Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/15/2025 Item 7a, Jackson - Staff Agenda Correspondence (Strategic Budget Direction)City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum City of San Luis Obispo Council Agenda Correspondence DATE: April 15, 2025 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Emily Jackson, Finance Director VIA: Whitney McDonald, City Manager SUBJECT: ITEM 7A – 2025-27 STRATEGIC BUDGET DIRECTION AND DRAFT CIP Staff received the following questions, regarding the Strategic Budget Direction item. The questions are below with staff’s response shown in italics: 1. Regarding the complete SOBC list, beginning on page 896: a. #9 How was the amount of $45,000 for the housing voucher determined? Is this based on previous year demand? The $45,000 allocation for CAPSLO’s Hotel Voucher Program is the minimum amount estimated to increase shelter capacity for families at 40 Prado Homeless Services Center based on previous years’ data and trends. The nightly room rate for the Hotel Voucher Program varies based on hotel property, availability, and seasonal room rates. However, the program currently averages a $165 per night room rate. The $45,000 funding request would provide 273 hotel room nights annually, and approximately 70 room nights per quarter, based on the average room rate. In the first two quarters of FY 2024-25, CAPSLO expended the entire $45,000 funding allocation for the Hotel Voucher Program, demonstrating the increasing need for family shelter capacity. The current family shelter rooms at 40 Prado HSC only have the capacity to serve 29 total individuals (including children) and it has not been ideal to co-habitate families at the low-barrier shelter. The Hotel Voucher Program is intended to provide additional capacity until CAPSLO completes the Family Shelter at 46 Prado, which will provide a dedicated space for families. b. #28 This is the only active transportation infrastructure called out for a maintenance line item. Is this above and beyond normal maintenance? In general, Active Transportation projects that install vertical elements that assist with separating pedestrian, bike, and vehicle traffic or install enhanced landscaping have an increased maintenance cost associated with those improvements. This is true of the North Chorro Greenway. To date, this enhanced maintenance need has been addressed by using Item 7a. 2025-27 Strategic Budget Direction and Draft CIP Page 2 funding in the Capital Improvement Plan account that constructed the improvements to fund the first year of maintenance for roadway sweeping, and the City is funding the North Chorro Greenway contractor to complete the landscape maintenance during the first year of operations. SOBC #28 was submitted to support funding needs to maintain the planter boxes installed with the North Chorro Greenway. The contractor for the North Chorro Greenway will maintain the plantings until May 2025 and after that, the City will be required to develop a maintenance plan, which is anticipated to include outreach to potential volunteer groups. c. Many of the requests are for FTE positions. Can you clarify for each if the positions are to allow new or expanded staffing versus replacing a contract staff person? Also, can you clarify when a new FTE is allowing an existing staff person to shift their work back to their primary tasks. This is done for some items but not all. I think affected line items are: #5, #14, #15, #17, #18, #22, #23, #29, #30, #31, #32, #34, #35, #41, #42, #43, #44, #48, #49 Most of the requested positions are net new, not conversions of current contract positions. The exception to this within the General Fund is recommendation is SOBC #31, which would convert the Communications Coordinator position in Public Works to a regular position, after two years of the need being fulfilled by a contract employee. The Utilities Department SOBC #49, funded by the Water, Sewer, and Whale Rock funds, also replaces a similar contract position. In general, staffing increases within a division will allow existing staff at a similar level to refocus on their primary tasks through better workload distribution. d. What is the current status of the 911 dispatcher staffing? I think the current budget calls for 11 positions but the staffing report showed 3 vacancies. Would item #23 add a position for a total of 12? Correct. The total authorized FTE positions for dispatchers is eleven. Total authorized dispatch supervisor positions are two. Currently, there is one dispatcher vacancy. With calls for service rising over the years, the City Manager had authorized an over-hire dispatcher position in 2021, but this position is also now vacant. The latest staffing study is recommending adding a 12th (permanent) dispatcher position to address increasing emergency call volumes as outlined in the study. Item 7a. 2025-27 Strategic Budget Direction and Draft CIP Page 3 2. Is the long-term forecast for the parking fund based on the current parking fee rates? Yes, the Parking Fund long-term forecast is based on the current parking rates approved by Council at the May 14, 2024, meeting. 3. In the CIP 10-year projects by type table on page 960, are all grant funds shown? I recall Higuera Complete Streets Project was mostly grant funded but the table only shows the Local Revenue Measure (LRM) portion. The CIP 10-Year Projects by Type table reflects future requested appropriations and does not include funding that has already been allocated to projects in prior years. For example, the Higuera Complete Streets Project has already received $1.1 million in LRM funds and $7.95 million in grant funding, which are not shown in the table since they are not part of the new appropriations in the 2025–27 CIP. All grants and other funding sources that are newly proposed or not yet allocated are included in the table. 4. The debt financing for Prado Interchange is shown for FY 2029-30 as a single year budget item. Can this also be shown as a multi-year debt service? The table in question details the expected costs, funding sources, and timing to fund our planned capital projects. Debt service costs will be included in the operating budget once issuance has taken place and annual debt service costs (based on total amount borrowed and negotiated interest rate) are known. The debt financing proceeds for the Prado Road Interchange is shown as a single- year budget item in FY 2029-30 to reflect the anticipated timing of the debt issuance, which is expected to occur when the City is ready to fully finance construction. 5. Are all the Tier 1 projects from the Active Transportation Plan (ATP) shown in the 10-year CIP? If not which ones are missing and why are they excluded? No, not all Tier 1 Active Transportation Projects are shown in the 10-year CIP. The 10-year CIP shows the highest priority ATP projects currently in development, which include Higuera Complete Streets, Foothill Complete Streets, Broad Street Corridor, and the Railroad Safety Trail (Orcutt to Tiburon). Though these are the only projects specifically identified, the budget includes funding to progress work on other ATP projects through the Active Transportation Plan Implementation CIP account. This account has previously been used to initiate preliminary work through consultants and leverage grant opportunities, as achievable within staffing resources. Other Tier 1 Active Transportation Projects improvements have been incorporated into annual paving projects where the scope is known, such as the upcoming 2025 Paving Project (on Council Agenda for May 6th), which proposes to implement Tier 1 ATP crossing improvements on Tank Farm Road at Poinsettia. As another example, Tier 1 improvements for Prado/Dalidio are incorporated into the Prado Road Bridge & Road Widening Project. The full list of Tier 1 Active Transportation Plan projects can be found here: https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/30467/637587480707370 000 Item 7a. 2025-27 Strategic Budget Direction and Draft CIP Page 4 6. Can South Broad Street Corridor be accelerated using consultant support given the staff limitations? The timeframe for delivery of Broad Street Corridor currently incorporates project delivery with consultant support. Council provided $800,000 at the 2/6/2024 Council meeting to support development of the project scope. This amount included $400,000 in staffing and $400,000 in design funding for consultants. Recruitments to fill staffing positions to support the project have been unsuccessful, and the 2025-27 Financial Plan CIP proposes to make this existing funding available for additional consultant resources to aid project development. Existing funding is already being utilized by consultants providing services to determine the scope of work and preliminary designs that would have the greatest safety benefits to the corridor. The City has also secured an additional $400,000 Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) grant funding to implement a quick-build demonstration project. Furthermore, Staff will be releasing a CIP Project Management Request for Qualifications that may provide additional consultants skilled in delivery of Active Transportation Projects. At this time, however, it is not apparent that additional Consultant resources would be able to advance delivery of the project without reprioritizing other ATP projects. Staff will continue to look for efficiencies and may adjust funding and timing recommendations if those become available during subsequent Financial Plan updates. 7. How does the City fund ADA improvements to sidewalks, especially curb ramps? Are these included in the financial plan or CIP? Budget for ADA improvements to sidewalks is incorporated into the Street Reconstruction and Resurfacing, and Sidewalk Replacement and Cleaning CIP projects. Projects that incorporate reconstruction of roadways are required to implement ADA improvements and this process is generally the most cost-effective approach to improving ADA access. The City also leverages street reconstruction funding to complete ADA curb ramp improvements when Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding becomes available. Furthermore, the Sidewalk Replacement and Cleaning account provides yearly funding to selectively remove ADA barriers that have the most community benefits, which may include addressing sidewalk uplift and installing new ramps at locations specifically requested by the community. This funding generally supports work in the downtown area. 8. Given interest in enhancing the Cultural Arts District, has any progress been made on Action #20 in the Downtown Concept Plan? For reference, Action #20 is implementing shared streets in the Cultural Arts District. There is no funding within the 10-year CIP to advance work on shared streets within the Cultural Arts District. If Council desires to prioritize the advancement of this plan, projects and funding would need to be reprioritized due to the substantial cost in reconstructing streets into a share street design. Item 7a. 2025-27 Strategic Budget Direction and Draft CIP Page 5 9. Given the Cultural Arts District Parking Garage will be in operation by next year, what is the status of Action #30 in the Downtown Concept Plan (conversion of the Higuera/Nipomo parking lot to a plaza)? Currently, there are no resources within the 10-year CIP for the conversion of the Higuera/Nipomo parking lot into a plaza. Once the Cultural Arts District Parking Garage is operational, usage of the public parking supply around the new parking garage will be monitored to see how parking habits change and whether the demand for the lot can be absorbed by the new garage. If so, the conversion of the lot to a plaza could be considered as part of the next two-year financial planning process. 10. Is any funding included in the budget to move ahead with studying a potential transit center for the new city-owned lot on Higuera? No, the proposed budget does not include funding to study a consolidated transit center at the City-owned lot on Higuera Street. The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) and San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA) were partner agencies in the last consolidated transit center study. SLO Transit’s Short-Range Transit Plan recommends the City work closely with these agencies to resume project development. Staff plans to engage SLOCOG and RTA representatives to determine which agency will lead the effort, timing of a study, and funding availability before including it in the budget. 11. The Lead by Example Work Program shows the Swim Center and Ludwick Center heat pump retrofits in 2025-27 but the CIP shows FY 2027-28. Can these be moved up a year? The current plan and timing reflects prioritization of fleet electrification, which offers greater emissions reductions and requires fewer City resources to implement. With limited staffing and funding, advancing these building projects would mean delaying others—so any adjustments would need to be considered in that broader context. Looking ahead, during the 2025–27 Financial Plan period, the staff will work closely with PG&E to begin preliminary planning and scoping for these electrification projects. This early work will ensure the City is well-positioned to move into construction during the 2027–29 cycle, aligning with Energy Action 3.1 of the Lead by Example Work Plan. 12. Are the fleet purchases in the CIP consistent with Policy Fleet 2.1 of the Lead by Example Work Program? Yes. Consistent with the City’s fleet replacement policy, the City purchases only all-electric light duty vehicles and purchases at least half all-electric medium and heavy-duty vehicles as required by California’s Advanced Clean Fleet regulation. Additionally, some fleet vehicles are being downsized to ½-ton electric models, furthering the City’s efforts to reduce emissions. Item 7a. 2025-27 Strategic Budget Direction and Draft CIP Page 6 13. The Righetti Linear Park shows as unfunded in the CIP. Is the anticipated funding beyond the 10-year horizon? Yes, the Righetti Linear Park is currently shown as unfunded within the 10-year CIP horizon. Initial feedback from the Parks and Recreation Department prioritized constructing as much of the Community Park as possible within available resources. As a result, the Linear Park is currently included in year 11 of the long- range CIP, with an estimated cost of $3.87 million. 14. The following two items are listed in the SOBCs that are not recommended for funding, but this seems like things we are doing already. Am I mistaken or can you explain a little further? a. The below is from page 897 in the packet. Is this the total cost of the subscription for this service/equipment for the whole department? Correct. This is a project that we have already implemented and is critical to the functions of the Police Department. When we entered into a five-year contract with Motorola for the Body Worn Cameras and In Car video system, the first-year subscription costs were covered by the initial payment. The identified $95,000 ongoing is not needed until year two of the 2025-27 Financial Plan. City staff recommended not approving this SOBC and instead requested that the department return through the Supplemental budget process (for FY 2026-27) to request the ongoing cost at that time. b. I have had community members comment that they see this being done already…sweeping the greenway bike lanes. Is this correct? Or is funding ending at the end of this year since it is not included in the SOBCs recommended? Please see the response to question 1.b. above. 15. Pages 898-901 of the agenda packet outline a large number Utilities items in the SOBCs being recommended. At the same time, the staff report also discusses the need for upcoming water rate increases 5-6% increases in water and sewer rates over the next five years. Can any of the items listed wait until future years, in order to spread the costs over multiple years to reduce the need or size of rate increases needed? Upon development of the SOBC requests put forward, staff carefully reviewed and prioritized only those critical to maintaining essential water and wastewater services over the next Financial Plan. This includes critical infrastructure repairs, such as the Nacimiento pipeline and Salinas Dam access road, funding to meet new and existing regulatory requirements, such as that which will be used for the Council directed rate restructure study to evaluate equity among rate payers and ensure the City maintains compliance with Prop 218 regulations, and funding Item 7a. 2025-27 Strategic Budget Direction and Draft CIP Page 7 needed to support the City’s transition to bringing groundwater production online. During the rate study analysis staff strategically mapped out and deferred capital replacement projects where possible to try to balance affordability with water and wastewater system needs. As a strategy to control costs, the department also deferred and modified initial staffing SOBC requests to better align with the expected timing of groundwater operations and asset management integration. These staffing deferrals resulted in a savings of $187,877 across the water and sewer funds for the next two years. Aside from these regulatory and infrastructure driven needs, the only new, non-regulatory or infrastructure related maintenance and repairs is for $20,500 for customer-facing improvements that will enhance workplace safety and security, worker efficiency, and ADA compliance. 16. On page 928 of the packet, under the Parking Fund budget, it is noted that in 2027-28, there is projected to be $2 million in capital project expenditures. This is a large increase over the previous and following year. What is anticipated to be the cause of this increase in expenditures? The $2 million in capital expenditures budgeted for FY 2027-28 is for maintenance of the 871 Marsh Street parking structure to preserve the serviceability of the structure. This project includes repair of concrete spalling and delamination, sealing of cracks and floor joints, traffic coating replacement, and repair of safety elements. 17. In the Transit Fund section of the document, it states that we applied for a grant in 2024-25 to purchase battery electric buses, but we were unsuccessful at getting that grant. To my recollection, we currently have 2 battery buses on the streets now, and we had put in an order for 4-6 more. Is that correct? Can you provide a brief update on how many buses we have, how many are on order, when those on order are expected and how many we are not able to purchase due to not obtaining the grant requested? SLO Transit has 19 buses in its fleet; two of which are electric buses. There are a total of eight more electric buses on order: six are scheduled to arrive by summer 2025 and two are scheduled to arrive by spring 2026. After bus arrival in spring 2026, the City will have a total of 10 electric buses in service. In April 2024, the City applied for funding in partnership with four other agencies (Monterey-Salinas Transit District, San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority, Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District, and Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District) for electric buses and charging infrastructure. The City’s portion of the application requested funding for three electric buses and one electric cutaway bus. Two of the buses were to support expansion of services while one bus and the cutaway bus were to replace existing fleet based on the City’s Zero-Emission Rollout Plan purchase schedule. In July 2024, Council held a Study Session for SLO Transit’s Short-Range Transit Plan update. Council was supportive of budgeting for refurbishments of diesel- powered buses in support of service expansion. The proposed budget includes funding in FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 for bus refurbishments. Between the Item 7a. 2025-27 Strategic Budget Direction and Draft CIP Page 8 electric buses on order and the planned bus refurbishments, there will be enough buses available to support existing service levels as well as expansion of services as recommended in the Short-Range Transit Plan. Staff continues to look for state and federal funding opportunities replace older buses that have met or exceeded their useful life. 18. A couple questions about language in the report: a. What is “Public Safety Center Programming”? This is a work element within the Public Safety Center Capital Improvement Plan Project. Public Safety Center Programming is broken out as a separate budget to support the preliminary planning work (building “programming” in architectural parlance) on the Public Safety Center project. This would include utilizing architectural consultant services to coordinate with the Police Department to determine potential options and scope of work for the future Public Safety Center Building. This scope would include facility sizing (square footage) and parking requirements, among other requirements, and be based upon long-range needs of the department. Staff previously presented to Council a “one site solution” for the Public Safety Center at the 11/2/2021 Council meeting. With the City having acquired the property across the street at 1106 Walnut, other opportunities may exist for a two- site Public Safety Center, and the funding for programming is intended to explore those opportunities. b. Can you please describe what the “Mobile Crisis Unit Operating Expenditures” are? These operating expenditures represent the non-staffing costs for the Mobile Crisis Unit program. These include uniforms, personal protective equipment, other supplies, and technology used by the Mobile Crisis Unit. 19. There are quite a few items in the LRM list of projects/expenses that look like they are listed as credits instead of expenditures. Here are a few examples: Can you explain why these are shown this way? Some items in the LRM list appear as “credits” rather than expenditures. These credits are shown in the "Projects by Type" tables in a subsection for Completed Projects and Re-prioritized Projects, starting on page 975 of 987, which outline any reallocation of funding staff is recommending. Item 7a. 2025-27 Strategic Budget Direction and Draft CIP Page 9 Typically, when funding is moved out of completed project accounts, it is first transferred into the CIP Completed Projects account. From there, those funds can be reallocated to other project needs through a City Manager Report or Council action, depending on the purchasing threshold. However, in this case, staff has presented these reallocations as part of the proposed CIP (rather than in individual reports to the City Manager or City Council) in order to streamline the process to reduce the number of fund transfers required. The "credit” shown for the Prado Interchange project will enable the reallocation of funding from this project to the Prado Bridge Widening Project. As noted in the report on page 948 of 987, the plan proposes reallocating approximately $5 million in combined Infrastructure Investment Fund (IIF) and LRM General Fund contributions, originally allocated to the Prado Interchange, to the Prado Bridge Widening Project. At the February 18, 2025, City Council meeting, Council appropriated $10 million in San Luis Ranch contributions for the design of the Prado Interchange. These funds are restricted and can only be used for that specific project. Because of this allocation, there is no need to request additional general funding for the Prado Interchange until construction begins in Year 5. This allows the $5 million in general funding previously earmarked for the Prado Interchange to be strategically redirected to the Prado Bridge Widening Project, which has more immediate funding needs. This approach ensures the Bridge Widening Project can proceed without delay, while still preserving the overall funding strategy and timeline for the Prado Interchange. 20. On page 949 of the packet, there is reference to the 5th fire station including when and how it will be staffed. First, it states there will begin to be a two- person crew there in Year 3 (27-28). But, it also refers to a 3-person crew with the City covering $440K of the cost, that same year. Can you please clarify what staffing will occur when, and how it is projected to be funded? Here is the section I am referring to: According to the Development Agreement between the City and Avila Ranch, the Developer is required to construct an interim fire station in Avila Ranch prior to completion of 50% of the units. In the 2016 Fire Department Master Plan, a 2- person Fire Station was identified as sufficient to meet the needs of the City until the southern area of the City reached 90% buildout. In the intervening years, development has continued throughout the City pushing the existing adjacent resources, Station 4 and 1, to near capacity for call volume. With this continued growth, staff recommend a 3-person Engine company to staff the 5th station, providing the community of Avila Ranch and the southern portion of the City with a full-service fire company capable of providing response to ALL emergencies Item 7a. 2025-27 Strategic Budget Direction and Draft CIP Page 10 rather than the limited medical response that a 2-person EMS unit would provide. In order to provide space for the fire engine and additional staffing, the developer has projected the additional cost of construction at $440,000, to be delivered in year three of the CIP. Staffing costs for the interim station and 5th fire company will initiate at the opening of the station in concert with completion of 50% of the residential units during the spring/ summer of 2028. Staffing costs are funded through the General Fund with a contribution annually from the Avila Ranch CFD. 21. On page 980, in the Major City Goals Work Plan items, there is an item the describes hiring a consultant to complete the annual Cost Allocation Plan. Is this an annual expenditure and work plan item? If so, are we listing all ongoing, annual items in the MCG Work Plan? (See below item.) The City prepares a Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) every year, to support the annual transfer of funding from the Enterprise Funds to the General Fund, to ensure that the Enterprise Funds are paying for the administrative support services that they receive from the General Fund. The CAP also ensures that the City is able to identify the true cost of certain services that can be charged to federal or state grants, to minimize impact to the General Fund. The City works with a consultant to develop the CAP each year, and the existing contract will expire prior to development of the CAP for FY 2026-27. In line with the City’s Purchasing Policy, staff will need to conduct a request for proposal (RFP) process to identify a consultant to do this work in the future. The RFP process is not an annual work plan item and will be facilitated by existing staff at no additional cost. 22. On page 982 of the packet, there are several work plan items under “Ensure housing is safe, healthy and affordable, while facilitating stronger protections for renters” that refer to renter protections and safe housing. These seem like general terms that could include a variety of things. Can we clarify what the safe housing program includes, and what renter protections we would evaluate? The “safe housing program” refers to work that is completed by the Code Enforcement team (specifically the Code Tech II, Safe Housing Specialist) to enforce International Property Maintenance Code and California Health and Safety codes to address substandard housing issues as they are reported to the City as well as do proactive outreach when possible. These codes address habitability standards like, mold, hot water, operable doors and windows, working kitchen and bathrooms, etc. The City must respond to complaints from tenants, and ensure violations are addressed by property owners. In addition, the safe housing work includes more proactive enforcement of substandard housing issues in buildings with reported violations, per state law, and, as part of this work program item, staff would develop policies and procedures related to these efforts. The safe housing program work item would also include creating a clear plan for outreach and education of both landlords and tenants regarding safe housing issues that can be implemented year over year. Item 7a. 2025-27 Strategic Budget Direction and Draft CIP Page 11 “Renter Protections” is a broad term that could include a number of policies or actions that the City could take related to renters. Many of these are outlined in the memo that was released last year and include actions such as implementing expanded eviction control, expanded rent control, and tenant protections during construction, among others. Renter protections could also include things like regulation on smoking in multifamily properties. As part of the work program for the Housing major city goal, the Community Development Department is proposing a study session with the City Council to discuss renter protections with a goal of further defining what the City Council and community is interested in the Department exploring and studying further. Staff has prepared a memo that will be provided as an attachment to an additional agenda correspondence for this agenda item, which describes the proposed renter protection and neighborhood wellness program components and timeline in more detail.