Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-20-2014 B4 Ballot Measure Check InCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number FROM: Katie Lichtig, City Manager Prepared By: Michael Codron, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: CONTINUE REVIEW OF BALLOT MEASURE LANGUAGE AND A DRAFT ORDINANCE TO EXTEND THE “ESSENTIAL SERVICES TRANSACTION (SALES) AND USE TAX” – THE CITY’S LOCAL HALF- PERCENT SALES TAX – AND DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES. RECOMMENDATION Review and consider the following items, which have been revised based on Council direction, and provide direction to staff on next steps. 1. Revised draft ballot measure language to extend the local half-percent sales tax (Attachment 1). 2. Revised draft amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 3.15 that would be proposed to the voters by a ballot measure ordinance to extend the local sales tax measure for an additional eight year period (Attachment 2). 3. Direct staff to return to the City Council on June 10 with additional information and details relating to a proposed Citizen’s Local Tax Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission. 4. Direct staff to return to the City Council on June 17 with additional information on a Fiscal Responsibility Philosophy, and improving citizen access to financial information through the use of “dashboards” on the City’s website. DISCUSSION Background On April 1, 2014, the City Council directed staff to prepare language for a possible extension of the Essential Services Measure (Municipal Code Chapter 3.15), which will sunset in March 2015 if it is not extended during the November 2014 General Election. On May 6, staff presented draft ballot measure language and a draft ordinance for the Council’s review. The following direction was provided to staff by Council consensus. 1. Incorporate a new accountability measure into the Essential Services Measure establishing a “Citizen’s Local Tax Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission” to review and advise the City Council on revenue measure budget proposals, and report to the community on the City’s use and stewardship of this local sales tax. 2. Prepare a Fiscal Responsibility Philosophy to guide current and future decision-makers towards prudent financial management decisions related to the City’s major cost drivers, including a plan to address unfunded liabilities. May 20, 2014 B4 - 1 Essential Services Measure Check-In #2 Page 2 3. Improve citizen access to detailed financial information and develop performance measurements that can be reviewed by members of the public quickly and easily on the City’s website through the use of “dashboards.” The purpose of this agenda item is to present the revised draft ballot language and ordinance for Council’s review. There are two additional opportunities for staff to check in with the City Council regarding the proposed ballot measure. Staff is recommending that those meetings be used by the City Council to review and discuss relevant information to the items listed above so there is clarity on how these issues will be addressed prior to July 1. Currently, the Council is scheduled to consider final action to place the measure on the November ballot during the regular meeting scheduled for July 1. Extension of the Essential Services Measure 1. Revised Ballot Measure Language Attachment 1 includes the language proposed to be placed on the ballot to extend the current half-percent local sales tax. Consistent with the direction from May 6, 2014 the proposed Citizen’s Local Tax Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission has been added to the ballot measure language. The draft language is similar to the ballot measure approved in 2006 with 64.77% of the vote. Consistent with City Council direction on April 1, 2014 a specific reference to funding projects in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) has been added. This reflects the fact that over the past seven years, 60% of Essential Services Measure funding ($17 million through June 2013) has been allocated to CIP projects. In addition, many operating expenditures, such as for engineering and inspection staff, have been made to support the delivery of the City’s CIP. 2. Ordinance Revisions The Essential Services Measure is codified as Chapter 3.15 of the City’s Municipal Code. The ballot measure ordinance proposed to the voters, if approved, will amend this Municipal Code chapter to extend the effective date of the ordinance for an additional eight years (to March 31, 2023), and incorporate other changes directed by Council. Attachment 2 includes a legislative draft version of Municipal Code Chapter 3.15, as it would be amended by the voters if a renewal measure consistent with current Council direction were approved. The changes include two additional accountability provisions. One adds the requirement for the City to establish the Citizen’s Local Tax Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission. The second requires the City to track and account for the proceeds from this extension of Measure Y separately to provide a clear and easy way for the public to access information about how the tax revenue is spent (See Attachment 2, Section 3.15.040.A and 3.15.040.B). Citizen’s Local Tax Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission Staff is seeking direction from the City Council regarding the incorporation of the proposed Citizen’s Local Tax Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission into the revenue measure. The requirement for such a commission has been incorporated into the draft ordinance revisions, as discussed above. However, there are other details related to the membership, conduct, and B4 - 2 Essential Services Measure Check-In #2 Page 3 purpose of the commission that should be decided upon as soon as possible so that a draft can return to the City Council on June 3, 2014 (or June 10 if the council meeting is moved). Attachment 3 includes the proposal submitted to the Council by Council Member Smith on May 6, 2014. Council Member Smith’s proposal covers topics such as the membership, purpose, meeting frequency and fiscal impact. The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce has also offered a recommendation that an “…oversight committee be composed of individuals with related expertise that will meet no less than twice a year and perform regular reviews of independent audits.” Independent audits are a requirement of the Essential Services Measure and continue to be required by the proposed extension. Attachment 3 also includes a survey of various oversight committees that serve a similar purpose in other jurisdictions. Staff is seeking preliminary guidance from the City Council, so that draft by-laws can be developed and presented to the City Council and the community on the June 3 agenda (this meeting may be rescheduled to June 10). Direction from the City Council on the following items will assist staff in preparing the draft by-laws. 1. Membership criteria: a. Number of members b. Criteria for membership c. Selection procedure for chairperson 2. Purpose: a. Make recommendations to the City Council regarding revenue measure expenditures as an integral part of the budget process b. Annual reporting to the community on expenditures and City stewardship of local tax revenue c. Other tasks or expectations 3. Frequency of meetings 4. Compensation Fiscal Responsibility Philosophy The development of a fiscal responsibility philosophy can be a valuable tool as the City continues to address and control cost drivers, such as employee pensions and other benefits, as well as associated unfunded liabilities. The City’s Major City Goal for Fiscal Health directs staff to prepare a compensation study, which is currently underway and is scheduled to be presented to the City Council on August 19. The compensation study is being conducted in accordance with the City’s Compensation Philosophy (see Attachment 4), that also directs the City to consider financial sustainability, among other factors, when evaluating competitive compensation for its employees, as follows: In evaluating competitive compensation, the City considers financial sustainability including the City’s financial condition as reflected throughout the financial forecast, competing service priorities, maintenance needs, capital improvement and other asset requirements, fund reserve levels, and revenue projections prior to implementing changes in compensation. A fiscal responsibility philosophy would build on the compensation philosophy and include guiding principles for current and future decision makers related to the City’s major cost and B4 - 3 Essential Services Measure Check-In #2 Page 4 revenue drivers. Staff is proposing to return to the City Council on June 17 with additional information on this proposal, and to take direction from the Council regarding next steps. Enhanced Transparency using Dashboards and Performance Measurements Also on June 17, staff will be seeking direction from the City Council regarding a plan to enhance transparency and public access to important City financial and performance information. While much of this information is already available in quarterly or annual reports, many jurisdictions across North America are setting a standard of transparency that provides quick and easy access to important financial and operational performance information. Instead of relying on monthly, quarterly or annual reports, access to information is provided through a web-based interface that can be frequently updated. Performance measurements are an important aspect of accountability because they enable decision makers and community members to understand this information within the context of benchmarks and progress towards stated goals. Staff intends to propose a two part approach to accomplishing Council direction on this topic. In the short term, staff would implement a financial tracking dashboard on the City’s website to reinforce the City’s commitment to transparency. Over a longer term, staff will explore the development of metrics and methods to evaluate and report to the community on the City’s performance – also through the use of dashboards on the website. The longer-term project will be evaluated in the context of the resources needed to successfully implement such an undertaking. Attachment 5 includes a short book on best practices relating to dashboards in the non-profit sector, as well as some screen shots of dashboards being utilized successfully by other local government agencies. Additional detail and information will be provided on this topic for Council consideration on June 17. FISCAL IMPACT If the City Council ultimately directs staff to place an extension of the current revenue measure on the November 2014 ballot, the cost will be approximately $4,060. If the Council decides to put forward a special purpose tax, or a general purpose tax with a different rate, this would be considered a “new” tax. The fiscal impact of creating a new tax would range between $50,000 and $150,000 as assessed by the State Board of Equalization (BOE) for the set-up costs associated with administration. The final cost depends on how many jurisdictions have new tax measures approved because the BOE cost would be split among these jurisdictions. ALTERNATIVES The Local Revenue Measure Advisory Committee has recommended an extension of the existing one-half percent local sales tax, however, a wide variety of alternatives are available to the City Council, as follows: 1) Special purpose tax 2) General or special purpose tax with a different rate 3) 8-Year sunset clause, or an alternative time frame 4) Advisory ballot measure 5) Additional revisions can be directed to the purpose of the revenue measure, as stated in Municipal Code Chapter 3.15.020 (See Attachment 2) B4 - 4 Essential Services Measure Check-In #2 Page 5 6) Additional revisions can be directed to the accountability provisions included in the revenue measure, as listed in Municipal Code Chapter 3.15.040 7) Others offered by members of the public ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft ballot measure language 2. Legislative draft of Municipal Code Chapter 3.15 3. Council Member Smith Oversight Committee Proposal and Examples from other jurisdictions 4. City of San Luis Obispo Compensation Philosophy 5. Dashboard Best Practices for Non-profits, Using Metrics to Drive Mission Success t:\council agenda reports\2014\2014-05-20\ballot measure check in (codron)\measureycheckin(car).docx B4 - 5 Attachment 1 Draft 2014 San Luis Obispo Essential Services Measure Extension: To protect and maintain essential services – such as neighborhood street paving; traffic congestion relief; public safety; flood protection; senior services and facilities; neighborhood code enforcement; open space preservation; and other capital improvement projects and vital services – shall Chapter 3.15 of the City’s Municipal Code be amended to extend the current one-half percent local sales tax for eight years, with independent annual audits, public goal-setting and budgeting of expenditures, and a Citizen’s Oversight Commission? Track-Changes Draft Comparing May 6 Draft to Current Draft: To protect and maintain essential services – such as neighborhood street paving; traffic congestion relief; public safety; flood protection; senior services and facilities; neighborhood code enforcement; open space preservation; and other capital improvement projects and vital services – shall Chapter 3.15 of the City’s Municipal Code be amended to extend the current one-half percent local sales tax for eight years, with citizen oversight, independent annual audits, and expenditures determined through the City’s public goal-setting and budgeting of expenditures, and a Citizen’s Oversight Commission process? B4 - 6 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.15 – Draft Amendments Attachment 2 1 Chapter 3.15 ESSENTIAL SERVICES TRANSACTIONS (SALES) AND USE TAX Sections: 3.15.010 Title. 3.15.020 Purpose. 3.15.030 Eight-year sunset. 3.15.040 Fiscal accountability provisions—Citizen oversight and independent annual financial audits. 3.15.050 Transactions (sales) tax rate. 3.15.060 Use tax rate. 3.15.070 Operative date. 3.15.080 Contract with state. 3.15.090 Place of sale. 3.15.100 Adoption of provisions of state law. 3.15.110 Limitations on adoption of state law and collection of use taxes. 3.15.120 Permit not required. 3.15.130 Exemptions and exclusions. 3.15.140 Amendments. 3.15.150 Enjoining collection forbidden. 3.15.010 Title. This chapter shall be known as the “city of San Luis Obispo essential services transactions (sales) and use tax ordinance.” The city of San Luis Obispo hereinafter shall be called the “city.” This chapter shall be applicable in the incorporated territory of the city. (Ord. 1495 § 1, 2006) 3.15.020 Purpose. This chapter is adopted to achieve the following, among other purposes, and directs that the provisions hereof be interpreted in order to accomplish those purposes: A. 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 capital improvement projects and vital general purpose services—by B4 - 7 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.15 – Draft Amendments Attachment 2 2 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 chapter, 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. B. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax chapter that incorporates provisions identical to those of the sales and use tax law of the state of California insofar as 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 chapter that imposes a tax and provides a measure therefor that can be administered and collected by the State Board of 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 the State Board of Equalization in administering and collecting the California State sales and use taxes. D. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax chapter that can be administered in a manner that will be, to the greatest degree possible, consistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, minimize the cost of collecting the transactions and use taxes, and at the same time minimize the burden of recordkeeping upon persons subject to taxation under the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 1495 § 2, 2006) 3.15.030 Eight-year sunset. The authority to levy the tax imposed by this chapter shall expire in eight years (March 31, 2023) from the operative date of this chapter, unless extended by the voters. (Ord. 1495 § 3, 2006) 3.15.040 Fiscal accountability provisions—Citizen oversight and independent annual financial audits. Along with the city’s ongoing commitment to citizen involvement as a fundamental principle of good government, specific citizen oversight and fiscal accountability provisions are hereby established as follows: A. Citizen’s Local Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission. A citizen’s commission will be established to provide transparency and maximize City accountability. The Commission will be responsible for making budget recommendations directly to the City Council regarding expenditures B4 - 8 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.15 – Draft Amendments Attachment 2 3 from the essential services transactions (sales) and use tax, and reporting annually to the community on the City’s use of these tax revenues. B. Accounting and Tracking Expenditures. The funds collected through the City of San Luis Obispo essential services transactions (sales) and use tax ordinance shall be accounted for and tracked by the City Treasurer separately to facilitate citizen oversight. A.C. Independent Annual Financial Audit. The amount generated by this new general purpose revenue source and how it was used shall be included in the annual audit of the city’s financial operations by an independent certified public accountant. B.D. 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 measure shall be an integral part of the city’s budget and goal-setting process, and significant opportunities will be provided for meaningful participation by citizens in determining priority uses of these funds. C.E. Annual Community Report. A written report, approved reviewed at a public hearing by the Citizen’s Oversight Commission, will be provided annually to every household in the community detailing how much revenue is being generated by the measure and how funds are being spent. D.F.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. (Ord. 1495 § 4, 2006) 3.15.050 Transactions (sales) tax rate. For the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail, a tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers in the incorporated territory of the city at the rate of one-half percent of the gross receipts of any retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property sold at retail in said territory on and after the operative date of this chapter. (Ord. 1495 § 5, 2006) 3.15.060 Use tax rate. An excise tax is hereby imposed on the storage, use or other consumption in the city of tangible personal property purchased from any retailer on and after the operative date of this chapter for storage, use or other consumption in said territory at the rate of one-half percent of the sales price of the property. The sales price shall include delivery charges when such charges are subject to state sales or use tax regardless of the place to which delivery is made. (Ord. 1495 § 6, 2006) B4 - 9 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.15 – Draft Amendments Attachment 2 4 3.15.070 Operative date. “Operative date” means the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more than one hundred ten days after the adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter: April 1, 2007. (Ord. 1495 § 7, 2006) 3.15.080 Contract with state. Prior to the operative date, the city shall contract with the State Board of Equalization to perform all functions incident to the administration and operation of this transactions and use tax chapter; provided, that if the city shall not have contracted with the State Board of Equalization prior to the operative date, it shall nevertheless so contract and in such a case the operative date shall be the first day of the first calendar quarter following the execution of such a contract. (Ord. 1495 § 8, 2006) 3.15.090 Place of sale. For the purposes of this chapter, all retail sales are consummated at the place of business of the retailer unless the tangible personal property sold is delivered by the retailer or his agent to an out-of-state destination or to a common carrier for delivery to an out-of-state destination. The gross receipts from such sales shall include delivery charges, when such charges are subject to the state sales and use tax, regardless of the place to which delivery is made. In the event a retailer has no permanent place of business in the state or has more than one place of business, the place or places at which the retail sales are consummated shall be determined under rules and regulations to be prescribed and adopted by the State Board of Equalization. (Ord. 1495 § 9, 2006) 3.15.100 Adoption of provisions of state law. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter 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 of Part 1 (commencing with Section 6001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code are hereby adopted and made a part of this chapter as though fully set forth herein. (Ord. 1495 § 10, 2006) 3.15.110 Limitations on adoption of state law and collection of use taxes. In adopting the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code: A. Wherever the state of California is named or referred to as the taxing agency, the name of this city shall be substituted therefor. However, the substitution shall not be made when: B4 - 10 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.15 – Draft Amendments Attachment 2 5 1. The word “state” is used as a part of the title of the State 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 by or against this city or any agency, officer, or employee thereof rather than by or against the State Board of Equalization, in performing the functions incident to the administration or operation of this chapter. 3. In those sections, including, but not necessarily limited to, sections referring to the exterior boundaries of the state of California, where the result of the substitution 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 be exempt from this tax while such sales, storage, use or other consumption remain subject to tax 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 or other consumption of tangible personal property, which would not be subject to tax by the state 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 in Section 6203. (Ord. 1495 § 11, 2006) 3.15.120 Permit not required. If a seller’s permit has been issued to a retailer under Section 6067 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, an additional transactor’s permit shall not be required by this chapter. (Ord. 1495 § 12, 2006) 3.15.130 Exemptions and exclusions. The following transactions shall be exempted and excluded: A. There shall be excluded from the measure of the transactions tax and the 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 B4 - 11 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.15 – Draft Amendments Attachment 2 6 Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law or the amount of any state-administered transactions or use tax. B. There are exempted from the computation of the amount of transactions tax the gross receipts from: 1. Sales of tangible personal property, other than fuel or petroleum products, to operators of aircraft to be used or consumed principally outside the county in which the sale is made and directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property under the authority of the laws of this state, the United States, or any foreign 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 or his agent, or by delivery by the retailer to a carrier for shipment to a consignee at such point. For the purposes of this section, 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 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilities 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 of perjury, signed by the buyer, stating that such address is, in fact, his or her principal place of 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, that the vehicle will be operated from that address. 3. The sale of tangible personal property if the seller is obligated to furnish the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this chapter. 4. A lease of tangible personal property, which is a continuing sale of such property, for any period of time for which the lessor is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by the lease prior to the operative date of this chapter. 5. For the purposes of subsections (B)(3) and (4) of this section, the sale or lease of tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any B4 - 12 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.15 – Draft Amendments Attachment 2 7 period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised. C. There are exempted from the use tax imposed by this chapter, the 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 of aircraft and used or consumed by such operators directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property for hire or compensation under a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued pursuant to the laws of this state, the United States, or any foreign government. This exemption is in addition to the exemptions provided in Sections 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 fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this chapter. 4. If the possession of, or the exercise of any right or power over, the tangible personal property arises under a lease which is a continuing purchase of such property for any period of time for which the lessee is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by a lease prior to the operative date of this chapter. 5. For the purposes of subsections (C)(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 for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised. 6. Except as provided in subsection (C)(7) of this section, a retailer engaged in business in the city shall not be required to collect use tax from the purchaser of tangible personal property, unless the retailer ships or delivers the property into the city or participates within the city in making the sale of the property, including, but not limited to, soliciting or receiving the order, either directly or indirectly, at a place of business of the retailer in the city or through any B4 - 13 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.15 – Draft Amendments Attachment 2 8 representative, agent, canvasser, solicitor, subsidiary, or person in the city under the authority of the retailer. 7. A retailer engaged in business in the city shall also include any 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 in compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, or undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840) of the Vehicle Code. That retailer shall be required to collect use tax from any purchaser who registers or licenses the vehicle, vessel or aircraft at an address in the city. D. Any person subject to use tax under this chapter may credit against that tax any transactions tax or reimbursement for transactions tax paid to a district imposing, or retailer liable for, a transactions tax pursuant to Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code with respect to the sale to the person of the property the storage, use or other consumption of which is subject to the use tax. (Ord. 1495 § 13, 2006) 3.15.140 Amendments. All amendments subsequent to the effective date of this chapter to Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code relating to sales 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 chapter; provided, however, that no such amendment shall operate so as to affect the rate of tax imposed by this chapter. (Ord. 1495 § 14, 2006) 3.15.150 Enjoining collection forbidden. No injunction or writ of mandate or other legal or equitable process shall issue in any suit, action or proceeding 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 chapter, or Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, of any tax or any amount of tax required to be collected. (Ord. 1495 § 15, 2006) B4 - 14 Attachment 3 – Quick Survey of California Local Revenue Measure Oversight Committees    The City Clerk’s Office performed a List Serve request to gather information about by‐laws and  guidelines of oversight committees throughout the State. Over a three‐day period, staff heard back from  over twenty‐two cities that had such committees, including:    Tracy  Grover Beach  Novato  El Cerrito  Merced  Santa Monica  Santa Maria  Soledad  Santa Rosa  San Leandro  Morro Bay  Lathrop  Concord  Galt  Ceres  Ridgecrest  Sacramento  Moraga  Sanger  Stockton  Salinas    There are certainly many, many more such committees, and staff will continue to collect additional  information as responses to our information request are provided. Following are four examples of the  roles and responsibilities of committees located in Santa Maria, Morro Bay, Grover Beach and Tracy,  California. Council Member Smith's proposal is also included in this attachment for reference.  ATTACHMENT 3 B4 - 15 REVISED: FEBRUARY 1, 2013 PAGE 29 CITY OF MORRO BAY CITIZENS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE Morro Bay Municipal Code 3.22.120 3.22.120 Citizens Oversight Committee. A. Citizens Oversight Committee Established. There shall be a permanent citizens’ advisory committee called the “Citizens Oversight Committee” (hereinafter “Committee”), which shall semi-annually review revenues and expenditures from the collection of the tax. B. Committee Membership. The Committee shall have 5 citizen-members appointed by the City Council for six year terms with initially 3 members serving 3 years, and 3 members serving 6 years. Appointees shall be residents of the City; however, no member of the Committee shall be an elected official. C. Committee Organization Procedures. The committee shall select one of its members as Chairperson. The Committee shall follow the rules of procedure of the City unless and until, upon the report and recommendation from the Committee, the City Council adopts a specific set of procedural rules for the Committee. D. Regular Meeting; Provision of Support Services and Information. The Committee shall be subject to the provisions of the Brown Act (California Government Code sections 54950 et seq.) and shall meet at least once each calendar year. A regular meeting schedule shall be determined in accordance with the Brown Act and thereafter meetings shall be noticed by the City Clerk. The City Manager or his/her designee shall serve as executive staff to the Committee. In addition to receiving materials directly related to the functioning of the Committee, the Committee members shall also receive all agenda material and other primary staff reports (other than those which are confidential) as are provided to the City Council. E. Citizens Oversight Committee Functions. The Committee shall have the following function: Semi- annual Report: The Committee shall review a semi-annual expense report of the City relative to activities funded with the additional general purpose local sales tax monies. Not later than the last day of the sixth month following the end of the each City fiscal year, the Committee will present its findings and conclusions to the City Council for its review. ATTACHMENT 3 B4 - 16 ATTACHMENT 3 B4 - 17 ATTACHMENT 3 B4 - 18 ATTACHMENT 3 B4 - 19 City of Tracy, CA Measure E Residents' Oversight Committee ESTABLISHED BY Established by City Council Ordinance 1151 MEMBERSHIP, QUALIFICATIONS AND RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS Five members appointed by City Council. Committee Members must be residents of the City of Tracy who meet the residency requirement as outlined in Resolution 2004-152 – Establishing the Council Selection Process, and Defining Residency Requirements, for Appointee Bodies. Members will not be current City of Tracy employees, officials, contractors or vendors of the City. Past employees officials or vendors may be eligible to serve on the Committee, provided that no conflicts of interest exist. TERM The Measure E Residents’ Oversight Committee commenced on March 1, 2011. Of the five members of the Committee first appointed, three shall serve a three year term and two shall serve a two year term. Subsequent appointments to the Oversight Committee shall be until the reporting period for the last one-half cent sales tax collected pursuant to Measure E. No member of the committee shall serve more than two consecutive terms. COMPENSATION The Measure E Residents’ Oversight Committee Member position is a volunteer, non-paid position. DUTIES The Measure E Residents’ Oversight Committee’s roles and responsibilities will include the following: To serve in an advisory-only capacity to the City Council; To provide oversight of the revenues and expenses pertaining to the portion of the sales tax generated by Measure E; To review the annual independent financial audit of the City performed by an independent auditor on sections pertaining to the revenue and expenses related to the portion of the sales tax generated by Measure E; To review other City financial reports pertaining to the revenue generated by and expenses related to the portion of the sales tax generated by Measure E revenue and expenses; Providing Council with an annual written report; Additional reports to Council can be provided to Council at the Committee’s and/or Council’s discretion (all reports must be in writing and agendized pursuant to the Brown Act). ATTACHMENT 3 B4 - 20 DUTIES, CONT. The Measure E Residents’ Oversight Committee roles and responsibilities will not include the following: Oversight on Enterprise and other funds generated independent of Measure E; Decision-making on spending priorities; Reviewing Enterprise and, except to the extent necessary for the General Fund, other funds generated independently of Measure E. MEETING DATE AND LOCATION The Measure E Residents’ Oversight Committee shall meet a minimum of four times a year, on a quarterly basis on the 3rd Monday in January, April, July, and October at 5:30 p.m. at City Hall Room 109. Additional meetings may be scheduled by the Committee at its discretion. For up-to-date meeting changes, please check Public Notices. CONTACT Jenny Haruyama, Administrative Services Director, (209) 831- 6160 or financedept@ci.tracy.ca.us   ATTACHMENT 3 B4 - 21 From the City of Grover Beach website:    Responsibilities   The Citizen Oversight Committee is a five‐member advisory committee whose task is to review an  annual report that is prepared by the City. This annual report includes a summary of expenditures from  revenue generated from the Transactions and Use Tax and budgeted expenditures for the upcoming  fiscal year.     The Committee is then required to provide a report regarding these expenditures to the City Council no  later than six months following the close of the fiscal year, which runs from July 1 to June 30 of the  following year.    The City Council has requested that the Committee meet more often than the minimum requirement of  once per year to have an opportunity to monitor the rate of revenue generated from the sales tax and  expenditures made in concurrence with the City's adopted annual expenditure plan. In the event of an  economic downturn or, conversely, if more revenue is generated than anticipated, the Committee’s  insight could prove helpful to the City Council.  ATTACHMENT 3 B4 - 22 B4 - 23 RESOLUTION NO . 10248 (2011 Series ) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MODIFYING IT S COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY SUPERSEDING PREVIOU S RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLIC T WHEREAS,the City of San Luis Obispo strives to provide excellent service to th e community at all times, and supports this standard by promoting organizational values includin g customer service, productivity, accountability, innovation, initiative, stewardship, and ethics ; an d WHEREAS,to achieve our service standards, the City must attract and retain wel l qualified employees who exemplify our organizational values ; an d WHEREAS,fostering an environment attractive to such employees depends upon man y factors, including a competitive compensation program . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Lui s Obispo that the City's compensation philosophy is adopted as follows : SECTION 1 .The City is committed to providing competitive compensation as part o f an overall strategy of attracting and retaining well qualified employees who exemplify ou r organizational values . SECTION 2 . The City will consider total compensation, including but not limited to , salary, health, retirement, and time off benefits . SECTION 3 .In evaluating competitive compensation, the City considers : A.Financial sustainability including the City's financial condition as reflecte d throughout the financial forecast, competing service priorities, maintenance needs, capita l improvement and other asset requirements, fund reserve levels, and revenue projections prior t o implementing changes in compensation . B.Community acceptability since taxpayers and ratepayers ultimately fund al l employee compensation . C.The "relevant labor market"that may vary depending upon classification and i s primarily defined by the geographic region (local, state-wide, or national) and key market s (municipal, other government agencies, private sector) where labor talent is found, recruite d from, and/or lost. When the relevant labor market is defined as "local"; local private sector compensation data wil l be considered along with local public sector compensation (municipal and other governmen t agencies . When the relevant labor market is statewide or national, the City will conside r compensation date for public sector agencies (municipal and other government) with severa l R 10248 ATTACHMENT 4 B4 - 24 Resolution No. 10248 (2011 Series ) Page 2 comparable demographic data points including but not limited to population, median home price , median household income, median age, median education level, services provided, an d unemployment rate . Quality of life should also be considered when selecting comparable municipal and other government agencies . D."Internal relationships"referring to the relative value of classifications to on e another as determined by the City . Classifications performing comparable duties, wit h comparable responsibilities, requiring a similar level of skill, knowledge, ability, and judgment , will be valued similarly in the City's compensation structures . E.Other relevant factors may include unforeseen economic changes, natura l disasters, states of emergency, changes in City services, and changes in regulatory or lega l requirements . SECTION 4 .At least every five years, the City will evaluate its compensation structure , programs, and policies to assess market competitiveness, effectiveness, and compliance with Stat e Law . Adjustments to the compensation structure may be made as a result of this periodi c evaluation and will be done through the collective bargaining process, if applicable, or othe r appropriate Council-management processes . Upon motion of Council Member Carter, seconded by Council Member Carpenter, and o n the following vote : AYES : Council Members Carpenter, Carter and Smith, and Mayor Mar x NOES : Vice Mayor Ashbaug h ABSENT : Non e The foregoing resolution was adopted on March 15, 2011 . ATTEST : Elaina Cano City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM : ATTACHMENT 4 B4 - 25 D A S H B OA R D Us i n g M e t r i c s t o D r i v e M i s s i o n S u c c e s s Se c o n d E d i t i o n La w r e n c e B u t l e r DASHBOARD Lawrence Butler Using Metrics to Drive Mission Success SecOnD eDitiOn the nonprofit ISBN 1-58686-125-5 Suite 650 750 9th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001-2521 202-349-2500 202-239-2599 Fax www.boardsource.org mail@boardsource.org th e n o n p r o f i t X000CU5HT3 The Nonprofit Dashboard: Us...ics to Drive Mission SuccessNew X000CU5HT3 The Nonprofit Dashboard: Us...ics to Drive Mission SuccessNew X000CU5HT3 The Nonprofit Dashboard: Us...ics to Drive Mission SuccessNew X000CU5HT3 The Nonprofit Dashboard: Us...ics to Drive Mission SuccessNew X000CU5HT3 The Nonprofit Dashboard: Us...ics to Drive Mission SuccessNew X000CU5HT3 The Nonprofit Dashboard: Us...ics to Drive Mission SuccessNew X000CU5HT3 The Nonprofit Dashboard: Us...ics to Drive Mission SuccessNew X000CU5HT3 The Nonprofit Dashboard: Us...ics to Drive Mission SuccessNew X000CU5HT3 The Nonprofit Dashboard: Us...ics to Drive Mission SuccessNew X000CU5HT3 The Nonprofit Dashboard: Us...ics to Drive Mission SuccessNew X000CU5HT3 The Nonprofit Dashboard: Us...ics to Drive Mission SuccessNew X000CU5HT3 The Nonprofit Dashboard: Us...ics to Drive Mission SuccessNew X000CU5HT3 The Nonprofit Dashboard: Us...ics to Drive Mission SuccessNew X000CU5HT3 The Nonprofit Dashboard: Us...ics to Drive Mission SuccessNew X000CU5HT3 The Nonprofit Dashboard: Us...ics to Drive Mission SuccessNew X000CU5HT3 The Nonprofit Dashboard: Us...ics to Drive Mission SuccessNew X000CU5HT3 The Nonprofit Dashboard: Us...ics to Drive Mission SuccessNew X000CU5HT3 The Nonprofit Dashboard: Us...ics to Drive Mission SuccessNew X000CU5HT3 The Nonprofit Dashboard: Us...ics to Drive Mission SuccessNew X000CU5HT3 The Nonprofit Dashboard: Us...ics to Drive Mission SuccessNew X000CU5HT3 The Nonprofit Dashboard: Us...ics to Drive Mission SuccessNew X000CU5HT3 The Nonprofit Dashboard: Us...ics to Drive Mission SuccessNew X000CU5HT3 The Nonprofit Dashboard: Us...ics to Drive Mission SuccessNew X000CU5HT3 The Nonprofit Dashboard: Us...ics to Drive Mission SuccessNew X000CU5HT3 The Nonprofit Dashboard: Us...ics to Drive Mission SuccessNew X000CU5HT3 The Nonprofit Dashboard: Us...ics to Drive Mission SuccessNew X000CU5HT3 The Nonprofit Dashboard: Us...ics to Drive Mission SuccessNew X000CU5HT3 The Nonprofit Dashboard: Us...ics to Drive Mission SuccessNew X000CU5HT3 The Nonprofit Dashboard: Us...ics to Drive Mission SuccessNew X000CU5HT3 The Nonprofit Dashboard: Us...ics to Drive Mission SuccessNew ATTACHMENT 5 B4 - 26 DASHBOARD Lawrence Butler Using Metrics to Drive Mission Success SECOND EDITION the nonprofit ATTACHMENT 5 B4 - 27 © 2012 BoardSource THE NONPROFIT DASHBOARD: Using Metrics to Drive Mission Success v CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Why Create a Dashboard? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 About This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Using the Bonus Dashboard Generator Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 CHAPTER 1 . UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF DASHBOARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 What Are Dashboards? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Results-Oriented Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Planning and Evaluation: Where Does a Dashboard Fit In? . . . . . . . . .6 CHAPTER 2 . DEFINING DASHBOARD METRICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Deciding What to Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Mission as Spine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Sending Mission Signals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Strategic Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Drivers of Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Risk Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Services and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Service Responsiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Service Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Resource Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Resource Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Determining Whether a Metric Is Governance or Management Related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 CHAPTER 3 . DESIGNING THE DASHBOARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Basic Styles of Dashboard Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Scorecard Dashboards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Graphic Dashboards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Digital Dashboards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Principles of Good Dashboard Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 Tailor to Organizational Needs: Make It Relevant . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 Consistent Formats: Make It Easy to Understand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 Priority Structuring: First Things First! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Comparative Context: Compared to What? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Brief Explanations: What’s the Point? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 Narrative Journeys: What’s the Story? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 Graphic Enhancement: What’s the Big Picture? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 ATTACHMENT 5 B4 - 28 vi THE NONPROFIT DASHBOARD: Using Metrics to Drive Mission Success © 2012 BoardSource Choosing Data Display Formats — Helpful Hints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 Left-to-Right Time Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 Pie Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 Stacked Columns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 Data Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 Line Charts vs . Side-by-Side Columns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 CHAPTER 4 . DERIVING MAXIMUM BENEFIT FROM YOUR DASHBOARDS . . . . . . . . .47 Ten Common Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 1 . Save time by reviewing highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 2 . Track progress toward goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 3 . Understand system dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 4 . Spot potential problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 5 . Identify patterns and anomalies among similar entities . . . . . . .50 6 . Identify patterns and anomalies among diverse factors . . . . . . . .50 7 . Expand board member comfort zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 8 . Bring all board members up to speed around a shared knowledge base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 9 . Maintain a governance perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 10 . Reinforce board oversight by linking to structure and process . .51 CHAPTER 5 . EMBARKING ON A DASHBOARD PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 Assessing the Board’s Readiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 Organizing the Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 Determining the Board’s Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 What about Timing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 Maintaining the Dashboard Reporting System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 Incorporating Dashboards into a System of Board Communications . .58 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 DASHBOARD GENERATOR INSTRUCTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 Using the Dashboard Generator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 Using the Data Tables Tab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 Using the Scorecard Dashboard Tab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 Using the Graphic Dashboard Tab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 Using What You’ve Created . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 SUGGESTED RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 Web sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71 ABOUT THE AUTHOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 ATTACHMENT 5 B4 - 29 © 2012 BoardSource THE NONPROFIT DASHBOARD: Using Metrics to Drive Mission Success 1 INTRODUCTION It’s been said that “if you don’t know where you’re going, any road will take you there.” But knowing the destination — even having a road map — while essential, is not enough. What if there were no road signs, speed and fuel gauges, and warning light indicators? No external signals to indicate progress along a chosen path and internal signals to keep the driver aware of the vehicle’s speed, condition, and performance? Like the instrument panel on the dashboard of an automobile, dashboard reports present a quick, comprehensible overview of an organization’s status and overall direction. Instead of speed, RPM, and engine temperature, the dashboard typically displays preselected, critical measures of organizational performance and mission effectiveness. With dashboard reports that present key indicators in consistent formats, board members can readily spot changes and trends in these measurements. And like the dashboard inside a car, these reports often display the equivalent of warning lights that only flare up when there is an impending problem or when certain variables stray outside of predetermined limits. WHY CREATE A DASHBOARD? Board members and senior staff may wonder why they need another report adding to the already overwhelming array of documents disseminated to the board in thick meeting binders, attached to e-mail messages, and on Web sites or intranets. What does a dashboard report give them that any number of other reporting formats don’t already accomplish? The answer, of course, is that governing boards do not need more reports or more information. What they do need is more meaning — and the dashboard report is one practical tool for conveying meaning directly and succinctly to hard-pressed board members. The dashboard report helps nonprofit leaders focus their attention on what matters most in their organizations, and, in doing so, gain greater insight and ascribe greater meaning to other available data. The learning opportunities gained from defining key performance indicators and tracking, reviewing, and evaluating them allows nonprofit leaders to improve and further fulfill the mission of their organizations. Learning is the major driver for this kind of information — why do it if not to learn from it, act upon it, and, ultimately, make better decisions about the organization’s future? ATTACHMENT 5 B4 - 30 2 THE NONPROFIT DASHBOARD: Using Metrics to Drive Mission Success © 2012 BoardSource At a time when governance has come under increased scrutiny by the media, regulatory agencies, and the public at large, the board’s ability to quickly access critical outcome and performance information is being encouraged as never before. More and more, the board’s information resources are being viewed as vital to effective governance — from general oversight and monitoring of performance, to raising red flags and making strategic decisions. And yet, board members claim that as they receive more data than they can handle, they continue to receive less meaningful information. Dashboards also provide a great opportunity for partnership between board and staff. Creating these reports is largely a staff-driven process in support of the board’s oversight role. The reports themselves help in maintaining both staff accountability and board focus on overall organizational performance rather than operational detail. There are at least 10 benefits that boards can gain from using dashboards (which I explore in greater detail in Chapter 4): 1. Save time by reviewing highlights. 2. Track progress toward goals. 3. Understand system dynamics. 4. Spot potential problems. 5. Identify patterns and anomalies among similar entities. 6. Identify patterns and anomalies among diverse factors. 7. Expand board member comfort zones. 8. Bring all board members up to speed around a shared knowledge base. 9. Maintain a governance perspective. 10. Reinforce board oversight by linking to structure and process. ABOUT THIS BOOK In updating the 2007 edition of this book, I recognize that this particular reporting format is no longer the novelty for nonprofit organizations it may have been five years ago. Dashboards, it seems, have caught on just about everywhere. Most notably, so-called “digital dashboards” have proliferated on the Web where the 24/7 accessibility and highly interactive nature of this medium enables users whenever and wherever to view the current dashboard and selectively click on hyperlinks, pop-ups, and drop-down menus to drill down to more detailed layers of data. ATTACHMENT 5 B4 - 31 © 2012 BoardSource THE NONPROFIT DASHBOARD: Using Metrics to Drive Mission Success 3 Digital dashboards permit huge amounts of data to be drawn from multiple sources and instantly pulled together in a high-level overview of the enterprise. What’s more, these data can be continuously updated. The savings in time and effort on the part of the user (not to mention the savings in paper and trees) is astonishing. And yet, as I considered how best to revise my earlier treatment of dashboards, I kept returning to one important reality: Most board members of nonprofit organizations are not senior managers of complex, multiproduct, multidivisional corporations for whom dashboards have become essential executive reporting and control tools. The needs of nonprofit board members have not changed in five years. Their fiduciary and governance responsibilities remain the same. They still need to understand how well their organizations are performing along key dimensions that are ultimately driven by mission, values, and institutional aspirations. So, other than the promise of greater accessibility and interactivity offered by digital dashboards, what has really changed for boards of trustees and other members of nonprofit governing boards? In my view, very little. The key to effective dashboards is what it has always been — knowing what to measure and why. To be sure, those organizations with the technical resources to develop digital dashboards for presentation online will be able to offer their boards the benefits of greater accessibility and interactivity; but they will not necessarily be able offer them greater insight and understanding. In this regard, even organizations that continue to use paper copies and three ring binders are capable of deriving the true benefits of dashboards — namely, the benefits of a thoughtful process of identifying what should be measured in order to better understand whether and to what degree the nonprofit enterprise is achieving its goals. Chapter 1 sets the stage by orienting those boards that are considering dashboards to help them better understand how this reporting technique fits within the context of effective governance practice and the cycle of program planning and evaluation. In Chapter 2, I tackle the central task of any dashboard development effort — determining what to measure. Toward that end, I suggest several ways boards in collaboration with staff might define the kinds of performance metrics that appear on the dashboard. Chapter 3 is intended primarily to help the board and staff to design dashboards that have real communicative power. In Chapter 4, I discuss how dashboards can be most effectively used in the context of board meetings and decision making. Finally, in Chapter 5, I describe a process that board and staff may undertake to develop an ongoing dashboard capability as part of a broader board information enhancement program. Remember: No two organizations are exactly alike. The information an organization chooses to display in a dashboard should reflect its own particular strategic plan, goals, and mission. Each organization that undertakes this process needs to pick and choose the key indicators, design format, and board-staff collaboration process that ATTACHMENT 5 B4 - 32 4 THE NONPROFIT DASHBOARD: Using Metrics to Drive Mission Success © 2012 BoardSource works best for its particular circumstances. This book is not intended to be a one- size-fits-all instruction book that gives a nonprofit an exact blueprint for developing, designing, and maintaining a dashboard reporting system. It does, however, present the options, offer detailed illustrations and considerations, and provide a template from which to start. USING THE BONUS DASHBOARD GENERATOR MATERIAL To help organizations get started with their own dashboard reports, the downloadable bonus material includes dashboard generator files, using Microsoft® Excel, with templates for creating customizable dashboards and how-to instructions for working with the files (also see the Dashboard Generator Instructions beginning on page 63). Also included in the bonus material is a survey for creating a baseline assessment of how the board views the kind of information it currently receives and the way in which it receives it. The information gathered is intended to help staff identify how it can communicate more effectively with the board and assist in developing the dashboard (see Chapter 5 for more detail). The bonus material may be found at: www.boardsource.org/downloadable_content/427/ Enter password dc_427_284 ATTACHMENT 5 B4 - 33 © 2012 BoardSource THE NONPROFIT DASHBOARD: Using Metrics to Drive Mission Success 5 CHAPTER 1 Understanding the Role of Dashboards Dashboards, like any report format, are limited in what they can accomplish. To provide meaning and insight, a dashboard report needs to be understood and used within the context of effective governance practice and organizational planning and evaluation. WHAT ARE DASHBOARDS? Dashboards are really nothing more than user-friendly tools for displaying performance measures. These measures, whether in the form of indicators, variables, or ratios, are not the end product of organizational or program evaluation but the top layer — the high-level view that points board and staff to where they might need to drill down into a more detailed, refined understanding of organizational and program effectiveness. They provide a learning opportunity for both board and staff: What is working well? What went wrong? How can the organization improve and further fulfill its mission? Dashboards are not only a powerful tool for staff to communicate important information to the board, but also for alerting staff to internal or external changes that could affect the way programs are administered. Again, dashboards contain several key indicators of organizational performance: measures that demonstrate progress toward a goal and warning lights that only turn on when there is a pending problem. This latter feature allows the board to ignore a great deal of operational information, knowing that it will be alerted if a problem arises that requires attention. But all the fuel gauges and warning lights in the world can’t possibly tell a driver if he or she is on the wrong road. So, there needs to be a methodical process of determining what a governing board really must know in order to gauge whether it is achieving its mission goals and strategic objectives. RESULTS-ORIENTED GOVERNANCE The connection between thorough planning and successful boards has been investigated and well established by governance experts. Dashboards may not seem, at first glance, to be crucial — but organizations have found that creating ATTACHMENT 5 B4 - 34 6 THE NONPROFIT DASHBOARD: Using Metrics to Drive Mission Success © 2012 BoardSource dashboards profoundly and directly affects performance. Indeed, in the BoardSource book The Source: Twelve Principles of Governance That Power Exceptional Boards, Principle 9 states: “Exceptional boards are results-oriented. They measure the organization’s advancement towards mission and evaluate the performance of major programs and services.”1 The book goes on to say that while most responsible boards monitor organizational performance by reviewing year-end financial reports and programmatic progress, truly exceptional boards measure overall efficiency, effectiveness, and impact. Board and staff need to agree on critical indicators that flow from the organization’s mission, vision, and strategic priorities in addition to consideration of the community’s needs, the work of comparable organizations, and the organization’s operating environment. Exceptional boards routinely monitor progress by investing in the thoughtful development of key indicators and in the organizational infrastructure to report on them. Together, board and staff use these indicators to identify early successes so they may be maximized and potential problems so they can be addressed before they escalate. PLANNING AND EVALUATION: WHERE DOES A DASHBOARD FIT IN? In The Nonprofit Board’s Role in Mission, Planning, and Evaluation, Second Edition, the connection between strategic planning and evaluation is very clear: Strategic planning allows the board to measure whether (or the extent to which) the organization has been effective in accomplishing its mission. It offers a road map and benchmarks to measure organizational effectiveness because the performance measurements identified through strategic planning are key indicators of organizational performance.2 The authors note that “many organizations do not include performance measures or evaluative components in their strategic plans, but some choose to do so to enhance the organization’s ability to successfully implement the plan.” For each strategic goal and accompanying objectives, the authors emphasize that the organization needs to define what success would look like if they were achieved. Or, to put it another way: “A strategic plan ultimately determines the design of an organization’s performance measures.” 1 The Source: Twelve Principles of Governance That Power Exceptional Boards. Washington, DC: BoardSource, 2005. 2 Grace, Kay Sprinkel, Amy McClellan and John A. Yankey. The Nonprofit Board’s Role in Mission, Planning, and Evaluation, Second Edition. Washington, DC: BoardSource, 2009. ATTACHMENT 5 B4 - 35 © 2012 BoardSource THE NONPROFIT DASHBOARD: Using Metrics to Drive Mission Success 7 Figure 1 below, adapted from The Nonprofit Board’s Role in Mission, Planning, and Evaluation (2009), portrays the ongoing, alternating sequence of planning and evaluation in the assessment of organizational effectiveness over time. Performance measurement is essential for each round of evaluation to take place. And it is within this performance measurement module that dashboards reside. Here, dashboard reporting can be seen as an integral part of the cycle of organizational or program evaluation and assessment. Figure 1 . Pro Gram PlanninG anD P erformance evaluaTion c ycle DASHBOARD PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT ASSESSING ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS PLANNING EVALUATION DASHBOARD PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT ASSEESSIN ORGANIZATIO EFFECTTIVEN EVALUATION PLANNING DASHBOARD PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT EVALUATION PLANNING ATTACHMENT 5 B4 - 36 © 2012 BoardSource THE NONPROFIT DASHBOARD: Using Metrics to Drive Mission Success 9 CHAPTER 2 Defining Dashboard Metrics If there is one key takeaway from this book, it is that the real value of dashboards is in the thinking and discussing that boards do before beginning to create the dashboard. It is in deciding what to measure — not what the dashboard looks like — that the whole exercise proves its value to the organization. Flashy graphic displays in a dashboard format that highlight issues of tactical or secondary consequence would only succeed in focusing the board’s attention on the wrong things. The goal is focusing the board’s attention on the right things. The reality is that there is no single set of right things to measure for every organization and for every board; each board must choose what’s best in light of its circumstances. Where an organization is in its lifecycle may have a lot to do with what the board considers important to measure. A founding board that is establishing a new organization may have a set of concerns related to institutional establishment, formation, and initial survival. The board of an organization with a deeper history may want to assess its impact on a clientele or population group. Issues of outcome may be the primary focus for those organizations whose purpose is the promotion of particular, definable changes in the behavior, condition, or status of a population. Organizations with more amorphous goals that are less easily assessed may choose to focus on the quality of their services and the satisfaction levels of those they serve. And, because all boards have clear fiduciary obligations regardless of their institutional purpose or lifecycle stage, there may well be a common set of measures that assure any board of the financial solvency and ongoing viability of the enterprise. ATTACHMENT 5 B4 - 37 10 THE NONPROFIT DASHBOARD: Using Metrics to Drive Mission Success © 2012 BoardSource DECIDING WHAT TO MEASURE So, how can boards go about choosing the key performance indicators that will be featured on its dashboard? Six approaches to defining dashboard metrics have proven to be useful: 1. Outcomes 2. Mission as spine 3. Strategic initiatives 4. Drivers of success 5. Risk factors 6. Services and resources These approaches are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive. Each offers a way to systematically identify performance indicators that are high-level in terms of their significance for institutional (or program) success, informative as to key aspects of organizational performance, and sensitive to critical changes, especially negative changes. Staff leadership, in collaboration with the board, should feel free to choose among these approaches and, if considered appropriate to their particular organizational experience and needs, combine features of these different approaches in moving toward a manageable set of meaningful dashboard metrics. OUTCOMES Any organization with a mission that aims to produce a societal benefit, especially one that seeks through specific programs to produce some sort of change in a defined population, needs to address the question of how it should measure its success by first defining the beneficial changes it seeks to achieve (outcomes). As the United Way of America Web site characterizes it: “Outcomes are not how many worms the bird feeds its young, but how well the fledgling flies.”3 Outcome measurement is the gold standard when it comes to defining dashboard metrics because it comes closest to measuring a program or institution’s ultimate effectiveness in pursuit of its mission. In Measuring Program Outcomes: A Practical Approach, United Way of America defines outcome measurement as the “regular systematic tracking of the extent to which program participants experience the benefits or changes intended.” Some examples of outcomes are new knowledge, increased skills, changed attitudes or values, improved condition, or altered status. 3 Measuring Program Outcomes: A Practical Approach. Alexandria, VA: United Way of America, 1996. ATTACHMENT 5 B4 - 38 © 2012 BoardSource THE NONPROFIT DASHBOARD: Using Metrics to Drive Mission Success 11 Increasingly, regulatory, accrediting, and funding agencies, as well as private foundations and individual donors, are insisting that governing boards of charitable and social service agencies and even institutions with more broadly defined health, educational, and cultural missions demonstrate that they have a disciplined process of outcome definition and measurement in place. Committing to outcome measurement requires a clear and robust “theory of change” to articulate the desired changes that result from the organization’s activities in relation to its audiences, clientele, or participants (see Suggested Resources for more information on the “theory of change”). Defining outcomes, however, can prove difficult in practice, especially for those organizations with broad missions. Even if a relatively amorphous outcome within, say, a population of homeless clients who are provided free meals — an outcome such as “lives saved through improved nourishment” — were measurable via follow- up tracking of these clients, it would be impossible to gauge precisely the extent to which that particular homeless shelter was responsible for that outcome. Fortunately, there are other program attributes that can be measured in the course of assessing an organization’s overall efficiency, productivity, fiscal responsibility, and operational effectiveness. While less definitive than outcomes, they can provide useful evaluative insights. In decreasing order of utility, they are • Outputs Outputs classify the direct products of program activities. For example: number of classes taught, number of counseling sessions conducted, number of educational materials distributed, hours of service delivered, or number of participants served. • Activities Activities describe what the program does with inputs to fulfill its mission. For instance: feed and shelter homeless families, provide job training, educate the public about signs of child abuse, counsel pregnant women, or create mentoring relationships for youth. • Inputs Inputs are defined by the resources that are dedicated to or consumed by the program, such as money, staff and staff time, volunteers and volunteer time, facilities, and equipment and supplies. In short, seek to define true outcomes. It is well worth making the effort, as doing so helps to clarify the organization’s purposes and sharpen its methods. If outcome measurement proves impossible, however, measure outputs, activities, and/or inputs. ATTACHMENT 5 B4 - 39 12 THE NONPROFIT DASHBOARD: Using Metrics to Drive Mission Success © 2012 BoardSource MISSION AS SPINE Another approach to defining dashboard metrics begins with the organization’s mission. Think of the mission as the spine of the enterprise — the essential, underlying framework of values and purpose that gives it shape and resiliency. By recasting the mission as a set of phrases that speak to the organization’s purposes, audiences (or populations served), methods, and desired outcomes, this set of phrases becomes the spine upon which relevant performance indicators can be hung. Even complex mission statements can be broken down and key mission themes identified. Figure 2 is an example of the mission as spine for a natural history museum. The mission statement happens to be a single sentence: “The Sample Museum of Natural History tells the story of our planet and its inhabitants to families and students of all ages through artifacts, specimens, and programs that reveal the process of scientific research and discovery, leading to an appreciation of how scientists answer current questions while raising new ones.” When broken into its component phrases, it becomes possible to define performance indicators and metrics that speak to the institution’s success at fulfilling its mission imperatives of purpose, audience, methods, and outcomes. Figure 2 . l inkinG Performance inDicaTorS To a m iSSion ST aTemenT Mission Statement Purpose Audience Methods Outcomes The Sample Museum of Natural History tells the story of our planet and its inhabitants... to families and students of all ages... through artifacts, specimens, and programs that reveal the process of scientific research and discovery... leading to an appreciation of how scientists answer current questions while raising new ones. Performance Indicators Number of exhibits and programs that use stories and engaging narratives. Diversity of human cultures and other living species featured in these stories. Percentage of admissions, memberships, and other participants who are families and students, by age. Involvement of scientists in presenting their research agenda/ results. Use of collection of specimens and artifacts for educational purposes. Visitor responses re: lessons learned about the scientific method of inquiry and before/after appreciation of scientific research. ATTACHMENT 5 B4 - 40 © 2012 BoardSource THE NONPROFIT DASHBOARD: Using Metrics to Drive Mission Success 13 Even if their mission statements aren’t as specific or concise as this one, most organizations should be able to address each of these four mission imperatives. If not found in the actual mission statement, the pertinent language typically exists in fundraising and marketing materials. And if the information is not there, then the effort of creating dashboard reports built upon a mission spine can itself be the catalyst for bringing clarity to the organization’s mission. SENDING MISSION SIGNALS The board’s understanding of institutional mission creates a set of predispositions and sensitivities that works like a spotlight shining across a vast information landscape, picking out particular issues for special attention and closer scrutiny. The signals the board sends by aiming that spotlight in certain directions rather than others can be especially powerful in guiding the enterprise toward its mission objectives. In this sense, dashboards are as much about the board informing the organization regarding what it considers of fundamental mission significance, as it is about the staff informing the board about the organization’s condition and performance. The board should try to make broadly stated values and mission more specific and thus more helpful in shaping the performance metrics it receives and, more importantly, the decision making that flows from those metrics. When the board is more specific in defining the terms and expressions that tend to be fuzzy and open to diverse interpretation, it helps make these critically important concepts actionable in the life of the organization. For example, when a college’s board states a commitment to “diversity,” what does that really mean? Greater specificity around “diversity” might achieved by establishing student mix target levels against which the actual student profile is periodically compared. How can the board begin to identify the core values and mission of the institution? Governing boards have a special obligation to draw upon primal sources of inspiration and commitment as a way of continually energizing their institutions. The means by which the board explores this realm of values and mission can vary. During one or more dedicated retreats, for example, the board might review a timeline of key historical events and achievements, share personal stories or discuss the institution’s traditions and the values of founders and sponsors. Through visioning exercises the board might articulate possible future manifestations of a historical mission and traditional values. All of these techniques can get help clarify mission and values that offer real guidance as to appropriate performance metrics. ATTACHMENT 5 B4 - 41 14 THE NONPROFIT DASHBOARD: Using Metrics to Drive Mission Success © 2012 BoardSource STRATEGIC INITIATIVES Strategy can be made far more complicated than it needs to be. In its book Strategic Decision Making: Key Questions and Indicators for Trustees, the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges defines strategy for purposes of this discussion: Strategic issues are... associated with effectiveness in... the few areas which are critical to the success of the institution. The key... for most organizations is to focus their most limited resources — the time of trustees and top administrators — on those issues which really make the difference between success and failure.4 When the board, in collaboration with the chief executive and staff, has compiled the set of strategic issues deemed most relevant to the organization, the question arises as to how to translate a concern about any one of these issues into a means of assessing the organization’s effectiveness, performance, or status in relation to that issue. This process of translating concern about a strategic issue into a dashboard indicator is illustrated in Figure 3. In this case, a college’s board is concerned about how a declining applicant pool might affect the institution’s ability to maintain its selectivity standards. 4 Frances, Carol, et al. Strategic Decision Making: Key Questions and Indicators for Trustees. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 1987. ATTACHMENT 5 B4 - 42 © 2012 BoardSource THE NONPROFIT DASHBOARD: Using Metrics to Drive Mission Success 15 Figure 3 . linkinG key inDica T orS T o a STraT eG ic i SSue This example presents several ways the board might understand the interplay between, say, a decreasing applicant pool and the desire to increase selectivity (by admitting more capable students). In this instance, they may want to use a combination of different types of indicators — some quantitative (popularity and admission drawing power indices) and some qualitative (surveys and image studies). STRATEGIC ISSUE: INFLUENCING THE SELECTIVITY OF THE INSTITUTION Questions Key Indicators What is the image of the institution?• Self-selection among applicants How popular is the institution among potential students? • Popularity index (number of applicants per matriculants freshmen or transfers) How strong is the drawing power of the institution on students who have applied? • Admission drawing power index (matriculants as percentage of admitted freshmen and transfers) • Surveys of students who decline admission How successful is the institution in retaining students through graduation? • Retention index (percentage of freshmen who graduate) What would be the impact on the applicant pool of changing student selectivity? • Projected number of qualified applicants based on SAT or ACT cutoff scores What would be the impact on incoming student quality of more (or fewer) matriculants? • Projected SATs or ACTs of students based on different enrollments Will the image of the institution help or hinder the recruitment of desired students? • Image studies among potential and random students How effective are the institution’s recruitment materials and plans in stimulating applications and matriculations? • Communications audits of recruitment materials and plans Adapted from Strategic Decision Making: Key Questions and Indicators for Trustees by Carol Frances et al. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 1987. ATTACHMENT 5 B4 - 43 16 THE NONPROFIT DASHBOARD: Using Metrics to Drive Mission Success © 2012 BoardSource The precise number and combination of indicators needed to ensure effective monitoring of any particular issue will vary with each board’s level of concern and the institution’s capacity to produce or acquire the requisite information. If a strategic plan already exists, the major strategic themes, directions, or initiatives identified in the plan can and most likely should define the dashboard metrics. For example, a museum defined a set of dashboard performance indicators based on the strategic initiatives in its strategic plan, as shown in Figure 4. In the absence of a strategic plan, identifying appropriate dashboard measures will be a challenging effort and may as a result make the creation of a strategic plan a priority for the organization. At minimum, identifying appropriate dashboard measures can help to shape and inform important aspects of an upcoming strategic plan. Figure 4 . linkin G Performance i nDicaTorS To ST ra TeG ic iniTiaT ive GoalS Strategic Initiative Goal Performance Indicator Build support for the museum. Increase attendance by 10% per year. Build membership by 10% per year and move 20% of renewals to higher levels. Year-to-year changes in attendance Year-to-year changes in total membership and individual categories Cultivate more diverse audiences. Build a more diverse staff and board. Attract new audiences and encourage repeat visitation. Demographic characteristics and trends on board and staff composition Visitation by target audiences Make the museum a forum for different perspectives. Schedule exhibits and programs that present different views on timely topics. Encourage visitors to share their perspectives with other visitors and with museum staff. Presence of visitors interests/viewpoints in exhibits and programs Use of visitor feedback in newsletter ATTACHMENT 5 B4 - 44 © 2012 BoardSource THE NONPROFIT DASHBOARD: Using Metrics to Drive Mission Success 17 DRIVERS OF SUCCESS An organization may already have identified a set of outcomes, goals, or intermediary activities deemed essential for fulfilling its mission. How best to measure and monitor these drivers of success (sometimes called key performance indicators — KPIs — or critical success factors) would then become the organizing principle of the dashboard design process. An internship organization (see Figure 5) took this approach by deciding that its effectiveness was largely determined by: a) maximizing the number of placement matches achieved and b) the number of weeks worked by each intern (or “Associate”); and c) minimizing the number of work experiences cut short for various reasons (“Early Ends”). In light of these drivers of success, they designed a dashboard report featuring them. RISK FACTORS The board and senior staff may wish to adopt a more defensive posture and identify those worst-case situations that constitute grave threats to institutional survival or, at least, risk factors negatively affecting organizational success. Indicators of campus security at a college, for example, might call for close monitoring of incidents by frequency and type, not merely because of the liability implications but because of the inordinate damage that even a single unforeseen incident might cause to the institution’s image and appeal to prospective students and their parents. The kinds of risk factors that a board might choose to track, in addition to security and safety issues, include the number and status of pending lawsuits related to employment discrimination, sexual harassment and the like, negative accreditation or regulatory agency findings, and financial risk indicators such as the prospect of default on debt obligations. One way to identify those risk factors of greatest concern to the board is to ask the members what keeps them awake at night. What would you as a board member least want to be surprised to read about their organization in tomorrow morning’s newspaper? And what would they need to track in a dashboard report that would provide the necessary reassurance against such an eventuality? SERVICES AND RESOURCES Another more generic approach to dashboard design is depicted in Figure 6 as a 2x2 matrix. It uses four broad categories related to the institution’s services and resources viewed from both an internal and external perspective: internally, service quality and resource management; externally, service responsiveness, and resource acquisition. Placing mission at the center overlapping all four quadrants makes the point that performance measures for each quadrant would be shaped by mission considerations. ATTACHMENT 5 B4 - 45 18 THE NONPROFIT DASHBOARD: Using Metrics to Drive Mission Success © 2012 BoardSource PR O D U C T I V I T Y AS S O C I A T E WE E K S W O R K E D P E R E E TH R O U G H 6 / 3 0 / 1 2 95 . 6 $2 3 1 . 9 8 9 2, 9 6 3 $7 , 1 9 1 , 6 6 4 RE V E N U E PE R E M P L O Y E E TH R O U G H 6 / 3 0 / 1 2 AS S O C I A T E WE E K S W O R K E D TH R O U G H 6 / 3 0 / 1 2 RE V E N U E TH R O U G H 6 / 3 0 / 1 2 PR O J E C T A D V I S O R S * 20 1 1 92 R E P E A T PR O J E C T A D V I S O R S 18 7 N E W PR O J E C T A D V I S O R S 20 1 2 G O A L : 5 0 % N E W , 5 0 % R E P E A T * CO M P A R I N G 2 0 1 2 T O 2 0 1 1 67 % 33 % CO R P O R AT E 5 4 3 2 0 NO N P R O F I T / G R A N T 62 45 44 48 27 ST A T E / L O C A L G O V ’ T 25 45 29 25 10 PW S 0 0 3 6 30 NO A A 5 19 15 34 21 US G S 90 62 15 30 27 BL M 83 10 9 11 5 14 1 10 9 EP A 23 9 23 3 26 9 24 2 14 9 OT H E R F E D E R A L G O V ’ T 17 23 56 7 10 0 10 0 20 0 30 0 40 0 50 0 60 0 24 . 7 25 . 6 13.515.02012 GOAL, 20 WEEKS 7.7 30 20 10 0 WE E K S AV E R A G E W E E K S W O R K E D P E R A S S O C I A T E ** ** BA S E D O N S T A R T D A T E A N D S C H E D U L E D E N D D A T E 20 0 8 20 0 9 20102011THRU 6/30/12 EA R L Y EN D S NA EA R L Y EN D S NA EA R L Y EN D S NA EARLY ENDS 2011 UNUSED WEEKS DUE TO EARLY ENDS:342 TO BE REPLACED BY NEW ASSOCIATES.TOTAL PROJECTS 132 47383535 54 9 54 0 52 6 60 0 50 0 40 0 30 0 20 0 10 0 0 20 0 8 EA R L Y E N D S ** * ** * T E R M I N A T I O N D A T E P R E C E D E D S C H E D U L E D E N D D A T E 20 0 9 2 0 1 0 2011THRU 6/30/12 20 0 82 00 92 01 0 2 0 1 1 TH R U 6 / 3 0 / 1 2 52 6 54 0 54 9 53 5 38 3 WE E K S TO TA L W E E K S W O R K E D * * NE W A S S O C I A T E S D U R I N G T H E C A L E N D A R Y E A R . 12 , 0 0 0 10 , 0 0 0 8, 0 0 0 6, 0 0 0 4, 0 0 0 2, 0 0 0 0 10 , 2 1 3 20 0 8 9, 7 8 8 20 0 9 9,674 20109,784 20112,963 THRU 6/30/12 AS S O C I A T E S SP O N S O R S NE W A S S O C I A T E S BY S P O N S O R Fi g u r e 5 . a D aSh b o a r D r ef l e c Tin G D ri v e r S of S u c c e SS SA M P L E I N T E R N S H I P P R O G R A M PR O G R A M P E R F O R M A N C E R E P O R T 20 0 8 - 6 / 3 0 / 1 2 ATTACHMENT 5 B4 - 46 © 2012 BoardSource THE NONPROFIT DASHBOARD: Using Metrics to Drive Mission Success 19 Figure 6 . T he S ervice–reS ource m aTrix MISSION RESOURCE ACQUISITION RESOURCE MANAGEMENT EXTERNAL INTERNAL EXTERNAL INTERNAL SERVICES RESOURCES SERVICES RESOURCES SERVICE RESPONSIVENESS SERVICE QUALITY S ervice r eSPonSivene SS In responding to the needs of the community, is the organization providing an appropriate mix of services? Service responsiveness might be gauged by client satisfaction scores, student retention rates, or trends in numbers of clients served. A dashboard report that highlights such indicators might not directly measure the services needed in a population, but could help the board understand the degree to which existing services are responsive to existing needs. For example, a museum’s mission that calls for enhancing appreciation of the cultural traditions of a particular ethnic community might require continuous tracking of pre- and post-visit perceptions of museum visitors with regard to that ethnic community. S ervice Q ualiTy Are services being provided at an acceptable level of quality — acceptable to both the public and to the organization itself? Service quality indicators might include measures of repeat business, complaints, or referrals. Or indicators might explicitly gauge mission accomplishment or outcomes. For example, a nonprofit that stresses the highest standards in service delivery may monitor the quality of its services by sending out client surveys on a regular basis. ATTACHMENT 5 B4 - 47 20 THE NONPROFIT DASHBOARD: Using Metrics to Drive Mission Success © 2012 BoardSource r eS ource acQuiS iTion How effectively is the organization acquiring the necessary resources? This may cover financial resources (e.g., donations, endowment value) as well as human resources (e.g., filling of key staff vacancies). For instance, a summer camp’s mission to reach out to the underprivileged may require the organization to monitor fundraising for scholarships and other forms of support for disadvantaged children. r eS ource manaG emenT Is the organization managing its resources with proper stewardship? Is it efficient in its use of financial resources and fair in its dealings with constituents? These could include a whole range of financial indicators that speak to operational efficiency, budget adherence, and so forth. In the human resources realm, measures such as staff turnover could be monitored. For example, a hospital’s mission that highlights the values of human dignity as well as fiscal integrity might call for monitoring of its debt collection procedures to ensure they are both humane and effective, for example, by setting reasonable collection periods and using a sliding payment scale. Once defined (using some of the methods mentioned above under “Mission as Spine”), these mission imperatives can be translated into performance metrics by using mission as a lens to focus in on the answers to the foregoing questions of: Service Responsiveness, Service Quality, Resource Acquisition, and Resource Management. The 2x2 matrix can also be used as an initial sorting mechanism for reviewing information currently flowing to the board. Mission and values can then be used to prioritize and refine the information in each quadrant. DETERMINING WHETHER A METRIC IS GOVERNANCE OR MANAGEMENT RELATED Because dashboards are merely formats for reporting key performance indicators, they are not the exclusive tools of governing boards. Administrative staff need to monitor the same metrics and doing so via dashboard displays is entirely appropriate. Indeed, were it not for the popularity of executive dashboards in the management realm, the whole notion of applying the concept at the governance level would probably not have gained such traction in recent years. While conceptually similar to governance dashboards, however, executive and other management-oriented dashboards tend to differ in their focus on the performance of organizational units in addition to the performance of the overall enterprise. And while online, digital dashboards (to be discussed in the next chapter) enable board members to drill down via hyperlinks to greater levels of detail, dashboards that are specifically intended for staff use typically begin with a more detailed, operational perspective than do those specifically designed for board use. ATTACHMENT 5 B4 - 48 © 2012 BoardSource THE NONPROFIT DASHBOARD: Using Metrics to Drive Mission Success 21 So, where does governance information end and management information begin? There are, of course, no strict rules, as any board at any time might well determine that it should receive data normally distributed to management. Board committees often require more detailed reports in their respective areas of interest. But here are eight questions that a board might want to ask about a particular item of information or dashboard metric to determine its appropriateness for governance as distinct from management use. 1 . Board’s Special Duties Will this help the board do those things that the board is ultimately responsible for — e.g., fiduciary oversight, selecting its own members, evaluating its own and CEO’s performance, high-level fundraising, set and ensure adherence to policy, meeting local, state, and federal legal obligations? 2 . Progress toward Goals/Outcomes Will this tell us how, as an institution, we’re doing in achieving our enterprise goals or desired outcomes? 3 . Best Practice Insights Will this tell us the best practices for achieving desired outcomes — e.g., most effective interventions and ways to leverage our resources? 4 . Risk Warning Will this apprise the board of a critical or high-risk problem in time to take corrective action? 5 . Comparative Context Will this tell us where our enterprise stands relative to others that are striving to solve the same problems, competing with us for similar resources, or that might be potential allies in a common cause? 6 . Completeness Is this premature or partial information that could be misleading? 7 . Accountability Will this cause the board to substitute its judgment for that of staff thereby compromising the board’s desire to instill accountability or need to assess staff performance? 8 . Level of Detail Is this being reported at a level of detail that invites micro-management, misuses the board’s scarce time, and/or masks the meaning or significance of the data? ATTACHMENT 5 B4 - 49 22 THE NONPROFIT DASHBOARD: Using Metrics to Drive Mission Success © 2012 BoardSource To further assist gauging where on a governance-management continuum an item of information might reside, Figure 7 offers some examples (in each of the four Service/ Resource categories referred to earlier) of different kinds of information located along this continuum. The range shaded in gray suggests an intermediate zone that might be deemed either governance or management-related. Figure 7 . Governance–manaGemenT informaTion M A N A G E M E N T G O V E R N A N C E Service Responsiveness Service Quality Resource Acquisition Resource Management Overall impact on target audience(s) Progress toward strategic outreach goals Major initiatives and effectiveness of peer institution(s) Interim milestones for specific program Operational details of programs Pending lawsuits Sexual harrassment, racial and safety incidents Progress toward quality goals Constituency feed- back survey results Interim results of quality studies Operational details of programs Progress toward development/fund- raising goals Board’s fundraising effectiveness Comparative pricing studies (tuition, fees etc.) Proposals from vendors Operational details of programs, events Actual performance vs. budget Auditor’s report on financial operations Comparative analysis of investment returns Key staff turnover and vacancies Comparative salary and overhead studies Staff recruitment activities One of the benefits of periodically asking these questions about what constitutes appropriate information to be included in a governance dashboard is that doing so can help to clarify the working relationship between the board and the CEO/staff. Developing a mutual understanding in advance as to what kinds of information the board expects and does not expect on a routine basis removes the sometimes contentious matter of performance measurement from the realm of the ad hoc, ad hominem, and anecdotal. Because a well-designed dashboard requires mutual agreement as to performance indicators, it can create a kind of “buffer zone” between governance and management. In effect, through the dashboard the board agrees to refrain from micromanagement and staff assures the board that key performance indicators are tracked, reported, and explained. ATTACHMENT 5 B4 - 50 Ex a m p l e s  of  Fi n a n c i a l  Tr a c k i n g  Da s h b o a r d s  fr o m  Ot h e r  Ci t i e s                     Ex a m p l e  1:  Ci t y  of  Wi l l i a m s b u r g ,  VA ,  ht t p : / / d a s h b o a r d . w i l l i a m s b u r g v a . g o v /     Th i s  da s h b o a r d  is  us e d  to  tr a c k  ke y  re v e n u e  so u r c e s  as  we l l  as  ot h e r  fi n a n c i a l  an d  ci t y  pe r f o r m a n c e  me t r i c s .  Ve n d o r :  Em G o v      ATTACHMENT 5 B4 - 51 Ex a m p l e  2:  Ci t y  of  Pa l o  Al t o ,  CA ,  ht t p s : / / p a l o a l t o . o p e n g o v . c o m /     Th i s  da s h b o a r d  pr o v i d e s  tr a c k i n g  an d  de t a i l s  fo r  th e  en t i r e  ci t y  bu d g e t  an d  al l o w s  us e r s  to  ex p o r t  th e  da t a .  Ve n d o r :  Op e n G o v      ATTACHMENT 5 B4 - 52  Ex a m p l e  3:  Ci t y  of  Oa k l a n d ,  CA ,  ht t p : / / o p e n b u d g e t o a k l a n d . o r g /     Th i s  da s h b o a r d  vi s u a l i z e s  th e  ci t y  bu d g e t  by  co l o r e d  sq u a r e s  fo r  in d i v i d u a l  fu n d s  an d  ex p e n s e s  si z e d  to  re f l e c t  th e i r  po r t i o n  of the entire budget.  Th i s  to o l  wa s  de v e l o p e d  by  co m m u n i t y  vo l u n t e e r s .      ATTACHMENT 5 B4 - 53 Ex a m p l e  #4 :  Ci t y  of  Ft .  Co l l i n s ,  CO ,  ht t p : / / w w w . f c g o v . c o m / o p e n b o o k /     Th i s  da s h b o a r d  pr o v i d e s  ac c e s s  to  al l  of  th e  fi n a n c i a l  tr a n s a c t i o n s  of  th e  ci t y  th r o u g h  an  ac c o u n t  le d g e r  st y l e  in t e r f a c e .  Th i s  tool was developed  by  ci t y  st a f f .      ATTACHMENT 5 B4 - 54 Example 5: City of Grand Rapids, MI, https://accessmygov.com/MunicipalDashboard/FinancialData?uid=115 This dashboard provides a variety of financial information in several formats. Vendor: BS&A Software AT T A C H M E N T 5 B4 - 55 Page intentionally left blank. B4 - 56 -9 STUDENT GOVERNMENT Memorandum TO: Jan Marx Mayor, San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo City Council Members FROM: Jason Colombini 2013 -14 AS] President./ Jai Sullivan 'I 2014 -15 ASI Presid TVFf D i MAY 20 2014 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Data / ltam #�L-- DATE: 5/19/2014 COPIES: M. Maloney M. Crawford SUBJECT: Inclusion of Cal Poly Student on Measure Y Advisory Committee As the outgoing ASI President and President - elect, we are requesting that you consider appointing a minimum of one Cal Poly student as a voting member of the Measure Y Advisory Committee. Cal Poly students currently and will always have a vested interest in the city of San Luis Obispo and its economic growth. In turn, the city and community also have a vested interest in Cal Poly students, their academic success, and their ability to contribute to the thriving community of San Luis Obispo. This interest stems from the large portion of sales in the city that are derived from students and their visiting families. With the upcoming vote regarding the decision to put the reauthorization of Measure Y on the ballot, ASI Student Government at Cal Poly found it necessary to become educated on the issue. After an extensive presentation regarding city government structure and the Y2 cent tax, we were informed of the existence of advisory bodies within the city that provide insight on various issues. As noted in one of the previous discussions within the City Council, it may be beneficial for the city to establish a specific advisory board that would assist in determining where the revenue from Measure Y would be allocated, should reauthorization occur. Since the city and Cal Poly students are economically interdependent, it seems fitting that students be involved in the decision making process. In the spirit of shared leadership, we believe that the presence of a student during the discussions could add valuable insight into various topics that may arise during the allocation of Measure Y funds. We understand that the vote to determine if the tax will be present on the ballot has yet to take place; however, we urge you to consider the possibility of extending membership of this potential advisory board to a Cal Poly student as you consider placing Measure Y on the ballot. COUNCIL MEETING: ITEM NQ. Soom1°Iteo 10,1 S•tvf- -E�ara,'br, " GbD b d p v b G p Td G s. v N f�. "� yy �] v c v vCj °. y G N v n a v > y o �. v° ti G° d cd cyd U O O b V p 23 cd m O v d G G v o F o o °`" ° u d x 3 a G -� v ro� a U C 3 O C v cd G cd U G z b4 bG4 a W y O v v bio c4 .� F v Z L' w b G A O G \> U G w p, u v G G R �, v L w cd p ° vUi s �Gd O O �v O Un U p w v U x G v 'U d p 3/n \ O G. p U �" O G O w w p v ,, b y p C1 z N O U ti O C G a u u G G c9 O `J o z W 'd v v d v a y .� cd U Ca g Fu G z O y p Z y D" E" E- y wa 'O v G G w o O U w hip cd '� z cd p v G' G7 `'o O CL v v v ai O, % d u " :� G��Lcaomz U�".� v a p .b N to �. vvti ��� � � >o N v Go v u G o U bGu ra -cp bv o G z t X h > n W w N G .94 G ° cd � o U o �a� a o° aH ti w p �' �.— ° iN V 0 O O v u) +• U c 4 O G v m O b z - o O cl > '� G v U w ;; cd o b .� an G o p bra -o v v ° O a o �-4 cd v O v G v G G 'C .. > G. z 0 cd cd U p ° z G ` Z o o G v z u+ o v G cd U O + V G O 1. -d ° cd 4. N N �� v w n bA O G o° z G° (D bA U v i :� , C p cam, U u1 i G -d O bA bA O c: O v a m" U �: w w G1 id " t'. b G _ cq v ' G c, O b Cl UD OU °U N 2. p y vUi z O i° M v O U, .> U O z Q a cd d ruin 0 0 5 I+" p a v. m 0 G �. cd � o O > z ^C U cL~d U i 2 v r, cd 'd cd v w° h cl H z •� G W bA L o� U O Z o Z bA p u O -C G d Oul O G. c ° C +``° z U w `; G � '� °° z y w " Qer G '2 d N m o - 0 bv A = x > N z U O �; v A - z O F G w °O O O• 5 ° U v C° Q U u U w U p a a G oco-d ° G aCum; vaba a - ii i. °G' �~ r4 gq0 G C 47 v° .° G .vi a .° 0 O d ° A.+�• Un CIS v v v v v v Council Memorandum May 19, 2014 TO: City Council FROM: Michael Codron, Assistant City Manager VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager SUBJECT: Item 134: LUCE Survey Results } W, Ay 19 2014 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE ]ate 2. al0 I - Item # �') _ Staff received a request to highlight the results of the LUCE survey for Council as it considers potential ballot measure language for the extension of the Essential Services Sales and Use Tax (Measure Y). Attached to this memo is the document that summarizes the survey methodology and responses. The survey can also be found online at www.slo2035.org. w T: \Council Agenda Reports\2014 \2014 -05 -20 \Ballot Measure Check In (Codron) \memo.docx -10 (ION O &%n tLl 13 0R11;tX71 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Survey Overview The City of San Luis Obispo conducted a survey of its residents and businesses to gauge their opinions of overall quality of life and future development as part of the update of the City's Land Use and Circulation Elements. The survey was distributed to more than 25,000 residents and businesses via utility bill inserts and direct mail. It was also made available online. It was completed by 2,029 people via return mail and 169 people online, for a total of 2,198 respondents — nearly four times the number of respondents that would have been necessary for a statistically valid telephone survey. This was also a substantially higher sample size than achieved in the 1988 survey, which had 585 respondents. Mail and online surveys are not considered statistically valid as they are "self- selected" — people choose to participate based on their own desire to share their opinions. The City Council opted for this course of action so that any and all residents and businesses would have an opportunity to participate in the effort. Given the enthusiastic responses, we believe this is a good indicator of the opinions of San Luis Obispo residents and business owners. Survey Questions The questions were based on a survey conducted by the City in 1988 and included five major topic areas: 1. ' Overall Quality of Life 2. City Growth and Relationship to the Region 3. Form of Development 4. Public Facilities and Services 5. Basic Demographic Information Summary An overview of the final result from the 2012 survey is provided on the following pages. For questions that are similar to those in the community survey conducted in 1988, a comparison of the results is also provided. For questions in the 2012 survey that allowed respondents to write in a response, these are summarized in the main report. A complete listing of responses is provided in the appendix. September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 1 San Luis Obispo General Plan Update 91 Quality of Life How would you rate the overall Quality of Life in San Luis Obispo? Approximately 81% of respondents rated the quality of life as "high" with less than 2% rating it as "low ". That's a higher number than the 1988 survey, which had 76% of respondents choosing "high" and less than 1% choosing "low ". How would you rate the overall quality of life in San Luis Obispo? IIm ice; Figure 1. Quality of Life, San Luis Obispo 2012 When asked to identify San Luis Obispo's greatest problem, respondent's top choices were the homeless (19 %), traffic (10 %), lack of jobs (9 %), and affordable housing (9 %). Downtown parking and congestion was cited by 8 %. Many expressed concerns about future growth and development. This shows a shift from 1988 responses more than doubling the percentage of people who cited homeless issues as the City's greatest problem. Concerns about traffic actually went down from 1988 though it remains one of the top concerns. The survey also shows the shift in the job market with concerns about available jobs more than doubling. Page 2 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey September 2012 2012 Community Survey Table 1. Greatest Problems Identified, San Luis Obispo 2012 Homeless 19% 347 Traffic 10% 180 Jobs 9% 166 Housing 9% 166 Downtown 8% 144 Growth 4% 85 Business 3% 70 Cost of Living 3% 68 Streets 3% 67 Development 2% 44 Neighborhoods 2% 40 Quality 2% 39 Government 2% 38 Water 2% 36 Police 1% 33 Cal Poly 1% 23 City Council 1% 19 Big Box Stores 1% 19 Planning 1% 19 Shopping 1% 19 Regulation 1% 18 When asked about the City's greatest strength, the natural setting took most of the top spots as it had in the 1988 survey. Table 2. Greatest Strengths Identified, San Luis Obispo 2012 Weather 12% 221 Beauty 12% 220 Location 8% 147 Community 8% 144 Open Space 7% 133 Downtown 7% 133 Climate 6% 106 Small Town 5% 87 Quality of Life 3% 61 Cal Poly 3% 58 Culture 1% 31 Clean Air 1% 30 Natural Environment 1% 29 SLO 1% 23 Citizens 1% 23 Low Crime 1% 2 September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 3 lei San Luis Obispo General Plan Update Listed below are several aspects of "quality of life" in San Luis Obispo. On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being LEAST important and 5 being MOST important, respondents rated natural environment and crime as having the highest impact on quality of life - echoing the sentiments expressed by 1988 respondents. Table 3. Quality of Life Aspects Identified, San Luis Obispo 2012 Natural environment (air quality, 2 2.1% 1 1.4% 5 5.5% 1 19.9% 7 71.1% 2,011 open space) ( (42) ( (29) ( (110) ( (401) ( (1,429) Transportation choices - bus service, 2.4% 8.9% 22.1% 31.5% 35.2% Y p ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 2,008 bicycle and pedestrian facilities 49 178 443 632 706 Housing opportunities (cost and 3.2% 7.9% 24.2% 29.3% 35.3% 2,005 choice of types) (65) (159) (485) (588) (708) Cultural diversity (people with 5.3% 16.3% 31.3% 28.0% 19.1% g ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( 2,004 ff dierent backgrounds and interests 106 327 628 561 382 ) 3.2% 6.9% 19.4% 33.6% 36.9% Downtown character and activities 2,008 (64) (139) (390) (674) (741) Property maintenance (upkeep, 2.5% 6.3% 20.0% 34.8% 36.4% junk /litter control) (51) (126) (402) (698) (731) 2,008 Access to healthy foods - fresh 2.2% 5.9% 16.8% 29.5% 45.5% 2,001 produce and supermarkets (44) (119) (337) (590) (911) Next, respondents were asked to indicate how satisfied they were with the current conditions of each area with 5 being MOST satisfied. Overall satisfaction was high but respondents indicated concern with job opportunities, housing, and cultural diversity. Jobs and housing were also cited as areas with "dissatisfaction" in the 1988 survey. Page 4 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey September 2012 Next, respondents were asked to indicate how satisfied they were with the current conditions of each area with 5 being MOST satisfied. Overall satisfaction was high but respondents indicated concern with job opportunities, housing, and cultural diversity. Jobs and housing were also cited as areas with "dissatisfaction" in the 1988 survey. Page 4 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey September 2012 Table 4. Current Conditions Satisfaction, San Luis Obispo 2012 Natural environment (air quality, open space) Job opportunities Recreation opportunities Entertainment opportunities Educational opportunities Shopping opportunities Pace of life Crime levels Opportunities to participate in government decisions Traffic Safety and Congestion Management (local travel and parking) Transportation choices - bus service, bicycle and pedestrian facilities Housing opportunities (cost and choice of types) Cultural diversity (people with different backgrounds and interests) Downtown character and activities Property maintenance (upkeep, junk /litter control) Access to healthy foods - fresh produce and supermarkets 2012 Community Survey 1.8%(35) 2.8%(56) 6.8%(136) 38.4%(764) 50.2% 1,991 Mission 7% 122 Laguna Lake (1,000) 69 9.0%(178) 21.3%(421) 43.3%(855) 21.4%(422) 5.1%(100) 1,976 1.4%(27) 3.7%(74) 22.5%(447) 43.9%(873) 28.5%(566) 1,987 1.5%(30) 6.2%(124) 28.7%(572) 43.1%(859) 20.5%(408) 1,993 1.4%(27) 4.9%(97) 20.1%(399) 42.2%(840) 31.5%(627) 1,990 4.7%(93) 11.5%(228) 27.1%(538) 38.5%(765) 18.3%(364) 1,988 1.8%(36) 3.4%(68) 15.8%(313) 39.4%(783) 39.6%(786) 1,986 2.2%(43) 9.1%(180) 23.1%(459) 42.2%(838) 23.4%(464) 1,984 3.1%(61) 8.2%(161) 37.0%(729) 36.2%(713) 15.5%(305) 1,969 7.0%(140) 21.3%(424) 28.2%(561) 33.8%(671) 9.7%(192) 1,988 2.9%(58) 12.4%(246) 31.2%(620) 37.1%(737) 16.3%(324) 1,985 8.7%(173) 23.2%(460) 40.0%(793) 20.5%(407) 7.5%(148) 1,981 5.5%(109) 13.2%(261) 41.5%(824) 25.8%(511) 14.1%(279) 1,984 2.5%(50) 7.4%(146) 20.8%(411) 43.1%(852) 26.2%(518) 1,977 3.3%(66) 9.9%(196) 27.4%(544) 44.5%(882) 14.9%(296) 1,984 1.7%(34) 4.1%(80) 18.4%(363) 40.4%(798) 35.4%(700) 1,975 When asked to name a place they particularly enjoy, people continued to name San Luis Obispo's Downtown, Mission, open spaces, and parks just as they did in the 1988 survey. Table S. Particular Place of Enjoyment, San Luis Obispo 2012 Downtown 37% 584 Park 11% 179 Mission 7% 122 Laguna Lake 4% 69 Open Space 4% 68 Creek 4% 66 Bishop Peak 3% 48 Walking 2% 40 Hiking Trails 2% 33 Railroad 2% 33 Irish Hills 1% 27 Madonna 1% 26 September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 5 Ike San Luis Obispo General Plan Update They were less enthusiastic about Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR), which topped the list of "least" liked places. This question yielded different responses from the 1988 survey as LOUR had not been expanded at that time. Both surveys identified areas associated with traffic and higher ratios of rental housing. Table 6. Least Liked Places of Enjoyment, San Luis Obispo 2012 LOVR 14% 195 Downtown 13% 172 Madonna Road 8% 114 Parking 7% 97 Homeless 7% 93 Foothill Boulevard 4% 62 Streets (in general) 4% 53 Broad Street 3% 51 South Higuera Street 3% 46 Page 6 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey September 2012 2012 Community Survey City Growth and Relationship to the Region When asked which of the following approaches to determining allowable growth in the City they supported, respondents continued, but to a lesser degree, to support preservation of the natural environment. Sixty —six percent want to keep growth in existing areas and 60% support avoiding harm to the natural environment. That's a change from the 1988 survey where over 85% of respondents sought to keep growth in existing areas and 79% supported avoiding hard to the natural environment. WNch of ft boikyw* p .approactm to deb mhtittip aflawaMe to the City do you pl"" sweet MI that apply. K"p grog Who eve taw resources Avad ham to the oa ww wwwonMV4 isuch ae w quwy ) Look fpr 00po±arnM" ao OMW wKhM C4r t w4wws lMou tar+ 0w aruorP msderbbl growth ad@ at I% Let the Overag grawlh of tt" carnmurlty foam fi0rt1 1pKft go" lI eso» twed of h0kA*h0W prssanrrnq cam open s Do riot sat. 9o"th kmft 0 200 4W 'Vxl 40- t0011 12r0 9400 Figure 2. Approaches to Allowable Growth, San Luis Obispo 2012 September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 7 San Luis Obispo General Plan Update if the city w" to eher q* the current nmkk rrW Wowtt rate oT I%, which one of the following would you prfhr? No champ • maentan the @VWM a MndareeeU gro oth rata st i N 5"Weceaa O4 "W b%A MAW 0120 ow Sim* or the count t mow q no fester Omn Son We Obrapo Cola ty 0 a $ w t►w 1as4 WAW qro++ "" to the r of cflnrnarcat ae+wopTW* 1 do INA Sans qWA bM" n 2" Iko V-0 imp Figure 3. Preferences to Change Current Residential Growth, San Luis Obispo 2012 Nearly 55% of respondents support "No Change" in residential growth rate, with over 14% supporting some increases but none greater than the County or the State as a whole. Just 10% supported no growth limits. This question also saw a shift in responses from the 1988 survey. Previously 35% supported "no or very little" increase to the City's population with 39% supporting modest increases and 17% supporting "no growth limits ". San Luis Obispo has worked to balance development and conservation to preserve the City's natural beauty and unique character and heritage while supporting housing opportunities and a vibrant economy. People were asked if the City has not enough, enough, or too much of the various types of development. Respondents indicated the City has "enough" of each category; however, housing and manufacturing were cited as low by some. This is substantially different than the 1988 survey. Respondents then sought more housing (70 %), tourist /visitor serving activities (53 %), shopping (58 %), and cultural activities (70 %). Page 8 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey September 2012 2012 Community Survey Table 7. Types of Development, San Luis Obispo 2012 15.3%(301) Response Housing 33.0%(6 7) 58.9% (1,135) 8.1%(156) Count 1,928 Tourist /visitor serving 9.5%(184) 79.5% (1,538) 11.0%(213) 1,935 Manufacturing 43.9%(827) 51.3%(967) 4.8%(91) 1,885 Business Park 23.5%(443) 65.2% (1,232) 11.3%(214) 1,889 Shopping /stores 21.3%(412) 59.5% (1,151) 19.1%(370) 1,933 Cultural /entertainment 21.5%(416) 73.4% (1,423) 5.2%(100) 1,939 Medical, legal, financial 14.7%(284) 77.0% (1,484) 8.3%(159) 1,927 services Crowing /delay at parking Government 4.4%(84) 69.4% (1,338) 26.3%(507) 1,929 agencies /institutions What influences Quality of Life in San Luis Obispo? According the respondents, air quality, traffic, aircraft noise, and the preservation of farmland were cited as the factors that MOST influence quality of life in San Luis Obispo, mirroring the 1988 survey results. Table 8. Quality of Life Influences, San Luis Obispo 2012 Air pollution 15.3%(301) 14.4%(283) 19.0%(373) 16.6%(325) 34.7%(680) 1,962 Car /truck traffic noise 6.2%(122) 14.2%(279) 25.1%(493) 25.8%(506) 28.6%(561) 1,961 Aircraft noise 16.9%(331) 22.4%(439) 29.S%(580) 17.1%(336) 14.1%(277) 1,963 Crowding /delay on 6.8%(132) 15.9%(310) 25.9%(504) 25.3%(492) 26.1%(508) 1,946 streets & roads Crowing /delay at parking 9.1%(175) 17.6%(340) 33.6%(648) 22.9%(442) 16.8%(323) 1,928 facilities At parks or recreation 12.3%(235) 22.9%(440) 36.7%(703) 15.8%(304) 12.3%(236) 1,918 facilities Development on 7.5%(142) 11.8%(222) 26.7%(504) 20.8%(393) 33.1%(624) 1,885 farmland, ranchland Development on creeks, 6.8%(127) 10.1%(189) 2S.7%(483) 19.1%(359) 38.3%(720) 1,878 marshes Form of Development 5.0%(89) 10.0%(177) 32.5%(574) 22.3%(394) 30.2%(534) 1,768 Overall intensity of 4.6%(86) 10.4%(192) 30.1%(557) 22.8%(422) 32.1%(594) 1,851 development Overall pace of life 5.3%(98) 9.7%(181) 27.8%(517) 22.5%(418) 34.7%(644) 1,858 September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 9 San Luis Obispo General Plan Update San Luis Obispo and the surrounding area includes about 34% of the jobs in the county, and about 18% of the houses and apartments, which results in commuting. On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being no effort and 5 being high effort, respondents were asked how much effort they thought should go into each of the following approaches to reduce commuting impacts. Table 9. Approaches to Reducing Commuting Impacts, San Luis Obispo 2012 Expand roads and parking 18.3%(344) facilities to reduce 19.3%(364) congestion. 11.1%(212) Discourage commuting by 13.5%(258) individual drivers and 1,907 encourage use of busses, 23.8%(447) van pools, bicycles, and 9.9%(186) carpools. 16.5%(310) Discourage additional 41.3%(775) jobs in San Luis Obispo. 1,882 Encourage housing 19.7%(371) development in San Luis Obispo. 16.2%(304) 27.4%(516) 18.8%(354) 19.3%(364) 1,882 11.1%(212) 20.5%(391) 20.4%(389) 34.5%(657) 1,907 15.7%(294) 23.8%(447) 9.3%(174) 9.9%(186) 1,876 16.5%(310) 27.8%(523) 16.5%(310) 19.6%(368) 1,882 Respondents indicated they would like the City to focus the most effort in discouraging commuting and the least effort in discouraging additional jobs here in San Luis Obispo. More local employment translated to fewer commuters. Page 10 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey September 2012 2012 Community Survey Form of Development To accommodate new growth in the City, 71% of respondents supported using vacant lots in existing neighborhoods for buildings like those that have been built in the neighborhood with over 63% supporting redeveloping underdeveloped sites with buildings compatible with the neighborhood. A little more than half supported mixed -use infill development in existing buildings. This was slightly less than responses in 1988 when 81% supported using vacant lots in existing neighborhoods. To *"oammoda* now Noush►p In Ow Oy. I support: (Check ad twat *pplyj vsrfiq vacant tots in ex,stu,q rK49tecOweds for Wong vacard lots in eocrat" M"Oborewods for 09" "X0 die p ga�drvelc" WjW&f+ralo*" sMas wdh 6w0nqs camiQwk* WAtt the Expendnq the c fir s does to acco vwmedae Mu" haamq E ncarxopg devokprnwo d hais,nq on the same sae as attwir cof" o ASOKMnq carnffWCW ro" to sccommrodi to hotnwq �� .fie* , v 1400 Figure 4. New Growth, San Luis Obispo 2012 September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 11 San Luis Obispo General Plan Update l �tr +VtKAt�Sp4 • ♦ t 4 1 To accommodate new businesses, banks, and office buildings, the clear preference with 80% of respondents choosing it was development in existing commercial areas, using vacant lots for new buildings generally like ones that have been built there. In 1988 65% of respondents supported that idea with 37% supporting replacing existing buildings with larger ones. To accommodate new sbafes, banks, buskwee park dsv t and offices, Il supper (Check ad thltt MWly.) I n existrr,g commercc1W ateft 64wq VOC K fors for nea+ bu>idwW W In eousbng conwnercoN aroad. MPW- g snwow bLAdwhr wtk Mrgde CXPW%&q an am cdys edges to eccornmodebe aloe* commarc4W dsvelopm Encwsww drmkvn&% of cawnacbi VM on the same 14* ss housug RrNe�clrg mow" to" ta+kccovoy o"t ca"r4moo 40V Figure S. New Development Preferences, San Luis Obispo 2012 )G When asked about what changes they would like to see in certain land uses, only two land uses resulted in substantial differences with 59% seeking fewer bars downtown and 71% seeking additional small city parks in residential areas. The City received similar responses in 1988 with 63% of people seeking more small parks and 41% seeking fewer bars. Page 12 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey September 2012 2012 Community Survey Table 10. Land Use Changes, San Luis Obispo 2012 Small second dwellings ( "granny units ") in 13.5% 7.6% 33.2% 24.6% 21.1% areas that are mostly individual houses. (256) (144) (632) (468) (401) 1,901 Specialty stores (such as books or clothing) 7.5% 6.0% 32.8% 31.7% 22.0% in small neighborhood shopping centers. (143) (115) (624) (603) (418) 1,903 Offices (doctors, lawyers) in small 8.8% 10.4% 45.1% 23.7% 12.1% neighborhood shopping centers. (166) (196) (852) (447) (229) 1,890 Nursing homes, churches, or schools in 17.6% 13.0% 47.1% 15.6% 6.7% areas that are mostly individual houses. (336) (248) (896) (297) (127) 1,904 43.3% 15.8% 31.4% 4.3% 5.1% Bars and nightclubs downtown. 1,917 (831) (303) (602) (83) (98) 11.1% 9.7% 54.6% 15.9% 8.7% Restaurants and movie theaters downtown 1,924 (214) (187) (1,050) (306) (167) 7.2% 5.4% 48.0% 24.1% 15.3% Retail stores downtown 1,918 (139) (103) (921) (462) (293) In residential areas, home businesses with no employees other than residents of the 10.9% 8.1% 42.2% 22.7% 16.1% house or apartment that may include small- (205) (152) (790) (426) (301) 1,874 scale product assembly or customer visits. Neighborhood markets or fresh produce 4.1% 5.2% 26.1% 35.2% 29.3% markets in residential areas. (79) (99) (497) (671) (559) 1,905 Auto repair downtown or in shopping 16.3% 14.7% 51.1% 12.2% 5.7% centers. (309) (280) (972) (231) (109) 1,901 3.0% 2.2% 23.9% 30.9% 40.0% Small city parks in residential areas. 1,920 (57) (43) (459) (593) (768) September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 13 San Luis Obispo General Plan Update ,. Public Facilities and Services On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being less and 5 being more, just four areas were supported by the majority of respondents seeking additional facilities and services; 50% would like more bicycle lanes, 58% support acquiring open space peaks and hillsides, 53% support more land for creeks and marshes, while 54% support more land for City's Greenbelt. These were the very same items selected by respondents in 1988 with slight variations in support; 44% bike lanes, 54% peaks and hillside preservation, 50% creeks and marshes, and 43% preservation of farm land. Table 11. Additional Facilities and Services, San Luis Obispo 2012 Bicycle infrastructure (bike lanes, paths and 10.8% 6.3% 30.4% 19.8% 32.8% 1,850 parking) (200) (116) (562) (366) (606) Bus service - more routes and more 8.2% 6.9% 45.7% 20.2% 19.0% 1,835 frequent service (150) (127) (838) (371) (349) Traffic congestion management 7.2% 6.5% 42.0% 25.2% 19.2% 1,814 (130) (118) (761) (457) (348) Neighborhood traffic management 10.4% 10.0% 49.0% 16.8% 13.8% 1,813 (188) (181) (888) (305) (251) Emergency services /disaster readiness 6.9% 7.1% 50.4% 21.0% 14.6% 1,825 (126) (130) (920) (383) (266) Flood prevention /control 10.3% 11.3% 55.6% 14.2% 8.6% 1,820 (187) (205) (1,012) (259) (157) Preserving historic buildings 7.2% 9.9% 41.8% 22.8% 18.3% 1,837 (133) (182) (767) (419) (336) Housing for low- income families 16.9% 11.3% 34.7% 20.5% 16.6% 1,838 (311) (208) (637) (376) (306) Law enforcement: Violence /thefts 5.3% 5.7% 47.1% 23.7% 18.3% 1,819 (96) (103) (856) (432) (332) Law enforcement: Traffic safety 7.5% 8.5% 54.6% 17.4% 12.0% 1,819 (136) (155) (993) (316) (219) Law enforcement: Nuisances /zoning 13.4% 13.2% 46.2% 15.7% 11.5% 1,807 (242) (239) (835) (284) (207) Acquiring and maintaining open space for 7.4% 5.1% 29.5% 23.2% 34.8% 1,840 peaks & hillsides (137) (93) (543) (427) (640) Acquiring and maintaining open space for 8.9% 9.5% 43.2% 18.7% 19.8% 1,817 farm, ranchland (161) (172) (785) (340) (359) Acquiring and maintaining open space for 5.9% 6.4% 34.7% 24.5% 28.4% 1,829 creeks & marshes (108) (117) (635) (449) (520) Acquiring and maintaining open space for 6.9% 6.4% 32.7% 24.0% 30.0% 1,822 City greenbelt (125) (117) (596) (437) (547) Parking and access choices downtown 11.9% 9.5% 43.9% 19.9% 14.9% 1,818 (216) (172) (799) (361) (270) Parks /playfields 6.2% 7.3% 46.9% 23.4% 16.1% 1,830 (113) (134) (859) (429) (295) Performing arts 11.3% 10.8% 51.5% 16.3% 10.0% 1,835 (207) (199) (945) (300) (184) Public art 17.0% 13.0% 46.0% 14.5% 9.4% 1,832 (311) (239) (843) (266) (173) Page 14 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey September 2012 2012 Community Survey Recreation programs 7.4% 9.2% 51.2% 21.7% 10.6% 1,823 1,680 (134) (167) (933) (395) (194) 28.0%(455) Shelter for homeless 17.4% 8.2% 27.3% 23.6% 23.5% 1,844 25.7%(418) (320) (151) (504) (436) (433) 1,699 Sidewalk improvements and pedestrian 7.1% 7.5% 41.8% 24.0% 19.6% 1,828 connections (130) (138) (764) (438) (358) 24.1%(402) Street maintenance 3.9% 5.7% 46.2% 25.8% 18.3% 1,832 30.4%(508) (72) (105) (847) (473) (335) 1,718 Street trees, landscaping along streets 6.7% 7.6% 44.0% 24.2% 17.6% 1,827 1,685 (122) (138) (803) (443) (321) 23.9%(397) Street widening /signals 13.9% 13.4% 44.6% 17.2% 10.9% 1,811 33.0%(545) (252) (243) (807) (312) (197) 1,755 Transit service - routes and frequency 9.7% 10.2% 46.0% 19.2% 14.9% 1,789 1,687 (173) (182) (823) (344) (267) 24.9%(411) Despite support for some services, only a slight majority of respondents said they would support paying more for just two; 54% for open space for peaks and hillsides, and 52% for acquiring space for the City's Greenbelt. Table 12. Support for Paying for More Services, San Luis Obispo 2012 Bicycle infrastructure (bike lanes, paths and parking) 48.7%(853) S1.3%(900) 1,753 Bus service - more routes and more frequent service 38.6%(649) 61.4% (1,031) 1,680 Traffic congestion management 37.6%(631) 62.4% (1,049) 1,680 Neighborhood traffic management 28.0%(455) 72.0% (1,171) 1,626 Emergency services /disaster readiness 41.7%(689) 58.3%(965) 1,654 Flood prevention /control 25.7%(418) 74.3% (1,210) 1,628 Preserving historic buildings 35.6%(605) 64.4% (1,094) 1,699 Housing for low- income families 35.9%(618) 64.1% (1,104) 1,722 Law enforcement: Violence /thefts 41.9%(701) 58.1%(972) 1,673 Law enforcement: Traffic safety 28.9%(479) 71.1% (1,180) 1,659 Law enforcement: Nuisances /zoning 24.1%(402) 75.9% (1,268) 1,670 Acquiring and maintaining open space for peaks & hillsides 54.1%(943) 45.9%(801) 1,744 Acquiring and maintaining open space for farm, ranchland 30.4%(508) 69.6% (1,163) 1,671 Acquiring and maintaining open space for creeks & marshes 49.3%(847) 50.7%(871) 1,718 Acquiring and maintaining open space for City greenbelt 51.6%(891) 48.4%(836) 1,727 Parking and access choices downtown 24.7%(417) 75.3% (1,268) 1,685 Parks /playfields 38.8%(655) 61.2% (1,033) 1,688 Performing arts 23.9%(397) 76.1% (1,266) 1,663 Public art 20.6%(345) 79.4% (1,329) 1,674 Recreation programs 33.0%(545) 67.0% (1,106) 1,651 Shelter for homeless 46.7%(820) 53.3%(935) 1,755 Sidewalk improvements and pedestrian connections 42.1%(709) 57.9%(977) 1,686 Street maintenance 42.4%(716) 57.6%(971) 1,687 Street trees, landscaping along streets 39.8%(666) 60.2% (1,008) 1,674 Street widening /signals 24.9%(411) 75.1% (1,237) 1,648 Transit service - routes and frequency 31.7%(520) 68.3% (1,121) 1,641 September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 1S San Luis Obispo General Plan Update The 1988 survey showed support for paying more for bicycle paths, bus services, law enforcement, and performing arts (63 %). There was also support for public art, recreation, and parks and playfields. Finally, we asked people to identify the services they would most like to see in the City. The responses were varied, but a substantial number mentioned better services for homeless and increased transit options for air, bus, rail, and taxi services. Page 16 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey September 2012 2012 Community Survey Demographic Data The vast majority of respondents indicated they live in the City of San Luis Obispo with a little less than half working or owning a business in the City. Seventy -three percent of respondents own their dwelling with 27% renting. i W* Ind* cey d Sam Lim$ Obispo r work in Vw ody d San Laa Ob"a i own a busmm in IN of San lub Obow grl Figure 6. Demographic Data, San Luis Obispo 2012 1500 2000 September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 17 San Luis Obispo General Plan Update Figure 7 Which of the following best describes your status? Status, San Luis Obispo 2012 a 4 Emodoved M feared Moew Page 18 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey September 2012 Kremke, Kate From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 10:58 AM To: Kremke, Kate Subject: FW: Essential Services Tax supported by Save Our Downtown Attachments: CC_ 5- 2O- 14_ B4_EssentialServicesTax_SaveOur Downtown.pdf Item B -4 for 5/20/14 MAY 2 0 2014 Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo r i p Cl i 0 4�.� 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 AGENDA tel 1 805.781.7102 CORRESPONDENCE Date Item# - - - -- Original Message---- - From: James Lopes [mailto:iameslopes @charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 10:38 AM To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony Subject: Essential Services Tax supported by Save Our Downtown Dear Mayor Marx and Council: In the attached letter, Save Our Downtown supports the staff recommendations to place the Essential Services Tax on the ballot and implement a monitoring program. Given the commitment by the City to support "downtown renewal" in the 2013 -15 Financial Plan, we would appreciate inclusion of this commitment in the ballot language. Please include the phrase "downtown improvements" in the ballot measure language which is on Page B4 - 6. Thank you for your consideration. Jamie Lopes Chair Save Our Downtown James Lopes 1336 Sweet Bay Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Ph. 805 - 781 -8960 Save Our Downtown Comments on Agenda Item B4 :• Essential Services Tiansaction (sales) and Use Tax; May20, 2014 City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Save Our Downtown supports placing the proposed ballot measure before city voters. We agree with the commitments to accountability and fiscal responsibility which were proposed by Council Member Smith. We hope that significant funding for capital improvements and public amenities will be committed within the Downtown area. More specifically, Save Our Downtown supports usage of the proposed sales tax partly to achieve the following Goal of the City's 2013 -15 Financial Plan: Downtown Renewal. Assess and renew the Downtown consistent with the adopted Land Use and Circulation Element update, revitalize Mission Plaza (including consideration of eliminating dogleg), support the continued development of cultural attractions, enhance lighting /safety components, reduce incidents of illegal activity and adverse behaviors through enhanced public safety presence and enforcement, provide pedestrian - friendly walkways, and address limits on alcohol establishments. To make this clear, we ask that your Council include the phrase "downtown improvements" in the ballot measure language as shown below from page B4 — 6: "Draft 2014 San Luis Obispo Essential Services Measure Extension: To protect and maintain essential services — such as neighborhood street paving; traffic congestion relief; public safety; flood protection; senior services and facilities; downtown improvements; neighborhood code enforcement; open space preservation; and other capital improvement projects and vital services — shall Chapter 3.15 of the City's Municipal Code be amended to extend the current one -half percent local sales tax for eight years, with independent annual audits, public goal- setting and budgeting of expenditures, and a Citizen's Oversight Commission ?." Thank you for your consideration, James Lopes Chairperson 1336 Sweet Bay Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805 - 602 -1365 COUNCIL MEETING: DS" 20 LV 1 y ITEM NO.:_ _Z_ LJ 5ub++.i}te� by Mayor -Jan Maf � To protect and maintain essential services — such as open space preservation; neighborhood street paving and code enforcement; traffic safety; bicycle and pedestrian facilities; public safety; flood protection; senior programs; other capital improvement projects and services — shall Chapter 3.15 of the City's Municipal Code be amended to extend the current one -half percent local sales tax for eight years, with independent annual audits, public goal- setting and expenditure budgeting, and a Citizens' Oversight Commission? Changes to "Draft 2014 San Luis Obispo Essential Services Measure Extension:" bold is added or moved T6 protect and maintain essential services — such as open space preservation; neighborhood street paving and code enforcement; traffic safety reengestion Felief; bicycle and pedestrian facilities; public safety; flood protection; senior programs; d ; other capital improvement projects and v#at- services — shall Chapter 3.15 of the City's Municipal Code be amended to extend the current one -half percent local sales tax for eight years, with independent annual audits, public goal - setting and budgeting of expenditures, and a Citizen's Oversight Commission? Council Memorandum MAY 2 0 2014 May 20, 2014 AGENDA TO: City Council CORRESPONDENCE Dafe— � FROM: Wayne Padilla, Finance & I.T. Director VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager r; SUBJECT: Measure Y Funding Summary Schedule During a review of the Measure Y Funding Summary Schedule located on page 91 of the 2013- 14 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), staff noted that the information brought forward from the 2011 -12 Fiscal Year was incorrect due to a formula error that caused the amounts from 2012 -13 to be repeated in the fields for the 2011 -12 information. As a result, the total amount of Measure Y available for future year appropriations shown at the bottom of the page was overstated and the correct amount is $4,366,900. There are no other errors that occurred with respect to this report. Please find attached a copy of the revised 2012 -13 Measure Y Funding Summary Schedule showing the correct numbers brought forward from 2011 -12 and the correct balance that remains at the end of the 2012 -13 fiscal year; the original 2012 -13 Measure Y Funding Summary Schedule; a copy of the original 2011 -12 Measure Y Funding Summary Schedule. This evening the City Council is being asked to accept the 2012 -13 CAFR report and staff is requesting that the revised Measure Y Funding Summary Schedule is approved along with the CAFR. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA REVISED MEASURE Y FUNDING SUMMARY SCHEDULE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2013 Operating Programs Encumbered/ Capital Improvement Plan Encumbered/ Actual Assigned Actual Assigned Measure YRevenues & Uses Summary Revenues: Carryover from 2006 -07 $ 1,000,000 Revenues for 2007 -08 5,996,600 Revenues for 2008 -09 5,641,400 Revenues for 2009 -10 5,252,500 Revenues for 2010 -11 5,616,300 Revenues for 2011 -12 6,237,500 Revenues for 2012 -13 6,493,800 Total Revenues 36,238,100 Uses: Operating programs 2007 -08 (1,463,700) Capital improvement plan 2007 -08 (2,434,100) Operating programs 2008 -09 (2,418,300) Capital improvement plan 2008 -09 (3,684,400) Operating programs 2009 -10 (2,267,100) Capital improvement plan 2009 -10 (2,161,200) Operating programs 2010 -11 (2,430,200) Capital improvement plan 2010 -11 (3,,443,000) Operating programs 2011 -12 (2- 703,900) Capital improvement plan 2011 -12 (3,967,500) Operating programs 2012 -13 (2,2..'5,100) Capital improvement plan 2012 -13 (2,320,700) Total Uses (31,019,200) Measure Y funding available for future year expenditures $ 5,218,900 Encumbered or assigned for carryover for future year expenditures 852,000) Net available for future year appropriations 78 CrrY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA MEASURE Y FUNDING S UMMARY S CH®ULE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2 013 Operating Programs Capital Improvement Plan Encumbered/ Encumbered/ Actual Assiened Actual Assigned The following summarizes revenues and expenditures for the current year in responding to Measure Ypriorities. Public Safety Police Services Fire Prevention and Training Personal Protective Equipment Cardiac Monitor Replacements Fire Engine /Truck Replacement: Debt Service Maintenance Services Streets, Sidewalks and Traffic Signal Operations Creek and Flood Protection Parks Project Management & Inspection Neighborhood Wellness $ 441,631 416,587 6,024 207,361 410,379 224,075 176,342 Enhanced Building & Zoning Code Enforcement 112,251 Neighborhood Service Specialists 125,985 "SNAP" Enhancement 18,100 Total Preservation of Essential Services 2,138,735 89 94,600 126,910 3,388 31,612 - 35,000 15,444 34,556 240,342 101,168 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBIGSPO, CALIFORNIA MEASURE Y FUNDING SUMMARY SCHEDULE, continued FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2 013 Operating Programs Encumbered/ Capital Improvement Plan Encumbered/ Actual Assigned Actual Assigned The followings ummarizes revenues and expenditures for the current year in responding to Measure Y priorities. Traffic Congestion Relief Traffic Engineer Traffic Safety Report Implementation Roadway Sign Replacement Total Traffic Congestion Relief Open Space Preservation Froom Ranch Improvements Total Open Space Preservation Infrastructure Maintenance Fire Engine Bay Slab Replacement Street Reconstruction & Resurfacing Warden Bridge /Mission Plaza Walkway Storm Drain Replacements Toro Street Creek Bank Stabilization Broad Street Creek Bank Reinforcement Olympic Pool Heater Replacement Playground Equipment Replacement Total Infrastructure Maintenance Total 86,390 86,390 $ 2,225,125 - 0 12,389 12,611 21,900 44,600 34,289 57,211 11.566 10,934 11,566 10,934 93,398 1,335,484 114,516 90,305 - 365,503 - 29,015 - 16,682 18,318 8,279 176,721 95,849 373,083 2,034,515 682,638 2,320,712 851,951 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA MEASURE Y FUNDING SUMMARY SCHEDULE, continued FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2013 Operating Programs Capital Improvement Plan The following summarizes revenues and expenditures for all years in responding to Measure Y priorities. Encumbered/ Encumbered/ Measure YRevenues & Uses Summary Actual Assigned Actual Assigned Revenues: Carryover from 2006 -07 $ 1,000,000 Revenues for2007 -08 5,996,600 Revenues for 2008 -09 5,641,400 Revenues for 2009 -10 5,252,500 Revenues for 2010 -11 5,616,300 Revenues for 2011 -12 6,237,500 Revenues for 2012-13 6,493,800 Total Revenues 36,238,100 Uses: Operating programs 2007 -08 (1,463,700) Capital improvement plan 2007 -08 (2,434,100) Operating programs 2008 -09 (2,418,300) Capital improvement plan 2008 -09 (3,684,400) Operating programs 2009 -10 (2,267,100) Capital improvement plan 2009 -10 (2,161,200) Operating programs 2010 -11 (2,430,200) Capital improvement plan 2010 -11 (3,443,000) Operating programs 2011 -12 (2,225,125) Capital improvement plan 2011 -12 (2,320,712) Operating programs 2012 -13 (2,225,125) Capital improvement plan 2012 -13 (2,320.712) Total Uses (29,393,673) Measure Y funding available for future year expenditures $ 6,844,427 Encumbered or assigned for carryover for future year expenditures (851,951) Net available for future year appropriations $ 5,992,476 91 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA MEASURE Y FUNDING SUMMARY SCHEDULE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2012 The following summarizes revenues and expenditures for the current year in responding to Measure Y priorities. 86 Operating Programs Encumbered/ Actual Assigned Capital Improvement Plan Encumbered/ Actual Assigned Infrastructure Maintenance Fire Engine Bay Slab Replacement $ $ $ 11,900 $ 20,000 Andrews Creek Bypass 396,400 49,000 Storm Drain Replacements 206,300 6,800 Toro Street Creek Bank Stabilization 4$00 Playground Equipment Replacement 59,900 163,300 Warden Bridge /Mission Plaza Walkway 2,500 5,000 Street Reconstruction & Resurfacing 2,479,700 438,700 Total Infrastructure Maintenance 3,156,700 731,100 Traffic Congestion Relief Traffic Engineer 21,600 Traffic Safety Report Implementation 29,700 1,900 27,800 Traffic Operations Report Implementation 174,700 Roadway Sign Replacement 4,800 86,600 Bob Jones City to Sea Trail LOUR Bridge 124,800 110,800 Total Traffic Congestion Relief 51,300 131,500 399,900 Preservation of Essential Services Public Sglry Police Services 539,300 251,900 98,200 Fire Prevention & Training 412,900 Fire Engine /Truck Replacement: Debt Service 129,900 Maintenance Serdees Streets, Sidewalks and Traffic Signal Operations 106,300 11,800 17,100 Creek & Flood Protection 462,100 Parks 384,500 45,600 Project Management & Inspection 114,000 86 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA MEASURE Y FUNDING SUMMARY SCHEDULE, continued FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2012 Operating Programs Capital Improvement Plan Encumbered/ Encumbered/ Actual Assigned Actual Assigned Neighborhood Code Enforcement Enhanced Building & Zoning Code Enforcement 114,500 Neighborhood Service Specialists 19,000 Total Preservation of Essential Services 2,152,600 439,200 115,300 Open Space Preservation Froom Ranch Improvements Open Space Acquis ition Total 87 62,500 240,100 495,900 $ 2,203,900 - 3,967,500 1,804,700 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA MEASURE Y FUNDING SUMMARY SCHEDULE, continued FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2012 The following summarizes revenues and expenditures for all years in responding to Measure Y priorities. Measure YRevenues & Uses Summary Revenues: Carryover from 2006 -07 $ 1,000,000 Revenues for 2007 -08 5,996,600 Revenues for 2008 -09 5,641,400 Revenues for 2009 -10 5,252,500 Revenues for 2010 -11 5,616,300 Revenues for 2011 -12 6,237,500 Total Revenues 29,744,300 Uses: Operating programs 2007 -08 (1,463,700) Capital improvement plan 2007 -08 (2,434,100) Operating programs 2008 -09 (2,418,300) Capital improvement plan 2008 -09 (3,684,400) Operating programs 2009 -10 (2,267,100) Capital improvement plan 2009 -10 (2,161,200) Operating programs 2010 -11 (2,430,200) Capital improvement plan 2010 -11 (3,443,000) Operating programs 2011 -12 (2,203,900) Capital improvement plan 2011 -12 (3,967,500) Total Uses (26,473,400) Measure Y funding available for future year expenditures $ 3,270,900 Encumbered or assigned for carryover for future year expenditures (1,804,700) Net available for future year appropriations $ 1,466,200 88