HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-01-2014 PH2 Ballot Measure to Extend the essential services sales & use tax, a half-percent local sales taxCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
FROM: Katie Lichtig, City Manager
Prepared By: Michael Codron, Assistant City Manager
Anthony Mejia, City Clerk
SUBJECT: NOVEMBER 2014 BALLOT MEASURE TO EXTEND THE ESSENTIAL
SERVICES SALES AND USE TAX; AND, AN ORDINANCE
ESTABLISHING THE REVENUE ENHANCEMENT OVERSIGHT
COMMISSION, ADOPTION OF A FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
PHILOSOPHY, AND DIRECTION FOR IMPLEMENTING TOOLS TO
INCREASE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) placing for submission to the voters a ballot question
whether to amend Chapter 3.15 of the Municipal Code, extending the sunset of the City’s
Essential Services Transactions (Sales) and Use Tax for eight years and making other
modifications to the purpose statement in the ordinance to acknowledge Council direction
and community input on evolving general fund priorities; and
2. Introduce an ordinance (Attachment 2), subject to voter approval in the November 2014
general election, extending the Essential Services Transactions (Sales) and Use Tax for eight
years; and
3. Adopt resolutions (Attachments 4,5, and 6) directing the City Attorney to prepare the
impartial analysis for the ballot measure, setting priorities for filing written arguments,
providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments, and requesting consolidation with the
Statewide General Election; and
4. Introduce an ordinance (Attachment 7) establishing the Revenue Enhancement Oversight
Commission; and
5. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 8) establishing a Fiscal Responsibility Philosophy, and
6. Direct staff to develop a project plan (including elements of public outreach) for
implementing tools to increase accountability and transparency regarding City finances and
operations, including performance measures and dashboards.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
On April 1, 2014, the City Council received a report and recommendation from the Local
Revenue Measure Advisory Committee recommending that the Council seek voter approval of
an extension of the City’s half-percent local sales tax during the November general election
(Attachment 9). Chapter 3.15 of the City’s Municipal Code (Essential Services Transactions
(Sales) and Use Tax) was approved by City voters in 2006 and provides for an eight-year sunset
clause. If the tax is not extended by voters in November 2014, it will expire and the City will no
longer collect revenue from the tax after March 31, 2015.
July 1, 2014
PH2
PH2 - 1
Essential Services Measure Extension Page 2
On April 1, the City Council gave staff direction to move forward and prepare ballot language
and revisions to SLOMC Chapter 3.15 to extend the local sales tax. The ballot language,
accountability provisions, and other related issues were subsequently discussed by the City
Council on May 6, May 20, June 10, and June 17. During those meetings, the following topics
were discussed and direction provided to staff.
Item Status
Ballot Measure Language Revisions supported by
Council consensus on June 10
Amendments to the ballot
measure, SLOMC 3.15,
including new accountability
measures
Revisions supported by
Council consensus on June 10
Establish Revenue
Enhancement Oversight
Commission (REOC)
Criteria and ordinance
revisions supported by
Council consensus on June 10
Fiscal Responsibility
Philosophy
Revisions supported by
Council consensus on June 17
Enhanced Financial and
Performance Reporting
(Dashboards)
Direction provided to staff to
move forward with a project
plan on June 17
SLOMC Chapter 3.15 was approved by the voters in 2006, and can only be amended by the
voters. Consistent with this requirement and previous direction from the City Council, this report
includes the resolutions and draft ordinance necessary to submit the to the voters for approval the
question of whether the current half cent sales tax should be extended for another eight years.
These actions include directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis, setting the
procedures for making ballot arguments and rebuttals for and against the measure, and
consolidating the election with the County, per standard operating procedures for a general
election.
The Council has spent a significant amount of time over the past two months discussing
transparency and accountability measures related to the local sales tax. The current measure has
an eight-year sunset clause, which has provided the community with the opportunity to review
the past seven years and discuss the City’s stewardship of this important resource. The result of
these discussions has been direction to create a Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission
(REOC), a new method to account for revenues and expenditures within the General Fund, and
direction to enhance access to financial and performance information using new web-based tools
such as open data platforms and dashboards.
Although the Council has agreed in concept on most aspects of this recommendation, staff was
directed to bring back the full package for a decision on July 1. If the Council approves the staff
recommendation on July 1, second readings of the ordinance to be submitted to the voters, and
the ordinance creating the REOC, would be placed on the Council’s July 15 consent agenda for
final action.
PH2 - 2
Essential Services Measure Extension Page 3
DISCUSSION
Planning Future Revenues (Fiscal Health Major City Goal)
Chapter 3.15 of the Municipal Code (Essential Services Transactions (Sales) and Use Tax) was
enacted following approval of Measure Y in November 2006. According to Section 3.15.030, the
authority to levy the half-percent sales tax expires on March 31, 2015, unless extended by the
voters.
The City’s Fiscal Health Major City Goal calls on the City to “sustain short and long term fiscal
health by planning future revenues (including renewal of Measure Y or an alternative measure),
while implementing contingency planning.”
Over the past several months, the work program has been implemented by working with the City
Council and the Council appointed Local Revenue Measure Advisory Committee (LRMAC) to
achieve this goal. Activities have included the Council’s appointment of an advisory group to
make recommendations to the City Council regarding stewardship of Measure Y resources and
next steps related to future revenues; conducting public opinion research; engaging the
community on issues related to Measure Y; and, working with the Council and the community
on a contingency plan that illustrates a process to be followed and possible impacts if the Council
decides not to extend or replace the current local sales tax, or if it is not approved by the voters
during the November 2014 general election.
Local Revenue Measure Advisory Committee
The City Council appointed a 10-person advisory body in August 2013 to advise the Council on
matters related to Measure Y. Attachment 1 includes the LRMAC’s complete report and
recommendation. Following is a brief summary of the Committee’s work. In total there were
seven meetings of the entire committee, including a well-attended Measure Y Open House. In
addition, a subcommittee of four members volunteered to write and edit the report, which
involved many more hours of work.
The LRMAC finalized their report and recommendation to the City Council on February 24,
2014. In summary the LRMAC’s recommendation is to place an extension of the Essential
Services Transaction (Sales) and Use Tax, a general purpose ½-percent sales tax, on the
November 2014 ballot. The LRMAC notes that there is public support for such a measure.
Moreover, the committee recommends against placing an advisory measure on the ballot and
believes the next measure should sunset in eight years. The following is a summary of the
reasoning provided by the Committee in support of their recommendations.
1. Stable and sustainable funding is needed to keep San Luis Obispo a special place.
2. There is a long list of capital projects and services that need funding.
3. It is the most practical way to increase local general fund money.
4. Most of the sales tax is paid by non-residents.
5. No significant competitive disadvantages exists because most places in California and
locally have a sales tax rate equal to or higher than San Luis Obispo.
6. Renewal would maintain the current sales tax rate at 8%.
PH2 - 3
Essential Services Measure Extension Page 4
7. It gives the City flexibility to address changing conditions and preferences and the
community can affect how the money is used.
8. Surveys and the public workshop indicate strong public support for an extension.
9. Eight years allow for periodic public review versus a permanent tax, but is long
enough to “get things done.”
Public Opinion Research
Consistent with Council direction, in early December 2013, the City’s public opinion survey
consultant, FM3, conducted the “City of San Luis Obispo Community Assessment and Ballot
Measure Issues Survey”. In preparation for the survey, the consultant made a presentation and
elicited feedback from the LRMAC. This feedback was helpful to the consultant in developing
the final set of survey questions. Following the survey, the results were distributed to the
LRMAC and discussed in the development of the report and recommendation. The following
summary information about survey results was provided to LRMAC for their consideration:
1. 64% of likely San Luis Obispo voters support a Measure Y renewal.
2. Basic informative statements increase support by 8% overall.
3. Initial support is solid, but not enthusiastic.
4. Half of supporters can’t say particularly why they support it.
5. One-third of supporters are “Probable;” Less than 50% “Definite.”
6. An advisory vote is popular with 57% more inclined to support measure, but not
necessary for passage.
7. Positive and negative arguments do not produce much change in support or
opposition.
8. Clear consensus for eight-year time limit, if limit is included.
2014 Benchmark Study Results
The Major City Goal for fiscal health includes a task for the City to prepare a benchmark study
that helps illustrate how the City is doing by comparing it to other like cities across a number of
performance measures (Attachment 10). The 2014 Benchmark Study evaluates 2012-13 data on
financial performance such as revenue diversity, expense allocation, staffing costs, and debt
management. Service costs do not always reflect service levels or efficiency, so the study also
compares service outcomes like crime rates, fire response and pavement condition. Eight cities
were chosen by the City Council for comparison to San Luis Obispo (population 45,500, General
Fund $47 Million):
1. Davis (66,500, $40M)
2. Monterey (28,300, $59M)
3. Napa (77,900, $64M)
4. Palm Springs (45,700, $65M)
5. Santa Barbara (89,700, $100M)
6. Santa Cruz (62,400, $66M)
7. Santa Maria (100,300, $48M)
8. Paso Robles (30,500, $23M)
The comparison cities are from the same set used in the 2006 Benchmark Study with the
exception of Paso Robles replacing Ventura. The objective is to provide a snapshot of how San
PH2 - 4
Essential Services Measure Extension Page 5
Luis Obispo measures up to similar cities in California. The study also provides the opportunity
to evaluate San Luis Obispo’s revenue sources in comparison with costs, services and
community priorities.
The study indicates that the quality and management of services is being delivered with
revenues and costs that are close to the median when compared with the selected benchmark
cities. Of particular relevance to this discussion is Chart 3 in the report, comparing the City’s per
capita sales tax revenues to the other cities.
San Luis Obispo is a hub for retail and commercial activity and therefore collects a higher per
capita sales tax as compared to other benchmarked cities. The additional revenue paid by the
sales tax helps maintain a high quality of service for City residents, but also helps the City
mitigate the impacts created by tourists and regional shoppers in the form of more miles traveled
on our roadways, more use of City open space, increased calls for law enforcement, increased
medical response, and other associated effects.
Extension of the Essential Services Measure
1. Ballot Measure Language
On June 10, 2014, the City Council directed staff to prepare and return the following language
for the ballot measure to place the question before the voters to extend the City’s half-percent
sales tax for an additional eight years.
To protect and maintain essential services and facilities – such as open space preservation; bike
lanes and sidewalks; public safety; neighborhood street paving and code enforcement; flood
protection; senior programs; and other vital services and capital improvement projects – shall 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, and a Citizens’
Oversight Commission?
2. Complete Ordinance and Election Related Resolutions
The current Essential Services Measure is codified as Chapter 3.15 of the City’s Municipal Code.
The ballot measure ordinance submitted to the voters, if approved, will amend this chapter to
extend the effective date of the ordinance for an additional eight years (to March 31, 2023).
Additionally the ordinance incorporates other changes directed by Council, including the
establishment of the REOC (discussed in greater detail below), as well as a provision concerning
PH2 - 5
Essential Services Measure Extension Page 6
accounting and tracking the revenue from the measure. Attachment 2 includes the complete
ordinance to be considered by the voters, if the Council places the extension measure on the
ballot. Attachment 3 is a legislative draft version of SLOMC Chapter 3.15.
Also attached to this report are election related resolutions for Council’s consideration.
Attachment 4 directs the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the revenue measure,
and sets priorities for arguments. Attachment 5 is a resolution that establishes the procedures for
rebuttal arguments. Attachment 6 is a resolution requesting consolidation of the election with the
statewide general election being conducted by the County Clerk in November 2014.
Priorities for Written Arguments
Elections Code Section 9282 sets priorities for filing written arguments and states:
(b) For measures placed on the ballot by the legislative body, the legislative body, or
any member or members of the legislative body authorized by that body, or any
individual voter who is eligible to vote on the measure, or bona fide association of
citizens, or any combination of voters and associations, may file a written argument
for or against any city measure.
Based on dates established by State election law, primary ballot arguments would have to be
submitted to the City Clerk no later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 15, 2014. The Elections
Code establishes a 300-word limit for primary arguments and also establishes priorities for
selecting arguments. The public examination period for these arguments would be from July 16
through July 25, 2014.
It is recommended that the Council appoint an ad hoc subcommittee consisting of two of its
members to prepare and submit ballot arguments and rebuttal arguments, if warranted. (Note:
public funds may not be used for these purposes. These committee members will meet on their
own time and not utilize City resources.).
The Elections Code allows the City Council to adopt provisions to permit rebuttal arguments to
be filed. These provisions must be adopted at the same meeting at which the election is called.
The deadline for submitting rebuttal arguments is dictated by State election law and would be
5:00 p.m. on Friday, July 25, 2014.
Public Review Period and Deadlines
Election Code Section 9295 provides that the Election Official shall allow a 10-calendar day
public examination period immediately following the filing deadline for submission of specified
official election materials (i.e., arguments, rebuttals, analysis). During that 10-calendar day
period, any voter of the City or the Election Official may seek court action to require any or all
such materials be amended or deleted.
Deadlines for Filing the Impartial Analysis and Arguments
The following deadlines have been established by the City Clerk for the submission of the impartial
analysis, primary arguments in favor and against, and rebuttal arguments:
PH2 - 6
Essential Services Measure Extension Page 7
July 15, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. - Last day to file Impartial Analysis and Primary
Arguments For or Against the Measure
July 16, 2014 – July 25, 2014 - 10-day public examination period for the Impartial
Analysis and Primary Arguments For or Against a Measure
July 25, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. - Last day to file Rebuttal Arguments For or Against a
Measure
July 25, 2014 – August 14, 2014 - 10-day public examination period for Rebuttal
Arguments Only.
Education and Outreach
If the Council places this measure on the ballot, staff intends to conduct education and outreach
consistent with what is allowed by law. The education and outreach program was originally
identified as a priority in the Fiscal Health Major City Goal. Staff intends to continue to publish
materials such as answers to frequently asked questions, place informational content on the
City’s website, and respond to requests for presentations and additional information. Should the
Council wish staff to approach this measure in a different manner, further direction should be
provided.
3. Transparency and Accountability Enhancements
The ordinance to be submitted to the voters includes two significant accountability provisions
that are new. One adds the requirement for the City to establish the Revenue Enhancement
Oversight Commission. The second requires the City to track and account for local sales tax
revenue and expenditure in a sub-fund of the General Fund. Tracking revenue and expenditures
in this way will improve transparency and increase the ease and speed of reporting on how the
Council has chosen to direct revenue measure spending within the General Fund to facilitate
public dialogue about the alignment of that direction with community priorities during the City’s
budget process. In addition to these changes, the City Council has reviewed a draft Fiscal
Responsibility Philosophy, and has discussed additional tools to increase transparency and
accountability. The following describes these efforts in more detail.
Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission (REOC)
One important accountability enhancement going forward is the Revenue Enhancement
Oversight Commission. On June 10, the City Council discussed the responsibilities, jurisdiction
and criteria for appointment to the REOC.
The REOC would be integrated into the City’s normal budget process and revenue measure
reporting structure. The timeline below shows the first and second year of a two-year financial
plan. The dates are only illustrative.
PH2 - 7
Essential Services Measure Extension Page 8
Year 1
Year 2
Attachment 7 is the ordinance creating the REOC, which provides for the term and compensation
of members, and powers and duties of the Commission. In addition, staff received direction from
the City Council regarding a variety of items specific to the REOC by-laws. One of the first
orders of business for the new Commission will be to develop its by-laws for Council approval.
The following is a general overview of the proposed REOC.
Members: Five, members may serve on another advisory
body
City Residency: Required
Experience: Applicants with financial and accounting
experience encouraged
Terms: Staggered four year terms
Compensation: $60/meeting consistent with Planning
Commission compensation
Appointments: Public application and appointment process by
the full City Council
Responsibilities: Reviewing, reporting on, recommending uses
of voter approved sales tax revenues
Frequency of Meetings: Minimum four per year, noticed and public
Chair: Selected by commission members
PH2 - 8
Essential Services Measure Extension Page 9
Fiscal Responsibility Philosophy
To ensure that the focus on fiscal responsibility is maintained and refined over time, the City
Council directed staff to outline a Fiscal Responsibility Philosophy (FRP). Fiscal responsibility
is defined in the FRP (Attachment 8) as follows:
“…the balanced approach to providing the infrastructure, maintenance, and services that
preserve and enhance the quality of life in our community, as identified and prioritized
through community input.”
A FRP is proposed to ensure informed decision-making during good or difficult financial times.
With that in mind, a philosophy typically lays out the guiding principles or guideposts for
decision-making. The philosophy does not prescribe future actions, but serves as a framework to
guide them.
Based on community input and staff research, a preliminary draft FRP was presented to the City
Council on June 17. As a result of public input and Council deliberation, Council directed staff to
make minor modifications to the draft FRP and return on July 1 for approval. Of note, Council
included language that addressed and clarified the following:
1. The Council is ultimately accountable for the fiscal health of the community.
2. Consideration of the balance between the employer and employee responsibility
for pension and benefit costs in the context of sustaining a long-term, sustainable,
and balanced budget.
3. Aligned investments include considering deferred maintenance or maintenance of
existing assets.
4. Long-term liabilities include unfunded pension obligations and the City shall
strive to achieve a higher portion of pension obligations (effectively reducing the
City’s unfunded liabilities)..
5. A new guiding principle surrounding efficiency and effectiveness was added.
The attached updated draft FRP (Attachment 8) includes the above revisions and the following
key components:
A. Informed Decision-making. The City will identify and consider immediate and
long-term economic, social, and environmental impacts of all decisions presented
to Council.
B. Shared responsibility. The City recognizes a shared responsibility between the
employee and employer to appropriately fund employee benefits, including
pension benefits. Ensuring an appropriate balance is a valuable tool in attracting
and retaining well qualified employees that deliver services to the community,
while maintaining a long-term, sustainable, and balanced budget.
C. Increased Transparency. The City will conduct all business, including labor
negotiations and other employee compensation matters, with transparency
pursuant to all applicable laws and regulations. The City will continue to develop
tools, such as key measures and dashboards that make information readily
available to community members in a timely and useful manner.
PH2 - 9
Essential Services Measure Extension Page 10
D. Aligned Investments. The City shall allocate resources in alignment with
community needs and priorities for maintaining and/or adding capital projects,
assets, or services.
E. Diversified and Aligned Revenue Sources. The City will pursue diversified
revenue sources that are aligned with expenditures and community priorities.
F. Long-Term Liabilities. The City will identify all long-term liabilities, including
unfunded pension obligations. The City shall strive to achieve a higher funded
portion of pension obligations and shall manage all liabilities to maintain and
enhance fiscal responsibility.
G. Continued Efficiency and Effectiveness. The City will explore and implement
operational efficiencies including alternative service delivery, best management
practices, and cost containment measures while preserving effectiveness.
Transparency and Performance Measurements
There is a broad spectrum of tools available to cities to increase transparency and accountability
and engage the public. Some leverage new and innovative technology, while others involve face
to face meetings and communication. It is important to have a clear understanding of the purpose
behind any transparency and accountability efforts in order to determine the appropriate set of
tools to use.
Many cities are utilizing new ways to increase community members’ access to information.
Some cities opt to post a wide variety of information or data directly on the city’s website. This
is known as an “open data portal.” This approach allows community members to browse various
data sets, create different visualizations for the data and even download the data for their own
analysis. In some cases, this data has even been used by volunteers or private companies to
create applications for the community. While still a relatively new concept, open data portals and
corresponding open data policies for public agencies have grown significantly in popularity over
the past several years.
These issues were discussed by the City Council on June 17, and Council directed staff to move
forward with public outreach to determine what information would be most valued by
community members. Staff will also be developing a project plan to guide project
implementation. In general, the strategy will be to develop a few examples of data sets and
dashboards based on existing data and performance measurements in use by the City. This initial
effort will be demonstrated as a pilot project to facilitate outreach and enhance community
understanding about what is possible.
In the long term, staff will be researching a variety of implementation tools that can help the City
develop a more comprehensive set of performance measurements and reporting tools and will
seek to allocate appropriate resources to the effort as part of the 2015-17 Financial Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT
Total cost to place this revenue measure on the ballot is expected to be less than $5,000. This
cost has been budgeted for and, therefore, approval of the staff recommendation will have no
fiscal impact.
PH2 - 10
Essential Services Measure Extension Page 11
As discussed on June 10, the fiscal impact of creating a new Commission is expected to be
approximately $15,000, including costs for compensation, advertising, outreach materials, and
Commissioner training. These costs are not currently anticipated in the 2014-15 budget, and staff
will address funding for this expense during mid-year budget review.
ALTERNATIVES
Over the past several weeks, the City Council has been engaged in a conversation with the
community regarding the form of the proposed revenue measure, and additional accountability
provisions that it would incorporate. The recommendation before the Council is the result of
consensus direction provided by the Council and is presented as a complete package for
consideration. The Council has full discretion over the decision to move forward with the
recommended action. If the Council would like to make changes, staff will work with Council
and respond to any changes needed to move the item forward. Council should be aware that the
deadline for placing a new measure on the ballot is August 8. If the proposed actions are
approved by the Council on July 1, then the second reading for the two ordinances attached
would occur on July 15, the last Council meeting before the deadline. As a result, significant
changes that delay introduction of the ordinance will require that the currently cancelled August
5 regular meeting be held to ensure that the second reading happens before August 8.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution (Calling Election to Extend the Essential Services Tax)
2. Ordinance Amending SLOMC Chapter 3.15 (Exhibit To Resolution Calling Election)
3. Legislative Draft of Proposed Amendments to SLOMC Chapter 3.15
4. Resolution (Impartial Analysis and Priorities for Arguments)
5. Resolution (Enabling Rebuttal Arguments)
6. Resolution (Requesting Consolidation with the Statewide General Election)
7. Ordinance Establishing the REOC
8. Resolution Adopting a Fiscal Responsibility Philosophy
9. LRMAC Report and Recommendation
10. Benchmark Study
t:\council agenda reports\2014\2014-07-01\revenue measure ordinance (codron-lichtig)\ballotmeasure(car).docx
PH2 - 11
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. (2014 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE
HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4 , 2014, FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE
VOTERS A QUESTION WHETHER TO EXTEND AN EXISTING HALF
CENT LOCAL REVENUE MEASURE FOR AN ADDITIONAL EIGHT
YEARS
WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election on November 4, 2014, has been called for the
purpose of the election of officers by Resolution No. 10518 (2014 Series), adopted on May 6,
2014; and
WHEREAS, the Elections Code and applicable local law provide the Council with the
authority to submit a ballot measure to the electorate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo that the City Council does declare, determine, and order as follows:
SECTION 1. That the City Council, pursuant to its right and authority, does order
submission to the voters at the General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 4, 2014, the
following question:
To protect and maintain essential services and facilities – such as open
space preservation; bike lanes and sidewalks; public safety;
neighborhood street paving and code enforcement; flood protection;
senior programs; and other vital services and capital improvement
projects – shall 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, and a
Citizens’ Oversight Commission?
Yes
No
SECTION 2. That the proposed complete text of the measure submitted to the voters is
attached as Exhibit A, and shall be published in full as part of the ballot materials, and a
complete copy shall be made available for public review in the office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 3. In all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and
conducted as provided by state law, governing the conduct of municipal elections, unless
provided otherwise by local Charter or ordinance.
SECTION 4. Notice of the time and place of holding the election is hereby given and the
City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further notice or additional notice of the
election, in time, form and manner as required by law.
SECTION 5. That the ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and content
PH2 - 12
Resolution No. (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 2 - Page 2
as required by law.
SECTION 6. That the polls shall be open at seven o'clock a.m. of the day of the
election and shall remain open continuously from that time until eight o'clock p.m. of the
same day when the polls shall be closed, except as provided in Section 14401 of the
Elections Code of the State of California.
SECTION 7. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution
with the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors and Clerk-Recorder.
SECTION 8. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
resolution.
On motion of , seconded by , and on the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2014.
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Mejia, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
PH2 - 13
ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
ORDINANCE NO. (2014 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PEOPLE OF
THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER
3.15 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO EXTEND THE EXISTING
"ESSENTIAL SERVICES TRANSACTIONS (SALES) AND USE TAX," FOR
AN ADDITIONAL EIGHT YEARS (MARCH 31, 2023), TO BE
ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION; UPDATE
THE PURPOSE STATEMENT; AND PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL
CITIZEN OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTING TRANSPARENCY.
WHEREAS, in 2006, the voters of San Luis Obispo approved the San Luis Obispo
Essential Services Measure (also commonly known as Measure Y, its 2006 ballot designation) with
64.77% of the vote, establishing a half-cent per dollar sales tax to address fiscal challenges
including State takeaways totaling more than $22 million over the prior 15 years, and ongoing State
funding reductions of $3 million annually; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of Measure Y was to secure a local revenue source to protect
and maintain essential community services such as neighborhood street paving and pothole
repair, traffic congestion relief, police protection, fire and paramedic services, flood
protection, senior citizen services and facilities, neighborhood code enforcement, open space
preservation and other vital general purpose services; and
WHEREAS, the voter’s approval of Measure Y in 2006 allowed the City to: restore its
neighborhood paving and flood protection programs; restore sworn police positions that had been
cut, as well as restore the City’s Fire Marshal to a full-time position; and restore its open space
acquisition program, aiding in the purchase of portions of the Irish Hills, Stenner Canyon, and
Reservoir Canyon natural reserves; and also gave the City the ability to provide added services for
residents, including hiring two neighborhood services specialists, hiring two downtown daytime
police patrol officers, and hiring a ranger services maintenance worker; and
WHEREAS, the City’s financial challenges continued after the adoption of Measure Y due
to the Great Recession – which impacted all of the City’s major revenue sources including property
tax, transient occupancy tax, and sales tax – but even during the Great Recession, the City was still
able to maintain a high level of service for its residents; and,
WHEREAS, due to Measure Y revenue and the financial stability created by City actions –
including (1) compensation reductions agreed to by employees saving the City over $3 million in
ongoing, annual savings, and (2) pension reform efforts that require employees to pay their share of
pension costs, and implementation of three tiers of retirement benefits so that, over time, the cost to
the City for retirement benefits for new public employees will be significantly reduced – the City
has invested in new Capital Improvement Projects, such as the Santa Rosa Skate Park, the Bob
Jones Trail bridge at Los Osos Valley Road, and is in a position to make new open space
acquisitions in the City’s greenbelt; and
PH2 - 14
Ordinance No. (2014 Series)
Page 2
ATTACHMENT 2 – Exhibit A
WHEREAS, the City Council appointed a 10-person citizen advisory committee to analyze
the City’s stewardship of Measure Y resources and report back to the City Council with its
recommendations, and following several meetings, a public opinion survey, a public open house,
and deliberations among the committee members, the committee recommended that the City
Council place a measure before the voters to extend the Essential Services Sales and Use Tax for
another eight years; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Essential Services Sales and Use Tax includes substantial
accountability measures including: requirements for independent annual financial audits;
integration of use of funds into the City’s budget and goal-setting process; annual community
reports; and annual citizen engagement meetings; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to include additional accountability measures,
including a Citizen’s Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission and a new Fiscal
Responsibility Philosophy to increase transparency and accountability and to ensure the
expenditure of revenue measure funds in alignment with evolving community priorities, as defined
through citizen engagement and City Council direction; and
WHEREAS, the City's Essential Services Transactions (Sales) and Use Tax Ordinance is
found in Chapter 3.15 of the City's Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, Section 3.15.03 of this Chapter sets forth a expiration date of March 31, 2015,
at which time Chapter 3.15 will expire, unless extended by the voters of the City at an election
called for that purpose; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to place a measure before the voters in the
November 2014 General Election to extend the City's existing one-half percent Transactions and
Use Tax, Chapter 3.15, for another eight years, to March 31, 2023.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council and the People of the City
of San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 3.15 of the City’s Municipal Code is hereby amended and re-
enacted in full to read as follows:
Chapter 3.15
ESSENTIAL SERVICES TRANSACTIONS (SALES) AND USE TAX
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.
PH2 - 15
Ordinance No. (2014 Series)
Page 3
ATTACHMENT 2 – Exhibit A
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 and facilities— such as open space preservation; bike
lanes, sidewalks and other traffic congestion relief projects; public safety; neighborhood street
paving and code enforcement; flood protection; senior citizen programs including services and
facilities; and other vital general purpose services and capital improvement projects —by extending
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 extension of this 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.
PH2 - 16
Ordinance No. (2014 Series)
Page 4
ATTACHMENT 2 – Exhibit A
3.15.030 Eight-year sunset.
The authority to levy the tax imposed by this chapter shall expire in eight years, on March 31, 2023,
unless extended by the voters.
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. Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission. A citizen’s commission will be
established to provide transparency and maximize City accountability. The Commission will
be responsible for reviewing and making budget recommendations directly to the City
Council regarding expenditures 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.
C. Independent Annual Financial Audit. The amount generated by this 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.
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.
E. Annual Community Report. A written report shall be reviewed at a public hearing by the
Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission, and a summary 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.
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
PH2 - 17
Ordinance No. (2014 Series)
Page 5
ATTACHMENT 2 – Exhibit A
that requests a specific briefing with their members to discuss and answer questions about
the revenues generated by the measure and their uses.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
PH2 - 18
Ordinance No. (2014 Series)
Page 6
ATTACHMENT 2 – Exhibit A
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.
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.
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:
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
PH2 - 19
Ordinance No. (2014 Series)
Page 7
ATTACHMENT 2 – Exhibit A
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.
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 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
PH2 - 20
Ordinance No. (2014 Series)
Page 8
ATTACHMENT 2 – Exhibit A
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 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
PH2 - 21
Ordinance No. (2014 Series)
Page 9
ATTACHMENT 2 – Exhibit A
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 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
PH2 - 22
Ordinance No. (2014 Series)
Page 10
ATTACHMENT 2 – Exhibit A
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.
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.
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.
Section 2. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members
voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in The
Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect upon
adoption by the voters.
INTRODUCED on July 1, 2014 AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of
the City of San Luis Obispo on July 15, 2006 on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PH2 - 23
Ordinance No. (2014 Series)
Page 11
ATTACHMENT 2 – Exhibit A
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Voters of the City San Luis Obispo on November 4,
2014 by the following vote tally:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Jan Howell Marx, Mayor
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Mejia, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
PH2 - 24
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.15 – Draft Amendments Attachment 3
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 and facilities— such as open space preservation; bike lanes,
sidewalks and other neighborhood street paving and pothole repair; traffic congestion relief projects; public
safety, including restoring eliminated traffic patrol, fire marshal and fire/paramedic training positions;
neighborhood street paving and code enforcement; flood protection; senior citizen programs including services
PH2 - 25
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.15 – Draft Amendments Attachment 3
2
and facilities; neighborhood code enforcement; open space preservation; and other vital general purpose
services and capital improvement projects—by establishing extending 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 extension of 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, on 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. Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission. A citizen’s commission will be established to
provide transparency and maximize City accountability. The Commission will be responsible for
reviewing and making budget recommendations directly to the City Council regarding expenditures
PH2 - 26
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.15 – Draft Amendments Attachment 3
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 shall be reviewed at a public hearing by the
Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission, and a summary 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)
PH2 - 27
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.15 – Draft Amendments Attachment 3
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:
PH2 - 28
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.15 – Draft Amendments Attachment 3
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
PH2 - 29
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.15 – Draft Amendments Attachment 3
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
PH2 - 30
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.15 – Draft Amendments Attachment 3
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
PH2 - 31
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 3.15 – Draft Amendments Attachment 3
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)
PH2 - 32
ATTACHMENT 4
RESOLUTION NO. (2014 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING
WRITTEN ARGUMENTS REGARDING A CITY MEASURE AND
DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL
ANALYSIS
WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election is to be held in the City of San Luis Obispo,
California, on November 4, 2014, at which time there will be submitted to the voters the
following measure:
To protect and maintain essential services and facilities – such as open
space preservation; bike lanes and sidewalks; public safety;
neighborhood street paving and code enforcement; flood protection;
senior programs; and other vital services and capital improvement
projects – shall 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, and a
Citizens’ Oversight Commission?
Yes
No
WHEREAS, Section 9282 of the Election Code of the State of California authorize the
filing of arguments for and against the adoption of said measures and for the City Elections
Official to enclose a printed copy of such arguments with the sample ballot provided to the
electors of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California,
does resolve, declare, determine and order as follows:
SECTION 1. That the City Council authorizes the following members of its body to file
written arguments not exceeding 300 words regarding the City measure specified above,
accompanied by the printed names and signatures of the authors submitting it, in accordance with
Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State of California and to change the
arguments until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk after which no arguments for or
against the City measure may be submitted to the City Clerk. The arguments shall be
accompanied by a “Form of Statement to be Filed by the Authors of the Argument.”
_____________ (Council Member in Favor)
_____________ (Council Member in Favor)
_____________ (Council Member in Favor)
_____________ (Council Member in Favor)
_____________ (Council Member in Favor)
_____________ (Council Member Against)
_____________ (Council Member Against)
_____________ (Council Member Against)
_____________ (Council Member Against)
_____________ (Council Member Against)
SECTION 2. All arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk, signed with the printed
name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization,
PH2 - 33
Resolution No. (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 4 - Page 2
the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal
officers who is the author of the argument. An argument may not be signed by more than five
authors. In case any argument is signed by more than five authors, the signatures of the first five
shall be printed.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Election Code 9287, in the event more than one argument for or
more than one argument against the ballot measure is submitted to the City Clerk within the time
prescribed, the City Clerk shall select one of the arguments in favor and one of the arguments
against each measure for printing and distribution to the voters. In selecting the argument, the City
Clerk shall give preference and priority, in the order named, to the arguments of the following:
(a) The legislative body, or member or members of the legislative body authorized by that
body;
(b) The individual voter, or bona fide association of citizens, or combination of voters and
associations, who are the bona fide sponsors or proponents of the measure;
(c) Bona fide associations of citizens; and
(d) Individual voters who are eligible to vote on the measure.
SECTION 3. That the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure
to the City Attorney who shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure not exceeding 500
words showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. The
analysis shall include a statement indicating whether the measure was placed on the ballot by a
petition signed by the requisite number of voters or by the governing body of the City. The
impartial analysis shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments.
SECTION 4. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
On motion of , seconded by , and on the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PH2 - 34
Resolution No. (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 4 - Page 3
The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2014.
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Mejia, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
PH2 - 35
ATTACHMENT 5
RESOLUTION NO. (2014 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL
ARGUMENTS FOR CITY MEASURES SUBMITTED AT MUNICIPAL
ELECTIONS
WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election is to be held in the City of San Luis Obispo,
California, on November 4, 2014, at which time there will be submitted to the voters the
following measure:
To protect and maintain essential services and facilities – such as open
space preservation; bike lanes and sidewalks; public safety;
neighborhood street paving and code enforcement; flood protection;
senior programs; and other vital services and capital improvement
projects – shall 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, and a
Citizens’ Oversight Commission?
Yes
No
WHEREAS, Section 9285 of the Elections Code of the State of California authorizes the
City Council, by majority vote, to adopt provisions to provide for the filing of rebuttal arguments
for City measures submitted at municipal elections.
NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California,
does resolve, declare, determine and order as follows:
SECTION 1. That pursuant to Sections 9285 of the Elections Code of the State of
California, when the Elections Official has selected the arguments for and against the measure
which will be printed and distributed to the voters, the Elections Official shall send copies of the
argument in favor of the measure to the authors of the argument against, and copies of the
argument against to the authors of the argument in favor immediately upon receiving the
arguments.
The author or a majority of the authors of an argument related to a City measure may
prepare and submit a rebuttal argument not exceeding 250 words or may authorize in writing any
other person or persons to prepare, submit, or sign the rebuttal argument.
A rebuttal argument may not be signed by more than five authors. In case any argument
is signed by more than five authors, the signatures of the first five shall be printed.
The rebuttal arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk, signed, with the printed
name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an
organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of
its principal officers, not more than 10 days after the final date for filing direct arguments. The
PH2 - 36
Resolution No. (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 5 - Page 2
rebuttal arguments shall be accompanied by a “Form of Statement to be Filed by Authors of
Argument.”
Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each
rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument which it seeks to rebut.
SECTION 2. That all previous resolutions providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments
for city measures are repealed.
SECTION 3. That the provisions of Section 1 shall apply at the next ensuing municipal
election and at each municipal election after that time.
SECTION 4. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.
On motion of , seconded by , and on the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2014.
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Mejia, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
PH2 - 37
ATTACHMENT 6
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CONSOLIDATE THE GENERAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2014, WITH THE
STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THAT DATE
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has called a General
Municipal Election to be held on November 4, 2014, for the purpose of submitting to the voters a
question relating to a local revenue measure; and
WHEREAS, it is desirable that the General Municipal Election be consolidated with
the Statewide General Election to be held on the same date and that within the City the
precincts, polling places and election officers of the two elections be the same, and that the
County Election Department of the County of San Luis Obispo canvass the returns of the
General Municipal Election and that the election be held in all respects as if there were only one
election.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo does declare, determine and order as follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to the requirements of the Section 10403 of the Elections Code, the
Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo is hereby requested to consent and
agree to order the consolidation of the General Municipal Election with the Statewide General
Election to be held on Tuesday, November 4, 2014 for the purpose of submitting to the voters a
question relating to a local revenue measure.
SECTION 2. That a measure is to appear on the ballot as follows:
To protect and maintain essential services and facilities – such as
open space preservation; bike lanes and sidewalks; public safety;
neighborhood street paving and code enforcement; flood protection;
senior programs; and other vital services and capital improvement
projects – shall 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, and a
Citizens’ Oversight Commission?
Yes
No
SECTION 3. The Board of Supervisors is requested to certify the results of the canvass of
the returns of the General Municipal Election to the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo,
which shall thereupon declare the results thereof.
PH2 - 38
Resolution No. (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 6 - Page 2
SECTION 3. The Board of Supervisors is hereby requested to issue instructions to the
County Clerk and Registrar of Voters to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of said
General Municipal Election. The City will pay its pro rata share of extra costs incurred by the
County in consolidating the elections pursuant to Section 51350 of the Government Code.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file certified copies of this resolution
with the Board of Supervisors, the County Clerk and the Registrar of Voters of the County of
San Luis Obispo.
SECTION 5. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
resolution.
On motion of , seconded by , and on the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2014.
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Mejia, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
PH2 - 39
ATTACHMENT 7
O _____
ORDINANCE NO. (2014 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ESTABLISHING THE
CITIZENS’ REVENUE ENHANCEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (REOC)
WHEREAS, the voters of the City of San Luis Obispo approved a half-percent sales tax
in 2006, which is now codified as Municipal Code Chapter 3.15 Essential Services Transactions
(Sales) and Use Tax (Essential Services Tax); and
WHEREAS, the Essential Services Tax is a general purpose tax and was established to
protect and maintain essential services; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Code Chapter 3.15.040 includes a number of accountability
provisions to ensure citizen oversight and transparency of the revenues and expenditures
collected through this general purpose tax; and
WHEREAS, the Essential Services Tax will expire in March 2015 if it is not extended
by the voters of San Luis Obispo during the November 2014 General Election; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo plans to submit a ballot
measure to the voters of San Luis Obispo to extend the Essential Services Tax for an additional
eight years; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to enhance City accountability for the use of voter
approved revenues and, therefore, is proposing to establish the Revenue Enhancement Oversight
Commission (REOC) for the purpose of reviewing revenues and expenditures from the Essential
Services Tax, reporting to the community and the City Council about the City’s stewardship of
these revenues, and recommending expenditures to the City Council that are consistent with the
purpose of Municipal Code Chapter 3.15 and the preferences of City residents; and
WHEREAS, Article XII of the City’s Charter gives the City Council authority to
establish new Commissions by ordinance as the Council deems necessary to give it advice or
assistance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. New Chapter 2.14 (Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission) is
hereby added to the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code to read as follows:
Chapter 2.14
Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission
2.14.010 Commission Established and Purpose
The Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission (REOC) is hereby established to review,
report, and make recommendations regarding the use of revenues collected through the City’s
PH2 - 40
Ordinance No. (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 7 Page 2
voter-approved general purpose, half-percent sales tax authorized by Section 3.15 of the
Municipal Code. The REOC is authorized to review these tax revenues and expenditures, report
on the City’s stewardship of this general purpose tax, and provide recommendations directly to
the City Council regarding expenditures of these tax revenues as an integral part of the budget
process. The establishment of the REOC shall be effective upon voter approval of a revenue
enhancement measure to be proposed in November 2014 and shall continue in existence as long
as Municipal Code Chapter 3.15, adopted by such measure, is in effect.
2.14.020 Membership and appointment.
The REOC shall consist of five (5) members who are residents of the City. Members shall be
appointed by the whole City Council through a public application and appointment process.
When recruiting members, the City will seek members that have experience with finance,
budgeting, or municipal accounting.
2.14.030 Term of office and Compensation.
A. Terms. Of the members first appointed, three shall be appointed for the term of
three years, and two shall be appointed for two year terms. Subsequent
appointments to the REOC shall be for three years. Vacancies during the term
shall be filled by the City Council for the unexpired portion of the term. Members
may be removed by the City Council with or without cause by a majority vote of
the City Council.
B. Compensation. Members shall earn a stipend equal to that earned by the
Planning Commission. The amount of the stipend shall be indicated in the
Commission’s by-laws.
2.14.040 Powers and duties.
The REOC shall meet a minimum of four times per year to perform its duties, as follows:
A. Generally. The REOC shall have the authority to conduct public hearings as
directed by the City Council or city policy. The REOC shall exercise the duties
conferred upon it by this ordinance, and as necessary to achieve its purpose.
B. Annual Community Report. The REOC shall conduct a public hearing annually
to review and take public testimony on the Essential Services Measure Annual
Report.
C. Annual Audit. The REOC shall meet annually to review the audited financial
statements contained in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the
Essential Services Measure.
D. Annual Citizen Oversight Meeting. The REOC shall hold an annual Essential
Services Measure Community Forum for the purpose of taking input from
residents and community members on preferences for the use of the revenues
generated by the Essential Services Tax.
E. Budget Recommendations. The REOC shall meet for the purpose of making
recommendations to the City Council regarding the uses of revenue generated by
the Essential Services Measure. The REOC shall take into consideration the input
provided by residents and community members during the Annual Citizen
Oversight Meeting, the purpose of the Essential Services Measure, the Major City
PH2 - 41
Ordinance No. (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 7 Page 3
Goals established by the City Council, and the amount of revenue available from
past fiscal years, and projected to be available during the next fiscal year, in
making its budget recommendations to the Council.
F. Outreach and Education. The REOC shall be authorized to perform outreach
and educational activities so that residents and community members are informed
about the costs and benefits associated with the collection and use of revenue
generated by the Essential Services Measure.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance will become effective following the passage
of an extension to the Essential Services Measure, San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter
3.15, which will be voted on by the voters of the City of San Luis Obispo during the November
2014 General Election. In the event the revenue extension measure is not approved by the voters,
this ordinance shall not take effect.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall expire with the City’s authority to levy the tax
imposed by Municipal Code Chapter 3.15, consistent with Section 3.15.030 of said chapter as it
now exists or may hereafter be amended by the voters of the City of San Luis Obispo.
SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council
members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage,
in The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into
effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the 10th day of June 2014, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the ____ day of _____ 2014, on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
Anthony Mejia
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
PH2 - 42
Attachment 8
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. ( 2014 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ADOPTING ITS FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY PHILOSOPHY
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo strives to provide excellent service to the
community at all times, and believes fiscal responsibility is a means for promoting community
health and well-being; and
WHEREAS, the City has a robust financial planning process with a strong foundation of
citizen input and sound fiscal policies to ensure a balanced budget; and
WHEREAS, the City has used its fiscal health contingency plan as a means to
proactively reduce the negative impacts of economic downturns; and,
WHEREAS, the City regularly examines its cost and revenue drivers and presents
updated fiscal forecasts to Council; and,
WHEREAS, the City recognizes that personnel costs represent a significant portion of
the City’s total expenditures and, as such, adopted a Compensation Philosophy and continues to
monitor, report, and propose means to effectively manage those costs;
WHEREAS, the City will strive to achieve fiscal, economic and environmental
accountability and sustainability, as well as maintain a quality of life residents find desirable for
current and future generations;
WHEREAS, ultimate accountability for the fiscal health of the community rests with the
elected City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo that the City’s fiscal responsibility philosophy is adopted as follows:
SECTION 1. The City is committed to fiscal responsibility through good economic
times as well as economic downturns.
SECTION 2. Definition: Fiscal responsibility is the balanced approach to providing the
infrastructure, maintenance, and services that preserve and enhance the quality of life in our
community, as identified and prioritized through community input.
SECTION 3. In achieving and maintaining fiscal responsibility, the City commits to the
following:
A. Informed Decision-making. The City will identify and consider immediate and
long-term economic, social, and environmental impacts of all decisions considered by
the Council.
PH2 - 43
Resolution No. _______________ (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 8
B. Shared responsibility. The City recognizes a shared responsibility between the
employee and employer to appropriately fund employee benefits, including pension
benefits. Ensuring an appropriate balance is a valuable tool in attracting and retaining
well qualified employees that deliver services to the community, while maintaining a
long-term, sustainable, and balanced budget.
C. Increased Transparency. The City will conduct all business, including labor
negotiations and other employee compensation matters, with transparency pursuant to
all applicable laws and regulations. The City will continue to develop tools, such as
key measures and dashboards that make information readily available to community
members in a timely and useful manner.
D. Aligned Investments. The City shall allocate resources in alignment with community
needs and priorities for maintaining and/or adding capital projects, assets, or services.
E. Diversified and Aligned Revenue Sources. The City will pursue diversified
revenue sources that are aligned with expenditures and community priorities.
F. Long-Term Unfunded Liabilities. The City will identify all long-term liabilities,
including unfunded pension obligations and strive to achieve a higher funded portion
of pension obligations; and shall manage all liabilities to maintain and enhance fiscal
responsibility.
G. Continued Efficiency and Effectiveness. The City will explore and implement
operational efficiencies including alternative service delivery, best management
practices, and cost containment measures while preserving effectiveness.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted on July 1, 2014.
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Anthony Mejia, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
PH2 - 44
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A REVENUE AUGMENTATION
BALLOT MEASURE
2013‐14 City of San Luis Obispo Local Revenue Measure Advisory Committee
February 24, 2014
ATTACHMENT 9
PH2 - 45
1
Mission Statement
1. Analyze the City’s stewardship of Measure Y resources.
2. Seek community input regarding its preferences and local revenue measure spending
priorities.
3. Develop recommendations specific to the November 2014 General Election regarding
alternatives for reauthorization of Measure Y or the creation of a new revenue measure.
4. Help the City perform community outreach and education.
Local Revenue Measure Advisory Committee Membership
Appointed by City Council, August 2013
Patricia Andreen*
Michael Boswell
Lea Brooks*
Victoria Carranza
Jeri Carroll*
John Fowler*
James Grant
Dia Hurd
Michael Multari
Cate Norton
Dale Magee, Facilitator
*Report Subcommittee
ATTACHMENT 9
PH2 - 46
1
FROM: City of San Luis Obispo Local Revenue Measure Advisory Committee (LRMAC)
Prepared By: Report Subcommittee
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A REVENUE AUGMENTATION MEASURE
RECOMMENDATION
That the San Luis Obispo City Council place a measure on the November 2014 ballot to extend
the general half‐cent sales tax approved by voters in 2006 with an expiration date of March
2015; and that the new measure expire, or “sunset,” in eight years from its effective date.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Local Revenue Measure Advisory Committee (LRMAC) was established by the San Luis
Obispo City Council in August 2013 to advise on matters related to Measure Y, the City’s current
local half‐cent tax, and make recommendations regarding its reauthorization or creation of a
new tax revenue after Measure Y expires in March 2015. This report discusses how the 10‐
member LRMAC reached its recommendation.
LRMAC addressed its four‐point mission during seven meetings (plus subcommittee work) from
September 2013 through February 2014. During that time, it considered many sources and
information, including: a public forum in November 2013; information gathered from a
telephone survey of registered City voters in late 2013; presentations by City officials; historical
review of Measure Y; legal considerations of sales tax revenue measures; comparisons with
other jurisdictions; use of Measure Y funds to date; public testimony; annual audits; and fiscal
forecasts. LRMAC members accomplished their mission by asking questions, scrutinizing data,
and talking to City staff, voters and residents at large about Measure Y’s role in maintaining San
Luis Obispo’s exceptional quality of life.
LRMAC concluded that the City Council has expended funds generated by Measure Y based on
Measure Y ordinance language, priorities the Council established after extensive public
outreach, and input as part of the City’s budget process. The committee believes voters should
continue to have the opportunity to decide what kind of community they want by either
extending the half‐cent sales tax for another eight years or rejecting it in preference of a more
limited budget.
The Committee’s activities and full recommendations are further described below.
ATTACHMENT 9
PH2 - 47
LRMAC Report and Recommendations February 24, 2014
2
DISCUSSION
Summary Table of LRMAC Recommendations
Decisions Recommendation1 LRMAC
Vote1
Would the City benefit from a revenue augmentation
measure? Yes 10/0
Do you recommend a revenue augmentation measure? Yes 8/2
Is there public support for continuing the sales tax measure? YES 10/0
Should the revenue augmentation be a continuation of the
existing ½ cent sales tax measure? YES 9/1
Should this be a general purpose or special purpose tax
measure? GENERAL PURPOSE 10/0
Should there be a companion “advisory ballot measure”? NO 10/0
Should there be a “sunset clause” on the measure?
YES
8 YEARS
6 YEARS
10/0
9
1
1 Rationale for decisions and votes are described further on page 7.
Measure Y History
According to information presented by City Staff, between 2003 and 2006, the City of San Luis
Obispo experienced significant fiscal challenges caused by a number of factors affecting both
revenues and costs. These included State budget takeaways, insurance cost increases, decline
and subsequent slow growth of key revenues, new service costs, CalPERS investment losses
that increased retirement costs, reduced grant revenues, and higher costs in utilities, fuel and
construction.
These challenges resulted in more than $10 million in budget reductions and service cuts. Some
of the reductions in service during this time period included the elimination of traffic officers
and a full‐time fire marshal, the suspension of the neighborhood street paving program, the
elimination of funding for creek and flood protection, the discontinuation of funding for open
space acquisition, the under‐staffing of code enforcement operations and cuts to cultural and
social service programs.
To address this budget situation, City leaders evaluated a wide range of possible new revenue
options and concluded that a sales tax measure would be the best option.
In May 2005, the City Council considered the feasibility of a revenue ballot measure based on a
statistically valid public opinion survey that a general purpose sales tax of not more than a half‐
cent would be viable. The City Council directed staff to continue an outreach and education
ATTACHMENT 9
PH2 - 48
LRMAC Report and Recommendations February 24, 2014
3
effort to engage the community regarding the budget situation. The result of this community
outreach effort was the decision to put Measure Y on the ballot.
Measure Y includes significant oversight and accountability features, including: a requirement
for an annual audit of revenues and expenditures; integration of Measure Y into the City budget
process; annual community meetings to solicit input and feedback on Measure Y expenditures;
and an eight‐year expiration, or “sunset clause.” Ultimately, Measure Y was approved by more
than 64% of the vote. It went into effect on April 1, 2007, and will sunset on March 31, 2015, if
not reauthorized.
With Measure Y in place, the City of San Luis Obispo was able to maintain essential services,
including a robust neighborhood street paving program, increased neighborhood code
enforcement, and additional public safety personnel. A creek protection and flood prevention
program was implemented, improving the capacity of the City’s storm water system and
reducing flooding. Additional open space areas were acquired or opened to the public such as
Froom Ranch and Johnson Ranch.
Formation of the Local Revenue Measure Advisory Committee
As part of the 2013‐15 Financial Plan, the City Council adopted a Major City Goal to Sustain
Essential Services, Infrastructure, and Fiscal Health. The proposed work program to achieve the
goal includes the formation of a resident‐based advisory committee:
Create a 10‐member Advisory Committee appointed by the City Council to guide outreach
efforts, advise staff in the creation of the outreach effort, and implementation of the Major
City Goal work plan, as well as provide advice and counsel to the City Council regarding
future revenues (City Council, 2013‐15 Financial Plan).
Each member of the LRMAC submitted an application with a resume, which was reviewed by
the City Council. Each Council member provided his or her respective nominations to the City
Clerk at their September 3, 2013 meeting. Nominations were tallied and those with at least
three concurrences were appointed.
The LRMAC met seven times in committee with a consultant facilitator, and two times at
community meetings. Each meeting was noticed and open to the public. A website was created
so that community members could keep track of proceedings. The meetings were conducted in
a manner that provided sufficient opportunity for public input and discussion by committee
members of the topics at hand. The public workshops were opportunities for committee
members to interact with residents and community members around a variety of topics related
to Measure Y. These topics included a summary of completed projects, benefits of Measure Y
expenditures, audited results, and information about alternative types of revenue measures.
ATTACHMENT 9
PH2 - 49
LRMAC Report and Recommendations February 24, 2014
4
Committee Activities
The LRMAC utilized many resources to reach its recommendations. It also raised and explored
critical questions that informed its analysis of resource materials, discussions, and
recommendations. These questions included:
Were Measure Y funds used in accordance with the ballot measure language?
Were Measure Y funds used as the community perceived / expected?
Do the citizens trust that the funds have been well‐spent and are still needed? How
can that trust be built and conveyed?
What kind of community do we want to be?
What keeps San Luis Obispo such a great city? Will a revenue measure help ensure
that?
What are the City’s upcoming needs?
What was the impact of binding arbitration?
Why do we need another revenue measure if the economy is improving?
The amount of money beyond the 20% reserve: How does that impact the need for
a revenue measure?
LRMAC members studied extensive materials and sought information from subject matter
experts to educate themselves. Activities related to each of the areas in the Committee’s
Mission Statement follow.
1. Analyzed the City’s stewardship of Measure Y resources, including but not limited to:
a. Ordinance creating Measure Y
b. Historical review and perspective
c. Legal considerations of sales tax revenue measures
d. Use of Measure Y funds to date; projects and outcomes to date
e. Audit Reports
f. Measure Y Integration reports
g. Neighborhood Wellness reports
h. Media coverage since 2008
i. Public testimony
2. Sought community input regarding preferences and local revenue measure spending
priorities, including but not limited to:
a. Open House, November 2013, attended by more than 50 City residents.
Designated input stations were included so residents could submit written
comments. Community preferences included: a more walkable/bikeable
community that leads to safer routes to school, clean air, fewer motor vehicles
and better traffic flow, open space, storm water and management, roads.
b. Community Opinion Surveys (2005 ‐ 2013)
3. Developed recommendations specific to the November 2014 General Election regarding
alternatives for reauthorization of Measure Y, or the creation of a new revenue measure,
including but not limited to:
ATTACHMENT 9
PH2 - 50
LRMAC Report and Recommendations February 24, 2014
5
a. General Fund Five‐Year Forecast, and updates (2006 – 2018)
b. Long‐term Capital Improvement Plan
c. Comparison of other revenue measures and companion measures throughout
the county, region and state.
d. Media coverage since 2008
4. Helped the City perform community outreach and education, including but not limited
to:
a. Open House, November 2013
b. Feedback from each member’s own network of community members
c. Identified key message elements the City should be articulating to the
community, such as: use of funds to date, what funds have not been spent on,
what a general purpose tax really means versus a specific tax, etc.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
These recommendations follow five months (September 2013 – February 2014) of meetings,
presentations, resource review, public opinion, and discussions with City staff. Committee
members held divergent views when first convened, but the following recommendations reflect
consensus in most areas (except as noted).
1. The City would benefit from the continuation of the existing half‐cent sales tax measure.
All Committee members believe the City would benefit from a revenue augmentation
measure.
Eight of 10 members voted to recommend a revenue augmentation measure. The two
dissenting members would have voted yes if more assurances that the funds will not all go
to salaries and reserves, and that Capital Improvement Projects would increase more than is
shown in current forecasts, were given.
Measure Y is a major source of general fund money. It accounts for approximately 12 % of
the City’s General Fund, and is a major source of discretionary funding to help accomplish
priorities established by the City Council with input from the public. The tax revenue also
gives the City the ability to buffer against future fiscal troubles.
Stable and sustainable funding is needed to keep San Luis Obispo a special place. The
theme of the 2006 Measure Y campaign was “Keep San Luis Obispo Special.” Indeed, money
generated by Measure Y enabled the City to provide a higher level of public safety and
services during the Great Recession than it could have otherwise. To date, Measure Y funds
have been used for paving and road improvements, open space acquisition, maintenance
and improvement of public safety services, drainage and flood protection, recreational
facilities such as the new skate park, and many other projects and services that make San
Luis Obispo such a great place to live, work and visit.
There is a long list of capital projects and services that need funding. This list reflects
community desires expressed during numerous public workshops and hearings (such as the
ATTACHMENT 9
PH2 - 51
LRMAC Report and Recommendations February 24, 2014
6
Land Use and Circulation Elements update, budget hearings, Bicycle Transportation Plan
adoption hearings) and in Measure Y surveys, and capital improvement projects needed to
provide services to the public more efficiently and effectively. The list includes (non‐
prioritized):
a. Street paving, maintenance and upgrades
b. Expanded neighborhood services
c. Essential police, fire and emergency response and safety equipment
d. More open space, parks and recreation facilities
e. Pedestrian and bike paths, such as implementation of the City’s newly updated
Bicycle Transportation Plan, including completion of the Railroad Safety Trail and the
City’s segment of the Bob Jones Trail
f. Flood prevention and drainage
g. Improvements to downtown so it continues to attract residents and visitors
Spending on Capital Projects and Essential Services will be reduced. If the City loses a
major source of stable, long‐term revenue, funding will be reduced for essential services
and capital improvements. This would greatly diminish the ability to keep San Luis Obispo a
special place to live, work and visit.
2. The revenue augmentation should be a continuation of the existing half‐cent sales tax
measure.
It is the most practical way to increase local general fund money. Under existing state law,
a general sales tax measure is the best, most practical way for communities to generate
additional locally controlled discretionary revenues. That is why voters in many cities and
counties in California have supported similar sales tax measures. The LRMAC did consider
other revenue alternatives, such as a parcel tax or transient occupancy tax, but concluded
they were not as practical and as appropriate as a sales tax measure.
In San Luis Obispo, most of the sales tax is paid by non‐residents. Based on the 2013 Sales
Tax Analysis, approximately 72% of the tax is generated by tourists, people who work in San
Luis Obispo but live elsewhere, and other non‐residents. They, not residents, are
contributing most of the funds used to make San Luis Obispo a better place to live, work,
visit and shop.
No significant “competitive disadvantage”. Most cities in California have local sales tax
rates equal to or higher than San Luis Obispo’s rate, and the majority of Californians live in
places with higher combined sales tax rates. On the Central Coast, Arroyo Grande, Morro
Bay, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach and Santa Maria have sales tax add‐ons similar to Measure Y.
ATTACHMENT 9
PH2 - 52
LRMAC Report and Recommendations February 24, 2014
7
Comparison of 2013 Sales Tax Rates
City Local Sales Tax Rate County Sales Tax Rate Add‐On
San Luis Obispo 8.00% 7.50 % (San Luis Obispo County) 0.50%
Benchmark Cities
Monterey 7.50% 7.50 % (Monterey County) 0.00%
Napa 8.00% 8.00 % (Napa County) 0.00%
Santa Barbara 8.00% 8.00 % (Santa Barbara) 0.00%
Paso Robles 8.00% 7.50 % (San Luis Obispo County) 0.50%
Davis 8.00% 7.50 % (Yolo County) 0.50%
Santa Maria 8.25% 8.00 % (Santa Barbara County) 0.25%
Santa Cruz 8.75% 8.25 % (Santa Cruz County) 0.50%
Palm Springs 9.00% 8.00 % (Riverside County) 1.00%
Other Cities in SLO County (Non‐Benchmark)
Atascadero 7.50% 7.50 % (San Luis Obispo County) 0.00%
Arroyo Grande 8.00% 7.50 % (San Luis Obispo County) 0.50%
Grover Beach 8.00% 7.50 % (San Luis Obispo County) 0.50%
Morro Bay 8.00% 7.50 % (San Luis Obispo County) 0.50%
Pismo Beach 8.00% 7.50 % (San Luis Obispo County) 0.50%
Source: City of San Luis Obispo
Measure Y has been in effect for seven years now and a renewal would simply maintain
the current sales tax rate of 8%.
3. It should be a General Purpose, not Special Purpose tax measure.
General Purpose requires a simple majority. Under State law, a special purpose tax
requires a two‐thirds majority of the vote, whereas a general purpose requires a simple
majority. Majority rule should decide. Measure Y required a simple majority vote and
passed with 64% approval. It is recommended that a renewal measure follow the same
path. A general purpose tax is the most commonly used and most successful.
It gives the City flexibility to address changing conditions and preferences. General
purpose revenue provides flexibility to allocate sales tax money based on particular
circumstances facing the community at any given time. The City can respond to changing
conditions and shifting priorities over time.
The community can affect how the money is used. City residents have opportunities to
directly participate in the process of deciding how City resources are spent. The City Council
has established a comprehensive public goal‐setting and budget process that serves as a
model for other cities.
4. There is public support for continuing the sales tax measure.
Surveys and the public workshop both indicate strong support. Survey results have shown
continued support for Measure Y over the years and the most recent polling indicates 71%
ATTACHMENT 9
PH2 - 53
LRMAC Report and Recommendations February 24, 2014
8
of likely voters would support continuing (i.e. renewing) the measure. Furthermore, at the
public workshop held in November, participants expressed strong support for the need and
uses of Measure Y money.
5. A companion “advisory ballot measure” should not be included.
It is unnecessary and possibly misleading. An “advisory” measure that lists the types of
projects and services that the sales tax money could be used may give the erroneous
impression of a special purpose tax, when it is indeed general in nature. The City needs
flexibility to use the money based on priorities at any given time. San Luis Obispo has
adopted an open and transparent goal‐setting and budget process with opportunities for
public participation.
6. There should be an eight‐year “sunset clause” on the measure.
Eight years is consistent with the current measure. This is supported by nine of the LRMAC
members. This eight‐year term allows for periodic public review (versus a permanent tax),
but is long enough to “get things done” (for example, road paving projects take
approximately seven years). This is also a practical interval due to the costs of holding
elections and conducting campaigns. Survey responses, workshop comments and LRMAC
discussion suggest that inclusion of a “sunset clause” increases public support for a sales tax
measure. Polling data and workshop comments support eight years. One member desires a
six‐year sunset as evaluation of the spending would occur sooner.
COMMITTEE GUIDANCE AND PREFERENCES
The LRMAC members advise the following:
1. Check in regularly with the public as to specific uses of the funds and progress.
a. Show that funds have been well spent, and provide regular public access to clear,
understandable expenditure reports.
b. Develop ways to reach out to the entire community, not just those who regularly
attend public meetings and forums. Explore innovative ways to engage the public
and garner more interest in the budget, what projects and services are funded, and
how city planning projects work through increased participatory processes. Put
focused effort in reaching populations that usually do not participate in the budget
process.
c. Maintain funds generated by the sales tax measure in a separate account for easy
connection to “dollar in / dollar out.”
d. Provide for the explicit accounting of sales tax augmentation monies (e.g. amount
anticipated, received and how used) and for clear and easy ways for the public to
access this information.
2. Direct more of the funds to capital improvement projects and maintenance, not
operations.
ATTACHMENT 9
PH2 - 54
LRMAC Report and Recommendations February 24, 2014
9
a. The Five‐year Fiscal Forecast that includes Measure Y funds shows the ability to
increase capital improvement spending over time. This supports the committee’s
and public’s expectations for use of revenue funds.
b. The ability to increase spending on capital improvements and desire for the City
Council to make that a priority are the decisive factors leading some committee
members to recommend any revenue measure at all.
c. If not managed over the course of carrying out programs, salaries and benefits
unrelated to capital improvement projects and maintenance of City assets may
consume a proportionately larger part of the sales tax each year .
d. The City Council should adopt a budget policy that makes capital projects and/or the
maintenance of existing assets and infrastructure a priority. The policy may include
flexibility such as provisions for emergencies (e.g. natural disasters or state take‐a‐
ways of local funding), and for averaging allocations over multiple budgets.
3. Use a public process to direct the specific uses of an allotted amount of revenue funds
during the budget process.
a. Explore innovative and non‐conventional ways of including diverse public input into
the budgeting process.
CONCLUSION
The Local Revenue Measure Advisory Committee appreciates the opportunity to serve the San
Luis Obispo community, and respectfully requests that the City Council accept its
recommendations and suggestions.
ATTACHMENT 9
PH2 - 55
M e a s u r i n g O u r Performanc
e
June 2 0 1 4
A Fiscal Comparison with
Selected Benchmark Cities
ATTACHMENT 10
PH2 - 56
2
Measuring Our Performance
A Fiscal Comparison with Selected Benchmark Cities
PROJECT MANAGERS
James David, Principal Analyst, Administration
Kate Auslen, Administrative Assistant, Human Resources
Ryan Betz, Analyst, Public Works
CITY STAFF
Katie Lichtig, City Manager
Michael Codron, Assistant City Manager
Steve Gesell, Police Chief
Monica Irons, Human Resources Director
Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Garret Olson, Fire Chief
Wayne Padilla, Finance and Information Technology Director
Shelly Stanwyck, Parks and Recreation Director
ATTACHMENT 10
PH2 - 57
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
INTRODUCTION 4
Factors that Affect Benchmark Comparisons
FINANCIAL BENCHMARKS: RESOURCE COMPARISON 6
Chart 1: General Fund per Capita
Chart 2: Sales Tax, Property Tax & Transient Occupancy Tax: Percent of Total General Fund Revenues
Chart 3: Sales Tax Revenues per Capita
Chart 4: Property Tax Revenues per Capita
Chart 5: Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Revenues per Capita
Chart 6: Ratio of Fees to Total General Fund Revenues
FINANCIAL BENCHMARKS: COST COMPARISON 8
Chart 7: Governmental Costs per Capita
Chart 8: General Fund Operating Costs per Capita
Chart 9: Percent of Governmental Costs that are Interest Payments
Chart 10: General Fund Allocations to Public Safety
Chart 11: General Fund Public Safety Costs per Capita
Chart 12: General Fund Allocations for General Government
FINANCIAL BENCHMARKS: STAFFING COMPARISON 10
Chart 13: Staffing from General Fund (per 1,000 residents)
Chart 14: Sworn Police Staff (per 1,000 residents)
Chart 15: Sworn Fire Staff (per 1,000 residents served)
OTHER BENCHMARKS: SERVICE OUTCOMES 11
Chart 16: Violent Crimes (per 1,000 residents)
Chart 17: Fire Calls for Service (per 1,000 residents)
Chart 18: Pavement Condition Index
SLO COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT SURVEY: SERVICE OUTCOMES 12
Chart 19: How would you rate the job being done by City officials in providing services to the City’s residents?
Chart 20: How would you rate the job being done by City officials in managing City funds?
Chart 21: How would you rate the City of San Luis Obispo as a place to live?
CONCLUSION 14
Best Managment Practices
Source Data
ATTACHMENT 10
PH2 - 58
4
INTRODUCTION
The City Council of San Luis Obispo adopted a Major City Goal for fiscal health, which includes a task to prepare
a benchmark study that helps illustrate how San Luis Obispo is doing by comparing it to other like cities across
a number of performance measures. This benchmark study evaluates 2012-13 data on financial performance
such as revenue diversity, expense allocation, staffing costs, and debt management. Service costs do not always
reflect service levels or efficiency, so the study also compares service outcomes like crime rates, fire response
and pavement condition. The results indicate that San Luis Obispo is close to the median on most comparisons.
Eight cities were chosen for comparison to San Luis Obispo (population 45,500, General Fund $47M) by the City
Council:
1. Davis (66,500, $40M)
2. Monterey (28,300, $59M)
3. Napa (77,900, $64M)
4. Palm Springs (45,700, $65M)
5. Santa Barbara (89,700, $100M)
6. Santa Cruz (62,400, $66M)
7. Santa Maria (100,300, $48M)
8. Paso Robles (30,500, $23M)
The comparison cities are from the same set used in the 2006 Benchmark Study with the exception of Paso Robles
replacing Ventura. Each selected city share many characteristics, including:
1. Full service city that provides a wide range of core services directly, including: police, fire, street
maintenance, planning, and parks and recreation.
2. County seat or largest city in the nearby vicinity.
3. Distinct regional identity separate from a large metropolitan area.
4. Major employment, commercial, cultural and government urban center.
5. Quality of life community.
6. Mid-size city, with populations ranging from 30,000 to 100,000.
7. Implemented or re-authorized a sales tax measure during the past 10 years.
8. College community and/or major tourism.
9. Slow growth; between -0.5% and 1.5% population change from 2012 to 2013.
The objective is to provide a snapshot of how San Luis Obispo measures up to similar cities in California. The
study also provides the opportunity to evaluate San Luis Obispo’s revenue sources in comparison with costs,
services and community priorities.
FACTORS THAT AFFECT BENCHMARK COMPARISONS
Accurately measuring benchmarks between San Luis Obispo and the selected cities can be a difficult task.
Comparisons do not tell the entire story because every city differs on a variety of issues, including but not limited
to: geography, daytime versus resident population, accounting methods, and fund management.
Geography
Fire service in San Luis Obispo is impacted by mountains, freeways, railroad tracks and other unique topographical
features. To meet the ideal four minute fire response time, the City’s Fire Department has to maintain and staff
four separate fire stations, which can inflate costs when compared to other cities with less challenging geography
and/or less fire stations.
ATTACHMENT 10
PH2 - 59
5
INTRODUCTION
Daytime Population
San Luis Obispo’s resident population is approximately 45,000, but the City realizes a peak population of 75,000-
90,000 citizens expecting services during “normal business hours.” In addition, the peak daytime population of
nearby Cal Poly is 25,000 citizens that are also covered by contract City services, including Fire Department
emergency response service 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Accounting Methods
Every city budgets and accounts for service costs differently. For example, some cities account for internal
services like printing, fleet maintenance, insurance and information technology using “internal service funds”,
which charge user departments for their services. Other cities (like San Luis Obispo) account for internal service
costs in the General Fund and use a cost allocation plan in distributing costs to other departments and funds. For
public services like paving, street lighting, or storm drain maintenance, some cities account for these services
in separate special revenue or enterprise funds, while others account for them solely in their General Fund. The
“General Fund” can be a relative term, and those cities that use separate funds to account for services that others
account for in their General Fund may appear to have lower General Fund costs.
Fund Management
The services that cities provide can be divided into two major groups: governmental and enterprise. Governmental
activities include: police, fire, capital projects, planning and building inspections, street maintenance, recreation
and park maintenance. Governmental activities costs and cash balances are typically tracked using the General
Fund, Capital Outlay Fund, and other miscellaneous funds like Debt Service or Special Revenue Funds.
Enterprise activities are fee-for-service operations ranging from water services to international airports. Enterprise
Funds vary widely which makes them difficult to compare statistically. The majority of financial comparisons
provided in this benchmark study focus on governmental activities since they are more uniform across the sample
cities and consistently reported in a city’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).
The following sections compare data sets that are consistently reported and defined the same way among benchmark
cities. Most information is from audited financial statements and records published in 2012-13.
Service San Luis
Obispo Davis MontereyNapa Palm
Springs
Santa
Cruz
Santa
Barbara
Santa
Maria
Paso
Robles
Water XX X XXXX
Sewer XX XXXXX
Parking X X XX
TransitXX XX
Golf XXXX
Solid Waste X X XXX
Stormwater X X
Marina X X
Airport X X X
Cemetery X
Presidio X
Housing X
Comparison of Enterprise Services provided by Benchmark Cities
ATTACHMENT 10
PH2 - 60
6
FINANCIAL BENCHMARKS: RESOURCE COMPARISON
Chart 1: General Fund per Capita
Cities typically have two major governmental
funds: the General Fund and Capital Outlay
Fund. Other minor governmental funds
can include Special Revenue Funds, like
a Business Improvement District, or Debt
Service Funds.
The size of San Luis Obispo’s General
Fund per capita is the median among
benchmark cities. It is primarily used for
operating programs (84%), debt service
(5%), and capital improvement plan (11%)
expenditures.
Chart 2: Sales Tax, Property Tax & Transient Occupancy Tax: Percent of Total General Fund Revenues
Chart 3: Sales Tax Revenues per Capita
35%45%55%65%75%85%95%
Paso Robles
Palm Springs
Napa
Santa Barbara
San Luis Obispo
Santa Maria
Davis
Santa Cruz
Monterey Sales tax, property tax and transient
occupancy tax (TOT) account for at least
40% of total General Fund revenues in all
benchmark cities. These top 3 revenues
account for only 62% of San Luis Obispo’s
General Fund revenues, which implies that
there is a diverse revenue base. This financial
risk management tool allows San Luis
Obispo to weather changes in the economy
better than other municipalities that rely on
only a few revenues to make up most of the
total revenue base.
San Luis Obispo has the strongest sales
tax revenues per capita. It is the City’s top
revenue source; about one-third of total
General Fund revenues. The majority of
cities have a local add-on sales tax (Measure
Y in San Luis Obispo) that generates local
revenue (ranging 0.25% to 1.0% per dollar).
San Luis Obispo’s strong sales tax revenues
are due to its regional sales draw, tourism,
and nearby student shoppers. According to
a recent sales tax study, 72% of every dollar
the City collects in sales tax is paid by non-
residents.$50$150$250$350$450
San Luis Obispo
Palm Springs
Paso Robles
Santa Cruz
Santa Barbara
Monterey
Santa Maria
Napa
Davis
$200$600$1,000$1,400$1,800$2,200$2,600
Monterey
Palm Springs
Santa Barbara
Santa Cruz
San Luis Obispo
Napa
Paso Robles
Davis
Santa Maria
ATTACHMENT 10
PH2 - 61
7
FINANCIAL BENCHMARKS: RESOURCE COMPARISON
Chart 4: Property Tax Revenues per Capita
San Luis Obispo’s property tax revenues
per capita are in the lower percentile of
benchmark cities. Proposition 13, adopted
by California voters in 1978, limits the
amount of annual growth in assessed values
to a maximum of 2% per year. This makes
property tax a relatively static revenue source
that grows slowly as ownerships change and
new property values are assessed.
Chart 5: Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Revenues per Capita
Chart 6: Ratio of Fees to Total General Fund Revenues
TOT revenue is largely generated by visitors
staying in hotels, which can indicate which
cities have strong tourist economies.
TOT is specialized because it focuses on
one part of a local economy: tourism. It is
not as broad-based as sales tax. Significant
TOT rate increases would be needed to
generate the same amount of revenue as a
general sales tax; San Luis Obispo’s TOT
rate would have to go from 10% to 21.9% to
equal revenue from Measure Y. Significant
increases to TOT could create a competitive
disadvantage in the local market.
A comparison of how much General Fund
revenue is generated by service fees like
building permits and business licenses.
Increasing cost recovery through service
charges is a local City Council decision,
and has historically been part of San
Luis Obispo’s budget-balancing strategy.
However, fees should never exceed the
actual total cost of providing services. San
Luis Obispo is completing a new fee study
in 2014 to ensure that fees are appropriate.
$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600
Palm Springs
Paso Robles
Santa Barbara
Napa
Monterey
Santa Cruz
San Luis Obispo
Davis
Santa Maria
$0$100$200$300$400$500
Monterey
Palm Springs
Santa Barbara
Napa
San Luis Obispo
Paso Robles
Santa Cruz
Davis
Santa Maria
0%5%10%15%20%25%
Paso Robles
Palm Springs
Napa
San Luis Obispo
Santa Maria
Santa Cruz
Davis
Santa Barbara
Monterey
ATTACHMENT 10
PH2 - 62
8
FINANCIAL BENCHMARKS: COST COMPARISON
Chart 7: Governmental Costs per Capita
Governmental activities include costs for
police, fire, planning, building inspections,
capital projects, recreation and parks
maintenance, and general government.
All of the benchmark cities provide these
essential services.
Enterprise operations (fee for service)
costs are not included in this comparison.
What cities choose to include in enterprise
operations varies widely making it a difficult
cost category to evaluate.
Chart 8: General Fund Operating Costs per Capita
The General Fund is the primary operating
fund for most cities. It is used for essential
services (e.g. public safety, maintenance),
but does not include other governmental
activities like capital purchases and
construction projects. Most cities maintain a
separate Capital Outlay Fund for these costs.
When compared to Chart 7, a significant
difference may indicate a good portion of
costs are non-operating expenses. Palm
Springs’ governmental costs are about
$1000 per capita more than its General Fund
costs, which may indicate heavy investment
in capital and/or non-essential services.
$200$600$1,000$1,400$1,800$2,200$2,600
Santa Maria
Davis
Napa
Paso Robles
San Luis Obispo
Santa Cruz
Santa Barbara
Palm Springs
Monterey
$200$600$1,000$1,400$1,800$2,200$2,600
Monterey
Palm Springs
Santa Barbara
Santa Cruz
San Luis Obispo
Napa
Paso Robles
Davis
Santa Maria
Chart 9: Percent of Governmental Costs that are Interest Payments
A comparison of how much interest
benchmark cities pay on long-term debt.
Cities use debt financing for long-term
investments such as a fire station. Costs
for debt obligations constrain available
resources.
2.1% of San Luis Obispo’s governmental
costs are interest payments on long-term
debt, which is the median, and about 5%
below benchmark cities on the high end of
the spending range.
0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%
Paso Robles
Palm Springs
Santa Cruz
Davis
San Luis Obispo
Napa
Santa Maria
Monterey
Santa Barbara
ATTACHMENT 10
PH2 - 63
9
FINANCIAL BENCHMARKS: COST COMPARISON
Chart 11: General Fund Public Safety Costs per Capita
Breakdown: San Luis Obispo’s police
service cost per capita is $308, and fire
service cost per capita is $191. This is close
to median for both.
San Luis Obispo’s Fire Department is unique
because it is under contract to serve an
area beyond the City boundaries; Cal Poly
campus. The total “per capita” number for
fire service costs was increased in Chart 11
by the number of beds on campus (6,500) to
present a more accurate ratio of public safety
costs per total residents served.
35%40%45%50%55%60%65%
Santa Maria
Paso Robles
Santa Barbara
Davis
Napa
Santa Cruz
San Luis Obispo
Monterey
Palm Springs Public safety costs for police and fire services
are the most significant General Fund
allocations in San Luis Obispo, accounting
for about 51% of general operating costs.
When compared to the eight benchmark
cities, San Luis Obispo is below the median
(53%).
Breakdown: San Luis Obispo’s public
safety allocation is 30% Police and 21%
Fire. This allocation ratio is consistent with
most benchmark cities. The exceptions are
Santa Maria (larger allocation to police) and
Monterey (same allocation for both).
Chart 10: General Fund Allocations to Public Safety
$0 $250 $500 $750$1,000
Monterey
Santa Barbara
Palm Springs
Santa Cruz
San Luis Obispo
Napa
Paso Robles
Davis
Santa Maria
Chart 12: General Fund Allocations for General Government
5%10%15%20%25%30%
Napa
Santa Cruz
San Luis Obispo
Palm Springs
Santa Maria
Davis
Santa Barbara
Monterey
Paso Robles
General government costs include staffing
and resources that support all governmental
activities. Examples include City Manager,
Attorney, Clerk, Human Resources, Facilities
Maintenance, Finance, and Information
Technology.
General government costs may also support
enterprise activities. San Luis Obispo adopted
a cost allocation plan that reimburses
General Fund from Enterprise Funds for
administrative support costs. The numbers
shown in this chart for San Luis Obispo are
net totals after reimbursements.
$0 $250 $500 $750 $1,000
Monterey
Santa Barbara
Palm Springs
Santa Cruz
San Luis Obispo
Napa
Paso Robles
Davis
Santa Maria
ATTACHMENT 10
PH2 - 64
10
Chart 14: Sworn Police Staff (per 1,000 residents)
Chart 15: Sworn Fire Staff (per 1,000 residents served)
Chart 13: Staffing from General Fund (per 1,000 residents)
FINANCIAL BENCHMARKS: STAFFING COMPARISON1
Chart 13 compares the number of regular
authorized General Fund staff positions
across all benchmark cities.
NOTE: Compensation costs associated
with staffing are not included in this study
because a more detailed Compensation
Benchmark Study is in progress that will be
available to public and City Council in mid-
August 2014. Please check slocity.org for
this comprehensive comparison of salary and
benefits, including a breakdown of employer
versus employee healthcare contributions.
Police staff are a subset of General Fund
staffing. According to the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, the average number of sworn
police officers per 1,000 residents is 1.8 for
cities with a population between 25,000 and
100,000. San Luis Obispo has approximately
1.3 police staff per 1,000 residents (and has
an even lower ratio if daytime population is
considered).
NOTE: Palm Springs and Davis do not
report sworn police staffing numbers.
Fire staff are also a subset of General Fund
staffing. San Luis Obispo’s Fire Department
is unique because it is under contract to serve
an area beyond the City boundaries; Cal Poly
campus. The total number of “residents”
was increased in Chart 15 by the number of
beds on campus (6,500) to present a more
accurate ratio of sworn fire staff per total
residents served.
2468 101214
Monterey
Davis
Santa Barbara
Paso Robles
San Luis Obispo
Palm Springs
Santa Cruz
Napa
Santa Maria
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Monterey
Santa Barbara
Paso Robles
Santa Cruz
San Luis Obispo
Santa Maria
Napa
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Monterey
Santa Barbara
Palm Springs
Paso Robles
San Luis Obispo
Santa Cruz
Napa
Davis
Santa Maria
1 Compensation costs associated with staffing are not included in this study because a more detailed Compensation Benchmark
Study is in progress that will be available in mid-August 2014. Please check slocity.org for this comprehensive comparison
of salary and benefits, including a breakdown of employer versus employee healthcare contributions.
ATTACHMENT 10
PH2 - 65
11
OTHER BENCHMARKS: SERVICE OUTCOMES
Chart 16: Violent Crimes (per 1,000 residents)
According to the FBI, San Luis Obispo is
one of the safest benchmark cities in terms
of violent crime; murder, manslaughter,
rape, robbery and aggravated assault.
However, the FBI also reports that incidences
of property crime in San Luis Obispo are the
third-highest of all benchmark cities (Santa
Cruz and Palm Springs are higher). This
is one factor that led to an increased focus
on Neighborhood Wellness and Downtown
patrols. Two additional Downtown officers
have been funded by San Luis Obispo’s
Measure Y sales tax.
Chart 17: Fire Calls for Service (per 1,000 residents)
Chart 18: Pavement Condition Index
Fire responses includes hazardous material
spills, vehicle and vegetation fires, heavy
rescues, structure fires and medical
emergencies. San Luis Obispo’s low number
of responses indicates that proactive fire
prevention activities are working well.
San Luis Obispo’s Fire Department is
unique because it serves an area beyond the
City boundaries; Cal Poly campus. The total
number of “residents” was increased in Chart
23 by the number of beds on campus (6,500)
to present a more accurate representation of
fire responses per responsibility area.
The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is
a National standard on a 0-100 scale that
indicates the quality of a city’s pavement.
Generally the scale is: 100-70 Good/
Excellent; 50-70 At Risk; 0-50 Poor/Failed.
The California Statewide Local Roads
Needs Assessment concludes the average
California road PCI is 66 (San Luis
Obispo was 72). San Luis Obispo’s “Good/
Excellent” rating is directly related to the
annual average pavement investment from
Measure Y sales tax revenues.
50.0 100.0150.0200.0250.0
Monterey
Palm Springs
Santa Maria
Santa Barbara
Santa Cruz
Paso Robles
Napa
San Luis Obispo
Davis
40.050.060.070.080.090.0
Santa Maria
San Luis Obispo
Paso Robles
Santa Barbara
Davis
Santa Cruz
Monterey
0.02.04.06.08.010.0
Santa Cruz
Santa Maria
Palm Springs
Monterey
Santa Barbara
Paso Robles
Napa
San Luis Obispo
Davis
ATTACHMENT 10
PH2 - 66
12
SLO COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT SURVEY: SERVICE OUTCOMES
Chart 20: How would you rate the job being done by City officials in managing City funds?
In early December 2013, San Luis Obispo
conducted a Community Assessment
and Ballot Measure Issues Survey. The
survey included community assessment
questions for the purpose of tracking
opinions over time on key issues to
better understand if the City is “headed
in the right direction.”
Chart 25 is a repetitive question posed to
the community over time. The trending
response is that the City is doing an
excellent/good job providing services to
residents.
Chart 19: How would you rate the job being done by City officials in providing services to the City’s residents?
Chart 21: How would you rate the City of San Luis Obispo as a place to live?
Chart 26 is a repetitive question posed to
the community over time. The trending
response is that the City is doing an
excellent/good job managing City funds.
Chart 27 is a repetitive question posed to
the community over time. The trending
response is that the City is an excellent
place to live.
More detailed results and key conclusions
from the community assessment survey
conducted by FM3 Associates are
available at slocity.org.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Excellent Good Fair Poor
2005
2006
2010
2011
2013
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Excellent Good Fair Poor
2005
2006
2010
2011
2013
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Excellent Good Fair Poor
2005
2006
2010
2011
2013
ATTACHMENT 10
PH2 - 67
13
CONCLUSION
San Luis Obispo residents are optimistic, confident in the management of their local government, and rate the
level of service provided by City officials highly. This quality service and management is being delivered with
revenues and costs that are close to the median when compared with the selected benchmark cities.
The City’s financial operations had lower than average operating costs and debt levels. In some categories, such
as fire service, being below average on costs is especially significant given service level differences among
benchmark cities. Santa Maria does not provide advanced life support (paramedic) services, and Santa Barbara,
Santa Cruz, and Napa do not provide advanced life support by all emergency response crews. Only San Luis
Obispo and Paso Robles provide this service by all emergency response crews. The provision of advanced life
support services increases costs related to personnel, training, administration, and equipment, and approximately
70% of San Luis Obispo’s fire emergency response activities are for medical emergencies.
Comparison of service outcomes reveals that San Luis Obispo is among the safest communities in terms of violent
crime and fire emergencies. San Luis Obispo’s pavement condition index - an indicator of street quality - is among
the best of the benchmark cities (only Santa Maria had a comparable rating).
Staffing levels are consistent with benchmark cities as well, with San Luis Obispo hitting the median or slightly
above in the staffing areas selected for comparison. A more detailed Compensation Benchmark Study is in progress
that will be available to public and City Council in mid-August 2014.
San Luis Obispo was at the top of the benchmark range on one item: Sales Tax Revenue per Capita. This result
indicates that sales tax is vital for delivering quality levels of service to the community. According to the 2013-
2015 City of San Luis Obispo Financial Plan, 37% of total General Fund revenue comes from sales tax, 15% from
property tax, and 10% from TOT. A big portion of sales tax comes from a local revenue measure (Measure Y) that
adds half-percent to the County sales tax rate. Measure Y generates $6.5 million annually or about 12% of total
City Local Sales Tax Rate County Sales Tax Rate Add-On
San Luis Obispo 8.00%7.50 % (San Luis Obispo County)0.50%
Benchmark Cities
Monterey 7.50%7.50 % (Monterey County)0.00%
Napa 8.00%8.00 % (Napa County)0.00%
Santa Barbara 8.00%8.00 % (Santa Barbara)0.00%
Paso Robles 8.00%7.50 % (San Luis Obispo County)0.50%
Davis 8.00%7.50 % (Yolo County)0.50%
Santa Maria 8.25%8.00 % (Santa Barbara County)0.25%
Santa Cruz 8.75%8.25 % (Santa Cruz County)0.50%
Palm Springs 9.00%8.00 % (Riverside County)1.00%
Other Cities in SLO County (Non-Benchmark)
Atascadero 7.50%7.50 % (San Luis Obispo County)0.00%
Arroyo Grande8.00%7.50 % (San Luis Obispo County)0.50%
Grover Beach 8.00%7.50 % (San Luis Obispo County)0.50%
Morro Bay 8.00%7.50 % (San Luis Obispo County)0.50%
Pismo Beach 8.00%7.50 % (San Luis Obispo County)0.50%
Comparison of 2013 Sales Tax Rates
ATTACHMENT 10
PH2 - 68
14
General Fund revenue in San Luis Obispo. 5 out of 8 benchmark cities also have add-on local sales tax measures,
and four out of the remaining five cities in San Luis Obispo County do as well. All of the three benchmark cities
without a local sales tax measure (Monterey, Napa, Santa Barbara) generate more revenue from property tax and
TOT than San Luis Obispo. Measure Y has been in effect for seven years now and is set to expire in March 2015.
Renewal would maintain the current sales tax rate of 8%. More information on Measure Y, including expenditures,
public feedback, and timelines, is available at slocity.org.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Beyond benchmark comparisons, it is prudent to evaluate whether San Luis Obispo is implementing general best
management practices (BMPs) for local governments. The City has adopted and implemented many BMPs for
financial management, including:
1. Multi-year budgeting
2. Long-term fiscal forecasts
3. Integration of goal-setting into the budget process
4. Development of fiscal contingency plans
5. Use of generally accepted accounting principles and audits by independent certified public accountants
6. Effective ongoing monitoring of our financial condition
7. Long-term capital improvement plans
8. Use of comprehensive fiscal policies as the foundation for decision-making
Many of these BMPs come from Fitch Ratings (one of the “big three” national credit rating agencies), who has
formally integrated them into their rating systems. The City recently received affirmation from Fitch Ratings that
City bond ratings are “AA” and “AA+”, and the rating outlook is stable. Fitch Ratings’ long term credit ratings
are assigned on an alphabetic scale from AAA to D. The bond rating AA means that the City’s investment grade is
“quality”. In reaching its decision, Fitch Ratings’ analysts noted factors that lead to their conclusion including (1)
active budget monitoring by the City Council and staff, (2) comprehensive financial policies, and (3) the use of
long-term budget planning to provide a solid framework for managing through unexpected budgetary challenges
during the economic downturn.
SOURCE DATA
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2003. Law Enforcement and Management Administrative Statistics Survey.
California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit. 2013. Population Data.
California Polytechnic State University. 2014. Cal Poly Quick Facts. http://calpoly.edu.
California Statewide Local Roads Needs Assessment. 2013. http://www.savecaliforniastreets.org.
Cities of Davis, Monterey, Napa, Palm Springs, El Paso de Robles, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Santa Maria, San
Luis Obispo. June 2012. Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and Budget Documents.
Federal Bureau of Investigations. 2012. Uniform Crime Reports.
Fitch Ratings. 2014. https://fitchratings.com.
FM3 Associates. 2013. City of San Luis Obispo Community Assessment and Ballot Measure Issues Survey.
Strategic Economics. 2013. San Luis Obispo Retail Sales Analysis.
CONCLUSION
For questions or comments on this benchmark study, please contact James David, City of San Luis Obispo
Administration, (805) 781-7151 or jdavid@slocity.org.
ATTACHMENT 10
PH2 - 69
Page intentionally left
blank.
PH2 - 70