0 0 $1,390,418 $2,805,689 0
Federal Total $2,334,704 $1,484,870 $2,307,593 $3,357,766 $1,897,234 State LTF $1,160,677 $1,548,644 $1,558,960 $1,571,874 $1,550,000 STA $143,846 $282,289 $431,004 $234,814 $244,000
SGR $7,358 $7,358 $192,000 0 0
LCTOP 0 0 $39,999 0 0
State Total $1,311,881 $1,838,291 $2,221,963 $1,806,688 $1,794,000 Local Fares (passenger paid) $318,164 $185,450 $196,892 $59,410 $65,598 Cal Poly (service agreement) $453,697 $517,611 $433,175 $150,000 $500,000 Local Total $771,861 $703,061 $630,067 $209,410 $565,598 Total Revenues $4,418,446 $4,026,222 $5,159,623 $5,373,864 $4,256,832 Expenses
Operations $1,200,744 $1,181,234 $2,548,971 $2,794,565 $2,837,720 Maintenance $304,246 $318,393 $486,651 $602,500 $606,100 General Administration $2,027,320 $2,033,877 $356,946 $590,267 $579,517 Indirect Costs (Cost Allocation) 0 0 $276,806 $282,342 $287,989 Total Operating Expenses $3,532,310 $3,533,504 $3,669,374 $4,269,674 $4,311,326 Capital Expenses $49,413 0 $231,999 $3,120,000 $1,560,000 Total Expenses $3,581,723 $3,533,504 $3,901,373 $7,389,674 $5,871,326 Data Source Key:

SLO Budget
National Transit Database
SLO Transit TDA Perf. Audit

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 12
Table 3.2: SLO Transit- Fares & Passes
FARES
General $1.50
Senior (65–79)/Disabled $0.75
VIP (80+) Free
Children (under 5) Free
Trolley General $0.50
Trolley Senior/Disabled $0.25
Passes
31-Day General $40.00
31-Day Student $25.00
31-Day Senior/Disabled $20.00
16-Ride General $24.00
15-Ride Senior/Disabled $11.25
7-Day $15.00
5-Day $12.00
3-Day $7.00
1-Day $3.25
Regional Day $5.50
Downtown Access Free
The SLOCOG TDA Claim Filing & Administration Guidelines (2016 Addendum) includes a description of the fare revenue ratios for each transit operator. The SLOCOG Board of Directors adopted a resolution (Res. 18-13) at its June 6, 2018, meeting updating the farebox recovery ratios of the San Luis Obispo County transit operators. The new policy was vetted among the various advisory committees in November 2017 and March 2018. Based on the 2018 Farebox Recovery Ratios Mandates, the TDA required minimum farebox ratios vary by types of transit operators as follows:

OPERATOR FAREBOX RATIO
RTA Hybrid 15 % to 17.36 %
SLO Transit 20 %
SoCo Transit (South County) 15 % (Interim)
Morro Bay 10 %
Atascadero 14.50 %
Paso Express 15 % (Interim)
Source: SLOCOG
These mandates will be implemented on a five-year trial period (until FY 2023-24) based on the yearto-year trends in performance by local service area. The Dial-A-Ride services operated by RTA are to be exempt from the farebox recovery mandate, subject to service and customer base review.

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 13
Senate Bill (SB) 508 (Beall) was passed in October 2015 and amends key provisions of the Transportation Development Act (TDA). SB 508 allows for other locally generated revenues in the farebox ratio with concurrence by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG).

Examples of possible other local support revenues include gains on the sale of capital assets, lease revenues generated by transit-owned property, fuel sales, and advertising revenues.

SLO Transit reported annual passenger-purchased farebox revenues totaling $196,892 in FY 2020, $59,410 in FY 2021, and an anticipated total of $66,598 in 2022.2 The totals reflect impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic and statewide shelter-in-place order. The data sources for farebox revenues featured in Table 3.1 are derived from SLO Transit’s FY 2019–2021 budget.

3.1.2 California Polytechnic State University – San Luis Obispo Zero Fare Agreement
The City of SLO is home to California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly), which has an enrollment of 21,447 undergraduate and 840 graduate students as of the fall of 2020.

Since 1985, Cal Poly has provided funding to the City transit systb em through a transit service agreement, allowing its students, staff, and faculty to ride the bus at no cost to the rider. The Cal Poly funding is derived from parking citation revenue on the campus.

Cal Poly students, faculty, and staff comprise about 64 percent of the transit system’s riders based on a three-year average. The university encourages its students, faculty, and staff to utilize SLO Transit.

The last service agreement was in effect from July 2011 through June 2016 and was initially extended in 2016 for a one-year period through June 2017 involving a 3 percent funding increase over the FY 2015–16 contribution by Cal Poly. The second extension involved a two-year extension from July 2017 through June 2019 and an annual contribution increase of 3 percent. A new service agreement was to be negotiated during this extension period. An addendum to the second extension was executed in July 2019 that extended the term through June 2020, extended service on Route 3A, and included a 3 percent contribution increase.

The COVID-19 Shelter-in-Place order implemented in March 2020 necessitated a third extension of the 2011 transit service agreement. The term was extended for one year from July 2020 through June 2021. This agreement included an annual payment of $533,139 with quarterly payments of $133,285. The City reduced Cal Poly’s fourth quarterly payment for FY 2019–20 by 75 percent based on the reduced COVID-19 service levels and ridership.

In July 2021, the fourth service extension was signed, extending service to June 2022. This agreement included an annual payment of $537,500 with quarterly payments of $134,375 and stipulates that service levels can be altered in response to ridership and that a new agreement will be negotiated over the extension period.

In assessing the agreement relative to ridership, a comparison shows fares collected per passenger, based on the Cal Poly agreement and from general ridership (see Table 3.3). In FY 2018, the fare/passenger for Cal Poly ($0.77) was lower than that for the general public ($0.89).

This was reversed in FYs 2019 and 2020 when fare/passenger for Cal Poly was higher compared to that collected for the general public. The share of passenger revenue from Cal Poly increased at a higher rate compared to the share of Cal Poly ridership in those years. 2 Revenues include only passenger-purchased fares and do not include the Cal Poly subsidy agreement, which is detailed separately, in Section 3.1.2.

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 14
Table 3.3: Fares Per Passenger
FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020
Ridership % Total % Total % Total
Cal Poly Ridership 586,446 62% 639,685 65% 437,084 61%
General Public 358,842 38% 342,310 35% 278,296 39%
Annual Ridership 945,288 100% 981,995 100% 715,380 100% Fare Revenue % Total % Total % Total
Cal Poly Agreement $453,697 59% $517,611 74% $433,175 69% Passenger Fares $318,164 41% $185,450 26% $196,892 31%
Total $771,861 100% $703,061 100% $630,067 100%
Fares/Passenger
Cal Poly $0.77 $0.81 $0.99
General Public $0.89 $0.54 $0.71
System-wide $0.82 $0.72 $0.88
Source: City Ridership Reports; Fare revenue-NTD & Budget

3.1.3Transportation Development Act (TDA)
The Transportation Development Act (TDA) was enacted by the State Legislature in 1971 to make funds available for transit, pedestrian way and bikeway projects, transportation planning, ridesharing and street and road improvements. TDA funds are the largest sole source of operating revenue for most public transportation systems in the state. Funds for the TDA come from 1/4 cent of the retail sales tax (for LTF), and from sales taxes on diesel fuel (for STA). These funds are allocated annually by SLOCOG to eligible claimants under two funding programs: the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and the State Transit Assistance (STA).

Local Transportation Fund
LTF tax revenues are collected by the Board of Equalization but administered locally through SLOCOG, which then allocates the revenue to local jurisdictions based on population. Local jurisdiction LTF contributions are made to RTA as a requirement of their membership in the Authority to fund the regional transit service.

The spirit of the TDA statute guiding the use of LTF intends for the revenue to be prioritized for transit. This means that the funds are intended to be spent on transit projects to the extent that such projects are needed to fill “unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet” before any LTF is spent on local streets and roads.

The unmet transit needs process, by law, is conducted by SLOCOG. SLOCOG conducts the annual unmet needs process in consultation with the statutorily required Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC). Members of the SSTAC participate in the review of the comments made

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 15
during the hearings. TDA funds can be used for capital or operations expenditures or a combination thereof and can provide an important source of local match for federal funding.

Pursuant to the TDA, the City received LTF proceeds under Article 4 for transit operations and capital expenditures. The City of San Luis Obispo and San Luis Obispo County have, by prior agreement, removed the estimated Cal Poly student housing population (7,215) from San Luis Obispo County and added that population to the City of San Luis Obispo, hence increasing the City’s share of LTF.

LTF revenues received were $1,160,677 in FY 2018, $1,548,644 in FY 2019, $1,558,960 in FY 2020, $1,571,874 in FY 2021, and an anticipated $1,550,000 in FY 2022.

3.1.4G-20 Measure
SLO residents passed a new city sales tax measure, G-20, in November 2020 that is anticipated to provide approximately $20 million annually to preserve and enhance quality of life by accomplishing a variety of objectives, one of which is for transportation improvements such as repairing potholes, reducing traffic congestion, and expanding bike lanes. SLO Transit will benefit from this new tax measure indirectly through City projects that enhance local operating conditions and multimodal access and connectivity.

3.2 State Transit Funding Sources

3.2.1 Senate Bill 1
The most recent development at the state level concerns the passage and signing into law of SB 1 (Beall) in April 2017. SB 1, The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, provides the first significant, stable, and ongoing increase in state transportation funding in more than two decades.

SB 1 is composed of a series of measures and revenue enhancements such as increases in the diesel and gasoline excise and sales taxes and vehicle registration fees. To raise a projected $52.4 billion over 10 years, changes to taxes and fees include:
• A 12-cent increase in the gasoline excise tax
• A 20-cent increase in the diesel excise tax
• A 5.75 percent increase in the diesel sales tax
• A new vehicle fee, which will annually charge drivers between $25 and $175, depending on the value of the vehicle
• A $100 annual fee on zero-emission vehicles
Several transit funding programs benefit from SB 1, including the State Transit Assistance Fund and State of Good Repair.

3.2.2 State Transit Assistance Fund
The State Transit Assistance (STA) program is a second funding component of the TDA. Revenues are derived primarily through the state sales tax on diesel fuel and are allocated by the state legislature. Fifty percent of the revenue is allocated by the state based on county population within the jurisdiction of the regional transportation planning agencies, and the remaining 50 percent is allocated by the transit systems based on qualifying revenue such as passenger fares and other local sources. SB 1 increases STA apportionments significantly and can be used for both operations and capital.

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 16
The population share (PUC 99313) is a discretionary source in which SLOCOG has established eligibility criteria. Adopted from a SLOCOG staff report, the criteria factors are described below and funding allocation for the most recent fiscal year.

STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMMING FY 21/22
Proposed Allocation by
Jurisdiction
1 2 3 4 5 6
PUC 99314 PUC 99313
$2,049,481
Rev
Allocation -
Revised
$135,256
Vehicle-Miles-ofTravel Reduced
$500,000
Service Population
Allocation
$400,000
Degree of Regional
Integration Allocation
$400,000
Special
Projects
Contingency
$614,225
$33k ↑ $50k ↓ $200k ↑ $200k ↑ $122k ↑
(FY 20/21 $102k) (FY 20/21 $550k) (FY 20/21 $200k) (FY 20/21 $200k) (FY 20/21 $492k) Updated Award % Award %
Awarded in
April
Share for
apportionment
%
Award LCTOP &
Other
a) Atascadero $1,822 0% $0 13.7% $54,800 $54,800 65% $35,620 $271 $92,513 $28,293
$123,600
$247,954
$172,000
$745,669
$200,530
$225,000
b) Morro Bay $2,044 0% $0 4.6% $18,400 $18,400 41% $7,544 $305 c) Paso Robles $0 2% $10,000 14.2% $56,800 $56,800 100% $56,800 $0 d) City of SLO $39,591 7% $35,000 24.2% $96,800 $96,800 73% $70,664 $5,899 e) County of SLO $0 0% $0 21.5% $86,000 $86,000 100% $86,000 $0 f) RTA $80,669 88% $440,000 NA NA NA NA NA $225,000
g) So. County Transit $11,130 3% $15,000 21.8% $87,200 $87,200 100% $87,200 $0 h) COG TransPlan/Prog/Audits $0 0% $0 NA $0 $0 0% 0 $225,000 i) Regional Vanpool Subsidies $0 0% $0 NA $0 $0 0% $0 $80,000 $80,000 j) Contingency $0 0% $56,172 $77,750 $133,922
SUB TOTAL $135,256 NA $500,000 NA $400,000 NA NA $400,000 $614,225 $2,049,481 GRAND TOTAL PROGRAMMED $2,049,481
Source: SLOCOG
Column 1 – The revenue allocations “by operator” are determined by the SCO, proportional to the transit system fare box revenue, relative to statewide fare revenue from two years ago.

Column 2 - Is based on an approved methodology for “Vehicle Miles Travel (“VMT”) Reduced” per transit operator. It is calculated based on average trip length and uses annual ridership by route data from FY 19/20. This apportionment benefits RTA most notably because RTA’s average trip length is significantly longer than other operators. Note: RTA does not receive a Service Population allocation. SLO Transit’s average trip lengths data has not been updated since FY 18/19.

Column 3 - The service population is updated per 2020 Department of Finance projections and 2019 ACS 5-YR Pop Estimate (for unincorporated CDPs).

Column 4 - “Degree of Regional Integration” represents improvements in coordination & consolidation with RTA. In FY 19/20, per agreement with SLO Transit, SLOCOG increased their percentage value from 53% to 71%, now 73%. Other percentage values have been essentially unchanged for the past four years, with the exception of SCT. SCT’s percentage was increased to 100% in 18/19 and 19/20, in anticipation of consolidation into RTA. It was lowered to 73% for 20/21, but since integration was completed (January 2021), the percentage has been increased to 100%.

Column 5 - Special Projects:

1. Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) (rows a-b, d). These amounts were consolidated in this year’s LCTOP programming for South County Transit, to be used for FY21/22 Operating Assistance for the new Routes 27 and 28. This is the “payback” for SLO Transit, Atascadero and Morro Bay.

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
May 2022 17

2. SLOCOG (row h,i). In row h, SLOCOG is recommended to receive $225k (flat from 20/21, row h). SLOCOG’s required oversight and coordination with transit operators on SRTP’s, audits, studies, and programming cannot be sustained with LTF funds and requires STA support.

New row i represents support for the pass-through to SLOCOG’s Regional Vanpool program. These funds go to private vendors (Enterprise, etc.) to subsidize the cost of joining a vanpool. Due to a 5-year funding restriction, CMAQ is no longer available for Vanpool subsidies. Retaining the Vanpool program is critical to achieving the Air Quality benefits in the Sustainable Communities Strategy.

Historically, the STA allocations have included a cash reserve in order to smooth periodic shortfalls in the fund. These funds helped minimize mid-year cuts, when they were needed after the SCO released a mid-year estimate that represented a substantial decrease.

SLO Transit’s STA funding received was $143,846 in FY 2018, $282,289 in FY 2019, $431,004 in FY 2020, $234,814 in FY 2021, and an anticipated $247,954 in FY 2022.

3.2.3 State of Good Repair
The State of Good Repair (SGR) program is the result of the passage of SB1 and provides approximately $105 million annually to transit operators in California for eligible transit maintenance, rehabilitation and capital projects. The SGR program benefits the public by providing public transportation agencies with a consistent and dependable revenue source to invest in the upgrade, repair and improvement of their agency’s transportation infrastructure, and in turn improve transportation services. These funds are allocated under the State Transit Assistance (STA) Program formula to eligible agencies pursuant to Public Utilities Code (PUC) section 99312.1. Half is allocated according to population and half according to transit operator revenues.

Projects that solely expand capacity or service are not eligible projects. However, expansion of capacity within replacement projects to meet current or projected short-term service needs (for example replacing a maintenance facility with a larger facility or replacing a bus with a larger bus) are eligible.

Assembly Bill (AB) 149 amends AB 107 providing the ability for transit agencies eligible to receive SGR funds for FY 2019-20 through FY 2022-23 to redirect these funds from projects as originally identified to address funding shortfalls in operating or capital expenses resulting from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Prior to receiving funds from the SGR Program, SLOCOG is required to authorize the annual SGR Project List and to adopt a Governing Body Resolution. Below is an example of the FY 20/21 SGR programming action taken by the SLOCOG Board. This amount includes both regional discretionary and operator apportionments.

FY 20/21 State of Good Repair (SGR)
State of Good Repair Projects Jurisdiction SGR Request
Regional
Competitive
Operator
Apportionment Recommended
MB City Park Transit Hub Improvements Morro Bay $119,000 $119,000 $379 $119,379 New RTA Bus Maintenance Facility RTA $378,000 $0 $20,222 * $20,222
Two Zero-Emission Electric Buses SLO Transit $378,000 $269,862 $8,239 $278,101 Total $875,000 $388,862 $28,840 $417,702
* RTA and SoCo Transit operator amounts.

Source: SLOCOG

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
18 May 2022
According to Caltrans’ annual approved SGR project list, as the sub-recipient, the City was allocated $7,358 in FY 2018 for clean fuel vehicle, $7,064 in FY 2019 for automated vehicle location system, and $192,000 in FY 2020 for farebox replacement. An amount of $278,343 in FY 2021 was allocated for electric vehicle purchase, while $8,468 is allocated in FY 2022 for bus shelter replacement.

Each potential recipient as listed in the SCO Allocation Estimate letter shall submit a list of projects to SLOCOG including the following:
• A proposed list of projects to utilize, at a minimum, the estimated amount of SGR funding programmed for the recipient for the upcoming fiscal year. The recipient may include project information for future fiscal years but are expected to update the project list as needed each fiscal year and submit each year to the Department. This list must include the following:

1. Project Title

2. Proposed Project Description (Scope of Work)

3. Proposed Project Schedule (Start to Completion)

4. Project Location

5. Estimated Project Cost by Fiscal Year

6. Estimated Useful Life of the Improvement

7. Additional Project information required on the Project List template.

SLOCOG collects and compiles all project lists from the operators within their region and submits one project list including the anticipated use of PUC Section 99313 and Section 99314 funds to Caltrans. In anticipation of the SGR Program’s September 1st deadline, SLOCOG establishes its own timelines in its efforts to collect project lists from transit providers within their region.

Upon receiving the project lists, SLOCOG reviews the packets to ensure each candidate meets the following criteria:
a. The project meets the SGR eligibility requirements.
b. Contains Board Resolution from the operators governing body approving the project or operator has enclosed Short Range Transportation Plan that lists the project.
c. Confirm that the project is appropriate for overall transit plan designed for the region.
d. Verify the total estimated amount of SGR funds to be made available to the region agrees with the estimate letter issued by the California State Controller’s Office.
e. Include any requirements the Regional Entity determines best to suit their respective regions and transit/transportation needs.

After completion of their review, SLOCOG forwards the list of projects to Caltrans SGR staff for review.

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
19 May 2022
If a potential recipient misses the deadline for submittal, or submits incomplete/inaccurate project information, the potential recipient may submit a project list to be eligible for inclusion in the allocation of funds, or revise/correct project information, the following quarter by submitting the information electronically through CalSMART. The SCO will allocate all the revenue each quarter only to those potential recipients that have submitted timely and complete information. Funds will not be held for allocation to agencies who have submitted late project lists.

3.2.4 Proposition 1B – Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account
On November 7, 2006, California voters approved Proposition 1B, the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006. This act authorized the issuance of $19.925 billion in general obligation bonds to invest in high-priority improvements to the state's surface transportation system and to finance strategies to improve air quality. Among the programs contained in Proposition 1B is the $3.6 billion Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA). PTMISEA funds are to be used to fund various mass transportation projects, including rehabilitation, safety, or modernization improvements, capital enhancements or expansion, rail transit improvement, bus rapid transit improvements, the acquisition of rolling stock, and other similar investments. PTMISEA funds are to be dispersed according to the same formula used to distribute STA funds. Management and administration costs are not allowable for Proposition 1B funds. The program has sunset and transit agencies are spending down their remaining balances.

Based on audited financial data, SLO Transit has been spending down its PTMISEA balance. Proposition 1B PTMISEA funds received for vehicle procurement and capital improvements included $146,598 in FY 2015; $51,823 in FY 2016; and $8,118 in FY 2017.

There was an unearned balance of $4,888 as June 30, 2017.

3.2.5 California Air Resources Board – Low Carbon Transit Operations Program
The Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) is one of several programs that are part of the Transit, Affordable Housing, and Sustainable Communities Program established by the California Legislature in 2014 by Senate Bill 862 (SB 862). The LCTOP was created to provide operating and capital assistance for transit agencies with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improve mobility, with an emphasis on serving Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) and low-income communities. This program is administered by Caltrans in coordination with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the State Controller’s Office (SCO). These funds are part of the State Cap-and-Trade program and are derived from annual auction proceeds in the GHG Reduction Fund.

CARB issues competitive grant solicitations for the Air Quality Improvement Program (AQIP) and Low Carbon Transportation Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Investments pursuant to AB 118. Each fiscal year, CARB must submit a proposed funding plan to its board for approval. The funding plan serves as the blueprint for expending the AQIP funds appropriated to CARB
in the state budget. Annual funding allocations could aid in future procurements of low- or zero-emission transit and support vehicles.

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
20 May 2022
Approved projects in LCTOP could support new or expanded bus or rail services, expanding intermodal transit facilities, and potentially equipment acquisition, fueling, maintenance, and other costs to operate those services or facilities, with each project intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. SB 862 continuously appropriates 5 percent of the annual auction proceeds in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for LCTOP, beginning in FY 2015–16.

According to SLOCOG staff reporting on LCTOP, since the formula distribution to operators is so small, and the required monitoring and project tracking and reporting is so extensive, it is preferable to merge smaller operator apportionments and regional discretionary funding into one or two projects. Based on the LCTOP project lists, SLO Transit staff requested LCTOP funding toward the purchase and deployment of real-time bus stop information technology at high boarding stops based on SLO Transit’s 2017 Bus Stop Analysis. In FY 2020, SLO Transit received $39,999 in LCTOP funds. SLO Transit budget documents indicate that the agency did not receive LCTOP funds in FY 2021 and does not anticipate receiving any in FY 2022.

As an example of the project selection process, in response to SLOCOG’s call for projects in November 2019, SLO Transit requested LCTOP funding as partial funding for two zeroemission electric buses to expand the SLO Transit fleet. The LCTOP grant application review committee scored this project the lowest among the three applications submitted for funding because this funding request is for fleet expansion, according to the City’s adopted 2017-22 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) recommendations. It has historically been the practice of SLOCOG to fund replacement vehicles over expansion vehicles. As such, staff did not initially recommend any regional discretionary LCTOP funding for this project.

However, the City is in discussions with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) to exercise a contract to participate in their “E-Fleet Ready Program” in which PG&E will build-out the electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure at the City’s Transit Operations and Maintenance Facility to support EV charging at no cost. The execution of the contract is contingent on the procurement of electric vehicles. Since SLO Transit is further along in implementing their electric vehicle charging infrastructure plan, both SoCo Transit and SLOCOG staff agreed that the initial funding recommendation towards the SoCo Transit project, which scored higher for LCTOP, be deferred until next fiscal year. The funding table is below.

FY 19/20 Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP)
* IncludesSoCoTransit,RTA, MorroBay, andAtascadero99314amounts ** Includes SLO Transit 99314 amount
***Defer $250,000 forSoCoTransit untilnext fiscal year(seediscussion below).

Note: Amount are based on FY 19/20 SCO LCTOP apportionments Source: SLOCOG
Score
LCTOP
Project Title Lead Agency
LCTOP
Request
A) Regional
Competitive
B) Operator
Apportionment
Total
Recommended
126 Continuation ofOperatingAssistance forRoutes 27 and 28 in FY 20/21 SoCo Transit $267,000 $267,000 $0 $267,000
120 Two Replacement Zero-Emission Buses and Equipment SoCo Transit $250,000 $0*** $27,694* $27,694 95 Two Zero-Emission Electric Buses for Fleet Expansion SLO Transit $517,000 $245,864 $10,867** $256,731

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
21 May 2022

3.3 Federal Revenue Sources
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides financial and technical assistance to local public transit systems. Since 1964, the FTA has partnered with state and local governments to create and enhance public transportation systems, investing more than $11 billion annually to support and expand public transit services. The FTA provides annual formula grants to transit agencies nationwide as well as discretionary funding in competitive processes.

The most recent development concerning the provision of federal transportation funding support has been the passage of The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), signed into law by President Obama on December 4, 2015. The FAST Act is the first law enacted in more than a decade that provides long-term funding certainty for transportation. In FY 2016, the FTA had a funding allocation of $11,789 billion, which it disperses to states and other recipients through a combination of formula and discretionary grants. Retroactively effective on October 1, 2015, the FAST Act authorizes transit program funding for five years through September 30, 2020. The recent signing of the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act reauthorizes a new transportation bill.

The following table lists the formula and competitive discretionary grant opportunities under the FAST Act:

Source: Federal Transit Administration

3.3.1FTA Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Funding Program The Urbanized Area Formula Funding Program makes federal resources available to urbanized areas for transit capital and operating assistance, and for transportation planning and related planning in urbanized areas. An urbanized area is a census-designated area with a population of 50,000 or more as designated by the US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

Because SLO Transit operates in a small-urbanized area between 50,000 and 200,000 people, the City has used these funds for both operating and capital expenditures.

Federal transit funds are allocated in SLO County to the three designated small-urbanized areas (UZAs) in SLO County. Those UZAs are Arroyo Grande-Grover Beach (Southern area); San Luis Obispo (Central area); and El Paso de Robles-Atascadero (Northern area). The 5307 program includes formula revenues and the small transit intensive cities program formula funds.

Formula Discretionary
Section 5307: Urbanized Area Formula
Funding Program
Sections 5303, 5304, and 5305:

MPO/Statewide/Non-MPO Transportation
Planning
Section 5310: Enhanced Mobility of Seniors
and Individuals with Disabilities
Section 5309: Capital Investment Grant program
(New Starts, Small Starts, Core Capacity)
Section 5311: Rural Formula Programs
Section 5337: State of Good Repair (High
Intensity Fixed Guideway and High Intensity
Motorbus)
Section 5329: Public Transportation Safety
and Oversight
Section 5339: Bus and Bus Facilities and No
and Low Emission

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
22 May 2022
The apportionment formulas used by FTA incorporate various performance measures including passenger miles, vehicle revenue miles and hours, passenger trips, population, and population density.

Federal transit urbanized grant funds in the Central area under the FTA Section 5307 program are administered by the City of SLO in coordination with the San Luis Obispo Urbanized Area Technical Committee. A Program of Projects (POP) is developed in consultation with SLOCOG and other parties, and includes funding for SLO Transit and SLORTA, which operate within urbanized areas. Projects range from preventive maintenance and bus capital repair to bus replacement and transit operations. The draft POP is approved by the SLO City Council and forwarded to SLOCOG for final approval and inclusion in the FTIP.

According to City budget documents, federal 5307 funding assistance grants received were $1,441,620 in FY 2018, $1,484,870 in FY 2019, $917,175 in FY 2020, $552,007 in FY 2021, and an anticipated $1,897,234 in FY 2022. When compared to RTA financial projections, the City amounts in FYs 2018 and 2019 were 62 percent and 64 percent of the 5307 allocations for the Central area, with the remaining allocated to RTA. SLOCOG’s funding summary provides that Section 5307 is formula driven.

As a matter of comparison, Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) adopts the transit project selection procedures for the federal Fiscal Year FTA 5307 Program cycle and initiates a countywide call for projects. Caltrans Division of Mass Transportation is the federally designated recipient of FTA 5307 funding for small urbanized areas in California. Local projects that are funded with FTA 5307 funds are selected by SBCAG as the Metropolitan Planning Organization, in consultation with the State and transit operators. SBCAG is required by federal regulation to adopt procedures that will be used to select projects for FTA 5307 funding. Any public agency with public transit capital and operating funding needs within, to\from, or between urbanized area(s) in Santa Barbara County may apply for FTA 5307 funding. Generally, FTA 5307 funds are programmed to projects in three-year cycles and are used within the corresponding urbanized area. If priority needs are being met in urbanized areas, they can also be used to support “regional” services to or from an urbanized area and even outside urbanized areas. SBCAG and transit operators collaborate on the development of a project scoring system that is adopted by the SBCAG Board of Directors. The scoring system prioritizes projects for funding in each urbanized area on the basis of mobility needs and not use formulas or predetermined percentages to fund modes or jurisdictions, consistent with 23 CFR Part 450.222(b). The SBCAG Board reserves the right to modify these procedures in consultation with the designated grantees in each urbanized area at any time to promote the most efficient and effective use of FTA 5307 funding in Santa Barbara County.

3.3.2 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act Under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, SLO Transit received $1,390,418 in pandemic relief to cover operating and capital expenditures in FY 2020 and $2,805,689 in FY 2021. Of the FY 2020 funds, $1,350,230 has been designated to reimburse 100 percent of the FY 2019-20 operations costs and losses in revenues incurred from February 1 through June 30, 2020. The remaining FY 2020 CARES Act funds reimbursed FY 2020-21 expenditures, and the unused balance of conventional state and federal funds will be used to support SLO Transit services in later years once all CARES Act funds have been expended.

The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), enabled in March 2021, may provide additional stimulus funding for transit.

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
23 May 2022

3.3.3 FTA Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities Program
The FTA Section 5339 program is designed to assist operators with the replacement, rehabilitation, and purchase of vehicles and related equipment as well as the construction of bus-related facilities, including technological changes or innovations to modify low- or noemission vehicles or facilities. Funding is provided through formula allocations and competitive grants. A sub-program provides competitive grants for bus and bus facility projects that support low- and zero-emission vehicles. The federal share is not to exceed 80 percent of the net project cost.

The FTA apportions a discretionary component and a small urban (population 50,000 to 200,000) formula component to governors of each State annually. Caltrans’ Division of Rail and Mass Transportation (DRMT) has been delegated the designated recipient responsibilities by the Governor and is the direct recipient for these funds. DRMT administers these funding components to eligible sub-recipients which include public agencies and private non-profit organizations engaged in public transportation.

Caltrans releases an annual summary of FY Section 5339 allocations to small-urbanized areas (UZAs) in the state. The SLOCOG financial summary document includes that Section 5339 provides formula capital funding to replace, rehabilitate and purchase buses and related equipment and to construct bus-related facilities. A summary of allocations to SLO County UZAs is presented as follows:

UZA FFY 2018 FFY 2019 FFY 2020 FFY 2021
Arroyo GrandeGrover Beach, CA $112,791 $103,319 $107,535 $99,112 El Paso de RoblesAtascadero, CA $134,864 $123,538 $128,577 $118,508 San Luis Obispo, CA $147,954 $135,129 $141,057 $130,010 Total Allocations $395,609 $361,986 $377,169 $347,630
Source: Caltrans, DRMT
SLO Transit received $132,084 in FTA Section 5339 capital assistance in FY 2017–18 toward the purchase of replacement vehicles. Based on National Transit Database (NTD) reports, SLO Transit did not report 5339 funds in FY 2019, 2020, or 2021.

3.3.4 Congestion Management and Air Quality Improvement Program The Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program funds transportation projects or programs that reduce carbon monoxide, ozone, and particulate matter emissions. The FAST Act provides just over $12 billion in CMAQ funding over the five years of the authorization. Eligible projects for CMAQ include but are not limited to:
• Transit vehicle engine retrofits and vehicle replacements • Street sweeper and school bus engine retrofits and vehicle replacements • Transit service improvements
• Traffic flow improvements
• Bicycle and pedestrian improvements

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
24 May 2022
• Travel demand management
Operating assistance is limited to new transit, commuter and intercity passenger rail services, intermodal facilities, and travel demand management strategies, including traffic operation centers, inspection and maintenance programs, and the incremental cost of expanding these services.

CMAQ funds are available in federal air quality nonattainment areas. The funds are allocated by SLOCOG in the San Luis Obispo County region. SLO Transit utilizes CMAQ funding as available for the purposes of replacing compressed natural gas buses. There was $856,000 in FY 2016–17 and $761,000 in FY 2017–18 in CMAQ funding programmed into the 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Plan. Based on budgeting documents, SLO Transit did not receive CMAQ funds in FY 2019, 2020, or 2021.

3.4 Future Revenue Considerations
SLO Transit currently relies on a myriad of funding sources from local, state, and federal levels.

Cooperative arrangements, such as with Cal Poly, provide SLO Transit with additional resources to sustain service at optimal levels. At the state level, there are several recently adopted funding mechanisms for transit capital and operations. As mentioned previously, SB 508 was passed in October 2015 and amends key provisions of the TDA. Under the new law, other local revenues can prop up the farebox.

To mitigate declines in future passenger revenue, SLO Transit could further evaluate the market for advertising revenue and review opportunities without compromising fleet operations.

In addition, SB 508 exempts certain operating cost categories used to determine compliance with required farebox ratios, including certain fuel, insurance, and claims settlement cost increases beyond the change in the Consumer Price Index. Startup costs for new transit services are also exempted for up to two years. Supplemental revenues would serve in providing a local match for state and federal grants to fund transit expansion. AB 90 and AB 149, passed in recent state legislative sessions, continue many of the farebox exemptions, and relief of other TDA eligibility criteria and penalties through FY 2022-23. Of note in AB 149 is the allowance of federal funds to count as “local funds” toward farebox recovery.

In short, given the competitive nature of grants, the city ought to continue reviewing additional grant opportunities.

3.5 Expenditures

3.5.1 Operating Expenditures
Operating expenditures are inclusive of administration, purchased transportation, maintenance, and operations. The financial plan uses data derived from the City’s NTD reports and SLO Transit budget documents. Expenditures are forecasted to increase at 3.2 percent annually indexed to inflation and cost-of-living adjustments.

SLO Transit’s operating expenditures totaled $3,532,310 in FY 2018 and $3,533,504 in FY 2019. In FY 2020, operating expenditures totaled $3,669,374, with $2,548,971 going to operations, $486,651 to maintenance, $356,946 for general administration, and $276,806 in indirect costs. In FY 2021, operating expenditures totaled $4,269,674, with $2,794,565 going to operations, $602,500 to maintenance, $590,267 for general administration, and $282,342 in indirect costs. In 2022, SLO Transit anticipates operating expenditures to total $4,311,326 with

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
25 May 2022
$2,837,720 going to operations, $606,100 to maintenance, $579,517 for general administration, and $287,989 in indirect costs.

The City’s approved 2020 cost allocation plan shows the portion of central government services costs directed to transit using an allocated unit basis. The cost allocation plan shows costs totaling $321,727 as indirect cost for transit. These costs include the following services:

CITY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES ALLOCATED TO TRANSIT

1. Building Charge 2. City Council 3. Administration 4. City Attorney

5. City Clerk 6. Finance 7. Network Services 8. IT Support Services

9. Information Services 10. Finance Support
Services 11. Human Resources 12. Risk Management

13. Wellness Program 14. Public Works
Administration

15. Facilities
Maintenance

16. CIP Project
Engineering

17. Transportation/Plan
Engineering

3.5.1 Capital Expenditures
Capital expenditures encompass vehicle replacement and bus stop/shelter improvements. The financial plan uses FY 2019–20 budget data as a baseline as well as projected capital forecasts based on the City’s fleet purchasing and capital improvement plans. SLO Transit reports a total of $231,999 in capital expenses for FY 2020, $3,120,000 in FY 2021, and an anticipated $1,560,000 in FY 2022.

The City has been working through partnerships with the SLO County Air Pollution Control District and Pacific Gas & Electric to reconfigure the bus yard and construct charging infrastructure to prepare for the future electrification of transit vehicles. The transition to electric transit vehicles will continue into the foreseeable future.

Future consideration of infrastructure investment, addressing a five-year capital strategy will be addressed in the City’s next Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP).

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
26 May 2022

4.0 Regulatory Environment
This section addresses the regulatory environment in which SLO Transit operates. As a recipient of various state and federal funds, the City of San Luis Obispo (City of SLO) is obligated to comply with many state and federal regulatory requirements. This section discusses which regulatory requirements the City of SLO is responsible for, opportunities for administrative and cost efficiencies in fulfilling these requirements, and transit’s role and importance in the overall sustainability of the City of SLO. A greater description of funding sources and how they are apportioned and allocated is provided in the previous Chapter 3.

4.1 Federal Requirements
The City of SLO is a recipient of Urbanized Area Formula Funding (49 United States Code [USC] 5307) from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The City of SLO in coordination with the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) and the San Luis Obispo Urbanized Area Technical Committee, a committee established by SLOCOG, are responsible for the administration of the federal funds to SLO Transit.

To receive federal transit funding, all transit-related projects must be included in a federal Program of Projects (POP). Projects range from preventive maintenance and repair to bus replacement and transit operations. A draft POP is developed through a collaborative process led by SLOCOG in coordination with other stakeholders, including SLO Transit and San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA). Once a draft POP is approved by the SLO City Council, it is forwarded to SLOCOG and recommended for approval and inclusion in the Federal Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP).

After the POP is finalized and federal funds are awarded, there are many plans, programs, and processes required by the FTA to monitor the responsible and effective utilization of federal awards. These requirements are listed below:

Programmatic Requirements:
• Agency coordination with SLOCOG, serving as the metropolitan planning organization (MPO), State, and FTA for required plans (ongoing effort with varying time horizons) o Statewide and Federal Transportation Improvement Programs o Program of Projects
o Metropolitan Transportation Plan
o Unified Planning Work Program
o Long-range Statewide Transportation Plan
• Public Transit Agency Safety Plan (update required annually) o Small public transit providers (<100 vehicles in peak revenue service across all fixed-route modes or any one non-fixed-route mode) can create their own plan or participate in a state-sponsored plan.
• Transit Asset Management (TAM) Plan (full plan updated every four years) o Tier II providers (<100 vehicles across all fixed-route modes or <100 vehicles in one non-fixed-route mode) can create their own plan or participate in a group plan.

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
27 May 2022
o TAM serves as an important source of data to gauge the life and utilization of the transit system’s capital assets.
o TAM is a business model that prioritizes funding based on the condition of transit assets in order to achieve or maintain transit networks in a state of good repair (SGR).
o SLO Transit’s last TAM plan was completed on June 18, 2017:
▪ Includes performance targets through 2022
▪ Asset inventory and conditions for:
o 17 revenue vehicles
o 1 support vehicle
o 1 maintenance facility
• Title VI Program (update required every three years)
• Equal Employment Opportunity Program (update required every four years) Operational Requirements:
• Drug and alcohol testing program (ongoing)
• Americans with Disabilities Act complementary paratransit service (ongoing) • Vehicle procurement processes (ongoing)
Reporting Requirements:
• Certification of assurances (required annually)
• National Transit Database reporting (annual reporting required for reduced reporters with <30 VOMS)
• Grant application, monitoring, and reporting (ongoing) • Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (goal update/submission required every three years) • Triennial review (review conducted every three years) o One of FTA’s management tools for examining grantee performance and adherence to current FTA requirements and policies.
o The City’s most recent FTA triennial review took place in 2019 and covered 21 compliance areas.
▪ No deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements in 17 areas. ▪ Deficiencies were found in the areas of Financial Management and Capacity, Technical Capacity – Award Management, Procurement, and Title VI.
▪ The City responded to all deficiencies in letters dated July 16 and 24, 2020, detailing its corrective action steps. All have been addressed.

4.2 State Requirements
The City of SLO is eligible to receive funding from the state, made available through various programs. California’s Transportation Development Act (TDA) is one such funding source. To

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
28 May 2022
initiate the process of receiving TDA funds, the City of SLO must submit a claim to SLOCOG. To continue receiving TDA funds, the City of SLO must undergo a number of compliance actions including completing a financial compliance audit of the TDA program funds within six months of the end of the fiscal year, a triennial performance audit, and the Transit Operator Financial Transactions Report submitted to the State Controller within seven months after the end of the fiscal year. To aid SLOCOG’s compliance requirement under law to actively monitor transit system performance, the City of SLO is also responsible for submitting quarterly performance reports to SLOCOG.

Further, the City of SLO participates in the Regional TIP planning process under Senate Bill 45 and California Transportation Commission State TIP guidelines. The Regional TIP is a product of the collaborative planning process enacted to create the POP and Federal TIP, as described above. Through this process, the City of SLO must coordinate with SLOCOG to ensure all transit projects of interest are included in the TIPs in order for the projects to be eligible to receive state funding. The Regional TIP must be updated every two years.

The City of SLO is also eligible to receive SGR funds, which are made available for eligible transit maintenance, rehabilitation, and capital projects. For a project to be eligible for state SGR funding, the project must align with state SGR program goals and must be included on SLOCOG’s SGR project list. Project details, such as the schedule, location, estimated costs, and estimated useful life of the improvement, should be included in the SGR project list.

Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) funds are also available to the City of SLO for operating and capital assistance for transit agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve mobility. Eligible recipients must apply to the state to receive these funds and, once awarded, a progress report detailing the project status with an itemized list of expenditures must be submitted every six months until project closeout.

4.3 Transit’s Role in Sustainability
The City of SLO’s Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery establishes a community-wide goal of achieving complete carbon neutrality by 2035. Achieving a shift in mode split is one of the six pillars, or areas of focus, the plan identifies as necessary to achieving the overall goal.

The aim of the mode split is to decrease the number of single-occupancy vehicle trips for intown trips, shifting the mode used for these trips to low emissions transit vehicles. To achieve the desired mode shift, the plan supports the implementation of the City’s Electrification Strategic Plan, which aims to increase the number of electric transit vehicles in the region while retiring fossil fuel-burning vehicles. The plan also supports a reduction to transit headway in the Short-Range Transit Plan, which would make transit a more convenient and desirable mode for residents. Through these goals, this climate plan identifies transit as a key agent in achieving carbon neutrality.

Four goals established in the Circulation Element of the City of SLO’s General Plan point to the increased importance of public transit in the region: reducing dependence on single-occupancy vehicles, promoting safety for all modes, funding alternative modes of transportation, and supporting traffic reduction activities. Bolstering public transit in the region is a strong step toward achieving each of these goals established by the City.

Additionally, the Safety Element of the City of SLO’s General Plan outlines the need for a coordinated emergency response system throughout the state as well as for hazard assessments and emergency response plans from transportation agencies and companies

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
29 May 2022
operating in the SLO area to aid in the evacuation of citizens, should an emergency necessitate it. This includes public transit.

The City of SLO’s Active Transportation Plan emphasizes the importance of public transit as a key component in achieving the City’s active transportation goal of empowering residents with the ability to choose from various modes of transportation other than a single-occupancy vehicle.

Together, these plans guide the development and functioning of the City of SLO’s transportation infrastructure and services offered and speak to a greater demand for public transit and the overall increased importance placed on transit’s role in the City of SLO and the region. While the demand for transit to fulfill various goals and obligations of the City of SLO is growing, flexible funding sources to support transit activities are few. As an enterprise program within the City budget, public transit uses state and federal grant funds and locally generated farebox revenue to fund services offered.

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
30 May 2022

5.0 Opportunities – Collaboration/Outsourcing
Transit agencies are obliged to comply with regional, state, and federal funding requirements.

The administrative requirements can be challenging; however, local agencies have various potential means to address them. Opportunities that may be considered for the City of San Luis Obispo are provided below in effort to improve administrative and operational efficiencies, or funding allocation, for the transit system. Both collaboration and outsourcing opportunities are addressed and include:

1. Status Quo

2. Collaboration of Discretionary Grant Applications

3. Collaboration of Auxiliary Functions

4. Capital Cost Contracting

5. Cooperative Procurements

6. Alternate Delivery

7. Regional Discretionary Funding Amendments

8. Consolidation with RTA

5.1 Status Quo
a. Description: The status quo assumes current administrative and operational procedures using existing direct and indirect City staffing and resources to provide transit service delivery within the City.
b. Impact to City: Transit administration is in-house (exceptions being contracted bus operations and maintenance, and conduct of special studies) which provides internal network and ability to plan, coordinate, and deliver transit service more seamlessly while meeting other City goals (e.g. Climate Action Plan, General Plan policies, multimodal transportation plan, etc.).
c. Opportunities/Benefits: Decision-making and direction of the transit service does not require involvement by other outside peer agencies. As a result, more rapid action could be taken to modify the service as desired. No consideration by City is required on repercussion of changes beyond city service area. Partnership with Cal Poly for transit service remains mainly unobstructed. Local control of the transit system is fully maintained. Decision-making remains solely with the City Council on all aspects of the service including operations, funding, planning, and administration. Short- and long-term potential cost savings are borne from City action. Enterprise Fund program within the City enables degree of funding flexibility to generate dedicated revenue.
d. Constraints/Drawbacks: Full administrative costs to operate the service including direct and indirect government spending by the City are included in transit operations costs.

Transit competes with other City programs for constrained central city government staff resources and assistance.

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
31 May 2022

5.2 Collaboration of Discretionary Grant Applications
a. Description: The City and other partner agencies, such as RTA, jointly prepare and submit discretionary grant applications and other competitive funding sources for common projects and programs as well as for receiving common community benefit. b. Impact to City: Possible reduced demand on City direct and central government staff resources, thereby increasing the return on investment in pursuing the grant. Would require additional coordination with partners for funding.
c. Opportunities/Benefits: Collaboration opens additional opportunity for the City to pursue grants and revenues that it could not otherwise pursue on its own, whether due to project scope and benefit, staff constraints, or other eligibility factor. Collaboration on grants and level of staff commitment can be scaled based on type of project and pursuit requirements.

Shared resources such as joint use or development of an asset or service may be possible through a collaborative grant. Increased partnership with local agencies could result, with additional leverage such as local match and more regional presence to pursue larger grants.

Additional intellectual capital and capability would also be broadened and developed for grant pursuits. City can continue to pursue funding on its own as needed. d. Constraints/Drawbacks: Additional coordination efforts among agencies for funding opportunities and in preparing a unified grant. Requires decision-making for selecting lead agency/sponsor of a multiagency grant. Proposed projects selected by each agency must be eligible and meet grant funding criteria.

5.3 Collaboration of Auxiliary Functions
a. Description: The City and other partner agencies, such as RTA, jointly provide auxiliary transit services that enhance public information such as advertising and marketing, as well as customer service. Functional collaboration could also include other services like routine light maintenance such as bus cleaning and washing.
b. Impact to City: These auxiliary services could be provided through a number of means such one of the partner agencies or through a third-party vendor/organization. Reduced city staff to provide these functions may be possible. Payment for services or in-kind contributions would occur but at reductions over current expenses. c. Opportunities/Benefits: Collaboration on these functions could result in some possible cost savings through access to larger audiences and mix of marketing channels, and from being a “one-stop shop” for local and regional transit services. There could be increased public visibility and perception of one service that crosses jurisdictional boundaries from a more central approach to customer facing services. Bus cleaning and washing could be handled at one facility rather than two, in light of near-term adjacent parking facilities for each agency’s vehicles, resulting in some possible cost and space savings. d. Constraints/Drawbacks: City would lose a degree of autonomy in marketing and advertising the transit service, both from a content and placement perspective. Some level of cleaning schedule of two bus fleets would be required plus increased use of the wash facility.

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
32 May 2022

5.4 Capital Cost of Contracting
a. Description: FTA allows eligible service contracts to be funded using capital funds rather than operational funds.
b. Impact to City: Minimal impact on accounting, reporting, and federal fund draw down.

Minimal additional programming with SLOCOG through its program of projects. The City is beginning to utilize this mechanism.
c. Opportunities/Benefits: This is intended to assist with the capital consumed over the course of the service contract and creates opportunities for transit providers to realize local match savings, as federal match shares are higher (up to 80 percent) for capital assistance rather than match rates for operational assistance grants (50 percent), which would traditionally be required for expenses related to contracting service. d. Constraints/Drawbacks: The City must keep some form of contracting with an outside vendor for preventative maintenance and/or vehicle lease, at a minimum, to claim capital cost of contracting, given this mechanism is based on use of contractor assets for the transit system.

5.5 Cooperative Procurements
a. Description: The City and other partner agencies, such as RTA, jointly procure goods and services such as vehicles and bus equipment, parts, bus stop amenities, technology assets, and other services.
b. Impact to City: Possible reduced demand on City direct and central government staff resources, thereby increasing the return on investment in cooperative procurements. Would require additional coordination with partners for funding. A change in procurement procedures may be needed.
c. Opportunities/Benefits: Opens additional opportunity for the City to attain economies of scale in procurement and better purchasing terms that it could not otherwise receive on its own, whether due to project scope and size, staff constraints, or other eligibility factor.

Cooperative procurements may save administrative costs while maximizing potential benefits for all participating parties. This approach could be used for a variety of needs, including securing joint fuel contracts, constructing shared use assets such as a bus wash facility, or installing shared electric vehicle charging stations. Collaboration on procurement and level of staff commitment can be scaled based on type of project and pursuit requirements. Increased partnership would be established, while building intellectual capital and capability on joint purchases of different types and scale. City could still maintain option to continue pursuing its own procurement of items relevant only to its system as needed. d. Constraints/Drawbacks: Additional coordination efforts and timing among agencies for procurement of like goods and services. Changes in procurement method and/or software upgrades may be needed. Changes in accounting, reporting and programming of funding among agencies might also occur, including decision-making for selecting the lead agency/sponsor of the procurement.

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
33 May 2022

5.6 Alternative Delivery
a. Description: Advances in transit service delivery such as microtransit and technology innovation. Microtransit is defined by the FTA as follows: IT-enabled private multi-passenger transportation services, … that serve passengers using dynamically generated routes, and may expect passengers to make their way to and from common pick-up or drop-off points.

Vehicles can range from large SUVs to vans to shuttle buses. Because they provide transitlike service but on a smaller, more flexible scale, these new services have been referred to as microtransit. [TCRP Research Report 188]. Users would tap into technology, generally with a smartphone, to schedule and pay for a ride.
b. Impact to City: Microtransit would radically change how certain areas within the City would be served by transit. A pilot project could first be implemented for a certain time period to gauge accessibility, connectivity to other transportation modes, cost, consumer preferences, and overall performance relative to established goals.
c. Opportunities/Benefits: Microtransit provides the ability for a passenger to book a trip that will take them on the fastest route, thus making the service more attractive. Different branding from fixed route bus is possible. The service may also convey a sense of security for some users relative to the fixed route. Flexible scheduling of microtransit could be provided to serve those outside normal fixed route operating hours. d. Constraints/Drawbacks: Microtransit is a low-capacity service serving fewer people compared to fixed route buses and resulting in a higher cost per passenger. Its application would have limitations both from a capacity and cost standpoint. For example, this service would not function to transport a large crowd from a particular designated stop at once. New smaller vehicles would be needed, though options to procure vehicles such as leasing or used could reduce initial capital investment.

5.7 Regional Discretionary Funding Amendments
a. Description: As described in Chapter 3, SLO Transit receives funding from local, state, and federal sources. Each source has their own apportionment and allocation method, such as formula based using specific criteria to divide revenue among eligible recipients, and discretionary based which enables the administering agency to determine how to divide the funds. Changes, or alterations, to these existing criteria or discretionary actions would occur, primarily by SLOCOG.
b. Impact to City: Changes to how transit funds are awarded and allocated would directly impact funding levels for SLO Transit. The change in funding methods could affect not only revenue amounts, but other considerations such as different information needed for eligibility and fund application, timing of fund receipt, and monitoring and reporting, among other potential modifications.
c. Opportunities/Benefits: Shifts to different methodologies could benefit SLO Transit should the new eligibility or performance criteria weigh in favor of the City’s delivery of service. For example, funding based on project merits or performance indicators would substitute for formulas that rely on other factors such as population. d. Constraints/Drawbacks: Given finite revenue amounts, increases to one agency would result in decreases to another. SLOCOG, which has discretion over several revenue sources for transit, would be required to evaluate, adopt, and implement new funding

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
34 May 2022
requirements, and determine regional implications on the countywide transportation system.

Several other revenue sources are allocated based on federal or state regulations, leaving little discretion for change.

5.8 Consolidation with RTA
a. Description: SLO Transit would be integrated into RTA. Full integration would include RTA annexing the City service area into regional transit services. b. Impact to City: City would relinquish independent control of the transit system and its assets to the regional provider but maintain membership on the RTA board. City staff would have very minimal to no further responsibility for transit administration and service delivery.

RTA would directly claim City’s share of transit funding. c. Opportunities/Benefits: Integration would provide more seamless services to the customer wishing to travel within the region. Depending on brand identity among the various regional services, there could be a standard fare system and more connectivity to additional destinations. Consolidating transit service into one organization (i.e., acting as a single funding recipient) has the potential to produce savings by reducing duplication of administration and management, incorporating more specialized transit administrative functions, and service efficiencies.
3 As previously noted, SLO Transit’s KPIs relative to both industry norms and SLO County peers, performs effectively and efficiently. Further, as previously presented, SLO Transit also provides the greatest number of vehicle service hours per full time equivalent, relative to County peers. Further, SLO Transit outperforms RTA in performance measures especially in terms of cost per VSH hour (76.83% less) and farebox ratio (16.09% more).

SLO Transit relative to County peers, of note:
✓ SLOT has the highest ridership (total passengers).
✓ SLOT has the lowest cost per vehicle service hour (VSR) except for Morro Bay. ✓ SLOT has the lowest operating cost per passenger.
✓ SLOT operates the greatest number of VSRs per full-time (employee) equivalent (FTE).
✓ SLOT has the highest farebox ratio.
d. Constraints/Drawbacks: City no longer has full control of the service. City’s contribution of transit funds to the regional service may not equate to receiving equivalent transit services within the City. Cost performance metrics for a larger system using in-house drivers are not as competitive as the City’s current performance indicators using contracted services. Lack of City control of the service might result in transit not being able to help fulfill City transportation and sustainability goals.
3 Recent consolidation of South County Area Transit into RTA included RTA having made an estimation of potential cost savings of approximately $78,000. This figure has not been validated as having been realized.

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
35 May 2022

6.0 A Way Forward - Recommendations
In defining a path forward informed by the opportunities identified in Chapter 5, a likely scenario includes a combination of actions to be considered. While SLO Transit has expressed concern regarding funding priorities and allocation through existing policies and procedures on a regional basis, it is imperative that the City remain pro-active in seeking and successfully diversifying its funding sources. As an enterprise fund within the City, transit should be self-supported through dedicated revenues including user fees. For example, fare policies should be reviewed regularly and adjusted to reflect current and projected operating conditions. In addition, relationships with Cal Poly should remain strong in review of the zero-fare program and a new contract negotiated that incorporates the current allocated cost per passenger for Cal Poly riders.

The following actions are recommended for continued SLO Transit financially sustainability:

1. Annually review fare structure relative to ridership and quarterly farebox recovery ratio trends.

2. Negotiate new Cal Poly zero-fare program payments that capture fully allocated cost of Cal Poly ridership. The agreement should reserve the right to annually review payments based on changes in allocated costs.

3. Utilize Capital Cost of Contracting provisions allowed by FTA to capitalize certain contractor preventative maintenance. This reduces the local match requirement compared to FTA funding for operations.

4. Develop a grants team including retaining a dedicated transit grants specialist to develop an annual program of grant research, education, positioning and preparation, and application, as well as post-award administration and reporting. The grants specialist would help determine when partnering opportunities with other agencies might be advantageous to win grant funds from FTA, State of California, or another grantor agency. An increase in grant funding could reduce reliance on other existing sources, or shift revenues among program needs.

5. Work with RTA to identify opportunities for joint procurement and/or use, such as fuel contracts, specialized maintenance outsourcing (e.g. body work, deep cleaning), or common assets (e.g. bus washing).

6. Evaluate the potential to monetize city transit assets to generate increased local revenue, such as public fueling/EV charging, and external advertising at key transit stop locations. Work to prioritize city funding and investment in infrastructure such as roadway rehabilitation and bike/ped amenities at strategic locations most frequented by bus routes.

7. Hold discussions with SLOCOG and RTA regarding current regional funding policies and procedures. One possible area of discussion can be on the TDA-LTF allocation process. Rather than RTA currently receiving a share of each jurisdiction’s LTF apportionment “off the top”, the LTF based on population can first be allocated to the local jurisdictions by the COG. Each RTA member agency independently reviews their respective budgeted cost share of services provided by RTA and then locally approves the amount to fund the regional agency. While this entails additional steps above current process during the TDA claims and typically results in similar outcomes, it provides an additional layer of funding allocation so that the city can evaluate their impacts on a

IBI GROUP

CITY TRANSIT PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo
36 May 2022
council level and approve of RTA budget changes prior to fund disbursement. This method is practiced by other transit JPAs/districts in the state.

8. Continue building a strong brand for SLO Transit. The current labor shortage is hurting transit, and while the public general views transit favorably, conveying a strong brand that communicates good service and integrates well in a multimodal environment could draw further interest and more investment in the transit program.