HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-17-2018 Agenda Packet
Tuesday, April 17, 2018
4:00 PM
REGULAR MEETING
Council Hearing Room
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo Page 1
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Heidi Harmon
ROLL CALL: Council Members Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Dan Rivoire, Vice
Mayor Carlyn Christianson and Mayor Heidi Harmon
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
CLOSED SESSIONS
1. CLOSED SESSION – PUBLIC EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE / DISMISSAL / RELEASE
[California Government Code Section 54957 (b)]
Council to deliberate on the Findings and Recommendations by the Personnel Board of the
City of San Luis Obispo
ADJOURNED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 17, 2018 TO BEGIN AT 6:00
PM IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 17, 2018 Page 2
6:00 PM
REGULAR MEETING
Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Heidi Harmon
ROLL CALL: Council Members Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Dan Rivoire, Vice
Mayor Carlyn Christianson and Mayor Heidi Harmon
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Aaron Gomez
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
INTRODUCTIONS
2. TERESA PURRINGTON - CITY CLERK (JOHNSON – 5 MINUTES)
PRESENTATIONS
3. PROCLAMATION - POETRY MONTH (HARMON – 5 MINUTES)
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA (not to exceed 15
minutes total)
The Council welcomes your input. You may address the Council by completing a speaker slip
and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. At this time, you may address the Council
on items that are not on the agenda. Time limit is three minutes. State law does not allow the
Council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the
Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons
exercising their public testimony rights (gov. Code sec. 54954.2). Staff may be asked to
follow up on such items.
CONSENT AGENDA
Matters appearing on the Consent Calendar are expected to be non-controversial and will be
acted upon at one time. A member of the public may request the Council to pull an item for
discussion. Pulled items shall be heard at the close of the Consent Agenda unless a majority of
the Council chooses another time. The public may comment on any and all items on the
Consent Agenda within the three minute time limit.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 17, 2018 Page 3
4.WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
(PURRINGTON)
Recommendation:
Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
5.ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO
ESTABLISH CAPITAL FACILITIES FEE PROGRAM AND MAKE RELATED
AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 4.56 (ORDINANCE NO. 1256
(1994 SERIES)) TO INCLUDE THE CAPITAL FACILITIES FEE PROGRAM, AND
ADOPTING CEQA EXEMPTION FINDINGS (CODRON / FOWLER)
Recommendation:
Adopt Ordinance 1646 (2018 Series) entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, amending the municipal code to establish Capital Facilities
Fee program and make related and conforming amendments to Chapter 4.56 (Ordinance No.
1256 (1994 Series)) to include the Capital Facilities Fee Program, and adopting CEQA
exemption findings” amending Chapter 4.56 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code to
establish and implement the Capital Facilities Fee Program.
6.REQUEST FOR STATEMENTS OF QUALIFICATION FOR GENERAL
CONTRACTING AND SUBCONTRACTORS FOR WRRF PROJECT (MATTINGLY
/ HIX / METZ)
Recommendation:
1.Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of The City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California Adopting Bidder Prequalification Documents and Procedures and
Establishing the Bidder Prequalification Appeals Panel for the Water Resource Recovery
Facility Project;” and
2.Authorize the City Manager, following City evaluation of the Statements of
Prequalification, to identify final lists of prequalified contractors and subcontractors to
provide:
a) General Contracting Services
b) Subcontractors to provide Electrical Subcontracting Services, and
c) Subcontractors to provide Control System Integration Subcontracting Services.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 17, 2018 Page 4
7. CONTRACT AMENDMENT – TRANSIT OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
CONTRACT (GRIGSBY / ANGUIANO)
Recommendation:
1. Authorize a budget amendment to the Transit Enterprise Fund to reflect new State of
Good Repair operating assistance, and;
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract amendment with First Transit Inc. with
a new not-to-exceed amount as set forth in the Amendment to Agreement No. 1.
8. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE 2018-19 LIST OF PROJECTS FUNDED BY SB-
1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT (GRIGSBY / HORN)
Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, confirming the 2018-19 list of projects funded by SB 1: the Road Repair
and Accountability Act” which defines a list of projects funded by SB-1.
9. 2016-17 CENTRAL SERVICE COST ALLOCATION PLANS AND COST OF
SERVICES FEE CALCULATION (JOHNSON / PARDO)
Recommendation:
1. Approve the 2016-17 Central Service Cost Allocation Plans dated March 2017; and
2. Approve the Cost of Services Fee Calculation.
10. SINSHEIMER STADIUM BACKSTOP, SPECIFICATION No. 91543 (GRIGSBY /
MC GUIRE)
Recommendation:
1. Award a contract to Judge Netting in the amount of $129,900 for the “Sinsheimer Stadium
Backstop Replacement, Specification No. 91543”; and
2. Approve the transfer of $55,000 from the Parks Major Maintenance Master account to the
project construction phase.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 17, 2018 Page 5
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS
11. ADOPTION OF A FISCAL HEALTH RESPONSE PLAN AND STRATEGIC
DIRECTION TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET (STANWYCK / FERREIRA – 90
MINUTES)
Recommendation:
1. Adopt a Fiscal Health Response Plan; and
2. Provide feedback and direction to staff regarding the application of the Fiscal Health
Response Plan to the 2018-19 Supplemental Budget to be reviewed and considered for
adoption in June 2018; and
3. Provide direction regarding the possible initiation of a cannabis sales tax measure and direct
staff to return with more information for consideration on May 15, 2018.
12. COUNCIL DIRECTION REGARDING FUNDING THE FUTURE OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO (GRIGSBY – 60 MINUTES)
Recommendation:
1. Receive a Report on the projects, community feedback, and funding sources for Funding
the Future of SLO; and
2. Direct Staff to return to Council as part of the 2019-2021 Financial Plan with an
outreach and engagement plan, a prioritized project list, and recommendations to fund
Capital Projects within the Funding the Future of SLO initiative.
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Not to exceed 15 minutes) Council Members report on conferences or other City activities. At
this time, any Council Member or the City Manager may ask a question for clarification , make
an announcement, or report briefly on his or her activities. In addition, subject to Council
Policies and Procedures, they may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual
information, request staff to report back to the Council at a subsequent meeting concerning any
matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. (Gov.
Code Sec. 54954.2).
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda April 17, 2018 Page 6
ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 4:00 p.m. and
6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo,
California.
LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES are available for the hearing impaired--please see City Clerk.
The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the
public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to
persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or
accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City
Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7107.
City Council regular meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20. Agenda related
writings or documents provided to the City Council are available for public inspection in the
City Clerk’s Office located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California during normal
business hours, and on the City’s website www.slocity.org. Persons with questions concerning
any agenda item may call the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100.
Meeting Date: 4/17/2018
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Xzandrea Fowler, Community Development Deputy Director
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO
ESTABLISH CAPITAL FACILITIES FEE PROGRAM AND MAKE
RELATED AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 4.56
(ORDINANCE NO. 1256 (1994 SERIES)) TO INCLUDE THE CAPITAL
FACILITIES FEE PROGRAM, AND ADOPTING CEQA EXEMPTION
FINDINGS
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Ordinance 1646 (2018 Series) (Attachment A) amending Chapter 4.56 of the San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code to establish and implement the Capital Facilities Fee Program.
DISCUSSION
On April 3, 2018 the City Council voted 5:0 to introduce Ordinance 1646 to establish and
implement the Capital Facilities Fee Program (CFFP). The CFFP establishes development
impact fees which are imposed as a condition of approval upon all development projects for
which a building permit is issued on or after the effective date of the ordinance. Those
development impact fees are established for the following public facilities:
a.General Government Impact Fee;
b.Fire Impact Fee;
c.Parkland In-Lieu Fee;
d.Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fee;
e.Police Impact Fee; and
f.Transportation Impact Fee.
The Ordinance also sets by resolution the amount of fee assessments. The City Council
approved, on April 3, 2018, Resolution 10879 (2018 Series) (Attachment B) which set the fees
for each of the fee categories list above, as shown in Table 1.
Packet Page 7
5
Table 1. Capital Facilities Development Impact Fees
Effective July 1, 2018
The Ordinance is now ready for adoption and the establishment and implementation of the
Capital Facilities Fee Program will become effective on May 17, 2018. Substantial outreach to
the community, in particular the development community, will occur following adoption of the
ordinance to ensure awareness of the new and updated development impact fees that will be
assessed when building permits are issued beginning July 1, 2018.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue the proposed ordinance. The City Council may continue action, if more
information is needed. Direction should be given to staff regarding additional information
Packet Page 8
5
needed to make the decision.
2. Reject the proposed ordinance. The City Council may reject the proposed ordinance
although policies supporting development impact fees for capital improvements are
included in the recently adopted specific plans and related General Plan amendments, for
Avila Ranch, San Luis Ranch, Orcutt Area, Margarita Area, and the Airport Area, as well
as the 2014 Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) of the City’s General Plan, the
2015 Housing Element, and the 2013 Economic Development Strategic Plan.
Attachments:
a - Capital Facilities Fee Program Ordinance
b - Capital Facilities Fee Program Resolution - Place Holder
Packet Page 9
5
O 1646
ORDINANCE NO. 1646 (2018 SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO
ESTABLISH THE CAPITAL FACILITIES FEE PROGRAM AND MAKE
RELATED AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 4.56
(ORDINANCE NO. 1256 (1994 SERIES)) TO INCLUDE THE CAPITAL
FACILITIES FEE PROGRAM, AND ADOPTING CEQA EXEMPTION
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, existing local, state and federal resources are insufficient to meet the City of
San Luis Obispo’s capital improvements infrastructure and facility needs for transportation, parks
and recreation, general government, and public safety; and
WHEREAS, new development generally increases the demand for capital infrastructure
improvements and facilities and affects the quality of the community’s infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the public interest, convenience, health, safety and/or welfare require that
fire, parks and recreation, police, and transportation infrastructure be provided for the maintenance
and enhancement of the quality of life of the City’s residents; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has a critical need to ensure that impacts from
new development to transportation, fire, parks and recreation, police, and general government
(hereinafter defined as “capital improvements”) are addressed, and development impact fees are a
commonly-used mechanism to address this need; and
WHEREAS, Article XI, Section 5 of the California Constitution provides that the City, as
a home rule charter city, has the power to make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in
respect to municipal affairs, and Article XI, Section 7, empowers the City to enact measures that
protect the health, safety, and/or welfare of its residents; and
WHEREAS, Section 203 of the San Luis Obispo City Charter provides that the City has
the right and power to make and enforce all laws and regulations in respect to municipal affairs ;
and
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600), codified in California Government Code
Sections 66000-66025, establishes the legal requirements for a jurisdiction to implement a
development impact fee program in conformance with constitutional standards; and
WHEREAS, many cities and counties have adopted and imposed capital improvement
impact fees on new development to ensure that impacts from new development are addressed; and
WHEREAS, on August 16, 2016, the City Council initiated proceedings to adopt impact
fees by directing staff to prepare a nexus study for development impact fees for transportation,
park and recreation, public safety, and general government capital improvements and identified
and appropriated funding for this purpose; and
Packet Page 10
5
Ordinance No. 1646 (2018 Series) Page 2
O 1646
WHEREAS, policies supporting development impact fees for capital improvements are
included in the recently adopted specific plans and related General Plan amendments, for Avila
Ranch, San Luis Ranch, Orcutt Area, Margarita Area, and the Airport Area, as well as the 2014
Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) of the City’s General Plan, the 2015 Housing Element,
and the 2013 Economic Development Strategic Plan; and
WHEREAS, on April 21, 2017, the Community Development Director, on behalf of the
City Manager, further initiated proceedings by entering into a professional services contract with
Economic Planning Solutions, Inc. (EPS) to conduct a citywide impact fee nexus study and
implementation strategy; and
WHEREAS, EPS has prepared a Nexus Study entitled “Capital Facilities Development
Impact Fee Nexus Study,” for the City of San Luis Obispo, dated March 20, 2018, a copy of which
was previously provided to the City Council and made available to the public; and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study has documented and confirmed that development in San
Luis Obispo will result in further growth, and that such growth will place additional burdens on
capital improvements infrastructure for transportation, parks and recreation, public safety, and
general government in the City; and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study further identified the locations and types of development
that will generate those impacts, and thus established the reasonable relationship between the
location and type of development projects paying the fees and the need for capital improv ement
infrastructure for transportation, parks and recreation, public safety, and general government
generated by such development; and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study provided data outlining the various capital improvement
infrastructure that are required to meet the need generated by new development projects in the
City; and
WHEREAS, it is the City’s policy that new development should contribute its fair share
to capital improvement infrastructure for transportation, parks and recreation, public safety, and
general government through the imposition of impact fees which will be used to finance, defray,
or reimburse the City for the appropriate portion of the cost of capital infrastructure improvements
which serve such development; and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study established factors that reasonably estimate the level of
impacts on capital improvement infrastructure for transportation, parks and recreation, public
safety, and general government from new development based on the type of development project,
and thus determined that there is a reasonable relationship between the type of development project
paying the fees and the need for capital improvement infrastructure for transportation parks and
recreation, public safety, and general government; and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study established eligible uses of revenues from capital
improvement infrastructure for transportation, parks and recreation, public safety, and general
Packet Page 11
5
Ordinance No. 1646 (2018 Series) Page 3
O 1646
government, based on the types of impacts from development projects, and thus determined that
there is a reasonable relationship between the type of development project paying the fees and the
use of the fee revenues; and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study applied factors that reasonably estimate the level of impacts
on capital improvement infrastructure for transportation, parks and recreation, public safety, and
general government per unit of development and that vary by the type of development project, to
calculate the fee on a development project, and thus determined that there is a reasonable
relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the capital improvement infrastructure
for transportation, parks and recreation, public safety, and general government fees attributable to
the development project on which the fee is imposed; and
WHEREAS, through the payment of the fee, developers of residential and non-residential
projects will address a portion of the impact of their developments on capital improvement
infrastructure for transportation, parks and recreation, public safety, and general government; and
WHEREAS, impact fees are necessary to maintain an adequate level of capital
improvement infrastructure for transportation, parks and recreation, public safety, and general
government; and
WHEREAS, the proposed impact fees adopted under this Ordinance are lower than the
maximum legal fees documented in the Nexus Study; and
WHEREAS, EPS also studied the economic feasibility of new development in San Luis
Obispo to provide a basis for creating an impact fee program that can be implemented without
adversely affecting San Luis Obispo’s ability to attract new development; and
WHEREAS, the proposed impact fees for capital improvement infrastructure for
transportation, parks and recreation, public safety, and general government balances the need for
such improvements with the goal of not impeding the construction of new development; and
WHEREAS, the City will obtain and allocate funding from various other sources for the
fair share of the costs of improvements identified in the Nexus Study that are not funded by the
impact fees as well as any additional funding required to supplement any policy-based fee
reductions; and
WHEREAS, the capital improvement infrastructure for transportation, parks and
recreation, public safety, and general government fee proposals were discussed in four Developer’s
Roundtable meetings (including June 29, 2017, October 5, 2017, December 11, 2017, and March
1, 2018) which consisted of City staff and a cross section of stakeholders with interest associated
with the impact fee program and such materials were also made available to the public; and
WHEREAS, the capital improvement infrastructure for transportation, parks and
recreation, public safety, and general government fee proposals were discussed at one duly noticed
meeting of the Planning Commission during a study session on October 11, 2017; and
Packet Page 12
5
Ordinance No. 1646 (2018 Series) Page 4
O 1646
WHEREAS, the capital improvement infrastructure for transportation, parks and
recreation, public safety, and general government fee proposals were discussed at two duly noticed
meetings of the City Council during study sessions on October 17, 2017 and January 9, 2018; and
WHEREAS, following those study sessions the City Council directed city staff return with
revisions to the impact fees and accompanying legislation; and
WHEREAS, the impact fees were scheduled to be considered at regular, duly noticed
(including newspaper ads published on March 17, 2018 and March 24, 2018) meeting of the City
Council on April 3, 2018; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance was considered, after a duly noticed public hearing, at a
regular meeting of the City Council on April 3, 2018.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows/or that (whatever action is needed):
SECTION 1. Recitals. The recitals contained in this Ordinance are true and correct and
are an integral part of the Council’s decision, and, are hereby adopted as findings.
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines the
adoption of this Ordinance is (1) not a Project under the California Environmental Quality A ct
“CEQA”) and is therefore exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4); (2)
statutorily exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15273(a)(4) (Rates, Tolls, Fares and
Charges for obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing
service area); (3) not intended to apply to specific capital improvement projects and as such it is
speculative to evaluate such projects now and any specifically identified transportation projects
were already evaluated under CEQA and imposed as mitigation measures in previously certified
EIRs and /or adopted mitigated negative declarations; and/or (4) not intended to, nor does it,
provide CEQA clearance for future development-related projects by mere payment of the fees.
Each of the foregoing provides a separate and independent basis for CEQA compliance and when
viewed collectively provides an overall basis for CEQA compliance.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall be known as the “Capital Facilities Development
Impact Fees Ordinance.”
SECTION 4. Chapter 4.56 of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby
repealed and replaced in its entirety with Exhibit A.
SECTION 5. Severability. If any subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of
this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforcement of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance, or any other provisions of the city' s rules and regulations.
It is the city' s express intent that each remaining portion would have been adopted irrespective of
the fact that any one or more subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared
invalid or unenforceable.
Packet Page 13
5
Ordinance No. 1646 (2018 Series) Page 5
O 1646
SECTION 6. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members
voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in The
Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This Ordinance shall go into effect at
the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the day of April 3, 2018, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council
of the City of San Luis Obispo on the ____ day of ____, 2018, on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
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, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
______________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
Packet Page 14
5
Ordinance No. 1646 (2018 Series) Page 6
O 1646
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 4.56 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Sections:
4.56.010 - Purpose.
The council declares that the fees required to be paid by this chapter are established for the
purpose of protecting the public health, safety and general welfare, and implementing the policies
of the general plan, by providing adequate public facilities to support orderly development.
4.56.020 - Definitions.
Unless otherwise required by the context, the following definitions shall govern the
construction of this chapter:
"Commercial development" means the development or use of land for any retail, office,
service commercial or other business purpose.
"Council" means the city council of the city of San Luis Obispo.
"Development" or "development project" means any project undertaken for the purpose of
development, and includes a project involving the issuance of a permit for construction or
reconstruction, but not a permit to operate. Development or development project shall include: (i)
approvals of land divisions pursuant to Title 16 of this code, including approval of lot line
adjustments, certificates of compliance, parcel maps, tract maps and condominium conversions;
(ii) land use approvals pursuant to Title 17 of this code, including re-zonings or the approval of
development plans, site plans, minor use permits, variances, but excepting approval of San Luis
Obispo general plan/land use ordinance amendments; (iii) For the issuance of any occupancy
permit or final building inspection; and (iv) all other approvals of real property development,
which approvals are subject to the jurisdiction of the city of San Luis Obispo and which approvals
are subject to the exercise of the discretion of the city council, planning commission, or community
development director. For purposes of this chapter, new development includes any change of use
or occupancy which increases the traffic service requirements of a development.
"Dwelling unit" means a structure, or portion of a structure that is used for separate residential
occupancy by an individual, a family or group of unrelated individuals.
"Impact fee" means a monetary exaction charged to the applicant in connection with approval
of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a part of the cost of the public facilities
related to the development project. This definition does not include fees specified in Government
Code Section 66477, or fees for processing applications for permits or approvals.
"Imposition of fees" occurs when they are imposed or levied on a specific development.
Packet Page 15
5
Ordinance No. 1646 (2018 Series) Page 7
O 1646
"Multifamily residential development" means development or use of land for residential
purposes involving more than one dwelling unit in a single structure.
"Public facilities" means public improvements, public services or community amenities.
"Single-family residential" means development or use of land for residential purposes
involving no more than one dwelling unit in a single structure.
4.56.030 - Fees—Imposition and application.
This chapter establishes development impact fees which are imposed as a condition of
approval upon all development projects for which a building permit is issued on or after the
effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter. Those impact fees are established for the
following public facilities:
A. General Government Impact Fee;
B. Fire Impact Fee
C. Parkland In-Lieu Fee;
D. Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fee;
E. Police Impact Fee; and
F. Transportation Impact Fee.
Water and wastewater impact fees shall be governed by Title 13. These impact fees are
established in order to pay for the capital costs of public facilities reasonably related to the needs
of new development in the city. At least once every five years, the council shall review the basis
for the impact fees to determine whether the fees are still reasonably related to the needs of new
development. In establishing these fees, the council has considered the effect of the fees with
respect to the city's housing needs as established in the housing element of the general plan.
4.56.040 - Fees to be set by resolution.
The amount of fee assessments shall be determined by resolution adopted by the city council.
Fees shall be adjusted annually by modifying the adopted value up or down in conformance with
the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. The factor for the adjustment of the fees
shall be calculated and established each January by the director of financial services, utilizing the
following formula:
Factor =
1 + Current Index - Base Index for Date of Adoption
Base Index for Date of Adoption
4.56.050 - Payment of fees.
Except as otherwise provided in Section 66007 of the Government Code, impact fees shall be
paid to the city at the time a building permit is issued. In cases where payment of all or part of the
required fee is deferred at the time of building permit issuance, the community development
Packet Page 16
5
Ordinance No. 1646 (2018 Series) Page 8
O 1646
director may require that the applicant, at the applicant's expense, execute a contract with the city
to pay all deferred impact fees prior to final inspection and/or issuance of a certificate of occupancy
for the project. The contract shall specify the amount of the unpaid fee and a legal description of
the property affected. It shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder and shall constitute
a lien for the payment of the fees, which shall be enforceable against the successors in interest of
the property owner. When impact fees are paid in full, the city, at the expense of the applicant or
property owner, shall execute a release of any lien securing those impact fees.
4.56.060 - Protests.
Any party subject to the fees established by this chapter may protest the imposition of those
fees by meeting all of the following requirements:
A. Tendering any required payment in full or providing satisfactory evidence of
arrangements to pay the fee when due or ensure performance of the conditions necessary
to meet the requirements of the imposition of the fee.
B. Serving written notice of protest on the city council which notice shall contain all of the
following information:
1. A statement that the required payment is tendered, or will be tendered when due,
under protest;
2. A statement informing the city council of the factual elements of the dispute and the
legal theory forming the basis for the protest.
C. Serving the written notice of protest, no later than ninety (90) days after the date of the
imposition of the fees.
The city council shall consider that protest at a hearing to be held within sixty (60) days after
serving the written notice of protest. The decision of the city council shall be final.
4.56.070 - Exemptions.
The fees imposed under this chapter shall not apply to the following:
A. The United States or to any agency or instrumentality thereof, the state of California or
any county or other political subdivision of the state of California;
B. Remodeling or alteration of an existing residential building, but only if the number of
dwelling units is not increased or the use changed;
C. That portion of a structure that existed before the addition of dwelling units or the
enlargement of floor area in a nonresidential structure. If a structure is destroyed or
demolished and replaced within two years from the date of demolition, the impact fees
shall be based on the service requirements of the new development less the service
requirements of the development which it replaced.
4.56.080 - Credits and reimbursement.
If the applicant for approval of any development project is required by the city, as a condition
of approval to construct facilities, the cost of which has been used in the calculation of impact fees
Packet Page 17
5
Ordinance No. 1646 (2018 Series) Page 9
O ______
which apply to that project, the applicant may receive a credit against those impact fees, up to the
amount charged for the same type of facility. If the cost of the improvements constructed by the
applicant exceeds the amount of the impact fees charged to the development project for the same
type of facility, the excess cost may be reimbursed to the applicant from other impact fee revenues
within a reasonable time. To qualify for reimbursement, the applicant must enter into a
reimbursement agreement with the city, and any such agreement must specify the amount to be
reimbursed and the approximate schedule of the reimbursement.
4.56.090 - Disposition and use of fees.
The director of financial services shall establish a separate fund or account for each type of
facility listed in Section 4.56.030. All impact fees collected by the city shall be deposited in the
fund or account established for the specific type of facility for which the fee is collected. Any
interest earned on funds deposited in a fund or account shall be deposited in that fund or account.
Funds deposited in those accounts shall be used only to pay for design and construction,
including construction administration, of projects identified in resolutions or other formal city
council action adopted pursuant to Section 4.56.030 as the basis for the impact fees, or for
reimbursements as provided in Section 4.56.080.
4.56.100 - Refunds.
If impact fees collected by the city have not been expended or designated for the intended
purpose within five years following their collection, the city shall either refund those fees as
provided in Section 66001 of the Government Code, or make findings as required by that section
to retain the fees. The refund provision of this chapter shall apply only to moneys in possession of
the city and need not be made with respect to any bonds, letters of credit or other items given to
secure payment at a future date.
Packet Page 18
5
This will be replaced with the executed version after 4/3/18
R 10879
RESOLUTION NO. 10879 (2018 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING AND ESTABLISHING CAPITAL
FACILITIES FEE, ALSO REFERRED TO AS DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
FEES
WHEREAS, existing local, state and federal resources are insufficient to meet the City of
San Luis Obispo’s capital improvements infrastructure and facility needs for transportation, parks
and recreation, general government, and public safety; and
WHEREAS, new development generally increases the demand for capital infrastructure
improvements and facilities and affect the quality of the community’s infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the public interest, convenience, health, safety and/or welfare require that
fire, parks and recreation, police, and transportation infrastructure be provided for the maintenance
and enhancement of the quality of life of the City’s residents; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has a critical need to ensure that impacts from
new development to transportation, fire, parks and recreation, police, and general government
(hereinafter defined as “capital improvements”) are addressed, and development impact fees are a
commonly-used mechanism to address this need; and
WHEREAS, Article XI, Section 5 of the California Constitution provides that the City, as
a home rule charter city, has the power to make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in
respect to municipal affairs, and Article XI, Section 7, empowers the City to enact measures that
protect the health, safety, and/or welfare of its residents; and
WHEREAS, Section 203 of the San Luis Obispo City Charter provides that the City has
the right and power to make and enforce all laws and regulations in respe ct to municipal affairs;
and
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600), codified in California Government Code
Sections 66000-66025, establishes the legal requirements for a jurisdiction to implement a
development impact fee program in conformance with constitutional standards; and
WHEREAS, many cities and counties have adopted and imposed capital improvement
impact fees on new development to ensure that impacts from new development are addressed; and
WHEREAS, policies supporting development impact fees for capital improvements are
included in the recently adopted specific plans and related General Plan amendments, for Avila
Ranch, San Luis Ranch, Orcutt Area, Margarita Area, and the Airport Area, as well as the 2014
Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) of the City’s General Plan, the 2015 Housing Element,
and the 2013 Economic Development Strategic Plan; and
Packet Page 19
5
Resolution No. 10879 (2018 Series) Page 2
WHEREAS, the City Council introduced an Ordinance to establish a Capital Facilities Fee
Program that identified the impact fees that are necessary to maintain an adequate level of capital
improvement infrastructure for transportation, parks and recreation, public safety, and general
government at a duly noticed public hearing, at a regular meeting of the City Council on April 3,
2018; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1646 amending Chapter 4.56 of the
Municipal Code to establish a Capital Facilities Fee Program that identified the impact fees that
are necessary to maintain an adequate level of capital improvement infrastructure for
transportation, parks and recreation, public safety, and general government at a duly noticed public
hearing, at a regular meeting of the City Council on April 17, 2018. The Capital Facilities Fee
Program, as codified in Chapter 4.56, states that the amount of each Capital Facilities Fee be
established by Resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, an analysis of the required Capital Facilities Development Impact Fees to
support the City’s capital improvement infrastructure for transportation parks and recreation,
public safety, and general government was identified in the Capital Facilities Development Impact
Fee Nexus Study, and cost information for capital projects have been completed for the fees
identified as included in the attached Exhibits A and incorporated herein by this reference.
WHEREAS, by this Resolution, the City Council intends on establishing the amount of
such rates and charges.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings
a) The purpose of development impact fees is to protect the public health, safety, and
general welfare by providing adequate transportation, park and recreation, fire,
police, and general government facilities to satisfy the needs of new development
and to mitigate the impacts of new development on the City’s capital facilities and
improvements.
b) The development impact fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used
only to pay for facilities and improvements identified in the development impact
fee analysis and shall not be in lieu of any other fee or tax as may be required by
the Municipal Code.
c) There is a reasonable relationship between the types of development on which the
development impact fees are imposed and the use of the development impact fees
and the need for the facilities and improvements. All new development requires
adequate water supply, treatment and distribution as well as wastewater collection
and treatment facilities to protect the public health and safety.
d) As required by Government Code Section 66001 et seq., there is a reasonable
relationship between the amount of the development impact fee and the cost of the
facilities and improvements attributable to the developments on which the
development impact fees are imposed. The estimated costs of facilities and
Packet Page 20
5
Resolution No. 10879 (2018 Series) Page 3
improvements, including financing costs, to be paid for as shown in the Capital
Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study, for the City of San Luis Obispo,
dated March 20, 2018, prepared by Economic Planning Systems, Inc. the findings
and analysis of which are hereby incorporated by reference, have been allocated to
new development.
SECTION 2. Cost Estimates. At any time that the actual or estimated costs of facilities
identified in the development impact fee analysis changes, the Finance Director shall review the
development impact fee and determine whether the change affects the amount of the development
impact fees. If the development impact fees are significantly affected, the Finance Director shall,
within thirty (30) days, recommend to the Council a revised fee for their consideration.
SECTION 3. Amount of Development Impact Fees. Effective July 1, 2018, development
impact fees for capital improvement infrastructure associated with transportation, parks and
recreation, public safety, and general government shall be in the amounts set forth in Exhibits A
and B attached hereto. Unless otherwise acted upon by the Council, the amount of the development
impact fees will automatically be adjusted on July 1 of each subsequent year by the Municipal
Cost Index for the prior year.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2018.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
Acting City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
Packet Page 21
5
Resolution No. 10879 (2018 Series) Page 4
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, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
Acting City Clerk
Packet Page 22
5
Resolution No. 10879 (2018 Series) Page 5
EXHIBIT A
CAPITAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Effective July 1, 2018
Packet Page 23
5
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Page 24
5
Meeting Date: 4/17/2018
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Director of Utilities
Prepared By: David Hix, Deputy Director, Wastewater
Jennifer Metz, Utilities Projects Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR STATEMENTS OF QUALIFICATION FOR GENERAL
CONTRACTING AND SUBCONTRACTORS FOR WRRF PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION
1.Adopt “A Resolution of The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California
Adopting Bidder Prequalification Documents and Procedures and Establishing the Bidder
Prequalification Appeals Panel for the Water Resource Recovery Facility Project;” and
2.Authorize the City Manager, following City evaluation of the Statements of Prequalification,
to identify final lists of prequalified contractors and subcontractors to provide:
a) General Contracting Services
b) Subcontractors to provide Electrical Subcontracting Services, and
c) Subcontractors to provide Control System Integration Subcontracting Services.
DISCUSSION
Section 20101 of the California Public Contract Code authorizes cities to pre-qualify contractors
for bidding on the construction of public works projects. A Request for Statements of
Prequalification documents and procedures has been developed for this process.
The proposed prequalification process enables the City to assess a bidder’s experience, financial
situation, and past performance. This process ensures the bids the City receives are only from
serious, qualified bidders, making the bidding process more efficient.
The prequalification process, which provides a desirable level of certainty to both contractors
and the City, will:
1.Reduce the amount of work and time involved in evaluating bids from unqualified
contractors.
2.Encourage local firms to form joint ventures with other local or international
firms, thereby benefiting from their resources and experience.
3.Reduce significantly, if not eliminate, problems associated with low prices
submitted by bidders of doubtful capability.
4.Establishes minimum experience requirements for the contractors and their key
personnel. Only contractors with experienced staff and a proven track record of
successfully building projects of similar size and complexity as the WRRF Project
will be pre-qualified to submit bids.
5.Establishes minimum safety metrics for the contractor. Contractors with a history
of unsafe work practices will not be allowed to submit bids on the WRRF Project.
Packet Page 25
6
6. Increases bidder confidence and bidder participation as qualified contractors do
not have to compete against low bids from inexperienced and unqualified
contractors.
7. Generates interest in the City’s WRRF Project before the bid advertisement is
issued, allowing contractors to place the WRRF Project on their pursuit list and
increasing contractor participation in the bid process.
The request for statements of qualification documents and procedures provide a clear basi s upon
which prospective bidders can be evaluated, following an objective process based on fair and
transparent criteria. The qualification of a contractor, or subcontractor, is a separate process from
the City’s typical bid evaluation procedure, which concentrates on the price and merits of the bid
itself.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City Council adopted Resolution 10740 (2016 Series) certifying the environmental impact
report (EIR) for the WRRF Project (SCH #2015101044) on August 16, 2016. Recommendations
described here are for contractor and subcontractor prequalification for construction of the
WRRF Project analyzed under that EIR. These actions do not trigger the need for additional
environmental review.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action at this time. This request is to authorize staff
to pre-qualify contractors who will be eligible to submit a bid for the construction of the WRRF
Project. This cost will be known later this year after Council authorization to release construction
bid documents for the project and evaluation of the lowest responsible bidder.
Total construction cost for the WRRF Project is estimated to be $90-$110 million and will take
approximately three years to complete. The use of this prequalification process streamlines the
bidding process, saving staff and Council time and saving potential contractors the time and
money it takes to prepare construction bids.
ALTERNATIVE
Elect Not to Approve Resolution. The City Council may elect not to approve the resolution to
prequalify general contractors or subcontractors. Should Council choose this alternative, staff
would prepare bid documents for the WRRF Project for City Council approval. This approach is
not recommended as it would lengthen the bidding process and could lead to additional cost.
Attachments:
a - Resolution Adopting Bidder Prequalification Procedures
b - Council Reading File_Exhibit A_Request for SOQ_GeneralContractors
c - Council Reading File_Exhibit B_Request for SOQ_Electrical Subcontractors
d - Council Reading File_Exhibit C_Request for SOQ_Control System Integration
Packet Page 26
6
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 1
R _______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2018 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING BIDDER PREQUALIFICATION
PROCEDURES AND DOCUMENTS AND ESTABLISHING THE BIDDER
PRE-QUALIFICATION APPEALS PANEL FOR THE WATER
RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY PROJECT
WHEREAS, Section 20101 of the California Public Contract Code established procedures
for certain local agencies wishing to pre-qualify bidders on public works projects; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) has developed standardized
questionnaires and model guidelines for rating bidders pursuant to Public Contract Code Section
20201 (hereafter “Model Guidelines”); and
WHEREAS, under Section 20101, the City Council may formally adopt bidder pre-
qualification procedures and documents modeled after the Model Guidelines and establish a
process by which disqualified bidders may appeal; and
WHEREAS, the City has modeled the “Request for Statements of Qualification of General
Contractors for Construction of the Water Resource Recovery Facility Project for the City of San
Luis Obispo,” attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, after the Model Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City has modeled the “Request for Statements of Qualification of
Electrical Subcontractors for Construction of the Water Resource Recovery Facility Project for the
City of San Luis Obispo” attached hereto as Exhibit “B”, after the Model Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City has modeled the “Request for Statements of Qualification of Control
System Integration Subcontractors for Construction of the Water Resource Recovery Facility
Project for the City of San Luis Obispo” attached hereto as Exhibit “C”, after the Model
Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that adopting bidder pre-qualification
procedures and establishing an appeal committee will streamline the formal bidding process for
the Water Resource Recovery Facility Project and further the City Council’s goals to operate
efficiently and in a businesslike manner.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby adopts the “Request for Statements of
Qualification of General Contractors for Construction of the Water Resource Recovery Facility
Project for the City of San Luis Obispo” attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” “Request for Statements
Packet Page 27
6
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 2
R _______
of Qualification of Electrical Subcontractors for Construction of the Water Resource Recovery
Facility Project for the City of San Luis Obispo,” attached hereto as Exhibit “B”, “Request for
Statements of Qualification of Control System Integration Subcontractors for Construction of the
Water Resource Recovery Facility Project for the City of San Luis Obispo ,” attached hereto as
Exhibit “C,” and incorporated herein by reference (“Pre-Qualification Guidelines”). The City
Manager, or his or her designee, is hereby authorized to pre-qualify bidders on the public works
contract with the City of San Luis Obispo for the Water Resource Recovery Facility Project
pursuant to the attached Pre-Qualification Guidelines. The City Manager may use the scoring
system provided in the attached Pre-Qualification Guidelines consistent with the requirements of
the Public Contract Code.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby establishes the Bidder Pre-Qualification Appeals
Panel ("Appeal Panel") consisting of the following, or their designee(s): the City Manager, the
City Engineer, and the Director of Utilities. Except as otherwise provided for herein, appeals shall
be conducted by the Appeal Panel in accordance with the rules set forth in the Uniform
Administrative Code. The sole issue before the Appeals Panel shall be the scoring of a prospective
bidder. The decision of the Appeals Panel shall the City's final administrative decision and any
judicial review thereof shall be instituted no later than the time period referred to in section 1094.6
of the Code of Civil Procedure.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby determines that this Resolution is exempt from
review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources
Code Section 21000 et seq.) because the Resolution, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section
15378, subdivision (b), constitutes a continuing administrative activity and the creation of a
governmental fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project that may
result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2018.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
Packet Page 28
6
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 3
R _______
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, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
Packet Page 29
6
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 4
EXHIBIT “A”
Request for Statements of Qualification of General Contractors for Construction of the Water
Resource Recovery Facility Project for the City of San Luis Obispo
Packet Page 30
6
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 5
EXHIBIT “B”
Request for Statements of Qualification of Electrical Subcontractors for Construction of the
Water Resource Recovery Facility Project for the City of San Luis Obispo
Packet Page 31
6
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 6
EXHIBIT “C”
Request for Statements of Qualification of Control System Integration Subcontractors for
Construction of the Water Resource Recovery Facility Project for the City of San Luis Obispo
Packet Page 32
6
Meeting Date: 4/17/2018
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Gamaliel Anguiano, Transit Manager
SUBJECT: CONTRACT AMENDMENT – TRANSIT OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
CONTRACT
RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize a budget amendment to the Transit Enterprise Fund to reflect new State of Good
Repair operating assistance, and;
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract amendment with First Transit Inc. with a
new not-to-exceed amount as set forth in the Amendment to the Agreement No. 1
(Attachment A).
DISCUSSION
Background
On June 16th, 2016, the City of San Luis Obispo entered into an agreement with First Transit Inc.
for Transit Operations & Maintenance of the City’s public transit system (SLO Transit). The
contract is for four base years with three possible one-year extensions. Contract costs have both
fixed amounts (i.e. administrative, insurance premiums, etc.) and variable amounts (i.e. service
hours). The original contract not-to-exceed amounts are reflective of prior funding sources and
pre-Short-Range Transit plan implementation. Since executing the contract with First Transit,
two years ago, there is new transit operating funding assistance, in the form of Senate Bill 1 –
Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB1), and the scope of transit service has evolved
as staff implements the City’s adopted 2017-22 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) resulting in a
change in the variable contract amounts.
New Funding Source - SB1
On April 28, 2017 Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 1 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 20 17),
known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. SB 1 will provide over $50 billion in
transportation funding across the state over the next decade to repair highways, bridges and local
roads, to make strategic investments in congested commute and freight corridors, and to improve
transit service. The direct allocation of transit funds will be under the State Transit Assistance
(STA) Program formula to eligible agencies pursuant to Public Utilities Code (PUC) section
99312.1. From this, the City is anticipated to receive approximately $137,000 annually to
supplement operational costs. Ultimately, these new revenues will support expanded SLO
Transit to program additional bus services, thus helping our city continue to make progress
towards mode shifts and reducing single use vehicle trips.
Service Changes and Variable Cost Increase
Effective June 18th, 2017 the City staff has begun the initial phases of implemention of the
adopted City 2017-22 Short Range Transit Plan. In reflection of the now avialable SB1
Packet Page 33
7
operating assistance funds, staff aims to program these funds for additional bus service. As a
result, the total amount of Revenue Hours will change as follows:
Original Bid Doc: 34,546 Revenue Service Hours
New Service Hours: 37,953 Revenues Service Hours
These new projected Revenue Hours are broken down per route with a very modest contingency
for additional and unanticipated transit service. And, as in past practice, the City will preserve
the fiscal stewardship practice of paying the lesser amount of the calculated theoretical revenue
hours versus actual revenue hours when processing monthly invoice and as a stop gap to excess
service costs.
The City believes this adjustment is neccesary in order to revise the current contracted stated
“Not to exceed amount” to reflect the new service levels.
Changes in Key Positions
Further, considering the growing scale of the City’s Transit system, additional “Key Positions”
(identified in italics and red font) are required to ensure the safe and reliable operation of the
transit service. This has already been determined to have no impacts on the contract amount as
the new Key position can be absorbed within existing fixed contract amounts. However,
amending the contract memorializes this action. As noted and amended in the contract;
G. Point(s) of Contact
The CONTRACTOR must provide the CITY a current up-to-date list of point of contacts
for key positions as described herein in this document. These include at a minimum: One
(1) Resident General Manager, One (1) Maintenance Manager, One (1) Operations
Manager and One (1) Safety Manager. These are key personnel who will be expected to
provide primary contact with CITY staff and be responsible for management and
supervision of CONTRACTOR’s employees. The names and resumes of these specific
individuals and all other CONTRACTOR’s Management Staff shall be provided as part
of the CONTRACTOR’s Proposal.
Changes in Definition to Revenue Service Hours
Finaly, the City wishes to amend following contract statement (identified in italics and red font)
defining Revenue Hours to reflect transit routes that do not start or end at the Transit Center:
A vehicle service hour is defined as a vehicle providing passenger service for one hour
during the service hours specified herein. A vehicle service hour shall be deemed to have
commenced when a vehicle leaves the CITY’s Transit Center (located at 990 Palm
Street) or it’s designated (by the City) starting point to provide the services required
herein and shall not include any out-of-service vehicle time used for vehicle operator
breaks or lunches. A vehicle service hour shall terminate when a vehicle returns to CITY
Transit Center, or it’s City designated terminus point, prior to any cleaning, servicing or
fueling of the vehicle.
Packet Page 34
7
The City believes this change in defination of Revenue Service Hour is neccesary to account for
routes that may not neccesarily commence or end from the Transit Center, but rather, elswhere in
the city (e.g. Trolley, Trippers, etc.).
FISCAL IMPACT
The City of San Luis Obispo is anticipated to receive approximately $137,000 annually to
supplement operational costs. These new State revenues, additional fares from the approved
(July 18, 2017) fare increase and modest additional support from Cal Poly University will allow
the City to program $150,000 in additional revenue service, as prescribed by the City’s adopted
Short-Range Transit Plan. The additional service requirements alter the City’s “not-to-exceed
amounts” as identified in Table 1. If SB1 is appealed in the future, the contract with First Transit
allows adjustment of services to address any potential revenue reductions.
FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 Possible 3 Year
Ext.
Prior Amount $2,250,930 $2,330,088 $2,398,270 TBD
New Amount $2,416,306 $2,485,876 $2,551,685 TBD
ALTERNATIVE
The City Council could deny the contract amendment, but staff does not recommend this as the
City could lose the SB1 operating assistance funds if they are not programmed and this would
severely limit the City ability to carry thru with implementation of the Short-Range Transit Plan.
Attachments:
a - Amendment Agreement With First Transit Inc. - Transit Operations & Maintenance
Contract - Amendment No. 1
b - Exhibit A - Letter/MEMO to First Transit Inc - SLO Transit Contract - Amendment
No. 1
Packet Page 35
7
Attachment A
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT NO. 1
THIS AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT is made and entered in on April 17th, 2018, by and between the
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, herein after referred to as City, and FIRST TRANSIT INC.
hereinafter referred to as Contractor.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, on June 16, 2015, the City entered into an Agreement with Contractor for Transit Operations
& Maintenance services; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the scope of services to reflect the changes in Revenue Service
Hours as a result of the implementation of Short Range Transit Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City has submitted a proposal for this purpose that is acceptable to the Contractor.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations, and covenants hereinafter
contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. The scope of services and related compensation is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit A
attached hereto.
2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year
first written above.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR:
_____________________________________ By: ____________________________________
City Manager, Derek Johnson Senior Vice President, Nick Promponas
City of San Luis Obispo First Transit Inc.
Packet Page 36
7
Exhibit A to Attachment A
Packet Page 37
7
Packet Page 38
7
Packet Page 39
7
Packet Page 40
7
Packet Page 41
7
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Page 42
7
Meeting Date: 4/17/2018
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Matt Horn, Deputy Director Public Works / City Engineer
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE 2018-19 LIST OF PROJECTS FUNDED
BY SB-1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution defining a list of projects funded by SB-1 (The Road Repair and
Accountability Act of 2017) for Fiscal Year FY 2018-19.
DISCUSSION
On April 28, 2017, the Governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 1 (Beall, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017),
which is known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (RMRA). RMRA addresses
basic road maintenance, rehabilitation and critical safety needs on both the state highway and
local roadway systems. RMRA provides funding by charging:
1. An additional 12 cents per gallon increase on the gasoline excise tax effective November
1, 2017.
2. An additional 20 cents per gallon increase on the diesel fuel excise tax effective
November 2, 2017.
3. An additional vehicle registration tax called the “Transportation Improvement Fee” with
rates based on the value of the motor vehicle effective January 1, 2018.
4. An additional $100 vehicle registration tax on zero emissions vehicles model year 2020
or later effective July 1, 2020.
The City is estimated to receive approximately $834,400 RMRA funding over the 2018-19 Fiscal
Year and over $1,000,000 per year at full implementation. RMRA funds will be programmed
and prioritized with each future 2-year financial plan along with other Capital Improvement Plan
projects.
In March 2018, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) published draft guidelines for
programming and reporting on the use of RMRA funds. Each May 1st the City must submit a
project list to the CTC and each October 1st the City must submit a project expenditure report.
Recommended Project List
Concrete Paver Sidewalk
Portions of the sidewalk on Santa Barbara Street from Broad to Leff are constructed of wood
planks which was the City’s standard installation for sidewalk in the Railroad District. The
boardwalk sidewalk does not have the required lifespan for municipal operations. On May 16,
2017, the City Council approved a new concrete paver style sidewalk to replace the boardwalk
sidewalks (See attachment A). This project will replace all the boardwalks with the new
concrete paver style sidewalk. The estimated cost of this work is $400,000. The recommended
Packet Page 43
8
funding level from RMRA is $350,000 leveraging $50,000 of sidewalk replacement funding
budgeted in the 2018-19 fiscal year. The project is anticipated to start construction in late
summer 2018 pending Council approval.
El Capitan Bridge
The El Capitan Bridge connects El Capitan Way neighborhood to the Fuller Road / Poinsettia
Street / French Park neighborhood via a trail. Several years ago, a large tree fell on the El
Capitan Bridge catastrophically damaging the bridge. On October 24, 2017, the City Council
reviewed the current condition of the private El Capitan Bridge and determined that this facility
should be publicly owned and maintained as well as authorized funding to commence the design
work for bridge replacement (See attachment B). This project will replace the existing bridge
with a new bridge. The estimated cost of this work is $100,000, matching the recommended
funding level from RMRA funds. The project is anticipated to start construction in fall 2018.
Broad Street Bike Boulevard Phase I
The Broad Street Bike Boulevard Phase I connects Pacheco Elementary School to the
neighborhood south of Foothill Boulevard by constructing a Class I bike path between Foothill
and Ramona and installing a bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Foothill and Ferrini (See
attachment C). This project is the first phase of a larger effort to provide a safe, low-stress route
for bicyclists and pedestrians connecting the downtown core to the school, neighborhoods and
shopping north of Foothill Boulevard. The estimated cost of this Phase I work is $900,000,
including right-of-way acquisition. The recommended funding level from RMRA funds for FY
2018-19 is $384,400. The City has additionally submitted a grant request to SLOCOG to assist
with the Safe Route to School component of the project. The project is anticipated to start
construction in early 2019.
Project Location 2018-19 Anticipated
Start of
Construction
1. Concrete Paver Sidewalk Santa Barbara – Broad to Leff $350,000 Summer
2018
2. El Capitan Bridge El Capitan Way $100,000 Fall 2018
3. Broad Street Bike Boulevard
Phase I
Foothill Blvd at Ferrini $384,400 Summer
2019
Total: $834,400
Estimated SB-1 Funding (subject to change) $834,400
The recommendation of this report establishes a project list for the Fiscal Year 2018-19. The
establishment of this project list does not commit these RMRA funds to these projects. Council
could, at any point prior to expenditure, change funding priorities based upon newer or better
information. Any project list changes would be communicated to the CTC via the annual
expenditure report in October each year. Council will again have an opportunity to determine
whether to use these funds for this work prior to advertising each project for construction bids.
Packet Page 44
8
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
There is no environmental impact resulting from approval of this item. Individual projects
funded under this revenue source will be required to satisfy environmental review, if required, as
part of project development and approval.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no new fiscal impact to this request, however, the initiative to repeal RMRA is currently
circulating for petition, and if enough signatures are achieved the ini tiative would appear on the
November 6th, 2018 ballot. Staff is aware of the potential for repeal and if that occurs staff will
reassess options and return to Council with recommendations for budget amendments as
necessary.
ALTERNATIVE
The City Council could deny adoption of the resolution to fund these three capital improvement
projects using RMRA funds. This is not recommended as the projects are eligible for RMRA
funding. Each of the projects improves critical safety needs on the City’s local streets and road
system.
Attachments:
a - Concrete Paver Sidewalk
b - El Capitan Bridge
c - Broad Street Bike Blvd
d - Draft Resolution
Packet Page 45
8
Meeting Date: 5/16/2017
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director
Prepared By: David Athey, Supervising Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: RAILROAD DISTRICT SIDEWALK ENGINEERING STANDARD
MODIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve modifications to the Railroad District Sidewalk Engineering Standard 4150; and
2. Approve a new Railroad District Tree Well Engineering Standard 8135.
DISCUSSION
This staff report requests the approval of modifications to Engineering Standard 4150 and
approval of new Engineering Standard 8135. Engineering Standard 4150 provides construction
details for Railroad District boardwalk sidewalk. The proposed Engineering Standard 4150
modifications substitute colored concrete pavers for the current wood boardwalk sidewalk. This
change was initiated to reduce ongoing maintenance requirements and risk of people tripping and
falling. The establishment of Engineering Standard 8135 is being proposed to establish a new
tree well standard for the board walk sidewalk. The new standard will bring railroad tree well
construction in line with the rest of the City. The proposed Engineering Standards are a result of
a year-long public review input process.
Background
The Railroad District sidewalk is one of three standard sidewalk designs within the City of San
Luis Obispo. The other two standard designs include the downtown mission style sidewalk and
regular sidewalk used throughout the City. The Railroad District Sidewalk Standard was
established in 1998 along with the Railroad District Design Plan. The boardwalk sidewalk
design is used to honor the historic and cultural roots that San Luis Obispo has with the railroad.
Once installed, the boardwalk sidewalk works well for a couple of years but then starts to require
excessive maintenance. Examples of required
maintenance include protruding screws and
warped, rotted, and splintered boards. A picture
showing typical boardwalk sidewalk maintenance
needs is shown to the right. Therefore, staff
initiated a public process to change the sidewalk
standard to eliminate the trip and fall hazards,
provide a context appropriate sidewalk, and reduce
long-term maintenance costs.
City staff started the public input process by
soliciting boardwalk sidewalk replacement ideas
Picture 1 – Existing Boardwalk Sidewalk
Packet Page 46
8
from local design firms. A total of five different designs were submitted by local firms. The
ideas ranged from stamped concrete to concrete pavers. Each of the designs included elements
that would mimic boards or railroad track type elements. In addition, staff researched boardwalk
replacement ideas including using recycled plastic decking, stamped concrete that mimics the
look of wood, and hard woods such as Ipe as replacements. Staff visited Morro Bay to view both
recycled plastic boardwalk and stamped concrete sidewalk. With this information, staff
submitted a planning application to start the Boardwalk Standard Modification process.
Public Works and Community Development staff worked together to present several design
options to the Cultural Heritage Commission. Staff met with the Cultural Heritage Commission
on August 24, 2015, to present options for boardwalk replacement. The replacement options
included ideas ranging from brick and concrete pavers, stamped concrete, and wood
replacements. A matrix comparing the benefits and disadvantages of each was presented to the
Cultural Heritage Commission. Staff recommended the use of stamped concrete to maintain the
appearance of wood planking. Other interested parties including Railroad Museum
representatives spoke on the subject and supported the use of an alternative material. The
Cultural Heritage Commission ultimately recommended that staff investigate the use of pavers
rather than stamped concrete. In addition, the Cultural Heritage Commission requested that staff
meet with the San Luis Obispo Railroad Museum group to gather input on the proposed
substitute design.
Public Works staff met with the San Luis Obispo Railroad Museum Board on December 8, 2015,
to discuss the various options previously outlined at the Cultural Heritage Commission meeting.
The Museum Board was not in favor of stamped concrete solution as it was perceived as too
artificial for the historic district. The Railroad Museum Board also let staff know that while the
boardwalk was meant to mimic the historic sidewalk in the area, no record of a wood boardwalk
exists. After the Railroad Museum Board discussed the options, unanimous feedback was given
for providing an option that included using pavers rather than stamped concrete or a wood
substitute. In addition, the Railroad Museum Board also requested that the final paver design not
include elements that mimic train tracks (rails and ties) since they have plans to include those
elements in a sidewalk near the museum.
Staff subsequently prepared a supplement to the planning application that outlined Public Works
recommendation to substitute and investigate the use of pavers in lieu of the wood boardwalk.
Since pavers were being recommended to be the substitute material, staff explored paver options
that could be locally sourced, aesthetically pleasing, easily installed, and available in the long-
term. Staff contacted local vendors to explore options for paver materials. Three pavers were
ultimately chosen based on the four criteria. The selected material included one brick paver, and
two concrete pavers with different colors. Three colors were chosen and a test installation of the
three paver types was installed fronting 2098 Santa Barbara Avenue (Miner’s Hardware). A sign
was erected explaining the test and asked the public for input. In addition, pictures of the three
options were posted on Open City Government to solicit feedback from the public. The test and
request for input was also announced on Public Works’ Facebook, Twitter, and Nextdoor
websites. Pictures of the three options are shown below.
Packet Page 47
8
Staff received approximately 45 direct email responses related to the test installation. Staff also
received nine statements from Open City Hall and had 45 separate visitors. The input from open
City Hall is equivalent to 27 minutes of public comment. The comments from both the test
installation and open City hall were just about evenly split between the wire cut red brick
(Picture 3) and railroad blend concrete paver (Picture 4), with the Railroad blend paver getting
more positive comments.
Each of the surfaces have similar roughness when installed per the manufacturer’s
recommendation and compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
Based on Cultural Heritage Commission and public input the Boardwalk Engineering Standard
4150 (see Attachment A) was modified to include concrete pavers as in-lieu of a wood
boardwalk. Concrete pavers provide easy installation, low long-term maintenance cost, and local
availability. The concrete paver is proposed to be tumbled and installed flat side up in order to
provide a smooth, flat surface. The tumbled paver gives an aged appearance. Based on public
popularity the standard is proposed to use the “railroad blend” color (Picture 4, above).
Included with the revised boardwalk standard, a new Tree Well Standard for the boardwalk area
was developed. Currently, the City does not have an Engineering Standard for railroad district
tree wells, as trees can grow through an opening in the boardwalk that is periodically cut wider to
provide an area for the tree. The new standard includes the same tree grates that are currently
installed around the city. Staff decided to develop a new standard to show how the frame and
grate are integrated into the concrete pan under the pavers. The new Railroad District Tree Well
Engineering Standard 8135 is included as Attachment B.
CONCURRENCES
Staff sent the final draft standards to all known Railroad District landowners as a final follow-up.
Staff wanted to ensure that the landowners are aware of the proposed boardwalk change and new
tree well standard. Staff notified the landowners that comments were being sought on the new
standard and could be submitted by April 3rd. Staff has not received any comments as of April
10th. Community Development Department staff have reviewed and concur that the proposed
Boardwalk Sidewalk standard changes are in conformance with the Cultural Heritage
Packet Page 48
8
Commission direction.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action is exempt from environmental review per CEQA Guidelines under the General Rule
(Section 15061(b)(3)). It can be seen with certainty that adoption of Engineering Standards 4150
and 8135 could not have a significant effect on the environment. Specific projects that utilize
Engineering Standards 4150 and 8135 will be subject to CEQA at the time the project is filed.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no immediate public or private fiscal impact that will result from this change. This
change does not require any landowner to install new or replace existing sidewalk. This change
will guide future development and allow the replacement of the existing wood boardwalk with
concrete pavers. The installation of this new sidewalk standard cost is roughly $125 per linear
foot more than the wood boardwalk; however, the extra cost will pay for itself over time from
reduced maintenance and public risk of tripping and falling. The current wood boardwalk
lifespan is five to ten years. The new sidewalk lifespan is estimated to last more than 50-years.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Choose a different paver material or color. Direct staff to investigate using a different
paver material or color. While it is possible to find other colors and paver materials, the
options provided are readily available from vendors within the City.
2. Reject staff’s proposed changes and keep the current wood boardwalk standard. Staff
does not recommend this course of action based on the high maintenance costs and
potential for trip and fall claims.
Attachments:
a - 4150 Rail Road Sidewalk Draft 04-13-2017
b - 8135 Rail Road Tree Well Draft 03-16-2017
Packet Page 49
8
4"5' - 3 3 8"
(VERIFY 16 PAVERS PER ROW PRIOR TO POURING FORMS)
BRICK SIDEWALK
RAILROAD DISTRICT
4150
New (Replaces former Boardwalk)JDL DA 3-17
January 2016 (addendum)
REVISIONS BY APP DATE
STANDARD CURRENT AS OF:
SECTION A-A
PLAN
SECTION B-B
A A
4"
B
1
5
4"
R = 14"
SIDEWALK AND BASE
PER ENG. STD. 4110
1
6
SEE ENG. STD. 4030
1
2
3
4
5
4
1 1"2
21 3
3
GENERAL NOTES:
A. For use in Railroad District only.
B. See Engineering Standard 8135 for Tree Well in Railroad District.
INSTALLATION NOTES:
DRAINAGE: Trowel a 3 4" wide x 1" deep weep slot at 10' O.C. sloping toward the drain outlet. Install a 3 4" diameter PVC
drain pipe through curb face, aligned to bottom of troweled weep slots. Cover paver side of pipe with plastic window
screen mesh and attach with zip tie. Cover mesh with tape during installation and remove tape after forms are removed.
Pipe shall be cut flush with concrete.
BEDDING SAND: 1" min. (2" at weep slots) concrete bedding sand in compliance with ASTM C33 specifications.
PAVERS: Air Vol Block "Railroad Blend" tumbled concrete pavers or approved equal. Pavers shall be Type 1 and meet
ASTM C902 specifications. Brick is not an approved equal.
PATTERN: Pavers shall be installed in a standard "Running Bond" pattern. Cut pavers shall be no less than 2" long or
wide. Surface of paver shall be set flush with curbs.
COMPACTION: After pavers have been laid, sweep surface clean of any debris. ASTM C33 sand shall be swept into
joints. Tamp the pavers into bedding sand with a plate compactor and vibrate sand up into joints. Adjust speed of
compactor to run with high vibration, low amplitude, to avoid a jumping motion. Start at one edge of the sidewalk and
compact the perimeter. Compact remaining area in 4" - 6" overlapping passes. Repeat process, compacting in opposite
direction. Tamp pavers with at least two passes of the compactor at 90° angles to each other. Inspect and replace any
broken pavers.
PAVEMENT REMOVAL & REPAIR: See Engineering Standard 4110.6
1.5% SLOPE
(1% MIN., 2% MAX.)
6"
Packet Page 50
8
Packet Page 51
8
Meeting Date: 10/24/2017
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director
Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
Prepared By: Matt Horn, City Engineer
Jon Ansolabehere, Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT: EL CAPITAN BRIDGE
RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize the Mayor to execute Easement Agreements between the City and the owners of
Lot 7 of Tract 2294 (the Ackermans) and Lot 15 of Tract 2372 (Stonecreek HOA) in a form
approved by the City Attorney; and
2. Authorize the inclusion of the El Capitan Bridge as a City asset, City maintenance
responsibility, and prioritize the repair or replacement within the City’s 2017-19 Bridge
Maintenance Capital Improvement Plan Project upon Easement Agreement execution; and
3. Accelerate Bridge Maintenance Funds from Fiscal Year 2018 -19 to 2017-18 to support this
immediate need.
DISCUSSION
The El Capitan Bridge (“Bridge”) is a pedestrian bridge located at the end of El Capitan Way.
An aerial photo of the bridge and its location is included as Attachment A. In January of 2015, a
large eucalyptus tree fell on the Bridge causing substantial damage. A picture of the present
condition of the Bridge is included as Attachment B. The City immediately closed the Bridge
and investigated ownership since it was not listed as a City asset. Based on this investigation,
City staff discovered that the Bridge spans three different properties – the City’s Open Space lot
on Tract 2248 (the “Open Space Lot”), Lot 7 of Tract 2294 (“Lot 7”) and Lot 15 of Tract 2372
(the “HOA Lot”) – and that the ownership and responsibility to repair the Bridge was
convoluted.
History of the Bridge:
Installation of the Bridge was part of the development of Tract 2294 which was a seven-unit
residential subdivision along El Capitan Way. As part of that development, the City imposed
conditions which required the developer to prepare a “creek preservation and maintenance
agreement…” To satisfy these conditions, the developer recorded a “Creek Preservation and
Maintenance Agreement” (the “Agreement”). Among other things, the Agreement required each
of the seven owners to “…maintain the subject property (open space, creek and bridge) in a
professional manner in perpetuity to the satisfaction of the City’s Public Works Director .” It
appears this document requires the seven owners to perform major repairs of the Bridge. This
arrangement has proven to be impractical. First, only a small portion of the Bridge is constructed
within the tract’s boundaries and the Bridge clearly serves a much larger community. Second,
from a practical perspective, no funding mechanism or insurance was established or otherwise
required by the Agreement to fund maintenance responsibilities or protect these seven owners
Packet Page 52
8
from public liability from Bridge users. As a result, when repairs or maintenance work needs to
be done, the property owners would need to generate the funding and determine the appropriate
share for each of the seven owners. For these reasons, staff is recommending that the City accept
responsibility for the Bridge and take on the repair costs and future maintenance responsibilities.
In order for the City to assume responsibility of the Bridge, the City needs an easement over Lot
7 and the HOA Lot. At first, this seemed like a straightforward issue. However, after looking at
title to each of the properties, staff realized that the HOA Lot was still owned by the original
developer, Bergantz Development Corporation, which dissolved in 2013. Pursuant to Section
2.1.3 of the Stonecreek Development’s CC&Rs, the HOA Lot was supposed to be transferred to
the HOA prior to the sale of the first property within the development. Evidently, that never
occurred. Staff reached out to the former Officers and Directors of the company and eventually
received confirmation that the HOA Lot would be transferred to the Stonecreek HOA. Once the
HOA has title to the property, the HOA will grant the City an easement over a portion of the
HOA Property to allow the City to maintain and repair the Bridge. Likewise, the owners of Lot 7
will grant the City an easement over a small portion of that property to allow maintenance and
repair of the Bridge. Draft Easement Agreements are attached as Attachment D.
Funding and Timing of Repair
To support this immediate and unfunded need, staff is proposing to include the Bridge in the
City’s 2017-19 Bridge Maintenance Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Project, accelerating the
funding one fiscal year, and prioritize this Bridge over others. Currently this CIP Project is
planned to complete preventative maintenance on seven bridges. This maintenance is to prevent
deterioration before it occurs and can be delayed for a short time without significant negative
impact. Repair of the El Capitan bridge is a higher priority due to the pedestrian and bicycle
accessibility and safety issues.
If Council approves of this reprioritization of bridge repairs and acceleration of funding, staff
will engage a structural engineering firm to evaluate the Bridge. They will determine whether
repair or replacement is the most prudent action and will develop plans to publicly bid the
project. When the project is ready to bid, staff will return to Council with a funding plan for
construction costs. Based on preliminary estimates, staff is anticipating the cost of structural
assessment and construction document preparation to be from $35,000 to $45,000. In addition,
construction is anticipated between $75,000 to $100,000. Staff will be diligent to look at lower
cost options that assure pedestrian safety and bridge structural integrity. These estimates are
based on currently available information and are provided to Council as a cost range to consider
when reviewing the project benefits. It should be noted that staff typically does not recommend
assuming responsibility for a new asset not currently in the inventory or in Long Range plans.
This recommendation is based on findings that indicate the City is the only answer to long-term
maintenance and the structure is a community and public asset.
ENVIRONMENTAL
The City’s approval of the easement agreements is not a project under CEQA. Depending on the
scope of the ultimate repair or replacement work, the project may be exempt from CEQA
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities).
Packet Page 53
8
FISCAL IMPACT
The Bridge Maintenance Capital Improvement Plan Project is listed in the 2017-19 Financial
Plan pages E2-120 through E2-121 with funding in the amount of $50,000 which is available in
the fiscal year 2018-19. In order to expedite this repair, staff is recommending accelerating these
funds to the current fiscal. Based on known financial limitations, the most likely funding source
for this construction work is the Road Repair and Accountability Act (SB1) funding. Once the
scope of the bridge work is known and construction costs have been refined, staff will return to
Council with a construction funding plan. This construction funding plan may be included in the
2019-21 Financial Plan process or by separate Council action.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council could choose not to assume maintenance of the Bridge. This is not
recommended because the Bridge is in poor repair and the original arrangement to maintain this
improvement is impractical.
Attachments:
a - Bridge El Capitan Map
b - Current Condition of El Capitan Bridge
c - Easement Agreement - Stonecreek - Draft
d - Easement Agreement - Ackerman - Draft
Packet Page 54
8
Packet Page 558
Current Condition of El Capitan Bridge
Packet Page 56
8
Packet Page 57
8
Meeting Date: 2/6/2018
FROM: Daryl R. Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Jake Hudson, Transportation Manager
Luke Schwartz, Transportation Planner-Engineer
SUBJECT: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD (ANHOLM BIKEWAY) PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Bicycle Advisory Committee, adopt a resolution approving the Anholm
Bikeway Plan Preferred Alternative, as defined in Attachment B.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
Planning efforts for the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard project have progressed with the goal of
developing a safe, low-stress priority route for bicyclists and pedestrians connecting the City’s
Downtown Core to Foothill Boulevard. The corridor also serves as a key safe route to school
corridor for Pacheco and Bishop’s Peak elementary schools. The intent of this effort is to provide
a route that is attractive to not only experienced cyclists, but users of all ages and ability levels.
Based on a two-year process of community engagement and extensive technical analysis, staff
has developed final recommendations for the plan. As directed by the City Council at its August
15, 2017 Study Session, two distinct alternatives have been developed for the most challenging
portion of this route–the segment between Lincoln Street and Foothill Boulevard. Each of the
two proposed alternatives include unique benefits and trade-offs, and varying levels of support
and opposition from the community.
At its August 15, 2017 Study Session, Council directed staff to develop a primary alternative that
provided additional separation for bicyclists by looking at partial on-street parking space
removal. This primary alternative—referred to as the Preferred Alternative—includes installation
of protected/buffered bike lanes along the majority of the route connecting Downtown and
Foothill Boulevard, with the tradeoff of removal of 73 on-street parking spaces. The Lincoln
Street Alternative, a secondary option presented for consideration at the request of the Council,
includes a shared route with pavement markings, route signage and minor traffic calming to
convey the bikeway route. Minimal parking loss is required for the Lincoln Alternative, with the
tradeoff of a less desirable route with lower potential to attract new cyclists and increase bicycle
mode share.
The Bicycle Advisory Committee reviewed the Anholm Bikeway Plan alternatives on January
18, 2018 and has recommended the Preferred Alternative to the City Council for approval.
Council will receive full presentation of each plan along with the pros and cons of each
alternative. Council is asked to consider the technical analysis presented in each plan, and
community input for each alternative, and adopt a final plan to carry forward into design and
implementation. This project supports several key City programs and policies, including the
Packet Page 58
8
Multimodal Transportation Major City Goal, the General Plan objective to achieve 20 percent
bicycle mode share citywide, Climate Action Plan recommendation to increase bicycle use for
transportation, and Vision Zero initiative to eliminate traffic-related deaths and severe injuries
for all the city’s road users by 2030.
DISCUSSION
Background
The Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard has been a component of the City’s Bicycle Transportation
plans since 2007, with the goal of providing a low-stress, priority route for bicyclists and
pedestrians connecting the Downtown Core to Foothill Boulevard. For bicyclists, a “low-stress”
route minimizes stressful factors such as difficult terrain, gaps in connectivity, and most
importantly, perceived safety concerns about conflicts with high-speed/volume motor vehicle
traffic. Simply put, a low-stress route is a connection that is attractive to users of all ages and
ability levels, from families with young children to less-experienced adult cyclists who may be
intimidated sharing the street with vehicular traffic under current conditions. Additionally, the
proposed multimodal corridor serves a dual purpose as a safe routes to school connection for
Pacheco and Bishop’s Peak elementary schools. This project is established as a “first priority”
bike project in the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan and supports several City programs and
policies, including the Multimodal Transportation Major City Goal, the General Plan objective to
achieve 20 percent bicycle mode share citywide, Climate Action Plan, and Vision Zero initiative
to eliminate traffic-related deaths and severe injuries for all the city’s road users by 2030.
Development of this plan began approximately two years ago as part of the 2015 -17 Financial
Plan, and progress has accelerated after adoption of the 2017-19 Financial Plan when the Broad
Street Boulevard project was identified as one of the top priorities in Multimodal Major City
Goal. Over this time, numerous iterations of plan concepts evolved and were focused into a
series of alternatives through several public workshops, community design charrettes, online
forums, and community surveys. Through this public feedback, four themes emerged which were
reflected in the various alternatives. Those four themes, in no particular order, are:
1. The desire for physical separation from motor vehicle traffic—protected lanes;
2. The desire to have the improvements follow the route most cyclists are currently using,
avoiding difficult topography and circuitous routing (i.e. follow existing Desire Lines1);
3. The request to not disrupt or substantially change vehicle flows; and
4. The wish to avoid removal of on-street parking.
In August of 2017, Staff presented preliminary design options to the Bicycle Advisory
Committee (BAC) and City Council to receive direction on narrowing the range of options and
focusing further plan development on one or two alternatives to be brought back before the BAC
and City Council for final action. Council directed staff to continue development of an
1 In transportation planning, desire lines refer to paths created by pedestrians or bicyclists to follow the shortest or
most easily navigated route between origin and destination—often as a shortcut to a more circuitous, or inefficient
designated route. An example would be a dirt footpath worn across a field, created over time by pedestrians or
bicyclists, bypassing a more circuitous paved trail in lieu of a shorter path.
Packet Page 59
8
alternative that included protected bike lanes in exchange for on-street parking on one-side of the
street, with a more in-depth analysis of the associated on-street parking loss. Council also
directed staff to continue development of a secondary alternative following Lincoln Street, which
required minimal parking loss. Staff has completed this work and is now prepared for Council
consideration of final adoption.
Although this planning effort continues to be called the “Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard Plan”,
City staff is recommending that the actual plan document be titled “Anholm Bikeway Plan”
because neither option is technically a bicycle boulevard, nor is it established exclusively on
Broad Street. “Anholm Bikeway Plan” is a working title and will be used herein to refer to the
project; however, staff welcomes any recommendations of alternative titles to the plan. Other
common terms used to describe streets that are intended to provide equal priority for bikes,
pedestrians, transit, automobiles and neighborhood livability are sometimes call “neighborhood
greenways”. Whatever the term that is being used, the intent is to promote all modes and
provide equal access and use.
The Plan
Consistent with Council direction, two alternative plans are being presented for the Northern
Segment of the proposed corridor (Lincoln Street to Foothill Boulevard). These alternatives are:
1. Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes) – Converts one side of on-street parking to
protected or buffered bike lanes, with a route alignment following Chorro, Mission,
Broad, and Ramona.
2. Lincoln Street Alternative (Minimal Parking Loss) – Retains a shared street configuration
where bicyclists and drivers share travel lanes, with a route alignment following Lincoln,
Mission, Broad and Ramona.
Two stand-alone Anholm Bikeway Plan documents have been prepared —one for the Preferred
Alternative, and one for the Lincoln Street Alternative. These documents, which include detailed
project descriptions, conceptual design drawings, analysis of benefits and trade-offs, proposed
costs and implementation strategies, are provided for review as Attachment B and Attachment E.
Each Northern Segment alternative, as well as recommendations for the Southern Segment
(Downtown to Lincoln Street) are summarized below.
Northern Segment – Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)
The Preferred Alternative is described in detail in Attachment B.
The Preferred Alternative, as requested by the City Council for further refinement and study
during the August 2017 Council Study Session, proposes conversion of one side of on-street
parking to dedicated protected/buffered bike lanes along Chorro Street, Broad Street and
Ramona Drive. The proposed corridor includes a two-way protected bikeway on the west side of
Chorro (Lincoln to Mission), shared mixed-flow lanes along the low-traffic portion of Mission
(Chorro to Broad), a southbound buffered/protected bike lane and northbound shared lane on
Broad (Mission to Ramona), a two-way protected bikeway on the north side of Ramona (Broad
to Safe Routes to School Path), and construction of the planned Safe Routes to School
Bicycle/Pedestrian Path connecting Ramona to the planned bicycle/pedestrian crossing at the
Packet Page 60
8
Foothill/Ferrini intersection. Enhanced route signage and pavement markings are proposed
throughout the corridor for wayfinding purposes and to increase the visibility of the corridor as a
priority multimodal route.
The Preferred Alternative makes over 80 percent of the 1.3-mile trip between Downtown and
Foothill Boulevard possible via physically protected or buffered bike lanes —the type of facilities
that are attractive to cyclists of all ages and ability levels. For this reason, this alternative is
expected to have the greatest potential to increase bicycle mode share. The primary tradeoff with
this alternative is the loss of 73 on-street parking spaces along the route, which is the chief
shared concern of neighborhood residents. To better understand the potential effects of this
parking loss on the neighborhood, parking data was collected throughout the vicinity of the
proposed bikeway during fall of 2017. Findings of the parking study are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Peak Period On-Street Parking Conditions with and without Project
It should be noted that this parking analysis does not reflect the recently approved, but not yet
occupied, multifamily residential developments at 22 Chorro and 41 Palomar. As approved,
these projects were found to include on-site parking consistent with City requirements, including
an allowed parking reduction for mixed-use development and for incorporating auto trip
reduction measures, such as increased bicycle parking and other amenities to encourage use of
alternative transportation modes. The proposed implementation and monitoring plan for the
Anholm Bikeway strategically delays removal of street parking fronting residential properties
along Broad and Chorro Streets until a later project phase to allow for monitoring of parking
conditions after occupancy of these development projects. As discussed further below, formation
of a residential permit parking district would be an appropriate strategy to address concerns of
potential parking spillover from these developments into nearby neighborhood streets—
particularly considering that multifamily residential properties are not eligible to receive permits
for street parking within parking districts.
With the reduction in on-street parking supply associated with the proposed bikeway project,
street parking is anticipated to be scarce during peak periods along certain segments of Chorro,
Broad and Ramona. For segments where peak parking demand nears or exceeds available
supply, there is generally available street parking within one-to-two blocks (about a 1- to 3-
minute walk). Some residents who favor parking on street out of convenience may simply park
in their garage or driveway more frequently if parking on street becomes difficult to find.
(Informal observations during parking data collection found that 30-40 percent of residential
driveways were vacant along Chorro and Broad Streets during peak periods). Other residents
living in homes with high auto ownership and/or with limited off-street garage/driveway parking
Packet Page 61
8
will likely continue to rely on street parking and may need to walk 1 -2 blocks at times of peak
demand to find available parking nearby. It’s important to acknowledge that under either
circumstance, some residents consider the lack of readily-available on-street parking fronting
their home as an unacceptable hardship in exchange for improved bicycle facilities.
While there are no adopted plans or policies that obligate the City to provide street parking for
private vehicles, staff is sensitive to the concerns of the neighborhood and have outlined the
following potential strategies in the Anholm Bikeway Plan to address parking concerns:
• Residential Parking District – If the Council moves forward with the Preferred
Alternative, it is recommended that the City initiate the process to form a parking
district(s) in the Anholm neighborhood. Actual boundaries of the district will be
determined as part of this process and will require a 60% vote of support from
households and Council Approval. There is a limit of two permits per residents at a cost
of $15 per permit. The initial $15 permit fee for all is proposed to be funded by the
project at no cost to the neighborhood, any subsequent permit fees would be subject to
the standard provisions of the parking residential parking district program.
• Accessible On-Street Parking – The plan retains on-street parking on at least one side of
the street for the length of the route. On a case-by-case basis, residents can request
installation of designated ADA accessible on-street parking stalls along segments of the
proposed bike route where parking removal is proposed.
• Phasing/Monitoring Strategies – The project is proposed to be constructed in three
phases with a one-year monitoring period and a subsequent performance report that will
be presented to Council. The phasing plan allows for parking removal to occur
incrementally and provides time for initiation a parking district prior to removal of street
parking along Broad and Chorro, if supported by residents. In addition, the initial
installation of protected bike lanes will be made with temporary devices that could easily
be modified/removed and parking restored if the Council Directed staff to do so. Lastly,
the phased approach allows for monitoring and adjustments to project designs and the
possibility of spillover parking from the 71 Palomar and 22 Chorro projects.
Although the Anholm Bikeway Plan is primarily a bicycle project, several other features are
proposed along the Northern Segment to improve safety and mobility for pedestrians, including:
• Installation of speed cushions along Broad between Mission and Ramona to calm traffic
and reduce auto speeds to a level conducive to a walkable, bikeable environment.
• Construction of a raised intersection at Broad/Murray to calm traffic and improve the
intersection crossing environment for pedestrians and bicycles.
• Installation of additional street lighting along the proposed bikeway route.
• Construction of corner bulbouts at Broad/Ramona/Meinecke, new sidewalks along west
side of Broad, installation of accessible curb ramps and higher-visibility crosswalk
markings at several intersections to improve pedestrian accessibility and safety along the
proposed route.
The primary elements of the Preferred Alternative are illustrated in Figure 1.
Packet Page 62
8
Figure 1: Northern Segment Summary Map – Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)
Packet Page 63
8
Northern Segment – Lincoln Street Alternative (Minimal Parking Loss)
The Lincoln Street Alternative is described in detail in Attachment E.
The Lincoln Street Alternative was requested by the City Council for consideration as a
secondary option if the parking loss proposed in the Preferred Alternative is determined to be too
impactful to the neighborhood. This alternative retains a shared street environment throughout
the Northern Segment, where bicyclists and motorists share travel lanes, albeit with the addition
of guide signage, bikeway pavement markings and minor traffic calming measures. The
proposed route alignment follows Lincoln Street (Chorro to Mission), Mission (Lincoln to
Broad), Broad (Mission to Ramona), Ramona (Broad to Safe Routes to School Path), and
construction of the planned Safe Routes to School Bicycle/Pedestrian Path connecting Ramona
to the planned bicycle/pedestrian crossing at the Foothill/Ferrini intersection. This alternative
requires elimination of less than 10 on-street parking spaces—strictly at corners where bulbouts
are proposed to improve pedestrian crossings, and on Ramona at the entry to the planned Safe
Routes to School Path.
While the Lincoln Alternative requires minimal loss of on-street parking, it has the tradeoff of
having less potential to increase bicycle mode share. Lincoln Street is already a superior cycling
environment over Chorro & Broad Street; however, only 12 percent of the approximately 300
daily cyclists that travel between Downtown and Foothill currently choose Lincoln over Broad &
Chorro Streets—mainly due to the route being longer and more circuitous. Pedestrians and
bicyclists using the streets for transportation as opposed to leisure will most commonly choose
the shortest and most intuitive path over a path with an improved environment, even when the
distance or time difference is minor. In addition to this, the Broad Street and Ramona Drive
portions of the proposed bikeway route will continue to carry traffic volumes that exceed the
thresholds generally recommended for shared bicycle streets. Implementation of additional
traffic calming will provide some benefits to cycling along these streets, but the frequent
conflicts with passing autos will likely continue to deter many less experienced riders.
The Lincoln Street Alternative includes the same pedestrian improvements for the Northern
Segment as the Preferred Alternative, which are listed in the previous section of this report.
The primary elements of the Lincoln Street Alternative are illustrated in Figure 2.
Packet Page 64
8
Figure 2: Northern Segment Summary Map – Lincoln St. Alternative (Minimal Parking Loss)
Packet Page 65
8
Southern Segment
One set of recommendations is proposed for the Southern Segment of the Anholm Bikeway Plan,
extending from Downtown (Monterey Street) to Lincoln Street. The plan recommendations for
this segment are summarized as follows:
• Install safety lighting and streetscape enhancements at Highway 101/Chorro Street
undercrossing. Staff will explore opportunities through grants and other City programs to
include community artwork and/or other aesthetic features to enhance this location as a
key gateway to the downtown.
• Extend existing buffered bike lanes on Chorro between Lincoln and Palm, and add
physical separation within buffers to create protected bike lanes.
• Provide enhanced pavement markings and route signage on Chorro between Palm and
Monterey to convey the priority bikeway link into Downtown.
• Construct corner bulbouts at Chorro/Walnut to shorter pedestrian crossing exposure.
• Install accessible curb ramps and enhanced crossing markings for bicycles and
pedestrians at the Chorro/Peach and Chorro/Walnut intersections.
Potential Highway 101/Broad Street Ramp Closure
In the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan, the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard identifies a
potential future grade-separated bicycle/pedestrian crossing of Highway 101 at Broad Street .
This project has been considered as part of this planning process however the scope of the
project is significant and requires the ultimate closure of the Broad Street 101 on- and off-ramps
by Caltrans. Recent studies of the potential closure of the Broad Street ramps by both the City
and Caltrans, including consideration for closure of the southbound ramps only, have concluded
that closure of the ramps is not feasible at this time without significant, and costly improvements
to the adjacent Highway 101/Santa Rosa Street (Highway 1) interchange. A separate project
would need to be created to consider the system implications of such a closure that is beyond the
scope of the bicycle boulevard project. In addition to the high-cost improvements required
simply to facilitate closure of the ramps, construction of the grade-separated pedestrian/bicycle
crossing would involve substantial costs and funding challenges on its own. For these reasons,
these improvements are not included as part of the Anholm Bikeway Plan at this time; however,
staff will continue to work with Caltrans to pursue closure of the ramps and will reevaluate the
potential for a pedestrian/bicycle crossing at this location in future years if closure of the ramps
becomes feasible. Making the recommended improvements along Chorro south of Lincoln Street
improves the bicycle separation objectives of bike plan without significant operation impacts or
capital cost outlay.
Community Input
To supplement the input already received at previous community meetings and via the project’s
web forum, staff conducted additional informal surveys of residents to gauge support for the two
proposed project alternatives for the Northern Segment. An online survey was made available for
citywide participation via the project webpage, while a mail-in survey was distributed to
approximately 1,200 residents in the Broad and Chorro neighborhood. In total, 697 survey
responses have been received as of January 16, 2018. The results of this survey are summarized
below.
Packet Page 66
8
As shown in the survey results, there is a clear differentiation of the support for either alternative
between the community-wide sample and residents of the Anholm neighborhood. This would be
expected as it mirrors concerns of the residents regarding potential parking removal. Where
survey participants selected “Other” as a preferred option, comments generally supported no
change at all, many citing the limited benefit of the Lincoln alternative, or prioritization of other
improvements in the city over this project. All comments received during the community survey
process are included as a Council Reading File in Attachment G.
Implementation Strategy
The proposed implementation strategy is similar for either alternative and includes the two
elements of the recently adopted Safe Routes to School (SRTS) plan for Bishop’s Peak and
Pacheco Elementary Schools: the bike and pedestrian crossing at Foothill/Ferrini and the Class I
Path between Foothill & Ramona. Proposed project phasing is summarized as follows:
Phase I (2018-19)
1. Right of Way Acquisition from Church of Latter Day Saints Property
2. Processing of Residential Parking District
3. Construction of Bicycle & Pedestrian Crossing at Foothill & Ferrini
4. Construction of SRTS Class I Path between Foothill & Ramona
5. Installation of Measures along Ramona (Depending on Adopted Plan)
- 12 Month Performance Monitoring and Status Report to Council
- Continued coordination with Caltrans on Highway 1 & 101 Improvements &
Following Broad Ramp Closure.
Packet Page 67
8
Phase II (2019-20)
1. Installation of Temporary Measures South of Ramona (Depending on Adopted Plan)
2. Installation of Lighting and Streetscape Enhancements at Chorro & 101 Undercrossing.
- 12 Month Performance Monitoring and Status Report to Council
- Continued coordination with Caltrans on Hwy 1 & 101 Improvements & Following
Broad Ramp Closure.
Phase III (2020 & Beyond)
1. Incremental conversion of Temporary Measures to Permanent installations
2. Installation of ancillary spot improvements, such as raised intersection at Broad/Murray,
installation of sidewalks along west side of Broad, curb ramps and additional street lights.
- Continued coordination with Caltrans on Hwy 1 & 101 Improvements & Following
Broad Ramp Closure.
CONCURRENCES
The Bicycle Advisory Committee reviewed the Anholm Bikeway Plan alternatives on January
18, 2018, and recommended approval of the Preferred Alternative to the City Council. Due to the
limited time between the Bicycle Advisory Committee Meeting and City Council Meeting, draft
minutes will be provided as part of Council Correspondence.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The findings of the CEQA environmental analysis conducted for each project alternative is
included as Attachment C and Attachment F.
Per Section 15304 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the
project is categorically exempt from CEQA under Class 1, Existing Facilities; Section 15301 and
Class 4, Minor Alterations to Land, because the project would be constructed on existing city
streets within the public right of way. The project will be constructed in an area that has no value
as habitat for biological resources and would not be located in agricultural areas. The proposed
street lights would be located in an urban area and would not significantly increase light or glare
beyond existing conditions. The project has been reviewed by the City Public Works Department
(Transportation Division) and Community Development Department, and no significant traffic
impacts were identified, based on the description and location of the project. The project is
consistent with General Plan policies that promote an integrated system of bikeways, walkways,
and traffic calming measures that promote a safe, multimodal transportation network.
FISCAL IMPACT
Staff is proposing to implement elements of the Bishop’s Peak and Pacheco Safe Routes to
School Plan in conjunction with the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard (Anholm Bikeway) Plan—
both projects are included in the adopted FY2017-19 Financial Plan. There is currently $610,000
approved through FY2018/19 in the FY2017-19 Financial Plan for project implementation. At
Packet Page 68
8
the time the current financial plan was adopted, the scope was yet to be defined and the cost
estimates were speculative for the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard (Anholm Bikeway) Plan. For
example, a final plan had yet to be adopted and potential costs could range significantly,
depending on the type of features to be approved. The cost for Phase I of the Anholm Bikeway
(Preferred Alternative) improvements is estimated at $900,000, leaving a budget shortfall of
$290,000 for Phase I. To address this shortfall, staff will be requesting $290,000 as part of the
FY2017-19 Budget Supplement through SB-1 State funding.
Phase II of Anholm Bikeway Plan implementation is included in the five-year Capital
Improvement Program (CIP), with $270,000 identified for FY2019/20. Again, at the time the
current Financial Plan was adopted, the scope of these improvements was yet to be defined.
Under the recommended plan, the estimated cost for Phase II implementation is $475,000. Staff
will be requesting these funds as part of the FY2019-21 Financial Plan. Due to the incremental
nature of Phase III implementation, it’s anticipated that these improvements can be scaled and
phased in as future budgets permit.
Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard (Anholm Bikeway Plan) improvements are under consideration
for inclusion in the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Program update, which is expected to be
finalized in 2018 and could provide additional funding opportunities. In addition, staff will
pursue any available grant funding for unfunded portions of the project.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Council could adopt a resolution adopting the Anholm Bikeway plan under a hybrid of
features from the Preferred Alternative (protected bike lanes) and the Lincoln Alternative
(shared streets).
An example hybrid plan could include the Preferred Alternative’s protected lanes on
Chorro & Ramona, with the Lincoln Alternative’s class III shared lanes, traffic calming,
and no parking removal on Broad where parking is most limited. This example is a
supportable alternative by staff.
2. Council could adopt a resolution adopting the Anholm Bikeway Plan under the Lincoln
Street Alternative, as defined in Attachment E. Staff does not recommend this alternative
because this option is expected to have limited effect on achieving the bicycle mode share
goals, as adopted in the City General Plan.
3. Council could either defer adoption of any plan to some future point uncertain or decide
to adopt no plan and direct staff to return with an amendment to the Bicycle
Transportation plan removing the planned facility augmentation.
Packet Page 69
8
Attachments:
a - Council Resolution Adopting the Anholm Bikeway Plan (Preferred Alt)
b - Council Reading File - Final Report (Preferred Alt)
c - CEQA Notice of Exemption (Preferred Alternative)
d - Council Resolution Adopting the Anholm Bikeway Plan (Lincoln Alt)
e - Council Reading File - Final Report (Lincoln Alt)
f - CEQA Notice of Exemption (Lincoln Alternative)
g - Council Reading File - Final Survey Summary
Packet Page 70
8
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. (2018 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE 2018-19 LIST OF
PROJECTS FUNDED BY SB 1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017
(Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the California legislature and signed into law by the
Governor in April 2017 to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls
statewide; and
WHEREAS, SB 1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the
residents of the City are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and which
projects have been completed each fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the City must include a list of all projects proposed to receive funding from
the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1, in the City budget,
which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule
for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and
WHEREAS, the City, will receive an estimated $834,400 in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year
2018-19; and
WHEREAS, the City has undergone a robust public process to ensure public input into
our community’s transportation priorities, and budgeting process that has been adopted by City
Council that includes a full listing of Capital Improvements Projects and funding sources including
SB-1; and
WHEREAS, the City used a Pavement Management System and other goals such as the
complete streets elements and bicycle and pedestrian safety to develop the SB 1 project list to
ensure revenues are being used on the most high-priority and cost-effective projects that also meet
the community’s priorities for transportation investment; and
WHEREAS, the funding from SB 1 will help the City maintain and rehabilitate
streets/roads, sidewalks, and add active transportation infrastructure throughout the City this year
and similar projects into the future; and
WHEREAS, the 2016 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment
found that the County of San Luis Obispo’s streets and roads are in an “at-risk” condition but the
City of San Luis Obispo’s streets and roads are in a “good” condition, regardless this revenue will
help us increase the overall quality of our road system and over the next decade and make critical
improvements to transportation that will assist in greenhouse gas emission reductions and active
transportation safety; and
WHEREAS, if the Legislature and Governor failed to act, continued reductions in the
State gas tax as well as lack of indexing of the Federal and State gas tax to key indicators such as
inflation has reduced available revenue to the City for these purposes; and
Packet Page 71
8
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 2
R ______
WHEREAS, cities and counties own and operate more than 81 percent of streets and roads
in California, and people are dependent upon a safe, reliable local transportation network; and
WHEREAS, modernizing the local street and road system, incorporating complete street
elements and improving active transportation facilities provides well-paying construction jobs and
boosts local economies; and
WHEREAS, the local street and road and active transportation system is critical for farm
to market needs, interconnectivity, multimodal needs, greenhouse gas emission reductions and
commerce; and
WHEREAS, maintaining and preserving the local street and road system in good condition
will reduce drive times and traffic congestion, improve bicycle safety, and make the pedestrian
experience safer and more appealing, which leads to reduce vehicle emissions helping the State
achieve its air quality and greenhouse gas emissions reductions goals; and
WHEREAS, the SB 1 project list and overall investment in our local streets and roads
infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets
infrastructure and active transportation projects, and using cutting-edge technology, materials and
practices, will have significant positive co-benefits statewide.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
that as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
2. That any City projects utilizing SB-1 funding will adhere to SB-1 program
requirements, including but not limited to: incorporating, as feasible, complete
streets components into basic infrastructure maintenance projects and a minimum
useful life of 20 years; and,
3. The $834,400 for fiscal year 2018-19 project list and useful life criteria for the three
projects planned to be funded with Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account
(SB-1) revenues:
Packet Page 72
8
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 3
R ______
Project Location 2018-19
Funding
Anticipated
Year of
Completion
Estimated
Useful Life
(min)
1. Concrete Paver
Sidewalk
Santa Barbara – Broad
to Leff
$350,000 2018 50 Years
2. El Capitan Bridge El Capitan Way $100,000 2019 100 Years
3. Broad Street Bike
Boulevard Phase I
Foothill Blvd at Ferrini $384,400 2019 20 Years
Total SB1 Funding $834,400 -
Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _______________________, 2018.
Mayor Heidi Harmon
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, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
Packet Page 73
8
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Page 74
8
Meeting Date: 4/17/2018
FROM: Derek Johnson, Interim Finance Director
Prepared by: Rico Pardo, Accounting Manager/Controller
SUBJECT: 2016-17 CENTRAL SERVICE COST ALLOCATION PLANS AND COST
OF SERVICES FEE CALCULATION
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve the 2016-17 Central Service Cost Allocation Plans dated March 2017; and
2. Approve the Cost of Services Fee Calculation.
DISCUSSION
Cost Allocation and Reimbursement to the General Fund
Consistent with best practices, the City has prepared a formal Central Service Cost Allocation Plan
(CAP). One of the primary uses of the CAP is to quantify in dollars, the relationship between
administrative and support services contained within the General Fund, also known as central
service cost centers, and the programs they support throughout the City to provide reimbursement
for those services to the General Fund. In other words, and as examples, the CAP identifies the costs
to provide service to the City’s enterprise funds (Water, Sewer, Parking and Transit) for activities
such as issuing paychecks to all employees, conducting recruitments or providing other support to
these departments which are paid for by the General Fund. The CAP can also be used to determine
the appropriate amount of administrative and support costs that may be charged to an existing or
new grant.
The CAP is prepared using actual operating expenses from one year and the resulting cost
allocations are programmed into the City’s budget two years later. Basing the CAP on actual
amounts allows the City to avoid the need to recalculate and true-up the allocations at a later date,
making it easier for the programs to manage the costs represented by the calculation. In this case,
the CAP is based on 2016-17 actual costs and the cost allocations are reflected in the 2018-19
proposed budget.
Two CAP Documents Required
There are two CAP documents presented. The first is a full cost plan which considers all
administrative and support costs that are allocated across all programs. The second CAP is the 2
Code of Federal Regulations Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and
Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR 200). The 2 CFR 200 supersedes, consolidates,
and streamlines requirements from the Office of Management & Budget Circular A-87 which was
the previous document that dictated out the reporting requirements for charging indirect costs to
federal grant programs – such as transit. The purpose of 2 CFR 200 is to streamline Federal
government’s guidance on administrative requirements, costs principles, and audit requirements to
more effectively focus Federal resources on improving performance and outcomes and disclose the
costs of services and goods provided using federal funds. Under the 2 CFR 200, the costs of certain
Packet Page 75
9
functions, such as the City Council, are not to be allocated to other programs.
The full cost version of the CAP establishes the allocable costs shown in the table below for the
Water, Sewer, Parking and Whale Rock Funds. There are no “Direct Billing Adjustments” to
offset the allocable costs; however, this column is included for presentation purposes only.
“Direct Billing Adjustments” would represent amounts that offset the CAP-generated cost
allocation to the Enterprise Funds as certain costs initially allocated to the Enterprise Fun ds may
be charged back to the General Fund. The “Actual” column is the net amount that will be
transferred to the General Fund.
2018-19 Reimbursement Transfers (Full CAP)
Fund
Cost Allocation Based
on 2016-17 Actuals
Direct Billing
Adjustments Actual
Water 1,326,787$ -$ 1,326,787$
Sewer 1,554,446 - 1,554,446
Parking 526,529 - 526,529
Whale Rock 128,141 - 128,141
Total 3,535,903$ -$ 3,535,903$
The table below reflects the costs from the 2 CFR 200 that are allocable to the Transit Fund.
2018
-19
Reimbursement Transfers (2 CFR 200)
Upon approval by the Council, the 2 CFR 200 certification will be signed by the Finance
Director/City Treasurer.
Cost of Services Analysis
In addition to the Cost Allocation Plan, the City has also prepared a Cost of Service Analysis
which establishes the annual cost of providing the Water and Sewer Enterprise Funds with access
to the City’s right of way property as well as the cost of providing police and fire protection for
both funds. As part of the fee analysis that was prepared, enterprise facilities that are not within
the city limits were excluded from consideration. The cost of service calculation yielded the
following amounts for the years shown. For 2017-18, actual costs from 2015-16 were used and
for the 2018-19 calculation, actual costs from 2016-17 formed the basis for these calculations.
Fund
Cost Allocation
Based on 2016-17
Actuals
Direct Billing
Adjustments Actual
Transit 381,760$ -$ 381,760$
Total 381,760$ -$ 381,760$
Packet Page 76
9
Water Enterprise 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
Public Safety $ 229,410 $ 248,055 $ 215,759
Right of Way 331,835 356,411 393,733
Total $ 561,245 $ 604,466 $ 609,492
Sewer Enterprise
Public Safety $ 259,982 $ 214,629 $ 194,867
Right of Way 230,337 247,692 274,049
Total $ 490,319 $ 462,321 $ 468,916
CONCURRENCES
The Public Works and Utilities Departments have reviewed this report and participated in the Cost
Allocation Plan. The future Cost Allocation Plan will analyze different methodologies for assigning
costs based on new approaches to distributing public safety costs.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This is not a project under CEQA.
FISCAL IMPACT
The 2016-17 Central Services Full Cost Allocation Plan, net of direct billing adjustments results in a
total cost recovery of $3,917,663 in 2018-19. This amount is $250 thousand lower than the 2015-16
Cost Allocation Plan. The main factor contributing to the variance is the fact that the Utilities
Department has taken on the personnel and operating costs associated with utility billing in fiscal
year 2016-17. The $3,917,633 is $375 thousand lower than the budgeted amount in 2018-19 and
will result in an adjustment with the 2018-19 Supplemental Budget. The amount is also
approximately $160 thousand lower than ongoing assumptions for the long-term forecast and the
assumptions will be reviewed with the next financial plan development.
The cost of services fee calculation identified a total of $1,078,408 in costs that are allocable to the
Utility Enterprise Funds for 2018-19.
ALTERNATIVE
The City Council could choose not to accept the CAP’s findings. Staff does not recommend this
alternative because the General Fund would bear the full costs for various programs, grants,
contracts, and agreements.
Packet Page 77
9
Attachments:
a - Summary of FY 2016-17 Full CAP
b - Summary of FY 2016-17 2 CFR 200
c - Cost of Services Fee Calculation
d - Council Reading File - FY 2016-17 San Luis Obispo Full CAP
e - Council Reading File - FY 2016-17 San Luis Obispo 2 CFR 200
Packet Page 78
9
Packet Page 79
9
Packet Page 80
9
Packet Page 81
9
Packet Page 82
9
Packet Page 83
9
This Page Intentionally Left Blank Packet Page 84
9
Packet Page 85
9
Packet Page 86
9
Packet Page 87
9
Packet Page 88
9
Packet Page 89
9
Packet Page 90
9
Packet Page 91
9
Packet Page 92
9
Packet Page 93
9
Packet Page 94
9
Packet Page 95
9
Packet Page 96
9
Packet Page 97
9
Packet Page 98
9
Packet Page 99
9
Packet Page 100
9
Packet Page 101
9
Packet Page 102
9
Packet Page 103
9
Packet Page 104
9
Packet Page 105
9
This Page Intentionally Left Blank Packet Page 106
9
Packet Page 107
9
Packet Page 108
9
Packet Page 109
9
Packet Page 110
9
Packet Page 111
9
Packet Page 112
9
Packet Page 113
9
Packet Page 114
9
Packet Page 115
9
Packet Page 116
9
Packet Page 117
9
Packet Page 118
9
Packet Page 119
9
Packet Page 120
9
Packet Page 121
9
Packet Page 122
9
Packet Page 123
9
Packet Page 124
9
Packet Page 125
9
Enterprise Cost of Services Allocation Summary‐2015‐16 using 2013‐14 Actual Amounts
Allocation Type
Water
Enterprise
Sewer
Enterprise
Total Enterprise
Allocation
Public Safety 148,054$ 219,357$ 367,411$
Right‐of‐Way Maintenance 321,554$ 227,076$ 548,630$
Direct Credit for Private Sec. ‐$ (3,360)$ (3,360)$
Total 469,608$ 443,073$ 912,681$
Enterprise Cost of Services Allocation Summary‐2016‐17 using 2014‐15 Actual Amounts
Allocation Type
Water
Enterprise
Sewer
Enterprise
Total Enterprise
Allocation
Public Safety 229,410$ 259,982$ 489,392$
Right‐of‐Way Maintenance 331,835$ 234,337$ 566,172$
Direct Credit for Private Sec. ‐$ (4,000)$ (4,000)$
Total 561,245$ 490,319$ 1,051,564$
Enterprise Cost of Services Allocation Summary‐2017‐18 using 2015‐16 Actual Amounts
Allocation Type
Water
Enterprise
Sewer
Enterprise
Total Enterprise
Allocation
Public Safety 248,055$ 214,629$ 462,684$
Right‐of‐Way Maintenance 356,411$ 251,692$ 608,103$
Direct Credit for Private Sec.‐$ (4,000)$ (4,000)$
Total 604,466$ 462,321$ 1,066,787$
Enterprise Cost of Services Allocation Summary‐2018‐19 using 2016‐17 Actual Amounts
Allocation Type
Water
Enterprise
Sewer
Enterprise
Total Enterprise
Allocation
Public Safety 215,759$ 194,867$ 410,627$
Right‐of‐Way Maintenance 393,733$ 278,049$ 671,782$
Direct Credit for Private Sec.‐$ (4,000)$ (4,000)$
Total 609,493$ 468,916$ 1,078,409$
Packet Page 126
9
Meeting Date: 4/17/2018
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Michael J. McGuire, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: SINSHEIMER STADIUM BACKSTOP, SPECIFICATION No. 91543
RECOMMENDATION
1. Award a contract to Judge Netting in the amount of $129,900 for the “Sinsheimer Stadium
Backstop Replacement, Specification No. 91543”; and
2. Approve the transfer of $55,000 from the Parks Major Maintenance Master account to the
project construction phase.
DISCUSSION
On February 23, 2018, bids were opened for the Sinsheimer Stadium Backstop project. Of the two
bids received, both bids were over the Engineer’s Estimate of $80,000. The bid from Harris Steel
Fence was non-responsive, as the company did not attend one of the mandatory pre-bid walk
through meetings on February 13, 2018. Staff reviewed the bid documents, legal requirements, and
contacted references, and concluded that Judge Netting is the lowest cost responsive bid submitted
by a responsible bidder. Staff recommends awarding a construction contract to Judge Netting.
(Attachment A)
Bid Results
Engineer’s Estimate Judge Netting Harris Steel Fence
$80,000 $129,900 $182,648
The bid from Judge Netting at $129,900 is the lowest cost responsive bid submitted by a responsible
bidder. The difference between the bid prices and engineer’s estimate can partly be attributed to
the strong economic conditions and the large volume of work available to the contracting
community. This has resulted in higher costs for construction contracts due to the overall
increase in demand.
Baseball season for the SLO Blues team begins on May 25th and extends through July. If the City
Council chooses to award the contract, construction work will begin after the baseball season is
complete. This will eliminate impacts to gameplay at Sinsheimer Stadium and is acceptable to
the contractor.
CONCURRENCES
Award of the project has the concurrence of the Parks and Recreation Department.
Packet Page 127
10
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Community Development Department has issued a Notice of Exemption pursuant to Section
15302 Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction) of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines.
FISCAL IMPACT
Currently, the Parks Major Maintenance account for construction contains $479,285, enough to
fully fund the $55,000 additional funding needed for this project, leaving a remaining balance of
$424,285. The remaining parks major maintenance projects budgeted for the 2017-18 year
include the Meadow Park Pedestrian Bridge replacements, improvements to Sinsheimer Court
hardscape, and design of the replacement of the irrigation and drainage systems at Sinsheimer
Park. Regardless of this request for additional funding, the existing balance of $479,285 is likely
insufficient to fully fund the above listed 2017-2018 projects based upon current cost estimates.
Additional funding of $290,000 will be available for year 2018-19 projects, for a total amount of
$714,285 (accounting for this request). These additional funds are planned to be used to
supplement the funding of the remaining projects. Future Parks Major Maintenance & Repairs
funding will be requested in the 2019-2021 Financial Plan to address parks maintenance needs.
This project is fully funded by the Local Revenue Enhancement fund.
ALTERNATIVE
Deny awarding the project. The City Council could choose to postpone the project. Staff does
not recommend this alternative. Further delay of replacing the backstop will only increase the
costs associated with the construction phase of work. Additionally, the precarious nature of the
existing backstop could result in collapse of all or part of the backstop.
Attachments:
a - Contract
Construction:129,900$
Construction Contingencies:13,000$
Total for Construction:142,900$
Printing/Advertising:300$
Special Inspection:10,300$
Total for other costs:10,600$
Total Cost of Project:153,500$
Available Budget:98,500$
Additional Funds Needed:55,000$
Packet Page 128
10
- 1 -
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CALIFORNIA
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made on this ______ day of ___________, 20__, by and between the City of San Luis Obispo,
a municipal corporation and charter city, San Luis Obispo County, California (hereinafter called the Owner) and
Judge Netting (hereinafter called the Contractor).
WITNESSETH:
That the Owner and the Contractor for the consideration stated herein agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1, SCOPE OF WORK: The Contractor shall perform everything required to be performed, shall
provide and furnish all of the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and
transportation services required to complete all the work of construction of
SINSHEIMER STADIUM BACKSTOP, SPECIFICATION NO. 91543
in strict compliance with the plans and specifications therefor, including any and all Addenda, adopted by the Owner, in
strict compliance with the Contract Documents hereinafter enumerated.
It is agreed that said labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished and said work performed and
completed under the direction and supervision and subject to the approval of the Owner or its authorized representatives.
ARTICLE II, CONTRACT PRICE: The Owner shall pay the Contractor as full consideration for the faithful
performance of this Contract, subject to any additions or deductions as provided in the Contract Documents, the contract
prices as follows:
Item
No.
Item Unit of
Measure
Estimated
Quantity
Item Price
(in figures)
Total
(in figures)
1. Backstop Replacement LS 1 $129,900.00 $129,900.00
BID TOTAL: $129,900.00
Payments are to be made to the Contractor in compliance with and subject to the provisions embodied in the documents
made a part of this Contract.
Should any dispute arise respecting the true value of any work omitted, or of any extra work which the Contractor may
be required to do, or respecting the size of any payment to the Contractor, during the performance of this Contract, said
dispute shall be decided by the Owner and its decision shall be final, and conclusive.
ARTICLE III, COMPONENT PARTS OF THIS CONTRACT: The Contract consists of the following documents,
all of which are as fully a part thereof as if herein set out in full, and if not attached, as if hereto attached:
1. Notice to Bidders and information for bidders.
4. Standard Specifications, Engineering Standards, Special Provisions, and any Addenda.
5. Plans.
6. Caltrans Standard Specifications and Standard Plans 2010
7. Accepted Bid.
8. List of Subcontractors.
9. Public Contract Code Sections 10285.1 Statement.
10. Public Contract Code Section 10162 Questionnaire.
Packet Page 129
10
- 2 -
11. Public Contract Code Section 10232 Statement.
12. Labor Code Section 1725.5 Statements.
13. Bidder Acknowledgements.
14. Qualifications.
15. Attach Bidders Bond to Accompany Bid.
16. Non-collusion Declaration.
17. Agreement and Bonds.
18. Insurance Requirements and Forms.
ARTICLE IV INDEMNIFICATION: Hold Harmless and Indemnification. The Contractor agrees to defend,
indemnify, protect and hold the City and its agents, officers and employees harmless from and against any and all claims
asserted or liability established for damages or injuries to any person or property, including injury to the Contractor's
employees, agents or officers that arise from or are connected with or are caused or claimed to be caused by the acts or
omissions of the Contractor, and its agents, officers or employees, in performing the work or services herein, and all
expenses of investigating and defending against same; provided, however, that the Contractor's duty to indemnify and
hold harmless shall not include any claims or liability arising from the established sole negligence or willful misconduct
of the City, its agents, officers or employees. In the event of conflict with any other indemnification or hold harmless
provisions of this Agreement, the provision that provides the most protection to the City shall apply.
ARTICLE V. It is further expressly agreed by and between the parties hereto that should there be any conflict between
the terms of this instrument and the bid of said Contractor, then this instrument shall control and nothing herein shall be
considered as an acceptance of the said terms of said bid conflicting herewith.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands this year and date first above
written.
ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
__________________________ By:_________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR:
Name of Company
By: __________________________
J. Christine Dietrick Name of CAO/President
City Attorney Its: CAO/President
Packet Page 130
10
Meeting Date: 4/17/2018
FROM: Derek Johnson, City Manager
Prepared By: Shelly Stanwyck, Parks and Recreation Director
Monica Irons, Human Resources Director
Greg Hermann, Interim Deputy City Manager
Alex Ferriera, Budget Manager
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF A FISCAL HEALTH RESPONSE PLAN AND
STRATEGIC DIRECTION TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a Fiscal Health Response Plan; and
2. Provide feedback and direction to staff regarding the application of the Fiscal Health
Response Plan to the 2018-19 Supplemental Budget to be reviewed and considered for
adoption in June 2018; and
3. Provide direction regarding the possible initiation of a cannabis sales tax measure and
direct staff to return with more information for consideration on May 15, 2018.
REPORT IN BRIEF
This report has two sections for Council to receive and provide direction on.
1. Consideration and Adoption of Proposed Fiscal Health Response Plan.
2. Strategic Direction Regarding Application of Fiscal Health Response Plan to the 2018-19
Budget Supplement.
This report a summary of why a Fiscal Health Response Plan (“FHRP or Plan”) is needed and
the components of the Plan based on Council direction on December 12, 2017. This is followed
by a general description of the Plan itself along with highlights of Plan Components. How the
Plan would be applied to the General Fund and Enterprise Funds during its three-year term is
also discussed so that Council can provide strategic direction in preparation of the 2018 -19
Budget Supplement.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to good fiscal health and the delivery of quality
services to the community. With the development of the 2017-19 Financial Plan, Council
adopted the Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility Major City Goal with a work program to
address long-term fiscal health. This Major City Goal (MCG) contains five distinct objectives: 1)
Packet Page 131
11
Citizen Task Force, 2) Economic Development and Responsiveness, 3) Fiscal Responsibility
Including Actions to Ensure Structurally Balanced Fiscal Outlook, 4) Long Term Unfunded
Liabilities and 5) Infrastructure Financing. In July 2017, the Council decided not to form a
Citizen Task Force. This report addresses specific work tasks in the third and fourth objectives.
A separate major work area of the goal, relates to the City’s long-term capital improvement
project needs and how to fund them. That work effort is the subject of a separate April 17, 2018
agenda item titled ‘Funding the Future of SLO’.
Last year, in preparing an extended 10-year fiscal forecast to account for rapidly rising pension
costs, a budget problem was identified as it relates to a growing unfunded liability due to
actuarial assumption changes adopted by CalPERS.
The Problem
At its December 12, 2017 meeting, Council received a report titled Budget Foundation: Fiscal
Health Response Plan. This report (Attachment A) articulates the need to reduce ongoing
expenditures by $8.9 million in all funds by 2020 -2021 ($7.5 million in General Fund and $1.4
million from the Enterprise Funds) to address the long-term financial impacts related to pension
costs. As detailed in the report, the need to immediately address these pension costs is the result
of significant policy changes made by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System
(CalPERS) affecting the unfunded liabilities of all PERS member organizations.
The City’s fiscal forecasts are based on the economic conditions and information known at a
particular point in time. Multiple resources are used to develop the forecasts. The City partners
with Beacon Economics to monitor the economic climate and inform financial forecasts by
taking into account macroeconomics at the Federal, State and local levels. The City also
contracts with HdL Companies for detailed analysis of City sales tax and wit h MuniServices on
utility users tax. Given CalPERS December 2016 policy changes, which lowered the discount
rate (or assumed expected rate of return) on investments from 7.5% to 7% over a three-year
period, the City’s 10-year fiscal forecast identified negative impacts to the long-term fiscal health
of the City. The result is that if no change is made to operating budgets, expenditures will begin
to outpace revenues in 2018-19 for all funds.
To address the problem, and to regain a balanced budget, in December 2017, consistent with the
Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility MCG, Council authorized staff to develop a plan to
provide general strategic direction and a road map to long-term fiscal health and financial
sustainability over a period of three fiscal years, 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21 for all City
Funds – A Fiscal Health Response Plan (FHRP or “The Plan”).
THE PROPOSED FISCAL HEALTH RESPONSE PLAN
Purpose
The purpose of the FHRP is to establish a framework to respond to the long-term fiscal impacts
of the significant increases in required pension contributions to the CalPERS retirement system.
Packet Page 132
11
Outline of Plan Contents
The FRHP contains the following sections and is Attachment B to this agenda report.
Highlights of FHRP’s Elements
The FHRP’s elements contain three key components and two options to maximize the impact of
the City’s payments made to address its unfunded liabilities. The Elements of the Plan will be
applied to the 2018-19 Budget Supplement as discussed further in this report as well as to the
2019-21 Financial Plan process. Here are the Plan’s elements.
Key Components: A Balanced Allocation
Existing financial policies provide the foundation for the Plan. The Plan itself emphasizes three
components with reductions in each to be applied in a balanced manner. Below is how the
allocations of the components are proposed to be applied over the three-year period in the Plan to
the General Fund. The Enterprise Funds (Water, Sewer, Parking, and Transit) will be solving the
problem too but based on their fund type and unique situations.
Packet Page 133
11
How Enterprise Funds are Different
The City’s Four Enterprise Funds: Water, Sewer, Parking and Transit are funded by rates
and/or fees for the services provided. Transit is primarily funded through Federal and State
grants and programs in combination with a 20% match from fares. Increases to rates and/or fees
will not be made to close this budget gap in the Enterprise Funds. Any changes to those rates
and/or fees in the Enterprise Funds during the fiscal periods of this Plan will be due to other cost
increases unrelated to unfunded pension liability cost increases.
New Revenues
The General Fund’s primary sources of revenues are from taxes and fees for services.
Consideration of a General Fund tax on Cannabis, requiring voter approval, is proposed as the
primary new General Fund revenue for this component of the Plan. The Enterprise Funds will
not participate in new revenues in the same way as the General Fund as they are funded by rates
and/or fees for service. Changes to Enterprise Fund rates or fees for service during the term of
this Plan will be for cost increases not associated with the CalPERS discount rate changes.
New revenues stemming from Cannabis would arise from a new general tax on that emerging
industry and any new revenues would only apply to businesses operating within City limits. This
potential revenue stream is discussed below (in the applying the Plan section) and is based on the
assumption that a majority of the voters in the City approve of a Cannabis sales tax for general
purposes. Council will receive detailed information on this topic on May 15th. If Council directs
staff to place a Cannabis tax on the ballot at that time, staff would return to Council in June for
an action to place a revenue measure on the November 2018 ballot. Should a Cannabis tax not be
approved by Council and/or the voters, other new sources of revenue would have to be pursued
or staff would need to return to Council for further direction to adjust the components of the Plan
to balance future revenues and expenditures.
Operating Reductions and New Ways of Doing Business
All funds will participate in this component to varying degrees. The plan contains a list of
operating reduction options to be pursued along with new ways of doing business. These new
ways of doing business focus on energy efficiency and also include thoughtful reorganizations
Packet Page 134
11
that will enable the City to deliver services differently while minimizing impacts to residents and
other customers.
Some operating reductions or new ways of doing business may require meet and confer with
represented employee groups in advance of implementation. Meet and confer along with other
influences on the implementation schedule will be accounted for as the Plan is put into
actionable steps. The concepts are generally as follows.
Concessions – All City Employees and All Funds Over the FHRP Three Year Term
All regular City employees from all Funds participate in the same CalPERS retirement system
with the benefit formula under that system varying based on employee group and hire date .
Council adopted policies including the Financial Responsibility Philosophy, Compensation
Philosophy, and Labor Relations Objectives, all address the concept of “shared responsibility.”
This concept acknowledges the responsibility of the City and its employees to share the burden
of pension and health costs, including addressing unfunded liabilities, while recognizing that
increasing the employee share of this cost may impact the City’s ability to attract and retain well-
qualified employees that ultimately deliver programs and services to the community. With that in
mind, concessions are proposed as a significant component of the Plan.
The Plan recognizes a phased-approach for all reductions, including employee concessions, with
the anticipated ongoing concession amount reaching the objective of $1.9 million for all funds by
fiscal year 2020-21.
The Plan’s three-year term affords the City the ability to negotiate in good faith with its
bargaining units to tailor labor agreements that potentially meet mutual objectives. For example,
funding the CalPERS system to help ensure its future viability is in the interest of the employees
that have service in the system, while maintaining a “competitive” compensation package is in
the interest of the City for attracting and retaining well qualified employees.
Packet Page 135
11
Primary Options to Address Unfunded Liability: Pre-Payments to CalPERS and/or Section
115 Pension Trust Formation
The reduction of budgetary expenditures in all funds allows the City to address the unfunded
pension liabilities created by the CalPERS reduction in the rate of return from 7.5% to 7.0. There
are two options by which a Fund can do this: 1) pre-pay directly to CalPERS, or 2) invest monies
in a separate Section 115 Trust to earn money (at a conservative rate) and continue to make
payments over time. At the June 19, 2018 Council meeting an agenda item on this topic will
address this issue and provide analysis with respect to the General Fund and the Enterprise Funds
regarding which option is the most beneficial to the respective funds. As discussed below, at this
time, both the Parking and the Transit Funds have the ability to “pre-pay” to CalPERS and the
specifics of that will be analyzed at the June meeting and direction given. At that meeting staff
will provide a report with recommendations covering the following as it applies to the General
Fund and the individual Enterprise Funds:
1. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of the pre-payment to CalPERS or investment in a
Pension Trust options, with pros and cons for each option.
2. Advantages and disadvantages of making accelerated/or prepayments to CalPERS and
considerations of the timing of such payments.
3. Advantages and disadvantages of investment policy choices and selection of Section 115
Trust administrator.
4. Legal analysis and documentation as necessary to support recommendations.
5. Recommendations for funding sources and amounts to be prepaid to CalPERS or
deposited in a Pension Trust with the Supplemental Budget Adoption.
External Impacts to the Plan
The plan is based on the fiscal forecast and the projected CalPERS actuarial assumptions that
were outlined to the City Council in December 2017. While the Pl an is based on known
projections and assumptions, there could be future changes which could impact the City’s long-
term fiscal forecast. As noted in the Plan, existing policies and plans are in place to guide the
City if faced with further changes. These policies allow for the City Manager to take immediate
actions to address sudden changes that financially impact the City. The following external
impacts are not incorporated in the Plan and therefore would require further direction from
Council at the time the impact is understood if it occurs: changes in economic conditions; the
closure of Diablo Canyon; further changes to CalPERS contributions, and natural disaster.
STRATEGIC DIRECTION: APPLICATION OF THE FHRP TO THE GENERAL FUND
Application of the Plan
As noted above, the Plan as applied will guide budgetary actions for the 2018-19 Budget
Supplement as well as for the development of the 2019-21 Financial Plan for all Funds. Over the
three-year term, the components in the Plan have been allocated not by specific dollar amounts
but by percentage range. As staff has more fully developed the Plan, each component’s dollar
values have begun to be estimated for allocation over the three-year period based on what can be
accomplished and when.
Packet Page 136
11
Total Concessions for all funds are valued at approximately $1.9 million for the three-year
period of the FHRP. The specific timing of implementation of the Concessions is dependent
upon the bargaining process between the City and its represented employee groups. Variations in
the other two components - revenues and operating efficiencies and new ways of doing business
- may vary in amount and timing also for a variety of reasons, such as updated numbers for
revenues (plus or minus) and the timing of their respective implementation which may be
“lower” in year one of implementation but growing by year three. The following chart illustrates
how the $8.9 million is proposed to be allocated for the General Fund and the Enterprise Funds
over the term of the Plan.
Proposed Plan Application to the General Fund 2018-19 Budget Supplement
Each City Department will apply the policies and guiding principles of the Plan to their 2018-19
Budget submittals. The combination of changes will achieve a balanced budget for 2018-19 for
all funds as described below. With all of the budgetary changes, those options with the least
amount of service level impacts were proposed. The reductions proposed were also achievable
in this first year of the Plan. The 2018-19 Budget can be achieved with the following reductions
and increases to revenues in the General Fund. The details of how this is to be accomplished is
discussed under each Plan Component below. The proposed operating reductions as applied to
the various budget functions are shown in the following graphic for 2018-19.
Packet Page 137
11
General Fund Operating Reductions
New Revenues 2018-19
In engaging the community on new revenue options during March 2018, staff has learned
through a statistically valid customer satisfaction survey that nearly 68% of likely voters would
support a new tax on cannabis. As is noted in the Funding the Future report, that support drops
to 62% if two new tax revenue measures are placed on the same ballot.
At this time, several assumptions have been made to include Cannabis as a new revenue stream
beginning in 2018-19. The primary assumptions include: the adoption of a Cannabis Ordinance
regulating the industry by Council as well as the placement of a ballot initiative in November
2018 for consideration of new taxes on cannabis business activity in the City. The details of this
will be provided to Council on May 15 for specific guidance and direction.
As legal Cannabis sales and production is an emerging industry, staff has worked with two
different consultants, HdL and MunisServices, to develop an estimated amount of revenue to
expect from potential taxation alternatives. Optimistically, cannabis business activities would
begin at the earliest in January 2019. However, it is expected to take some time for the City to
establish its permitting and regulatory protocols, and for businesses to find appropriate properties
and obtain the necessary permits to operate. As a result, tax revenues from Cannabis are not
anticipated until the fourth quarter 2019. Staff has projected $100,000 in revenues from this tax
in 2018-19.
Operational Reductions and New Ways of Doing Business Proposed for 2018-19
The operational reductions and/or new ways of doing business include the refinancing of City
bonds due to current favorable interest rates which will lower the overall cost of debt and annual
payments. A critical step was taken just last week to refinance bonds which will result in
combined savings of over $350,000 primarily for the General and Parking Funds.
Packet Page 138
11
In addition, based on cash flow analysis, the City will exercise the payment option offered by
CalPERS to make its annual required pension contributions as one-time prepayment, which is
offered by CalPERS at a discounted rate, for each fiscal year instead of paying on monthly basis.
Public Works has been able to identify significant energy efficiencies and consumption
reductions in its proposed reductions. Consultant services and other agreements have been
renegotiated to realize reductions while not resulting in operational impacts. Some departments
had the opportunity to accomplish or begin thoughtful reorganization through the strategic use of
employee retirements or other transitions. Some of these reorganizations have been completed,
are underway, or will be implemented over the next three years. All departments evaluated
expenditure trends over the past five years to identify operational savings. Three areas of tax and
fee enforcement opportunities for more accurate revenue collections have been identified
including business license tax, Transient Occupancy Tax as it relates to homestay and code
enforcement.
The details of these proposed changes are noted specifically in Attachment C and are
summarized below by Department or by action when organizationally based. Operational
reductions and new ways of doing business total would result in $1,372,000 in 2018-19. Staff is
seeking Council’s response to this information at the meeting of April 17th as it will serve as
Strategic Direction for the presentation of the 2018-19 Budget Supplement.
2019-21 Financial Plan General Fund
Application of the FHRP will also guide the development of the 2019 -21 Financial Plan.
Information about the Plan will be provided via multiple communication channels so that the
public, which is highly engaged in all aspects of that process, including the Major City Goal
setting process, will be aware of the policies, principals, and reductions guiding the next
Financial Plan process. As noted above, the 2019-21 Financial Plan will include General Fund
reductions and new revenues of approximately $4.3 million dollars. In addition to the
Concessions of $1.9 million in ALL Funds to be achieved during the three-year period, the
FHRP guided approach to the Financial Plan for 2019-21 is expected to see reductions generally
Packet Page 139
11
as follows:
New Revenues Efficiencies and New Ways of Doing Business
$2,800,000 $1,500,000
APPLICATION OF THE PLAN TO THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS
While the majority of city services are provided through its General Fund, the City of Sa n Luis
Obispo also has four “enterprise funds.” These proprietary funds have been created to provide
specific services for which the users of the services are charged fees. The financial activity of
each of the enterprise funds is accounted for separately from the General Fund and each of the
funds is governed by laws, regulations, City financial policies and other legal constraints that are
unique to their functions.
The City’s enterprise funds will participate in any employee concessions as the City must meet
and confer or bargain in good faith with represented employee groups that span General and
Enterprise Funds. Each enterprise fund team is tasked with finding its unique solution to funding
the unfunded pension liability due to the discount rate adjustment. These solutions will not
impact rates or reduce previously planned capital project investments.
The application of the Plan to the Enterprise Funds is summarized below. Each Fund is
discussed, as are the solutions each Fund is proposing in 2018-19 and more generally the
reduction components and amounts for the 2019-21 Financial Plan.
The size of the problem for the three-year period to all of the Enterprise Funds totals $1.4 million
dollars
PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND
Proposed Plan Application to the Parking Enterprise Fund 2018-19 Budget Supplement
To achieve the 2018-19 budget reduction objective, the Parking Enterprise Fund must realize a
saving/cost offset of approximately $175,000 over the three-year term of this Plan. The Parking
Fund is in a unique position in that the Fund implemented rate changes in January 2018 (not tied
to the Problem) and Council has already approved another for July 2020, that will provide
adequate revenues to maintain fiscal sustainability. The Fund will parallel the General Fund’s
response to the shortfall and comport with the Plan by achieving an operating reduction in the
amount of $10,000 for more efficient contract services regarding landscape maintenance. This
will not have a service impact to the public. The Parking Fund will participate in all employee
concessions when the General Fund concessions are made.
The Parking Fund is in a unique position based on the health of the Fund and its anticipated
future costs and revenues. As such, an approach of the Parking Fund prepaying its share of the
unfunded liability is being thoroughly analyzed and will be brought back for Council’s
consideration in June 2018 as part of the item on options to prepay or fund a 115 Pension Trust.
Packet Page 140
11
Other Efficiencies and New Ways of Doing Business
Prepayment of Unfunded Liability $10,000
Parking Fund 2019-21
If the unfunded liability is pre-paid, the Parking Fund achieves its total savings during the
2018-19 budget. As discussed, Parking proposes to pay off its entire unfunded liability in 2018-
19. The detailed analysis of this strategy will be the topic of a staff report in June 2018 for
Council’s consideration and direction. However, all parking staff will be subject to the same
concessions as other general fund staff.
TRANSIT ENTERPRISE FUND
Proposed Plan Application to the Transit Enterprise Fund 2018-19 Budget Supplement
To achieve the 2018-19 budget reduction objective, the Transit Enterprise Fund must realize a
saving/cost offset equal to $42,500. The Transit Fund is in a unique position in that the Fund
implemented rate changes in June 2017 (not tied to the Problem) and has working capital that
will provide enough revenue to maintain the health of the Fund and address this problem. The
Transit Fund will parallel the General Fund’s response to the shortfall and comport with the Plan
by achieving an operating reduction in the amount of $42,500 by reducing consumables
including fuel. This will not have a service impact to the public. The Transit Fund will
participate in all employee concessions when the General Fund concessions are made.
The Transit Fund in in a unique position based on the health of the Fund and its anticipated
future costs and revenues. As such, an approach of the Transit Fund prepaying its share of the
unfunded liability is being thoroughly analyzed and will be brought back for Council’s
consideration in June 2018 as part of the item on options to prepay or fund a 115 Pension Trust.
As discussed later in this report, this will result in significant annual savings in excess of the
$42,500 reduction obligation for all three years identified in the FHRP. It also is acknowledged
that this pre-payment does not cover future unknown changes to the unfunded liability share for
this Fund.
Other Efficiencies and New Ways of Doing Business
Prepayment of Unfunded Liability $42,500
Packet Page 141
11
Transit Fund 2019-21
If the unfunded liability is prepaid the Transit Fund achieves its total savings during the
2018-19 budget. As discussed, the Transit Fund proposes to pay off its entire unfunded liability
in 2018-19. The detailed analysis of this strategy will be the topic of a staff report in June 2018
for Council’s consideration and direction However, all Transit staffing will be subject to the
same concessions as other general fund staff.
SEWER FUND
Proposed Plan Application to the Sewer Enterprise Fund 2018-19 Budget Supplement
To achieve the 2018-19 budget reduction objective, the Sewer Enterprise Fund must see
reductions in budget of $80,000. The Sewer Fund will address this objective by reducing
operating expenses in its Water Resource Recovery Facility program by $80,000 which is
achievable through the results of its energy efficiency project and process changes. The Sewer
Fund will also see an annual increase in revenue collections of $20,000 through the water meter
replacement program that provides for more accurate fee collection.
Sewer Enterprise Fund 2019-21
The Sewer Enterprise Fund will need to achieve $341,000 in total savings or new revenue
generation during the 2019-21 budget.
WATER FUND
Proposed Plan Application to the Water Enterprise Fund 2018-19 Budget Supplement
To achieve the 2018-19 budget reduction objective, the Water Enterprise Fund must see
reductions in budget of $100,000. The Water Fund will address this objective by reducing
operating expenses in its Water Source of Supply program by $100,000 which is achievable as
the understanding of the cost of water deliveries from the Nacimiento Project matures and annual
expenditures related to actual pumping volumes are adjusted.
The Water Fund will also see an annual increase in revenue of $100,000 through the water meter
replacement program that more accurately assesses usage for water consumption on all customer
Packet Page 142
11
classes. The program will result in more accurate (increased) fee collection.
Water Enterprise Fund 2019-21
The Water Enterprise Fund will need to achieve $301,000 in total savings or new revenue
generation during the 2019-21 budget.
OTHER FUNDS – WHALE ROCK
The San Luis Obispo City Council does not have budgetary authority over the Whale Rock
budget; this is done by the Whale Rock Commission, a Joint Powers Authority made up of the
City, CalPoly, and California Men’s Colony. The City of San Luis Obispo provides Reservoir
Operations and Administrative staffing for the Whale Rock Commission, therefore any employee
concession-related reductions applied to City employees will be reflected in this fund’s program.
The City as fiduciary agent will recommend that the Whale Rock Fund and Joint Powers
Authority consider a budget that addresses its share of the problem.
Community Outreach and Public Engagement
The City has been - and will continue to be - committed to involving the community and staff in
discussions about solutions to the financial challenges ahead. A number of outreach and
engagement efforts have been completed and will continue throughout the process. Outreach to
date has included:
a. Fiscal Health webpage
b. E-notification category to sign up to receive updates
c. Community Information Session on October 5, 2017
d. Staff Information Sessions on December 6, 2017 and April 12, 2018
e. Several press releases, news items and social media posts resulting in media coverage
f. Open City Hall topic (436 visitors with 120 statements or the equivalent of 6 hours of
public comment)
g. Staff surveys
h. Frequently Asked Questions by topic
i. Regular email updates to staff
Packet Page 143
11
All feedback received through the information sessions and Open City Hall is compiled in
Attachment D.
The City also engaged a firm to complete a statistical survey of residents’ preferences regarding
a cannabis tax measure. The survey had 846 responses and a +/-4.9% margin of error. The results
of the survey are summarized below1:
Over two-thirds (68%) of all voters are in support of passing a cannabis commercial
activity tax measure to generate additional revenue for essential City services.
Initial Support for Cannabis Commercial Activity Tax Measure
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
43%
20%
5%
3%
5%
17%
6%
Total
Yes
68%
Total
No
26%
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
There is no environmental impact associated with the adoption of the FHRP. However,
components of the plan are focused on increased sustainability and use of less consumable goods
in an ongoing effort by the City to address long-term environmental concerns.
FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal impacts of the Plan is a balanced budget during each fiscal year from 2018-19 through
2020-20. This report sets forth strategic direction for all City Funds to follow in the
development to the 2018-19 Budget Supplement which will be presented to Council on June 5
for discussion and on June 19 for adoption.
Next Steps
Integration with the Financial Planning process
As noted in the Plan itself, the Fiscal Health Response Plan will be applied to the 2018-19
Budget Supplement as well to the 2019-21 Financial Plan process.
1 A full analysis of survey results is included as Attachment E for the Funding of the Future item.
Packet Page 144
11
For ease of use, and so that Council and the community can review the implementation of this
Plan with respect to solving this problem, this document will be updated with a record of Council
meetings regarding the Plan’s implementation.
Council
Meeting Date
Action Related to FHRP Taken
April 17, 2018
Adoption of FHRP and Strategic Budget Direction for Implementation for
2018-19 Budget Supplement
Upcoming Meetings and Next Steps
June 5
1. Consideration of Placement of Cannabis Tax on November Ballot
2. Presentation of 2018-19 Budget Supplement
June 19
1. Enterprise Fund Reviews
2. Adoption of 2018-19 Budget Supplement
3. Pension Trust and/or Prepayment Analysis and Formation
ALTERNATIVES
1. Reject the Plan. Rejection of the Plan is not recommended as staff has spent the past four
months developing the concepts of the Plan as well as the methods to reduce ongoing costs in an
effort to address the City’s budgetary gap associated with increases to its pension costs
associated with CalPERS rate increases. The purpose of this Agenda item is for Council to
review, and if necessary revise the FHRP. No final budgetary decisions are being made with the
adoption of the Plan – rather strategic budget direction is being provided.
2. Address the Problem Differently. Not having a Plan is not recommended. The City has a
history of identifying Fiscal Challenges early, developing Plans to respond to them, and
maintaining a fiscally sound and sustainable financial planning. Changing course now would not
allow staff sufficient time to address this problem in a thoughtful manner in preparation for the
2018-19 Budget Supplement.
Attachments:
a - Reading File - FHRP 12.12.17
b - FISCAL HEALTH RESPONSE PLAN (1)
c - FISCAL HEALTH RESPONSE PLAN (2)
d - Fiscal Health Open City Hall Public Comments
Packet Page 145
11
Last Updated: April 9, 2018
PLAN PURPOSE
The purpose of this plan is to establish a three -year framework to respond to the long-
term fiscal impacts of the significant increases in required pension contributions to the
CalPERS retirement system. This plan is a specific deliverable and is structured in a
manner to provide guidance for budgetary actions in the 2018 -2019 Fiscal Year as well
as to provide broad strategic budget direction for the 2019-2021 Financial Plan.
THE PROBLEM
The City of San Luis Obispo and the other
3,000-member agencies in the California
Public Employees Retirement System
(CalPERS), are facing significant increases
in required pension contributions. The City's
annual CalPERS costs are projected to more
than double in ten years; growing from $7.8
million in 2014-15 to $19 million in 2024-25
for the General Fund. These costs will
continue to grow through 2031-32 and affect
all funds including the City's Enterprise
Funds (Water, Waste Water, Transit, and
Parking).
To addresses these rapidly rising costs, the
City must address an $8.9 million ($7.5
million from the General Fund and $1.4
million from the Enterprise Funds) budget
gap over the next three fiscal years (2018-
19, 2019-20, and 2020-21). The size of the
problem has been informed using fiscal
forecasting supported by third party
economic models, as well as the City's
outside sales tax advisor and a separate
actuary who specializes in pensions.
The City's fiscal forecasting is based on
assumptions such as:
1. Continuing current levels of service.
2. Continuing the commitment to capital
investment including a slight increase
due to ongoing maintenance needs.
3. Modest long-term revenue growth and
inflation.
4. Continuing Local Revenue Measure
(Measure G) funds.
5. Enterprise Funds revenue projections
based on approved and historic rates and
revenue growth trends.
The City must continue to utilize CalPERS as its
retirement system as it is not feasible for the City
to leave without incurring significant costs. To
exit CalPERS, the City would have 30 days to
meet its projected (worst case) financial
obligations estimated to be from $377 to $495
million at the time of separation. Furthermore,
the current legal framework in California restricts
cities ability to reduce retirement benefits for
current employees, as well as retirees. Lastly,
CalPERS forbids offering alternative retirement
benefits for new employees, different from those
reduced benefits that already have been
legislatively authorized.
Packet Page 146
11
Last Updated: April 9, 2018
GENERAL FUND FOCUS; ENTERPRISE
FUND PARTICIPATION
This Plan is primarily focused on guiding
the General Fund closure of the ongoing
budget gap over the next three fiscal
years.
The Enterprise Funds (Water, Sewer,
Parking, and Transit) are also participating
because the problem of rising pension costs
also affects employees of the Enterprise
Funds as they participate in the same
CalPERS retirement system as General
Fund employees. Each fund, however, will
solve the problem based on the fund type
and its unique situation, as discussed later in
this report.
KEY CITY POLICIES AND GUIDING
PRINCIPLES FOR THIS PLAN
• The City’s existing financial policies
provide the foundation for this Plan and
include a balanced, sustainable budget
based on conservative investment practices
and diversified revenues.
• Specific policies which support this Plan
include: the 2001 Fiscal Health Contingency
Plan, the 2014 Financial Responsibility
Philosophy, the Compensation Philosophy
and the 2017 Long-Term Liabilities and
Maintenance of Infrastructure.
• Ongoing Fiscal Health Monitoring
including modeling of economic trends and
incorporation of new data will occur through
the budgetary process and three years of this
Plan.
• Budgetary changes in response to the Plan
will minimize service level impacts.
• Budgetary reductions will be implementable
and monitored during the three years of the
Plan.
• Sustainability principles will be
incorporated into changes in the ways the City
“does business” where possible.
• Capital Improvement Project investment
will not be diminished in the General Fund
and is projected to increase slightly during the
Plan’s effective period.
• The City’s Organizational values will be
considered when evaluating budgetary
reductions so that employees, programs,
departments, and the organization can
continue to support and implement these
values.
• The maintenance of facilities, infrastructure,
and equipment will continue, and reductions
will have the least amount of maintenance
impacts as possible.
• The application of unassigned fund-balance
due to one-time expenditure savings or one-
time increase in revenue will continue to be
applied to paying down long-term unfunded
liabilities and investment in infrastructure
and/or critical equipment.
• Ongoing increases in revenue will be
carefully evaluated and will also be
considered as a means to speed up the
paydown of unfunded liabilities. The City will
carefully evaluate the tradeoffs of expanding or
adding new programs, rather than paying down
unfunded liabilities.
• The City will work closely with its elected
representatives and others (including the
League of California Cities) in ongoing efforts
to address long-term changes to the CalPERS
system.
Packet Page 147
11
Last Updated: April 9, 2018
INTEGRATION OF THE PLAN WITH THE FINANCIAL PLANNING PROCESS
The Fiscal Health Response Plan will be applied to the 2018-19 Budget Supplement as well
to the 2019-21 Financial Plan process. The 2019-21 Financial Plan will include Major City Goals
informed by public participation. However, the Fiscal Health Response Plan sets forth the
framework by which the 2019-21 will need to close the structural budget gap of $8.9 million over
the term of this Plan.
For ease of use, and so that Council and the community can review the implementation of this
Plan with respect to solving this problem, this document will be updated with a record of Council
meetings regarding the Plan’s implementation.
Council Meeting Date Action Related to FHRP Taken
April 17, 2018
1. Adoption of FHRP
2. Strategic Budget Direction for 2018-19 Budget Supplement
To be completed as meetings
occur.
Scheduled meetings include June 5 and 19, 2018 Council meetings on
the 2018-19 Budget Supplement and primary options to address
unfunded liabilities.
ELEMENTS OF THIS PLAN
There are three key components to this Plan. These components create savings and
revenue necessary to address the unfunded liability. In addition, there are two primary
options for reducing the increased costs of the City’s unfunded liability.
THREE KEY COMPONENTS PRIMARY OPTIONS TO ADDRESS THE
UNFUNDED LIABILITY
1. New Revenues
2. Operating Reductions and New Ways
of Doing Business
3. Employee Concessions
1. Prepayment of both normal and
unfunded PERS Costs
2. Section 115 Pension Trust Formation
Packet Page 148
11
Last Updated: April 9, 2018
KEY COMPONENTS OF THIS PLAN
The City must address an $8.9 million ($7.5 million from the General Fund and $1.4 million from
the Enterprise Funds) budget gap over the next three fiscal years (2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-
21). There are three key components that have been identified to accomplish this Plan: 1) new
revenues, 2) operating reductions and new ways of doing business, and 3) employee
concessions. These will be apportioned as follows for the General Fund:
NEW REVENUES
30-40% of the solution is proposed through new revenues. Only the General Fund will
participate in this component.
• A General Fund Cannabis Tax. The General Fund’s primary sources of funding are taxes
and fees for services. A general-purpose tax on Cannabis sales, requiring voter approval of a
simple majority, will be evaluated for placement on the November 2018 ballot.
Should a Cannabis Tax be Unsuccessful? Should a Cannabis Tax be unsuccessful,
either by not receiving voter approval or by underperforming in projected revenues, other
new sources of revenue will be evaluated, such as consideration of increased Transient
Occupancy Tax (TOT) or a Stormwater Tax. Additional revenue from taxes and any
recommended would require further direction from Council prior to implementation.
• The Enterprise Funds will not propose new revenues to solve this problem. The
Enterprise Funds are funded by rates and/or fees for the services provided. Transit is primarily
funded through Federal and State grants and programs in combination with a 20% match from
fares. Increases to rates and/or fees will not be made to close this budget gap in the Enterprise
Funds. Any changes to those rates and/or fees in the Enterprise Funds during the fiscal period
of this Plan will be due to other cost increases or a result of enhanced fee recovery unrelated
to unfunded pension liability cost increases.
30 -40%
20 -30%
30 -40%
Revenues
New Ways of Doing Business
Operating Reductions
Concessions
Packet Page 149
11
Last Updated: April 9, 2018
OPERATING REDUCTIONS AND NEW WAYS OF DOING BUSINESS.
30 to 40% of the solution is proposed from operating reductions and/or new ways of doing
business. All Funds and Departments will participate in this component to varying degrees.
OPERATING REDUCTIONS
1. Proactive Fiscal Management.
a. Refinance City Bonds. Eligible City
bonds will be refinanced to reduce debt
rates.
b. Pay CalPERS Required Contribution
in One-Lump Sum Once A Year. Based
upon the City’s cashflow analysis, the City
will exercise the option to pay
contributions to CalPERS in one lump
sum resulting in ongoing savings.
CalPERS offers two options of payment,
annual and one-lump sum.
c. Evaluate other Fiscal Efficiencies.
For instance, credit card bank charges
will be evaluated so that any cost
reductions which do not diminish
customer service are implemented. Other
fiscal management efficiencies will be
explored for cost savings.
2. Pursue Energy Efficiencies and
Consumption Reductions. Departments
will evaluate budgets to identify energy
efficiencies which could save both costs and
energy. Fuel and other consumables usage
will be reduced through fuel efficiency
vehicles and/or use pattern improvements.
3. Consultant services agreements. When
possible, consultant services agreements
will be renegotiated for better value and/or
budgeted amounts will be adjusted to reflect
service levels needed.
4. Other Agreements. The City has multiple
agreements for a myriad of purposes ranging
from the purchases of goods to the provision
of City services and/or use of City facilities.
Those agreements subject to renewal will be
evaluated for the opportunities to decrease
costs or to increase cost recovery while at
the same time balancing the value of
community partnerships.
5. Tax and Fee Enforcement. The City will
continue to proactively seek compliance with
business license, Transient Occupancy Tax
(TOT) Homestay, Code Enforcement, and
other activities which could result in more
accurate revenue collections.
6. Long-term liabilities. Consistent with the
City’s fiscal policies, the City will continue to
utilize one-time funds to pay down unfunded
liabilities and to invest in infrastructure.
7. Risk Management. The City will continue
to actively implement its “30% in 3” risk
management program to reduce liability and
worker’s compensation expenditures.
Packet Page 150
11
Last Updated: April 9, 2018
NEW WAYS OF DOING BUSINESS
1. Sustainability.
The City will pursue increased
investment in sustainable infrastructure
with positive and short-term paybacks on
investment.
2. Enhanced Efficiency & Effectiveness.
a. Energy Efficiency.
Including the use of solar power will
be explored and implemented when
possible for short and long-term cost
savings. Other energy efficiencies
will be evaluated as well.
b. Enterprise Resource System.
The Motion project, consisting of
business process re-engineering and
implementation of an Enterprise
Resource System, will result in
decommissioning of several older
systems and will create opportunities
for employee efficiencies and
effectiveness.
c. Equipment Replacement.
Equipment replacement will result in
energy savings, more accurate data
collection, and more accurate
revenues will be identified.
3. Thoughtful re-organizations.
Staff transitions will be used to evaluate
current staffing levels and service
provision. The City will evaluate cross-
departmental operations, service levels,
and contracted services for re-
organization opportunities.
EMPLOYEE CONCESSIONS.
20% to 30% would be contributions via employee concessions. All Funds, General and
Enterprise, will participate in employee concessions.
• In addressing unfunded pension liability as it relates to employee concessions the City’s
adopted Fiscal Sustainability Philosophy, Compensation Philosophy and Labor Relations
Objectives will provide guidance.
• The City will meet and confer in good faith with its represented employee groups regarding
the impacts of changes to wages, hours, and/or working conditions.
PRIMARY OPTIONS TO ADDRESS THE UNFUNDED LIABILITY
The City will evaluate each of the options in June 2018: Prepayment of unfunded liabilities by pre-
paying PERS and/or funding a Section 115 Pension Trust to make future payments to PERS.
The use of each method may vary by Fund.
Packet Page 151
11
Last Updated: April 9, 2018
COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGIES
The following identifies communication strategies with the Community and employees.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
As is the City’s practice the Community will
be engaged consistent with the City’s Public
Engagement and Noticing (PEN) Manual.
There will be multiple methods of
communications used to inform and educate
the community as well as receive feedback
and address questions and concerns. In
addition to the PEN methods of
communication and public engagement will
include:
• Public Notification of Council
Meetings on the Plan.
• What’s New in SLO and other
website informational postings.
• E-notification, social media posts
and press releases.
• Community forums and
workshops in conjunction with the
financial planning process.
• Presentations to City Advisory
Bodies and interested community
groups.
• Open City Hall topics.
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
As is the City’s practice all employees will be
engaged in the financial planning process
and the application of this Plan to that
process. There will be multiple methods of
communications to inform and educate
employees as well as receive input and
address questions and concerns.
• Briefings with City Manager,
Department Heads and Budget
Manager.
• Updates via emails and
SLOWhat Monthly publication.
• Briefings with employee
associations’ representatives.
• Surveys to Employees
• Organization-wide briefings.
Packet Page 152
11
Last Updated: April 9, 2018
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN
• The Plan will guide staff’s preparation of the 2018-19 Budget Supplement for Council’s
consideration and adoption in June 2018.
• The Plan will guide the Financial Plan process for the development of the Major City Goals
and Financial Plan for 2019-21.
EXTERNAL IMPACTS TO PLAN
This plan has been based on assumptions made in the fiscal forecast in December 2017. It is
based on fiscal forecasts which have multiple inputs from multiple economic resources both
external and internal to the City. However, a forecast is an estimate at a point and time and during
the life of this Plan there could be significant external forces which further impact the City’s fiscal
forecast. There are other fiscal policies and plans in place to help guide such a change. The
following could have impact to the City’s overall budget through either expenditures or revenues
and would result in staff returning to Council for further direction.
• Changes in Economic Conditions. The nation continues to be in an unprecedented
economic expansion following the Great Recession. This is unlikely to continue for the
entire period of this Plan. Additionally, changes in federal fiscal policy and grant funding
may result in a slowing of the national and local economies.
• Diablo Closure
The closure of Diablo Canyon presents an uncertain economic impact to the City and
County of San Luis Obispo. At the time of this Plan’s creation, the mitigation of that
impact is uncertain. The City will continue to have a lead role in addressing this problem
and preparing an economic and financial analysis of the impacts of this closure. This
analysis will be incorporated into the 2019-21 Financial Plan.
• Further CalPERS Changes. Required contributions to CalPERS are based on actuarial
assumptions and further changes may occur if approved by the CalPERS Board.
Examples of past significant changes in assumptions include changes to amortization
periods, changes to expected rate of return, and changes to demographic assumptions.
Future changes in actuarial assumptions may once again result in significant fiscal impacts
to the City.
• Natural Disaster. All municipalities are vulnerable to natural disasters be it earthquake,
fire, or flood. The City maintains reserves for these unfortunate circumstances but in
recent years the magnitude of disasters seen in neighboring cities north and south have
been at unprecedented economic levels.
Packet Page 153
11
Appendix A 2017-2018 Fiscal Health Response Plan- Proposed Reductions
Department Reduction Type Amount
(thousand) Service Level Impact
Administration Contract Services
Other Operating
Expenses
Ventures &
Contingencies
Networks Services,
Community
Promotion,
City
Administration,
Economic
Development,
Administration &
Records,
Contract Services
Support Services
Support Services
Subtotal
$64
$6
$45
$115
Reductions in contract services will
result in increased inhouse network
services, less opportunity for the
PCC to fund last minute projects,
improved value of contract
performance, lower contingencies in
contracts, and an adjustment in the
budget for services not used.
An analysis in operating expenses
has identified that there are annual
savings and this budget can be
reduced.
A reduction in V&C results in less
available funding for special projects
of a Citywide nature.
Finance Contract Services
Operating Expenses
Accounting
Accounting
Subtotal
$5
$10
$15
The City has been preparing its AB
1600 report annually and the
contract for service will be adjusted
downward to reflect that.
An analysis of operating expenses
identified historical annual savings
and this budget can be reduced.
City Attorney Contract Services &
Operating Reductions
Subtotal
$19
$19
The City Attorney has reduced its
budget to provide temporary staff via
contract services and an analysis in
operating expenses has identified
that there are annual savings and this
budget can be reduced. Should a
legal matter arise that requires
additional staffing it will be address
on a case by case basis with Council.
Packet Page 154
11
Appendix A 2017-2018 Fiscal Health Response Plan- Proposed Reductions
Department Reduction Type Amount
(thousand) Service Level Impact
Human
Resources
Training
Tuition
Reimbursement
PACE
Contribution
Appointed
Officials
Subtotal
$19
$6
$3
$2
$30
Elimination of budget for
unanticipated trainings, majority of
City training offered through
contract with the Centre for
Organization Effectiveness.
Reduction in budget to historical
average.
City's investment in the Centre for
Organization Effectiveness makes
PACE investment redundant.
Reduction through contract
negotiation for Appointed Officials'
Evaluations facilitator.
Parks &
Recreation
Youth Services
Recreation
Administration
Youth Services
Staffing,
Contract Services
&
Operating Budget
Re-Organization
$49
$82
Eliminate the SLO Teens Program
and use City Buses for local Summer
Camp Field Trips. The Teen
Program was not staffed during
2017-18 and will therefore not
impact current students nor a filled
position. Elimination of this funding
limits the department's ability to
engage teens in positive activities in
the future. To reduce liability
consistent with the City's "30 in 3"
initiative, Youth Services will no
longer contract for bus trips outside
of the region.
The Department has completed a re-
organization across multiple
programs to increase efficiencies.
Additionally, the reduction of a
vacant Administrative Assistant 1
position focused on customer service
and public counter duties is
proposed. As a result, the
Department's public counter hours
will be reduced but users may still
register online 24 hours a day and/or
make appointments. The use of part
time supplemental employees is
required to continue to provide in
person customer service six hours a
day.
Packet Page 155
11
Appendix A 2017-2018 Fiscal Health Response Plan- Proposed Reductions
Department Reduction Type Amount
(thousand) Service Level Impact
Subtotal $131
Community
Development
Operational
Efficiencies
Re-organization
Community
Development
Admin.,
Development
Review, Long
Range
Planning, Human
Relations
Development
Review,
Housing
Assistance,
Building
& Safety
Subtotal
$21
-$11
$10
Reorganization of the Department
utilizing current and future
anticipated vacancies to obtain a
sustainable business model should
have little to no effect on service
levels but will require the use of
supplemental resources during times
of high development activity. In
addition, the reorganization relies on
procedural changes, and “delivering
service differently,” with respect to
the path that certain projects take
through the entitlement process.
These procedural changes are being
pursued as part of the Zoning
Regulations update.
The savings comes from the
reclassification of an Associate
Planner to a Planning Technician
and reducing historically underspent
operating budgets. A Code
Enforcement Technician I position
will also be reclassified to a Code
Enforcement Supervisor as-a-result
of the determined Code Enforcement
priorities per Council direction and
the Housing Programs Manager has
been reclassified to a Senior Planner.
The reclassification of the Code
Technician is an increase to
operating cost, however, total cost
reductions yield a net savings.
Public Works Energy Efficiencies
/Consumption
Reduction
Building
Maintenance,
Swim Center,
Fleet, Parks
Maintenance,
Street
Maintenance,
Traffic Signals
$293
Energy conservation at City facilities
is projected to reduce electricity
usage resulting in. Reductions in
fuel driven by historical trends and
the City is replacing its older fleet
with energy efficient vehicles which
has reduced their overall
consumption. The replacement of
the existing turf at Damon Garcia
sports complex with a more robust
species is expected to reduce the cost
of fertilizer. New technologies in
irrigation controls will also mean an
Packet Page 156
11
Appendix A 2017-2018 Fiscal Health Response Plan- Proposed Reductions
Department Reduction Type Amount
(thousand) Service Level Impact
Operational
Efficiencies
PW
Administration,
Traffic Signals,
Street
Maintenance,
Transportation &
Engineering
Subtotal
$21
$314
overall reduction in water use. Staff
also projects a decrease in water use
should the area receive an above
average rain fall during the rainy
season. A decrease in the cost of
asphalt will result in overall cost
savings. Replacement of older
traffic signals with energy efficient
models will result in a projected
savings in electricity use.
Due to operational efficiencies in
consolidating office supplies,
replacing hard copy reports with
electronic copies, will result in
savings in office supplies and print
& reproduction. Reduction in
contract services and operation
materials for traffic signals and
transportation & engineering can be
absorbed with existing staff and the
program's budget. Education and
training reductions will be offset
because for those staff that do attend
trainings, they will present key
messages and materials to remaining
staff upon their return.
Fire Consumables/Utilities
Education & Training
Operating Reductions
Fire
Administration
Fire Admin., Fire
Apparatus
Services, Fire
Prevention
Hoses and Fittings
Subtotal
$4
$11
$14
$29
Result of installation of sustainable
landscaping.
Reductions are accomplishable and
will require sharing of information in
a train the trainer format and more
focused selection of training
opportunities.
An analysis in operating expenses
has identified that there are annual
savings and this budget can be
reduced.
Police Operating Reductions
Police Admin,
Neighborhood
Services
$23
Reductions are possible due to
operating changes, a no longer using
software that was ineffective, use of
Packet Page 157
11
Appendix A 2017-2018 Fiscal Health Response Plan- Proposed Reductions
Department Reduction Type Amount
(thousand) Service Level Impact
Contract Services
Police Admin,
Patrol,
Investigations,
Support Services,
Neighborhood
Services, Traffic
Safety
Subtotal
$10
$33
an existing citywide communications
contract for efficiencies, more
targeted disbursement of educational
materials.
Contract service reductions are
possible due to operating changes, a
no longer using software that was
ineffective, use of an existing
citywide communications contract
for efficiencies, more targeted
disbursement of educational
materials.
Expenditure
Reductions
New Ways of Doing
Business
Concessions
Debt Refinancing
CalPERS
Prepayment
Business License
Cannabis
New Ways of
Doing Business
Code Enforcement
TOT
$83
$323
$150
$100
$20
$50
$50
$700
This is the real savings in year 1
based on cash flow schedule. Y2 is
$364k and Y3 is $366k.
Prepay Unfunded Liability in July of
each year in place of on-going
monthly payments.
The expected results of business
license enforcement and collections
Conservative estimate in Year 1 due
to business ramp up period.
New revenue from Cal Poly contract
re-negotiation.
The expected results of the City’s
Code Enforcement Program
Increase enforcement of homestay
collections.
Grand Total
$1,102
$370
$2,172
Expenditure Reductions
New Ways of Doing Business
Packet Page 158
11
Appendix A 2017-2018 Fiscal Health Response Plan- Proposed Reductions
Department Reduction Type Amount
(thousand) Service Level Impact
Packet Page 159
11
Fiscal Health Response Plan – Comments and Suggestions
October 5th, 2017 Informational Session
On October 5th, 2017, City staff held an informational session about the City’s projected $8.9
million budget gap and potential solutions to maintain a balanced budget in the future. Members
of the public and City staff were encouraged to attend the event, as well as provide written
comment/Suggestions. The comments below are the written suggestions of those who chose to
participate and provide feedback about the Fiscal Health Response Plan.
When the state had a financial crisis, it relied on furloughs to help. City employees have been
willing to do this, but have been denied every time. Good enough for the state…but not for SLO?
Offer a “golden handshake” or an early retirement incentive. Yes, it’s a short term, one-time only
solution but it will reduce the number of Tier One employees and increase the number of Tier
Two and PEPPA level employees.
1) Increase retirement age into the 60’s. All retirement (full age should be moved to 62-> 64)
2) Stop all “perks” such as employee free or reduced parking
3) Provide free/secure bicycle parking and reduced bus/RTA rates for staff all
The states pension reform in 2012 was incomplete, a political compromise. Suggestion: City
should continue to work with other cities, The League of California cities, and to the state
(Governor + State Representatives). Develop a Statewide approach to this “local government
crisis” which ultimately could result in reduced services to citizens.
How about floating or producing a ½% sale tax in the City for transportation such as measure J
last year. This could be specified for maintenance and CIP transportation issues. There by freeing
General Funds to pay CalPERS.
Thanks for providing more info/background
1) Make the CalPERS program like that in the private sector. (employee contribution, vacation,
health benefits, etc)
2) Police Chiefs, Fire Chiefs, City Managers, etc. should not have it so easy to come and go
from City to City. This is a drain.
3) I am not sympathetic to your list of reasons for why costs are increasing. All of these have
affected us in the private sector too. Where does all the “Fixed Expenses” CalPERS money
go?
Find & utilize local (or non-local) benefactors to sponsor existing programs/events with their
private funding. Community fundraisers towards general fund…would that money go into
CALPERS funding? Televised dance-a-thon?? Parks & Rec. would host it!! ☺
1) Cancel Cola for Current Retirees.
2) Plan ahead for budget shortfalls
3) Don’t take large payouts
Packet Page 160
11
Fiscal Health Response Plan – Comments and Suggestions
More volunteers (unpaid).
Note: It is not just CalPERS that was affected by lower returns. The General Population was
equally affected—whether their savings were in investments or in a bank savings account.
Additional employee contributions to retirement and health plans.
Although probably a drop in the bucket, consider employee rather than City funding any 401k—
type retirement plan. Rationale: City employees receive retirement checks from CalPERS. Any
supplemental retirement can be (should be) established and funded by the individual concerned.
If citizens & rate payers are to bear part of this burden, then so should some (if not all) of the
non-profits that receive City funding. There are other funding mechanisms that can pick up the
difference.
1. Stop street sweep in residential areas—they sweep the middle of the street not the gutters.
2. Stop getting all consultants.
1. Sell/rent/lease unused water allocation i.e. unused naci water to communities that need water.
2. Cal Poly/Cal Poly students use 2 lot of City resources at expense or tax paying residents.
Some sort of compensation from poly/students.
3. Like it or not Marijuana sales are coming-City should consider cashing in on that reserve.
4. Use Diablo closure $ dollars to make lump sum PERS payment.
• Consider parks, recreation, OS & Cultural Resources consolidate-bring Nat Res/ OS &
Adobe/facil. Mgmt. into P&R. Consider all P&R svcs-parks maintenance as well-&park
planning-similar to transp. planning and utilities.
• Why not use some City contingency funds?-> to pre-fund a retirement trust fund?
• Consider consolidation/re-org of CDD -> Why 2 Div. Directors + Principle Planner in Dec.
Rev—Need that many supervisors/mgmt? Consider other structures—less sloed.
• Homestay registration = $ Make it easy to legally provide.
• Consider increasing TOT -> Easy for public to support b/c $ comes from visitors?
• Retirement (early) incentives fir staff who are “close”?
• Corporate sponsorship for Daman Garcia sports fields.
• How to make legalization of cannabis net revenue positive for the City?
• Increase parking fees/ allow more overnight pking in structures for $$,
Move one time surplus dollars into a trust fund to hedge the City’s unfunded liability “moving
target”
Increased fees for public noticing for large development projects.
Use the City’s yearly “surplus” money to help pay down deficit.
Retirement incentive (pay flat amount to retire by specific date)
Packet Page 161
11
Fiscal Health Response Plan – Comments and Suggestions
Private citizens (homeowners) save hundreds of $ a month by putting solar panels on their
roof…why not the City? Lots of open space…in the corpyard, for starters—the City’s large
investment in equipment could be protected from sun & rain…
Parking spots & spaces in structures and on the street that offer vehicle charging for additional
payment enhancing electric vehicle use & providing revenue.
Stop hiring expensive consultants. Let staff do work.
Open City Hall Forum
In addition to the October 5th meeting date, an online forum through Open City Hall, has been
available for members of the public to provide feedback and comments/suggestions regarding the
Fiscal Health Response Plan. The comments below are the results of 120 participants answering
the following two questions: 1. What feedback do you have about the potential components of
the Fiscal Health Response Plan? 2. What ideas do you have for workable solutions to address
the problem? The answers to these questions are organized below by question.
1. What feedback do you have about the potential components of the Fiscal Health
Response Plan?
How embaressing that this situation has been permitted to evolve into the mess that it is.
I would rather see smarter decisions, and trimming of the fat first. Be more responsible with the
public trust (money).
OPERATIONAL REDUCTIONS or less expenses for questionable builidnig projects: Forget the
Prado Rd. Fwy interchange (at least for the time being)
My feedback is extreme concern… concern about being in this position now… and worry that
overspending will continue to happen w/o lessons being learned.
The problem is a balance sheet problem – the underfunded pension pool is an asset that is
smaller than the pension liability. Treating the problem as an annual expense problem is going to
result in inadequate action.
New ways of doing business: How do you get back to why a COMMUNITY CHOOSES to
become a City in the first place? It is not to form a corporation that will become the largest
employer in town with the best benefits and salaries in town (although there would be nothing
wrong with that if it were sustainable), it's for more localized representation compared to
remaining in the County - Period. It's cityofslo.org not cityofslo.com, the residents and
businesses are not shareholders who receive dividends when the City pats itself on the back
("fiscal responsibility") for 10's of Millions in reserves (e.g. Santa Barbara; while the County has
to hawk it's fire engines). A City should not operate like a normal corporation making decisions
based on increasing IT's revenues and decreasing IT's liabilities, it (supposedly) represents the
needs and desires of THE COMMUNITY that elected to form it. Decisions from the elected
Packet Page 162
11
Fiscal Health Response Plan – Comments and Suggestions
leadership should always include a step back to these fundamental facts of 'why' the City in the
first place. 2. Operational reductions: Well let's see, we're talking about 1/5 of the general fund
to work with here? Eliminate all operations? Increase efficiency? Our water bills doubled in
return for the town rallying in water conservation - if we (City- the place - not Inc.) really tried
hard to be the best at conservation could we shoot for tripling our bills!? Are we talking about
reducing operations such as the cost of new rangers to give tickets for dogs off leash or hiking
(on public land) at night, or any of the other super new rules (= violations = revenues) imposed
on our 'laid back' community in the last 5 years? leading to... 3. Revenue options: Well we all
know whose pockets this will come from. Watch the street sweeper, who really cares (often
observed) to go over and over the hard to get spots, change from a service to a revenue generator
like Santa Barbara, with multiple parking patrol vehicles racing in tandem (play flying monkey
music from wizzard of oz) up to a half hour ahead of the sweeper (now charging along in a cloud
of dust) to shower the residents with violations for forgetting to move their cars (to another 'zone'
not close by), for thinking that they still were living the hard to find, real, relaxed pace(?), SLO
Life. We could permit more hotels (for visitors) on any remaining parking lots in a downtown
that the locals still love and frequent (unlike Santa Barbara), and increase parking patrols there as
well. Maybe the City (Inc.) could take credit for our 'happiest place' status and in view of that
'service', impose a new residential happy tax - instead of just raising the run of the mill taxes
(per the other 3,000 cities 'just like us'). 4. Employee concessions: Everyone else takes a pay cut
for the pleasure and privilege of living in SLO, but the City (Inc.) bases it's compensation on
other average City's where the primary reason to move there is jobs, not quality of life. What
other jobs (anywhere or any kind other than government) offer pensions - or binding arbitration
for that matter? The City (Inc.) will always attract great talent for every position because people
wan to live here, and raise a family in a place with an authentic core. We are in this situation
(can kicked for a decade) because the City (Inc.) took care of itself, leaving the community on
the hook for the completely unsustainable debts. The City (Inc.) needs to clean it's own house,
or something much stronger than Measure A is coming, regardless of the team of salaried
attorneys at the governments bequest. I hear that the law is on the side of the City, but the City
needs to get on the side of the community who created their organization - by law - by choice.
Maybe we should have stuck with the County - they may be "broke", but there's no 'pension
crisis' either.
Just like our social security potential shortfall will be born by the recipients, the undunded
Pension should be born by staff & current retirees benefits and not services to citizens.
The City negotiated in good faith, so
We are in deep trouble. The City has made financial promises they cannot keep.
From what I’ve been able to see here, it is very hard to tell what the “plan” actually is.
1. New Ways of Doing Business - suggest an ongoing, continuous review of the services city
government provides. Compare costs incurred (inclduing pension liability, health benefits,
vacation time, etc.) with costs of contracting services out to the private sector. Where
comaprable services could be provided by the private sector at a savings to the taxpayers, these
services should be outsourced to the private sector. This would keep employment and associated
Packet Page 163
11
Fiscal Health Response Plan – Comments and Suggestions
revenues within the city, but reduce the city's costs. 2. Operational reductions - I think the hiring
chill is a good first step. Every department should do a thorough review of services and revenue
generated with a goal of trimming costs and becoming more efficient. The goal of each
department should be to continue providing excellent service but reduce costs wherever possible.
3. Revenue options - I think the city should charge just and reasonable fees for services
renderred, but not increase fees for water and sewer or add more taxes. These utility services
have skyrocketed in the last decade and this basic necessity should not be used to generate more
revenue; nor should increased taxes be assessed to raise revenue. 4. Employee concessions - I
think employees need to bear an even greater portion of the unfunded pension liability. A
miscellaneous employee retiring at age 62 with 35 years of service, for example, would receive a
pension = 70% of his or her highest annual salary - for life. This is an enormous benefit that
fewer and fewer people in the private sector receive. The costs are huge and the employees
should pay a larger portion of these costs. Secondly, I believe current employees under the
pension formula Tier 1 or Tier 2 should have their contracts renegotiated so as to reduce future
benefits to the Tier 3 formula. Pension benefits accrued to date would remain intact, but on a
going forward basis future benefits should accrue at the Tier 3 rate. This would be an enormous
cost savings to the city and to the employees as it would reduce the need for bigger increases of
the employee's share of pension costs. This is a negotiable item, just like vacation days, medical
benefits, etc. There is nothing 'sacred' about one's pension benefits being accrued in the future.
The components proposed seem fine but I'm more interested in the process to develop the
content, especially "new ways of doing business" and "revenue options." There's no doubt that
current operations and services could be become more efficient. It's not clear the City's current
system of governance supports approaches that challenge the status quo. We should aim not to
reduce services, especially those services that are aligned with our goals set through our 2 -year
budget process.
Increase property taxes (Please know that I also own 3 rentals and still support incremental
increases over the 10 year period)
Glad to see some changes in the way of doing business may be working their way into this
project. The few middle class families that remain in SLO are in danger of being completel y
driven out if City Policy continues down the road leading to an exclusive wealthy retirement
community. Somewhere the City lost the fact that they work for us and developed an incredible
self entitlement program based on keeping up with the Jones's in any other nearby entitlement
Cities.
This is a problem we'll all be facing eventually, either because our own pensions or retirement
funds are at risk or because, as taxpayers, we are paying contributing to pension costs. I'm not
exactly sure what the answer is but I think all PERS employees need to be made aware that their
money may not be there when they retire.
taxpayer money should not be used to transfer money from lower incomes to upper income
retirees.
Packet Page 164
11
Fiscal Health Response Plan – Comments and Suggestions
Actively working to generate revenue from marijuana sales is a start along with tourism which
seems to be on the rise.
Sorry, insufficiently familiar w/ the current plan to comment.
So far so good, but don't over due it either. City always seems to have a surplus and construction
and housing prices are booming
The components are fine.
The proposed changes look like they're not drastic enough.
Don't want to see our water and/or sewer rates or any other fees for essential services being
raised. If our city truly wants to provide affordability, then raising fees to residents will exclude
more workforce and low income residents.
The issue must be addressed now as it will only get worse. I recommend a variety of approaches
to solve the problem. First, address the root cause by negotiating with the employee unions.
Retiring at 100% of salary is totally unreasonable and must change. Look at enhancing revenue
streams.
people paid into the plan confident that future bills would be paid; it would be stealing to keep it
from them!
Follow the rule of 80. Years of service plus age must equal 80 before an employee can collect his
or her pension. This is the statewide system in Texas.
Lacks specifics and dollars. How can we judge?
sounds like we're in a pickle
Pull out of PERS and provide pensions in line with what private companies provide. Work with
other cities to creat a new pension program that is reasonable.
These shortfalls have been considered/predicted for years. Staff recommendations need to
reflect entrepreneurial thinking and belt-tightening on all levels. Every effort should be made
to maximize income by going after all business licenses (including rental owners) and seeking
every opportunity for legitimate new income streams. As Water and Parking fees are enterprise
funds, they have no impact re: general fund needs.
Not enough.
X
Packet Page 165
11
Fiscal Health Response Plan – Comments and Suggestions
I think there needs to be some adjustment to salary schedules for fire and police. When you
look at salaries of City of San Luis Obispo employees One notices that fire fighters and police
officers dominate the first five pages of the sallaries of employees. Lets face it San Luis is not
that "rough" of a place to work. It is not like LA or Chicago etc. Additionally, the number of fires
we have in SLO is not high, again not like a big city. I think we could increase age of retirement
of many public safety officers to decrease Cal pers payments.
Reduction of services is unacceptable. Claw back excessive pensions from every "pensioner"
taking in more than $100K.
GREATER EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO THEIR OWN PENSIONS IS A MUST.
SLO is a member of the CA League of Cities, right?? All members are dealing with this problem
!! Whatever “best practices ” are being developed within that group should be considered for
adoption here!!
We need to stay fiscally viable; so we may have a future for ALL of the visitors revenue
Cut back on the non- essential budget items. Buying open space, re-signage in the City
because someone liked the new font, etc. Focus on working with the employees to come up
with solutions. The employees are the experts, listen to them. Holding the retirement system
over the heads of the employees is just not right. Both sides negotiate and both sides agree on
contracts. The employees just gave back 7.5% a few years ago. I would like to see us stop
blaming someone and start resolving the issues.
Have the City merge with County to create a Health Plan, ie a local Single Payer.
I am concerned that this will be insufficient to really address the issue of the unfunded liabilities.
I do not believe that tax payers in the state have been given a clear explanation on how these
pensions became so severely under funded. Before we funnel more and more money into this
we need a complete accounting of this program. Unfortunately our state legislature can not be
trusted to appropriately manage our tax dollars.
Retirement benefits don't exist for the vast majority of City residents yet we are forced to pay for
the wealthy City Staff to live happily ever after. Hardly equitable.
Just like citizens, government should learn to live within its means. Do not spend money you do
not have, and don't mortgage the future.
None
I am sorry this has been handed off for so many years we all new this was coming.
The problem here as I see it is not the employees in this situation but the continued
mismanagement of city funds by the administrators. The city continues to spend money on pet
projects like buying open space, public art, rebranding, bike boulevards, fighting against plastic
straws and other time and money wasting ideas. Government is supposed to provide services to
the city....water, public safety and public works. Our city though thinks that they can spend
money on whims to appease the vocal minority. Why not ask the city a very simple
question.....When the pension system was super funded and the city was not paying its
Packet Page 166
11
Fiscal Health Response Plan – Comments and Suggestions
contribution, where did that money go? It is apparent the city mismanaged that part of it and
instead of saving it in a fund for later they spent it.
Government is a farce
Operational Reductions and employee consessions are the way to go.
I do not understand this question.
We are not alone, as other cities face the same issues with PERS rate increase- which likely will
come down again in near future as PERS recovers in the booming stock market, when all other
City revenue levels are at record or near record highs-drastic measures are not prudent or fair
to the citizens and businesses in town.
Stop spending money
Curtail 'feel good' programs. Highest priorities should be clean water, sewers, solid waste, and
road maintenance.
The city must look closely at the cause of this problem - primarily pensions plans. While steps
have been taken to mitigate the future impact of pension plans, the city must look closely at
drastic cuts in this area. Very few private employers are providing any sort of pension. While
cutbacks have been made with the tiered pension plans, further cuts must be made in this area.
Use the 'increase employee contribution' plan first and see how well it addresses the shortfall.
Relunctantly, I recommend raising the SLO city sales tax
See below
Increase employee contributions
This survey makes no sense
The City should look for ways to decrease it's Pension Obligation, not just raise taxes and fees,
or reducing public services. Government pensions are outrageously lucrative to the employee,
and are an unfair burden to place on the taxpayers and citizens of SLO. Current City employees
and retirees need to be asked to take a significant cut to their pension plan, period
reduce expenses to balance budget, employees pay greater share of benefits
Employees need to finance their own retirement accounts, the taxpayers cannot afford any
more money for pensions for past employees, many of whom no longer live in the area
The city is spending millions on new financial software. I'm not sure that software going to
greatly improve staff efficiency and reduce resources usage; they'll have to prove it to me by
showing the fewer number of employees in those roles. Who comes up with these ideas?
It's the pensions. If nothing is done about that the problem with grow with time. Other solutions
are band aids.
Packet Page 167
11
Fiscal Health Response Plan – Comments and Suggestions
I like that the city pays retirement and every business should
I support operational reductions
Not enough.
I think any solution should leverage wealthy SLO community members vs low-middle income
people and students living in the community.
I have no real experience or understanding of city government or finances, but I LOVE this city,
and want to protect it from falling apart, so...
The plan lacks a realistic view of what the economy will do within the next couple years, and the
ancillary consequences of each option.
The City must first solve the issue of a defined benefits plan which cannot be funded properly.
You must move to a defined contribution plan where employees manage their own retirement
and annual operating costs are known and fixed. unions must be brought to the table and
benefits redefined. it is the only fair solution.
Increased revenue via operations and increased employee contributions to retirement plans are
the only ones that make any sense.
overpaid staff, overtime allowances, pension out of control. it seems obvious
Think more outside the box
I would form a "consulting group" by aggressively consulting with 3-4 other similar size CA-cities
who are dealing with the same issue. SLO does not have to reinvent the "wheel" here
reduce spending for city employee salaries, benefits, etc.. It appears the spending level for city
employees is not sustainable, and the city cannot provide needed services due to the drain of
high city employees benefits and salaries.
Pension plans must be renegotiated people retire younger live longer and make more money
doing so on the back of the rest of the population
City has plenty of revenue. Focus on cost management measures.
City services are already lacking. It is not fair to punish residents for this problem. I will likely
move as will other high earning families.
The City is out of normals with private business which changed years and years ago. This is
why there is a budget issue. The city never earned its money, and thus wastes money
Cut capital improvement projects. Cut open any future open space acquisitions. Cut the plans
and allocations and any work done on the bike master plan.
I'm not sure what this questions means. I don't think I'm alone since a lot of responders ignored
this one.
Packet Page 168
11
Fiscal Health Response Plan – Comments and Suggestions
Stop letting builders and developers buy off the City Councilmans and Board of Supervisors!
This town has been ruined with all the building and traffic- drive the 101 at anytime and enjoy
the parking lot it has become!
Let all person's take some responsibilty for there own issues, take care of YOURSELF
The plan is ultimately on the right track but it needs more stringent and aggressive goals in
order to produce change.
Avoids the real problem of over spending.
Do the right thing for the people you work for,
Prioritize employees and their promised pay and benefits before spending millions on extra and
less priority items with surplus funds, such as a giant skate part, new million dollar park, or sub
par repaving of LOVR. Time to prioritize the core services and start saying ‘no’ to those who
want everything without being able to afford it.
Operate the city like a private business would.
Unfortunately this train has been on the tracks for a long time and the City is standing directly in
front of it.
It's kind of a cop out to blame it all on pensions. They aren't going up $9 million next year. The
budget cites capital improvement projects
Spend more on double decker busses, $40M buildings (gov center, airport, pet shelter, women's
jail). Spend more on city managers, lawyers, studies, and on bothering the existing businesses
that are trying to make a living.
You need to do a better job.
Cut the pensions
Cut pensions
Separate the pension fund and bankrupt it. Or force concessions.
Reduce their benefits
Multi pronged solutions of equal weight is essential to minimize adverse effects while avoiding a
punitive character.
Stop spending so much money
1. New ways of doing business..Yes! As in, stop throwing around phrases like "Fiscal
Responsibility" if you don't man them. The city needs to re-evaluate its priorities when it comes
to spending. The city employees are not owners of a company who are entitled to the 'excess'
from a few good years, unless they are willing to put up the capital in the bad years. The
decision makers should not have written checks they can't cash. 2. Revenue Options....I don't
Packet Page 169
11
Fiscal Health Response Plan – Comments and Suggestions
agree with the City seeking additional revenues from residents because it made obligations it
can't meet. 3. Operational Reductions...The residents shouldn't have to experience reductions in
basic services. The city needs to re-evaluate its spending priorities. As example of reduction in
services that doesn't directly negatively impact residents, would be reducing funds put toward
attracting tourists. 4. Employee Concessions...Yes.
The costs are in salaries- you have to cut salaries. You cannot "fix" your problems hoping on the
mythical "pot of gold" at the end of the development rainbow
2. What ideas do you have for workable solutions to address the problem?
It is too late to rearrange the deck-chairs on the Titantic. Ignorgant financial management has
created a scenario where significant adjustments and cut-backs must be made.
Look to privatize departments that are ineffective. Think outside of the box when developing
new properties. The numbers I have seen tossed around for the new police station are crazy.
How about converting an existing underused facility outside the core of the city? Keep part of
the old location, but move the main station to a more affordable part of town. How about out on
Prado Road?
It is scientifically proven that the interchange costs more than the benefits we get from it
(Caltrans Hwy 101 Corridor Study by Kittelson Ass.). It has many problems like environment,
flood protection. It is no more a scenic highway corridor. We need more creative Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) as practised by Cal Poly or the Cities of Davis CA or Boulder CO.
EJ, Fellow Institiute of Transportation Engineers ITE after 56 years of professional experience in
Europe, USA, Mexico. and Middle East. Many thanks for your efforts.
cut the bike master plan entirely. everyone i talk to thinks it can't work in this large of an area
AND puts even more bicyclists and auto drivers in physical danger on roads unable to
accomodate both. stop funding tourism marketing, this area attracts plenty w/o precious
taxpayer money being thrown at it.
Need a plan to close the gap between the pension fund and the liability (calculated using real
and reasonable rates of return.) Maybe a 10 year recovery plan such that by 2027 current
employees and taxpayers are paying pension benefits only for current employees and not for
past employees' past service.
This is a 'crisis' is caused by around 500 individuals (so far)? Here's an idea - the City can
change their retirement plan to the same system as the County, or a similar scale re-structuring
required for a broken system. The new local leadership is in my view the most promising in a
long time, and has been exemplary in reaching out to residents for their concerns, and therefore
the situation is not hopeless. MAYBE this won't be a Pro Forma survey where the expected
outcome will be "well we reached out but nothing came of it so 'we' are forced to bite the bullet
and .....(wait for it)". When you get railroaded the tracks are always greased by waiting until the
last hour - " 'crisis' management". A starter then would be to expand on this outreach, use the
technology and media available to add more transparency to the problem for more residents to
engage in (rather than the .0001% who can stop working or tending their families long enough
to make it to one or two meetings). This is one of the last "real" places this far south on the
coast according to my friends who visit and I agree. There is an irreplaceable intangible at
stake here. I don't like to expound about this place and what makes it such a breath of fresh air,
the easy going community vibe, the last remnants of understatement in a highly desirable
Packet Page 170
11
Fiscal Health Response Plan – Comments and Suggestions
coastal cal town, but we have to talk about it now if we don't want be talking about what we
gave up.
Eliminate street sweeping in residential areas; it's pointless due to curbside parking and leaf
drop. Consolidate the Planning Commission and the ARC into a five-member "Development
Review Commission," with occasional ad hoc committees for General Plan updates.
If all CALPERS agencies stood united against CALPERS reckless & goofy accounting, we could
fix the problem by reducing the promises to everyone as underfunded private sector pensions
do/have. It would take courage. We need to create a stop-loss amount where we push back and
refuse to pay more. If all agencies stood together, we could resolve this and nor be held
hostage by CALPERS ever again. We can change the rules at the ballot box with legsislation.
Watch for Gov. Brown's lobby efforts to allow these changes.
Get needed revenue by allowing from brick and mortar pot businesses.
Stop hiring anybody, sub-contract out all services and eliminate all new hiring. You have no
choice at this point. The hole that has been dug is too deep.
Keep a hiring and travel “chill”; altogether too many city employees right now. Reduce the
rediculously high salaries of the city police, and again, SLO seems to have way more police
than any other city of its size. I'd get rid of at least half of them.
As stated above in the last point, I strongly believe ALL current employees should be brought
under the Tier 3 (PEPRA) pesnion benefit formula. Benefits accrued would be maintained, but
benefits earned going forward would be under a lower benefit formula. This is required in order
for the city and its taxpayers to get a handle on the pension situation which is only getting worse
day by day.
Fiscal impacts should be a determining factor in evaluating different service changes. For
example, Cal Poly students recently petitioned SLO Transit to increase service. SLO Transit
accomodated their requests. They chose to do so in a way that had the "greatest financial
impact on our operating budget." (Refer to the Minutes from the 9/13/17 Mass Transportation
Committee meeting). When we are facing this fiscal crisis, staff should implement changes that
have the LEAST impact on their operating budgets. Each department making decisions with
fiscal impacts on the forefront would go a long ways towards fiscal sustainability.
Employee contributions and retirement age should be increased for ALL employees, especially
public safety. We need to ensure that we do not repeat costly past mistakes in negotiating
contracts with public safety unions. That said, the City should just not stop hiring or filling
essential positions that support City goals. It's likely that we have unnecessary positions or
redundancy in some departments, but "chilling" hiring and limiting open positions to internal
recruiting hurts our City. We need to bring in new talent from outside of the region to br ing
greater diversity and expertise. The current approach to staffing isn't helping us to hire smart,
creative, and innovative thinkers and doers.
I think that we should update the property taxes with present value of homes. Some old homes
that haven't been sold in many years have a value that is many times their present assessed
value, so their taxes are lower than what others are paying.
Packet Page 171
11
Fiscal Health Response Plan – Comments and Suggestions
Run the city more like middle class families have to run their families. No more massive new
vehicle replacements programs or shiny new buses. Look forward enough to know not to hire
staff for programs the residents are dead set against like the housing inspection ordinance and
when the program is cancelled those employees should be cancelled as well. The City is not a
high end jobs program. Top tier City management has been grossly overpaid and should not be
hired from outside but from withing the existing ranks when possible. We don't have to be the tip
of the spear on every issue if it is going to cost us. Fix the things we have now before adding to
our responsibilities with more acquisitions and more hires. The bottom line is that until the City
wages and pensions drop to reasonable levels matching the levels of those they work for (Us)
we are doomed for failure. We need to educate the residents against becoming the sheep
willing to follow the "Let's just increase fees on somebody else and move on".
Perhaps CalPERS could become more of an investment banker - employees can designate the
amount of their own wages they want to invest and then collect it upon retirement. The
employees make contributions from their own income and assume the risks and benefits
associated therewith.
reduce PERs contributions and benefits to be in line with an index that includes comparable
jobs and also includes a limit on redistributive effects.
I believe that overtime all pensions should be reduced or eliminated to new hires but at the
same time a livable wage should be paid during employment. Make volunteerism a bigger
factor in supporting the city in areas that would keep additional personnel at or reduced levels.
Use innovative office practices that work learned from other cities of same size.
An effective way to prevent future problems along this line is to promise to pay to Cit y Council
and top City Management a significant bonus at 5, 10, 15 and 20 year intervals if the pension
cost estimate goals are met or exceeded. Similarly a small portion (7.5%) of current City Council
and top City Management salary should be withheld and be payable with interest to the
individuals involved (or their estates) at 5, 10, 15 and 20 year intervals ONLY IF pension goals
are met or exceeded.
Make it a fair, and balanced, system - for the pensioners, for current employees, for the
community, using the four options identified.
I would like to see a modest reduction in salaries across the board for all city employees. A
freeze on any increase of city employee salaries and hiring until CALpers can be funded and
city budget covers the cost.
Reduce our Staff through attrition. We have increased our Staff to the point where we are
paying far too much out to salaries and pension.
Negotiate changes with the unions. For the parking structures, eliminate the free first hour,
people will still use them. Consider adding a half percent increase to the bed tax.
arbitration w/ a committee of 5-6 responsible retirees
See above. People earn their pensions but being eligible to collect as early as 50 is bankrupting
our communities.
Packet Page 172
11
Fiscal Health Response Plan – Comments and Suggestions
Contract out Fire Protection to Cal Fire as other Cities in the County do. You can set you own
Level of protection and supply Stations and Equipment. Only the personnel and their
management is supplied by Cal Fire. and at a LOWER COST.
maybe a city gas tax of one cent or two?
Reduce pension benefits, change to a defined contribution plan.
Staffing is the #1 SLO City expenditure (like 80 or more % of budget). Cutting hours and
benefits are critical. Some staffers welcome shorter work days. If program costs are
approached, SLO should begin with Parks & Rec and other services considered "nice to have"
while maintaining those vital to daily living . . . vis a vis road maintenance.
I have several friends who have absurdly generous pensions. I have suggested having those
folks agree to a 2- 3% cot to fund future pension costs. The was much less horror than I
imagined. Some pensioners are actually working in the private sector or have second pension.
No one wants to give up money they already receive but even I, as a very low cost pensioner
would give up a few bucks to help out my pension plan. Better than having my plan go belly up
and end up with nada.
First of all, do what Obama did in January 2016. He announced there would be NO COST OF
LIVING increase on Social Security that year. The reason? He said that it was because the
price of gas was low. SLO can do the same thing for the pensions.
Salaries are bloated. Cut salaries, or bring new people in at lower salaries. Pension costs will
decrease also.
I think there needs to be some adjustment to salary schedules for fire and police. When you
look at salaries of City of San Luis Obispo employees One notices that fire fighters and police
officers dominate the first five pages of the sallaries of employees. Lets face it San Luis is not
that "rough" of a place to work. It is not like LA or Chicago etc. Additionally, the number of fires
we have in SLO is not high, again not like a big city. I think we could increase age of retirement
of many public safety officers to decrease Cal pers payments.
AA monetary cap on size of pensions. They should be good pensions, but fire and police with
pensions greater than $100K is just wrong, also for administrators. Cap pensions at $xx and
adjust for inflation from there.
I HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT CITY EMPLOYEE "COMPENSATION" (INCLUDING ALL
PENSION, HEALTH BENEFITS, ETC.) SHOULD BE ON A PAR WITH THE PRIVATE
SECTOR. AS A PROFESSIONAL IN THE CITY FOR 30 YEARS, I HAD TO PUT AWAY ALL
OF MY OWN MONEY TO FUND MY RETIREMENT. A SIMILAR APPROACH SHOULD BE
TAKEN WITH CITY EMPLOYEES. TO CONTINUE WITH A DEFINED BENEFIT APPROACH
TO RETIREMENT (WHICH HARDLY EXISTS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR) SHOULD NOT
EXIST IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR (MUCH AS THE PRIVATE SECTOR REALIZED DECADES
AGO). ALL OF US HAVE TAKEN A FINANCIAL HIT TO LIVE IN SLO, ESPECIALLY AS
COMPARED TO THE COST OF LIVING HERE. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES SHOULD NOT BE AN
EXCEPTION.
Packet Page 173
11
Fiscal Health Response Plan – Comments and Suggestions
THIS Might be far fetched: Charge for farmers market: lots of outta-towners visit!!!!!!!!!
Collaborate for ideas
Hire out our current employees’ expertise. Why can’t we have our building department, police,
fire, water, offer classes in which we charge a fee. How about getting restitution for fire and
police calls that are deemed intentional? How about advertising on our vehicles? Who wouldn’t
want to sponsor the Fire Dept’s medical department or their hose compartment? I’m sure ABC
Bailbonds would love to advertise on a Police car. That’s all “free” money.
Since the elite have restricted taxes on income the City should raise revenues in commercial
areas. Have the City lend money to collect interest. Have the City act as developer for land
converted to housing collecting rent on affordable housing. The City should supply internet
services charging fair amounts for broadband.
Further changes to pensions for new employees. Moving to a defined contribution program.
Lower the cap on pension payout. Give employees the option to contribute for a larger
retirement benefit. Address the issue of waste in these agencies - Overstaffing, outdated
policies that waste money, government red tape that only causes inefficiency, actually
terminating employees who do not perform. Money saved could be used to address the
shortfall. As individuals we have all had to make concession and tighten our belts as we are
taxed again and again. Maybe it's time for the state to do the same thing.
City employees are overpaid when compared to the residents that they serve. They have
become the rich robbing from the poor. General lack of accountability and efficiency.
Whatever changes the city staff comes up with for you (the council) to consider, keep in mind
that the stock market is approaching the end of a 10 year expansion. The likelihood of a
recession in the next year is extremely high. This will have negative effects on the calpers
investments and compound the pension debt SLO will be faced with. So when hearing the city
staff's recommendations for how to handle the pension debt, keep in mind that we are due for a
pension crisis. I would recommend getting a free 14 day trial of Real Vision TV if you want to
understand what state the economy is in, and make more educated/drastic changes than what
the city staff presents to you. Good luck.
City jobs should be paid based on competitive market rates, not comparisons with adjacent
counties. Wage increases should not be 'automatic' but based on merit.
I don't understand why local government thinks they need to provide higher wages and higher
benefit levels than the private sector. Benefit levels should be cut immediately to match what
typical private employers are paying, not phased in over several years. Employees won't quit.
They are not likely to find a better deal anywhere else in the county. If this is not handled
appropriately, when the city goes bankrupt, there will be even more drastic cuts to be made.
Better to make smaller ones now.
I thinks there are 3 solutions: you can raise fees for everything connected to the city 2) you can
spend proposition G money that was promised to the citizens. 3 I thinks it s time we bring the
cost of our city goverdown and I mean the cost in all areas from newly hired park rangers
maybe 1 of 2 or 3 rental inspectors cut to 2 cut salaries and redo the pension plan new hires. I
am not not sure this city council has the stomach for what should be done.
Packet Page 174
11
Fiscal Health Response Plan – Comments and Suggestions
The reality is that a lot of people on this survey just do not get it. PERS pensions are not going
away and the city will not be going to a 401K system. It would take law at the legislature to
make that happen and to leave PERS would cost the city dearly. The employees negotiated
these benefits fairly based on industry standards to blame them is irresponsible and more blame
needs to be put on the administration and their continued mismanagement of funds.
Furthermore you have an elected body who cannot make a decision due to the fact that the
Chamber of Commerce board think that they should have a say in city business, employee
contracts and governing of the city. Too many of our elected officials need to think for
themselves and if they cannot then they need to be held accountable by being recalled or
thrown out of office. The employees already pay their share of the costs and its time for the city
to cut out the fat throughout the city and get back to back essential services period.
Allow marijuana stores in the city
People are willing to work for less to live in SLO. It happens in the private sector, the same
should be true for the City Gov. We don't have to pay the same amounts as other cities.
It's time to start charging for parking. The zoning update should establish a parking maximum
for developers. By reducing parking and realistically pricing parking, you will reduce traffic
congestion while creating a sustainable revenue source. Do not eliminate transit service.
A thoughtful and well balanced approach, increasing revenues by allowing Marijuana sales in
town is a no brainer. Temporarily reducing spending on non essential services for the next
budget cycle. Make policy to utilize future budget surpluses and/or windfalls that the City comes
by be dedicated to paying down PERS obligation. Consider offering older employees some
reasonable early retirement incentives and freeze position if non essential and refill with new
employee in new PERS tier when appropriate. Work cooperatively with current employees to
increase their contributions- within reason of what other city's are doing so not to create and
exodus of quality work force who make this city the great place it is. Thank you for your
consideration
Stop spending money
Significant employee contributions to their retirement programs. They already receive higher
compensation than equivalent private sector employee
Legalize and tax marijuana
Reduce number of employees; cut back on all non-guaranteed pensions (for example, long term
employees should get what is already promised but future payments into their plans should be
reduced); reduce exorbitant public safety overtime; focus only on essential services such as
road maintenance and public safety)
I am a member of a public employee union, and I have to pay about 45% of the total
contribution (11% of my salary) to that system. The city pays nearly 80% of the total contribution
to STRS? Crazy!! Also, reduce the 3% formula for public safety, why do they get 50% mor e than
other employees, and retire earlier. They are great employees with dangerous jobs but that is
just too much of a perk.
Also, ask employyes to contribute more to their retirement...and maybe have a two-tiered
system where new employees have a less-generous pension plan.
Packet Page 175
11
Fiscal Health Response Plan – Comments and Suggestions
1. Base all pensions only on base salary, not any adders due to overtime or unused sick leave
and vacation. 2. Freeze existing pensions (no annual increases). 3. Increase contributions by
current employees. 4. Future employees use 401k type benefit only.
Reduce the city government payroll by cutting positions & departments that constitute
unnecessary luxuries.
Increase employees contributions and reduce operational costs
City manager should be required to take a course in basis mathematics, with the goal that they
learn to understand the true cost of pension plans , discount rates, etc. If prior management
truly understood the math, no one would have ever agreed to the current pension scheme, as it
is not sustainable even at a planned average rate of return of 7.5% (now 7%).
reduce number of employees, utilize contract workers, modify retirement program, eliminate
defined "benefit" plan, employees responsible for benefits, no OT.
Increase employee contributions to retirement. Decrease employee wages to more properly
reflect the value of the service performed. Stop setting salaries based on similar cities. The
wage should be established as what is best for the citizens, not what is best for the employees.
We should establish a citizen group to negotiate all future salary and benefit packages for city
employees.
Quit following stupid industry guidelines such as replacing computers every couple of years.
Replace them when necessary. Buy used vehicles instead and make use of them longer.
Nobody cares about you're brand new shiny vehicles. Lower salaries. There is no proof one city
manager at 300K is any better than a city manager at 100K. Heck, you can have 3 city
managers for 300K and I'm pretty sure 3 is better than one. I'm sure nothing will change except
taxation of the people. It's the only thing government knows.
Increase worker pension contributions significantly.
Increase taxes to pay for the city. The city is great and everyone wants to live here. Assess
each home $100,000 and have rent control put in so the renters don't pay for it. Fine businesses
$10,000 per year for each location if they do not pay living wages and provide retirement. That
way, the city can hire more people who can live here if the current businesses do not pay a fair
wage. It is such a great place, everyone should be able to live and retire here.
Get over it and make $ from marijuana sales
overall, if a transition to 'portable' 401K style retirement plans could be implemented
immediately, transitioning away from the current PERS system, that would be helpful. Fix a
percentage of city payroll budget for safety employees and the associated PERS costs.
Immediate hiring freeze, stop approval of multi-use with minimal bottom floor comercial,
promote storefront marijuana shops near Poly and downtown where tourists frequent.
Policing is an incredibly expensive program to run in any city, and San Luis Obispo is no
different. There is a national movement, led by the likes of Black Lives Matter, Fight for 15,
DAPL, and BDS to divest from institutions that cause our communities danger, and invest in
Packet Page 176
11
Fiscal Health Response Plan – Comments and Suggestions
what keeps us healthy. To take these movement seriously would be to take divestment from
policing seriously. This is not a radical policy idea--in fact, its happening all over the country
(look at Rikers Island, for example!). This would be a perfect opportunity to put progressive
politics into action: divest from policing, invest in health care pensions!
I love the idea of partnering with other small cities facing this, or who have successfully
navigated it already. Taxing weed sounds like a great plan. Solar/wind options that would lower
costs over time; more pay in by employees, raising sales tax, (is there a way to raise it on tourist
focused industries?), and raising property tax on homes not being occupied by the owner (if you
want to own a large portion of our town, pay into it).
Allow recreational marijuana dispensaries in town.
Stop the improvements for frivolous projects, stop giving breaks to residential projects, start
listening to residents and pay in full the pensions earned by last workers.
Tax the rich! Stop taking from people who can barely afford to live here.
Defined contribution plan to replace defined benefits. no other solution will work.
The compensation structure of city employees for a city with our tax revenue is highly
disproportionate. We either need to increase the half cent sales tax to a full penny or really
restructure the benefits packages of employees with 20+ years
the city has indulged its employees for too long; your retired employees ... retire at younger and
younger ages, live here when no young people can afford to and where persons employed in
non city jobs cannot as well. it should be obvious. it should have been obvious decades ago.
start here first, then approve marijuana and tax it , but not before you end the greed of the city
employees here.
Cannabis Taxes
Contract Fire Services w/SLO County/CAL Fire will save MILLIONS & PROVIDE THE SAME
LEVEL OF SERVICE.
Yes. Raise employee contribution to pers. It's an excellent retirement program, but employee
contribution have always been too low for the return. They should be more vested.
Also look at how medium size for-profit companies employing unionized-staff are dealing with
these same issues. Most have switched to 401K plans.
Pay city employees lower salaries and benefits. These items are too a large portion of the city's
budget, and this spending expense is not sustainable relative to city revenues
Cost is mostly payroll, so need to reduce it. Cut police and fire staffing. Their cost is outrageous
due to overly generous pensions. Eliminate overtime where possible. Increase employee
contributions across the board. Cut management salaries. We don't need to pay City Manager
in line with Beverly Hills and other "comparable" cities. Of course, you will not do any of this, so
this outreach effort is just another waste of money.
Packet Page 177
11
Fiscal Health Response Plan – Comments and Suggestions
Increase employee contributions, reduce future pensions, band with other cities to force
CALPERS and the state to live up to their obligations
instead of comparing to other cities, which got SLO in trouble, compare to normal private
business. No pension. Stop it now. 401K. Bring the salaries in line with private business
Cut costs, increase revenue- Raise taxes, Hiring freeze. Limit work on any capital improvement.
Employees should pay more into the system. After all, they are really just paying their future
selves. The City should contribute more to the system. This will make it more difficult to give
City employees future raises thus making their payout at retirement less. The City could curtail
wasteful spending such as poorly designed bike plans (yes, Chorro Street) that residents living
on those streets feel is unsafe.
Stop giving the Board of Supervisors raises! Bloated salaries and benefits need to end!
Easy Fix, do not allow double dippers to collect a dime
Offer those who are close to collecting on CalPers another few year so of work with an incentive
to spread the timeline of payment. Insure that overtime is not paid on all levels, this is simple
scheduling to insure overtime does not occur. Implement expectations of performance, and
make sure there is transparency between the city manager and council. Maximize city property
as best possible to insure property is being utilized to its fullest. Reasses salaries offered by the
city. As a local business owner we cannot compete with the rates offered by the city in many of
the positions. In addition, the expectation of productivity in the workforce is laughable. There are
no performance goals, there are no pressures for the city staff/employees to perform. In fact, it
still holds true the stigma of getting hired by the city equates to a well paying easy going job. A
typical business hires based on experience and has expectations of deliverables. If not met,
people are fired. The city needs to reasses what current job positions are held and where there
might be overlap where salaries can be modified.
While interest rates are low, float a long term bond that covers the entire shortfall. Mandate a
cut in the budget.
The city is crawling with unpermitted construction. Not just the little things but whole houses
being remodled with no permits. I reported one but the city did nothing. Note these can be seen
from the street yet crickets.....
Make Marijuana sales legal. Tax it
It's easy cut spending like we have to do. Cut benefits. Give higher medical copays or less
coverage for a 5 year period. It's what we do have to do with our post tax money.
Cut jobs. I see no other way. Cut waste where can.
Prioritize government and create a hierarchy for services provided. Realize surplus funds as a
way to pay down debt, rather than splurge on added burdens
Cut from the top. The waste is almost always at the management level.
Packet Page 178
11
Fiscal Health Response Plan – Comments and Suggestions
1. Reduce/eliminate unnecessary expenses. 2. Create new forms of revenue by tapping into
areas not yet capitalized on. For example: 1. Retrofit all parking garages with smart automated
tech. Eliminate staff and double the rates. Current rates are too cheap relative to the value of a
downtown parking garage. Consumers will pay as long as checkout is FAST and easy. 2. Make
sure all equipment using up water/energy is as efficient as possible to ensure best rates and
utility expenses. 3. Sell or lease under utilized city owned property to private parties at market
rate.
The only way to truly address this situation is to reduce services and cap the amount of allotted
overtime. Those that remain on staff should be asked to take a voluntary pay cut (especially the
police department as they are the highest paid department in the county).
Hold off on some capital improvements until an infrastructure bill is passed. Focus on
maintaining what we have. Seek grants. Increase enterprise ventures
Spend and tax.
You need to do a better job.
Cut the pensions
Embrace recreational marijuana and thereby increase tax revenue
Cut pensions
As above, it is not fair that the citizens have to pay for an inflated pension. This is worse than
simple bureaucratic red tape. Young tax paying families will suffer while non tax paying retired
people benefit... Perfect way to kill an economy
Reduce their benefits
The problem must be recognized as a temporary demographic one as baby boomers retire.
Reducing certain services may go unnoticed by residents. Certain types of fines should be
increased in areas where compliance has not been satisfactorily achieved according to police
logs and especially where the quality of life is impacted, meaning not parking fine which are
already too high. More city sponsored events which generate revenue may be considered while
other sacred events such as Concerts in the Plaza should remain free. Prudent investment of
city funds to generate growing revenue will be essential
Stop spending so much money
Having the City re-evaluate its priorities with regard to spending of available resources.
Cut salaries for employees making above 150k by 20%, between 100k-150k 18%, between
85K-100K 15%, 55k-85K 10%
Packet Page 179
11
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Page 180
11
Meeting Date: 4/17/2018
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: COUNCIL DIRECTION REGARDING FUNDING THE FUTURE OF SLO
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive a Report on the projects, community feedback, and funding sources for Funding
the Future of SLO; and
2. Direct Staff to return to Council as part of the 2019-2021 Financial Plan with an outreach
and engagement plan, a prioritized project list, and recommendations to fund Capital
Projects within the Funding the Future of SLO initiative.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
Funding the Future of SLO represents the first time in the City’s recent history that staff has
taken a comprehensive review of the specific projects that create the vision as articulated in
various planning documents. These documents were not completed in isolation – but rather are
the result of extensive public engagement, advisory body review and public hearings. In total, the
projects that implement these plans fulfil the vision and social, environmental and economic
goals of the City and the community. The planning documents therefore, are the expression of
public and Council desires for the future of San Luis Obispo. Funding the Future of SLO takes
the city’s preferred future as described in the Land Use and Circulation Element, the Bicycle
Transportation Plan, the Downtown and Mission Plaza Concept Plans, and other documents –
and summarizes the projects required to implement the described visions. In addition, it is
significant to note that Measure G and the Council’s priority to maintain existing infrastructure –
enable the City to look to the future. Without the current healthy investments toward maintaining
the City’s existing infrastructure – it would be difficult to justify plans to build additional
infrastructure.
This report includes three related but distinct sections. The first section summarizes the capital
projects that constitute the Funding the Future of SLO proposal. The second section provides the
Council with a summary of the outreach to date – including community meetings, Open City
Hall, phone an on-line survey, and a Community Forum. The third and final section summarizes
the potential funding options for consideration.
DISCUSSION
On December 12, 2017, and January 16, 2018, the City Council reviewed the proposed projects
included in what was then called the “10 Year CIP.” Since the January meeting, staff has
completed the following:
1. Continued to refine the projects included on the list;
2. Expanded the implementation time frame to 20 years;
Packet Page 181
12
3. Ensured projects in Capital Facilities Fee Program are appropriately reflected in Funding
the Future of SLO;
4. Began work with a consulting firm on analyzing various funding options; and
5. Met with community groups, conducted a survey, hosted a community forum.
This report is crafted into three distinct sections as follows; Projects, Community Outreach and
Funding Sources.
Section 1: Projects
There were three primary factors that led to a comprehensive analysis of the City’s Long-term
Capital needs. They are as follows:
1. City Council Major Council Goal on Financial Sustainability and Responsibility included
a particular task to develop a plan to finance the City’s long-term capital needs. The due
date for this task is Spring of 2018.
2. The City’s Capital Facilities Fee Program (CFFP) update, adopted by Council on April 3,
2018, included a detailed look at projects to be included in the impact fee program.
3. The City has concluded, or has in process, several important planning documents,
including the updated General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element, Bicycle
Transportation Plan, Open Space Master Plan, Downtown Concept Plan, Mission Plaza
Concept Plan, Facilities Master Plan, and several other documents. Each of these
documents include a list of projects which reflect community needs and interests for the
future.
Fundamental assumptions in the development of the Funding the Future of SLO include the
following:
1. This list only includes projects supported all or in part by the City’s General Fund.
Enterprise Fund projects will be considered in future Financial Plans as part of the fund
review of each individual Enterprise Fund.
2. The project list will differ from the CFFP project list in that the CFFP list extends to full
build-out in 30 years. The Future of SLO includes projects that can be completed in 20
years.
3. Project costs are in various stages of definition. Some projects, like Prado Road
Interchange, are in the engineering and environmental phase, and others, such as
Ludwick Center has undergone a general Needs Assessment. Given the 20-year time
horizon, there could be changes in scope which could modify individual costs as the
project gets closer to construction.
After continued analysis of the project list provided to the Council in January, Chart 1 below
summarizes the General Fund contribution to all funded and unfunded projects over the next
twenty years.
Packet Page 182
12
Chart 1
Maintenance of
Existing Infrastructure
Enhancement of
Existing Infrastructure
New
Projects
Total
Unfunded
Total projects 43 57 16 73
Total Cost $150 M $322 M $ 96 M $418 M
Funding Status Funded primarily
through Measure G and
SB 1 (state Gas Tax
increase)
Unfunded Unfunded
The above chart emphasizes a very important point. That is, Measure G and the Council’s
priority, reinforced by the Revenue Enhancement Oversight Committee, enables the City to
maintain existing city assets. This focus on maintaining and replacing existing streets, storm
drains, parks play equipment, urban forest, sidewalks, bike facilities and other infrastructure
enables the city to look to the future. Since priority goes toward maintaining existing
infrastructure, there are no current projected revenues available sufficient to fund projects in
Funding the Future of SLO. Therefore, significant enhancements of existing infrastructure (such
as replacement of Police Headquarters) and new projects (such as Prado Road Overpass), are
currently not funded given the City’s General Fund future assumed capital contributions.
While much of the discussion regarding Funding the Future of SLO has been on project lists and
total costs, the focus of the initiative is to create the city that was envisioned by the community
as reflected in numerous public processes and forums. Specifically, the list of projects:
1. enhances the quality of life for current and future generations,
2. provides safer and less circuitous transportation options,
3. provides safer facilities for biking and walking,
4. improves police and fire services and emergency response, and
5. enhances cultural, artistic, recreation, entertainment and economic activities.
The projects are not ends in themselves – they are a means to the end of a better quality of life
for San Luis Obispo residents and visitors.
To better understand the types of projects in the two unfunded categories of 1) Enhancement of
Existing, and 2) New Projects – staff grouped all the unfunded projects into Service Areas of 1)
Transportation, 2) Community Improvement and 3) Public Facilities. In addition, within each of
those Service Areas, staff prioritized the projects by decade. In other words, the higher priority
was placed in the 1-10 Year time horizon, and the second priority were placed within the 11-20
Year time horizon.
As noted above, there are 73 projects in the three Service Areas of Community Improvement,
Transportation and Public Facilities. In each of those Service Areas, a critical few projects
represent a large share of the total costs. In addition, they represent the public benefits and
service provided to city residents, businesses and visitors. In the list below, only those projects in
the 1-10-year time frame are considered. Each project includes public benefits, General Fund
costs, and total costs if different from the General Fund contribution.
Packet Page 183
12
Transportation
The projects discussed below are approximately 48% of the total General Fund cost of all
projects within in the Transportation Service Area’s 1-10-year priority list.
1. Prado Road Interchange
• New cross city connection, local and regional link to jobs, housing, recreation and
commerce
• $35 M project, General Fund $4 M
2. Prado Road extension; Higuera to Broad
• New cross city connection, reduced travel times in critical east-west corridor
• $ 25 M project, General Fund $7.7 M
3. Tank Farm Widening, Horizon to Santa Fe
• Improved cross-city connection, reduced travel times, improved safety, improved
safety and access for bicycles and pedestrians
• $ 22 M project, General Fund $12.6 M
4. Railroad Safety Trail Completion
• Completion of Class 1 bike path (separated bike facility) that links northern and
southern sections of the city and improves safety for all levels of bike users
• $ 11 M project. General Fund $10 M
5. Bob Jones Trail Completion
• Completion of Class 1 bike path (separated bike facility) that links to County trail
and provides access for southern parts of the city and improves safety for all
levels of bike users
• $11 M project, General Fund $10 M
Community Improvements
The projects below are approximately 82% of the total General Fund costs of all projects in the
Community Improvement Service Area’s 1-10-year priority list
1. Mission Plaza Revitalization and Restroom Improvements
• Cultural center and gathering space
• $ 9 M General Fund
2. Laguna Lake Improvements
• Protect vital natural resource
• $ 14 M General Fund
3. Downtown Street Conversions – Monterey and Monterey/Broad streetscape
• Enhanced downtown safety, vitality and cultural, artistic and historic town center
• $ 15 M General Fund
Packet Page 184
12
4. Implement Parks Master Plan
• The Parks and Recreation Element and Master Plan are in the process of being
updated. At this time, community needs are just starting to be assessed. At the
end of this major work effort, anticipated in late 2019 early 2020 the City will
have a prioritized list of future parks and recreation projects that have b been
costed over their lifecycles and prioritized by the community through a robust
engagement process. The results will be a focused effort for the future to use
limited funds wisely and enhance public parks and recreational resources.
• $ 26 M project, $23 M General Fund
Public Facilities
The projects below are approximately 91% of the total General Fund costs of projects in the
Public Facilities Service Area in the 1-10 Year priority list
1. New Police Headquarters
• Enhanced public safety, improved response times and investigation capability
• $ 47 M total project cost. $43 M General Fund
2. Rebuild Fire Station 2
• Enhanced emergency response, increased emergency service reliability during
disaster
• $ 7.5 M General Fund
3. Fire Vehicle Maintenance Building and Emergency Operations Center
• Improved city-wide emergency response capability, and increased vehicle
maintenance capability to insure ongoing reliable emergency response
• $ 8 M General Fund
A complete project list is included as Attachment A. All the projects within each theme are
included on that list.
Attachment B includes a summary of the Plans and Concept Plans reviewed, discussed and
conceptually approved; with the applicable projects recommended in that Plan. It should be
noted the Facilities Master Plan and Parks and Recreation Master Plan are currently ongoing.
Chart 2 below is a summary of that Attachment, with the additional inclusion of the plans that
constitute the Maintenance of Existing Infrastructure. All the costs below are costs over twenty
years.
Packet Page 185
12
Chart 2
Plan title (Maintenance of Existing) Funded projects and source
1. Pavement Management Plan Measure G and Capital Outlay
2. Storm Drain Master Plan Measure G and Capital Outlay
3. Waterways Master Plan Measure G and Capital Outlay
4. Specific Infrastructure Asset Plans (parks,
streets, park facilities, sidewalks, urban forest)
Measure G and Capital Outlay
5. Fleet, facilities and IT needs Measure G and Capital Outlay
Total $150 M
Plan Title (from Attachment B) Unfunded Projects
1. Facilities Master Plan $ 127 M
2. Downtown Concept Plan $ 92 M
3. Bicycle Transportation Plan $ 70 M
4. General Plan Circulation Element $ 51 M
5. Parks Master Plan $ 23 M
6.. General Plan $ 15 M
7.. Laguna Lake Natural Resource
Conservation Plan
$ 14 M
8. IT Strategic Plan $ 7 M
9. Other $ 7 M
10. South Broad Street Plan $ 5 M
11. ADA Plan $ 2 M
12. Parks Strategic Plan $ 1 M
13. Conservation and Open Space Element $ 1 M
Total $ 418 M
The chart below is intended to provide Council with a general sense of the number and costs of
projects within the three Service Areas and within the 1-10 and 11-20-year time frame. In
addition, the list summarizes the projects which have a nexus with and funding source from the
CFFP the Council heard on April 3. These projects are called ‘Partnership Projects’ in that they
are a partnership between existing residents and future residents.
The purpose of the chart below is to provide the Council with information on the relative cost
differences of projects within each Service Area, the magnitude of the Partnership Projects in
comparison with the General Fund only projects, and information total project costs on the
projects in the 1-10 Year and 11-20 Year time horizon.
Packet Page 186
12
Chart 3
Year 1 -10
Transportation Community
Improvement
Public
Facilities
Totals – All
Categories
Partnership Projects 27 1 3 31
General Fund contributions $112 M $24 M $64 M $200 M
Grants and other sources $112 M $5 M $ 4 M $121 M
Total Project costs $224 M $29 M $68 M $321 M
General Fund projects 0 15 3 18
General Fund contributions 0 $50.5 M $3.5 M $54 M
Grants and other sources 0 $ 8 M 0 $ 8 M
Total Project costs 0 $58.5 M $3.5 M $62 M
All projects 27 16 6 49
Total General Fund
contributions
$112 M $74.5 M $68 M $254 M
Total project costs $224 M $ 87 M $72 M $383 M
Year 11-20
Transportation Community
Improvement
Public
Facilities
Totals – All
Categories
Partnership Projects 11 0 4 15
General Fund $36 M 0 $47 M $ 83 M
Grants and other sources $28 M 0 $3 M $31 M
Total Project costs $64 M 0 $50 M $114 M
General Fund Projects 3 3 3 9
General Fund $18 M $26 M $37 M $81 M
Total Project costs $18 M $26 M $37 M $81 M
All projects 14 3 7 24
General Fund $54 M $26 M $84 M $164 M
Total Project costs $83 M $26 M $86 M $1954 M
Grand Totals Years 1-20
Total Projects – 20 Years 41 19 13 73
Total General Fund- 20
years
$166 M $100.5 M $152 M $418.5 M
Total Project Costs – 20
Years
$307 M $113 $158 M $578 M
Packet Page 187
12
Project Prioritization Options
If Council wants to proceed with the Funding the Future of SLO but with a smaller project list,
below are potential options for refining the list. Any of the options could include various
methods of public and advisory body involvement. Should Council direct staff to return with this
initiative as part of the 2019-21 Financial Plan, staff could include a process on project
prioritization.
Section 2: Community Outreach and Public Engagement
To provide Council with a sense of citizen interest in the benefits of future projects, and, citizen
perspectives on various funding sources, city staff engaged in an intensive public outreach in the
last few weeks. To accomplish this the City used a variety of tools and approached to engage the
community (in accordance with the Public Engagement and Noticing Manual) which included:
- Press releases, website news items, e-notifications and social media posts to inform the
community about the infrastructure needs and various funding options. There were two
television interviews and two newspaper interviews.
- Stakeholder presentations to various groups and associations. Presentations were made to
groups such as city Committees and Commission such as Parks and Recreation Board,
Mass Transit Committee, Planning Commission, Architectural Review Commission,
Active Transportation Committee. In addition, presentations were made to the Downtown
Association Board, Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee,
Developers Roundtable and other organizations. During the month of March there were
seventeen separate presentations to various public bodies.
- The City also hosted a community forum at the Police Department on March 26 to
provide the same outreach presentation. The event also included a tour of the building
and opportunity for Q&A.
- For members of the public who are not a part of a stakeholder group or were unable to
attend the community forum, the City posted the outreach presentation on the City’s
website through the Open City Hall tool. This tool allows individuals to review the same
information from in-person presentations and provide feedback. In total, the Open City
Hall topic had 304 visitors and 80 statements or the equivalent of 4 hours of public
comment. All statements received are included in Attachment D.
Packet Page 188
12
- The City also engaged a firm to complete a statistical survey of residents’ preferences on
identified projects and various funding options. The survey had 846 responses and +/-4.9
margin of error. The results of the survey are included as Attachment E and are
summarized below:
o A majority supports a sales tax measure at one cent or one-half cent at 57% and
61% respectfully to improve City infrastructure, but support is soft and falls short
of the threshold needed for a special tax.
Support for a One-Cent Sales Tax Versus a ½-Cent Sales Tax
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
29%
22%
6%
4%
11%
25%
3%
Total
Yes
57%
Total
No
40%
Initial One-Cent
37%
17%
7%
4%
8%
22%
5%
Total
Yes
61%
Total
No
34%
Half-Cent
o A majority would oppose the measure if the funding mechanism were a parcel tax
instead of a sales tax.
o Voters favor a mix of projects that focus on both infrastructure and City services.
▪ Addressing Homelessness (67% extremely or very important; 37%
extremely important);
▪ Keeping public areas safe and clean (66%; 25%);
▪ Upgrading fire stations that have been determined by structural engineers
to not meet current seismic earthquake standards (61%; 25%);
▪ Retaining and attracting local businesses (61%; 22%);
▪ Improving traffic circulation across town (60%; 28%);
▪ Improving traffic flow (59%; 26%);
▪ Preparing for natural disasters and other related threats (59%; 22%);
▪ Improving safe routes to school (57%; 27%);
▪ Ensuring City buildings are earthquake retrofitted to meet the current
California Seismic Safety Act standards (57%; 21%);
▪ Improving pedestrian and bike safety (55%; 28%);
▪ Improving traffic safety (55%; 18%); and
▪ Helping ensure safe places to play (51%; 17%)
o Voters prefer funding projects that maintain current City services and
infrastructure over projects that would improve them.
Packet Page 189
12
“Maintaining” Versus “Improving” Services and Infrastructure
68%
64%
58%
47%
43%
42%
32%
37%
43%
53%
57%
58%
Extremely/Very Important Somewhat/Not Too Important/ Don't Know
Maintaining police and fire services
Maintaining essential City services
Maintaining City infrastructure
Improving City infrastructure
Improving police and fire services
Improving essential city services
o The infrastructure measure was asked in conjunction with a potential cannabis tax
measure and the infrastructure measure loses support when respondents are
informed that both measures could be on the same ballot.
Total Support for One-Cent Sales Tax and Cannabis Tax Measures
When Both are on the Ballot
Total Yes
Total No
Undecided
One-Cent Sales Tax Cannabis Action Tax
62%
28%
10%
44%
46%
10%
Section 3: Potential Funding Sources
The City monitors its financial condition on a continuous basis through long-term forecasting.
The Capital Improvement Program is an important element of long-term fiscal health.
Maintenance of the City’s facilities as well as building infrastructure to facilitate planned growth
are part of the City’s long term fiscal sustainability.
Even though, the City’s long-term forecasts include assumptions to fund maintenance of existing
facilities, primarily funded by the existing Local Revenue Measure (Measure G), the current
revenue sources are not sufficient to pay for the Capital Improvement Program envisioned for the
Packet Page 190
12
future of San Luis Obispo as described in various Council approved planning documents. To
fully fund the program, a $418 million dollars budget gap has been identified. Due to existing
General Fund debt expiring between 2019 and 2048, approximately $46 million could be
diverted to this need over time as the existing revenue bond debt is paid off.
A new revenue source will be required to fund the projects. The City has contracted with the
City’s debt advisor, Professional Financial Management (PFM) consulting firm, to analyze the
top three financing and funding mechanisms that can generate required dollars to fully fund the
program. The three options are an increase in sales tax, issuance of a General Obligation Bond
(GOB), and formation of a citywide Community Facilities District (CFD). All the above options
would require voter approval.
The full analysis of funding options provided by PFM is in Attachment C.
In summary, the City has the following options to fully fund the identified needs:
One Cent Special or General Sales Tax:
A one cent sales tax for the duration of 25 to 30 years would be required to be approved by the
voters to fully fund the program. It is estimated that one cent over the 30 years, would generate
approximately $616 million dollars and a one cent for the duration of 25 years would generate
approximately $486 million.
A 25-year one cent sales tax measure most closely aligns with the total funding needed to fully
fund the identified projects; however, it is the most expensive sales tax option in terms of costs
of debt, which is estimated at $107 million.
A 20-year one cent sales tax measure does not generate enough revenue to fully fund the
program and the 30-year one cent sales tax option allows for more projects to be funded on pay
as you go basis. One-half cent measures do not generate sufficient revenue to fully fund the
program as proposed.
The City’s current sales tax rate is 7.75 percent which includes a half cent Local Revenue
Measure. This level of taxation is aligned with the median sales tax across the State of
California; however, the average sales tax is slightly higher at approximately 8%.1 This is
because rural cities tend to have lower sales tax base than major metropolitan areas. The highest
level of sales tax in California is the City of Long Beach at 10.25 percent, which is equivalent to
the rate in Chicago, Illinois. One cent sales tax would raise the City’s sales tax to 8.75 percent.
Based on a study completed in 2013 by Strategiceconmics Inc. which showed that approximately
72% of total sales tax is generated by non-residents. Based on general assumptions, Bureau of
Labor Statistics data on consumer spending, United States Census Statistics for San Luis Obispo
average income, and application of local sales tax to taxable goods, the average annual tax
burden per household is roughly estimated at $135 per year.
1 Analysis is based on information from California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.
http://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/sales-use-tax-rates.htm
Packet Page 191
12
The Council has the following options in consideration of placing a sales tax measure for the
November 2018 ballot measure:
1. General Tax: General sales tax requires simple majority vote of 50 percent plus one
voter approval. General sales tax is not legally restricted to a specific purpose.
Pros: Requires only majority voter approval, lowest aggregate cost of debt
Cons: Transportation projects debt financing would not be allowed to be used to finance
the projects themselves as collateral and would require pledge of City owned properties.
2. Special Tax: Special sales tax requires super majority vote of 66.67 percent Special sales
tax is dedicated to a specific purpose as proposed in the ballot measure. Special sales tax
would allow for the use of sales tax revenue bond financing mechanism which can be
used to finance transportation type projects.
Pros: Allows for financing of transportation type projects
Cons: According to data from 2001 to 2012, only half of special tax measures have
passed in the State of California due to higher level of approval required.
3. General Tax with Continuation of Measure G: The City financial long-term fiscal
forecasts assume continuation of Local Revenue Measure. The Local Revenue Measure
(Measure G) will sunset in April of 2023. The Council may consider placing an extension
of Measure G with the ballot measure for the proposed one cent increase.
Pros: Ensures continuation of the funding source to fund existing capital improvement
program
Cons: Voters may or may not be favorable to extension which could impact the voter
rating approval for overall measure
4. Duration of Sales Tax Measure: The City may consider various options for the duration
of the sales tax measure including no sunset date with periodic review and approval by
the City Council, 30-year sales tax, 25-year sales tax, and 20-year sales tax.
No sunset date:
This option would fully fund the need and would secure the City’s future ability to
continue to invest in its infrastructure post the 20-year period. This option would also
minimize the cost of debt issuance by allowing for more projects to be funded on pay as
you go basis and leave flexibility for how the City may elect to issue debt.
30-Year Sales Tax:
This option would fully fund the need within the 20-year period, plus leave a balance of
additional $184 million, which could be used to fund projects beyond the 20-year horizon
or other services. This option provides with flexibility for the City to use pay as you go or
debt financing options.
Packet Page 192
12
25-Year Sales Tax
This option would fully fund the need leaving a surplus of $46 million, which could be
used to fund projects beyond the 20-year horizon or other services. This option would
require the highest amount of debt issuance due to the limited duration.
20-Year Sales Tax
This option would not fully fund the entire identified need with a budget gap of
approximately $42 million unfunded. Thus, this option does not fully fund the Capital
Improvement Program as proposed.
Based on citizen survey summarized in Attachment D, voters are much less supportive if
the sales tax measure includes a sunset clause and favor a shorter period of 20 years over
30 years.
5. Level of Taxation: The City may consider a half-cent tax as opposed to one cent tax.
Half-cent tax is not sufficient to fund the entire identified need within the identified time
frame.
The following table illustrates the level of taxation and the amount that can be funded for each
option.
Duration Tax Rate Amount Generated Existing Debt Service
Offsetting Funds Projects Funded*Surplus/Unfunded
Projects
30 years 1 cent $615.9 million $45.8 million $418.5 million 183.6 million
30 years 1/2 cent $307.9 million $45.8 million $267.3 million (151.2 million)
25 years 1 cent $486.2 million $36 million $418.5 million $45.8 million
25 years 1/2 cent $243.1 million $36 million $236.2 million ($182.3 million)
20 years 1 cent $368.9 million $25.3 million $376.7 million ($41.8 million)
20 years 1/2 cent $184.4 million $25.3 million $200.1 million ($218.3 million)
* Projects funded may be less than the amount generated due to interest and finance charges.
It should be noted that the sales tax revenue assumes a long-term growth of 2% and the interest
on debt is assumed at 5%. These assumptions are based on long-term averages and may fluctuate
over this long-term horizon. Sales tax is a volatile source of revenue and is impacted by
economic fluctuations.
General Obligation Bond:
The General Obligation Bond option would fully fund the identified Capital Improvement
Program as proposed with required bonding in the amount of $390.9 million ($418.5 million less
$27.6 offsetting funds) at an aggregate cost of debt issuance to the city estimated at $378.4
million. Thus, the actual dollars collected from the residents almost double for this option. The
proposed debt issuance structure assumes seven distinct 30-year General Obligation Bonds at
three-year intervals to align the need for the funds with the projects schedule and minimize
interest paid to extent possible. Even though General Obligation Bonds are considered the most
secured type of debt and the assumption is that the cost of debt would be at 4.9% as opposed to
Packet Page 193
12
5% assumption for other debt, because all proceeds must be derived through borrowing, the
overall cost of debt under this option is the highest.
General Obligation Bonds are secured by ad valorem property tax based on the property’s
assessed value. Thus, similar properties with varying assessed values, may be paying different
amounts. The assessed value is assessed at the time of sale (unless the property value falls below
the purchase price and is de-valued) in the State of California (Proposition 13) and the annual
increase (if property value is growing) is limited to 2% annually. The model assumes issuance of
the bonds starting in 2019 with the last issuance fully expiring in 2069. The tax burden per parcel
varies and picks at approximately $200 dollars per $100,000 of assessed valuation for a duration
of approximately 12 years as is shown in Figure 6 of Attachment C. If only half the proposed
Capital Improvement Program was to be funded, the tax burden would fall to approximately
$100 dollars per $100,000 of assessed valuation in the peak years. The PFM analysis assumes a
continuous property tax annual growth of 2%, which could be lower in the unlikely event of
devaluation or higher if the overall City tax growth exceeds 2%.
The following table shows an example of what the tax burden would be during highest taxation
years for a home assessed at $500,000 or a $700,000. The tax rate progression over-time can be
seen in Figure 6 of the Attachment C.
Property Value
Tax Burden All CIP Funded
($390.9 Bonds)
Tax Burden 1/2 CIP Funded
($200 Bonds)
$500,000 $1,000 $500
$700,000 $1,400 $700
General Obligation Bond requires super majority voter approval (66.67 percent).
Pros: fully funds the proposed program
Cons: total dollar amount paid by the city and its citizens is significantly higher than any sales
tax option and all costs are derived from city residents with relative high burden per household;
high burden of debt which may negatively impact credit agency ratings
Capital Facilities Improvement District
A citywide Capital Facilities Improvement District (CFD) is another option that can fully fund
the proposed Capital Improvement Program. Super majority or 66.67 percent voter approval is
required to form the district to assess parcel tax that can be used to secure debt issuance or pay as
you go. Unlike General Obligation Bond, parcel tax rates via a CFD can vary by type, size, and
property. It is estimated that required parcel tax to fully fund the program would be $1,400 per
parcel for the duration of 30 years. This is a special tax and requires super majority or 66.67
percent voter approval.
Pros: fully funds the proposed program;
unlike the General Obligation bond, allows for pay-as you go option which lowers overall cost of
debt; ability to overcome perceived equity concerns
Cons: all costs are derived from city residents and high burden per household.
Packet Page 194
12
Focus Questions
There are several factors for the Council to consider in choosing policy direction. If Council is
inclined to take immediate steps to Fund the Future, the following factors should be taken into
consideration and discussed:
1. Should the tax be general or special in nature? General tax is for general purposes while
special tax is designated for a specific purpose, in this case capital improvements?
Whether the Council elects to pursue a General tax requiring majority vote approval or a
Special tax requiring super majority vote approval, the Council can fully allocate the
revenue derived to the capital improvement program.
2. Should the funding source be derived from a sales tax or a property-based tax? The
important factors in this consideration is the burden placed on the city residents.
According to a study done in 2013 for the City, approximately 72% of sales tax is paid by
visitors to the City; whereas the full burden of parcel tax would be paid by the owners of
the parcels.
If sales tax option is chosen, should it be for unlimited duration with periodic Council
approval, 30, 25 or 20 years??
3. If the sales tax option is chosen, should it be one cent to fund the entire CIP program as
proposed or should it be half cent funding approximately half of the program?
4. If parcel tax is chosen, should it be property tax via General Obligation Bond which is
assessed based on assessed valuation or a Citywide Capital Facilities District with an
assessment of a parcel tax which can vary by type and size of the property?
No Sunset 30 years 25 years 20 years No Sunset 30 years 25 years 20 years
SALES TAX GOB CFD
1 Cent 1/2 Cent
Duration Duration
YES NO NO
Extend Measure G?Extend Measure G?
YES NOYES
Full CIP Lower level?Full CIP Lower level?
YES NO YES NO
5. Another option is to provide direction which explores more than one solution. For
example, Council could a), direct staff to refine the list and remove some projects, b)
direct staff to explore the implications of directing existing funds and then prepare a
Packet Page 195
12
scenario where staff redirects funds from existing CIP priorities and utilizes the freed-up
debt obligations described above, and c) returns to Council with a reduced project list and
total cost obligation – therefore requiring a smaller long-term new revenue solution.
There could of course be variations of this theme.
CONCURRENCES
All City Departments participated in the process to inform Council of projects and options for
Funding the Future.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The review of the 10-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and consideration of potential
funding options is exempt from environmental review as a Statutory Exemption under Section
15262, Feasibility and Planning Studies (CEQA Guidelines). Each project list as part of the 10 -
Year CIP will need future authorization and environmental review prior to actual funding and
construction.
FISCAL IMPACT
Council direction on which alternative to pursue does not have fiscal impact at this time. Any
direction to pursue further analysis will require staff time already within the existing City budget.
It should be noted that the City long-term fiscal models do not assume the required levels of
revenue sources to fund the identified Capital Improvement Program and a new funding source
or significant reallocation of existing resources will be required to achieve the objectives.
Attachments:
a - Project List
b - Project Source
c - PFM San Luis Obispo CIP Planning Memo
d - Funding the Future Open City Hall Public Comment
e - FM3 Survey Results
Packet Page 196
12
Line # General Fund Project Costs GF Cost Total Project Cost
1 1 To 10 Years $254,379,811 $383,433,608
2 Community Improvements $74,460,435 $87,010,000
3 Partnership Project $23,950,435 $29,000,000
4 Implementation of Parks Master Plan $23,950,435 $29,000,000
5
6 General Fund Component Cost $50,510,000 $58,010,000
7 Dog Park(s)$623,700 $623,700
8 Emerson Park Rehabilitation $1,276,000 $1,276,000
9 Emerson Park Restroom $638,000 $638,000
10 Mission Plaza Restroom Replacements and Enhancements $1,444,200 $1,444,200
11 New Park Amenities $378,000 $378,000
12 New Street Lights $963,900 $963,900
13 Open Space Acquisition $1,450,000 $8,950,000
14 Downtown Sidewalk Installations $1,159,200 $1,159,200
15 Downtown Lighting Installations $630,000 $630,000
16 Multimodal Street Conversion Studies $477,000 $477,000
17 Downtown Multimodal Street Conversion (woonerfs)$15,312,000 $15,312,000
18 Laguna Lake Dredging $13,920,000 $13,920,000
19 Mission Plaza Revitalization $7,656,000 $7,656,000
20 Mitchell Park Senior Center Expansion and Renovation $1,102,000 $1,102,000
21 Sinsheimer Stadium: Concession and Restroom Replacement $3,480,000 $3,480,000
22
23 Public Facility $67,642,756 $71,856,000
24 Partnership Project $64,043,756 $68,257,000
25 Police Station Replacement $43,709,205 $47,435,000
26 Rebuild Fire Station 2 $11,716,000 $11,716,000
27 Fire Station 1: New Emergency Operations Center and Maintenance Building $8,618,551 $9,106,000
28
29 General Fund Component Cost $3,599,000 $3,599,000
30 Implementation of IT Strategic Plan $1,000,000 $1,000,000
31 Corporation Yard Work Area Rehabilitation $583,000 $583,000
32 Implement Accessibility Improvements $2,016,000 $2,016,000
33
34 Transportation $112,276,620 $224,567,608
35 Partnership Project $112,276,620 $224,567,608
36 Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard / Anholm Bikeway Including Broad St. Ramp Closure & Bike/Ped Overpas $6,960,000 $7,518,883
37 Fixilini & Flora Bike Boulevard $686,700 $686,700
38 Hwy 101/Prado Rd Interchange $4,129,600 $40,600,000
39 Intersection Control Upgrades $15,498,000 $22,869,000
40 Jennifer Street Bridge Morro St. Expansion $707,600 $707,600
41 Madonna Class I (Hwy 101 to Oceanaire)$1,792,200 $2,199,360
42 Bob Jones Trail Connections: Marsh Street to Prado and Los Osos Valley Road to Southern City Limits $15,544,000 $16,773,542
43 Broad at Tank Farm Intersection Improvements $1,212,200 $1,789,010
44 Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge: Bullock to Industrial over Railroad Tracks $1,003,400 $2,702,870
45 Broad Street Intersection Improvements $3,804,800 $6,774,400
46 South Broad Street Medians $1,519,600 $2,707,440
47 Santa Fe Bike Path: Class I Bike Path from Buckley to Tank Farm $2,320,000 $2,862,880
48 Santa Fe Road Connection: Tank Farm to Prado Road $411,800 $1,163,480
49 Tank Farm Creek Bike Path: Class I Bike Path from Buckley to Tank Farm $2,146,000 $2,634,592
50 Tank Farm Road Widening: Horizon to Santa Fe $12,644,000 $28,752,920
51 Citywide Traffic Model Updates and Data Collection $581,940 $954,000
52 Vachell Lane Bike Path: Class II Lanes on Vachell from Buckley to South Higuera Street $777,200 $777,200
53 Orcutt at Johnson Intersection Improvements $1,426,800 $2,685,400
54 Class II Bike Lane Installations $3,055,500 $3,055,500
55 Class III Bike Lane Signage and Markings $378,000 $378,000
56 Orcutt at Tank Farm Intersection Improvements $1,715,060 $2,484,140
57 Prado Road Widening: West of Higuera Street widening $4,602,000 $15,306,960
58 Extend Prado Road: Higuera Street to Broad Street $7,722,120 $32,822,383
59 Prado at Higuera Intersection Improvements $2,419,000 $3,569,500
60 Railroad Safety Trail: Class I Bike Path from Cal Poly to Southern City Limits $15,370,000 $16,595,688
61 Higuera at Tank Farm: Intersection Improvements $1,902,400 $2,807,200
62 Upgrade of Pedestrian and Bike Crossing Controls $1,946,700 $2,388,960
63
64 11 To 20 Years $163,962,690 $194,746,680
65 Community Improvements $25,756,190 $25,756,190
66 General Fund Component Cost $25,756,190 $25,756,190
67 Laguna Lake Golf Course Club House $4,680,600 $4,680,600
68 San Luis Creek Walkway Expansion $2,863,590 $2,863,590
69 Swim Center Site and Deck Improvements $18,212,000 $18,212,000
70
71 Public Facility $83,888,200 $86,208,200
Packet Page 197
12
72 Partnership Project $46,864,000 $49,184,000
73 Rebuild Fire Station 3 $18,548,400 $18,548,400
74 Rebuild Fire Station 4 $13,142,800 $14,302,800
75 New Fire Station: Fire Station 5 $11,414,400 $12,574,400
76 Fire Station 1: Provide Additional Operational Area $3,758,400 $3,758,400
77
78 General Fund Component Cost $37,024,200 $37,024,200
79 Implementation of IT Strategic Plan $6,000,000 $6,000,000
80 Replacement of the Ludwick Community Center $24,244,000 $24,244,000
81 Parks and Recreation Administration Expansion and Renovation $6,780,200 $6,780,200
82
83 Transportation $54,318,300 $82,782,290
84 Partnership Project $36,145,300 $64,609,290
85 Higuera Widening: High St to Marsh St $4,060,000 $4,060,000
86 Higuera Widening: Madonna Rd to City Limits $3,103,000 $7,647,532
87 Horizon Lane Extension South of Tank Farm $3,451,000 $5,020,480
88 Laguna Lake Bikeways $5,626,000 $6,576,040
89 Broad Street Bike Path: Class I from Rockview to Damon Garcia Sports Fields $1,276,000 $1,276,000
90 West Side of 101 Bike Path: Class I Bike Path from Broad to Marsh Street $3,770,000 $3,770,000
91 Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge: Over Tank Farm along east side of railroad tracks $654,900 $654,900
92 Los Osos Valley Road Interchange Class I Bike Underpass $1,628,400 $1,628,400
93 Orcutt Road Bridge over Railroad Tracks $4,543,000 $25,551,720
94 Boysen at Santa Rosa Street: Pedestrian and Class I Bike grade separate crossing $6,612,000 $7,003,218
95 Cerro Romauldo Bike Path: Class I from Tassajara to Chorro Street $1,421,000 $1,421,000
96
97 General Fund Component Cost $18,173,000 $18,173,000
98 Downtown Multimodal Street Conversion (Type B)$7,157,200 $7,157,200
99 Downtown Multimodal Street Conversion (Type C)$5,892,800 $5,892,800
100 Marsh at Higuera Intersection Improvements $5,123,000 $5,123,000
101
102 Grand Total $418,342,501 $578,180,288
103
104
105 General Fund Cost Total Cost
106 Partnership Project $283,280,111 $435,617,898
107 Other General Fund Projects $135,062,390 $142,562,390
108 Total Cost $418,342,501 $578,180,288
Packet Page 198
12
General Fund Project Costs GF Cost
$7,135,300
New Street Lights $963,900
Los Osos Valley Road Interchange Class I Bike Underpass $1,628,400
Orcutt Road Bridge over Railroad Tracks $4,543,000
Facilities Master Plan $127,533,556
Laguna Lake Golf Course Club House $4,680,600
Police Station Replacement $43,709,205
Corporation Yard Work Area Rehabilitation $583,000
Mitchell Park Senior Center Expansion and Renovation $1,102,000
Rebuild Fire Station 2 $11,716,000
Rebuild Fire Station 3 $18,548,400
Rebuild Fire Station 4 $13,142,800
Sinsheimer Stadium: Concession and Restroom Replacement $3,480,000
New Fire Station: Fire Station 5 $11,414,400
Fire Station 1: Provide Additional Operational Area $3,758,400
Fire Station 1: New Emergency Operations Center and Maintenance Building $8,618,551
Parks and Recreation Administration Expansion and Renovation $6,780,200
ADA Transition Plan $2,016,000
Implement Accessibility Improvements $2,016,000
General Plan $15,498,000
Intersection Control Upgrades $15,498,000
IT Strategic Plan $7,000,000
Implementation of IT Strategic Plan $7,000,000
Downtown Concept Plan $92,084,990
Emerson Park Rehabilitation $1,276,000
Emerson Park Restroom $638,000
Mission Plaza Restroom Replacements and Enhancements $1,444,200
Downtown Sidewalk Installations $1,159,200
Downtown Lighting Installations $630,000
Multimodal Street Conversion Studies $477,000
Downtown Multimodal Street Conversion (Type B)$7,157,200
Downtown Multimodal Street Conversion (Type C)$5,892,800
Downtown Multimodal Street Conversion (woonerfs)$15,312,000
Mission Plaza Revitalization $7,656,000
Marsh at Higuera Intersection Improvements $5,123,000
San Luis Creek Walkway Expansion $2,863,590
Replacement of the Ludwick Community Center $24,244,000
Swim Center Site and Deck Improvements $18,212,000
Parks Master Plan $23,950,435
Implementation of Parks Master Plan $23,950,435
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan $1,001,700
Dog Park(s)$623,700
New Park Amenities $378,000
Broad Street Corridor Plan $5,324,400
Broad Street Intersection Improvements $3,804,800
South Broad Street Medians $1,519,600
Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan $13,920,000
Packet Page 199
12
Laguna Lake Dredging $13,920,000
Bicycle Transportation Plan $70,512,300
Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard / Anholm Bikeway Including Broad St. Ramp Closure & Bike/Ped Overpass $6,960,000
Fixilini & Flora Bike Boulevard $686,700
Jennifer Street Bridge Morro St. Expansion $707,600
Laguna Lake Bikeways $5,626,000
Madonna Class I (Hwy 101 to Oceanaire)$1,792,200
Bob Jones Trail Connections: Marsh Street to Prado and Los Osos Valley Road to Southern City Limits $15,544,000
Broad Street Bike Path: Class I from Rockview to Damon Garcia Sports Fields $1,276,000
Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge: Bullock to Industrial over Railroad Tracks $1,003,400
West Side of 101 Bike Path: Class I Bike Path from Broad to Marsh Street $3,770,000
Santa Fe Bike Path: Class I Bike Path from Buckley to Tank Farm $2,320,000
Santa Fe Road Connection: Tank Farm to Prado Road $411,800
Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge: Over Tank Farm along east side of railroad tracks $654,900
Tank Farm Creek Bike Path: Class I Bike Path from Buckley to Tank Farm $2,146,000
Vachell Lane Bike Path: Class II Lanes on Vachell from Buckley to South Higuera Street $777,200
Class II Bike Lane Installations $3,055,500
Class III Bike Lane Signage and Markings $378,000
Railroad Safety Trail: Class I Bike Path from Cal Poly to Southern City Limits $15,370,000
Boysen at Santa Rosa Street: Pedestrian and Class I Bike grade separate crossing $6,612,000
Cerro Romauldo Bike Path: Class I from Tassajara to Chorro Street $1,421,000
General Plan Circulation Element $50,915,820
Higuera Widening: High St to Marsh St $4,060,000
Higuera Widening: Madonna Rd to City Limits $3,103,000
Horizon Lane Extension South of Tank Farm $3,451,000
Hwy 101/Prado Rd Interchange $4,129,600
Broad at Tank Farm Intersection Improvements $1,212,200
Tank Farm Road Widening: Horizon to Santa Fe $12,644,000
Citywide Traffic Model Updates and Data Collection $581,940
Orcutt at Johnson Intersection Improvements $1,426,800
Orcutt at Tank Farm Intersection Improvements $1,715,060
Prado Road Widening: West of Higuera Street widening $4,602,000
Extend Prado Road: Higuera Street to Broad Street $7,722,120
Prado at Higuera Intersection Improvements $2,419,000
Higuera at Tank Farm: Intersection Improvements $1,902,400
Upgrade of Pedestrian and Bike Crossing Controls $1,946,700
General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element $1,450,000
Open Space Acquisition $1,450,000
Grand Total $418,342,501
Packet Page 200
12
1 of 7
April 4, 2018
Memorandum
To: Xenia Bradford, Finance Director, City of San Luis Obispo
From: Sarah Hollenbeck, Managing Director, PFM Financial Advisors LLC
Kevin Dong, Senior Analyst, PFM Financial Advisors LLC
Patrick Malloy, Senior Analyst, PFM Financial Advisors LLC
RE: Capital Improvement Plan Financing Options
Introduction
PFM Financial Advisors LLC (“PFM”) is pleased to provide an analysis of financing options for
the 20-year Capital Improvement Plan (“CIP”) of the City of San Luis Obispo (the “City”). City
staff and elected officials have identified approximately $419 million of capital projects to deliver
over the next 20 years, including enhancements to and new construction of transportation,
public safety, and recreational facilities. A program of this scope will require additional
revenues beyond what are currently available from the General Fund. This memorandum will
present the options available to the City along with their pros, cons, and relative costs.
Overview of Financing Alternatives
The proposed CIP includes $418.5 million of projects to be delivered between 2019 and 2044.
Figure 1 below shows the expected timing of expenditures. The expenditure schedule is fairly
consistent from year to year, with the exception of large expenditures in 2023, 2030, and 2040.
Nearly all project expenditures will be complete by 2040, with only approximately $50,000
expected annually thereafter to complete a streetlight program.
Figure 1: Project Expenditures
Several types of revenue measures and financing tools are available to the City to finance the
CIP. Each option has different characteristics in terms of its costs, ease of implementation,
suitability to different types of projects, and impact on City residents both in aggregate and in
Packet Page 201
12
2 of 7
the distribution of costs among residents. The remainder of this memo presents the
considerations related to each of the following options:
• General sales tax with lease revenue bonds
• Special sales tax with sales tax revenue bonds
• General obligation bonds
• Citywide community facilities district (“CFD”) or parcel tax
PFM has also taken into account the structure of the City’s existing debt in evaluating each
scenario. The City’s General Fund budget for lease revenue bond debt service for fiscal year
2018 is $2.56 million. A decrease in debt service over time, as well as a refinancing that was
just completed, would allow the City to redirect this annual budget to capital projects or to new
debt service. This source provides up to $45.8 million of cash flow between 2019 and 2048,
and we have assumed the City uses these funds to offset project costs or pay new debt service.
Later sections offer specific detail about how the City can use these funds under each option.
General Sales Tax
A sales tax measure offers a high degree of flexibility and a simpler implementation process
than other options. The most common approach to a sales tax is to implement a general tax
that requires a simple majority vote. The City would have the ability to use the funds for any
purpose, but could direct them to CIP implementation. Under this approach, the City could cash
fund projects to the extent possible and then issue lease revenue bonds in years that revenues
and/or fund balance are insufficient to cover project expenses. The City has previously issued
lease revenue bonds for projects such as 919 Palm Street. A key advantage to a sales tax is
that City residents do not bear the full burden of the tax.
PFM modeled various sales tax measures to project their capacity to support the proposed
program. We evaluated one cent and ½ cent measures beginning in 2019 with terms ranging
from 20 to 30 years. Projected revenues are based on current Measure G collections and
assume 2.0% annual increases. The bond interest rate is assumed at 5.0%. Figure 2 shows
the results of our modeling assuming the City uses all offsetting funds described above.
Figure 2: Comparison of Sales Tax Options
Duration Tax Rate Revenue Offsetting Funds1 Projects Funded2 Surplus/(Unfunded Projects)
30 years 1 cent $615.9 million $45.8 million $418.5 million $183.6 million
30 years ½ cent $307.9 million $45.8 million $267.3 million ($151.2 million)
25 years 1 cent $486.2 million $36.0 million $418.5 million $45.8 million
25 years ½ cent $243.1 million $36.0 million $236.2 million ($182.3 million)
20 years 1 cent $368.9 million $25.3 million $376.7 million ($41.8 million)
20 years ½ cent $184.4 million $25.3 million $200.1 million ($218.3 million)
1. General Funds contributed (representing reduction in lease revenue bond debt service from FY2018 level) during specified term of sales tax.
2. Projects funded may be less than the amount generated due to interest and finance charges.
Packet Page 202
12
3 of 7
Funding the full CIP is projected to require a 25- or 30-year one cent sales tax. The 25-year
option is expected to require redirecting at least a portion of available debt service capacity
through 2044 as described on page 2. A 30-year tax is projected to support the program without
redirecting funds. Any half cent program or a 20-year one cent program would require that the
City reduce the scope of the CIP.
An important consideration to using lease revenue bonds is that they must be secured by
physical assets equal in value to the borrowing. Public safety and recreational facilities are
well-suited to lease revenue financing, but transportation infrastructure such as roads is not
because it cannot be leased. Figure 3 shows an analysis of bonding versus leasable assets
under the 25-year one cent scenario. We show this scenario in more detail because it can fund
the full CIP but has more borrowing, at $107.2 million, than the 30-year one cent option due to
less aggregate revenue. We project issuances occurring in 2023, 2026, 2029, 2033, 2036, and
2040 and total interest and finance charges of approximately $57.9 million. Bondable projects
are the sum of bondable projects occurring between each financing and the estimated par is
the estimated borrowing amount in a given year. Although the total bondable projects exceed
the estimated par amount, there are mismatches in 2026 and 2029. The City may be able
address them by pledging existing assets (i.e. City Hall, police or fire stations, etc.), but it will
be important to confirm that sufficient unencumbered assets exist to cover the shortfall.
Figure 3: Bonding versus Leasable Assets under 25-Year One Cent Sales Tax
Financing Year Bondable Projects Estimated Par Surplus/(Shortfall)
2023 $53,917,756 $35,515,000 $18,402,756
2026 $12,444,000 $12,855,000 ($411,000)
2029 $2,900,000 $29,990,000 ($27,090,000)
2033 $20,810,400 $7,330,000 $13,480,400
2036 $39,405,200 $9,360,000 $30,045,200
2040 $40,565,200 $12,180,000 $28,385,200
Total $170,042,552 $107,230,000 $62,812,556
The primary risk of bonds issued in a sales tax program is that revenues do not meet
expectations. The City can adjust the project delivery schedule prior to bond issuance, but will
have a fixed liability after issuance. Failure to appropriate funds for debt service could cause a
default, result in a loss of an investment grade credit rating, and hamper the City’s ability to
access public debt markets in the future. Consequently, the most likely option to address a
revenue shortfall would be to first reduce or eliminate additional capital expenditures and then
redirect other resources from the General Fund to pay debt service.
The borrowing program could also put some pressure on the City’s bond rating. Figure 4 shows
two metrics that Standard & Poor’s tracks: 1) debt service as a percentage of governmental
fund expenditures, and 2) direct debt as a percentage of governmental fund revenues. Note
that S&P would include debt of overlapping jurisdictions in direct debt, though we have omitted
Packet Page 203
12
4 of 7
that information since the City cannot control it and long-term plans are unknown. S&P
considers debt service below 8.0% of expenditures to be very strong, and between 8.0% and
15.0% to be strong. We project the metric remaining below 8.0% until 2031 and peaking at
11.4% in 2042.1 The second of the S&P measures presents more risk. S&P considers direct
debt as a percentage of revenue between 30.0% and 60.0% strong and between 60.0% and
120.0% adequate. We project this metric to rise to 76.3%, though issuance of debt by other
jurisdictions could push the figure higher.
Figure 4: Rating Metrics for Lease Revenue Bonds
Special Sales Tax
Another approach to a local sales tax measure would be to seek authorization for a special tax
rather than a general tax. A special tax could be exclusively dedicated to the CIP and would
require a 2/3 supermajority vote. Cities rarely select this option due to the supermajority
requirement, but it would have the advantage of allowing the City to issue sales tax revenue
bonds rather than lease revenue bonds. Sales tax revenue bonds have a lien on the sales tax
revenues and are well-suited to transportation projects because they do not require leased
assets. They require that the City maintain a certain level of debt service coverage – typically
at least 1.25 for A-rated debt – though our model indicates coverage would remain above 1.30
with a 25-year one cent sales tax. Our coverage projection does not include the offsetting
revenues since only sales tax would be pledged to the bonds.
General Obligation Bond Measure
A general obligation bond measure is an alternative to a sales tax. As distinct from sales tax
bonds, General Obligation (“GO”) bonds would be repaid from the revenue generated by a tax
levied on all property within the City. GO bonds require a 2/3 supermajority vote and property
owners in the City would pay a tax based on the assessed valuation of the property. Because
the tax levy is based on assessed valuation, it can have the effect of similar properties paying
significantly different levels of tax. Such a situation sometimes results in opposition to GO
1 Assumes no additional debt outside of CIP and 2.0% growth in revenues and expenditures
Packet Page 204
12
5 of 7
bonds that may not exist for a sales tax measure. Nevertheless, for a given amount of principal,
the credit ratings on a GO bond would be the highest and the borrowing cost the lowest of all
financing options. The proceeds of GO bonds can also be used for any type of long-lived capital
asset (not furniture, fixtures, or equipment), which avoids the challenge of financing
transportation projects with lease revenue bonds. The primary risk of GO bonds is that project
costs exceed the authorization. Because revenue is generated via a property tax, the risk of
non-payment is limited and further mitigated by the City’s participation in a Teeter Plan with
San Luis Obispo County.
PFM performed two analyses to assess the effect on the City’s property tax rate and debt
burden. For the purpose of our analysis, we assumed seven series of 30-year GO bonds issued
at three-year intervals through 2038. We applied $27.6 million of the existing debt service
budget described on page 2 to offset project costs, which is the amount available through 2040
plus small amounts through 2044 to cover the streetlight program. Note that we do not apply
any funds after 2044 because there are no additional project costs and cities do not typically
use General Fund monies to offset GO debt service. The interest rate was estimated to be
4.9%, or 0.1 percentage points lower than the interest rate assumed on sales tax bonds, which
reflects the higher rating that the GO bonds would have. The first scenario examined $390.9
million of bonding ($418.5 million less $27.6 million offsetting funds) and the second examined
$200.0 million, which would only fund about half the CIP. Figure 5 shows the change of property
tax rate per $100,000 of assessed valuation, assuming the City’s total assessed value
increases 2.0% annually. We project the rate reaching $215 per $100,000 assessed value in
2039 under the scenario that funds the full CIP.
Figure 5: General Obligation Bond Measure
Although the GO bonds are usually rated higher than sales tax bonds, resulting in lower interest
costs for a given amount of principal, we project that they would carry significantly higher total
financing costs for the City’s capital program due to the need to borrow for all project expenses.
The tax revenues collected under a general obligation measure can only be used to pay debt
Packet Page 205
12
6 of 7
service whereas sales tax revenues can fund the project costs on a pay-as-you-go basis. The
annual debt service of GO bonds thus peaks in the fiscal years 2039-2050 at approximately
$25.6 million if the City funds all projects, nearly twice the initial sales tax revenue. Figure 6
below compares estimated bonding and interest and financing charges under both GO
scenarios and the 25-year one cent sales tax scenario.
Figure 6: Comparison of GO and Sales Tax Financing
Scenario Bonding Interest & Finance Charges
Full GO measure $390.9 million $378.4 million
$200 million GO measure $200.0 million $193.6 million
25-year one cent sales tax $107.2 million $57.9 million
The rating implications of relying exclusively on GO bonds could also be meaningful. Due to
the need to fund all projects with debt, the GO approach would result in nearly four times as
much borrowing. Direct debt as a percentage of governmental fund revenues would rise to
227.1% and debt service as a percentage of governmental fund expenditures would rise as
high as 24.8%. S&P would consider such a debt profile to be very weak.
Citywide CFD or Parcel Tax
A citywide CFD or parcel tax could address some of the challenges of GO bonds. A CFD is a
district in which the City would levy a special tax determined via a formula of the City’s
choosing. Tax rates can differ by type and size of property, for example. W hile most commonly
used for a single development controlled by one developer, there are examples of CFDs that
are contiguous with a municipality’s boundaries. A parcel tax is a more simplistic approach in
which an identical tax is levied on every parcel. The City could then use the revenues from
either approach for pay-as-you-go or issue special tax bonds against the revenue stream.
There are two key advantages to a citywide CFD or parcel tax:
1. Ability to fund projects on pay-as-you-go basis: Unlike with GO bonds, the City can
use the revenues for pay-as-you-go expenses.
2. Ability to overcome perceived equity concerns: Because the tax rate is not determined
by assessed value, neither approach encounters the same concerns about unfairness
that sometimes arise related to a GO measure.
PFM modeled a CFD/parcel tax option. Our analysis assumes a 30-year special tax that
generates $16.8 million per year, which is the amount needed to fully fund the program and
maintain the minimum of 1.10 times debt service coverage for bonds that the current market
would require. We have assumed a 5.0% interest rate on debt, the same rating as the City’s
lease revenue bonds (currently AA), and no annual changes to the revenue stream. We applied
$27.6 million of the offsetting funds to project costs through 2044 in the same manner as with
the GO bonds, and base the 1.10 times debt service coverage constraint off of only the CFD
or parcel tax revenue since General Fund resources would not be pledged to the bonds. This
Packet Page 206
12
7 of 7
scenario allows for $365.3 million of pay-as-you-go and requires $151.1 million of bonding. We
estimated $94.5 million of interest and finance charges.
The CFD or parcel tax options have several downsides. Both require a 2/3 supermajority vote
similar to GO bonds. These options are also costly for residents. Assuming 12,000 parcels,
we estimate an annual per parcel cost of about $1,400. The City could customize a formula for
a CFD special tax that would distribute the tax differently, but increased complexity could make
it administratively burdensome. The risks of bonds issued for a CFD or parcel tax are similar
to those of issuing GO bonds since such taxes would be administered through the property tax
system.
We hope this evaluation of the financing options available to the City is helpful. If you should
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at (415) 982-5544.
Packet Page 207
12
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM
Open City Hall is not a certified voting system or ballot box. As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is
voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of
any government agency or elected officials.
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
Packet Page 208
12
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM, this forum had:
Attendees:308
All Statements:80
Hours of Public Comment: 4.0
This topic started on March 1, 2018, 4:29 PM.
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 2 of 27
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
Packet Page 209
12
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 1 (registered)April 5, 2018, 6:23 PM
I prefer a sales tax to a property tax as it is "user" oriented. We cannot afford to have the 50% full-time and 50%
land-lords w/ transient residents continue to foot the bill. We are moving toward a "usage-tax" environment. If
you use it, you pay (sales tax.) If you don't use it you maintain the infrastructure you benefit from (Property Tax.)
Not unlike Europe which has dealt with this situation hundreds of years before us in the USA, the "Value Added
Tax" (i.e.: "Sales Tax"), is more fairly and evenly distributed and economically efficiently measured, and
collected.
There is no "perfect solution." One can only hope to "cover" costs and plan for needed maintenance of critical
infrastructure.
Name not available (unclaimed)April 4, 2018, 7:51 PM
I support the additional tax. My preference would be to finish the Bob Jones Trail and extend the Railroad
Safety Trail from Cal Poly all the way to the Neighborhoods near Islay Park and French Park. We should talk to
the County about planning someday to extend it all the way to Pismo Beach along the RR track in Price
Canyon. Next I favor continuing to look for opportunities to purchase land for open space around our city. The
property on the corner of Orcutt Road and Tank Farm that extends up into the Santa Lucia Foothills would be a
tremendous addition - linking to Reservoir Canyon. The Prado Road overpass is needed. Thank you for all you
do.
Jan Marx inside Neighborhood 2 (registered)April 4, 2018, 9:13 AM
I support raising the sales tax to 1% to fund projects including prioritizing upgrading the bathrooms on Mission
Plaza and a renovated police station. The City owns property on Walnut adjacent to the existing station and
should try to acquire Ilan Funke Bilu's property. A new wing could be built utilizing that next door property as
well as building over the downhill parking lot. This would allow the present station to continue in use until the
new wing is completed, at which time the present station could be renovated. Look to the police station
renovation in Grover Beach for an example of police officer design and thrifty budgeting. As more and more
housing is added to the City, we will need a fifth fire station to maintain standard response times. This cost
should be borne by the new neighborhoods as a special benefit district or cfd. The public benefit portion of the
Prado overpass (not full interchange) construction could be partially funded by the increased sales tax. I
oppose a city wide increase in property tax. Open space preservation and acquisition (Miossi) is a top priority
for city residents and should be paid for through revenue enhancement funds. I support increased bicycle and
pedestrian safety projects, but they should not take priority over maintenance of present roadways, traffic
mitigation, parking or the well being of established neighborhoods. The needs of older and disabled city
residents, their inability to use bicycles and their obvious reliance on automobiles should not continue to be
discounted or ignored.
Mike Harkness inside Neighborhood 3 (registered)April 3, 2018, 5:12 PM
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 3 of 27
Packet Page 210
12
I am a 40 year resident of San Luis Obispo, and a retired public safety employee. While all of the goals listed
are worth, I would like to give my overwhelming support to protected bike lanes, and improving cross town bike
safety. It's good for the environment, it's good for residents health, and it provides safer transportation. Michael
Harkness
Name not shown outside Neighborhoods (registered)April 3, 2018, 4:46 PM
Not currently a resident but I will be very soon. I could support a bond or sales tax increase dedicated to
significant improvements to the cycling infrastructure. I would ride instead of drive if the cycling infrastructure
made it more practical and safer to do so. Any increases I would pay in taxes could be partially offset by fewer
expenses for auto use. Not to mention it would be one less car on the streets and the added health benefits of
cycling rather than driving.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 6 (registered)April 3, 2018, 10:47 AM
This: Extending cross-town corridors and separated bike paths (such as the Prado Road extension, Tank Farm
Road widening and completion of the Bob Jones and Railroad Safety Trails) to better provide for bicycling as a
transportation mode of choice. I would vote yes for the tax on this provision alone. All of the people saying that
bike paths are too expensive, please remember that ALL roads are expensive, and that even people who don't
drive cars pay for them through taxes. We need a much better connected network of streets where people who
choose not to burn fossil fuels on their commutes can bike and walk safely. The climate is changing and we
need to change with it or perish.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 11 (registered)March 31, 2018, 3:47 PM
I am very interested in seeing cross town infrastructure improvements (widening of Tank Farm Road, extending
Prado Road to Industrial Way/Broad Street) as we really need those. I am interested in new/ remodels for
public safety including police, dispatch, and fire department facilities. While these improvements may not be as
visible as the downtown Mission Plaza project, they are essential to the health and safety of our community.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 2 (registered)March 28, 2018, 1:30 PM
The city needs to prioritize wants vs needs. We need Prado extended and an interchange built. We need new
police and fire stations. We could use an extended railroad safety trail. Bob Jones completion is a want, not a
need. We do need to replace aging water distribution infrastructure. In the face of changing climate and rain
patterns, and extended drought periods, we can not have nearly 100 year old water mains under our streets
breaking and losing thousands or millions of gallons of water every year. We need to replace this aging
infrastructure. More people on bikes in SLO is not going to impact this global change, so while some may want
to, we do not need to spend money on bike boulevards. I can not vote for yet another increase to our already
incredibly expensive cost of living here, without a modification or elimination of other pet projects that are a
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 4 of 27
Packet Page 211
12
want and at this point wasteful in comparison to the needs of SLO. Reset priorities, eliminate pet project waste,
and then present it again.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 10 (registered)March 28, 2018, 8:06 AM
It is good that the City is looking at costs for projects that residents want. To fund these projects, I support the
sales tax measure in conjunction with revising all pension plans (including police and fire) to align with the
typical private sector plans. It is not sustainable nor necessary to pay retired "safety" personal a defined benefit
retirement plan of 90% of their $140,000 annual salary starting when they are 50 years old.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 7 (registered)March 28, 2018, 8:05 AM
I am against the extra tax. Some of the proposed projects should be put off until we have more information on
how the closing of Diablo Canyon will effect available funds. Also, how is taxing current home owners into
homelessness helping the homeless and housing situation?
Carol Jefford inside Neighborhood 7 (registered)March 28, 2018, 7:01 AM
Given the current fiscal crisis, capital projects should be postponed. There should be a focus on delivering
critical services, based upon my observations, there is not a critical need for additional capital projects at this
time. These should be postponed. Consider contracting out fire department and other city services. Consolidate
with the County and/or CalPoly to reduce duplication of effort and maximize economy. There are many similar
services provided within the three agencies which could be consolidated.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 8 (registered)March 27, 2018, 8:29 PM
Enough, I say. There are so many unnecessary projects that money is being wasted on. I am SO tired of going
downtown and seeing one project after another underway - do we really need to change the curb access again.
It seemed to be working just fine - now, they’re being torn up and redone. And, sadly, I rarely go downtown
because of ALL the projects underway - how long has Garden Street re-vamp taken ?? That’s nuts. So use the
money you already have, discard unneeded and unnecessary projects - make every dollar count. Tighten up -
as citizens, that’s what we are all having to do so the city needs to do the same. NO MORE TAXES.
Jo Ann Wheatley inside Neighborhood 7 (registered)March 27, 2018, 2:28 PM
I’ve no intention of voting for proposed city sales tax increase. I have a deep seated belief that I know how to
spend my money better than the city does.
Name not available (unclaimed)March 27, 2018, 9:26 AM
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 5 of 27
Packet Page 212
12
Although I agree with improving the quality of life in San Luis Obispo, I feel that increasing property taxes
unfairly burdens the already struggling property owner. City improvements benefit the entire community and
funding should be shared by all residents. A sales tax increase would be the best way to accomplish a more
equal distribution of financial responsibility for everyone living in San Luis Obispo.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 10 (registered)March 26, 2018, 9:54 PM
Let’s live within our means. For the last 15 years, we’ve had our water rates raised annually. We already tried
the TEMPORARY sales tax. No to the sales tax.
Do not dredge Laguna Lake, cut way back on expensive bike paths.
Name not available (unclaimed)March 26, 2018, 6:35 PM
Of the 3 funding options outlined, the sales tax appears to be the best as is born mainly by visitors (est. AT
70%) and at $15m/year would cover 75% of costs phased in over 20 years ($15mX20=$300m). The rest
should be put to a vote of the city residents before their property taxes are burdened more. Burdening property
will increased costs just raises the amount renters have to pay to cover owners costs and less people can afford
buying property due to the higher costs burdened on to each parcel in the city. Creating a tax district seems to
have all the down side mentioned above without the upside of a vote by the residents of the city.
Kurt Pacheco inside Neighborhood 7 (registered)March 26, 2018, 3:04 PM
I do NOT support the plan for a $400 million expenditure. The city council has made much of the shortage of
affordable housing, and yet to fund these projects not only do they want to raise the sales tax but they want to
add a fee to the property tax. Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways. One of my questions is if the staff has
been working on this, and you knew the police station needs replacing, why weren't there any additional
developer fees on the 1,200 homes recently approved by the council? These will definitely impact our city,
especially tank farm road. For the mission plaza improvement there is mention of a café, why would this be
included when there are so many restaurants downtown? As seen from the recent conflict on the bike path on
broad street, there is not clear consensus on the need for cross town bike paths, regardless of the council's
vision. These additional taxes on top of the recent $.12 gas tax just makes it that much more unaffordable to
live in SLO. But this is NOT the most serious issue.
The City Manager stated that employee pension shortfalls will not be subject to this tax proposal and that it is a
separate issue. That is all well and good except for one little problem. The taxpayers are the ones you are
going to come to for fixing the pension problem and then we're faced with additional taxation!
I won't support ANY tax increase for these capital projects until the city resolves the unfunded pension
liabilities! Unfunded pension liabilities is the most pressing matter facing the city and its residents, and must be
addressed FIRST!
Lindsey Haring outside Neighborhoods (registered)March 26, 2018, 1:57 PM
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 6 of 27
Packet Page 213
12
Many of the statements in opposition to another tax resonate with me, but I struggle because I love our
community and know there's a need. As a mother of three young children and wife to a small business owner, I
am acutely aware of the stresses of building a life in San Luis Obispo. I count myself among the fortunate to be
trying to do just that but I question our ability in the long term as costs continue to rise.
I think we need to have more community discussion about the prioritization of projects --- which ones will
enhance quality of life for most/all residents? Though I love the Bob Jones trail, perhaps we wait to fund its
extension until the Prado Road Interchange and Extension is completed? There is so much work that has gone
into thoughtful planning/visioning, but I think we need more discussion about what to execute and when due to
budget constraints.
I also think more consideration needs to be given to the impact of another sales tax hike on small, locally
owned businesses. We talk a lot about small/medium businesses being both an important economic driver and
source of character/uniqueness/connectedness in our small town. Continued increases in sales tax drive
consumers to online retailers where they are not subject to sales tax. I have a hard time believing this 1% hike
would be the last, and I have a hard time believing that consumers will continue to pay more to shop local when
the costs of living are rising...and with no end in sight.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 5 (registered)March 26, 2018, 1:46 PM
If it can be confirmed that approximately 70% of sales tax is paid for by visitors who live out of County, I could
support an increase in the sales tax to help pay for improvements our residents feel is worthwhile.
I am not supportive of a parcel tax or general obligation bond. SLO County is consistently one of the least
affordable in the country - don't make the problem worse. Additionally, any proposed parcel tax affects ONLY
those who own real estate, not the general public. If improvements are going to provide for a public benefit, any
solution should be borne by all taxpayers. I vehemently oppose a tax that is directed at a specific, determined
group.
Name not available (unclaimed)March 26, 2018, 12:09 PM
All of the 400 million dollar things the city wants is non essential, our family will vote no.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 1 (registered)March 26, 2018, 10:16 AM
We are opposed to more taxation for SLO which under the present Mayor & City Council is working against its
residents. "Stakeholders" who do not reside in SLO, are now being represented by the Mayor, City Council &
staff who should be representing residents only. The salaries are out of control, lower them & put a hiring
freeze in place.. Stop hiring so many expensive administrators & administrative assistants. One of the huge
ways to save money is to have staff actually do the work & stop hiring "consultants" who are often clueless
about SLO and write what the department heads want. Learn to live within your means, pay down our debts
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 7 of 27
Packet Page 214
12
first. We would only be willing to pay for more conservation & preservation of Natural Resources and
increasing and preserving the greenbelt. That's not even on your list! In fact the powers that be are not
protecting our natural environment in SLO at all and actually think they are "environmentalists." The rest is
unnecessary. Police should be out & about and with electronic communication there should be less need for
them to be in a building. Cal Poly needs to pay for their share of Police & Fire & other impacts on SLO.
Developers need to pay for the increased infrastructure that their projects necessitate. "Fair Share" is not fair to
residents. Stop spending money that we do not have & stop ruining the character & quality of SLO with tall,
massive buildings!
Name not shown outside Neighborhoods (registered)March 26, 2018, 9:36 AM
I will NOT support raising Property Taxes. I pay enough already. Its time for SLO to live with in its means. Find
a different way to generate funds for your wish list. Most of our grown children can NOT even afford buying a
home here as it is now. Causing many to move away from their home town and leave their family just to make a
living. Home Towns should be affordable for family to live and prosper. Right now, Rent is through the roof
expensive. Buildings are sitting empty because local businesses can not afford to pay the rent. SLO County
seem's to think money grows on trees. Generate a Public Fund Raiser for your projects one at a time and quit
acting like spoiled children, who always have their hand out saying "Give me, Give me", at the expense of
someone else while those elected in charge take the easy road to funding their Dreams. All of us have Dreams
for improvement in many areas of our lives, that does not mean, All dreams come true. I am tired of paying for
dreams of elected officials when my children scrape and save just to live here in their home town. Start with the
little projects, like the bathrooms at Mission Plaza and have a FUND RAISER to generate those funds for
repair. Work your way up to larger projects.. Its called WORK.. It takes WORK to generate funds for a CAUSE..
Its NOT called Raise Taxes at the tune of a 400 Million Dollar Wish List. This wallet is closed and if you all keep
this up.. This wallet is leaving the area..Sad because I have been here since 1960 and it is MY home..Quit
trying to suck blood out of a Turnip. The Well is Dry. The Wallet Closed.. Find a different way >> Its called
WORKING for a cause.. Not Milking someone dry..
Tonia Harrell inside Neighborhood 12 (registered)March 26, 2018, 9:30 AM
The City is trying to be the next Santa Barbara or San Francisco.... Let the Mission take care of the Plaza, they
bring in plenty of $$$ and it’s on their property... start doing something about the homeless... forget the waste of
$$$ roundabouts... they are not even in the right spots ... the whole info structures of SLO need revamping from
the Mayor on down the line... Make SLO great again
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 1 (registered)March 26, 2018, 9:23 AM
March 20, 2018, 10:48 AM
I am a homeowner and live near Cal Poly off of Highland Drive. I think the City budget should work like a family
budget, figure out what can be afforded and then pick the project, rather than approving projects that you don't
have funding for and imposing the costs on to the residents. I am definitely against having my property tax
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 8 of 27
Packet Page 215
12
increased for projects that I don't think are necessary. I've been paying property taxes here in SLO for 27 years
and while I approve of keeping up on our infrastructure, I think the projects noted are above and beyond what
we actually need. I see downtown buildings and housing developments being built all over town and am
wondering what happened to the "slow growth" mantra that used to be in San Luis Obispo planning. Downtown
is becoming too gentrified and our current water supplies and streets are already stressed so I do not
understand the approval for all the new housing developments and hotels in town. Why are we growing so fast?
Let's slow down and do one necessary thing at a time that can be financed through our current sales tax and
property tax revenues.
Bob Tedone inside Neighborhood 4 (registered)March 26, 2018, 9:15 AM
Add my voice to those who oppose this plan. On one hand the City pushes "affordable housing" and then with
this proposal asks to make it less affordable. Additionally, I suspect most of the projects would be ones that I
don't favor. I'm for a new police station and good bike lines on Tank Farm (no need to make it four lanes all the
way, IMHO). Quite honestly, given its track record I don't trust the City to make "improvements" that make the
town better.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 2 (registered)March 26, 2018, 8:40 AM
SLO is a wonderful city and has many terrific aspects already. I won't support any increases in property taxes
as I'm a homeowner and feel that living in SLO is financially straining already. The other financing options aren't
very appealing either and I'd like to see a more modest approach to capital projects. While some may be
necessary, others I feel are a wish list item and don't need to be undertaken right now. Let's not try to make this
the best city in California, but the best city for the citizens and many citizens are so happy here and fearful of an
additional financial burden.
Wendy George outside Neighborhoods (registered)March 23, 2018, 5:18 PM
I support enhancing Mission Plaza, which has begun to look shabby. Much effort and expense occurred in
updating the Mission Plaza Plan. Now it is time to fund its implementation. However, that funding should
include support for the arts district surrounding the Plaza, including capital support for new buildings for SLOMA
and SLORep and the expansion of public art in Mission Plaza.
Name not available (unclaimed)March 23, 2018, 4:20 PM
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 9 of 27
Packet Page 216
12
I am in favor of the city supporting the arts in SLO and enhancing the Mission Plaza.
Bob Ehlers inside Neighborhood 8 (registered)March 22, 2018, 4:48 PM
There are many immediate needs for San Luis Obispo. Building out an amphitheater in the Mission, adding
more disruptive bike lanes and roadblocks, and expanding the EOC are not among them. The Mission square is
perfectly serviceable as it is and lovely. Maybe renovation of the bathrooms would be ok. We have plenty of bike
lines crisscrossing the city and each new addition only serves to cause more congestion and disrupt the
neighborhoods in which it exists. The county operates a perfectly fine EOC out at the Kansas Ave. area and
there is an existing facility for the City at Firestation 1. So why is this needed?
I do not support any increase in sales tax, property tax, bond issues, or other revenue generation beyond what
exists today, adjusted for inflation. Look to Cities like Huntington Beach and Santa Ana who have balanced
budgets, good infrastructure, and reliable city services without incremental tax burdens on property and
business owners.
We should look at increasing impact fees for Cal Poly. They should be carrying the burden for increased traffic,
police resources, etc. As they build more dorms and increase student enrollment, the city should get a greater
source of revenue. Maybe add dorms as transient occupancy tax. Poly is not going anywhere, but consumes a
lot of city services, including demands for bike lanes, police, crowd control (rowdy parties etc), and traffic
enforcement.
Can the City sell off the water district to a private entity?
What about contracting to the YMCA or other community organization to operate the Parks and Rec Dept?
What about contracting out building maintenance and management to a third party?
What about full automation of permitting process, on line records, etc? Can't business, building and other
permits be handled on line?
Contract fire services to Cal Fire or a private firm.
There are many ways to save money so that taxes do not need to be raised, or new debt incurred.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 8 (registered)March 21, 2018, 9:45 PM
My husband and I would not vote for an increase in sales tax or property tax. This and previous councils have
expressed they want affordable housing in SLO but making property owners pay more property taxes will not
make housing more affordable. Even though visitors pay a larger portion of our sales taxes, we residents have
to pay it too, making costs of goods we purchase in the city higher--again making it less affordable to live here.
The city needs to live within its means and not ask for money for "wants" as opposed to "needs." That's the
way most of us budget our personal finances--the city needs to do the same. It's insulting to ask for more
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 10 of 27
Packet Page 217
12
money from residents when our tax dollars have been squandered for expensive unnecessary things like
retractable bollards and two way bike tracks that cost millions of dollars. We refuse to vote to fund these types
of frivolous, unnecessary things.
Sheryl Mcintire inside Neighborhood 6 (registered)March 21, 2018, 11:17 AM
Thank you for this opportunity to give our opinions, I hope they are truly taken into consideration!
I feel it's asking too much of property owners to chip in more money to help city planners spend money on plans
that are a bit eccentric, we are a small town( that was so much less crowded only a few years ago) not a
European town built for bicycles and pedestrian only streets. Why not keep it in perspective, improve things we
need to see upgraded, no changing the plaza ect.. I'm not sure what responsibility Cal Poly plays as a
contributor to these funds, but shouldn't they shoulder some expense along with bed taxes for all they family
that also arrives several times a year.? Also I feel they should pay a great portion of the money neede for more
police and emergency responders because downtown seems actually like a big campus these days, and the
students are a big part of the need for maintaining peace and control . Especially at night here.
It's a shame to see large buildings going up in town ( especially the one at foothill and chorro !!). Growth is fine
and necessary, but I find the way this town is approaching it is disappointing. Such high density and all the track
home projects will hurt us in the end. The lack of neighborhood character and charm will be gone, and
downtown will be annoying because the sidewalks aren't wide enough to enjoy walking anywhere with all the
crowds of people.
I have so many ideas, but don't want to bore you all at one time! I've lived here 32 years and I cry for the town
we moved here to live in.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 12 (registered)March 21, 2018, 8:19 AM
I do not believe that any redevelopment of Mission Plaza is needed other than bathrooms at this time. As far as
the emergency operation center, it's not at the police department (which could probably use some freshening
up), it's at Fire station number 1 and when I toured it, it seemed perfectly adequate.
Other than bed taxes, I will not support any increase of any type of taxes.
Asking developers to fund these projects isn't going to help either since all that will do is increase the amount
that they ask for new houses or for rent on commercial space. Putting a freeze on all this development
however would be a great idea, we're getting way too crowded here.
I've paid property taxes for over 30 years in San Luis County and while part of it supposedly goes for the
schools, I have not had a student in any of the schools. But have friends that have children in our schools and
have friends that are teachers and always hear how they do not have the funds to properly buy supplies or for
field trips. In fact I just donated to a friends daughter for a field trip. These teachers are dipping into their own
pockets so they will be able to responsibly do what they love to do, teach our future leaders. That's not fair at
any level and you want to raise our property taxes for other ventures? It's hard enough living here as it is
especially with all the increased taxes from our state. The city needs to live within its means, put away money
for a rainy day and save money to fund other expenditures like everybody else should be doing. If I want to buy
a new expensive item, I have no one to ask to help me fund it; I have to save the money and then buy it since I
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 11 of 27
Packet Page 218
12
don't like to go into debt. Our city and county should do the same thing.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 8 (registered)March 20, 2018, 4:37 PM
I am VERY against raising property or sales taxes. It’s hard enough to afford living here, if this goes through I
will certainly be listing my house and moving to south county. The residents should not have to pay for the City’s
inability to keep a balanced budget and hire and spend within their means. Modifying bike lanes on Broad is a
huge mistake on a heavily traveled road. There are other safe options currently in place for cyclists that they
can utilize. Mission Plaza does not need a cafe, there are a plethora of dining options in the downtown core that
this would compete with. As it is, the plaza can accommodate larger events very well and shouldn’t be a
primary focus of the city aside from installing some additional safety measures.
Name not available (unclaimed)March 20, 2018, 3:40 PM
I second the lady who said,
I oppose raising property or sales tax at this time. The present Council is spending money unnecessarily and
utilizing staff time on projects with no purpose other than feeding their own egos. Plastic straws only if you ask
or take it yourself, no purchased water bottles unless an athletic event or someone at City Hall says okay, new
developments plumbed for solar (but not installed). Measure G funds have been subject to bait and switch and
any funds here will be too. The assertion that we need to raise taxes to fund approved projects demonstrates
the error in the thinking and attitude of the CC, City Manager and City Attorney, it is high time to live within our
means. Although the City Manager claims the funds won’t be used to pay down our unfunded pension liabilities,
these funds will pay for projects that should come from the general funds thereby allowing general fund money
to be used for that purpose. The largest sales tax items like car purchases will affect residents and those
businesses. The TOT is quite low and not a determining factor in where visitors choose to stay. With all the call
for affordable housing, property tax increases will only raise rents and render housing more costly.
Name not available (unclaimed)March 20, 2018, 1:08 PM
No way di we need any of these so called improvements and why should I have to pay for them with increased
property taxes, that's just wrong
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 1 (registered)March 20, 2018, 11:47 AM
I applaud the City for calculating all of the proposed projects and giving citizens a view of their overall cost.
However, I find myself supporting some projects and opposed to others. I can see the need to upgrade the
public safety buildings and some of the bicycle proposals. There are projects that I oppose, such as the
redesign of Mission Plaza (I do not think that the redesign is an improvement), the Prado Road interchange, or
the bicycle paths that disrupt existing neighborhoods. Consequently, although I am willing to support financing
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 12 of 27
Packet Page 219
12
some projects, if presented to me as an entire group, I will oppose funding.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 7 (registered)March 20, 2018, 10:48 AM
I'm supportive of taxing visitors first and not taxing residents more. Therefore I'd support increasing TOT first,
then possibly raising the sales tax higher (since 70% is paid by non-residents). With all the new hotels being
built this should raise a significant amount of $. Also look into other creative ways to generate tax/fee revenue
from visitors. The City Mgt/Council should wait to see how much revenue this generates before considering
other options. I'm against any increase to property taxes or other taxes that are solely borne by the residents.
JEAN'NE BLACKWELL inside Neighborhood 6 (registered)March 19, 2018, 10:49 PM
Save the city $5.000 a year and improve the quality of our water and life by not putting fluoride in the city water.
San Luis Is the only remaining municipality in SLO county that still puts fluoride in the water. Fluoride in the
water can really be doing more harm than good. Naturally occurring fluoride is not the same as fluoride
manufactured from the waste by products of the uranium manufacturing industry. The idea that the waste
dumped into water supplies was so “low level” as to be completely harmless is likely dubious and hopeful at
best. Fluoride, a by-product of the nuclear power industry, was one of those constituents, and was transformed
from being known as a rat poison to being known as a dental benefit by the original spin doctor and
propagandist, Edward Bernays.
In his book The Fluoride Deception, author Christopher Bryson revealed how the nuclear industry also used
fluoridation of the public water supply as a means of secretly dumping industrial waste after fluoride was a
major by-product in the uranium enrichment process for building the atomic bomb. Bryson told Democracy Now:
The Manhattan Project needed fluoride to enrich uranium. That’s how they did it. The biggest industrial building
in the world, for a time, was the fluoride gaseous diffusion plant in Tennessee the Manhattan Project and Dr.
Hodge as the senior toxicologist for the Manhattan Project, were scared stiff less that workers would realize that
the fluoride they were going to be breathing inside these plants was going to injury them and that the
Manhattan Project, the key — the key of U.S. Strategic power in the Cold War Era, would be jeopardized
because the Manhattan Project and the industrial contractors making the atomic bomb would be facing all these
lawsuits from workers, all these lawsuits from farmers living around these industrial plants and so Harold Hodge
assures us that fluoride is safe and good for children.
More recently, an Associated Press investigation found in 2011 that 48 of 65 nuclear sites in the United States
were leaking tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, into groundwater supplies via corroded pipes and tunnels.
AP found at least 37 locations were in direct violation of federal drinking water standards for tritium, in some
cases hundreds of times over.
Fluoride has never been approved by the FDA, http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/2005/12/fluoride-never-fda-
approved-for.html Children could inadvertently be getting too much causing unnecessary harm. Dentist give
kids drops, fluoride in toothpaste and the fluoride in the water. There is always a way to get fluoride voluntarily
so my suggestion is save the city $5,000 a year and improve the quality of the water by eliminating fluoride in
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 13 of 27
Packet Page 220
12
our water. thank you.
Name not available (unclaimed)March 19, 2018, 8:27 PM
As a recent first time home buyer in SLO I am against a hike in the property taxes. I know I am super fortunate
to have the opportunity to buy a home in SLO but the hike will be a burden for local families. I am okay with a
increase in sales tax or hotel taxes... I am not sure how that works... Also why do we need a new police station?
A new location?
Hilliard Wood inside Neighborhood 4 (registered)March 19, 2018, 3:57 PM
The property tax is extremely inequitable due to Prop 13. Therefore, I think it not a viable choice for use to fund
any City expenses; and would vote against any Propositions using that funding method.
Name not available (unclaimed)March 19, 2018, 3:18 PM
With the increased number of housing being built and/or approved, I find it irresponsible that the City does not
have road improvement as a number one goal. Traffic within the City is already bottle necked at key times of
the day, yet I don't see any significant traffic plan for strategic thoroughfares to address increased use due to
housing and population growth. Given the constraints of space, it's a pipe-dream to think that significantly more
people will ride bikes and or use public transportation. Road improvements and traffic management must be a
key project for the City.
Lydia Mourenza inside Neighborhood 1 (registered)March 19, 2018, 2:26 PM
I oppose raising property or sales tax at this time. The present Council is spending money unnecessarily and
utilizing staff time on projects with no purpose other than feeding their own egos. Plastic straws only if you ask
or take it yourself, no purchased water bottles unless an athletic event or someone at City Hall says okay, new
developments plumbed for solar ( but not installed). Measure G funds have been subject to bait and switch and
any funds here will be too. The assertion that we need to raise taxes to fund approved projects demonstrates
the error in the thinking and attitude of the CC, City Manager and City Attorney, it is high time to live within our
means. Although the City Manager claims the funds won’t be used to pay down our unfunded pension liabilities,
these funds will pay for projects that should come from the general funds thereby allowing general fund money
to be used for that purpose. The largest sales tax items like car purchases will affect residents and those
businesses. The TOT is quite low and not a determining factor in where visitors choose to stay. With all the call
for affordable housing, property tax increases will only raise rents and render housing more costly.
Sandi Sigurdson inside Neighborhood 6 (registered)March 19, 2018, 1:38 PM
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 14 of 27
Packet Page 221
12
If we don't invest in retaining a vibrant, attractive downtown, Carmel and Santa Barbara will be happy to do
it...and reap the TOT benefits. Please make the case again for our relatively average SLO sales tax percentage
against comparable coastal destinations. I'm all for visitors substantially helping residents bear the cost of living
here.
I'd also like to hear a stronger case for a new police station. The safety folk I know are pretty stoic so I am
unaware of any shortcomings in existing facilities. Tell me more so I can support our first responders effectively.
I don't know about bike lanes. I just know that how people move around is going to change dramatically in the
next 2 + decades- the planning horizon for our professional staff vis parking structures, lane widening, and
public transit.
Thanks for asking!
Susan Shalit inside Neighborhood 7 (registered)March 14, 2018, 7:29 PM
I am against using limited funds to "enhance" Mission Plaza. The city has many more pressing needs. As a
local resident our Plaza is fine the way it is. If the bathroom needs improvement that's reasonable. Thank you.
Respectfully, Susan Shalit
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 7 (registered)March 14, 2018, 12:34 PM
As a property owner in this city, I am completely against funding public use projects with property taxes.
Property owners currently fund bonds for the State Water Project (which we don't have access to), the San Luis
Coastal Schools, and Cuesta College. I have lived in my property for almost 20 years and these bonds and fees
continue to rise along with my assessed home value. I can't imagine how new property owners can afford their
property taxes with the current price of housing and all of the bond add-ons. Tourists, students, renters, and
visitors who live outside of our area will use these facilities and I feel it only fair to have them pay their fair
share. I would not be opposed to a .5% sales tax increase for a limited time, however, I feel any approved
project should have sufficient oversight to ensure that funds collected are used only for the intended project and
not funneled into the cities’ budget to fund things like pensions or annual budget shortfalls. I also feel
developers should contribute their fair share or provide total funding for road improvements such as the Tank
Farm Road project, particularly when the road impacts are a direct result of their project.
Name not available (unclaimed)March 12, 2018, 10:02 PM
I thought this was to be a questionaire. Maybe that will be the case, as I go forward with this.
I feel the the Council has done a very poor job being fiscally accountable, for at least the last ten years. If a
skate board park is desired then the strategy is to flood the Chamber at budget time for several years and
presto, you get a skate park. If you want to correct housing conditions in rental properties, get a vocal mob to
have the Council write a draconian law that raises dollars for CD, yet doesn't solve the problem. If you are a
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 15 of 27
Packet Page 222
12
cyclist, petition the Council for a cyclist's roadway and propose changes that are dangerous because of
ignorance of the cultural factors operative in this town, TODAY. [ My wife is Dutch so I've seen and spent time in
a society that provides for separation of vehicular, cycling & pedestrian traffic......it's a good idea, if done
properly ]
Twenty years ago the City had acquired four historic adobes by various means [ gifts from developers of
parcels, bequests, tax advantaged parcels.... ] with the understanding they would be stewards of these
examples of our cultural past. One adobe was restored so as to be "weathered" 20 yrs. ago; one had some
CDBG funds spent a few years ago; but no planning has been done as to ascertain what needs to be done to
them to sustain them, or if the City can even afford to be the steward of these iconic parts of our built
environment. Twenty years of derelict stewardship !
These things come to mind, now that once again, you ask the citizenry to "go to the well again".
Garrett Otto inside Neighborhood 1 (registered)March 12, 2018, 2:01 PM
I would be in favor of a sales tax and TOT increase as this put the majority of the burden on tourist dollars. I
would not support an increase to property taxes due to our high housing cost in SLO. Funds should be
allocated to projects that are ranked on quality of service for all users, environmental mitigation, and potential to
generate future revenue. I would also like to know what sort of grants and funding support we would qualify for
if we become a self help community by allocating fund as part of a sales tax increase.
Patrick Scrivner outside Neighborhoods (registered)March 9, 2018, 10:24 PM
My vote will against bond measure G.
Sales taxes are too high already.
Property taxes are too high already.
Do you have any wonder why families and businesses are leaving California in droves?
Live like the citizens, and don’t spend what you don’t have.
Name not available (unclaimed)March 9, 2018, 9:36 PM
All the lofty plans for the beautification of this city sounds wonderful, but you are planning to spend money you
don’t have to pay for it; at the cost of everyone who lives in the county, not just the city of SLO. Sure, everyone
would like to make “home improvements” but if you don’t have the money to complete the project, you don’t do
the project. Our property taxes are already well over 1% and the cost of homes are already unaffordable.
Another increase in sales tax will bring us to almost 10%! SLO is a great place to live, but not when your living
expenses eat up most of your income. Living costs are high here and salaries are low, why make it worse? The
people of this county are taxed to death as it is-NO MORE!
Gary Havas inside Neighborhood 10 (registered)March 9, 2018, 6:44 PM
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 16 of 27
Packet Page 223
12
I regret that Measure J failed. I appreciate that work needs to be done and wish to see that happen. If another
sales-tax based revenue mechanism needs to be created, I would vote for it.
Name not available (unclaimed)March 9, 2018, 4:27 PM
As a member of the LUCE TF I voted in the minority on at least some of the anticipated programs and was told
that existing sales taxes were able to fund most of what was being discussed. I have no objection to taxes
paying for improved fire and police response time and facilities and for upgrading worn roads, water
infrastructure pipes, and the like. I definitely oppose taxes being levied to pay for new developments in bicycling
facilities,mass transportation facilities, new upscale housing, and downtown bars and restaurants that are
already way too big for our permanent population size and small town. I disagree with the whole idea of
crowding our small space with a bunch of tourists who spend their money on restaurants, bars, and other luxury
items. SLO should be for the permanent residents first and foremost, not for students, their parents, and
tourists.
David Blakely inside Neighborhood 1 (registered)March 9, 2018, 4:07 PM
I would like to know more about this proposal before I could support it or reject it. It is very early in the process.
A couple of thoughts
1. If the money is being used for more bike lanes the city council needs to do a better job of working with the
neighborhoods. The Broad Street bike way issue was very controversial and has turned people off to what
should be a good thing for the city.
2. It must be demonstrated that the money raised by this tax would not just supplant other monies used by the
city for these purposes.
3. A long time high priority for the residents of the city of slo has been the acquisition of open space. I would
suggest that this be a high priority for the spending of this money. But it must be real and not just lip service for
more open space. The residents of SLO have consistently picked open space acquisition as a high priority but
the money gets spent on roads, bikelanes and public safety.
4. Since it is so early in the process I am not sure what this money can be spent on. I would love to see the city
start a legal challenge to the state in regards to the housing mandates the state is putting on the city. Or if
possible use some of the money to revise the general plan so that the city council can have as much discretion
as possible when it comes to the approval of projects in the city.
5. Non of this money should be used to stimulate and provide for additional growth in the city. New growth must
pay to mitigate all of their impacts to a level of insignificance and if they cannot the city should not cover any of
those costs and projects should be denied.
6. Use this money for neighborhood wellness. Foster a positive relationship between the city and the
neighborhoods. Respect neighborhood input. 22 Chorro and Palomar are two examples where the
neighborhoods have not been respected.
Allen Root inside Neighborhood 8 (registered)March 9, 2018, 2:13 PM
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 17 of 27
Packet Page 224
12
I applaud the efforts of our Mayor and Council, City staff, and community members for having the foresight to
delve into this important topic. The maintenance and upgrading of our community is vital in so many ways. One
of the most important in my mind is maintaining a high degree of attractiveness in San Luis Obispo. To keep up
the high level of visitors, ( and the visitor's wallets ), and to help lure the skilled workforce our local industries
need. How to fund? I know that with certain factions making development even more expensive can be un-
popular, I do think it is a good place to look. Making sure that the developments coming to fruition are paying
their fair share of infrastructure improvements is important. Assessment districts could work, and I can't
imagine a 1% sales tax increase would cause much heartburn. It would be good to know how SLO compares
sale tax wise to other comparable communities, and it is a very good idea to keep the citizenry informed about
how the money is spent.
I would also like City to study the efficacy of all our dreamy proposals. As a lover of all things cultural, I'm
excited by the prospects of the envisioned "Cultural District". A strong component of community attractiveness,
I'm doing what I can to advance that. I can see the need for a new Police Station, it must be, what, 45 years
old? Our community has grown a bit in those years. Do we really need a new communication center? I don't
think it is even 10 years old. We need to be critical in our priorities.
So I say "do all of the above" in terms of financing our Community and infrastructure needs. Let's keep San Luis
Obispo riding on the top edge of the wave!
Name not shown outside Neighborhoods (registered)March 9, 2018, 10:48 AM
With recent water / sewer and property tax increases, (not to mention related expenses) I would submit that
new development shoulder the costs of infrastructure and that the city SCALE BACK it's plans until there is a
sensible plan in place to do so. Mandating a county wide tax hamstrings the populous by overdeveloping &
over-promising - but what happens when the exodus begins - (witness Santa Barbara and Ventura) - a sound
plan would budget 'needs" & "desires" with practical expenditures and a more cautious approach.
Cheryl Lyon outside Neighborhoods (registered)March 8, 2018, 5:06 PM
I am completely against a 400 million dollar upgrade because I haven't heard how the county is going to
remedy the situation that they came up 10 million dollar short this past year AND when PG&E Diablo Canyon
closes, 85 million will not be pouring into our economy anymore!
Having lived in Los Osos since 1983, I am being strangled by tax hikes, sewer fees, sewer pipe improvements,
and water rate increases of 195% !
I'm low income and it's going to soon pass a line where I cannot live in the home that I've enjoyed for decades!
Please please please don't force gentrification on this County!
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 2 (registered)March 8, 2018, 3:16 PM
SLO is already famously unaffordable. Landlords will be able to pass any increase in property taxed onto their
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 18 of 27
Packet Page 225
12
tenants. The rental housing market is tight; if the current tenant will not tolerate the increased rent, another
tenant will. Rather than compound this problem with another tax on residents, consider raising the bed taxes
charged to the visitors staying in the hotels.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 6 (registered)March 8, 2018, 8:20 AM
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't raise my taxes. It's getting harder and harder for "us", middle income home
owner dual income family small business owner, to be able to afford the SLO life. It just seem so irresponsible to
ask "us" to keep funding things we can't afford. Please stop this silliness.
Justin Bradshaw inside Neighborhood 1 (registered)March 7, 2018, 9:56 PM
I'm very much in favor of improving bike access, mission plaza and public services like police and fire. After
reading the comments you've received thus far, it seems like you're getting some religious pushback on raising
taxes. It's a thing, I get it. I don't like my taxes raised either.... but I also understand that projects take money
and a citizen like me that wants to ride his bike more and loves the mission and our safe city should be willing to
pay a bit more to get those things.
All that said, I think you're going to have to take a multi-faceted approach to this. You can probably raise sales
tax a half of a percent and some property taxes marginally, too... but you'll also have to commit to trimming the
city budget in places that may require some sacrifice on your part. I have not noticed this myself, but have
certainly noted the public perception that the city is fat and happy. You will need to combat that perception in
any campaign asking for more funds from your residents.
Oh and don't forget the money you can raise from cannabis. From cultivation to distribution, manufacturing and
retail... you'd be crazy not to capitalize on this once in a lifetime opportunity to bring significantly more revenues
into the city.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 6 (registered)March 7, 2018, 9:40 PM
I will not vote for more bonds or general taxation due to previous waste of my money eg Decorative street tiles
now cracking and buckling. Higher taxes on alcohol could pay for more police "protection" and the cannabis tax
can pay down the pension "debt". Higher taxes on developers should pay for "infrastructure" 4 the 3,000 new
dwellings they bring. Why tax retirees pensions and social security to enhance the carpet baggers profits off
newbee residents? and Traffic jams, band width competition, blackouts, and water depletion they will bring?
Making just another Dustbowl out of SLO.
Name not available (unclaimed)March 7, 2018, 9:23 PM
I will not vote for more bonds, sales taxes etc due to wasteful govt decisions of last decade eg: decorative street
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 19 of 27
Packet Page 226
12
tiles now breaking. The cannabis tax has my approval, first to cover the "pension shortfall", an artificially
created crisis example of govt mismanagement ,and a higher tax on alcohol consumption to pay for more police
"protection" specifically ?.Why are we adding huge hotels and 3,000 dwellings when we have maxed out our
water supply already????? Let developers pay for the "new infrastructure" from their profits, vs our "income"
Social Security or pensions.
Name not shown outside Neighborhoods (registered)March 7, 2018, 9:49 AM
I question the thinking on increasing sales tax levies in the city of SLO, especially when put in the context of
other troubling decisions. In the meantime, the Measure G tax already goes on. The "improvements" to
LOVR (I use the term loosely) have not helped the worst traffic congestion in the city (between Madonna and
Higuera). The oversized building permitted at Chorro and Foothill is really out of place. The downtown
construction mess goes on and on and has added significantly to the loss of parking to an already problematic
parking situation; very few people want to see any buildings rise above two stories. Thousands of new homes,
cars and people on the drawing boards-- yuck, that just sounds like a huge infrastructure problem coming
along.
So to the immediate question; Want more bike paths? Tax the bikers--they use them I guess. Mission Plaza
does not need the improvements listed. Police station...I cant comment on that, because I don't know what is
wrong with the one we have. But there are PLENTY of empty storefronts in Madonna Plaza...why cant we use
that for police and housing? Can't we try to live within our means??
Name not available (unclaimed)March 7, 2018, 7:36 AM
Why not use the $400 million to create low-income housing or rent vouchers so people who run the city can
actually afford to live here? This measure sounds like the city is planning to spend $400 million to attract
tourists and does nothing to benefit the residents of the city.
Name not available (unclaimed)March 6, 2018, 11:00 AM
How about better fiscal management of taxpayer money? Keep raising taxes and eventually the tourism that
helps pay for so much in this city will dry up just like the pension funds
Name not available (unclaimed)March 6, 2018, 2:10 AM
No more sales tax.
No more property taxes.
Rents are tooo high.
Taxes are tooooo high.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 6 (registered)March 5, 2018, 3:49 PM
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 20 of 27
Packet Page 227
12
San Luis Obispo is frightfully unaffordable. A 1% sales tax will make it 1% less affordable. Property taxes will
also force out property owners and renters who are currently on the margins (rents in SLO county are already
increasing faster than anywhere else in the state). The SLO city government needs to put more time and
attention into trimming itself down so that it can do essential functions in-budget and so that its regulations and
fees are less of a burden, and less time and attention into dreaming up ways of spending more of the money of
city residents who are already scraping for what they can get.
Susie Link inside Neighborhood 7 (registered)March 5, 2018, 2:26 PM
Our taxes are high enough in this community. I do not appreciate the mentallity of keeping up with the Jones.
We are not Santa Barbara and I don't want to live in Santa Barbara. Our police are fine with the current
station. We don't even have the man power to cover the current police station. We down officers. We don't
even have a Resource Officer at the High School. Why? The City Council's priorities are so skewed. Please
take it to a vote of the community instead of making continual bad decisions like raising taxes. Its expensive
enough to live here.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 1 (registered)March 5, 2018, 9:50 AM
The city is like a spoiled child who wants, wants, wants, not like an adult who recognizes limitations and tries to
live within them. So we spend $1.3 million on bollards to protect Farmers Market! (from what? Not from the real
threats, guns and explosives) and want to constantly be redoing everything into some shadow of what it once
was (MIssion Plaza's just fine as it is). Then the city bullies its residents with stuff like the Anholm Bikeway,
builds all sorts of stuff we don't need (the $250K welcome sign on Santa Rosa at Highland), and incessantly
whines about not having enough money. It's tiresome, KIds, Grow up! As for sales tax, this is the most
regressive tax in the world -- hurts those with the least the most. Doubling our local sales tax is a really
obnoxious idea. So are parcel taxes. Paying the city manager's and city attorney's salaries and pensions out of
our sewer/water charges because those can be raised every year is obnoxious too, but few know you're doing
that. The city must learn, like all of us, to live within its means. It seems there's a total lack of trust anymore
because of the antics of folks at city hall. If your revenue enhancements get voted down by the people, well will
the city learn anything. or will is just hire another consultant to figure out how to manipulate us into voting yes
next time around?
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 5 (registered)March 5, 2018, 9:22 AM
Please don’t raise my property taxes. These taxes are already difficult for me so please be pro-housing stability
and don’t raise my taxes.
Name not available (unclaimed)March 4, 2018, 5:55 PM
First, there are not 22,000 relatively affluent Cal Poly students in the city Mr. Cooper. There are of course at
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 21 of 27
Packet Page 228
12
least that many affluent residents in the north part of the city. This city spends too much money pandering to
the political and personal agendas of its current councilmembers. We do not need any more bike trails nor any
further work on the Mission Plaza area. I agree the Mission and the downtown area is a hangout for transients.
Our current council apparently sees them as "yard art." Whether a large number camp in their vehicles down in
the south end of town where they can leave without consequences for dumping their trash and sewage. This
thanks to our mayor who is more concern about the homeless (many who are not locals) then she is about the
residents who live and pay taxes here. It's time the city start upgrading the police and fire stations, addressing
abandon or damaged buildings (i.e. the Sub which has been left as an eyesore for over two years while the
individuals pretending to do work on it leave rent-free in their motorhome on the property. Spend more money
addressing issues in other areas of the city not just the constantly well-funded downtown. The city continues to
dump discount stores and unpopular but necessary businesses in the south end of the city while spending most
of the money and time on the north end of the city,
Odile Ayral inside Neighborhood 1 (registered)March 4, 2018, 1:04 PM
When she was 16, my daughter said to me: "Mom, I learned from you that when you want something, you have
to put your priorities in order." She could teach the City a thing or two. I voted for measure G, and I watched
crews coating what appeared to be perfectly good streets on Ferrini Heights, while streets like Dana still exist
only because potholes are holding hands. Now the city is planning to spend a portion of $1 million and a half
on bike tracks in the Anholm neighborhood where it's not needed and not wanted, and another million and a
half on bollards to block streets at Farmer's Market, when a few big trucks would work perfectly well. And we
see huge buildings rising downtown, and developments like San Luis, Avila Ranch, Froom Ranch, etc., being
planned without any concern for infrastructure or the availability of water. Where are the city's priorities? You
want us to fund many more millions to give a facelift to Mission Plaza, but you don't have the money to fund
pensions. Again, where are your priorities? I suggest that you closely read the comments posted by Allan
Cooper (he has good ideas), and forget what you can't afford. As for me, I refuse to vote for new taxes as long
as you haven't put your priorities in order.
Name not shown outside Neighborhoods (registered)March 4, 2018, 12:54 PM
The residents have fought tax increases over and over. SLO needs to scale back as Diablo is closing and many
of our high paying jobs and our tax base will be leaving. $43M for a government office center, $40M for a
women's jail, $15M proposed for a pet facility!!! Enough is enough. Money does not grow on trees. Live within
your means, downsize, and be more cost effective. Pensions are too high, salaries are too high, wasteful
government practices are everywhere I look.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 7 (registered)March 4, 2018, 11:08 AM
I do not support the tax increase. The overall budget includes the Pension liability which needs to be dealt with
by whatever means to lower the liability. Also, an audit of the previous tax measure shows some money was
spent toward staff benefits and/or salaries, redecorating offices, staff retreats, new vehicles for staff, a $4 million
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 22 of 27
Packet Page 229
12
software system... the list goes on. MUCH LIKE A FAMILY WITH A CERTAIN MEANS, THE CITY NEEDS TO
LEARN TO LIVE WITHIN ITS MEANS. Take an overall assessment and cut back where needed if other
priorities are more important. Continually adding assessments on the residents is not the solution.
Name not available (unclaimed)March 4, 2018, 9:13 AM
This is an absolutely ridiculous idea. I live in Arroyo Grande, and am one of the 70% who end up paying your
sales taxes. I come to SLO at least once a week, to spend money there. If this tax passes, I will refuse to
spend another single dollar in SLO going forward. Use some of the taxes from legalized marijuana to blow on
"nice" for the community projects. We are all being taxed to death around here, including property taxes and
gas taxes also.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 10 (registered)March 4, 2018, 7:19 AM
I am unwilling to support any tax increases until the city comes to grips with the homeless situation. Spending
more money in the Mission area for improvement of the ampitheater at the time when you have many people
sleeping there during the day and bringing their dogs with them, and just generally trashing up the center of
tourist district is a ridiculous concept. No additional tax is justified until the city comes to grips with getting the
homeless out of tourist areas and our neighborhoods and parks.
Allan Cooper inside Neighborhood 5 (registered)March 3, 2018, 4:52 PM
San Luis Obispo is unique in that it is one of seven college towns in California and, among these college towns,
San Luis Obispo has one of the highest ratio of students per capita in the State. There are approximately
22,000 relatively affluent Cal Poly and Cuesta College students residing in San Luis Obispo. These students
cost the City additional community safety expenditures, 44% of the General Fund (see:
http://slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=16638), infrastructure and transportation expenditures,17% of the
General Fund and community and neighborhood livability expenditures, 12% of the General Fund. Owing to the
presence of these students, they and their families account for a large share of the City’s bed taxes (TOT’s) and
sales taxes. Therefore, it is only logical that part of the City’s $8,900,000 annual budget shortfall should be
made up by raising both the City’s bed taxes (per Council Member Rivoire’s suggestion) and sales taxes so that
these taxes are more in line with the other six California college towns.
For the year 2016-17, SLO’s Transient Occupancy Fund brought in $7,186,000 (see page A1-14 @
http://slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=15625). Note that four of the seven California college towns listed
below charge more than 10%. Assessing a bed tax at the same level as Berkeley (12%) would bring in an
additional $1,437,200 per year.
For the year 2016-17, SLO’s Sales Tax brought in $16,584,000. Note that five of the seven California college
towns listed below charge significantly more than 7.75%. Assessing sales taxes at the same level as Davis
(8.25%) would bring in an additional $1,069,935 per year.
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 23 of 27
Packet Page 230
12
These two increases would bring an additional $2,507,135 per year into the City coffers and this would
represent 33% of the City’s budget shortfall. This comes close to your target 30% - 40% in new revenue
sources for the $7.5 million share of the total budget shortfall.
Transient Occupancy Taxes For California Cities (Bold Type: University Towns)
“Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) For the privilege of occupancy in any hotel, each transient is subject to and
shall pay a tax in the amount of _____ percent of the rent charged by the operator.”
City of Modesto 9%
City of San Diego 9%
City of San Luis Obispo 10%
City of Pismo Beach 10%
City of Morro Bay 10%
City of Arroyo Grande 10%
City of Atascadero 10%
City of Paso Robles 10%
City of Pacific Grove 10%
City of Ventura 10%
City of San Jose 10%
City of Chico 10%
City of Claremont 10%
City of Monterey 10.5%
City of Santa Cruz 11%
City of Berkeley 12%
City of Santa Barbara 12%
City of Mammoth Lakes 13%
City of Davis 14%
City of Los Angeles 14%
City of San Francisco 14%
City of Palo Alto 14%
Sales Taxes For California Cities (Bold Type: University Towns)
City of Chico 7.25%
City of San Diego 7.75%
City of Pismo Beach 7.75%
City of Morro Bay 7.75%
City of Arroyo Grande 7.75%
City of Atascadero 7.75%
City of Paso Robles 7.75%
City of San Luis Obispo 7.75%
City of Ventura 7.75%
City of Santa Barbara 7.75%
City of Mammoth Lakes 7.75%
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 24 of 27
Packet Page 231
12
City of Modesto 7.875%
City of Davis 8.25%
City of San Francisco 8.50%
City of Pacific Grove 8.75%
City of Monterey 8.75%
City of Santa Cruz 9.00%
City of Palo Alto 9.00%
City of San Jose 9.25%
City of Berkeley 9.25%
City of Claremont 9.50%
City of Los Angeles 9.75%
As for meeting the 30% - 40% operating cost reductions, it is clear that both City salaries and positions should
be frozen if not reduced.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 7 (registered)March 3, 2018, 9:48 AM
It is past time that this city, and other cities in California, live within our means. Burdening the future with
millions of dollars of debt for "nice to do" things makes no sense. Things that "need" to be done include the
Prado Road overpass and widening Tank Farm. A new Police station goes along with that too. Mission Plaza
and Monterey street? Sure, in an ideal world it would be great to do these "nice to do" projects. But, how about
we focus on the other important financial issues facing our community? What about the pensions we've
committed to? It may not be fun but we as a community need to fund the CalPers system whether we like it or
not. To start spending borrowed money to fix things that are not broken (Mission Plaza, for example) while
ignoring the pension issue is not good governing. The pension issues will not solve themselves and need to be
addressed. Thank you.
Lee Bren inside Neighborhood 6 (registered)March 2, 2018, 4:25 PM
The City of San Luis Obispo was founded in1856. Dated and antiquated infrastructure in the 21st century will
not meet the future needs of our community. The economic vitality and financial stability of our businesses, our
citizens, our government, Cal Poly/Cuesta and our tourists need to be taken into consideration in this
evaluation, assuring the needed infrastructure to remain relevant and financially viable in the decades ahead.
Too many communities in our state prefer to defer investing in their future, and kick the can down the road. It is
human nature to ignore the future, when the current challenges seem daunting. Deferrals of solutions to
community needs generally have bad outcomes, and in the long run, are more expensive to cure. At the same
time, every community carries forward that year’s fiscal responsibilities. Many communities, unlike SLO, don’t
offer community stakeholders the opportunity to share their insights regarding fiscal management; I am grateful
that SLO welcomes this kind of citizen input.
While, yes, we do have fiscal challenges in our city, I firmly believe we cannot simultaneously ignore the future.
The future loss of Diablo Canyon seems to bode loss for our economy; yet, we are growing a high-tech
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 25 of 27
Packet Page 232
12
business community, with which SLO can build stronger alliances each year, and upon which SLO can plan and
implement community projects. There is no free lunch; we plan and invest collaboratively overtime, doing our
collaborative best to avoid large unintended consequences down the road.
A combination of sales tax dedicated increases, with long-term city bonds, and other prudent financial
techniques is the right way to secure our future.
Leslie Halls inside Neighborhood 8 (registered)March 2, 2018, 3:25 PM
Our city is head over heels in debt to CalPERS, and yet you want to go on a spending spree for what are
mostly "fluff" projects. Mission Plaza is fine as it is. As long as we owe CalPERS over $155 MILLION, we can
never be sure any additional taxes will go where they are promised to go. You need to live within your means.
People aren't leaving SLO because it's a mess, they are leaving because it is getting entirely too expensive to
live here. Raising taxes only exacerbates this. Cut spending, pay down CalPERS, put the NEEDS (not wants) of
residents first, and then figure it out. We are in this financial mess in part because you have catered to "wants"
at the expense of needs. Grow a backbone and make tough decisions, to major on the majors. No new taxes.
Period.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 5 (registered)March 2, 2018, 2:44 PM
We live in a lovely City but there are too many people trying to over engineer the lifestyle here. If you don't have
the funds to create a bike path, we are fine without a dedicated bike path through the city. If you can't afford to
change the Mission Plaza, then leave it as is. Alternatively, sacrifice your habit of all new vehicles for City Staff
or First Responder Vehicles and Double Decker buses that cost millions of dollars. Cities like SLO need to
learn to live within a budget. You raised a "temporary sales tax" years back to meet your funding needs and it's
never been repealed back as far as I can tell. So my feeling is NO!!!! No on raising taxes - Cut back on some
other area in your budget and re prioritize your spending. That's what we as individual tax payers have to do!
dia Hurd inside Neighborhood 7 (registered)March 2, 2018, 2:37 PM
I say fully fund your pension liabilities PRIOR to developing new projects and allowing and approving
developments as rapidly as you are able WITHOUT consideration of the limits of available utilities such as
WATER, ROADS and traffic overload. It would be seriously premature and not in the residents benefit to simply
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 26 of 27
Packet Page 233
12
start raising the taxing of the residents to PROVIDE RESOURCES FOR NEW RESIDENTS. WE DO NOT
WANT ANY NEW RESIDENTS until it can be shown that water, not money is sufficient to support the myriad
dozens of developments this city is proposing. You are way out of line even considering raising taxes on
property or sales (if that occurs, we will not shop in slo any longer) for future whatevers that are ill advised at
this time. Stay within your budget, and FULLY FUND THE PRESENT SLO. And your current pension
requirements. It is a travesty of the first water, to be so shortsighted as to propose to pump up your funding for
the future. Where do you guys come up with this stuff?
dia hurd
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 27 of 27
Packet Page 234
12
12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 350 | Los Angeles, CA 90025
Phone: (310) 828-1183 | Fax: (310) 453-6562
1999 Harrison St., Suite 2020 | Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 451-9521 | Fax: (510) 451-0384
TO Interested Parties
FROM Dr. Richard Bernard and Laura Covarrubias
FM3 Research
RE: City of San Luis Obispo Community Issues Survey Results
DATE April 2, 2018
A recent survey of 8461 voters was conducted in the City of San Luis Obispo to examine the local population’s
general attitudes and concerns about their city and the local government. The primary purpose of the survey was
to test the feasibility of two local revenue measures in the City of San Luis Obispo. The results suggest that a
majority of voters (57%) in San Luis Obispo favor a one-cent sales tax to improve City infrastructure; however,
the intensity of support (those who said they would definitely vote yes) was quit e soft at 29 percent. Overall
support for a sales tax measure increases if the measure is for a half-cent sales tax as opposed to a full-cent, but
decreases when a sunset is included. Voters also generally prefer to use funds from a potential revenue measure
for a mix of both infrastructure and service-based projects, and have a clear preference for projects that maintain
infrastructure and services over projects that improve them, based on the information provided. A majority of
voters (68%) are strongly in support of a cannabis activity tax; however, support for the one-cent sales tax drops
when both measures are presented on the ballot. Under this scenario, the cannabis measure continues to appear
viable, but the one-cent sales tax does not. Finally, voters generally have a favorable opinion of the City of San
Luis Obispo, as nine in ten voters (92%) indicated it is an excellent or pretty good place to live.
One-Cent Sales Tax Measure
• The majority of voters initially support a measure that would implement an additional one-cent sales tax
to generate funds to improve City infrastructure.2 Initially, 57 percent of voters indicated support for this
measure, with 29 percent having said they would definitely vote yes for it. Forty percent of all voters indicated
they would not vote in favor of the measure, marking a strong opposition. As Figure 1 on the following page
shows, however, the percentage of strong supporters who would vote definitely yes on the measure modestly
increases (within the margin of error) after voters receive more information about the measure, even if overall
support remains about the same.
1 Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) conducted a telephone survey between March 18-25, 2018, consisting of 846 registered voters
in the City of San Luis Obispo likely to vote in the November 2018 General Election. The margin of error for the full sample is +/- 4.9% with a 95%
confidence interval. Margins of error for population subgroups will be higher. Some percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
2 The infrastructure projects and services would inclu de replacing aging police and fire stations; establishing an emergency operation center;
restoring Laguna Lake; improving traffic circulation across town and pedestrian and bike safety; revitalizing Mission Plaza; and upgrading the Senior
Center.
Packet Page 235
12
Page 2
Figure 1: Initial Vote on One-Cent Sales Tax Measure and Vote After Receiving Information
• Support for the one-cent sales tax measure drops to 53 percent when voters hear a critical message about
the measure. The critical message stated that the City should cut wasteful spending and inefficiencies, and
that local residents are already overtaxed as it is. Figure 2 below shows how reading/listening to one critical
message increases the percentage of voters who oppose the measure, with three in ten saying they would
definitely vote no.
Figure 2: Support for 2-Cent Sales Tax Measure After Information and After Critical Message
Half-Cent Sales Tax Measure
• Support for a one-half-cent sales tax is higher, and has a stronger intensity of support (voters who would
definitely vote yes for the measure) than a one-cent sales tax increase. Sixty-one percent of all voters
indicated they would support the measure if it increased the sales tax by one-half-cent. Although the overall
support is only marginally higher for the half-cent sales tax, the number of voters that indicated they would
definitely vote yes for the one-half-cent sales tax is significantly higher (37 percent, compared to only 29
percent for the one-cent sales tax—see Figure 3 below).
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
29%
22%
6%
4%
11%
25%
3%
Total
Yes
57%
Total
No
40%
Initial One-Cent Vote
32%
21%
5%
3%
8%
27%
3%
Total
Yes
58%
Total
No
39%
Vote After Information
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
29%
22%
6%
4%
11%
25%
3%
Total
Yes
57%
Total
No
40%
Initial One-Cent Vote Vote After Critical StatementVote After Information
32%
21%
5%
3%
8%
27%
3%
Total
Yes
58%
Total
No
39%
28%
20%
5%
3%
10%
30%
4%
Total
Yes
53%
Total
No
43%
Packet Page 236
12
Page 3
Figure 3: Support for a One-Cent Sales Tax Versus a ½-Cent Sales Tax
• In contrast, voters are much less supportive if the sales tax measure includes a sunset clause.3 Only 48
percent of voters indicated they would vote yes for the one-cent sales tax measure if it was legally required
to end in twenty years. Support is lower when the number of years of the sunset is higher: only 37 percent
indicated they would vote yes if the measure is set to end in 30 years (See Figure 4 below).
Figure 4: Total Support for One-Cent Measure Including 20- and 30-Year Sunsets
• Voters favor a mix of projects that focus on both infrastructure and City services. Voters selected maintaining
streets and repairing potholes (72%), and preserving open space and natural areas (67%) the most often as
“extremely” or “very important” projects to fund with a potential new City revenue measure. Other
infrastructure improvement projects and services that received higher importance ratings for funding include:
o Addressing Homelessness (67% extremely or very important; 37% extremely important);
o Keeping public areas safe and clean (66%; 25%);
o Upgrading fire stations that have been determined by structural engineers to not meet current seismic
earthquake standards (61%; 25%);
3 The original question testing the one-cent sales tax measure did not specify a date for when the measure would end.
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
29%
22%
6%
4%
11%
25%
3%
Total
Yes
57%
Total
No
40%
Initial One-Cent
37%
17%
7%
4%
8%
22%
5%
Total
Yes
61%
Total
No
34%
Half-Cent
Total Yes
Total No
Undecided
57%
40%
3%
Initial One-Cent Sales Tax
48%
46%
6%
20-Year Sunset
37%
55%
8%
30-Year Sunset
Packet Page 237
12
Page 4
o Retaining and attracting local businesses (61%; 22%);
o Improving traffic circulation across town (60%; 28%);
o Improving traffic flow (59%; 26%);
o Preparing for natural disasters and other related threats (59%; 22%);
o Improving safe routes to school (57%; 27%);
o Ensuring City buildings are earthquake retrofitted to meet the current California Seismic Safety Act
standards (57%; 21%);
o Improving pedestrian and bike safety (55%; 28%);
o Improving traffic safety (55%; 18%); and
o Helping ensure safe places to play (51%; 17%)
Noteworthy is the finding that the intensity of importance ratings—as measured by the percentage of
respondents that consider the specific infrastructure improvement projects and related services to be
extremely important—is generally quite modest based on the information provided.
• Voters prefer funding projects that maintain current City services and infrastructure over projects that
would improve them, suggesting voters are satisfied with the services and infrastructure the City currently
offers. When asked about services and infrastructure separate from the measures, as independent elements,
roughly two-thirds (64%) of voters indicated that maintaining essential city services is an extremely or very
important project to fund. In contrast, only 42 percent of voters indicated that improving essential city services
is extremely or very important (see Figure 5 on the following page). Similarly, over two-thirds (68%) of voters
indicated it is extremely or very important to maintain police and fire services, while 58 percent indicated the
same for maintaining City infrastructure. Meanwhile, less than 50% indicated it is extremely or very important
to improve these services: only 43 percent responded that improving police and fire services is extremely or
very important to fund, while 47 percent indicated the same about improving City infrastructure.
Packet Page 238
12
Page 5
Figure 5: “Maintaining” Versus “Improving” Services and Infrastructure
• Voters are more inclined to vote in favor of the one-cent sales tax measure after learning that nearly three-
quarters of the sales tax dollars collected in San Luis Obispo come from visitors and tourists in the area.4
Nearly two thirds (63%) of voters indicated being either much more or somewhat more inclined to vote yes
on the measure after hearing that visitors would be paying a fair share of the taxes for the resources they use,
and that it will not be paid exclusively by residents. Similarly, 57 percent of all voters are also more inclined
to vote in favor of the measure after learning about the measure’s strict accountability requirements, which
include independent financial audits and a requirement that all funds stay local. Fifty-five percent indicated
the same after learning that the measure will be used to help repair the City’s 162-year-old infrastructure, and
the costs will only increase if the City waits while its condition worsens.
Cannabis Activity Tax Measure
• Over two-thirds (68%) are in support of passing a cannabis commercial activity tax measure to generate
additional revenue for essential City services.5 The possible measure would establish a tax not to exceed 10%
of gross receipts of cannabis retail dispensaries, and a square foot tax up to $25 for marijuana cultivation.
Among those who are in favor of the cannabis tax measure, 43 percent responded they would definitely vote
yes, indicating strong support for this simple majority measure. Meanwhile, only about a quarter (26%)
responded they would vote no on the measure (see Figure 6 on the following page).
4 The half-cent sales tax measure was tested only once prior to providing informational statements to the respondents.
Informational statements about the half-cent sales tax measure were not provided.
5 The service areas could include public safety; senior, youth, and park services; programs retaining and attracting businesses,
and addressing homelessness.
68%
64%
58%
47%
43%
42%
32%
37%
43%
53%
57%
58%
Extremely/Very Important Somewhat/Not Too Important/ Don't Know
Maintaining police and fire services
Maintaining essential City services
Maintaining City infrastructure
Improving City infrastructure
Improving police and fire services
Improving essential city services
Packet Page 239
12
Page 6
Figure 6: Initial Support for Cannabis Commercial Activity Tax Measure
Feasibility of Both Measures on the Same Ballot
• Although both the one-cent sales tax measure and the cannabis activity tax measure initially receive
support from a majority of voters, the sales tax measure loses support when respondents are informed that
both measures could appear on the same ballot. As mentioned earlier, the one-cent sales tax measure is
supported by a total of 53 percent of voters after hearing all statements. However, when voters are informed
that both the sales tax and the cannabis tax measures could be on the same ballot, support for the one-cent
sales tax drops to a low 44 percent (see Figure 7 below). In contrast, while support for the cannabis tax
measure also drops from its initial 68 percent, it still receives support from 62 percent of all voters when both
measures are on the ballot.
Figure 7: Total Support for One-Cent Sales Tax and Cannabis Tax Measures
When Both are on the Ballot
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
43%
20%
5%
3%
5%
17%
6%
Total
Yes
68%
Total
No
26%
Total Yes
Total No
Undecided
One-Cent Sales Tax Cannabis Action Tax
62%
28%
10%
44%
46%
10%
Packet Page 240
12
Page 7
Additional Findings
• Voters in San Luis Obispo are significantly less likely to vote in favor of a parcel tax measure as an alternative
revenue measure. Overall, nearly two thirds (65%) of all voters indicated they were less likely to vote for a
property sales tax measure, indicating that a property tax is not a feasible alternative for a sales tax measure
at this time.
• Respondents continue to think highly of the City of San Luis Obispo as a place to live. Over nine in ten (92%)
indicated that the City of San Luis Obispo is an “excellent” or “pretty good” place to live. This favorable review
of the City is consistent with past City surveys dating back to 2002, although the percentage of individuals that
responded “excellent” has comparatively fallen in the most recent survey. Further research may be needed
to determine why more respondents have shifted to rating the City less than an “excellent” place to live.
Conclusions
While a simple majority of voters are in favor of a one-cent sales tax measure to improve City infrastructure,
voters have a higher preference for either a one-half-cent sales tax or a cannabis activity tax. Furthermore,
when both the one-cent sales tax measure and the cannabis activity tax are on the ballot, fewer voters support
the sales tax. A majority of voters reject the idea of a sunset clause, and highly dislike a parcel tax as an alternative
to a sales tax. Voters also have preferences for the types of projects a potential revenue-generating measure could
fund: preference for funding is given to projects that maintain City infrastructure and services over funding to
improve them, based on the information provided. Overall, voters also prefer a mix of specific infrastructure-
based projects and services, such as maintaining streets and repairing potholes; preserving open space and natural
areas and addressing homelessness.
Packet Page 241
12