HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-01-2014 B1 LRMAC report and survey results
FROM: Katie Lichtig, City Manager
Prepared By: Michael Codron, Assistant City Manager
James David, Principal Analyst
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION FROM THE LOCAL REVENUE MEASURE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND REQUEST TO PROVIDE DIRECTION
REGARDING A POTENTIAL REVENUE MEASURE FOR THE NOVEMBER
GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive and file the final report and recommendations from the Local Revenue Measure
Advisory Committee (LRMAC).
2. Direct staff to prepare language for a potential revenue measure to be considered for
placement on the November 2014 general election ballot, and return to the City Council for
further direction or action no later than July 2014.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
This report provides an overview of the City’s progress on implementation of the Fiscal Health
Major City Goal, including LRMAC recommendations, contingency planning, public outreach and
education, and the results of a recent public opinion survey. Finally, the report includes a series of
recommendations on which staff is seeking direction from the City Council in preparation for a
potential revenue measure on the November 2014 general election ballot.
The LRMAC concluded that “the City Council has expended funds generated by Measure Y based
on Measure Y ordinance language, priorities the Council established after extensive public
outreach, and input as part of the City’s budget process.” LRMAC is recommending that the City
Council place an extension of the Essential Services Transactions (Sales) and Use General Purpose
Tax on the November 2014 general election ballot for another 8-year term. The LRMAC also
provided “guidance and preferences” to the City Council for consideration regarding future
implementation of the measure.
In addition to the work of the LRMAC, public outreach and education efforts have included public
workshops, forums and presentations by staff to City Advisory Bodies. During the recent Measure
Y Community Forum, a contingency planning exercise was conducted with members of the public
and any ideas and input will be incorporated into the contingency plan options to be presented to the
City Council later this year.
Results of the City’s Community Assessment about community satisfaction and opinions about
ballot measure issues indicate the following:
• 95% of the respondents say that San Luis Obispo is an excellent or good place to live.
• 67% believe the city government is doing an excellent or good job providing service
Meeting Date
Item Number 04/01/14
B1 - 1
LRMAC Recommendation and Council Direction on Revenue Measure Page 2
• 71% of the respondents have knowledge about Measure Y;
• 64% of likely voters support a Measure Y renewal. This level of support increases to 72%
after respondents received basic information about Measure Y.
• An advisory vote is not necessary for passage of a future revenue measure but is popular
with those surveyed,
• The survey shows support for an 8-year sunset clause.
After considering these various community inputs (including the work of the resident-based
LRMAC), Major City Goals, and future projects on the City’s Capital Improvement Plan, staff
recommends including extension of the ½-percent local sales tax on the November ballot with an
eight-year sunset clause.
DISCUSSION
Planning Future Revenues (Fiscal Health Major City Goal)
Chapter 3.15 of the Municipal Code (Essential Services Transactions (Sales) and Use Tax) was
enacted following approval of a ½-percent sales tax in November 2006 (see Attachment 1).
According to Section 3.15.030, the authority to levy the tax expires on March 31, 2015 unless
extended by the voters.
The City’s Fiscal Health Major City Goal calls on the City to sustain short and long term fiscal
health by planning future revenues (including renewal of Measure Y or an alternative measure),
while implementing contingency planning. There are four activities included in this goal.
1. Develop key information and community input regarding Measure Y revenues and
expenditures.
2. Revenue contingency planning.
3. Revenue measure outreach and education.
4. Conduct annual Measure Y Community Forum.
These activities involve tasks, such as creating a citizen’s advisory group to make recommendations
to the City Council regarding future revenues, conducting public opinion research, engaging the
community on issues related to Measure Y, and working with the Council and the community on a
contingency plan that show possible impacts if the Council decides not to extend or replace the
current local sales tax, or if it is not approved by the voters during the November 2014 general
election.
This report outlines the progress made on these tasks to date, and requests the City Council to
provide direction regarding the details of a potential November revenue measure.
Local Revenue Measure Advisory Committee
The City Council appointed a 10-person advisory body in August 2013 to advise the Council on
matters related to Measure Y, the City’s current ½-percent sales tax. Attachment 2 includes the
LRMAC’s complete report and recommendation. Following is a brief summary of the Committee’s
work. In total there were 7 meetings of the entire committee, including the Community Open House
B1 - 2
LRMAC Recommendation and Council Direction on Revenue Measure Page 3
that is described below. In addition a subcommittee of four members volunteered to write and edit
the report, which involved many more hours of work.
1. Facilitated Process
Consistent with Council direction, meetings were facilitated by Dale Magee from Catalyst
Consulting. Ms. Magee was responsible for preparing agendas, conducting the meetings,
coordinating meetings and other public outreach events, working with the report subcommittee, and
facilitating and enhancing communication.
2. Open House
In November 2013, the LRMAC conducted an open house to give members of the community an
opportunity to provide direct input to the committee. The open house was well attended, and the
committee found the input they received helpful in identifying issues and developing their
recommendations.
3. Report and Recommendation
The LRMAC finalized their report and recommendation to the City Council on February 24, 2014.
The report is included as Attachment 2 and is an essential component of this agenda item. A
summary of their recommendation follows, but the report includes guidance and preferences that
are described below. LRMAC members have agreed to present the recommendations to the City
Council on April 1.
In summary the LRMAC’s recommendation is to place an extension of the Essential Services
Transaction (Sales) and Use Tax, a general purpose ½-percent sales tax, on the November 2014
ballot. The LRMAC notes that there is public support for such a measure. Moreover, the committee
recommends against placing an advisory measure on the ballot and believes the next measure
should sunset in 8 years. The following is a summary of the full list of recommendations and the
specific votes on those recommendations.
B1 - 3
LRMAC Recommendation and Council Direction on Revenue Measure Page 4
Summary Table of LRMAC Recommendations
Decisions Recommendation1 LRMAC
Vote1 Would the City benefit from a revenue augmentation measure? Yes 10/0 Do you recommend a revenue augmentation measure? Yes 8/2 Is there public support for continuing the sales tax measure? Yes 10/0 Should the revenue augmentation be a continuation of the existing ½ cent sales tax measure? Yes 9/1 Should this be a general purpose or special purpose tax measure? General Purpose 10/0 Should there be a companion “advisory ballot measure”? No 10/0 Should there be a “sunset clause” on the measure? Yes 8 Years 6 Years 10/0 9 1 1 Rationale for decisions and votes are described further on page 7.
4. Committee Guidance and Preferences
By consensus the LRMAC has provided “guidance and preferences” to the City Council for
consideration in the future as the City implements the next revenue measure. These suggestions
include the following:
• Allocate more of the proceeds from this local sales tax measure to capital improvement
projects,
• Develop ways to show the public the specific uses of the funds generated by the measure
and the progress on those projects or programs, and
• Use a public process to direct the specific uses of an allotted amount of revenue funds
during the budget process. Specifically it was suggested that the City develop innovative and
non-conventional ways of including diverse public input in the budgeting process.
Public Outreach and Education
1. Advisory Body Presentations
Beginning in January, City staff has been making presentations about Measure Y to the City’s
advisory bodies. Advisory body members are some of the most active and involved members our
community. The Major City Goal work program identifies this as a task, and the presentations have
been well received. In the coming months, staff will be making additional presentations to
community groups and residents.
B1 - 4
LRMAC Recommendation and Council Direction on Revenue Measure Page 5
2. Measure Y Community Forum
Measure Y requires an Annual Citizen Oversight Meeting (SLOMC 3.15.040.D). This is one of
several accountability measures built into Measure Y. Others include the annual independent audit,
the financial planning process with robust community engagement process during which the city
council establishes Measure Y funding priorities and the eight year sunset provision. Specifically
the provision related to the Community Forum is as follows:
Annual Citizen Oversight Meeting. An invitation will be extended each year to the entire
community inviting them to participate in a forum to review and discuss the use of the
revenue generated by this measure. City staff will also be available to meet with any group
that requests a specific briefing with their members to discuss and answer questions about
the revenues generated by the measure and their uses.
The Community Forum was well attended with approximately 50 members of the public joining
members of the City Council, LRMAC, and City staff to hear a presentation about last year’s
Measure Y expenditures. The agenda included an introduction and welcome by the City Manager, a
review of last year’s expenditures by the Finance and IT Director, an overview of the LRMAC
recommendations provided by the Assistant City Manager, and finally a contingency planning
exercise to gain input from participants regarding spending reductions if Measure Y is not
reauthorized.
During the Community Forum, staff took the opportunity to engage participants in a contingency
planning exercise. The results have been compiled and are attached (Attachment 4). This same
exercise has been posted to the City’s website so others who were not able to attend the Community
Forum can provide their input. Over the next few months, staff will analyze these results and use the
information, along with the results of the Public Opinion Survey, to inform the contingency plan
that will be presented to the City Council this summer.
3. Other Public Engagement Efforts
Just in the past few months, in addition to the presentation to advisory bodies, these opportunities
have included presentations to community groups, including the Downtown Association, Chamber
of Commerce, and the Senior Center Board of Directors. These presentations and information
sharing sessions will continue, consistent with the City’s Fiscal Health Major City Goal work
program.
A dedicated Measure Y webpage is active on the City’s website that explains the Measure and its
history, highlights projects and programs funded by Measure Y, discusses contingency planning
efforts, and includes links to appropriate staff contacts which provides another opportunity to send
e-mail with questions.
Multiple outreach materials have been developed including a Budget in Brief, Frequently Asked
Questions handout, informational cards and a summary page of Measure Y facts. Staff is also
working on a Benchmark Study that compares San Luis Obispo to other municipalities and includes
information on sales tax revenue sources.
B1 - 5
LRMAC Recommendation and Council Direction on Revenue Measure Page 6
4. FM3 Public Opinion Survey
Consistent with Council direction, in early December 2013, the City’s public opinion survey
consultant, FM3, conducted the “City of San Luis Obispo Community Assessment and Ballot
Measure Issues Survey”. In preparation for the survey, the consultant made a presentation and
elicited feedback from the LRMAC. This feedback was helpful to the consultant in developing the
final set of survey questions. Following the survey, the results were distributed to the LRMAC and
discussed in the development of the report and recommendation. The following summary
information about survey results was provided to LRMAC for their consideration:
1. 64% of likely San Luis Obispo voters support a Measure Y renewal.
2. Basic informative statements increase support by 8% overall.
3. Initial support is solid, but not enthusiastic.
4. Half of supporters can’t say particularly why they support it.
5. One-third of supporters are “Probable;” Less than 50% “Definite.”
6. An advisory vote is popular with 57% more inclined to support measure, but not
necessary for passage.
7. Positive and negative arguments do not produce much change in support or opposition.
8. Clear consensus for eight-year time limit, if limit is included.
In addition to Measure Y related questions, the survey included community assessment questions
for the purpose of tracking opinions over time on key issues to better understand if the City is
“headed in the right direction”. The survey and key conclusions are available on the City’s website
and are attached (Attachment 3).
Issue Summary and Direction to Staff
The issue of extending the Essential Services ½ percent sales tax is at an important juncture. The
matrix below includes a summary of related issues. It is recommended that Council provide
direction on these items so that if desired, staff can prepare the necessary resolutions and ordinances
and present them to the City Council in a timely manner for careful deliberation and additional
public input. To help in the Council’s consideration of the LRMAC’s recommendations, the
purpose in the measure approved by voters in 2006 is as follows:
To protect and maintain essential services – such as neighborhood street paving and pothole
repair; traffic congestion relief; public safety, including restoring eliminated traffic patrol,
Fire Marshal and fire/paramedic training positions; flood protection; senior citizen services
and facilities; neighborhood code enforcement; open space preservation; and other vital
general purpose services – by establishing a general purpose retail transactions and use tax
of one-half percent in accordance with the provisions of Part 1.6 (commencing with Section
7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and Section 7285.9 of Part 1.7 of
Division 2, which authorizes the City to adopt this general purpose tax ordinance, which
shall be operative if two-thirds of the Council and a majority vote of the electors voting on
the measure, vote to approve the establishment of this new general purpose revenue source
at an election called for that purpose.
B1 - 6
LRMAC Recommendation and Council Direction on Revenue Measure Page 7
During the meeting, staff will seek direction from the City Council on the following items.
Issue LRMAC
Recommendation
Implementation
Method
Staff
Recommendation
Extend the Essential
Services Transaction
(Sales) and Use Tax
(SLOMC 3.15)
Yes Council adoption of
resolutions and other
actions to place an
item on the November
2014 general election
ballot providing for a
continuation of the ½
percent sales tax with
similar language as
Measure Y.
Yes
Sunset clause Yes – 8 Years The draft ballot
measure and ordinance
to extend the existing
sales tax can establish
a new sunset date.
Yes – 8 Years
Advisory measure No If the Council decides
to place advisory
measures on the ballot,
staff will return with
suggested language
after receiving further
guidance from the City
Council.
No
Additional
Accounting Measures
to Improve
Transparency
The LRMAC advised
the City Council that
they believe it would
be beneficial to
account for this
revenue in a separate
account so that
communication to the
public about revenues
and expenditures can
be clearer.
The Finance
Department can set up
a separate fund, within
the General Fund to
track expenditures of
this revenue.
Staff supports this
request and will
incorporate a provision
to accomplish this
accountability measure
if directed to do so by
the City Council.
B1 - 7
LRMAC Recommendation and Council Direction on Revenue Measure Page 8
Issue LRMAC
Recommendation
Implementation
Method
Staff
Recommendation
Allocate more
funding from the
local tax to CIP and
maintenance, not
operations
The LRMAC provided
advice and guidance to
direct more revenue
measure funding to
capital improvement
projects, and not to
operations.
A preference for
spending on capital
improvement projects,
such as street paving
and other
infrastructure
maintenance projects
can be incorporated
into the language of
the ballot measure.
Staff supports the
addition of this
preference to the list of
possible uses that are
included in the
measure in the form of
“such as” language in
the ballot measure if
directed to do so by the
City Council.
More public outreach
and participation in
the budget process
The LRMAC advised
the Council to explore
“innovative and non-
conventional” ways of
including diverse
public input into the
budgeting process. The
LRMAC also
recommended that the
City check in regularly
with the public as to
the specific uses of the
funds, and progress.
Information relating to
how spending
decisions will be made
by the City Council
through the budget
process and
commitment to
reporting outcomes
can be affirmed in the
accountability
measures included in
the ordinance.
Staff supports this
recommendation and
will recommend
language to affirm the
use of the budget
process and explore
other means to engage
the public in this
process if directed to
do so by the City
Council.
Revenue Measure Election Timeline
The following timeline outlines the proposed schedule for meeting election deadlines related to
extending the Essential Services Transaction (Sales) and Use Tax (SLOMC 3.15). The “E-XXX”
numbering convention below indicates the number of days prior to Election Day.
1. E-126 / July 1, 2014 – Council considers and adopts the following:
a. Resolution calling for an election of officers and the submission to the voters a
question (ballot measure), with the proposed ordinance as Exhibit A.
b. Resolution requesting consolidation with the County.
c. Resolution setting priorities for written arguments and directing the City Attorney to
prepare an impartial analysis.
d. Resolution providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments for City Measures.
2. E-112 / July 15, 2014 – Fourteen day period for filing of arguments and impartial analysis.
3. E-102 / July 25, 2014 – Ten day period for filing of rebuttals.
4. E-92 / August 4, 2014 – Ten day public review period.
In addition to the items listed above, and depending on the direction received from the City Council
on April 1, staff may need to check in with the City Council in May or June for further direction on
B1 - 8
LRMAC Recommendation and Council Direction on Revenue Measure Page 9
the actual ballot measure language. Staff will continue to update the City Council regarding
progress on this work effort.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving and filing the report of the LRMAC. If the City
Council ultimately directs staff to place a revenue measure on the November 2014 ballot, the cost
will be approximately $4,060. If the Council decides not to place a revenue measure to replace or
extend Measure Y on the General Election ballot, then the fiscal impact is anticipated to be over $7
million annually, as detailed in the December 2013 General Fund Five-Year Fiscal Forecast.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Direct staff to pursue a new revenue measure, instead of an extension of the existing
measure. The recommendation is to pursue an extension of the existing Essential Services
Transaction (Sales) and Use Tax (SLOMC Section 3.15). However, if the Council would
like to modify and reclassify the tax, there are different Board of Equalization (BOE)
procedural requirements that the City must follow. Changes to the current ordinance, such as
changing the title, changing the rate, or other substantial revisions would require the
termination of the existing tax and the establishment of a new tax. The Council should be
aware that the administrative costs from the BOE associated with starting a new tax versus
an extension is estimated to be $50,000 depending on the number of agencies that submit
new taxes to BOE this year.
2. Direct staff not to pursue extension of the Essential Services Transaction (Sales) and
Use Tax. The Council can direct staff not to work on an extension of the local sales tax.
This alternative is not recommended because it would create a significant adverse fiscal
impact to the City, resulting in a reduction of the level of municipal services provided to the
community. This alternative is not consistent with the Fiscal Health Major City Goal. In
addition, the LRMAC is recommending that the Council pursue an extension of the revenue
measure, and their report concludes that the City would benefit from following this
recommendation.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance No. 1495 (2006) adopting the Essential Services Transactions (Sales) and Use
Tax, and Chapter 3.15 of the City’s Municipal Code
2. Recommendations for a Revenue Augmentation Ballot Measure (LRMAC Final Report)
3. 2013 Community Assessment Survey Top Line Results
4. Community Forum, Contingency Planning Exercise Results
t:\council agenda reports\2014\2014-04-01\local rev measure rept (lichtig-codron)\rmac_car.docx
B1 - 9
ORDINANCE NO . 1495 (2006 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O
ADDING CHAPTER 3 .15 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE, "ESSENTIAL SERVICE S
TRANSACTIONS (SALES) AND USE TAX," TO SUNSET IN EIGHT YEARS ,
WITH CITIZEN OVERSIGHT AND INDEPENDENT ANNUAL FINANCIAL AUDITS ,
TO BE ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATIO N
WHEREAS,the City of San Luis Obispo is facing significant fiscal challenges i n
providing essential community services such as neighborhood street paving and pothole repair ,
traffic congestion relief, police protection, fire and paramedic services, flood protection, senio r
citizen services and facilities, neighborhood code enforcement, open space preservation and othe r
vital general purpose services ; an d
WHEREAS,this is largely due to State budget takeaways, which have cost the City mor e
than $22 million over the last 15 years, and now costs the City $3 million each and every year ;
and
WHEREAS,Proposition IA, adopted by the voters of California in November 2004 ,
helps protect the City from additional State takeaways in the future, it does not restore any of th e
past or current State takeaways ; and as such, the City continues to lose $3 million each and ever y
year in State budget takeaways, and this is going to be the case indefinitely into the future ; and
WHEREAS,in responsibly balancing its budget, the City has been forced to cut bac k
significantly on essential community services, such as reducing overall infrastructur e
maintenance by 50%; cutting street paving and pothole repair by 67% (which meant eliminatin g
the neighborhood street paving and pothole repair program); reducing sworn police position s
(including traffic enforcement); removing virtually all City funding for flood protection or stor m
drain maintenance projects ; discontinuing City funding for open space preservation (which ha s
been successful in the past in leveraging over $7 million in grants and other outside fundin g
sources); and cutting other vital general purpose services ; and
WHEREAS,while it has been prudent to do so in the past as a stop-gap measure, th e
City cannot continue to use its reserves in mitigating even deeper cuts to essential services ; an d
WHEREAS,new revenues will be needed in order to restore cuts in essential service s
and provide vital general purpose services in the future ; and
WHEREAS,a City-adopted sales tax is an appropriate way of adding new funds, since :
the current sales tax rate in the City is the lowest in the State, and as such, even with an increas e
of -cent, it will be equal to or lower than the rate paid by 85% of the State's residents ; it i s
broad-based and does not single-out any one type of consumer, business or industry ; basi c
commodities and services like housing, food and prescription drugs are exempt from sales taxes ;
and over 50% of the proceeds will be paid by non-residents .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council and the Voters of the City o f
San Luis Obispo as follows :
0 1495
Attachment 1
B1 - 10
Ordinance No . 1495 (2006 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 1 .TITLE .This ordinance shall be known as the "City of San Luis Obisp o
Essential Services Transactions (Sales) and Use Tax Ordinance ." The City of San Luis Obisp o
hereinafter shall be called the "City" This ordinance shall be applicable in the incorporate d
territory of the City .
SECTION 2 .PURPOSE .This ordinance is adopted to achieve the following, amon g
other purposes, and directs that the provisions hereof be interpreted in order to accomplish thos e
purposes :
A.To protect and maintain essential services — such as neighborhood stree t
paving and pothole repair ; traffic congestion relief ; public safety, including restoring eliminate d
traffic patrol, Fire Marshal and fire/paramedic training positions; flood protection ; senior citize n
services and facilities ; neighborhood code enforcement; open space preservation ; and other vita l
general purpose services — by establishing a general purpose retail transactions and use tax o f
one-half percent in accordance with the provisions of Part 1 .6 (commencing with Section 7251 )
of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and Section 7285 .9 of Part 1 .7 of Division 2 ,
which authorizes the City to adopt this general purpose tax ordinance, which shall be operative i f
two-thirds of the Council and a majority vote of the electors voting on the measure, vote t o
approve the establishment of this new general purpose revenue source at an election called fo r
that purpose .
B.To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that incorporate s
provisions identical to those of the Sales and Use Tax Law of the State of California insofar a s
those provisions are not inconsistent with the requirements and limitations contained in Part 1 .6
of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code .
C.To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that imposes a tax and
provides a measure therefore that can be administered and collected by the State Board o f
Equalization in a manner that adapts itself as fully as practicable to, and requires the least
possible deviation from, the existing statutory and administrative procedures followed by th e
State Board of Equalization in administering and collecting the California State Sales and Us e
Taxes.
D.To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that can b e
administered in a manner that will be, to the greatest degree possible, consistent with th e
provisions of Part 1 .6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, minimize the cost o f
collecting the transactions and use taxes, and at the same time, minimize the burden of recor d
keeping upon persons subject to taxation under the provisions of this ordinance .
SECTION 3 .EIGHT-YEAR SUNSET .The authority to levy the tax imposed by thi s
ordinance shall expire eight years from the operative date of this ordinance, unless extended b y
the voters .
Attachment 1
B1 - 11
Ordinance No. 1495 (2006 Series)
Page 3
SECTION 4 .FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY PROVISIONS : CITIZE N
OVERSIGHT ANDINDEPENDENT ANNUAL FINANCIAL AUDITS .Along with th e
City's ongoing commitment to citizen involvement as a fundamental principle of goo d
government, specific citizen oversight and fiscal accountability provisions are hereby establishe d
as follows :
A.Independent Annual Financial Audit .The amount generated by thi s
new general purpose revenue source and how it was used shall be included in the annual audit o f
the City's financial operations by an independent certified public accountant .
B.Integration of the Use of Funds into the City's Budget and Goal -
Setting Process.The estimated revenue and proposed use of funds generated by this measur e
shall be an integral part of the City's budget and goal setting process, and significan t
opportunities will be provided for meaningful participation by citizens in determining priorit y
uses of these funds .
C.Annual Community Report.A written report will be provided annuall y
to every household in the community detailing how much revenue is being generated by th e
measure and how funds are being spent .
D.Annual Citizen Oversight Meeting .An invitation will be extended eac h
year to the entire community inviting them to participate in a forum to review and discuss the us e
of the revenue generated by this measure . City staff will also be available to meet with any grou p
that requests a specific briefing with their members to discuss and answer questions about th e
revenues generated by the measure and their uses .
SECTION 5 .TRANSACTIONS (SALES) TAX RATE .For the privilege of sellin g
tangible personal property at retail, a tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers in the incorporate d
territory of the City at the rate of 0 .5% of the gross receipts of any retailer from the sale of al l
tangible personal property sold at retail in said territory on and after the operative date of thi s
ordinance .
SECTION 6 .USE TAX RATE.An excise tax is hereby imposed on the storage, use o r
other consumption in the City of tangible personal property purchased from any retailer on an d
after the operative date of this ordinance for storage, use or other consumption in said territory a t
the rate of 0 .5% of the sales price of the property . The sales price shall include delivery charge s
when such charges are subject to state sales or use tax regardless of the place to which delivery i s
made .
SECTION 7 .OPERATIVE DATE ."Operative Date" means the first day of the firs t
calendar quarter commencing more than 110 days after the adoption of this ordinance : April 1 ,
2007 .
SECTION 8 .CONTRACT WITH STATE .Prior to the operative date, the City shal l
contract with the State Board of Equalization to perform all functions incident to the
Attachment 1
B1 - 12
Ordinance No . 1495 (2006 Series)
Page 4
administration and operation of this transactions and use tax ordinance ; provided, that if the Cit y
shall not have contracted with the State Board of Equalization prior to the operative date, it shal l
nevertheless so contract and in such a case the operative date shall be the first day of the firs t
calendar quarter following the execution of such a contract .
SECTION 9 .PLACE OF SALE .For the purposes of this ordinance, all retail sales ar e
consummated at the place of business of the retailer unless the tangible personal property sold i s
delivered by the retailer or his agent to an out-of-state destination or to a common carrier fo r
delivery to an out-of-state destination . The gross receipts from such sales shall include deliver y
charges, when such charges are subject to the state sales and use tax, regardless of the place t o
which delivery is made . In the event a retailer has no permanent place of business in the State o r
has more than one place of business, the place or places at which the retail sales ar e
consummated shall be determined under rules and regulations to be prescribed and adopted b y
the State Board of Equalization .
SECTION 10 .ADOPTIONOFPROVISIONSOF STATE LAW .Except a s
otherwise provided in this ordinance and except insofar as they are inconsistent with the
provisions of Part 1 .6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, all of the provisions o f
Part 1 (commencing with Section 6001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code ar e
hereby adopted and made a part of this ordinance as though fully set forth herein .
SECTION 11 .LIMITATIONS ONADOPTIONOFSTATELAW AND
COLLECTION OFUSE TAXES .In adopting the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of th e
Revenue and Taxation Code :
A . Wherever the State of California is named or referred to as the taxin g
agency, the name of this City shall be substituted therefor . However, the substitution shall not b e
made when :
1.The word "State" is used as a part of the title of the Stat e
Controller, State Treasurer, State Board of Control, State Board of Equalization, State Treasury ,
or the Constitution of the State of California ;
2.The result of that substitution would require action to be taken b y
or against this City or any agency, officer, or employee thereof rather than by or against the Stat e
Board of Equalization, in performing the functions incident to the administration or operation o f
this Ordinance .
3.In those sections, including, but not necessarily limited to section s
referring to the exterior boundaries of the State of California, where the result of the substitutio n
would be to :
a.
Provide an exemption from this tax with respect to certain
sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property which would not otherwise
Attachment 1
B1 - 13
Ordinance No . 1495 (2006 Series )
Page 5
be exempt from this tax while such sales, storage, use or other consumption remain subject to ta x
by the State under the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or ;
b . Impose this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use o r
other consumption of tangible personal property, which would not be subject to tax by the stat e
under the said provision of that code .
4 .
In Sections 6701, 6702 (except in the last sentence thereof), 6711 ,
6715, 6737, 6797 or 6828 of the Revenue and Taxation Code .
B . The word "City" shall be substituted for the word "State" in the phrase
"retailer engaged in business in this State" in Section 6203 and in the definition of that phrase i n
Section 6203 .
SECTION 12 .PERMIT NOT REQUIRED .If a seller's permit has been issue d
to a retailer under Section 6067 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, an additional transactor's
permit shall not be required by this ordinance .
SECTION 13 .
EXEMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS .The following transaction
shall be exempted and excluded :
A.There shall be excluded from the measure of the transactions tax and th e
use tax the amount of any sales tax or use tax imposed by the State of California or by any city ,
city and county, or county pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax La w
or the amount of any state-administered transactions or use tax .
B.There are exempted from the computation of the amount of transaction s
tax the gross receipts from :
1.Sales of tangible personal property, other than fuel or petroleu m
products, to operators of aircraft to be used or consumed principally outside the county in whic h
the sale is made and directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers o f
persons or property under the authority of the laws of this State, the United States, or any foreig n
government .
2.Sales of property to be used outside the City which is shipped to a
point outside the City, pursuant to the contract of sale, by delivery to such point by the retailer o r
his agent, or by delivery by the retailer to a carrier for shipment to a consignee at such point . Fo r
the purposes of this paragraph, delivery to a point outside the City shall be satisfied :
a . With respect to vehicles (other than commercial vehicles )
subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 o f
the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilitie s
Code, and undocumented vessels registered under Division 3 .5 (commencing with Section 9840 )
of the Vehicle Code by registration to an out-of-City address and by a declaration under penalty
Attachment 1
B1 - 14
Ordinance No . 1495 (2006 Series)
Page 6
of perjury, signed by the buyer, stating that such address is, in fact, his or her principal place o f
residence ; and
b . With respect to commercial vehicles, by registration to a
place of business out-of-City and declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, tha t
the vehicle will be operated from that address .
3.The sale of tangible personal property if the seller is obligated t o
furnish the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative dat e
of this ordinance .
4.A lease of tangible personal property which is a continuing sale o f
such property, for any period of time for which the lessor is obligated to lease the property for a n
amount fixed by the lease prior to the operative date of this ordinance .
5.For the purposes of subparagraphs (3) and (4) of this section, th e
sale or lease of tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a
contract or lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has th e
unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right i s
exercised .
C .
There are exempted from the use tax imposed by this ordinance, th e
storage, use or other consumption in this City of tangible personal property :
1.
The gross receipts from the sale of which have been subject to a
transactions tax under any state-administered transactions and use tax ordinance .
2.Other than fuel or petroleum products purchased by operators o f
aircraft and used or consumed by such operators directly and exclusively in the use of suc h
aircraft as common carriers of persons or property for hire or compensation under a certificate o f
public convenience and necessity issued pursuant to the laws of this State, the United States, o r
any foreign government . This exemption is in addition to the exemptions provided in Section s
6366 and 6366 .1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California.
3.
If the purchaser is obligated to purchase the property for a fixe d
price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this ordinance .
Attachment 1
B1 - 15
Ordinance No . 1495 (2006 Series )
Page 7
4.If the possession of, or the exercise of any right or power over, th e
tangible personal property arises under a lease which is a continuing purchase of such propert y
for any period of time for which the lessee is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixe d
by a lease prior to the operative date of this ordinance .
5.For the purposes of subparagraphs (3) and (4) of this section ,
storage, use, or other consumption, or possession of, or exercise of any right or power over ,
tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease fo r
any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right t o
terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised .
6.Except as provided in subparagraph (7), a retailer engaged i n
business in the City shall not be required to collect use tax from the purchaser of tangibl e
personal property, unless the retailer ships or delivers the property into the City or participate s
within the City in making the sale of the property, including, but not limited to, soliciting o r
receiving the order, either directly or indirectly, at a place of business of the retailer in the City or
through any representative, agent, canvasser, solicitor, subsidiary, or person in the City under th e
authority of the retailer.
7."A retailer engaged in business in the City" shall also include an y
retailer of any of the following : vehicles subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1
(commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed i n
compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, or undocumented vessels registere d
under Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840) of the Vehicle Code . That retailer shall b e
required to collect use tax from any purchaser who registers or licenses the vehicle, vessel o r
aircraft at an address in the City.
D . Any person subject to use tax under this ordinance may credit against tha t
tax any transactions tax or reimbursement for transactions tax paid to a district imposing, o r
retailer liable for a transactions tax pursuant to Part 1 .6 of Division 2 of the Revenue an d
Taxation Code with respect to the sale to the person of the property the storage, use or othe r
consumption of which is subject to the use tax .
SECTION 14.AMENDMENTS .All amendments subsequent to the effectiv e
date of this ordinance to Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code relating to sale s
and use taxes and which are not inconsistent with Part 1.6 and Part 1 .7 of Division 2 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code, and all amendments to Part 1 .6 and Part 1 .7 of Division 2 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code, shall automatically become a part of this ordinance, provide d
however, that no such amendment shall operate so as to affect the rate of tax imposed by thi s
ordinance .
SECTION 15 .ENJOINING COLLECTION FORBIDDEN.No injunction
or writ of mandate or other legal or equitable process shall issue in any suit, action or proceedin g
in any court against the State or the City, or against any officer of the State or the City, to prevent
or enjoin the collection under this ordinance, or Part 1 .6 of Division 2 of the Revenue an d
Taxation Code, of any tax or any amount of tax required to be collected .
Attachment 1
B1 - 16
Ordinance No . 1495 (2006 Series )
Page 8
SECTION 16 .SEVERABILITY.If any provision of this ordinance or th e
application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinanc e
and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affecte d
thereby.
SECTION 17 .
EFFECTIVE DATE .
This ordinance relates to the levying
and collecting of the City transactions and use taxes and shall take effect immediately .
SECTION 18 .CODIFICATION .Upon adoption of this Ordinance by the voters ,
the City Clerk, in consultation with the City Attorney, is hereby authorized and directed to codif y
this Ordinance in the City's Municipal Code .
INTRODUCED on July 18, 2006 AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of th e
City of San Luis Obispo on August 1, 2006 on the following roll call vote :
AYES :
Council Members Brown, Ewan, and Mulholland, Vice Mayo r
Settle, and Mayor Romero
NOES :
Non e
ABSENT : Non e
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Voters of the City San Luis Obispo on November 7 ,
2006 by the following vote talley :
AYES :
NOES :
Mayor David F . Romero
ATTEST :
APPROVED AS TO FORM :
Jon`at au P . Lowel l
City Attorney
Attachment 1
B1 - 17
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A REVENUE AUGMENTATION
BALLOT MEASURE
2013‐14 City of San Luis Obispo Local Revenue Measure Advisory Committee
February 24, 2014
Attachment 2
B1 - 18
1
Mission Statement
1. Analyze the City’s stewardship of Measure Y resources.
2. Seek community input regarding its preferences and local revenue measure spending
priorities.
3. Develop recommendations specific to the November 2014 General Election regarding
alternatives for reauthorization of Measure Y or the creation of a new revenue measure.
4. Help the City perform community outreach and education.
Local Revenue Measure Advisory Committee Membership
Appointed by City Council, August 2013
Patricia Andreen*
Michael Boswell
Lea Brooks*
Victoria Carranza
Jeri Carroll*
John Fowler*
James Grant
Dia Hurd
Michael Multari
Cate Norton
Dale Magee, Facilitator
*Report Subcommittee
Attachment 2
B1 - 19
1
FROM: City of San Luis Obispo Local Revenue Measure Advisory Committee (LRMAC)
Prepared By: Report Subcommittee
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A REVENUE AUGMENTATION MEASURE
RECOMMENDATION
That the San Luis Obispo City Council place a measure on the November 2014 ballot to extend
the general half‐cent sales tax approved by voters in 2006 with an expiration date of March
2015; and that the new measure expire, or “sunset,” in eight years from its effective date.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Local Revenue Measure Advisory Committee (LRMAC) was established by the San Luis
Obispo City Council in August 2013 to advise on matters related to Measure Y, the City’s current
local half‐cent tax, and make recommendations regarding its reauthorization or creation of a
new tax revenue after Measure Y expires in March 2015. This report discusses how the 10‐
member LRMAC reached its recommendation.
LRMAC addressed its four‐point mission during seven meetings (plus subcommittee work) from
September 2013 through February 2014. During that time, it considered many sources and
information, including: a public forum in November 2013; information gathered from a
telephone survey of registered City voters in late 2013; presentations by City officials; historical
review of Measure Y; legal considerations of sales tax revenue measures; comparisons with
other jurisdictions; use of Measure Y funds to date; public testimony; annual audits; and fiscal
forecasts. LRMAC members accomplished their mission by asking questions, scrutinizing data,
and talking to City staff, voters and residents at large about Measure Y’s role in maintaining San
Luis Obispo’s exceptional quality of life.
LRMAC concluded that the City Council has expended funds generated by Measure Y based on
Measure Y ordinance language, priorities the Council established after extensive public
outreach, and input as part of the City’s budget process. The committee believes voters should
continue to have the opportunity to decide what kind of community they want by either
extending the half‐cent sales tax for another eight years or rejecting it in preference of a more
limited budget.
The Committee’s activities and full recommendations are further described below.
Attachment 2
B1 - 20
LRMAC Report and Recommendations February 24, 2014
2
DISCUSSION
Summary Table of LRMAC Recommendations
Decisions Recommendation1 LRMAC
Vote1
Would the City benefit from a revenue augmentation
measure? Yes 10/0
Do you recommend a revenue augmentation measure? Yes 8/2
Is there public support for continuing the sales tax measure? YES 10/0
Should the revenue augmentation be a continuation of the
existing ½ cent sales tax measure? YES 9/1
Should this be a general purpose or special purpose tax
measure? GENERAL PURPOSE 10/0
Should there be a companion “advisory ballot measure”? NO 10/0
Should there be a “sunset clause” on the measure?
YES
8 YEARS
6 YEARS
10/0
9
1
1 Rationale for decisions and votes are described further on page 7.
Measure Y History
According to information presented by City Staff, between 2003 and 2006, the City of San Luis
Obispo experienced significant fiscal challenges caused by a number of factors affecting both
revenues and costs. These included State budget takeaways, insurance cost increases, decline
and subsequent slow growth of key revenues, new service costs, CalPERS investment losses
that increased retirement costs, reduced grant revenues, and higher costs in utilities, fuel and
construction.
These challenges resulted in more than $10 million in budget reductions and service cuts. Some
of the reductions in service during this time period included the elimination of traffic officers
and a full‐time fire marshal, the suspension of the neighborhood street paving program, the
elimination of funding for creek and flood protection, the discontinuation of funding for open
space acquisition, the under‐staffing of code enforcement operations and cuts to cultural and
social service programs.
To address this budget situation, City leaders evaluated a wide range of possible new revenue
options and concluded that a sales tax measure would be the best option.
In May 2005, the City Council considered the feasibility of a revenue ballot measure based on a
statistically valid public opinion survey that a general purpose sales tax of not more than a half‐
cent would be viable. The City Council directed staff to continue an outreach and education
Attachment 2
B1 - 21
LRMAC Report and Recommendations February 24, 2014
3
effort to engage the community regarding the budget situation. The result of this community
outreach effort was the decision to put Measure Y on the ballot.
Measure Y includes significant oversight and accountability features, including: a requirement
for an annual audit of revenues and expenditures; integration of Measure Y into the City budget
process; annual community meetings to solicit input and feedback on Measure Y expenditures;
and an eight‐year expiration, or “sunset clause.” Ultimately, Measure Y was approved by more
than 64% of the vote. It went into effect on April 1, 2007, and will sunset on March 31, 2015, if
not reauthorized.
With Measure Y in place, the City of San Luis Obispo was able to maintain essential services,
including a robust neighborhood street paving program, increased neighborhood code
enforcement, and additional public safety personnel. A creek protection and flood prevention
program was implemented, improving the capacity of the City’s storm water system and
reducing flooding. Additional open space areas were acquired or opened to the public such as
Froom Ranch and Johnson Ranch.
Formation of the Local Revenue Measure Advisory Committee
As part of the 2013‐15 Financial Plan, the City Council adopted a Major City Goal to Sustain
Essential Services, Infrastructure, and Fiscal Health. The proposed work program to achieve the
goal includes the formation of a resident‐based advisory committee:
Create a 10‐member Advisory Committee appointed by the City Council to guide outreach
efforts, advise staff in the creation of the outreach effort, and implementation of the Major
City Goal work plan, as well as provide advice and counsel to the City Council regarding
future revenues (City Council, 2013‐15 Financial Plan).
Each member of the LRMAC submitted an application with a resume, which was reviewed by
the City Council. Each Council member provided his or her respective nominations to the City
Clerk at their September 3, 2013 meeting. Nominations were tallied and those with at least
three concurrences were appointed.
The LRMAC met seven times in committee with a consultant facilitator, and two times at
community meetings. Each meeting was noticed and open to the public. A website was created
so that community members could keep track of proceedings. The meetings were conducted in
a manner that provided sufficient opportunity for public input and discussion by committee
members of the topics at hand. The public workshops were opportunities for committee
members to interact with residents and community members around a variety of topics related
to Measure Y. These topics included a summary of completed projects, benefits of Measure Y
expenditures, audited results, and information about alternative types of revenue measures.
Attachment 2
B1 - 22
LRMAC Report and Recommendations February 24, 2014
4
Committee Activities
The LRMAC utilized many resources to reach its recommendations. It also raised and explored
critical questions that informed its analysis of resource materials, discussions, and
recommendations. These questions included:
Were Measure Y funds used in accordance with the ballot measure language?
Were Measure Y funds used as the community perceived / expected?
Do the citizens trust that the funds have been well‐spent and are still needed? How
can that trust be built and conveyed?
What kind of community do we want to be?
What keeps San Luis Obispo such a great city? Will a revenue measure help ensure
that?
What are the City’s upcoming needs?
What was the impact of binding arbitration?
Why do we need another revenue measure if the economy is improving?
The amount of money beyond the 20% reserve: How does that impact the need for
a revenue measure?
LRMAC members studied extensive materials and sought information from subject matter
experts to educate themselves. Activities related to each of the areas in the Committee’s
Mission Statement follow.
1. Analyzed the City’s stewardship of Measure Y resources, including but not limited to:
a. Ordinance creating Measure Y
b. Historical review and perspective
c. Legal considerations of sales tax revenue measures
d. Use of Measure Y funds to date; projects and outcomes to date
e. Audit Reports
f. Measure Y Integration reports
g. Neighborhood Wellness reports
h. Media coverage since 2008
i. Public testimony
2. Sought community input regarding preferences and local revenue measure spending
priorities, including but not limited to:
a. Open House, November 2013, attended by more than 50 City residents.
Designated input stations were included so residents could submit written
comments. Community preferences included: a more walkable/bikeable
community that leads to safer routes to school, clean air, fewer motor vehicles
and better traffic flow, open space, storm water and management, roads.
b. Community Opinion Surveys (2005 ‐ 2013)
3. Developed recommendations specific to the November 2014 General Election regarding
alternatives for reauthorization of Measure Y, or the creation of a new revenue measure,
including but not limited to:
Attachment 2
B1 - 23
LRMAC Report and Recommendations February 24, 2014
5
a. General Fund Five‐Year Forecast, and updates (2006 – 2018)
b. Long‐term Capital Improvement Plan
c. Comparison of other revenue measures and companion measures throughout
the county, region and state.
d. Media coverage since 2008
4. Helped the City perform community outreach and education, including but not limited
to:
a. Open House, November 2013
b. Feedback from each member’s own network of community members
c. Identified key message elements the City should be articulating to the
community, such as: use of funds to date, what funds have not been spent on,
what a general purpose tax really means versus a specific tax, etc.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
These recommendations follow five months (September 2013 – February 2014) of meetings,
presentations, resource review, public opinion, and discussions with City staff. Committee
members held divergent views when first convened, but the following recommendations reflect
consensus in most areas (except as noted).
1. The City would benefit from the continuation of the existing half‐cent sales tax measure.
All Committee members believe the City would benefit from a revenue augmentation
measure.
Eight of 10 members voted to recommend a revenue augmentation measure. The two
dissenting members would have voted yes if more assurances that the funds will not all go
to salaries and reserves, and that Capital Improvement Projects would increase more than is
shown in current forecasts, were given.
Measure Y is a major source of general fund money. It accounts for approximately 12 % of
the City’s General Fund, and is a major source of discretionary funding to help accomplish
priorities established by the City Council with input from the public. The tax revenue also
gives the City the ability to buffer against future fiscal troubles.
Stable and sustainable funding is needed to keep San Luis Obispo a special place. The
theme of the 2006 Measure Y campaign was “Keep San Luis Obispo Special.” Indeed, money
generated by Measure Y enabled the City to provide a higher level of public safety and
services during the Great Recession than it could have otherwise. To date, Measure Y funds
have been used for paving and road improvements, open space acquisition, maintenance
and improvement of public safety services, drainage and flood protection, recreational
facilities such as the new skate park, and many other projects and services that make San
Luis Obispo such a great place to live, work and visit.
There is a long list of capital projects and services that need funding. This list reflects
community desires expressed during numerous public workshops and hearings (such as the
Attachment 2
B1 - 24
LRMAC Report and Recommendations February 24, 2014
6
Land Use and Circulation Elements update, budget hearings, Bicycle Transportation Plan
adoption hearings) and in Measure Y surveys, and capital improvement projects needed to
provide services to the public more efficiently and effectively. The list includes (non‐
prioritized):
a. Street paving, maintenance and upgrades
b. Expanded neighborhood services
c. Essential police, fire and emergency response and safety equipment
d. More open space, parks and recreation facilities
e. Pedestrian and bike paths, such as implementation of the City’s newly updated
Bicycle Transportation Plan, including completion of the Railroad Safety Trail and the
City’s segment of the Bob Jones Trail
f. Flood prevention and drainage
g. Improvements to downtown so it continues to attract residents and visitors
Spending on Capital Projects and Essential Services will be reduced. If the City loses a
major source of stable, long‐term revenue, funding will be reduced for essential services
and capital improvements. This would greatly diminish the ability to keep San Luis Obispo a
special place to live, work and visit.
2. The revenue augmentation should be a continuation of the existing half‐cent sales tax
measure.
It is the most practical way to increase local general fund money. Under existing state law,
a general sales tax measure is the best, most practical way for communities to generate
additional locally controlled discretionary revenues. That is why voters in many cities and
counties in California have supported similar sales tax measures. The LRMAC did consider
other revenue alternatives, such as a parcel tax or transient occupancy tax, but concluded
they were not as practical and as appropriate as a sales tax measure.
In San Luis Obispo, most of the sales tax is paid by non‐residents. Based on the 2013 Sales
Tax Analysis, approximately 72% of the tax is generated by tourists, people who work in San
Luis Obispo but live elsewhere, and other non‐residents. They, not residents, are
contributing most of the funds used to make San Luis Obispo a better place to live, work,
visit and shop.
No significant “competitive disadvantage”. Most cities in California have local sales tax
rates equal to or higher than San Luis Obispo’s rate, and the majority of Californians live in
places with higher combined sales tax rates. On the Central Coast, Arroyo Grande, Morro
Bay, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach and Santa Maria have sales tax add‐ons similar to Measure Y.
Attachment 2
B1 - 25
LRMAC Report and Recommendations February 24, 2014
7
Comparison of 2013 Sales Tax Rates
City Local Sales Tax Rate County Sales Tax Rate Add‐On
San Luis Obispo 8.00% 7.50 % (San Luis Obispo County) 0.50%
Benchmark Cities
Monterey 7.50% 7.50 % (Monterey County) 0.00%
Napa 8.00% 8.00 % (Napa County) 0.00%
Santa Barbara 8.00% 8.00 % (Santa Barbara) 0.00%
Paso Robles 8.00% 7.50 % (San Luis Obispo County) 0.50%
Davis 8.00% 7.50 % (Yolo County) 0.50%
Santa Maria 8.25% 8.00 % (Santa Barbara County) 0.25%
Santa Cruz 8.75% 8.25 % (Santa Cruz County) 0.50%
Palm Springs 9.00% 8.00 % (Riverside County) 1.00%
Other Cities in SLO County (Non‐Benchmark)
Atascadero 7.50% 7.50 % (San Luis Obispo County) 0.00%
Arroyo Grande 8.00% 7.50 % (San Luis Obispo County) 0.50%
Grover Beach 8.00% 7.50 % (San Luis Obispo County) 0.50%
Morro Bay 8.00% 7.50 % (San Luis Obispo County) 0.50%
Pismo Beach 8.00% 7.50 % (San Luis Obispo County) 0.50%
Source: City of San Luis Obispo
Measure Y has been in effect for seven years now and a renewal would simply maintain
the current sales tax rate of 8%.
3. It should be a General Purpose, not Special Purpose tax measure.
General Purpose requires a simple majority. Under State law, a special purpose tax
requires a two‐thirds majority of the vote, whereas a general purpose requires a simple
majority. Majority rule should decide. Measure Y required a simple majority vote and
passed with 64% approval. It is recommended that a renewal measure follow the same
path. A general purpose tax is the most commonly used and most successful.
It gives the City flexibility to address changing conditions and preferences. General
purpose revenue provides flexibility to allocate sales tax money based on particular
circumstances facing the community at any given time. The City can respond to changing
conditions and shifting priorities over time.
The community can affect how the money is used. City residents have opportunities to
directly participate in the process of deciding how City resources are spent. The City Council
has established a comprehensive public goal‐setting and budget process that serves as a
model for other cities.
4. There is public support for continuing the sales tax measure.
Surveys and the public workshop both indicate strong support. Survey results have shown
continued support for Measure Y over the years and the most recent polling indicates 71%
Attachment 2
B1 - 26
LRMAC Report and Recommendations February 24, 2014
8
of likely voters would support continuing (i.e. renewing) the measure. Furthermore, at the
public workshop held in November, participants expressed strong support for the need and
uses of Measure Y money.
5. A companion “advisory ballot measure” should not be included.
It is unnecessary and possibly misleading. An “advisory” measure that lists the types of
projects and services that the sales tax money could be used may give the erroneous
impression of a special purpose tax, when it is indeed general in nature. The City needs
flexibility to use the money based on priorities at any given time. San Luis Obispo has
adopted an open and transparent goal‐setting and budget process with opportunities for
public participation.
6. There should be an eight‐year “sunset clause” on the measure.
Eight years is consistent with the current measure. This is supported by nine of the LRMAC
members. This eight‐year term allows for periodic public review (versus a permanent tax),
but is long enough to “get things done” (for example, road paving projects take
approximately seven years). This is also a practical interval due to the costs of holding
elections and conducting campaigns. Survey responses, workshop comments and LRMAC
discussion suggest that inclusion of a “sunset clause” increases public support for a sales tax
measure. Polling data and workshop comments support eight years. One member desires a
six‐year sunset as evaluation of the spending would occur sooner.
COMMITTEE GUIDANCE AND PREFERENCES
The LRMAC members advise the following:
1. Check in regularly with the public as to specific uses of the funds and progress.
a. Show that funds have been well spent, and provide regular public access to clear,
understandable expenditure reports.
b. Develop ways to reach out to the entire community, not just those who regularly
attend public meetings and forums. Explore innovative ways to engage the public
and garner more interest in the budget, what projects and services are funded, and
how city planning projects work through increased participatory processes. Put
focused effort in reaching populations that usually do not participate in the budget
process.
c. Maintain funds generated by the sales tax measure in a separate account for easy
connection to “dollar in / dollar out.”
d. Provide for the explicit accounting of sales tax augmentation monies (e.g. amount
anticipated, received and how used) and for clear and easy ways for the public to
access this information.
2. Direct more of the funds to capital improvement projects and maintenance, not
operations.
Attachment 2
B1 - 27
LRMAC Report and Recommendations February 24, 2014
9
a. The Five‐year Fiscal Forecast that includes Measure Y funds shows the ability to
increase capital improvement spending over time. This supports the committee’s
and public’s expectations for use of revenue funds.
b. The ability to increase spending on capital improvements and desire for the City
Council to make that a priority are the decisive factors leading some committee
members to recommend any revenue measure at all.
c. If not managed over the course of carrying out programs, salaries and benefits
unrelated to capital improvement projects and maintenance of City assets may
consume a proportionately larger part of the sales tax each year .
d. The City Council should adopt a budget policy that makes capital projects and/or the
maintenance of existing assets and infrastructure a priority. The policy may include
flexibility such as provisions for emergencies (e.g. natural disasters or state take‐a‐
ways of local funding), and for averaging allocations over multiple budgets.
3. Use a public process to direct the specific uses of an allotted amount of revenue funds
during the budget process.
a. Explore innovative and non‐conventional ways of including diverse public input into
the budgeting process.
CONCLUSION
The Local Revenue Measure Advisory Committee appreciates the opportunity to serve the San
Luis Obispo community, and respectfully requests that the City Council accept its
recommendations and suggestions.
Attachment 2
B1 - 28
December 2-5, 2013
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT
AND BALLOT MEASURE ISSUES SURVEY
220-3723
WT N=402
Hello, I'm ___________ from F-M Three, a public opinion research company. I am definitely NOT trying to
sell you anything or ask for a donation. We are conducting an opinion survey about issues that interest people
living in San Luis Obispo, and we would like to include your opinions. May I speak to______________? YOU
MUST SPEAK TO THE VOTER LISTED. VERIFY THAT THE VOTER LIVES AT THE ADDRESS
LISTED, OTHERWISE TERMINATE.
A. Before we begin, I need to know if I have reached you on a cell phone, and if so, are you in a place
where you can talk safely without endangering yourself or others? (IF NOT ON A CELL PHONE,
ASK: Do you own a cell phone?)
Yes, cell and can talk safely ---------------------------------------- 30%
Yes, cell but cannot talk safely ------------------------ TERMINATE
No, not on cell, but own one ---------------------------------------- 52%
No, not on cell and do not own one -------------------------------- 18%
(DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ---------------- TERMINATE
(ASK QB ONLY IF CODES 1 OR 2 “OWN A CELL PHONE” IN QA)
B. Would you say you use your cell phone to make and receive all of your phone calls, most of your phone
calls, do you use your cell phone and home landline phone equally, or do you mostly use your home
landline phone to make and receive calls?
All cell phone ------------------------------ 26%
Mostly cell phone --------------------------23%
Cell and landline equally ----------------- 31%
Mostly landline ----------------------------20%
(DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------ 1%
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
1.(T) Generally speaking, how would you rate the City of San Luis Obispo as a place to live? Would you
say it is an excellent place to live, a pretty good place, just fair, or a poor place to live?
Excellent ------------------------------------ 71%
Pretty good --------------------------------- 24%
Just fair ---------------------------------------- 3%
Poor ------------------------------------------- 1%
(DON'T KNOW/NA) ---------------------- 0%
Attachment 3
B1 - 29
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 2
2.(T) Thinking about the next five years, do you think the quality of life in the City of San Luis Obispo
will get better, stay the same, or get worse? (IF BETTER/WORSE, ASK: “Is that much
BETTER/WORSE or somewhat?”)
Much better ----------------------------------- 9%
Somewhat better --------------------------- 22%
Stay the same ------------------------------ 48%
Somewhat worse --------------------------- 14%
Much worse ---------------------------------- 4%
(DON'T KNOW/NA) ---------------------- 4%
3.(T) How would you rate the overall job being done by San Luis Obispo city government in providing
services to the City’s residents? Would you say the City is doing an…? (READ RESPONSES AND
RECORD)
Excellent ------------------------------------ 13%
Good ---------------------------------------- 54%
Only fair, or -------------------------------- 25%
Poor job --------------------------------------- 3%
(DON'T READ) Don't know -------------- 5%
4.Next, let me ask you specifically, how would you rate the job being done by City officials in (READ
ITEM)? Would you say City officials are doing an excellent, good, fair or poor job?
(DON’T
READ) EXC/
EXC GOOD FAIR POORDK GOOD
(RANDOMIZE)
[ ]a. (T) Managing City funds ------------------------------ 6% ----- 42% ----- 28% ----- 7% ------ 17% 48%
[ ]b. (T) Planning for the future in an era
of reduced City revenues ------------------------------ 5% ----- 39% ----- 31% ----- 9% ------ 15% 45%
[ ]c. (T) Negotiating fair and affordable
pay and benefits for local public
employees ----------------------------------------------- 5% ----- 29% ----- 28% ----- 10% ----- 28% 34%
[ ]d. Being open and transparent with
residents about the City’s fiscal
condition ------------------------------------------------ 10% ---- 42% ----- 28% ----- 9% ------ 12% 52%
Attachment 3
B1 - 30
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 3
5.Next, I am going to mention issues some people say might be problems for residents of the City of San
Luis Obispo. After I mention each one, please tell me whether you consider it to be a very serious
problem, a somewhat serious problem, not too serious a problem or not a problem at all for San Luis
Obispo residents. (RANDOMIZE)
NOT NOT (DON’T VERY/
VERY SMWT TOO A READ)SMWT
SER. SER. SER. PROB DK/NA SER
(SPLIT SAMPLE A)
[ ]a. (T) Crime in general -------------------------- 9% --------- 31% -------- 46% ------- 14% ------ 1% 40%
[ ]b. (T) Inefficient storm drainage that leads
to flooding -------------------------------------- 9% --------- 19% -------- 35% ------- 34% ------ 3% 28%
[ ]c. (T) City streets in need of repair ----------- 14% -------- 29% -------- 43% ------- 14% ------ 0% 43%
[ ]d. (T) State budget cuts that reduce the
money available to cities for essential
services such as police and fire
protection -------------------------------------- 24% -------- 36% -------- 20% ------- 12% ------ 8% 60%
[ ]e. (T) Alcohol-related crimes and problems - 18% -------- 45% -------- 23% ------- 10% ------ 4% 63%
[ ]f. (T) The availability of senior services ------ 6% --------- 16% -------- 25% ------- 30% ----- 24% 22%
[ ]g. (T) Maintaining a good quality of life in
local neighborhoods -------------------------- 10% -------- 19% -------- 28% ------- 42% ------ 2% 29%
[ ]h. (T) Waste and inefficiency in City
government ------------------------------------ 13% -------- 33% -------- 24% ------- 18% ----- 13% 45%
[ ]i. (T) The availability of recreation
programs ---------------------------------------- 5% --------- 18% -------- 29% ------- 45% ------ 4% 23%
[ ]j. (T) The time it takes for police to
respond to service calls ----------------------- 7% --------- 15% -------- 24% ------- 39% ----- 15% 22%
[ ]k. (T) The number of transients in the area -- 34% -------- 43% -------- 15% ------- 7% ------- 1% 77%
(SPLIT SAMPLE B)
[ ]l. (T) The time it takes for firefighters to
respond to service calls ----------------------- 2% ----------6% --------- 21% ------- 55% ----- 16% 8%
[ ]m. (T) Access to quality health care ----------- 13% -------- 29% -------- 23% ------- 28% ------ 7% 42%
[ ]n. (T) Too much growth and development -- 12% -------- 23% -------- 23% ------- 41% ------ 1% 35%
[ ]o. (T) The quality of public schools ----------- 9% --------- 14% -------- 20% ------- 41% ----- 16% 23%
[ ]p. (T) The availability of stable, good
paying jobs in the local area ---------------- 30% -------- 37% -------- 16% ------- 12% ------ 5% 66%
[ ]q. (T) Traffic congestion ----------------------- 17% -------- 35% -------- 32% ------- 15% ------ 1% 52%
[ ]r. (T) Homelessness ---------------------------- 41% -------- 45% --------- 9% -------- 3% ------- 2% 87%
[ ]s. (T) The amount of taxes and fees people
have to pay for city services ---------------- 18% -------- 24% -------- 29% ------- 22% ------ 7% 42%
[ ]t. (T) Loss of open space ---------------------- 11% -------- 21% -------- 25% ------- 41% ------ 2% 32%
[ ]u. (T) The availability of affordable
housing for middle-class families ---------- 44% -------- 37% -------- 11% ------- 6% ------- 3% 81%
Attachment 3
B1 - 31
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 4
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
LET ME CHANGE THE FOCUS OF MY QUESTIONS.
6.(T) Have you heard about Measure Y, the City of San Luis Obispo ballot measure that voters approved
in 2006 to raise the local city sales tax one half cent per dollar of expenditures? (IF YES, ASK: “Have
you heard a lot about it or just a little?”)
Yes, heard a lot (ASK Q7) --------------------------------- 34%
Yes, heard a little (ASK Q7)------------------------------- 37%
No, haven’t heard about it (SKIP TO Q8) -------------- 27%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA (SKIP TO Q8) ----------------- 2%
(ASK Q7 IF YES ON Q6)
7.(T) Do you recall whether you voted on Measure Y? (IF YES, ASK: “Did you vote Yes, in favor of
the local sales tax or No to oppose it?”)
Voted Yes in favor ------------------------------------------ 57%
Voted No to oppose ----------------------------------------- 15%
(DON'T READ) Voted, can’t recall how/refused ------ 15%
Did not vote/can’t recall if voted -------------------------- 13%
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
8.(T) Next, Measure Y, the local half cent sales tax measure, is scheduled to expire in 2015. To continue a
local sales tax, voters would have to approve it at an election in November. I know that the election is a
year into the future, but if a renewal of this tax were on the ballot today, would you vote Yes in favor of
renewing the local half cent sales tax or No to oppose renewal? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely
or just probably?”)
TOTAL YES ------------------------------ 64%
Definitely yes (ASK Q9) ----------------- 43%
Probably yes (ASK Q9) ------------------ 22%
TOTAL NO ------------------------------- 25%
Probably no (ASK Q9) --------------------- 9%
Definitely no (ASK Q9) ------------------ 16%
(DON'T READ) Need more info --------- 9%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ------------------ 2%
Attachment 3
B1 - 32
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 5
(ASK Q9 ONLY IF CODED 1-4 ‘YES/NO’ IN Q8)
9.In a few words of your own, what are the main reasons why you would vote (YES/NO) to renew the
city’s half cent sales tax? (OPEN-END; RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE; PROBE FOR
SPECIFICS BEYOND “SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD/BAD IDEA”.)
a.YES
General mention/keep/improve/fund/city services/maintain standard of living------------------ 33%
Not that great of a cost/services cost money/everyone pays ---------------------------------------- 21%
City needs money ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14%
Improvements/upkeep of infrastructure/street/roads/bike paths/open spaces -------------------- 13%
General positive mentions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 13%
City does a good job with funds/being spent well/in the right places ------------------------------- 6%
Seen improvements ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4%
Fire/police --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2%
Homeless problem ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2%
Needed due to population growth ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2%
Other mention ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2%
DK/NA/Unsure/Undecided/Need more information -------------------------------------------------- 1%
b.NO
Taxes are too high/opposed to additional/new taxes ------------------------------------------------ 36%
Tax money is wasted/mismanaged/not spent wisely ------------------------------------------------ 36%
General negative mentions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11%
No need/not necessary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9%
Public employees/unions are overpaid ------------------------------------------------------------------ 4%
Other mention -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10%
DK/NA/Unsure/Undecided/Need more information -------------------------------------------------- 3%
Attachment 3
B1 - 33
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 6
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
LET ME GIVE YOU SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT MEASURE Y, THE CITY’S
ONE HALF CENT SALES TAX THAT WAS APPROVED BY VOTERS IN 2006. ON AN ANNUAL
BASIS, MEASURE Y RAISES ABOUT SIX MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE CITY’S GENERAL
FUND. MEASURE Y FUNDS HELP PAY FOR CITY SERVICES, INCLUDING POLICE, FIRE
PREVENTION, TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF, REPAIRS TO CITY ROADS AND STORM
DRAINS, SENIOR SERVICES, NEIGHBORHOOD CODE ENFORCEMENT, CITY PARKS
MAINTENANCE AND PURCHASE AND MAINTENANCE OF OPEN SPACE.
10.Having heard this information, let me ask you again. If the election were held today, would you vote
Yes in favor of renewing the local half cent sales tax or No to oppose renewal? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is
that definitely or just probably?”)
TOTAL YES ------------------------------ 72%
Definitely yes ------------------------------ 51%
Probably yes -------------------------------- 21%
TOTAL NO ------------------------------- 23%
Probably no ----------------------------------- 9%
Definitely no ------------------------------- 14%
(DON'T READ) Need more info --------- 3%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ------------------ 2%
11.In addition to the sales tax renewal measure we have been discussing, the City may also place a non-
binding advisory measure on the ballot. The advisory measure would let San Luis Obispo voters express
their priorities to the City Council for using half cent sales tax revenue. If an advisory measure were on
the ballot along with the measure to renew the half cent sales tax, would you be more likely or less likely
to vote Yes to renew the local half cent sales tax? (IF MORE OR LESS LIKELY, ASK: “Is that much
(MORE/LESS) likely or just somewhat?”)
Much more likely -------------------------- 34%
Somewhat more likely -------------------- 23%
Somewhat less likely ------------------------ 4%
Much less likely ----------------------------- 8%
(DON'T READ) No effect -------------- 27%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ------------------ 4%
Attachment 3
B1 - 34
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 7
12.Next, in the past, the City of San Luis Obispo has had to cut spending on city services to balance its
budget. Let’s assume Measure Y is not renewed in 2014 and that further city spending cuts will be
needed over the next few years. With these assumptions in mind, for each of the City’s services and
programs I mention, please tell me whether it should be cut back substantially, cut back just a little,
not cut back at all or whether it should be increased? The first one is…. (READ AND ROTATE
ITEMS)
CUT NOT (DON’T
CUTA CUT READ)
SUBSTA’LLY LITTLE BACK INCREASEDDK/NA
(ASK SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY)
[ ]a. Street repairs and maintenance ----------------------- 5% ---------- 32% ----- 45%---------- 18% -------- 1%
[ ]b. Fire and emergency medical services
response time ------------------------------------------- 4% ---------- 13% ----- 67%---------- 15% -------- 1%
[ ]c. Downtown police patrols ------------------------------ 7% ---------- 21% ----- 53%---------- 17% -------- 3%
[ ]d. City economic development
programs ------------------------------------------------ 15% --------- 31% ----- 37%---------- 8% -------- 10%
[ ]e. Maintenance of public parks or open
space ----------------------------------------------------- 8% ---------- 36% ----- 47%---------- 6% --------- 3%
[ ]f. Senior citizen services --------------------------------- 3% ---------- 28% ----- 53%---------- 11% -------- 5%
[ ]g. Programs to improve neighborhood
quality of life ------------------------------------------- 13% --------- 33% ----- 39%---------- 8% --------- 5%
[ ]h. Flood protection and storm drain
maintenance --------------------------------------------- 3% ---------- 32% ----- 55%---------- 6% --------- 4%
(ASK SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY)
[ ]i. Repair of broken sidewalks --------------------------- 8% ---------- 35% ----- 43%---------- 12% -------- 1%
[ ]j. Police protection in local
neighborhoods ------------------------------------------ 4% ---------- 19% ----- 62%---------- 14% -------- 1%
[ ]k. Fire prevention and protection ------------------------ 4% ---------- 22% ----- 62%---------- 11% -------- 1%
[ ]l. Downtown improvement programs ----------------- 21% --------- 33% ----- 34%---------- 7% --------- 4%
[ ]m. Acquisition of open space ---------------------------- 22% --------- 29% ----- 35%---------- 9% --------- 5%
[ ]n. Recreation opportunities and
programs at city parks -------------------------------- 10% --------- 37% ----- 46%---------- 5% --------- 2%
[ ]o. Open Space protection -------------------------------- 12% --------- 32% ----- 42%---------- 11% -------- 4%
[ ]p. Traffic management to reduce
congestion ----------------------------------------------- 7% ---------- 29% ----- 45%---------- 16% -------- 3%
[ ]q. Building and safety code
enforcement --------------------------------------------- 9% ---------- 29% ----- 51%---------- 6% --------- 6%
Attachment 3
B1 - 35
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 8
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
(SPLIT SAMPLE C: ASK Q13 THEN Q14 THEN Q15)
(SPLIT SAMPLE D: ASK Q15 THEN Q14 THEN Q13)
13.Next, I am going to give you some statements that could be made by people who support renewing the
local half cent sales tax for an additional period. After hearing each statement, please tell me if it would
make you more inclined to vote Yes to support renewal of the local half cent sales tax. If you do not
believe the statement, or if it has no effect on your thinking one way or the other, please tell me that too.
(IF MORE INCLINED, ASK: "Is that much more or just somewhat?")
MUCH SMWT TOT
MORE MORE (LESS DON'T NO (NOMORE
INCL INCL INCL) BEL EFFECTOPIN)INCL
(RANDOMIZE)
[ ]a. (T-LOCAL CONTROL) Renewal
of the local sales tax gives San Luis
Obispo more local control and keeps
local tax dollars here to pay for
essential services, such as police and
fire protection, senior programs, park
maintenance, street repair and open
space acquisiton. ----------------------------- 36% ---- 21% ----- 2% ----- 9% ------- 31% ------- 1% 57%
[ ]b. (T-FIRE PREVENTION) Fire
prevention services in San Luis
Obispo have expanded since voters
adopted the local sales tax. If the
local sales tax is not renewed, we
may have to cut back fire prevention
programs. -------------------------------------- 35% ---- 16% ----- 4% ----- 12% ------ 32% ------- 1% 51%
[ ]c. (T-ROADS) Renewing the local
sales tax will provide the funds
needed to fill potholes and keep city
streets from becoming more and
more uncomfortable and dangerous
to drive. ---------------------------------------- 31% ---- 21% ----- 4% ----- 10% ------ 35% ------- 0% 51%
[ ]d. (T-PUBLIC SAFETY) Crime
continues to be an issue in San Luis
Obispo and calls to the police
continue at a high volume. Without
renewal of the local sales tax, rather
than have an adequate police force,
we would be forced to cut back the
police force. ----------------------------------- 32% ---- 17% ----- 4% ----- 19% ------ 28% ------- 0% 49%
Attachment 3
B1 - 36
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 9
MUCH SMWT TOT
MORE MORE (LESS DON'T NO (NOMORE
INCL INCL INCL) BEL EFFECTOPIN)INCL
[ ]e. (NO INCREASE) This measure
does not create a new tax or increase
taxes. It simply continues an
existing tax – one previously adopted
by San Luis Obispo city voters – to
maintain essential city services. ------------ 38% ---- 17% ----- 3% ----- 5% ------- 35% ------- 1% 55%
(ASK SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY)
[ ]f. (T-CAPITAL) Two-thirds of the
funds provided by the local sales tax
go into capital improvements such as
storm drains, street repairs, new
traffic signals, open space
acquisistion and a paved skateboard
park. But the task is not finished.
Renewing the local sales tax will
allow the City to continue making
necessary capital improvements to
enhance the safety and quality of life
in San Luis Obispo. -------------------------- 30% ---- 24% ----- 6% ----- 6% ------- 33% ------- 2% 53%
[ ]g. (STABILITY) The local sales tax
has brought fiscal stability to San
Luis Obispo. Passing this renewal
measure will maintain a balanced
budget so that the City can continue
to provide quality essential services
and maintain its emergency reserve
fund for use in the event of a major
crisis, such as an earthquake. --------------- 34% ---- 23% ----- 4% ----- 6% ------- 32% ------- 0% 57%
(ASK SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY)
[ ]h. (T-AVOID CUTS) In these difficult
economic times, the local sales tax
has allowed the City to avoid even
deeper cuts in essential services
while still making progress in high
priority areas such as street paving,
traffic congestion relief, flood
protection, public safety, senior
services and open space
preservation. ---------------------------------- 39% ---- 22% ----- 1% ----- 9% ------- 29% ------- 1% 60%
Attachment 3
B1 - 37
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 10
MUCH SMWT TOT
MORE MORE (LESS DON'T NO (NOMORE
INCL INCL INCL) BEL EFFECTOPIN)INCL
(ASK SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY CON’T)
[ ]i. (DELIVERED) The sales tax has
made it possible for the City to
deliver better services to residents.
This includes hiring additional police
officers and a fire marshal, adding
bike lanes, fixing potholes and city
streets, and acquiring open space for
new public parks. Passing this
renewal measure will keep our city
moving in the right direction. --------------- 47% ---- 16% ----- 2% ----- 8% ------- 26% ------- 1% 63%
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
14.Having heard statements from people who favor renewing the local half cent sales tax, let me ask you
once more. If the election were held today, would you vote Yes in favor of renewing the local half cent
sales tax or No to oppose renewal? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely or just probably?”)
SPLIT C SPLIT D TOTAL
TOTAL YES --------------------------------------- 75% ----------- 70% ----------- 73%
Definitely yes --------------------------------------- 59% ----------- 48% ----------- 53%
Probably yes ---------------------------------------- 16% ----------- 23% ----------- 20%
TOTAL NO ---------------------------------------- 19% ----------- 24% ----------- 22%
Probably no ------------------------------------------- 5% ------------- 8% ------------- 6%
Definitely no ---------------------------------------- 15% ----------- 16% ----------- 15%
(DON'T READ) Need more info ------------------ 3% ------------- 5% ------------- 4%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA --------------------------- 2% ------------- 1% ------------- 2%
Attachment 3
B1 - 38
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 11
(SPLIT SAMPLE C: ASK Q13 THEN Q14 THEN Q15)
(SPLIT SAMPLE D: ASK Q15 THEN Q14 THEN Q13)
15.Next, I am going to give you some statements that could be made by people who oppose renewing a
local half cent sales tax for an additional period. After hearing each statement, please tell me if it would
make you more inclined to vote No in opposition to renewal of the local half cent sales tax. If you do
not believe the statement, or if it has no effect on your thinking one way or the other, please tell me that
too. (IF MORE INCLINED, ASK: "Is that much more or just somewhat?")
MUCH SMWT TOT
MORE MORE (LESS DON'T NO (NOMORE
INCL INCL INCL) BEL EFFECTOPIN)INCL(RANDOMIZE)
[ ]a. (T-SCARE) City government is
trying to scare us into renewing this
tax increase. In reality, the City has
plenty of money and just needs to
manage it better and stop wasting the
money it already has. ------------------------ 15% ---- 12% ----- 4% ----- 29% ------ 37% ------- 3% 27%
[ ]b. (PENSIONS/CUTS) The City wants
to pass this renewal measure so City
employees can continue to receive
their excessive salaries and pension
benefits. Voting no will force the
City to reduce spending on personnel
and reform pensions. ------------------------- 15% ---- 13% ----- 5% ----- 24% ------ 40% ------- 3% 28%
[ ]c. (ECONOMY/TAXES) This tax
renewal measure should be rejected
because local families, seniors and
students are having trouble making
ends meet in this tough economy.
With recent increases in the state
sales and income taxes, we need to
reduce local taxes. ---------------------------- 12% ---- 12% ----- 5% ----- 20% ------ 48% ------- 2% 24%
[ ]d. (ARBITRATION) In the past, binding
arbitration on police pay caused big
salary increases costing taxpayers
additional millions of dollars. But now
voters have passed Measure B putting an
end to high cost binding arbitration.
Without binding arbitration, we don’t
need to renew the half cent increase in the
local sales tax. -------------------------------- 12% ---- 12% ----- 5% ----- 20% ------ 44% ------- 7% 24%
Attachment 3
B1 - 39
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 12
MUCH SMWT TOT
MORE MORE (LESS DON'T NO (NOMORE
INCL INCL INCL) BEL EFFECTOPIN)INCL
(ASK SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY)
[ ]e. (PROMISES NOT KEPT) City
government failed to keep its
promises about how sales tax funds
would be used. Renewing the local
sales tax just lets politicians and
bureaucrats continue to ignore their
promises. -------------------------------------- 17% ---- 13% ----- 6% ----- 21% ------ 40% ------- 4% 30%
(ASK SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY)
[ ]f. (STATUS QUO) The City admits
that renewing the local sales tax will
just maintain the status quo and not
improve City services. We should
not continue to pay higher taxes and
get no additional benefit. -------------------- 11% ----- 9% ------ 3% ----- 29% ------ 43% ------- 4% 20%
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
16.Having heard statements from people who oppose renewal of the local half cent sales tax, let me ask you
one more time. If the election were held today, would you vote Yes in favor of renewing the local half
cent sales tax or No to oppose renewal? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely or just probably?”)
SPLIT C SPLIT D TOTAL
TOTAL YES --------------------------------------- 76% ----------- 65% ----------- 71%
Definitely yes --------------------------------------- 56% ----------- 42% ----------- 49%
Probably yes ---------------------------------------- 20% ----------- 24% ----------- 22%
TOTAL NO ---------------------------------------- 20% ----------- 27% ----------- 24%
Probably no ------------------------------------------- 7% ----------- 10% ------------- 8%
Definitely no ---------------------------------------- 14% ----------- 18% ----------- 16%
(DON'T READ) Need more info ------------------ 2% ------------- 7% ------------- 4%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA --------------------------- 1% ------------- 0% ------------- 1%
17.(T) Next, when voters approved Measure Y in 2006, it was for a term of eight years ending in 2014.
Whether you favor or oppose renewing Measure Y, let me ask you to assume for a moment that a
majority of voters want to renew the local sales tax measure. In your opinion, should the local sales tax
be made permanent, or should it be approved for a fixed period of time?
Made permanent --------------------------- 18%
For fixed period of time (ASK Q18) --- 75%
(DON'T READ) Don’t renew ------------- 3%
(DON'T READ) Need more info --------- 2%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ------------------ 2%
Attachment 3
B1 - 40
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 13
(IF “FIXED PERIOD OF TIME” IN Q17, ASK Q18; ALL OTHERS SKIP TO Q19)
18.What if the renewal of Measure Y were for _____ years? Would you be more inclined or less inclined to
vote Yes on renewal of Measure Y? (IF MORE INCLINED/LESS INCLINED, ASK: “Is that much
(more/less) inclined or just somewhat?”)
(DON’T (DON’T
MUCH SMWT SMWT MUCH READ) READ)
MORE MORE LESS LESS NONO
INCL INCL INCL INCL EFFECT OPIN
(SPLIT SAMPLE A)
a.Eight years -------------------------------------- 33% ------- 23% ------- 10% ------- 14% ------- 18% ----- 2%
b.15 years ------------------------------------------- 8% --------- 5% ------- 31% ------- 35% ------- 18% ----- 4%
c.20 years ------------------------------------------- 5% --------- 5% ------- 14% ------- 60% ------- 13% ----- 3%
(SPLIT SAMPLE B)
c.20 years ------------------------------------------- 3% --------- 7% ------- 24% ------- 54% -------- 7% ------ 5%
b.15 years ------------------------------------------ 4% -------- 14% ------- 31% ------- 41% -------- 7% ------ 2%
a.Eight years -------------------------------------- 34% ------- 28% ------- 11% ------- 15% -------- 9% ------ 2%
(TOTAL)
a.Eight years -------------------------------------- 34% ------- 26% ------- 10% ------- 14% ------- 14% ----- 2%
b.15 years ------------------------------------------- 6% --------- 9% ------- 31% ------- 38% ------- 13% ----- 3%
c.20 years ------------------------------------------- 4% --------- 6% ------- 19% ------- 57% ------- 11% ----- 4%
Attachment 3
B1 - 41
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 14
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
19.Next, here is my last question about the City government. In your opinion, what is the most important
thing the City of San Luis Obispo can do to improve city services? (OPEN-END; RECORD
ANSWER BELOW)
Cut government waste/be accountable/balance the budget/be efficient/unions public
employees are overpaid --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17%
Homeless -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10%
City is doing well/no major problems/keep doing as is being done --------------------------------- 9%
Need more police/fire/public safety --------------------------------------------------------------------- 7%
Improve roads/streets -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5%
Listen to voters/focus on the wants and needs of the public ------------------------------------------ 4%
Affordable housing ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3%
Infrastructure improvements ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2%
Control growth --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2%
Encourage business to invest in community/downtown ---------------------------------------------- 2%
Traffic congestion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2%
More open spaces/parks ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2%
Healthcare accessibility ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2%
Reduce crime ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1%
Senior services ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1%
Need more public services (non-specific) --------------------------------------------------------------- 1%
General negative comment of students/youth ---------------------------------------------------------- 1%
Need more youth activities/education ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1%
Prioritize spending better ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1%
Parking issues ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1%
More bike lanes/paths ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1%
None/nothing ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4%
Other mention -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11%
DK/NA/Unsure/Undecided/Need more information -------------------------------------------------- 9%
Attachment 3
B1 - 42
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 15
HERE ARE MY LAST QUESTIONS AND THEY ARE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY
20.(T) About how long have you lived in the City of San Luis Obispo? (READ LIST)
Less than three years ------------------------ 7%
Three to five years ------------------------- 12%
Six to 10 years ----------------------------- 14%
11 to 20 years ------------------------------ 21%
21 years or more --------------------------- 46%
(DON'T READ) Don't know/Refused --- 1%
21.(T) Do you own or rent your home or apartment?
Own ----------------------------------------- 68%
Rent ----------------------------------------- 31%
(DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------ 1%
22.(T) Are there children under the age of 19 living at home with you?
Yes ------------------------------------------ 23%
No ------------------------------------------- 77%
(REFUSED/NA) ---------------------------- 0%
23.(T) Are you a full-time student at Cuesta College or Cal Poly?
Yes ------------------------------------------ 12%
No ------------------------------------------- 87%
(REFUSED/NA) ---------------------------- 1%
24.(T) In what year were you born?
1995-1989 (18-24) ------------------------ 13%
1988-1984 (25-29) -------------------------- 6%
1983-1979 (30-34) -------------------------- 5%
1978-1974 (35-39) -------------------------- 5%
1973-1969 (40-44) -------------------------- 6%
1968-1964 (45-49) -------------------------- 5%
1963-1959 (50-54) ------------------------ 11%
1958-1954 (55-59) -------------------------- 8%
1953-1949 (60-64) ------------------------ 10%
1948-1939 (65-74) ------------------------ 15%
1938 or earlier (75 & over) --------------- 13%
(DON'T READ) Don’t Know/Refused -- 3%
Attachment 3
B1 - 43
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 16
25.(T) With which racial or ethnic group do you identify yourself? (READ RESPONSES)
Hispanic or Latino --------------------------- 6%
African-American ---------------------------1%
Asian ------------------------------------------2%
Caucasian/White ---------------------------86%
Some other group ---------------------------- 3%
(DON’T READ) DK/Refused ------------- 2%
26.(T) How would you describe your political outlook? Would you say that you are very conservative,
somewhat conservative, a moderate, somewhat liberal, or very liberal?
Very conservative -------------------------10%
Somewhat conservative-------------------18%
Moderate ------------------------------------29%
Somewhat liberal --------------------------20%
Very liberal ---------------------------------17%
(DON'T READ) Refused/DK/NA -------- 5%
27.(T) What was the last level of school you completed?
Grades 1-8 ------------------------------------1%
Grades 9-11 ----------------------------------1%
High school graduate (12) ------------------ 9%
Community college, some college/
Business/vocational school --------------- 26%
College graduate (4) ----------------------- 36%
Post-graduate work/professional school 27%
(DON’T READ) Refused ------------------ 0%
28.(T) I don't need to know the exact amount but I'm going to read you some categories for household
income. Would you please stop me when I have read the category indicating the total combined income
for all the people in your household before taxes in 2012?
$30,000 and under ------------------------- 16%
$30,001 - $50,000 ------------------------- 13%
$50,001 - $75,000 ------------------------- 14%
$75,001 - $100,000 ------------------------ 13%
More than $100,000 ----------------------- 20%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ---------------- 24%
Attachment 3
B1 - 44
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES 220-3723-WT PAGE 17
THANK AND TERMINATE
Gender: By observation Male -----------------------------------------49%
Female --------------------------------------51%
Party: From file Democrat -----------------------------------44%
Republican ---------------------------------32%
No Party Preference ----------------------- 20%
Other party -----------------------------------4%
FLAGS
P06 ---------------------------------- 50%
G06 ---------------------------------- 67%
F08 ---------------------------------- 66%
P08 ---------------------------------- 54%
G08 ---------------------------------- 82%
S09 ---------------------------------- 48%
P10 ---------------------------------- 59%
G10 ---------------------------------- 88%
P12 ---------------------------------- 66%
G12 ---------------------------------- 93%
BLANK ----------------------------- 5%
VOTE BY MAIL
1 ------------------------------------- 10%
2 -------------------------------------- 9%
3+ ------------------------------------ 40%
Blank -------------------------------- 40%
PERMANENT ABSENTEE
Yes --------------------------------- 54%
No ---------------------------------- 46%
ZIP CODES
93401 ------------------------------- 62%
93405 ------------------------------- 38%
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
2 ------------------------------------- 21%
3 ------------------------------------- 61%
5 ------------------------------------- 18%
Attachment 3
B1 - 45
Methodology
•Telephonesurveyofarandomsampleof400registered
voterslikelytovoteintheNovember2014generalelection
•4.9%MarginofErroratthe95%confidencelevel
•70%landline/30%cell
•SurveyconductedDecember2-5,2013
•Severalquestionstracked2010and2011surveys
Attachment 3
B1 - 46
OverallawarenessofMeasureYisunchanged
from2011,butmoreresidentshaveheard“alot”
Q6.
34%
26%
17%
37%
45%
40%
27%
27%
41%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
2014
2011
2010
Yes,heardalot Yes,heardalittle No,haven’theardaboutit DK/NA
HaveyouheardaboutMeasureY,theCityofSanLuisObispoballotmeasurethatvoters
approvedin2006toraisethelocalcitysalestaxonehalfcentperdollarofexpenditures?
71%
71%
57%
Attachment 3
B1 - 47
43%
34%
43%
22%
25%
20%
9%
10%
9%
16%
16%
19%
11%
15%
8%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
2013
2011
2010
Def.Yes Prob.Yes Prob.No Def.No NMI/DK/NA
MeasureY,thelocalhalfcentsalestaxmeasure,isscheduledtoexpirein2015.Tocontinuealocal
salestax,voterswouldhavetoapproveitatanelectioninNovember.Iknowthattheelectionisayear
intothefuture,butifarenewalofthistaxwereontheballottoday,wouldyouvoteYesinfavorof
renewingthelocalhalfcentsalestaxorNotoopposerenewal?
64%
SupportforMeasureYRenewal
issolidbeforeargumentation.
Q8.
63%28%
59%26%
25%
Attachment 3
B1 - 48
SupportforMeasureYRenewalriseswithbasic
information.Combinedpositiveandnegative
argumentshavelittleimpactoverall
Q8,10,16.Ifarenewalofthistaxwereontheballottoday,wouldyouvoteYesinfavorofrenewingthelocalhalfcentsalestaxorNotoopposerenewal?
64%
72%71%
25%23%24%
11%
5%5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
InitialVoteBasicInformationPostArguments
TotalYes
TotalNo
Undecided
Attachment 3
B1 - 49
43%
51%49%
16%14%16%
0%
15%
30%
45%
60%
InitialVoteBasicInformationPostArguments
Q8,10,16.Ifarenewalofthistaxwereontheballottoday,wouldyouvoteYesinfavorofrenewingthelocalhalfcentsalestaxorNotoopposerenewal?
DefiniteYes
SupportforMeasureYRenewalriseswithbasic
information.Combinedpositiveandnegative
argumentshavelittleimpactoverall
DefiniteNo
Attachment 3
B1 - 50
Roughlyone-quarterof“Probable”supporters
sayAdvisoryVotemakesthem“Muchmore
Likely”tosupportMeasureYRenewal
Q11byQ16.
24%
32%
4%
7%
32%
Muchmorelikely
Somewhatmorelikely
Somewhatlesslikely
Muchlesslikely
Noeffect/DK/NA
0%20%40%
Total
MoreLikely
56%
Total
LessLikely
12%
(ProbablyYes)
Attachment 3
B1 - 51
34%
6%
26%
9%
6%
10%
31%
19%
14%
38%
57%
16%
16%
15%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
8years
15years
20years
MuchMoreIncl.Smwt.MoreIncl.Smwt.LessIncl.MuchLessIncl.NoEff./NoOpin
WhatiftherenewalofMeasureYwerefor_____years?
WouldyoubemoreinclinedorlessinclinedtovoteYesonrenewalofMeasureY?
60%
15%
10%
69%
76%
24%
Consensusisclearforan8-yeartimelimit
Q18(Total).
Combinedresultfromquestionsaskingabouttimelimitsinincreasinganddecreasingdirections.
Attachment 3
B1 - 52
ResidentscontinuetorateSanLuisObispo
veryhighlyasaplacetolive.
Q1.
Generallyspeaking,howwouldyouratetheCityofSanLuisObispoasaplacetolive?
Wouldyousayitisanexcellentplacetolive,aprettygoodplace,justfair,orapoorplacetolive?
71%
74%
69%
24%
23%
28%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
2013
2011
2010
Excellent PrettyGood JustFair/Poor DK/NA
95%
97%
97%
Attachment 3
B1 - 53
Q2.
Thinkingaboutthenextfiveyears,doyouthinkthequalityoflifeinthe
CityofSanLuisObispowillgetbetter,staythesame,orgetworse?
Ratingthequalityoflifeinfiveyears.
9%
11%
8%
22%
15%
17%
48%
57%
56%
14%
11%
10%7%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
2013
2011
2010
MuchBetter Smwt.Better StaytheSame Smwt.Worse MuchWorse DK/NA
31%
26%
25%
18%
14%
17%
Attachment 3
B1 - 54
RatingofSanLuisObispocitygovernmentin
providingservicestoresidents
Q3.
HowwouldyouratetheoveralljobbeingdonebySanLuisObispo
citygovernmentinprovidingservicestotheCity’sresidents?
13%
17%
15%
54%
54%
57%
25%
23%
22%
5%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
2013
2011
2010
Excellent PrettyGood JustFair Poor DK/NA
67%
71%
72%
28%
27%
26%
Attachment 3
B1 - 55
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Note: List of activities is based on a Community Assessment Survey conducted December 2‐5, 2013 by FM3 Associates
If Measure Y or an alternative measure is not renewed, where should City spending be reduced?
a. Choose a level of reduction for each activity
b. Discuss among group
c. Identify group trends
Key Activity Cut
substantially Cut a little Not cut back
1 Street repairs and maintenance 8 9
2 Fire and emergency medical services response time 7 10
3 Downtown police patrols 4 9 3
4 City economic development programs 3 10 1
5 Maintenance of public parks or open space 9 6
6 Senior citizen services 2 8 6
7 Programs to improve neighborhood quality of life 7 4 3
8 Flood protection and storm drain maintenance 7 8
9 Repair of broken sidewalks 2 6 8
10 Police protection in local neighborhoods 6 9
11 Fire prevention and protection 5 10
12 Downtown improvement programs 8 9 1
13 Acquisition of open space 9 2 4
14 Recreation opportunities and programs at city parks 3 7 3
15 Open space protection 4 6 5
16 Traffic management to reduce congestion 3 7 4
17 Building and safety code enforcement 3 9 3
(over)
2014 Measure Y Community Forum
Contingency Planning Exercise
Attachment 4
B1 - 56
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Note: List of activities is based on a Community Assessment Survey conducted December 2‐5, 2013 by FM3 Associates
Other ideas for reductions:
Don’t cut parking fund as it helps with the transit within the City
Of course I want it all in general I would look to a general overall spread of the production.
Not knowing the percentage taken in each area is tough
AN‐DUN: Increase volunteer outreach
Continuing Fire Services with Cal Fire
Cal Fire Contracting?
What is Measure Y financing that we can live without?
Look at revenue projections as a balance with reductions
Parking fund cut substantially
Vehicle purchasing
Staff & salaries
Top staff size & salaries
Has city stuff evaluated if all activities can be cut equally a small amount from each to
balance the budget. Or should some activities be cut more than others?
Seek as many federal and state grants to help sustain as many programs that the city … as
vital and on problems
Would it be possible to create new revenue sources if Measure Y is not renewed?
Cut downtown
Some cut to open spaces
Parking fund
Cut top staff salaries
Vehicle purchasing
Longer service life (higher mileage) on city vehicle before replacement
Stop taking funds from the parking lots/meters or the parking fund…instead use the se
funds for general fund uses – take a percentage of these funds & direct to general fund
Lower salaries for existing staff
Less staff
2014 Measure Y Community Forum
Contingency Planning Exercise
Attachment 4
B1 - 57
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Note: List of activities is based on a Community Assessment Survey conducted December 2‐5, 2013 by FM3 Associates
Cut substantially salaries of staff
Seek more grant support
Cut administration staff before health & safety
Complete a comprehensive EIR for Prado Road and/or supplemental EIR for Margarita +
Dalidio
Do an EIR for Danon + Prado Road Garcia Sports Fields. One has never been done as the
land was bought for Sports fields. Thanks
Public parks and our open space are our “money” and joy and quality of life – let’s keep it
that way.
GROUP TRENDS
Group BLACK
‐ Maintain healthy/safety
‐ Reduce recreation/open space
‐ Ballot language‐maintain vs. restore?
‐ Reduce non‐safety activities
GROUP RED
‐ 50/50 open space reduction
‐ Less investment Downtown
‐ Repurpose Parking Fund
‐ Cut vehicle purchasing or extend vehicle life
‐ Cut staffing/salaries of top staff
GROUP BLUE
‐ Reduce o/s acquisition maintenance
‐ Reduce DT spending
‐ Do not cut fire protection
‐ Hold off on police protection expansion
‐ Mixed on code enforcement
GROUP GREEN
‐ Cut DT police patrol/open space substantially
‐ Cut little broken sidewalks
‐ No cuts economic development/flood control/street repairs/maintenance
Attachment 4
B1 - 58
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
Date L -! -1 H Item #_aL/__
March 28, 2014
Dear Mayor Jan Marx, and San Luis Obispo City Council Members:
MAR 2 8 2014
On April 1St the Council will receive the report/recommendation for a Local Revenue
Measure from your appointed advisory committee. I was one of two committee members
who voted against the recommendation to add this measure to the ballot. I gave a lot of
thought as to whether to simply let the report stand on its own or share with you how I
came to my own personal opinion. While I wholeheartedly believe in the democratic
process, I also believe it is important for the Council to hear all opinions on this. For that
reason, I hope you will indulge me and see how I came to vote "No."
First of all, I was the only Accountant /CPA on the committee and therefore the only one
really able to dive into and make sense of the numbers. Katie Lichtig and Wayne Padilla
provided me far more financial information than the rest of the committee, which
included years of annual council reports, audits as well as forecasts and projections
stretching out into year 2018. I spent hours analyzing, graphing and reconfiguring the
information into a format not only I could understand but into something I felt my fellow
committee members could understand as well.
Here are some salient facts I was able to draw from the staff's numbers:
1. Gross City Revenues (pre- Measure Y 2005 -06 ) were at $ 43,164,400, and
have NEVER dipped below this level even during the "Great Recession." Last
year they were $ 49,442,700 ( 2012 -2013) and they are projected to grow to $
57,589,800. You can add the $6 -7 million from Measure Y on top of that to
get to total gross revenue.
2. This amounts to a 34 % increase in general revenue, even before Measure Y
funds. A lot of this has gone to building up our 20 % general reserve but we
now have so much left over we are thinking about applying it to the city's
unfunded pension fund liability (clearly not something promised to voters).
3. During our Committee Meeting, Wayne Padilla confirmed what I surmised
from the numbers provided me, that Capital Improvements have been
averaging $ 4 Million a year for the last 15 years; that is pre as well as post
Measure Y funds ( no increase essentially in spending). Some years the only
reason we did spend more was due to special grants we received rather than
Measure Y funds.
4. Daryl Grigsby of the city's Public Works Department confirmed during our
committee meetings and even during the public meeting last week that he is
currently spending between $1.5 and $2.5 million a year on street paving,
even though $2 million is the minimum he feels he needs to maintain the
streets. $4 Million is his wish list amount. Nothing has changed in this budget
as a result of the addition of Measure Y funds.
5. Salaries of SLO city employees have been growing steadily since 2002 -2003,
at which time they totaled $23,979,300. We were told we needed to pass
Measure Y to stop the staff layoffs, but in fact, salary expense has never
dipped ( pre, post or in forecasts growing forward) The fact is they did jump
25% in just two years going into the recession ( 2007 - 2009), the total being a
$6 Million dollar increase in salaries - -the exact amount of the projected
revenue from Measure Y annual funds. In 2009 salary expenses were
approaching total Gross Revenue. ( $ 40,288,600 – Salaries, $ 44,013,200
Total Revenues without Measure Y). This scared us into holding salaries
down since 2009.
6. This reality explains why CIP didn't increase with the passing of Measure Y
as we needed it to cover the large growth in salaries. Luckily the economy is
picking up and revenues are once again growing well, so we are able to cover
our salaries (luckily having held that growth down the last few years), fill our
general reserves, and even have enough to throw at the unfunded pension
expense.
Unfortunately, none of the above information was provided to the committee. I needed to
draw these facts from the mountain of various data provided to me by staff as no single
report gave a clear picture. Instead I was asked to look at pictures of items staff identified
as being funded by Measure Y, while the data suggested otherwise and staff confirmed
that CIP funds have average the same 4 million dollars for the last 15 years... unchanged.
In addition, having seen the rapid growth of our revenues coming out of the recession
(you can see this for yourself in staff's financials), the bulging General Reserve (in
excess of the 20 % we like to keep), even the collection of excess revenues that could be
spent on unfunded pension expenses, I am having a hard time with the staffs proposition
that — without a new revenue measure —we must cut essential services to the citizens of
San Luis Obispo.
As a CPA I don't understand why we have not been planning for the sunset of Measure
Y. all along. Why did staff s presentation at the public hearing not include Administrative
salaries and expenses at all (expenses which should certainly be targeted before the more
important health and safety staffing they said would suffer without Measure Y funds)?
This is going to be a tough measure to put forth, as it is clear we have not invested in CIP
as we promised voters we would. Of course it's a General Tax and so no laws were
broken - -only the public trust, as we continued to hear at all public hearings. Staff should
have put ( recommendations to council) more money into Daryl's (Public Works) and
other departments' budgets as a result of Measure Y. We should have slowly built up our
reserves (which right now far exceed 20 % of the General Revenue requirement). We
should have tried to let some of that 25 % increase in staff expense ( 2007 -2009) be
absorbed through attrition, rather than hold onto everyone and just not give anyone an
increase.
So, knowing that we did not accomplish what the voters thought they would get, which
was more Capital Improvement Projects, but that we instead we used Measure Y revenue
to support a tremendous growth in staff and general reserves it did not seem right to vote
to approve putting an extension of Measure Y on the ballot. If the Council can truly
assure the voters that any revenues collected by the extension of Measure Y would be
used exactly as promised to our voters, then I would like to know this could be
accomplished. Then, maybe the Council would garner my (and, I believe, the voters')
"Yes" vote. But I would think our Council will have to overcome the track record of the
first Revenue Measure before making any such promise.
Sincerely,
John Fowler, CPA
March 28, 2014
San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
COUNCIL MEETING: tDPL� Ic7 ! I ZO 1
ITEM NO.: V
MAR 2 8 2014 j
Item: B -1, Recommendations & Direction Regarding Local Revenue Measure � f--�
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
What kind of community do we want to be? One that is safe, beautiful and special and
strives to continuously improve? Or one that is average or just getting by?
These questions were at the heart of the 2006 Measure Y campaign; they remain at the
heart of the matter today. Based on community surveys, public testimony, goal setting
input, and the recommendations of your Local Revenue Measure Advisory Committee
( LRMAC), community sentiment appears to be consistent and clear:
1. People love our community and take pride in the quality of life offered here.
2. They expect a lot from their government, both in quantity and quality of services.
3. They elect quality leaders to represent our community's aspirations.
4. Our aspirations are to be a better and better place, not a worse place.
5. A general purpose revenue measure is an excellent way to raise the resources we
need to achieve our higher aspirations.
With this in mind, I offer the following suggestions regarding the Council's pending
decisions and future role relative to another general purpose revenue measure.
1. Support the LRMAC and staff recommendation that the next revenue measure
remain a general purpose measure; and communicate early priorities, too
We have often described our community's budget and goal setting process as being about
answering one basic question: Of all the things we want to do for our community, which
are the most important? We should protect the community's ability to ask and answer
this basic question of priorities "in the moment" (and not try to answer it today). A
general purpose measure invites future citizen engagement and offers flexibility.
However, identifying early priorities for revenue use is wise, along with adding capital
improvements to the list to better convey this interest. Accounting for funds differently
to enhance tracking and communication might be a good idea — as long as this option is
carefully investigated to assure that it will not lead to a "special purpose" designation.
2. Avoid adding new "bells and whistles" to the next measure
In government, we are often tempted to add new rules to either prevent worse case
scenarios or to fix a perceived problem. In this case, for example, some may advocate for
rules to limit allocations to staffing (services) or add specificity regarding capital
investment levels. I encourage Council to resist such suggestions because: (1) As noted
by the LRMAC, Measure Y funds have been used wisely to address priorities identified
by the public and council — and thus there isn't a problem that needs fixing; (2) We
should trust the community to make similarly prudent decisions in the future; (3) Endless
"sounds good on paper" rules have been adopted through State ballot measures — and this
has not always improved California government (understatement); and (4) If new
arbitrary rules don't work well, they will be hard and costly to change.
3. Improve the strong accountability, transparency and citizen engagement
practices that have accompanied the uses of Measure Y ( but without forming
another standing committee)
The best way to handle concerns about future uses is to support strong accountability and
transparency provisions so that citizens and leaders can easily understand, decide upon,
and evaluate uses. Fortunately, inviting opinions and reporting results is a cultural habit
in SLO. The LRMAC report includes many examples of outreach and reporting on
Measure Y uses. We set community priorities through a goal setting and budget process
that is a model in the State of California and exceeds what most cities do anywhere.
However, there are always new and better ways that the City can inform and involve the
public, and I support the recommendation of the LRMAC to explore more ideas. For
example, there are social media and other online outreach tools being used today; to
improve reporting, there may be new metrics worthy of measurement and tracking.
Some cities form standing committees to oversee revenue ballot measure uses.
Committees, however, are small and over time have a tendency to become insular, even
"clubby." The City has taken a better approach by integrating decisions about uses and
follow -up reporting into the fabric of City governance with citizens having equal access
to information and decisions. This is ultimately a stronger, more inclusive and less
expensive safeguard than launching another standing committee
4. Successful local measures require strong, united Council leadership.
Citizens typically do not support revenue measures if they do not trust their local elected
leaders to act and lead wisely. Therefore, in communities where the leadership is tepid or
contentious regarding their local measures, measures often fail. This was known in 2006
when our city council faced its crucial Measure Y "leadership moment."
The council — which held diverse philosophies on almost all issues, including various
sub - elements of Measure Y - stood together and unanimously and vocally supported the
passage of the measure. This expression of united leadership rippled throughout the
community and Measure Y enjoyed an inspiring coalition of support that included the
Chamber of Commerce, the Sierra Club, RQN, the Downtown Association, the Bicycle
Coalition, SLO Symphony, Obispo Beautiful, Youth Sports Association, senior groups,
and more. As we know, the measure passed with overwhelming voter support.
Your Council is now facing its leadership moment and the actions you take, and the
message that your actions send, will influence how the voters view the measure.
Therefore, I urge the Council to set smaller differences aside and take a similarly strong,
united and positive leadership position on the passage of a new general purpose measure.
5. Failure is simply not a sustainable long -term option
Positively leading the community through the 2014 revenue ballot measure process is
perhaps the most important fiduciary and leadership responsibility that you will have
during your respective Council tenures. Hyperbolic? Consider this: If Measure Y
doesn't pass, the financial impact will be the sales tax equivalent of 10 Costcos closing
overnight (or building nine more to offset the loss). Outrageous? Unthinkable? Suffice
it to say that in the aftermath of the cuts required to offset the revenue loss, the town that
we love would not be a very happy place. And the longer term implications spell
mediocrity. Hardly the kind of community that we want to be.
Closing Comments - and Kudos to the Council
One can always find imperfections in the implementation of a major new initiative — and
Measure Y is no exception. However, this much is perfectly true: SLO is in afar better
place today because of the successful passage of Measure Y — and it would be in afar
worse place, had it failed.
This Council has been very good stewards of the added resources, and you have taken
actions to position the City well for the consideration of another measure. You have
navigated through unforeseen and extraordinary financial challenges, and SLO has come
through in a better position than most cities. You have tackled needed reforms and the
binding arbitration issue forthrightly, and the City is now in better control of its resources
(the ruling that you are correctly challenging notwithstanding). You have used the added
resources thoughtfully, and you have involved the community every step of the way.
We must continue our progress as a community. Therefore, I urge the Council to adopt
the LRMAC recommendations and direct staff to return with ballot measure language.
Once the administrative steps are concluded, I further encourage each council member to
shift your energy toward the successful passage of the measure. Your leadership will
make a big difference in the outcome of this most important community decision.
Ken Hampian
(SLO City Manager, 1/2001- 1/2010)