HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/07/2003, C2 - RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR ALLOCATION OF PROPOSITION 50 FUNDS FOR SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY council
j aclEnaa Report N..b� ,
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Wendy George,Assistant City Administrative Officer Ry
Prepared By: Neil Havlik,Natural Resources Manager 'n,1,
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR ALLOCATION OF PROPOSITION
50 FUNDS FOR SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution supporting the allocation of between $15 and $18 million to San Luis Obispo
County from Proposition 50 bond proceeds as identified on the accompanying chart (Exhibit A of
Attachment 1), and authorize staff to forward this resolution to the offices of Assemblyman
Maldonado and Senator McPherson.
DISCUSSION
In recent months several City of San Luis Obispo staff members have participated in a
consortium of local agencies looking at allocation of funds authorized under Proposition 50, the
so-called water bond. That bond measure included approximately $15 million (and possibly
more) for San Luis Obispo County as part of a legislative allocation formula that was in the
language of the measure. It was the potential for this funding that prompted some 26 local
agencies and nonprofits to get together and try to develop a mechanism for allocating the funds.
The group met several times, listened to proposals by representatives of all attending entities,
and developed several recommendations for dealing with the funding:
1. The needs of the Los Osos Community Services District and relationship of the sewerage
issue to the health of Morro Bay were considered so overwhelming that the group agreed
that LOCSD should be awarded $2.7 million (List "A");
2. It was agreed that all agencies and nonprofits represented would be awarded $300,000,
(total, $7,500,000) to be used for their highest priority project or projects meeting the
bond criteria (List `B");
3. The remaining funds (approximately $4,800,000) would have funding recommended
based upon a point system. This was continued until the $15,000,000 point was reached
(List "C7), and
4. The remaining projects, totaling another $3,000,000 (List "D"), were also listed in the
event that more than the $15,000,000 might be made available to the County.
Exhibit A of Attachment 1 identifies these four categories of funding recommendations. List
"B" indicates each entity that was represented at the meetings. Note that all cities, the County,
and numerous CSD's, as well as several local nonprofit organizations, were represented.
lam—
Council Agenda Report—Resolution of Support for Allocation of Proposition 50 Funds
Page 2
The results of the ranking process emphasized the importance that major maintenance and
replacement of existing infrastructure had to the group as a whole, as can be seen from Lists "C"
and "D". Staff recommends that Council support the effort as it represented a good-faith effort
to respond quickly to the information that legislators were seeking funding requests on a
countywide basis. The purpose of this effort was to make it easy for local legislators to include
the submittal into the State budget.
CONCURRENCES
City Natural Resources, Public Works, and Utilities staff participated in the effort, and there
were originally six City proposals, later reduced to four. City participants concluded that the
best use of the $300,000, if it became available to the City, was to utilize the funds to construct
the flood bypass at the `Bulb" along San Luis Obispo Creek near South Street in the Mid-
Higuera Area. This project has strong support from the Zone 9 Advisory Committee and is
included in the draft Waterway Management Plan for San Luis Obispo Creek.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council could (1) decline to support the funding recommendation, or (2) could change the
project proposed with the City's expected share of the funds.
The first alternative is not recommended as the ranking process did bring representatives from
many agencies and nonprofits together to seek a list of projects that were achievable in a limited
amount of time (2 years), and were consistent with the goals of the bond measure.
The second alternative is not recommended as the establishment of some measure of flood relief
for the Mid-Higuera Area as been identified as a community priority for many years, and the
funding is expected to be able to complete at least the "Bulb" portion of the project.
Attachment
1. Resolution
Glstafj/Havli,Wcouncilagenda(prop 50 grant
ca-a
ATTACHMENTI
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
SUPPORTING ALLOCATION OF PROPOSITION 50 FUNDS
IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
WHEREAS,the California electorate has approved proposition 50, on November 5, 2002; and
WHEREAS,Proposition 50 included approximately $525 million in funding for allocation
among certain counties, including approximately $15 million for San Luis Obispo County; and
WHEREAS,representatives from 26 local agencies and nonprofit organizations have proposed
to allocate these funds to meet the water, wastewater, drainage, and open space needs of San
Luis Obispo County.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo hereby:
1. Supports allocation of the $15 million "set aside" for San Luis Obispo County as detailed
on the attached worksheet.
2. Respectfully requests that Assembly Member Abel Maldonado and State Senator Bruce
McPherson work to secure the appropriation of said funds as detailed on the attached
worksheet.
ADOPTED this 7t°day of January 2003 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor David Romero
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
c
Lee Price, City Clerk ilbert Trujillo,/ cting ty Attorney
Ca- 3
AG� xii;b)7' 4 _
V LUIS OBISPO PROPOSITION 50 FUI IG
LIST A
AGENCY PROJECT AMOUNT
Los Osos CSD Los Osos Wastewater Project $2,700,000
LIST A SUBTOTAL $2,700,000
_ _ _ LIST B -
AGENCY - - - PROJECT -- -AMOUNT
American Land Conservancy -
y__ Molinari Ranch Acquisition _ _ $300,000
- - -- - - - -
City of Arroyo Grande �Resevoir No. 1 Replacement Project $300,000
City
-ofAtascadero - ---IAtascadero-----Lake- - Water $300,000
Quality - -
_ ___ _- ___ __
Avila Beach CSD - - _ !Water System Master Plan & System Rehabilitation_ _ _ _ $300,000
Cambria CSD _!Molinari Ranch Open Space &Watershed Protection Project_ $300,000
Cayucos Sanitary District !Pump Station-No. 2 Relocation/Force Main Replacement $300,000
Central Coast Salmon Enhancement Tally Ho Creek Restoration Project - - $300,000
Coastal S_an Luis RC_D -- :Los Berros Creek Flood Plain_Resto_ration Project __ $300,000
City of Grover Beach _ - _ Groundwater.Infiltration $300,000
Heritage Ranch CSD Alternative_Water Supply Projects (s) ____ _ _ $300,000
Los Osos CSD - _ Los Osos Wastewater Project _ _$_3_0_0,0.00_
I Programatic Funding for the Retirement of Developmental Potential on
IRemaining Privately Held Undeveloped Natural Shoreline Within Morro Bay
_Morro Estuary Greenbelt Alliance _ IEstuary _ _ _ $300,000
City of Morro Bay - DeSal Energy Recovery _ _ _ $300,000
Nipomo CSD_ _ - - InnerTie w/Santa Maria $300,000
City of Paso Robles - _ iAlternative Disposal of Wastewater Discharge _ __ $300,000
City of Pismo Beach _ Wastewater Treatment Plant Flood Protection _ _ $300,000
Port San Luis Harbor District _ 'Storm Water Pollution and Flood Control Project $300,000
San Miguel CSD _-_- IWater Systems Rehabilitation $300,000
San Simeon CSD - - Recycled Water Project __ _ _ _ $300,000
City of San Luis Obispo Mid Higuera Bypass Channel _ $300,000
SLO Co Flood Control &Water Cons District 'Disenfection/Disenfectants By Products Rule Compliance $300,000
So SLO County Sanitaiton District _ 'Water Recycling Project _ $300,000
SLO Parks, Open Space and Trails Found Santa Lucia Wilderness Expansion ___ $300,000
Templeton CSD Wastewater Disposal System/Silva Water Well Replacement $300,000
Templeton USD _ Wastewater Disposal System-Meadowbrook WWTP $300,000
-- LIST B SUBTOTAL $7,500,000
LISTA + B SUBTOTAL $10,200,000
LIST C
AGENCY PROJECT AMOUNT
San Simeon CSD Water Master Plan and Water Tank Replacement _ $150,000
San Simeon CSD _ Correct Water System Deficiencies $200,000
City of Pismo Beach _ !Wastewater Treatment Plant Flood Protection $600,000
City of Arroyo Grande ;Resevoir No. 1 Replacement Project $900,000
SLO Co Flood Control &Water Cons District Disenfection/Disenfectants By Products Rule Compliance $700,000
Cayucos Sanitary District i Pump Station No. 2 Relocation/Force Main Replacement $400,000
So SLO County Sanita_iton District 'Water Recycling Project _ $100,000
City of Atascadero _ - taA sac dro eLake Water Quality _ $250,000
Templeton CSD - _ 'Water Storage and Pressure System Upgrade $1,000,000
City of Paso Robles SWMP $300,000
Port San Luis Harbor District 'Storm Water Pollution and Flood Control Project _ $200,000
LIST C SUBTOTAL $4,800,000
LIST A, B, C_, SUBTOTAL $15,000,000
LIST D
AGENCY PROJECT AMOUNT
American Land Conservancy -_
Molinari Ranch Acquisition $200,000
Cambria CSD Molinari Ranch Open Space&Watershed Protection Project $600,000
City of San Luis Obispo -- - -Ahearn Property Acquisition $400,000
City of San Luis Obispo -- Modify Parks and Playgrounds to Use Recycled Water $300,000
City of San Luis Obispo _ Water Efficient_Washing Machine Rebate Program $50,000
City of Morro Bay -_ _ DeSal Energy Recovery_ $100,000
Nipomo CSD InnerTie w/Santa Maria
-- - - - -- ---------- ---- $1,350,000
LIST D SUBTOTAL $3,000,000
'i
$18,000,000
LIST A, B, C, D GRAND TOTAL.
Lee Price- 1/7/03 Meeting — Item C2 - Page 1
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
From: <ANCARTER@aol.com> DAT IWITEM # CZ
To: <asettle@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <kschwartz@slocity.org>,
<jewan@slocity.org>, <dromero@slocity.org>, <Iprice@slocity.org>
Date: 1/6/03 1:26AM
Subject: 1/7/03 Meeting— Item C2
Dear Council Members:
Since I am concerned that I may miss the consent agenda portion of your 3:00
pm meeting on Tuesday, I am writing you about Item C2, Proposition 50
Allocation. I would urge you NOT to endorse the allocation proposed.
I have serious issues with the process used to reach this allocation and the
ensuing result.
The process followed was a private process, not a public one. Public and
private agency staff developed the allocation, not elected or appointed
citizen representatives. Apparently there was no public notice of the
meetings held, and public testimony was not taken.
Now consider the result. $7.5 million of the$15 to$18 million allocated is
to be distributed on a quid pro quo basis, based simply on which agencies
attended the meetings. There is no prioritization of this$7.5 million and
each agency is to receive$300,000 regardless of size, of need, of population
represented, of public vs. private status, or of strict relationship to the
stated purposes of Proposition 50.
And if you note, some communities"double dip" in this$7.5 million thanks to
who attended the meetings. For instance, Cambria gets$600,000 because both
the Cambria CSD and the American Land Conservancy showed up. Similarly,
Templeton gets$600,000 because both the Templeton CSD and the Templeton USD
(school district)were there.
Furthermore, I would like to know if all potentially eligible organizations
knew about the meetings. The American Land Conservancy was there. What
about the other land conservancies currently active in the county? The
Templeton school district was there. What about the other school districts?
It looks like all the CSD's in the county were in attendance. Is it fair
that Santa Margarita and Shandon get no money because they are"County
Service Areas," not"Community Service Districts?"
I recognize that government doesn't always follow the process we learn about
in high school Civics, but this process and result really trouble me. I hope
you are similarly concerned. I would urge you to ask the Board of
Supervisors or SLOCOG to develop a public process to formulate a recommended
allocation.
Andrew Carter
P.S. This is a complete aside, but where is Tally Ho Creek? I couldn't find
it on a county map. Nor could I find it in a Topozone.com word search of all ilLleS:
the USGS quadrangles in SLO County. ffROUNCIL CDD DIR
,,GAO LTi FIN DIR
�AO Z FIRE CHIEF
ORNEY iGPW DIR
RECEIVED LYCLERK/ORIG 2'POUCE CHF
❑ 0E HEADS Z-REC DIR
`!AN 0 6 1003 D'UTILDIR
HR BIR
SLO CITY CLERK
council. MCMORAnoum
city of san Luis oaispo, a6mirnstization 6epautment
DATE: January 7, 2003 RECEIVED
TO: City Council JAN 0 7 20011
VIA: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer SLO CITY CLERK
FROM: Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager
SUBJECT: Council Agenda Item C-2: Resolution of Support for Allocation of Proposition
50 Funds to San Luis Obispo County
Council members have requested additional information about this effort.
1. How was the process initiated? The process was initiated at a meeting in Sacramento in
September 2002, when the proposition's sponsors recommended to a coalition of water agencies
that they prepare a list of projects for their areas that could be "quickly" accomplished through
funding allocations by the Legislature. The goal was that lists of eligible projects be submitted
to local legislators at the beginning of the 2003 legislative session. Eventually this information
reached agencies in San Luis Obispo County and a listing process began here.
2. Who was in charge of the process? The effort was ad-hoc. The City of San Luis Obispo
assisted in getting information about the effort out, and provided meeting space for attendees.
Staff at the Los Osos and Cambria CSDs were quite aware of the proposition and were strongly
involved in the initial effort. The resulting attendees, however, made decisions as a group. The
list of projects and their rankings were tabulated by staff at the Los Osos Community Services
District.
3. What was the method of contacting interested parties, and how many were contacted?
The outreach effort was an informal one utilizing existing e-mail listings.to notify public
agencies and environmental organizations in the County of the existence of the listing effort.
Persons contacted were encouraged to contact others. It is not certain how many were ultimately
notified, however, representatives of 26 organizations attended one or more of the four meetings
of the group.
4. How many projects were submitted? Initially many attendees submitted numerous projects
on behalf of their entities. For example, City of San Luis Obispo representatives submitted six
potential projects, but later reduced this to three. Other attendees did likewise, when it became
apparent that there were far too many proposals for the available funding, which was estimated
to be $15,000,000. In the end, however, the approximately 40 projects on the list represented all
that were considered by the full group.
Council Memo on Prop 50
Council Memorandum
January 7, 2003
Page 2
5. What would be the effect of the City of San Luis Obispo not endorsing this process? This
is uncertain. There is nothing to prevent the City or any other organization from pursuing grant
funds on their own (including direct requests to local legislators), and there are additional
funding programs under Proposition 50 that remain available. The concept of the current effort,
however, was, as suggested by the proposition's sponsors, to quickly identify projects with a
public water supply, water quality or flood control nexus that could be implemented within two
years, and could be simply submitted as potential projects for funding by local legislators. It is
possible that, by remaining outside of the process,the City of San Luis Obispo would not avail
itself of this potential funding source.
6. Have other organizations and agencies adopted the resolution? Yes. According to the
LOCSD, so far at least 16 parties (including the County and the cities of Paso Robles, Morro
Bay, Pismo Beach and Arroyo Grande)have approved the resolution.
7. Could the process have been better? Probably, but this was not the City's process to run.
However,we did what we could to get the word out and assist during the meetings.
cow ClUTAJ
RED FILE T?CCUNCI JZCDDDIR
M ING AGENDA ICAO ZFIN DIR
ZACAO Z FIRE CHIEF
DA J-1 l)3 ITEM #—fA. 2 ATTORNEY 21 PW DIR
8 CLERK�ORIG 0 POLICE CHF
11 D HEADS 2 REC DIR
2 UTIL DIR
� �� Ef HR DIR