HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDpinard1DEC 14 2010
SLO CITY CLERK
RED FILE
- MEETING AGENDA
EATEAID ITEM # I
From: Peg Pinard[SMTP:PINARDMAT@AOL.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 4:18:49 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc: Dave Congalton; Robert McDonald; Annmarie Cornejo SLO Cornejo;
Susan Coward; Steve Rebuck; Shelly Johnson; brettcross@hotmail.com
Subject: Comment for Tonight's Meeting
Auto forwarded by a Rule
December 14, 2010
TO: San Luis Obispo City Council
SUBJECT: Proposed Goal Setting Process/Measure Y Annual Meeting
Input from City Residents.
Dear Mayor Marx and Members of the City Council,
D COUNCIL
D CIYMOR
D.CDD DIR _
DFITDIR
• AMCM
0 FIRE CHIEF
D
-D FI IR
D CLERKIORIO
D POUCECHIEF
D PIE
0FARKSARECDIR
D TRIBUNE
D U7ILDIR
D SLOCITNEWS
000UNCIL
D CrrYMOR
D CLERK
You recently asked for ways to improve getting input from City residents after observing
the deficiencies of the process surrounding the Historic Preservation Ordinance adoption.
With your request in mind, the city's proposed Goal Setting Process/Measure Y Annual
Meeting invites the following questions to better represent input from and the wishes of
city residents;
1. To demonstrate to City voters (who will be voting to drop or continue
Measure Y) that the City's goal setting process primarily represents their input and
wishes, will speakers at the City's Community Forum on January 11 ( Measure Y
Annual Meeting) be required to clearly state which City they actually live in before
they ask the SLO City Council to support their goals?
This is required under the City's Lobbying Ordinance, but it was not followed at the last
Measure Y Annual Meeting and does not seem to be proposed for the January 11
Community Forum.
(This would somewhat help avoid the problem of lumping input from voting
City residents indistinguishably with that of development interests, lobbyists,
absentee property owners, "stakeholders", an organized group pushing one issue, etc. and
ending up with a result that does not tell you what largely unorganized voting city
residents want for their City.)
2. If the goal of the Community Forum on January 11 is to primarily get input from
City residents, why does the staff report state, "The January 11 Community Forum
is intended to solicit suggestions from Council advisory bodies, community groups,
other groups of stakeholders and interested individuals on proposed City goals and
fiscal issues.?
What happened to input from City residents?
3. The Community forum will give the City Council the input of those who are
motivated to attend the meeting, but does it accurately represent primarily the
input and wishes of City residents? Doesn't a good and honest survey mailed only
to City residents more accurately measure their input and wishes?
Should the input from a meeting open to everyone carry as much weight as a survey
of city residents?
4. What happened in last year's Goal Setting Process and Measure Y Annual
Meeting that discouraged resident involvement and should not happen again?
In the goal setting survey mailed to City residents just prior to last year's Measure Y
annual meeting, the real Measure Y Ballot Priorities that residents had voted for were
listed but had included "Downtown Improvements " as if it were also a Measure Y Ballot
Priority. (Although the council had adopted its own goals, this was the only one of the
council goals that was included as though it was a Measure Y ballot priority)
Residents were led to believe that they had voted for "Downtown Improvements" as a
Measure Y Ballot Priority, when they had not.
At the Measure Y annual meeting that followed, Staff also repeatedly referred to
"Downtown Improvements" as a Measure Y Ballot Priority and listed it over and over as
if had been a real "Measure Y Ballot Priority".
Not surprisingly, the `downtown improvement' goal was strongly supported by meeting
attendees who had development, property, or business interests in the downtown. While
these maneuvers undoubtedly created false support for the "Downtown Improvements"
that were being pushed, it raised doubts about the honesty of the Measure Y process.
Presumably, at the January 11 Community Forum staff will enumerate only the real
Measure Y Ballot Priorities.
Sincerely,
Peg Pinard
P.S. For the record, prior to the vote on Measure Y, the City hired consultants for
multiple resident surveys and studies to identify possible ballot priorities for which
residents would be willing to tax themselves. Over 1,200 surveys were returned.
"Downtown Improvements" was not a resident priority
The actual ballot read: "San Luis Obispo Essential Service Measure: to protects and
maintain essential services — such as neighborhood street paving and pothole repair;
traffic congestion relief; public safety, including restoring eliminated traffic patrol, Fire
Marshal and fire/paramedic training positions; flood protection; senior citizen
services/facilities; neighborhood code enforcement; open space preservation and other
vital general purpose services — shall the sales tax be increased by one-half cent for ten
years only, with citizen oversight and independent annual financial audits?"