Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/1995, 2 - CONTINUED REVIEW OF THE PRELIMINARY 1995-97 FINANCIAL PLAN M NG ATE: ��� �I�IIIII�p �Ulll c1ty of San Lai S oBI Spo - - lq_r- COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: FROM: John Dunn, City Administrative Offic Prepared by: Bill Statler, Director of FinanceW2P` SUBJECT: CONTINUED REVIEW OF THE PRELIMINARY 1995-97 FINANCIAL PLAN CAO RECOMMENDATION Continue review and discussion of the 1995-97 Preliminary Financial Plan focussing on General Fund regular staffing, capital improvement plan projects and proposed service charges based on the cost of services study. DISCUSSION Overview At the May 20, 1995 budget workshop, the Council requested that the following three issues be the focus of discussion at the next budget hearing on June 6, 1995: • General Fund regular staffing requests • General Fund capital improvement plan (CIP)projects • Proposed General Fund service charges based on the cost of services study Similar issuesrelating to the enterprise funds,which account for 40% of City operations,were comprehensively reviewed and discussed by the Council at the budget hearing on May 23, 1995. Additionally, Council Member Romero expressed concerns about the ability of transportation impact fees to fund the level of CIP projects assigned to them. The purpose of this report is to provide supplemental information on each of these issues,which reflect the key policy matters ahead of the Council in adopting the budget. The following dates have been set for continued Council review of the 1995-97 Financial Plan leading to its adoption before July 1, 1995: • June 13 (if needed) • June 20 — scheduled adoption date • June 27 (if needed) General Fund Regular Staffing Requests Supporting documentation for each of the requested positions is provided in Appendix A of the Preliminary Financial Plan. The following summarizes the requested positions and provides: • Requested position and level of full—time equivalencies(FTE's)proposed • Appendix A page reference where additional information can be found about the position • Annual cost of the position • Net cost of the position after adjusting for General Fund revenue or cost offsets a -i ►��H���u��I�II��p� I�U�I� city of San l s OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Re nested General Fund Rexular Staffin unuziary Appendix A FTE's *Annual " General Net General Percent of Position Page No Proposed Cost Fund Offset Fund Cost Net Cost Downtown patrol officer 6 1.0 58,700 (25,000) 33,700 13% School resource officer 9 1.0 58,700 (41,900) 16,800 6% Firefighters 12 3.0 170,500 (170,500) 0 0% Comm dev clerical support 56 0.2 7,800 (800) 7,000 3% Natural resrce mgr/clerical supporl 66 1.4 85,400 0 85,400 32% Economic dev mgr/clerical support 78 1.4 85,400 0 85,400 32% Personnel admin clerical support 84 0.2 7,100 (1,800) 5,300 2% Computer systems techncian 92 1.0 47,300 (11,800) 35,500 13% Building maintenance technician 108 OS 22,800 (229800 0 0% Mechanic 110 031 20,4001 20 400 01 00/4 GENERAL FUND TOTAL 1 10.2 $56491001 ($295,OOOJ $269,100 100% • Generally based on 1995-96 casts on a full year basis •• General Fund oBsea are summarized as follows: Downtown patrol officer School resource officer Federal crime bill grant will pay$25,000 per year over Federal crime bill grant will pay$25,000 per year over the neat the next 3 yew, 3 years;school district will pay 50%of balance($16,900) Firefighters Community development clerical support Casts are fully offset through reductions in overtime. About 10%of this cost will be offset by program fees. Personnel derml support Computer systems techneian About 25%of this cost will be reimbursed by the enterprise funds. About 25%of this cost will be reimbursed by the enterprise funds. Buddiagmaiaaenance tecbnwwa Mechanic All of this cost will be reimbursed by the parking fund. This cost is fully offset by reductions in contract services and temporary staffing. As reflected above, the annual cost for all of the requested positions is about$564,000. After adjusting for resource offsets, however, this cost is reduced by over half to $269,000 annually. The requested Natural Resource Protection and Economic Development positions account for about 64% of this net cost — $170,800 annually. In addition to regular staffing in general,the Council requested further clarification of the proposed clerical staffing support in Administration and Personnel. As reflected below,the result of the proposed request is 2.0 clercial FTE's — one supervised by Administration and one by Personnel,with 0.3 of the position supervised by Personnel assigned support responsibilties for Administration. This shared approach to clerical staffing responsibilities results in better counter (customer service)coverage and clearer reporting relationships while ensuring that specific program needs are appropriately met. PersonneUAdministration Clerical Staffing Summary Proposed *Eidsting Additions "TOTAL Personnel 0S 02 0.7 Administration OS -- OS Natural Resource Protection —— 0.4 0.4 Economic Development -- 0.4 0.4 TOTAL 1.0 1.01 2.0 •• Ewludes Ftecutirx Secnetarypasitions in Personnel and Administration that are not part of the proposed sharing arrangement One of these positions will be supervised by Personnel and one will be supervised byAdmiaistratioa ����i�►�IVN1111�111 X11 city of San ' 'S OBI SPO COUNCIL AGENDA REART General Fund Capital Improvement Plan Projects Provided in Exbbit A is a summary of proposed projects funded through the General Fund for 1995-97 providing the following information: • Project title and proposed budget(General Fund portion) for 1995-97 • Appendix B page reference where additional supporting information can be found • Rankings made by the CIP Review Committee as the budget was developed Using the criteria as set forth in the Budget Message (page A-4 of the Preliminary Financial Plan), the CIP Review Committee initially ranked proposed projects on a scale of 0-5. These projects generally fell into four categories; those in the bottom quartile were deferred to 1997-99 in the Preliminary Financial Plan. At this point, these rankings are not intended to provide specific guidance to the Council, but to offer an approach for evaluating projects and to provide the Council with an overview of the staffs thinking in preparing the Financial Plan. • Projects financed by more than one funding source • Previously approved projects requiring supplemental funding The following are some general thoughts on the proposed General Fund CII'projects for 1995-97: Proposed funding levels compared with the past • At$3.97 million for the next two years(excluding the portion to be debt financed), the average annual level of General Fund CIP support is $1.98 million. While this is more than the"50% of historical levels" assumed in the five year fiscal forecast, it is still less than our historcal level of about$2.4 million annually(in 1995 dollars). Completing projects in progress • $1.09 million in proposed CIP funding from the General Fund for 1995-97 — or about 20% — is to complete projects in progress already approved by the Council. Proposed Service Charges As noted in the Budget Message, implementing the findings of the recently completed cost of services study is a key component of the overall budget balancing strategy reflected in the Preliminary Financial Plan. The staff has reviewed the findings of this study in depth, and has provided recommendations on a case—by—case basis for each of the fee activities analyzed by David M. Griffith &Asscociates 2- 11111111111fM11111 crty of san : .s oBispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT (DMG). The staffs recommendations compared with those provided by DMG are set forth in Exhubits B through I as follows: B. Planning fees C. Building& safety fees D. Engineering fees E. Fire fees F. Comparison of proposed vs current development review fees on four hypothetical developments: — 1,500 square foot single family residence* — 50,000 square foot commercial shell* — Addition of one bedroom/one bathroom to an existing single family residence — 50 unit residential subdivision • enmples used by the Buifdmg Industry Association of the Central Coast m their recent survey of brad agency development re view and impact fees G. Police fees H. Parks &recreation fees I. Tree maintenance fees Except for the supplemental information provided in Exhibit D, each of these exhibits provides the following information: • Current revenues,costs, level of cost recovery and amount of subsidy for each fee activity as originally presented in the DMG report • Comparison of cost recovery goals (as a percent of total costs) recommended by DMG vs those proposed by staff at this time. • Comparison of resulting revenues: DMG vs staff recommendations • Comparison of resulting increased revenues: DMG vs staff recommendations • Current vs proposed fees for each activity The following summarizes the fiscal impacts of the proposed fee changes: Current Activity Costs. Current Increased Cost Recovery All Services Fee Services Revenues DMG Study Proposed Planning 1,194,600 474,000 84,000 315,900 303,900 Building&safety 704,500 547,600 448,400 99,300 99,300 Engineering 930,500 159,400 63,900 95,400 88,100 Fire 5,150,900 687,900 130,000 504,300 201,800 Police 7,379,500 228,600 80,400 92,900 45,800 Parks&recreation 2,477,300 1,879,700 714,900 224,900 191,600 Tree maintenance 241,800 19,3001 7,6001 11,7001 1,300 TOTAL 1 $18,079,100 $3,996,500 1 $1,529,200 $1,344,400 $931,800 a-4 ���� ► i��I►II�IIp° ll�lll city osay aVS OBIspo COUNC& AGENDA REART Key differences between DMG and staff fee recommendations In general, staff recommendations are consistent with those proposed by DMG, which were based on the City's adopted user fee cost recovery policy(pages B-4 through B-8 of the Preliminary Financial Plan). The following highlights those areas where recommendations differ: Proposed Cost ecove Goals DMG City Staff Planning Home occupation permit 100% 50% Sidewalk sale permit 100% 50% Engineering Transportation permit 100% As allowed by the State (fee regulated by the State of California) Flood zone determination 100% 0% Banner permit 100% 0% Fire False alarms continue poLicyofonly charging after the Best three false alarms Engine company inspections 100% 0% Medical emergency response 100% as determined based on negotiations with the County currently underway Police Stored vehicle release 100% 0% Special events 100% to be determined as part of comprehensive city—wide special events policy False alarms 100% continue paucyofonlycharging after the Fast 3 false alarms, and then on a s6dogscale that doesn'treach full cost until the 6th false aLtrm Trees Tree/shrub hazard abatement 100% 0% Tree removal permit 100% 0% Consistent with the DMG report recommendations, the proposed fees also reflect the following: • While DMG and staff both believe that the costs of hazardous materials regulation and inspection should be fully recovered through user charges, no fee increases are recommended at this time in this area pending implementation of a more streamlined system within the next year. • DMG recommended that the City set cost recovery goals for recreation programs on an activity—by—activity basis rather than setting an overall cost recovery goal (previously set at 50%). The fee recommendations reflect this approach based on the proposed cost recovery goals set forth in on page B-6 of the Preliminary Financial Plan. Additionally, as �,►M�► i��lilllll�p ���lll City oSan ; S OBISp0 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT recommended by the Parks & Recreation Director, it is proposed that achieving these cost recovery goals be phased—in over the next three years. We believe the resulting recreation fees represent a fair and reasonable balance between user fees and General Fund support, and while no one wants to pay higher fees,will be reasonably well—received by users. One area where there maybe greater resistance are proposed charges for the use of the City/County library rooms by non—profit organizations. We are recommending that fees be charged to all users during the day. The resulting fees will still be very competitive — and reflect fees that are 67% of those recommended to be charged to for—profit groups. Moreover, this will result in cost recovery goals similar to those for other City facilities. Key revenue policy issues The following highlights key issues related to the proposed user fees: • If fees are adopted by the Council as proposed, general purpose revenues will continue to be the major source of funding for General Fund programs: in 1994-95, general purpose revenues accounted for about 94% of governmental fund (non—enterprise)sources; in 1995-97, including the proposed changes, general purpose revenues will still account for 90% of governmental fund sources. Stated somewhat differently, fees will change from funding about 6% of non—enterprise operations to about 10%. • Over the past several years, government has been called upon to operate more like a business. Charging fees that better reflect the cost of doing business is a fundamental building block in doing this. • The most significant increases are in the development review area: they account for over half of the proposed increase in improved cost recovery. Of this amount, increases in planning fees are the largest factor, accounting for a third of all new revenues and 60% of those in the development area. The policy issues raised by the proposed increases in development review fees are probably the most difficult ones facing the Council at this time. On one hand, setting fees at full cost recovery levels is consistent with adopted City fiscal policy as well as with General Plan policies that new development should pay its own way,and not be subsidized by the general taxpayer. On the other hand, fully recovering these costs would require significant fee increases in virtually every fee area. This policy issue ultimately comes down to one key question: Who should pay for the cost of development review? • the applicant? • the community at—large? • some combination of these two? '°' '' ����►����° IIUIII city of San ► "S OBISpo OEM COUNCIL AGENDA REPOORT ....I.........-S If the policy orientation is towards the applicant as our financial and General Plan policies would indicate, a second question arises: What will be the impact of the proposed fees on new development? The conventional wisdom is that they will increase the price of housing or commercial development. This is not necessarily so. As presented to the Council in the context of the fiscal analysis of the airport annexation recently prepared by Angus McDonald&Associates, the cost of development—related fees is not necessarily passed on in the form of higher prices, but often in reduced raw land values. This market change is.perhaps an appropriate one, since the price of undeveloped land in an urban area is related to its value if infrastuctrue is available to it and if land use approvals have been recevied. In short, raw land only has a residual value in excess of its current use (such as crops or graising) to the extent that there are land use entitlements and infrastructue available to it. A reasonable question to ask is: why should the community at large subsidize this appreciation in residual land value? Wha t if it does increase the price of new development? As presented in Exhibit D, the proposed fees would increase the cost of building a house in a 50 unit subdivision by about$2,000. While it's not clear that all of this cost would be shifted to the selling price of the house, even if it was,this may be an appropriate cost shift. Regardless of who pays for it, this cost exists. The discretionary decision to be made by the Council is: who pays? Should it be reflected in the price of the finished product and paid by those who benefit from its use? or by the community at large? In summary, the market determines the price of housing or other types of development. City development review fees are but one small component of many that go into determining market value. There are many communities with very high development review and impact fees that are among the most affordable in the State; there are other communities with very low development review or impact fees that are among the most expensive. These factors of what ultimately determines market value are beyond what the Council can or should control. What the Council can appropriately determine is how the cost of development review will be borne between the land owner/applicant/buyer and the community at large. In making these difficult decisions, a last question arises that transcends the theoretical discussion of who should.pay- Do we need the revenue? ' As discussed above, implementing the findings of the cost of services study is an integral part of the overall budget balancing strategy reflected in the Preliminary Financial Plan. Without these new resources,we simply cannot fund the level of General Fund services and facility �-7 ����N�► ►�IIIIIII�Iu► IIUIU city of Sant 3 OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT improvements set forth in the Preliminary Financial Plan. On the operating program side,we believe the proposed funding levels are necessary to meet basic service delivery standards and to achieve Council goals. On the capital side, the recommended projects provide an important start.in beginning to implement a number of major City goals. As discussed in the Budget Message, in the event that the Council chooses to implement only some of the proposed cost recovery measures,the requested regular positions and the proposed CIP projects are the recommended starting point for balancing the budget Transportation Impact Fees Staff concurs with Council Member Romero's concerns regarding the reliability of transportation impact fees in funding CIP projects. At this point, we believe that the recommended policy on page B— 10 (Capital Financing — Policy D) of the Preliminary Financial Plan is the best approach available to us in addressing this concern. SUMMARY This report had been prepared in response to the concerns raised by Council at their May 20 budget workshop. As discussed above,we expect that General Fund regular staffing requests, CIP projects and proposed fee changes will be the focus of discussion at the June 6 meeting. EXHIBITS A. Summary of General Fund CIP projects: 1995-97 Summary of Cost of Services Study Fee Recomeadations B. Planning fees 1. Current revenues and costs and proposed recovery levels(DMG and staff) 2. Recommended fees C. Building&safety fees 1. Current revenues and costs and proposed recovery levels(DMG and staff) 2. Recommended fees D. Engineering fees 1. Current revenues and costs and proposed recovery levels(DMG and staff) 2. Recommended fees E. Fire fees 1. Current revenues and costs and proposed recovery levels(DMG and staff) 2. Recommended fees F. Proposed vs current development review fees for four hypothetical developments G. Police fees 1. Current revenues and costs and proposed recovery levels(DMG and staff) 2. Recommended fees H. Parks&recreation fees 1. Current revenues and costs and proposed recovery levels(DMG and staff) 2. Recommended fees L Tree maintenance fees 1. Current revenues and costs and proposed recovery levels(DMG and staff) 2. Recommended fees a�' Exhibit A CIP SUMMARY BY FUNDING SOURCE - PRIORITIES: 1995-97 Excludes Enterprise Fund Projects GENERAL FUND 1995-96 1996-97 Appendix H Pae Ref Tier 1 Headquarters fire station" 455,000 27 Jack House renovations 20,000 20,000 140 Historical museum 10,000 138 • Underground utilities 15,000 87 485,000 35,000 Tier 2 • Information Technology Plan - Windows 38,000 154 • Information Technology Plan - Finance 35,600 72,900 154 ' Information Technology Plan - Public Safety 89,800 320,500 154 Portable gymnasium 60,000 125 Street reconstruction&resurfacing**' 665,000 620,000 66 ' Santa Rosa St bridge replacement 89,000 69 Youth athletic field improvements 100,000 100,000 118 Neighborhood park improvements 100,000 100,000 121 Information Technology Plan - GIS 26,000 3,800 154 Storm drain-Meadow St 35,000 72 Traffic calming 20,000 20,000 84 Neighborhood traffic management: 1996-97 130,000 82 • Montalban overcrossing 20,0001 99 1,189.400 148 00 Tier 3 Neighborhood traffic management: 1995-96 130,000 82 Corporation yard improvements 105,000 149 Paint main police building 16,000 17,500 20 Mission Plaza expansion•• 155,000 300,000 141 ' Jennifer Street bridge ** 182,000 91 Flood protection improvements 65,000 100,000 70 Orcutt Road widening 70,000 76 Station#2 storage building remodel 15,500 21 City Hall Seismic&HVAC 900,000 151 • Information Technology Plan - Records 30,000 22,000 154 • Information Technology Plan - Public Access 21,800 154 Public art in-lieu contributions 18,4001 11,200 143 1 26 7001 632 700 3 201,1001 2123,900 Funding Summary Pay-as-you-go 2,146,100 1,823,900 Debt financing 1055 000 300,000 3,201,100 123 900 ' Project funded by more than one source Supplements funding for an existing project 610,000 482 000 Reflects"catch-up"funding for 1995-97 at 50%of pavement management plan levels a 9 Exhibits 1ii6666 OtNjNm < NQ3000NO � Oc� NO 3 C . s � N O $ C% N C gY � g - � - w $ � e� ww � � fn' � w x'; � $ - - � $ - n � n • EaS � mBnnNqS mw x m o a �► Q ��uu gg bo�yy Nru� cninSl � � � ie Ida "� � $ ibwwLGw � w � w � ibw $ ia iawn � ww ®g >R 88 ' 535385388888538888 $ 88888888888 a � � y 88 688888888888888888888888888 888888 vt O E d H C I[1 n Q O m N O m 10 W O Q N fD V O O b (� N N N t/ (Ny $ N - n m m C Qne v� cK m n to99 �l M N N QOQ O SIG (' W ibwa $ r° aw 7e w � gwwsp wN M ;; :: Np ® v e H al N O a M � O ib Ti p m t7i i� Vi $ QI A of DHy N N O a C S yah ems a� LU w g N Pl {p� til O � w O N H) N P mw p t� w $ w w w w $ M � 8 M M M $ w N pl g U ? :ba w MNw wr� N fBN V — w w — h � M � P N C4 O n m w m n N O O m O O Q ry N m m m O G G lN'! m O G mq ' O C x I Nn $ h rO9� 53m 53 � RImNQAOc53 $ Q $ 0153 $ 5t 5353 m K NOw ^ ;u}�� vg�( O �( ® n � � � n O � a O - $ � O M S I. O � � a ? W 6 w ° cc E a U z °z s z w °d g oo m b Z- 0 z p 3 p fU Z � O w � � � � Zwz� g d � Sri Ogg JD az g � � � � � ' ° � � gg°g �daI � ? o s a $ gw �' ra � 'uS � �w gw aaFy °d ¢ z zg z � mu w 6Q U (7 � FI _ � � ; .1 fjl = wcg�� � F O m ; Ll z z m ¢ V w s z z ; w $ 4 ° - : `m z F w w g cwi S z zIE IE ° w z a i z w z w 8 0 z 8 2 000U¢¢ ¢U¢ 2 z W O O pp pp UU a W W �d pp pp O U' O Qd W N p z Z O p S O p t� Q 6 < 6 U x W LL 0 = J 1 a 4 N N f f > R R > 6 m LL S ti LL LL m w U {�. (jj Q V N m 0 - N ^ ^ N N 0 m O N N Q N N n 0 O - - N N N N N N N N N N W N N N N J = aIR,aaaa a c2-10 Exhibit- S "g 8 8 n 0 $ 8 S t S s 8 9 8 8 8 g 8 g" 8 z 0 8 g 8 Ny $3g 8 F 8 L Mm 8 `A' � r � F 9 € w S 8 p8 m n R8 8 9 nu S p8� R� m9 8 8 r3 m 8 8 c0 NO 8�p p8i, 8 ry Y 8 $_ 8 8 8 N8p �p8y S8 ' N N YI $ AN O 0 f1 m m A 0 A Nnj mm H mm N H A pNp N W QH N N H N I� O N, » N » » N M W N + H N N N N H N N • ¢g8 N 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Q 8Q 8 8 8 8pp 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 ! ! 8 8 8 g $ s $ m N A 3S w 6 epi h Mal m W o y + A O E c q q LU y O ' � LL mLLI A `- D Z 2 Z Z ~ 6 gw O p y¢j 6 I�i 2 (7 O Z a Y �y O w 3 ~ G f Z w i m a a W a uQ] 3 F z v. o w w w g z u'f z cc m O w U °� w w °d > z i ff w 7d• z CO) o m $Litz o w z x °d a cwi a f O LL O w � Z '. H F z a O U g U `m z Z i o v cai o � o w z � o o ffpp ffpp � � � W W g o Z (Z] � o $ w Z~ z z � � z U x w w (7 S J 6 S fO 0 I- f > R Q, >0 m a ¢ Gpp 1Y I(Ly (H H U N H O 10 p A m 0 O N N N N N N N N N N lel O N 11 Pl W pp Exhibit ytl O N OI O 1N 10 O m www CI 3 � w N � N � J p �p e S a0 0 N N w N O e � y U m ad 7 r m n a n C LU mVoss { s m c 7 a Y�NI � iUi yO O m C y V g o 0 m 81 88 o w �+ E ii 0 ! . � O 9808 m y o C ° a o m m y O E C € a H gra �° ° LOe Q N New Q v, v, m N N dl v. w Cc e o E m g V G Q y ® mm � � O n w 7 0! CL CL � C o m n n anm � O "• � q L m C Z p �1 q Ct a m E A W a � wv O. p gf m N O7 pj C C O >: z?. of • 2 o ! • O 'tt• .: q 0 YY m N F U Si o o m eff •e ' o m S t o ¢ ¢ - Z a ° to LuU $ o N n a y� Exhibit a ■ aL E j J § 0 4i to E E CL \ � k � § LE E o AZ c Z 4:1 % Q rt Coco 0' ON cs uy- he FO= w LOU LCUL CIO 2 FE 0Z 12 ui 0 -=I I Exhibit Jt �F N N 4* 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 rg 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - cc g p mt z a d d a a wr to eq d a LC "f L6 E 2 z + ID > 0 w LU LC Z LL Z i w w LU z w w w c 0 (D m ccui w CL Iw m Ir m m z W z 0. w w w f M 2 LL 4. 4 Exhibit lege # eee $ ! e ! � ` � + . \ & � 0 2 \ # ; 8989 eag8 � � ) § § ■ kg § § ! ; I kk + ou k ( ■ « , \ � 2 \ 9 § 28888 8 888 ° 2 - Rtk2k § ; saa kk f © � f � 2 § 2 . w �� kk o q ! § 2k | § § § . � a % (own) »ƒ ` \ k : � ° § � | uB 7 , � & � § � 2k ƒ � § § § z § � ! \\ | � ) ! § WW § § § § S § 2 s> . � - W § § � � � § § ) \ C7 �/S Exhibit E- m • ' Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q ow N o 0 N 0 i0 la ! `� wa� a�9t8ViH �dt4NNN wcc SY SY my� N A �^1�pp� O N asaa ^1mm� 00 A N 0�N�pp O N 0 O A �QQ e bO � O � aAy y�yNW NV mNmN » � N � 19mmIgN °' S W. P! NX yap N 1 0 109 19 w » v N m m p A m 4 4W1 w w » M » » » W Ifw1 A imp pm 1p m N M » Nw Om O f m N 0 r N ^ ^ w Itl Itl CO �'A� N � N p�+ g $ m9 .� vi u MMtl N 20 Yi ccCS ' W 1� w ^Nw1 .� � 0 999999999999999999d99 sssssssssssssss ' ssm � 4m a � tio gsssgssssssssssssssssssm q � OE {Ny mm �tp� pm1hq 1 E m n YA1 t0'1 f ' V N �y O� O b OR W ANO 0Np A N m .N.'.w40 w 19 40 O 00 .p} H app ��yy �0 O AO � ► ped � gags ^ 0a 0 mN �uyi �vyi lV w 41)H N 0 Its Y1 0 •A'� ^ O CLS' �E71 an d Q F V N N N s N M N M w w w w N W w w Am $ R 8 $ S V � � H � c3 wa , caid �m� g O N O O O O O O V y SS mp •SC� {{�� oo pp op op b �C` 1 10 m m e W O N p b tl 19 b 19 109 W 1� � °1a 1N9N » "� `•Ywa $j » wwww �bY � � u dd ��y + a»I N a . s • . s � Q ¢ p YZ w w W F c • • • • • g W 701 Q FUFOZQZF cmc O •5 C7 Z � 2 • Z y p� y L U ► UUUUUU ¢ F Zva ZI Q f OD ¢ ¢ U hg a{ c � Ma*O Lu LU* 2 3 d U o � � O F a ¢ Q w u� w kill . " 00 W m m m 0 m m 3 W 2 W r3 m d m B V S F H F H F F� U O a 0 F W C C C W Z I ZI W W N ,. . (7 gy tgQ� fay 0 pZW pO w J 3 UJ 0 Y C W Lu fit! (7' d a o .01 p O SSL cS i S i S 7 6 o LL = a a a 5 w 0 0 id Q o y fu c3 � 1u 28R N N f 0 0 A 0 0 0 N N f 0 0 ^ 0 cc N go N W yq d Cd W a�� Exhibit— E � � lift glC�Dasl{yx4ol Sam i9 N W N N E N N ''CC.• 5 � .tl ah ik • pp mm p p p p C O N O b O (Ay y Yy O m m m map r m t09 O 1 Op O 0 0 P m n y •1 + Y N b m Y ! C i A O E `a pp p p I� p p p p p p p p p { Cos r 10 l07 (N� Q O O Y! CO N O N r O W p O O Op p O p O O O Y' N {�{yy C�C'D� EO tpNpt�� A CODa Q e0'1 n W ON N N N N M t N C6 N N N tl C6 H N N N w N N N N L u W m I� ejE Pmcj r.: 6 4aww0 o va $ E O \ N ^ m n m cc 13 o !L <a •°Y``�:o�e Y LL6y N f O � Lu Y O � UW� N ¢ 4al • • • • •• S f, IWIC� 2 2 N W V O O d W y y W . H W W p�p g y Q Q Q Q Q Q g Q UQ Z ~ Z i Z 4 a W w U U U U U U U 2g I I I I I I W F y� ¢ F F R 2 Q } y U l7 C 7g� 7g� �7j� g= ayyo� '� U y W yUUy� g � S SS � SUO �j�j`'' 4Fj Jaa ¢ Qly W W W z � O y y y � Z ' ¢ I < a y df � d ¢ ¢ LU Y 7 n 7 Y > µZ1 ¢ t�l 2 U. U. 2 pC a =W m m m 7 aQ W f t Q a O m m W y H Q H f F- !� MQ� U (J O aC = y W Q W I I W J E W U Z Y J WO = ZZO Z�Z O 2 Z O W y W �uu Q Q y y CC 2SS QQSD < O ZQ LLU. W W yy@j � 0 N N O O O n O m 0 ^ ^ ^ ^ O O ^ ^ . N N N N N o2-,17 QTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Exhibit PROPOSED USER FEES FOR BUS NG& SAFETY, FIRE, PLANNING&. WEERING pROMCP CURRENT FEE PROPOSED FEE DIFFERENCE Hypothetical Infrastructure Fees for: 1. 1500 Sq. Ft Single Family Residence Building&Safety Fees Permits 1,333 1,333 0 Energy, accessibility&other charges 145 145 0 Plan(mak 866 1,333 467 Fire Review Fees 275 467 192 Engineering Fees - Encroachment Fees 225 623 398 Planning Fees* 0 0 0 Total $2 844 $3,900 $1,056 2. 50,000 Sq Ft Commercial Shell BuMng&Safety Fees Permits 10,081 10,081 0 Energy, accessibility&other charges 2,041 2,041 0 Plan(heck 6,553 10,081 3,528 Fire Review Fees 2,079 3,528 1,449 Engineering Fees - Encroachment Fees 481 1,331 850 Plarmmg Fees 0 Environmental Impact Determination 533 2,393 1,860 Architectural Review 672 1,360 688 Total $22,439 $30,814 $8,375 3. Addition of 1 bedroom/i bathroom Building&Safety Fees Permits 402 402 0 Energy, accessibility&other charges 42 42 0 Plan Check 261 402 141 Fire Review Fees 0 0 0 Engineering Fees 0 0 0 Pluming Fees* 0 0 0 Total $705 $846 $141 4. 50 Unit Residential Subdivision Engineering Fees Encroachment Fees 0 0 0 Final Map 3,499 4,208 709 Improvement Plan Check 33,213 33,273 60 Construction Inspection 55,533 135,500 79,967 Pluming Fees Environmental Impact Determination 533 2,393 1,860 Tract Map 50 Lots 4,332 6,097 1,765 Total Planning&Engineering Fees for 50 units 97,110 181,471 84,361 Total Planning&Engineering Fees Per Unit 1,942 3,629 1,687 Building&Safety Fees - Per Unit Permits 1,333 1,333 0 Energy, accessibility&other charges 145 145 0 Plan(heck 544 915 371 Fire Review Fees - Per Unit 264 366 102 Total Per Unit $4,228 $6,388 $2,160 • If all z®g swrKhrds observed there wodd be ao pta®ing fees for this project. ' a-r�' Exhibit ® N � m 4 m a 0 m �_ w a w e a N ok m 8 $ m » NNn � » � N N � ..� N �wNNN � m A n �f pO rN .3 N S x CY N h 0 0 S N N n O O � A a N N � NNN n N N m O aRa a+mC�� m O N N n .9 mA �O V OI N N N 0 0 N 2 2 O q CA Q f m AN CD Y N O NN ' IN YYYCCCililil 00 N N N r N N N N N N N c m N N ^ Cl/ � b N N ON z 1f1 W N W y OO m n m N 10 N O N p� P. » q � � S �S88 � 885 80 $ s 88888888880888888000888888 b m r $ � sso O. y m Ica 880008888880880888880888888 � m O C u Ci 1p pp q .0 .O O C ca Y1 m O O Y COO N m m m Y m I(1 N (Ny p t^y O OH r O m n t O� pm N n 7R n 2e N N ` N N N Cl W N N v CD CU N Y/ N N m B W MI N N N O H N N N N N N N N N » w IL » 40 w N $ 8 a a U LC » � » � y m � m is m m N B ro 89 8 v 8 8 8 8 m m m 'n m' $ c ri � 6d6N " mo00Cdvw n 01 m vt d o is m O 49 O M m N n ^ N N O N l� N N N 0� am'f O • f { e 1B p S 7 IL N N N N g w N N H » tl N N S S i 3 i S r `y N N m w C m Y ° o H m b Z a S . HpU °1 �. t � w oyi � w a L' cc f ~ 2m � a � JZU cYiw � wg9 > 2wq 1 0 m w f 0: y W O C1 N � S W QFQ y w z W U � '37 2 O D C G ¢x a- w0. k U6wwz � OC7U ¢ 0 ¢¢ F' FeLou .ppl1po ,�, ,$g e E m M1A'Y V dz jp�pW UUF ¢ U ¢ F ¢ UFSNd V V 2NC = ' 6 .. 'e ym Q S a = = N O U F W 2 Z U S I► gp C a m WWW J r W W ¢ > N U y�y�� w Z — S pg 2 V m 'a Hm C7 (w7 Z d w O D W O O O O ¢ (7 > ¢ N O y eL N b SIl m el . V Q Q I K f Q S f ~ W j z Q Q ��77 IY IY O O Q IL q i LLI 1 m O U Q W 7 0 0 S 6 O Q N U U U U U a ¢ q - O y N Z W C7 U U U J O g �C U U (� W I� I� W O O c ag 8 V O J Z O w w O O H C ¢ O g a 6 a 7 = Q Z N as {� N :k%k^': 2 `t U U IL O W C N W 2 ul N N N f C d 1 N I WN wt B m 0 N W f N m A N N N N N N N N W _ y * •M 02-l9 Exhibit 6'z 8m8 � � m5388Sp8p � � � R � 8 : 8 � 8 � E8p8p3 � p$o qq g,g O1 V1 ' N Q N n N N 0 0 N N Ol • • • N a m Cl N W m ww � a � � m p gb' 83 � mS28 $ o ^wm � 9. i. � g� R38 � 8 � So B � So i `aIN & wtl �'s •� '' `� + � � N» SXa :! wpSNwaw www o $ Se m ` m = p p e o p p 1m p Op $ G G gg NN eO �.q ww >2 9E 40iw �j Q LLI c _ m 0 0 � e U o t` 8 S aC c 0000 �000o00000000000000p00 t00ap00 �pop �p0 y � S m N C G OJ $ m O b 0 , 0 p N Y G $ 46 W ^ f N O W E aD 0 7 e : io m � (R c m� o vJ 9 m�m oC G m xx$ % WN m V s 0 ` Q U W R dl w m ca ® f Ou°. �dti [yJ� Z3 ~ Oup' w m ¢ or v ` E g y �w I I W Q U ° W Lou 0 a Y Z (� ° = W s� m a m m -i. J CC L F _ _ t ¢ W c°� o �' ° FQy W F ° Sgzwc S m 0 • N W m a m = d Z In LU W 0 W U U V F z ° = S N 6 O v w ¢CC i i O C7 33 a W 0 Off, W 0 z o ¢ C7 , S S cc y 0 c* 0. 'm C m w m e E n S aay W � � pJ�J � ¢ (O� Y_ ¢O � aa0 _5uiOOOO � Ua °� gWyO mII § E ` (7 U U U p 7 O g fpp U U ugg}} W 0y� W W ¢CL a. Q O O O w Q U � � � s � m E U U E C ww D: U N M 6 S 2 N N N F O a W N IL W W N m N N O b m1 P m m 0 ^ N N b 0 ^ m O O N W Q N m n Y E E sit N N N N N N N N N N� (j Z N G C C a� Exhibit. A o p .iIp�p ay 6 mp �n N {y� S p o 0m 0m a d 1n 1n m N w 110 0 N N m C) N O at d O N N O O LO rN rN Ill b N N N N W r r N 6 o pO po a tp� ♦O Yg11 a� �p pp N tl N r ��p/ t?yy ♦m♦Ipp m 0I� I O� 1E1�OO m O N 1t N�� t Nky1 O O d � � b� Y! N M) tl y ppNNN K N Vl NINB H N N y 40 N H W f00K m l'� a • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • J ':2 O v 009dd9f-: , 9 � 999d9gci$ 0css ms 9 H V=j $ H c y E 1e0p �m�y m llO�J d m Yf N O Yf O Y�f N A I�m� M imp f N 1 � f � A 1� � W a $ dt •� coV, WN N N b N N N N N N N N � 9 14 N a N N N 0 m N A m q�qq A ` N N N ^. W �+1 > u N N N C T c CO w v a 0 0 1D O e Yl N m O f m N 1ft A Y! O1� YI n N {O� mm 1mm� Nt� mt�J V O {0I��11 {m{yy d m Gm V m N V 1G 0 d wF ION !) r N I N N N a Y N g N r N N a N N H N N b N w aN 1P� N mO ♦d o� r O O O and p� O g � pmt m O O m N m m 10 M OrD 10 W tm') N 0 d !J r N 0 0 O nu r � . aw '� IN �iANw 'wa°dwl� l"d `.3 � " in .Ns '" NwIN f'A� �+ M '� ° E E $ e t m q � T m m � r c c o Go m ~ ° st N W � � L'Ud Ui Oy JJ IcciJ�Ji � 7Fy�y � (q� c W W r.+ OWI a F�L 2Y � 7m vZ W W NN 1ST •. V m � m O W � OCJ O 3 m W �Om � w W u a ¢ sem + magi fA � o �'g0 = 0 O w • .p'. f F- H !- 2 W Z2 Qc�i � � op� � O m g R 7 a J O � N N d m 0 A m m ^ N Cl d b 0 A m m 0N A < Y! 0 A N N N a—ai Exhibit r � N T — CO U ° V C offm m CD a n L 10 -00 O p N o � i mL — � LL aco CON(D 't 07 0 0 7 O> 7 m td to to O> N CO L L — 0)O LL ' N LL L N N N N th L O 7 m T m O T T T T TO LL p�N m n w m m m CO m LO N mN Oto Cy p c N = ppOppN to LL to CO CO N to tM N M N y L O T — N rl L V C 03 O 9 m m m 9 O. CO V 9 Np V LL V WnLco O ce) m m O) 7 L v> O 07 W N a> to N LL C= L L O LL LL N LL 4) LOm � N N m m V La L N LL r QlN N � w m m (13 LC) O N CD CN O � cto p c N W pOpppN f). LLtN r fn coN N to ... Lo -t Mnj O a` ? t — — L t C CO p L ` ` O V �' p O m m O. N LL LL L6 VL > p O^ N m mL LOOt00 O Qty — ALL mLL � L ` O N . : CD m N N N N4m} L Cm om O U. M LO LO m L0 N p c N = 0Ono 0N <a. LL 4). (A CON j> ti). SLO -tMNN m L U N V N C m O U = T m L L LLL m m m m d +LL m9L m ? p � 11 lL L LL 11 LL T m — 00000 C6 �2 _ m m UL p LL S .vNi tNi> a> aN> a�> m L m C W � nN NtM/1 LOin LO Lo La o y My> L O mLm � � — O N U) N N N tea' 20: m NLy Ny) Ntfi 0) 4& U O � CO 7m LOO m0 m0 TTTTT ` � O ` \ T� —_ _ T T T � O NALCO LL � = CD CN c— a ina OuO � C O � � O m mp W = lmp mp 60 mN N OHO .- - .- � � � LN � � mLL = LL = LL = LL2N th LL N tD r N N CO t0 M N th m V tfi a> p> V LO .� at M N v> a E o m E m E a U m m m m U > U U p m CA m Y c p m L m e m m LL m T m LL m m E «_+ = CA C > c m c E > a � �n 3 rn n a a a� Exhibit~ E 3 3 C C 3 3 N N N N = N E N N N m m cc m m 0 m m m O O E E o O N N N - a Y a a a E Oln � � OLn � � � -. O O LO 0 00 co cn O 00 OO LnLo0 � Co d0w N � It N � m c0 d � NLoNr M � m d dNN .Co. M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M N N +? N E v n W 7 ON N N N E N N N m m m m m faO O U) Ln N N N m r " m m m m m m m m m m m m m a Ln Lo E E Ln Ln n N N N r a m a a a E o n NLo Lo m Ln LO n N LO O d LO O O O Lo Ln o � a m an m co M N CO an cn N tO N cn m cn It N M M M N N M M M M M M M M M M M Ul M M M M M a N m E Ln 3 3 c c 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 000 E E E E E 'N N N L N 0 0 o m m m 0 m m m m m m r «m+ a.m.. ama a.m.. 0o E E oo to N N No CL CL CL E too 00 tn0 C9 Ln m 00 000U) 0 :e N n Non too CON N it COQ NLONM m cn It M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M N Li 3 c E E t t E E p 0 r 0 c c c c 0 E m 7 U NN 0 0 N Ln m m m Q) am.. am+ r amm m m LoE E LD NE NOaaELo Lo � � ro O Lo0Lo n Lo Ln n O O Lo U O O Ln Lo 0 + Ln � m M N N CO N CO N LO N r- M M It N M A N M M M M M M M M + Of M M M M N N M M M M m n � N C D _ ` n � � � O — j m C m O m a C L o N CD m m N m 7 > m m N a 10 O m 0 0 C O Cn m m v a an d N m Y O m E Nvc�n ELL .. � V ` N � UacmmU �, � m c om `OEm ~ o > > ny «. c m `m c c - E ad > > mF- Qcn cc Wm m > 7 7 V 7 7 <n _ a O E 7 o 7 V w .` > O N m E m a•a CO a•+ «+ a «+ as o ,m, a o m coQ } •- a ya m m a•o 0 3 0 w _ E m = o > om v ca mQ � mG 3Q mQ CL ck. m - o c m o ,c -0 .0 — a oa Q Q � o_ x w m HU > Nf- c7cn aQ Q QcnQ e��o'Z3 Echibi N L o E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a n a a a a a E — E E E E E E E E LLmLLLLL000 CCM 00 LnLO0 0 UN U U U U U CO � d NN dd MMtn Lo LOt6 0cocomn OOO OO NO000 N ItLON NN MN CV) Nto fh fd OY N N N N ilY N N N ra to os yr v). V} +/} m m L Y n ` v c 0 c c c c c c c c m °� oEo 00 00 000 LL E EE E E EEE a LLmLLLLL 000 co CV) 00 L0100 m U U N U U U U 0 � � d N N d d M M m m LOLOiOQD0tOPtO 000 00 NO 000 O M dLON NN MN CV) Nto Q N i, ANOYMN tl} 0fd fb {p0 NQY N N fh a m m _ N L � tD CC O C C C C C C C C L O O E O O O O O O O O as Uaaa a E0 EE EE EEE LL � LLL — L m 000 co CV) 00 1O 100 U U N U U U L U m M N N d d M M m LOiO �nCCOt(oCCO � COO m 000 00 NO 000 N N M m d Lo N N N M N M N co -coNNIh N fA 4ro !/1 U NC1 W Ni? NS? N {? N w LL m O 'O C O C C C C C c c C c t m o E o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m a a 0 a a a a a m E E E E E E E E E 7 LLn LLLLLd 000 coo OO IOtO0 U U U CO � d NN dd MMtro It l LO LO Lo LO LO m dddtOtO �OtOM m 000 00 NO 000 NN4& m 1W NN MN MNtO N N fO 0 N N fd N LL +A N fA N N N 0 fh q} 0. _ E m m m m U a > maYCD0rnEm m 0 0 m p m m >a Q , 0 m 0 > m m 0 m « toQ L L O m y 7 7 m ® 7 7 7 7 7 0 7 a > m m m > > C .0 E t� ca o ca o •- a o � a o f o o o - = m m m Q = m Q Q m Q } o LLD U U a—a� Exhibit 9 W N co OC C C T P` O O O. W r r r 0 T T T T T T L r L L 0 W m W W W W m W W O r r L r r O r O r r r a as O OLL COOL LOL LO L LDL L C O LD LO OLOOO CO CO NLO LO BD0 NO CN Ln LOO LO LOd -e -it La -e -e CN It LNCO N NIt NCL! N OY fd N N N t¢ N tl/ f? 4& N if} 4} 4& N +b N N N N tlf W N n ` W O 0 O O O W W �_ -0 0 m m 0 W W W C W ccr r r r r r r r r r r r m a as = L 'O 'a CD = 9 LL LL LL LL LL LL Ws O O ILOOCD CO lele0 00 CON It co 0 L 00 00 LO ItItMCV) LO tCh N � It0 Nd NIt C14 It O N N N OY {!1N N iQ D f> 93. .9> NN 4J tl} O} QA 9} 4Y fA 4J r N CD � L6 O O O W r r r 0 m m m w W 0 N to ca O r r r r r t r O r O r CL as C Ohm 0 m m LD LL LL OL COL LDL U� LO C`9O 0LOOO NNr nLL N � � N O t` LO t` LO r r It C7 C7 C7 LO * C7 C7 a co N It r\ r r Ch r M VJ AJ i? f? N N f? N N O} YY td QY dY 40- 40. Q) Ql q} Q) iD fh mN LL y C C C T m O O C W y T T T T T T 7 W W r W W W W O W W r r r r r r r r U a Mw 10 10 10 '0 O 9 L L L L L L r r L L C a L L O NM LOOLDLD OO LD � N � � N 4* 0 C7MNL) � fh N Lr- N NLO � lO l0 N K N N N OJ tll N N N f!Y N M N tq N N fh N Q Q N N W N W N rLL m a.+ A W r W W « W y W C W E W r T m o m o c o oY m Q rW p o mCi o m W c c ' a, � U. c a E a E �j �° a E aE � aE 3a E }T m oY m E " r mC] c E c E r c EL c E o c E o c E > « E lid m O coo M r 0 ow pUpUpZU >ZU WZU '�_ ZU mZU � ZU C�j W jLO � BULL C (7LULL C � mQ (.7 m � Y N 61 Q ca a. It U C LC N a—a .� Exhi it m O 0 = n L L >> ca > > r r L r r r 0 7 7 m m m m 'O '0 'O O O O O L L L LO O O 'a 'o V L L L LO L tl O O O O O Ln Ln O O O O Lo u) N � N NN CO) LO co WN ch M ter- Nc`7 n r O) O 7 m 0 00 > > L\ > > > > m m m OO O m m m m o O OL07 LO= L7O D Ln u) L o o 10 Ln 0 CN0 LO 0 LO LO Ln n m co cn N w H N C7 Ln C") W CO N N N M N M m N f!f ifi 4} N f? N N N N N N N YY p} N N 0) LL L m 0 O O m 7 ` CL o) o = Lo t > t r0r > > CD m m 7> > 0 0 0 r- LO 0L O O in Ln O O O 0 O O 0 La LOLLO 7 LO r� N N N C) N N LO 0 d/ 0 fA N N N t/Y IA iA N W N to 0 (? N 07 toLL N w >a ccO N = 7 CV) 70 L L 7 L m� 7 7 m W W ca wy •O 0L C�9N O U O LLo O O L 139 G� c` LO 0 m 0 O N L O O LO in Ln Ln Ln N O 1� CO) LO N N iO N N O N O fp tb N 40 t? N N N f/} 40 O O N N N N 4> t 7 C1 m t V N m d O CC LL V d .. 2 • y m m c C N m 7 g L`p O O o e � o 0 c ma 3 >, 0. 0 0 dl f0 f0:2 5 0 l0 m C J m « m m C •- N � W m 40 p p m 9 m 0 C " m O m Y m Of O °� C V O ` O � LL ma E �a E m � � E 0 E a � � � o ca c c 0 a) ar E � i E °o W c E c E °o m m m m m m o m Li t m ¢ _ �? c E E c E > v � Toomoo oLL L „ a °' v � «m Ydm � `mcoo mEoo mZU > ZU « C O ca m O N y O s C mC C1 Q1 r a Z U r 0 Z U v 7 00 Lu 7 y m " c m m m m ar m �i a U a U Q Ocn 0 H mJ2N mN � Q dLLJfn J J Exhibit w C4 N 4� y w+ � � G y � a � o •� U O •VJ O O U Q� 00 M ON O O as r N V � N � c bD y U � y � •3 y w U U Ci+ � � Fr •� OO O V7 a a 7 2 Z w , W F O .: c-i rl i -a 7 Exhibit 8 FS . 8 9229 Ci eggs ��pQ d 4-6-: it ll 0 aIn ll 4001% 0 9 d g 8999 CY CO N% 40 aR CR O g d 16 �� � 5 oz XLU r 6 P I C: uj 'WU :E M 0 tr V MIJ Exhlb it.Z.L- 8@m@ � � § \ ko - � 8888 4 e2ea m § 4 o y § � k ° ' o a § & & § ° r A � % § t � mom § k � � m . q22 � � § 2 � § § . � W ���/ MEFTINAGENDA D1, - -p ITEM # MEMORDANDUM TO: City Council OUNCIL VDD DR FROM: John D IR ��o ❑ FIRE CHIEF ♦� TTORNEY ❑ PW DIR DATE: June 6, 1995 rel CLERwoRta ❑ POLICE CHF SUBJECT: Assistant CAO and Assistant to the CAO Positions ❑ MCMrT7 ❑ REC DIR ❑/C D FILE ❑ L DIR C� PERS DW It has been suggested that staffing in the CAO's Office be reduced or eliminated in order . to have more money available for other City Council priorities. I want the City Council to know that this action would cripple and hamper the operation of my office. My office is not a City department. While we have responsibilities for some functions, our primary responsibility is the overall effective management of the City. I serve as the Executive Officer of the City, as your agent, to provide oversight and supervision to the entire City government. My area of responsibility is broad, and my accountability to you and the citizens is total. Given the issues and imperatives facing the City, I cannot effectively accomplish the objectives you have approved for me except with the continuation of the Assistant CAO and Assistant to the CAO positions. Consider these facts: We have a: - $30 million operating budget - Multi-million dollar capital budget - Over $160 million is total assets - Dozens of goals and hundreds of objectives to achieve - Complex management systems: -Budget -Labor Relations -Policies/Procedures -Information Systems - I have five bosses: the City Council members, and you expect me to manage all of these things effectively. I currently have a span of control of ten. - For 1995-97, you are considering adding two major programs to 'my office: Economic Development and Natural Resources. This will take a considerable effort, providing guidance and direction. During the meeting, I will detail the particular areas of responsibility of the two positions but, first, I would like to make some general observations. First, two years ago,when it became necessary to eliminate positions to balance the budget, I was the first to volunteer the deletion of the second Administrative Analyst position and half of a clerical position, for a 25% reduction in the CAO's office, which was the highest percentage reduction of staff in the whole City. This analyst position was responsible for, among other things, the City's community relations and the City's responding to proposed State and Federal legislation, which programs have been assumed by the remaining staff in my office. Please understand that my office is now leanly staffed. It is a very minimal staffing to give the myriad of functions assigned to us. Any further cutbacks would mean that critical and necessary functions would not be performed, or that certain other functions would have to be reassigned to departments, who already have a full slate. It is penny wise and pound foolish to cut the office which has the responsibility for the oversight of all other functions of the city. Reduced staff will mean that things fall through the cracks, don't get done, don't get done in a timely way, or get done at a reduced quality/thoroughness level. My office doesn't exist as an independent entity. It exists to serve and coordinate the activities of the whole City government. It exists to advise the City Council, to propose legislation for your consideration, to fully and completely implement the actions of the City Council. Reducing the effectiveness of my office means reducing your level of effectiveness, as we serve as your right arm. Right now, as you know, we are in the latter stages of recruiting for the Assistant to the CAO position. We have over 130 applications for the position. Our oral interviews are scheduled for June 23rd. As for any other position, we are looking for the highest quality person because this person will start the job with a very full slate of continuing and accumulated tasks. What do these two positions do? No listing of their responsibilities can be complete, for new issues and tasks are constantly arising, and because these positions serve as general assistants to the CAO and do what must be done, as requested by the CAO. While I don't want to make any self-serving statements, the simple fact is that the incumbents in the CAO's office are as dedicated, well-organized, and hard working as any in our City government. We easily average 10-hour working days during regular times and serve much longer work days when dealing with more pressing City issues. In short, there just in not the slack to absorb the loss of a half-time or full-time person. In conclusion, my office now operates with minimal staffing; any further reductions would damage the effectiveness of not just my office, but of the City Council and the entire organization. MEETING AGENDA June 6, 1995 DATEITEM #. MEMORANDUM TO: Council Colleagues FROM: Dodie Williams SUBJECT: STATEMENT FOR BUDGET HEARING I would recommend we add the following budget policy to the Policies and Objectives section of the Financial Plan: • The Council shall establish its annual budget based on financial resources that are in place at the time the budget is introduced. • Prior to the adoption of any expanded program, project or staffing, the resources necessary for such expansion shall be approved, along with an assured methodology for obtaining those resources. • The Council shall not adopt any budget that projects a deficit. • Enterprise funds shall stand on their own, and will not be included in the above methodology. DW:ss RECEIVED Juw 199b c1rr000NCIL COUNCfL ❑ CDD DIR 001CA0 WAN DIR ErAW ❑ FIRE CHIEF ❑0,#rMNEY ❑ PW DIR 14 019RKIORI0 O POLICE CHF Q MUT TEAM ❑ REC DIR ® 0 READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR �?CK,Gzg- Q PERS DIR MEETING AGENDA , DAT SLO User Fees FROM: Mayor Allen Settle CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO USER FEE STUDY SUMMARY SHEET: PLANNING User Fee Services Current Fee Staff Recom. Mayor Recom. % increase 1. Administrative Use Permit $213 $917 $256 20% 2. Annexation 1,067+106Ac over 5 ac. staff rec=time' and material 3. Appeals 0 0 0 0 4. ARC Development Project 672 1 ,359.69 806 20% 5. ARC Minor or incidential 193 421 .2 232 20% 6. ARC Plan. Revision 336 822.75 403 20% 7. ARC Signs 1 160 754.09 192 20% 8. Certificate of Compliance 267 2,089 320 20% 9. XMAS Tree/Pump Lot 0 78.4 0 0 10. Environmental Review 533 2,392.75 640 20% 11. Fence Height Exception 0 319.4 0 0 12. Gen. Plan Text Amendmei 746 time' & materials-accept staff recom. 13. Home Occupation Permit 54 194.14 54 0 14. Lot Comb/Lot Line Adj. 319 1 ,508.30 383 20% 15. PD Precise Plan Amend 427 2,137 512 20% 16. PD Preliminary Plan 1 ,600 8,816 1 ,920 20% 17. PC Use Permit 693 3,197.33 832 20% 18. Sidwalk sale permit 54 861 541 0 19. Spec. Plan Amendment 1 ,067 time' & material s-asccept staff recom. 20. Ten Map Parcel Map 1 ,632 2,297.33 1958 20% 21. Ten Map Tract Map 1 ,632+54/lot 2297+76/lot 1958+65/lot 20% 22. Variance 1 831 1 ,094.75 831 0 23. Zoning Map Amendment 1 ,098 7,383 time' and materials 24. Zoning text Amendment 746 6,263.50 time" and materials 25. Voluntary Merger 0 317 0 0 26. Agreements 0 326.24 0 0 27. Bonds 1 0 444.54 0 0 28. Parking in-Lieu Ag. 0 Parking fund 0 0 29. Retrofit Water Proposals 0 Water fund 0 0 30. Dntn Housing Conver Per 672 5,441 .00 806F 20% 31. Final Parcel Map Exten. 50a/%of bill fee 50%of bill fee accept staff recom. 32. Final Tract Map Exten. 50%of bill fee 50%of bill fee accept staff recom. 33. Street Abandonment 672 time'&material accept staff recom.. 34. Street Name Change 565 time"&material accept staff recom. 35. Condo Conversion 885 5,404.00 1062 20% 'time refers to staff time: mayor recom. is to base on first step salary of associate planner not including benefits Fee increases cover two year buget with typical increase of 10% per year RECEIVED T ' y`�,lj JUN u 1995 Pa ge 1 �`�� CITY COUNCIL SLO User Fees CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO USER FEE STUDY SUMMARY SHEET:BUILDING/SAFETY User Fee Services Current Fee Staff Recom. Mayor Recom. % increase 1. PERMITS&INSPECTIIONS $683 Follow UBC Use UBC Variable 2. MICROFILM 3 6.75 3.6 20% 3. GRADING PLAN CHECK Accept continued use of Uniform Building Cod Variable 4. CONSTR.PLAN CHECK 65%of Permit 100% Permit 65% Permit 0 Fee Fee Fee CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO USER FEE STUDY SUMMARY SHEET: ENGINEERING User Fee Services Current Fee Staff Recom. Mayor Recom. % increase 1. Improvement Plan Check $213+1.5%CC$273+1.5%CC $213+1.5%CC 0 2. Construction Inspection $253+2.5%C 1,300+6.1%CC $304+2.5%CC 20% of bas 3. Final Tract Map 799 958 958 20% 4. Final Parcel Map" 267 368.7 320 20% 5. LLA Agree Final 1-9"' 319 510 383 20% 6. LLA Agree Final 10+*'" 27 57.34 32 20% 7. Encr Perm Misc 27+2.15 L.F. 57.34+4.57 LF 32+2.15 L.F. 20% of base 8.Encr Perm Excavation 106+.25 L.F. 348+.82 L.F. 127+.25L.F. 20% of base 9.Transportation Permit 16 16 16 0% 10.13anner Permit 0 0 0 0 11.Parking Meter Bag 0 Parking fund 0 0 12.Flood Zone Determination 0 0 0 0 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO USER FEE STUDY SUMMARY SHEET: F 1 R E Current Fee Staff Recom. Mayor Recom. % increase 1. PLAN CHECK (annual fee) 12.5% of Bldg 17.5% of Bldg retain at 12.5 0 permit fee permit fee 2 to 24-accept all staff recom. (Eg: Hazmat, cat. etc.) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO USER FEE STUDY SUMMARY SHEET: P O L I C E User Fee Services lCurrent Fee Staff Recom. Mayor Recom. % increase Accept all staff recommendations Accept staff recom. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO USER FEE STUDY SUMMARY SHEET: PARKS AND RECREATION User Fee Services Current Fee Staff Recom. Mayor Recom. % increase VARIES 3 YR PHASED NO INCREASES 0 UP TO 300% IN THIS 2 YR BUDGET CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO USER FEE STUDY SUMMARY SHEET-.TREE MAIN. 1 to 3--accept staff recom. no fees (error of 200 on Pg.2-29 to read $0 as in Pg.2-28) 4. Banner Install 1 2 01 1631 1201 0 Page 2 SLO Staff Positions GENERAL FUND REGULAR STAFFING SUMMARY 1995-97 MAYOR SETTLE RECOM. POSITIONS F.T.E.'S ANNUAL GENERAL FUND NET GENERAI MAYOR PROPOS COST# OFFSET FUND COST RECOM,FTE DOWNTOWN PATROL OFFICER 1 58,700 -25,000 33,700 1 SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER 1 58,700 -41,900 16,8001 1 FIREFIGHTERS 1 3 170,500 -170,500 0 2 COM.DEV.CLERICALSUPPORT* 0.2 7,800 -800 7000 0.2 NATURAL RES. MGT+CLR.SUP 1 .4 85,400 0 85,400 1 .4 ECON. DEV.MGT+CLR. SUP 1 .4 85,400 0 85,400 1 .4 PERSONNEL ADM. CLR. SUP** 0.2 7,100 -1 ,800 5,300 0.2 COMPUTER SYSTEMS TECH*** 1 47,300 -11 ,800 35,500 1 BUILDING MAIN. TECH.**** 0.5 22,800 -22,800 0 0.5 MECHANIC***** 0.5 20,400 -20,400 0 0.5 GENERAL FUND TOTAL 10.2 564,100 -295,000 269,100 9.2 One firefighter## -56,833 -56,833 8.2 Optional Exchange Dept. CAO for cost of Econ. Dev.Mgt. and Nat,Res. Mgt.Position -60,000 -60,000 7.2 NEW GENERAL FUND TOTAL 447,267 -238,167 209,100 STAFF CREDIT.5 ASST. CAO ONE HALF OF ASSIST CAO POSITION -0.5 TOTAL STAFF ADDITIONS 1/2 = 49,400 total comp.### 6.7 REVISED GENERAL FUND TOTAL #GENERALLY BASED ON 1995-1996 COSTS OF A FULL-YEAR BASIS *FOR NEIGHBORHOOD ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM **70%TO PERSONNEL and 30%TO ADMINISTRATION ***ABOUT 25%COST REIMBURSED BY ENTERPRISE FUND ****ALL COST REIMBURSED BY PARKING FUND *****ALL COST OFFSET BY REDUCTION IN CONTRACT SERVICES AND TEMPORARY STAFFING ##TO COMPENSATE FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT OVERTIME INITIATE APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM ###Total compensation includes 29% approximately above salary Page CIP SUMMARY 95-97 CIP SUMMARY BY FUNDING SOURCE-PRIORITIES:1995-1997 Staff Recommendation Mayor Recommendation GENERAL FUND 1995-96 1996-97 1995-96 1996-97 TIER 1 1 Changes in bold print Headquarters fire station" 455,000 455,000 Jack House Renovations 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Historical Museum 10,000 10,000 `Underground Utilities 15,000 15,000 TIER 2 1 ITier 1 total 485,000 35,000 485,000 35,000 'Information Technology Plan-Windows 38,000 38,000 'Information Technology Plan-Finance 35,600 72,900 35,600 72,900 *Information Technology Plan-Public Safety 89,800 320,500 89,800 320,500 Portable Gymnasium 1 60,000 60,000 Street Reconstruction/Resurface"' 665,000 620,000 665,000 620,000 'Santa Rosa St.Bridge Replacment 89,000 89,000 Youth Athletic Field Improvements 100,000 100,000 75,000 75,000 Neighborhood Park Improvements 100,000 100,000 75,000 75,000 Information Technology Plan-GIS 26,000 3,800 26,000 3,800 Storm Drain-Meadow St. 35,000 35,000 Traffic Calming 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Neighborhood Traffic Management: 1996-97 130,000 100,000 'Montalban Overcorssing 20,000 20,000 Tier 3 1 ITier 2 total 1,189.4M 1,456.2M 970,4001 1,376.2M Neighborhood Traffic Management:1995-96 130,000 100,000 Corporation Yard Improvements 105,000 105,000 Paint Main Police Building 16,000 17,500 16,0001 17,500 Mission Plaza Expansion" 155,000 300,000 155,000 300,000 'Jennifer Street Bridge" 182,000 182,000 Flood Protection Improvements 65,000 100,0001 100,000 Orcutt Road Widening 70,000 70,000 Station #2 Storage Building Remodel 15,500 15,500 City Hall Seismic & HVAC (Heat/Air) 900,000 400,000 'Information Technology Plan--Records 30,000 22,000 30,000 22,000 `Information Technology Plan--Public Access 21 ,800 21 ,800 Public Art in-lieu Contributions 1 18,400 11 ,2001 12,400 8,700 Tier 3 total 11,526.7MI 632,700 974,700 612,700 TOTALS FOR TIER 1,2, AND 3: $3,201,100 2,123,900 11163.7M 12,023,900M Funding Summary -771 ,000 -100,000 Pay-as-you-go 2,146,100 1 ,823,900 Debt Financing 1,055,OG 300,000 284,0001 200,000 FUNDING SUMMARY TOTAL 3,201,100 2,123,900 'Project funded Iby more than one source "Supplements funding for an existing project 610,000 482,000 *"Reflects"catch-up"funding for 95-97 at 50% .of pavement management plan levels Page 4- CIP SUMMARY 95-97 CIP SUMMARY BY FUNDING SOURCE-PRIORITIES:1995-1997 lOptign 2 Staff Recommendation Mayor Recommendation GENERAL FUND 1995-96 1996-97 1995-96 1996-97 TIER 1 1 Changes in bold print Headquarters fire station" 455,000 455,000 Jack House Renovations 20,000 20,000 20,0001 20,000 Historical Museum 10,000 10,000 'Underground Utilities 15,000 15,000 TIER 2 1 ITier 1 total 485,000 35,000 485,000 35,000 'Information Technology Plan-Windows 38,000 38,000 'Information Technology Plan-Finance 35,600 72,900 35,600 72,900 'Information Technology Plan-Public Safety 89,800 320,500 89,8001 320,500 Portable Gymnasium 1 60,000 60,000 Street Reconstruction/Resurface"' 665,000 620,000 665,000 620,000 `Santa Rosa St.Bridge Replacment 89,000 89,000 Youth Athletic Field Improvements 100,000 100,000 75,000 75,000 Neighborhood Park Improvements 100,000 100,000 75,000 75,000 Information Technology Plan-GIS 26,000 3,800 26,0001 3,800 Storm Drain-Meadow St. 35,000 35,000 Traffic Calming 20,000 20,000 20,0001 20,000 Neighborhood Traffic Management: 1996-97 130,000 100,000 'Montalban Overcorssing 1 20,000 20,000 Tier 3 F ITier 2 total 1 ,189.4M 1 ,456.2M 970,400 1,376.2M Neighborhood Traffic Management:1995-96 130,000 100,000 Corporation Yard Improvements 105,000 105,000 Paint Main Police Building 16,000 17,500 16,0001 17,500 Mission Plaza Expansion" 155,000 300,000 155,0001 300,000 'Jennifer Street Bridge" 182,000 182,000 Flood Protection Improvements 65,000 100,000 100,000 Orcutt Road Widening 70,000 70,000 Station #2 Storage Building Remodel 15,500 15,500 City Hall Seismic & HVAC (Heat/Air) 900,000 350,00 `Information Technology Plan--Records 30,000 22,000 30,0001 22,000 'Information Technology Plan--Public Access 21 ,800 21 ,800 Public Art in-lieu Contributions 18,400 11 ,200 01 8,700 Tier 3 total 1,526.7M 632,700 906,3001 612,700 TOTALS FOR TIER 1,2, AND 3: $3,201,100 2,123,900 11095.3M 12,023,900M Funding Summary -839,400 -100,000 Pay-as-you-go 2,146,100 1 ,823,900 Debt Financing 1,055,00 300,000 215,600 200,000 FUNDING SUMMARY TOTAL 3,201,100 2,123,900 'Project funded Iby more than one source "Supplements funding for an existing project 610,000 482,000 "'Reflects"catch-up"funding for 95-97 at 50% of pavement management plan levels Page V MEEI...0 AGENDA DATE 6 ITEM # 'Z San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 1039 Chorro Street a San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278 (805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255 David E. Garth, Executive Director June 5, 1995 JEr CDD 11 DIR AO FIN DIR .. i�:ACAOFIRE CHIEF O PW DIR Mayor Allen Settle and Members of the City Council ❑ POLICE CHFCity of San Luis Obispo RECEIVE® O Z C DIR 990 Palm Street JUIV IM ❑ LDIR San Luis Obispo,California 93401 O S DIR CITY COUNCIL Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: As you know,the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce voiced its concerns over the 1995-97 Preliminary Financial Plan in its letter to Council on May 18, 1995. At this time,we would like to explore in slightly greater detail our opposition to any user fee increases at this time. When the issue of the cost of services study and its recommendation was considered atAe Chamber Board meeting in May,the reaction was one of the most unified and ardent in recent memory. Business owners,as represented by the Chamber Board,feel extremely strongly that additional fee increases will have an immediate and severe negative consequence on San Luis Obispo's ability to remain economically viable. We feel that any additional fee increases will chase existing businesses,families,and homeowners to more affordable areas to our north and south. The finance department of the City does not share our viewpoint on this issue. The department maintains that user fee increases, and specifically development user fee increases,will not present too great of a burden on businesses or homeowners. Their argument is that homebuyers and commercial businesses may not see the full financial burden of increased fees,and that these effects may shift to decreases in land value. Although this is true to some extent,the argument fails to address the effect these fees will have on existing businesses who wish to expand. Also,it is likely that existing homeowners will be forced to absorb some portion of the increased fees when they want to remodel or expand their residences. What is truly disturbing,however,is the City argument that the theoretical question of who should pay is irrelevant in light of the larger issue that the government of the City of San Luis Obispo needs additional revenue. We disagree most strongly with this statement,as it suggests that the needs of City government are more important than the needs of the general community. Furthermore,this logic is erroneous for two reasons: (1)increasing user fees will not necessarily result in the revenue increases projected by the City; and(2)it is not the case that the City needs additional funding. The City may desire additional revenue in order to fund every project on its books,but it is certainly not true that the City government needs $1,000,000 in additional fee revenues to function adequately. There is no guarantee that increasing user fees will yield the revenue estimates generated by the City. These estimates rely on the assumption that demand for City services is totally inelastic and that service levels will remain essentially unchanged regardless of user fee increases. If this were the case,fees could be raised indefinitely without any adverse effects on the demand for services. In an inelastic environment, it would not matter if our housing prices reflected$30,000 in ACCREDITED development fees-- in fact it would not matter if our housing prices reflected$100,000 in CMGY9EF OF fAYYERCE CHAMBEROF COMMERCE OF TIE UNITED STATES additional fees. It is unlikely that Council could accept the notion that a$100,000 fee burden on the provision of housing would have any effect other than to ensure that no one ever built or improved a house in San Luis Obispo ever again. What is important to understand is that a$1,000 increase,followed by several more,has the same effect. Council must look at the total fee burden,and realize that it is already much higher in San Luis Obispo than in our competing localities. The fallacy of assuming inelasticity of demand is obvious in an example from right here in San Luis Obispo. The last time Council approved a user fee increase for Laguna Lake Golf course,City revenues declined. This is because demand for the golf course was elastic. If you charge fees higher than what the public is willing to bear,people stop using the service. If you charge too much for a business to remodel or expand,it will move to Paso Robles,Santa Maria,or the Five Cities area. Numerous San Luis Obispo businesses consider this option whenever the necessity for expansion comes along. It is not fair to make business expansion and economic development bear the greatest financial burden when economic times are still tough. More importantly,it is also not financially prudent. Continually raising fees and placing the burden of local government on the backs of business will do nothing but keep demand down,which will only result in the need to increase fees further,until eventually all that will be growing in San Luis Obispo will be the size of City Hall. Eventually,this philosophy will come crashing down as businesses throw in the towel and move elsewhere. We must also ask exactly what these fee increases will provide for our community. The essential question is whether the 100%fee recovery levels are reasonable and accurate. In many cases,it seems as if outsourcing to the private sector could result in lower costs for the City,which would also have the desirable effect of stimulating the local economy. In a post-recession economic climate,it remains important for City government to restrain its growth and work with the resources it has available. There are numerous options for tightening the belt of City government that could be used to balance the budget in lieu of raising user fees. These include partial deferral or phasing of capital improvement projects in the ambitious CIP plan,and outsourcing of projects to the private sector as mentioned above. Simply allowing the private sector to bid on certain services would enable the City to discover whether the City is working as cost-effectively as possible. A longer term option that could contain the City's problem with increasing costs is regionalization and cooperation in service provision. Economies of scale would become available if the costs of certain activities(e.g.vehicle maintenance facilities)were shared among the various agencies that use them,rather than maintaining separate facilities for each agency. Ultimately,the City must take a hard look at what activities and goals it feels are the most important to accomplish. The maintenance of a healthy and vibrant business climate should be one of the top priorities in this regard,for if the business community is negatively affected by rising fees,we all suffer through the loss of tax revenues,declining wage rates,less disposable income,and unemployment costs. Thank you for considering the Chamber's input in developing the 1995-97 Financial Plan,and for the continued excellent and open dialogue that you have established with the Chamber and the community at large. Yours very truly, William Thoma !>� Robert Griffin President Vice-President, Legislative Division MEETING AGENDA SLO COUNTY B`U I L D E R S .$O. i(sYgaISPO}OEEICEr 13569-GiSueldo;•-.PA. Box 1222•San Luis Obispo, Cti 93406 " EXCHANGE .(805)1543:740(e,.FAX,(805):543•7016 '<couNcl AiSWERO OFFI_CEf_-.5407 EI,Camino•Real �gr93422 O CDD DIR • Iy"FIN DIR •(805);466-0870;! FAXI(805)• D FIRE cHIEF s r 'TTOiiNEY O PW DIR {�CLFRIGnRIO • - �, '" � ❑ POLICE CHF The Honorable Al len Sett<le •Ma%y 24, 1.99 � Y r°' 4 REC DIR " F4:E Mayor, City of San Lifi;s-. 0JVislp'o; , D UTIL DIR 990 Palm Street D PERS DIR, San Luis Obispo , .CA 9340;1. - -- Dear Mayor Settle: The. San Luis Obispo County Bu l(dVis Ek.d ehg,e, an organization representing. ap.p-roxiLmate'1;y 6'00 con•t.ractors , suppliers, .and building industry pr•0 ersfsaion'a;ls•, wisshe"s to .. express its concerns 'r"e aga din"g; ,'thfle„pr'apolsVd ei'•ty budget . Although we understand,• ,th.e: c•iltf".s_de{s. %:ei `t_to i.ncr.•ease revenue to. fund perceived ne'cessi`t'ie's; -.Aif*e1r :a, tl'.orgiigh'. review of the proposed budget and sup'p:ar,Ing: do:c:iim&hk1)"s,, '.w•e 'be.l•"ieve the city is making a seri'o.0-s eirr•'os iai `prdp.oTeing dira.conian increases in fees to fund var'ilo.us p:r:o;g.r•.ams. The ass•umpt:ion that fees can routinelybe 1 ricl_r'e.a.`sed ti c'ow,er." 'rncre.'asing expenses does not take. i'n'to .:acl.count we "f•alet that :the demand for these services . is •el,a:ssti-c:;, tNet .insi.f costs become too " High, the activit. :es. w' i'l s1lmplly' b`e e1`i{m11na'ted. The costs of construction ir'e• p ps!ed on-. too, buyJ. eris ; i_f building here becomes too expens: sve', p:rolsipe�cLtsve ,buyers w,i•1.1 simply go elsewhere, reducing our •t}a+x' lass, and uala» ma�t.e..a;y reducing revenues . We.:all want a healthy economy., We. need to altt-ract businesses with high—pay'i'ng' j'olb.s. ;RaIs%i�ngg if'ee:s does' not do this . We would suggest t+h'.e ci�toy •in's'_t:e,ad look for ways' to streamline its o.per_'aYrans,• t10 c,ut. i;tls _"coas4ts-, j;us:,t - a,s the private sector has had t:o. .,dio: ri "t7he. 1'a?sit' sryew'eir'al" pears . Construction here has a.lr•"eady sbe`e'ri `.114 't w'it`h` cncrea-sea in ,the uniform building code fees- and 11'6oi'kup Ilk ees.. We hope you will .take our . thoii:gjMs .i=nto. cons i4er-a.t i on as you deliberate these d.ifficu:lt ;isisu'.e7sc. C'elrtbA..ndby "wee would be willing to meet with..yau: iI fhI� �. wiciaArd be htlspful in mak.ing what for us would be: a •"mo'r'e; a.c:cte'ptVbdie '.c"i•'ty :b".udget.. We are all interested in arri'ving at 'ia c�t'y budg"it r.e'ilect'.ing wise long—.term planning, f,6, 6-Vi fiudfu.r e;,. ba(s ed. 'oi rea�l'iFs=.t i.c revenue projections.` Sin erely, es 1 i e ams ey RECEIVED Executive Director JUN 5 9995. CITY COUNCIL ML ANG AGENDA aoJ�� SOCCER 09 DATE ITEM AA ♦ c9: AMERICAN YOUTH SOCCER ORGANIZATION a nonprofit corporation dedicated to youth soccer �4 0A $ everyone plays., ��UNDED \96� AMERICAN YOUTH SOCCER ORGANIZATION SAN LUIS OBISPO REGION 0599 BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 1, 1995 COUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR CAO )(FIN DIR 1ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY Q PW DIR CLERK0ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF San Luis Obispo City Council ❑ WW TEAM ARECDIR Capitol Improvement Project ❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR Public Meeting 6-6-95 1� ❑ PERS DIR Dear City Council Members: This letter is to acknowledge that San Luis Obispo American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO) fully supports the proposed Field Improvement Project that has been submitted by the Parks and Recreation Department. The demand for playing surfaces for youth sports in San Luis Obispo is a year round concern. Improving the playing fields of our existing schools should be given priority in an effort to provide for San Luis Obispo Youth in whatever sport they might pursue. Sin ely, Gre a dens RECEIVED Dir ctor of Fields JUN - 21995 CITY CLERK SAN 1,111S(?WPO rr, MEE 3 AGENDAI DATE Z�ITEM # a,�aK. MEMORANDUM June 2, 1995 To: Council Colleagues From: Allen Settle, Mayor Subject: COMMUNICATION ITEM FOR .TUNE 6th: EVC APPOINTMENT Attached is correspondence from the Chairman of the Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC) asking that the City Council submit three nominees to the EVC Board of Directors. I am asking that the Council agree to agendize this matter for our June 20, 1995 meeting. In the meantime, Councilmembers should develop a list of three suggested nominees for consideration by the full Council on June 20th. Since a letter of request and a brief resume from each nominee is a requirement, it is suggested that you establish the interest of your proposed nominees in advance of the 20th. AKS:KH:ss Attachment I:evc.app COUNCIL �WO❑ CDD DIR RECEIVED ®� CAO ❑ FIN DIR 6°9 M� @g �ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF ��T��EY ❑ PW DIR JUN u 1995 �LERKK R G ❑ POIJCE CHF ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR CITY CLERK ❑�C R FILE ❑ UTIL DIR SAN'1)!�001c' n r� e ' C( ❑ PERS DIR Economic Vitality Corporation of San Luis Obispo County June 1, 1995 City of San Luis Obispo Mayor Allen Settle 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mayor Settle: The Economic Vitality Corporation of San Luis Obispo County is a newly created nonprofit organization whose purpose is to stimulate the economy by improving employment opportunities and by increasing financial investments throughout San Luis Obispo County. We are currently at the stage of selecting our Board of Directors as one of the initial steps in the organizational process. The Board of Directors will consist of twenty-five individuals who will represent various facets of our county. Of that twenty-five . individuals, we are asking that each of our cities, have a representative on the Board We would like your City Council to submit three nominees, who meet the attached criteria, for our selection committee to review. Please note that elected offlcials shall not be eligible for Board membership during their tenure of office. Application to the Board should be in the form of a letter from each nominee requesting membership on the Board with a brief one or two page resume showing their qualifications. If you or your nominees have any questions about our Board makeup, or the purpose of our organization, please call one of the organizing board members listed below. We would appreciate your response by June 23, 1995. Please send all correspondence to: Economic Vitality Corporation Attn: Mille Lucas 734 Pacific Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Sincerely yours, l Mike Lucas Chairman E.V.C. Board Members Mike Lucas, Chairman Margaret Gardner, Secretary Tom Reese, CFO Diane Sheely Heather Jensen 466-5533 543-6107 473-6802 237-3860 489-1488 Mailing Address: 734 Pacific Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401 III. Attendance at Board Meetings is vital to the Corporation's,success. Accordingly, unexcused absence from more than three consecutive regular meetings of the Board or from more than one-third of the Board's regular meetings in any twelve-month period, shall be considered as that Board Member's resignation from the Board. IV. It is an objective of the San Luis Obispo County Economic Vitality Corporation to have broad representation from diverse constituencies and geographical areas of the County on its Board of Directors. Additionally, membership in the Corporation and residency in San Luis Obispo County are requirements for Board membership; however, no personal shall be denied membership by reason of race, gender, religious affiliation, nation of origin, citizenship, or sexual orientation. Elected governmental officials shall not be eligible for Board membership during their tenure of office. SAN LUIS OBISPO COUN'T'Y ECONOMIC VITALITY CORPORATION BOARD MEMBER JOB DESCRIPTION I. The Board of Directors As a body, the Board of Directors of the San Luis Obispo Economic Vitality Corporation is legally responsible for all activities of the Corporation. The Board is responsible for establishing corporate policies, approving and monitoring the Corporation's annual budget, and determining the short- and long-term goals of the Corporation. II. Job Requirements Each Board Member must meet the following requirements: ► The person must have demonstrated interest in the Corporation's purpose and its goals and be able and willing to devote not less than four hours monthly to the Corporation's affairs. ► The person should have experience in, and/or knowledge of, business governance, including administration and financial management, and knowledge of, and/or experience in, one or more of the following specialized management areas: ilk Business development • Personnel training and skill development • Communications • Acquisition of capital for start-up or expansion activities • Public relations and government relations :TIN'—GL_ AGENDA Comm DATE ITEM # Comm. June 6, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: Council Colleagues FROM: Allen Settle SUBJECT: MOBILEHOME RENT CONTROL INITIATIVE Tenant representatives from the local mobilehome parks have requested that Council agendize the issue of an initiative being submitted to the voters on the March 6, 1996 ballot regarding mobile home rent control restrictions. The City Council has been asked to take formal action opposing this initiative. AKS:ss COUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR eCAO ❑ FIN DIR VACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF ❑ PW DIR =CG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR O FILE ❑ UTIL DIR Q/ 0 PERS DIR • ' MEET AGENDACI DATE ITEM # MEMORANDUM June 2, 1995 To: Council Colleagues From: Allen Settle, Mayo;Osy� Subject: COMMUNICATION ITEM FOR JUNE 6th: EVC APPOINTMENT Attached is correspondence from the Chairman of the Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC) asking that the City Council submit three nominees to the EVC Board of Directors. I am asking that the Council agree to agendize this matter for our June 20, 1995 meeting. In the meantime, Councilmembers should develop a list of three suggested nominees for consideration by the full Council on June 20th. Since a letter of request and a brief resume from each nominee is a requirement, it is suggested that you establish the interest of your proposed nominees in advance of the 20th. AKS:KH:ss Attachment I:evc.app RT—C ®� WCAO IL 11 CDD DIR ❑ FIN DIR E E Y® ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF �TT�EY ❑ PW DIR JUN J 1995 CLEWMRIG ❑ POUCE CHF ❑ MGW TEAM ❑ REC DIR CITY CLERK ❑�C R FILE ❑ UTIL DIR SAN LUIS oSISS'7.C.-\ , �( �', 0PERS DIR r I Econorrtic Vitality COT, Wrat o.n V� - - - - of San Luis..Ob><spo.County - - ` June'lt,,1995 City of San Ims Oto Mayor Ailed.Sddd 990 Rahn Sheet y <SadLms Obispo, CA 93401 De&'Miyor- Settle:. The.Economic Vrtalityr.Coipoormion of San Tans Obispo Courcy s a;aewly created ,. . orhon whose!purposeis to stimulate flee economy by improving , employment oppordi�s and by 5nan mvestme�;thi oughoirt cial San Luis 4 .Obispo iCUody. We are curreotty at tfie'stageaof seleotitig our Boardsof D�reotois as one df initial steps 'mthe dmgeOizational Process. Memoard.of Daedaft wffl donsisil.of tvveniy=five individuals who wM repaesent vaiions facets`of bar county. t?f 6A twenty=five. ;individuals, we are asldag;&at each of our cities, hays a represent&ve on,dieBoard. We would ble your City Council to submit three nominees,'who meet the attached cateria, for our selection committee.0 review: PJease,noteNtliot'elecled a Scials,sDiall:not be eligible for Board-memberspdr�rrng„their fenrire oja�ce. Application to the Hoard should be m the�fo_rm,of-a lettt eri.fiom each non'ii ice requesting . membership on ihe.Board„with a beef oneor twapage resume showing"then:, qual ._ • . 44 dcahons:' If you of your nom ms'bave any qucmdu about`ouc Board makeup;•ar the purpose of 4 our Please dell'one of fihe wgatiiung Board members lined below: We would apprec�ate;yourresponse by Jude M3 1995; Plea_se,?send aQconespondence ECOIIOm1C Vitalily � a , 734'.Pac ct,Street > „ San Ions Obispo, CA'03401 s` ov i 2 x x Sincerely yours, Cy `lliflte : . . - E.VJU&Dard.Members - Mike I_UCast,'Chairman Margaret Gardner,fSecretary Tom�Reese,CFO, . DianeSheely Heather..Jensen 466=5533 543-6107 47.3-6802 .' . 237 3860 489-1488 Mailing*Address``734'Pacific Street • S6nJLuis,bbispo; California 93401 - SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY ECONOMIC VITALITY CORPORATION BOARD MEMBER JOB DESCRIPTION I. The Board of Directors As a body, the Board of Directors of the San Luis Obispo Economic Vitality Corporation is legally responsible for all activities of the Corporation. The Board is responsible for establishing corporate policies, approving and monitoring the Corporation's annual budget, and determining the short- and long-term goals of the Corporation. II. Job Requirements Each Board Member must meet the following requirements: P. The person must have demonstrated interest in the Corporation's purpose and its goals and be able and willing to devote not less than four hours monthly to the Corporation's affairs. ► The person should have experience in, and/or knowledge of, business governance, including administration and financial management, and knowledge of, and/or experience in, one or more of the following specialized management areas: ilk Business development • Personnel training and skill development • Communications # Acquisition of capital for start-up or expansion activities • Public relations and government relations III. Attendance at Board Meetings is vital to the Corporation's,succes Accordingly, unexcused absence from more than three cons tive regular meetings of the Board or from more than one-third o e Board's regular meetings in any twelve-month period, shall be idered as that Board Member's resignation from the Board. IV. It is an objective of the San Luis O ' po County Economic Vitality Corporation to have broad representation diverse constituencies and geographical areas of the County on its Bo of Directors. Additionally, membership in the Corporation and res' ency in San Luis Obispo County are requirements for Board member p; however, no personal shall be denied membership by reason of race, ge er, religious affiliation, nation of origin, citizenship, or sexual orienta ' n. Elected governmental officials shall not be eligible for Board me ership during their tenure of office. III. Attendance at Board Meetings is vital to the Corporation's,success. Accordingly, unexcused absence from more than three consecutive regular meetings of the Board or from more than one-third of the Board's regular meetings in any twelve-month period, shall be considered as that Board Member's resignation from the Board. IV. It is an objective of the San Luis Obispo County Economic Vitality Corporation to have broad representation from diverse constituencies and geographical areas of the County on its Board of Directors. Additionally, membership in the Corporation and residency in San Luis Obispo County are requirements for Board membership; however, no personal shall be denied membership by reason of race, gender, religious affiliation, nation of origin, citizenship, or sexual orientation. Elected governmental officials shall not be eligible for Board membership during their tenure of office. eu w�3 MEETING AGENDA June 6, 1995 DATE -Z 3',-Ar ITEM # MEMORANDUM TO: Council Colleagues FROM: Dodie Williams SUBJECT: STATEMENT FOR BUDGET HEARING I would recommend we add the following budget policy to the Policies and Objectives section of the Financial Plan: 0 The Council shall establish its annual budget based on financial resources that are in place at the time the budget is introduced. • Prior to the adoption of any expanded program, project or staffing, the resources necessary for such expansion shall be approved, along with an assured methodology for obtaining those resources. • The Council shall not adopt any budget that projects a deficit. • Enterprise funds shall stand on their own, and will not be included in the above methodology. DW:ss RECEIVED JUIu U 1995 CITY COUNCIL Fr,# EY ❑ CD](MR R' wrAN ❑ FIR ❑ PW O ❑ POM ❑ REE ❑ UT❑ PE I. TING AGENDA Comm, DATE S rrEm # June 6, 1995 MEMORANDUM .... ....... X: ...... . ... .............. ... .... .. Z,... .... ........... ... .......... ....... ................................. ................ ... .... ........................ .. ................. TO: Council Colleagues FROM: Allen Settle SUBJECT: MOBELEHOME RENT CONTROL INITIATIVE Tenant representatives from the local mobilehome parks have requested that Council agendize the issue of an initiative being submitted to the voters on the March 6, 1996 ballot regarding mobile home rent control restrictions. The City Council has been asked to take formal action opposing this initiative. AKS:ss COUNCIL ❑ ODD DIR MKQAO ❑ FIN DIR VACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF W1^01, 11NEY ❑ PWDIR OrCLERKIMG ❑ POUCE CHF ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ D FILE ❑ UTIL DIR V4 ❑ PERS DIR ,E:1