Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/22/2003, AGENDA `i council agenda CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET Thursday, May 22, 2003 Action Update 7:00 P.M. SPECIAL BUDGET WORKSHOP Council Chamber 990 Palm Street Present: Council Members John Ewan, Ken Schwartz, Allen K. Settle and Mayor Dave Romero Absent: Vice Mayor Christine Mulholland PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA ITEMS: You may address the Council on any item described in this agenda by completing a speaker slip and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. The Mayor will open the floor to and invite public comments before the Council takes action on each item. (Gov. Code Sec.54954.3(a)). Your speaking time is limited to three(3)minutes. (CC&P Sec.1.3.7). Gey Fowler offered various suggestions for cost savings. Mary Beth Schroeder criticized the Council for overspending and doing things unnecessarily and urged the Council to provide seniors with a senior center. 1. PRELIMINARY 2003-2005 FINANCIAL PLAN_ (HAMPIAN/STATLER) May 22, 2003: Preliminary Financial Plan Review; General Fund Operating Programs. (3 hours) RECOMMENDATION: Review and consider Preliminary Financial Plan for 2003-2005. ACTION. Staff provided highlights of the General Fund Operating programs and responded to Council questions. ADJOURN. council agcnba CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET Thursday, May 229 2003 Tuesday, May 27, 2003 7:00 P.M. SPECIAL BUDGET WORKSHOPS Council Chamber 990 Palm Street CALL TO ORDER: Mayor.Dave Romero PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Council Members John Ewan, Ken Schwartz, Allen K. Settle, Vice Mayor Christine Mulholland and Mayor Dave Romero PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA ITEMS: You may address the Council on any item described in this agenda by completing a speaker slip and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. The Mayor will open the floor to and invite public comments before the Council takes action on each item. (Gov. Code Sec.54954.3(a)). Your speaking time is limited to three(3) minutes. (CCBP Sec.1.3.7). 1. PRELIMINARY 2003-2005 FINANCIAL PLAN_ (HAMPIAN/STATLER) May 22, 2003: Preliminary Financial Plan Review;General Fund Operating Programs. (3 hours) May 27, 2003: Continued Review; General Fund Capital Improvement Projects (CIP). (3 hours) RECOMMENDATION: Review and consider Preliminary Financial Plan for 2003-2005. ADJOURN. ® City Council regular meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs, and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Please speak to the City Clerk prior to the meeting if you require a hearing amplification device. For more agenda information,call 781-7103. C,; counciL M"fim 5-22/5-29-03 agenda REpoRt 1�0N CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Ken Hampian, City Administrative 0 Bill Statler, Director of Finance SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY 2003-05 FINANCIAL PLAN CAO RECOMMENDATION Review and consider the Preliminary Financial Plan for 2003-05 at the budget workshops scheduled for May 22 and 27, 2003. DISCUSSION Enclosed for your review and information in preparing for the May 22 and 27 budget workshops are the following three documents: I. Preliminary Financial Plan. This includes: a. The budget message from the CAO highlighting key issues facing us (Section A) b. Policies and objectives,including work programs for major City goals(Section B) c. Simple graphics and charts summarizing the City's budget(Section C) d. Operating programs (Section D) e. Summary of capital improvement plan(CIP)projects and funding sources (Section E) f. Debt service requirements(Section F) g. Changes in financial position for each of the City's operating funds (Section G) h. Financial and statistical tables (Section H) i. Budget reference materials (Section 1) 2. Appendix A: Significant Operating Program These are intended to be used as Changes. This Appendix provides additional supplemental resources in the supporting documentation for each of the event that Council members have significant operating program changes proposed in questions on a program or project the Preliminary Financial Plan. An overview is as they review the Preliminary included in the Appendix that further describes its Financial Plan. In short, while the purpose,organization and content. Council may to choose to read the Appendices from "cover-to- 3. Appendix B: Capital Improvement Plan cover,"this same information is Projects. This Appendix provides. supporting summarized nthe Preliminary documentation for. each of the CIP projects Financial Plan. n. proposed in the Preliminary Financial Plan. An overview is included in the Appendix that further describes its purpose, organization and . content. The May 22 and 27 workshops are the first of several study sessions and public hearings scheduled to review the Preliminary Financial Plan. One of the fundamental purposes of these Preliminary 2003-05 Financial Plan Page 2. workshops is to review these documents with the Council in some depth. Accordingly, we do not anticipate that the Council will have reviewed all of this material in detail by the May 22 workshop. Best Place to Start. The Budget Message and Financial Highlights (starting on page A-1) are recommended as a good starting point in reviewing the Preliminary Financial Plan and in preparing for the May 22 workshop. It has been written with the goal in-mind of discussing all of the key issues reflected in the Preliminary Financial Plan in a concise but comprehensive manner. Focus of the May 22 and.27 Workshops. As summarized below, the primary focus of these two workshops will be on GeneralFund programs and projects; a separate public hearing has been scheduled for May 29 to review enterprise fund programs,projects,revenues and rates. May 22 Budget Workshop 1. Overview of key budget issues, strategies and fiscal outlook. 2. Fiscal policies and major City goals. 3. General Fund revenues: key assumptions and recommended new revenues. 4. General Fund operating programs. May 27 Budget Workshop 5. Continued review of General Fund operating programs,if needed. 6. General Fund CIP projects. 7. Follow-up direction from the Council for subsequent workshops and hearings. Remaining Budget Review Schedule The following dates have been scheduled for review and adoption of the 2003-05 Financial Plan: BudgetCouncil May 22 Preliminary Financial Plan review; General fund operating programs May 27 Continued review;General Fund CIP projects May 29 Enterprise fund programs,projects,revenues and rates June 3 Continued Preliminary Financial Plan review June 17 Continued review and adoption of the Financial Plan Major City Goals and Other Council Objectives Consistent with Council priorities and direction, all efforts have been made to integrate the results of the Council's goal-setting process into the Preliminary Financial Plan. The way this has been accomplished is discussed at some length in the Budget Message(beginning on page A- 1)and in the Policies and Objectives section (in the"Overview"beginning on page B-3). As discussed in the Budget Message, all twelve of the Major City Goals set by the Council are reflected in the Preliminary Financial Plan based on the work programs approved by the Council 1- 2- Preliminary 2003-05 Financial Plan Page 3 on April 10, 2003. The Budget Message also discusses how the "Other Council Objectives" are reflected in the Preliminary Financial Plan (in short, all of these are reflected in some fashion as well). Development Review Fee Analysis Overview:Fee Increases in the Context of Our Overall Budget-Balancing Strategy As presented to the Council on April 10, 2003, and reflected in the Preliminary Financial Plan, our budget-balancing strategy in closing a "budget gap" of about $7 million relies primarily on expenditure reductions, which account for about 75% of the proposed solution. While 6UDGET BALANCING STRATEGY a smaller component (about 15%), new closing the Gap revenues are also an important part of the budget-balancing strategy: without them, Revenues Revvee�s service reductions will have to be even 15% greater than those already proposed— keeping in mind that the community input Is Reserves - m ciP we have received supports limiting service 11% 49% reductions. Expenditures:74% And of the new revenues, the proposed ®operaery increase in cost recovery for planning Programs services from 45% to 100% is largest piece: 25% at $500,000 per year, it accounts for about 50% of the proposed new revenues of$1,059,400. In addition to this, as discussed in-depth with the Council at the May 6, 2003 meeting, we are also recommending increases in engineering development review fees. Given the sensitivity of revenue increases in general, and the special interest that typically accompanies development-related issues, we have prepared supplemental information about the impact of the proposed fee increases. Background The Preliminary Financial Plan reflects the planning and engineering fee increases that have been previously discussed with the Council. As noted in these earlier discussions, the underlying reasons for increases are significantly different for the planning fees versus the engineering fees: Planning fees: policy issue. This is a more straightforward issue on how this cost should be funded: through user fees or general-purpose revenues. We recommend increasing the cost recovery goal from 45% to 100% (including 25% of long-range planning costs) for two reasons: 1. It is consistent with existing policy that distinguishes between service beneficiaries (which in this case is largely the community. not the applicant) and service drivers (those who cause the need for the service,which in this case is clearly the applicant). 13 Preliminary 2003-05 Financial Plan Page 4 2. It is an important component of our overall budget balancing strategy, which the Council conceptually approved on April 10,2003. We estimate that this change in policy will result in additional revenues of $500,000. While expenditure reductions play the largest role in closing a General Fund "budget gap" of about $7 million—accounting for about 75% of the overall solution—new planning revenues account for about 7% of the solution. Removing or reducing this piece of the budget-balancing pie will have two consequences: given the fiscal challenges facing us, it will mean even deeper cuts in services that rely heavily on general-purpose revenues, such as police, fire, street maintenance and parks; and since the General Fund subsidizes such a large portion of planning costs, this means that this service is subject to cost cuts as well, at a time when development activity is at an all-time high. For this reason, while it might not appear so on the surface, this will also benefit applicants by helping to mitigate reductions that might otherwise be required in our development review services. As discussed previously with the Council., in implementing this higher cost recovery goal, we recommend an approach used by many other cities for planning cost recovery: collecting at the building permit stage (as a percentage of the permit fee) rather than at the planning permit application stage. This has the benefit of recovering these costs when the applicant has a `real project" (rather than just the hoped-for one), and the applicant can finance these fees like other development costs. Using projected "baseline" annual revenues from building and plan check fees of about $1.3 million, achieving the added revenue of $500,000 for planning services results in a recommended assessment of 37.5% of the building and plan check fee.. Engineering fees:analytical issue. As discussed with the Council at the.May 6, 2003 meeting, it is already the City's policy to recover 100% of our engineering development review costs. However, based on a recent analysis of engineering costs and revenues, it became clear that the cost analysis prepared in 1999 that underlies our current engineering fees significantly understated these costs. This was compounded by an over-estimate of engineering "per unit" volumes. Because of unusually high development review activity, this problem has been masked over the past several years. To correct for this, the Council conceptually approved increasing engineering fees. In this case, it is important to note that doing so will not result in additional revenues compared with prior forecasts; however, not doing so will result in engineering fees that are about$250,000 less per year than our"baseline"estimate. Analysis of Fee Increases Transcending policy and methodological issues, there are two analytical issues not directly addressed in prior discussions with the Council regarding the proposed fee increases: 1. How will they impact the cost of developing in the City? 2. And how will our fees compare with other local agencies? The following answers both of these questions. i-y Preliminary 2003-05 Financial Plan Page 5 Impact on City development costs. While this is an easy question to ask,preparing an accurate answer is not quite as simple. The City's development review fees are based on the specifics of each development proposal. Simply stated, there is no "one-size fits all" development fee. For this reason, the best way to answer this question is to compare fee impacts based on a "sample case studies." To do this, we compared current and proposed developed costs for the following four"Scenarios" that we believe represents a reasonable range of possible development types: Non-Residential 20,000 square foot office building(Scenario IA) 115,000 square foot retail building (Scenario 1B) Residential One single family residence(Scenario 2) 10-home subdivision (Scenario 3) The results of this analysis are presented in Attachment A, which shows that the proposed fee increases will have a modest impact on total development costs, ranging from an increase of 6.8% to 11.8% depending on the scenario. As reflected in the summaries, the reason for this is simple: compared with impact fees, development review costs are a much smaller component of the total development costs. Depending on the circumstances, review fees are 20% to 35% of the total development costs. As such, relatively large increases in this area will have much less of an impact than similar increases in impact fees (which are not affected by the proposed fee increases). Comparisons with other local agencies. This is an even tougher question to answer, since every agency has their own unique way of assessing fees. As such, collecting data to ensure an "apples to apples" comparison can be very difficult. Moreover, as noted in the following excerpt from the City's Budget and Fiscal Policies, comparisons with other agencies should not be the driving factor in determining City fees: 1. Fee surveys should never be the sole or primary criteria in setting City fees as there are many factors that affect how and why other communities have set their fees at their levels. For example: a. What level of cost recovery is their fee intended to achieve compared with our cost recovery objectives? b. What costs have been considered in computing the fees? c. When was the last time that their fees were comprehensively evaluated? d. What level of service do they provide compared with our service or performance standards? e. Is their rate structure significantly different than ours and what is it intended to achieve? 2. These can be very difficult questions to address in fairly evaluating fees among different. communities. As such, the comparability of our fees to other communities should be one factor among many that is considered in setting Cityfees. /—S Preliminary 2003-05 Financial Plan Page 6 With these caveats, provided in Attachment B is a summary of City development review costs— both current and proposed—compared with those of the other cities in the county and the County of San Luis Obispo (based on three of the scenarios used in analyzing City development.costs). The results clearly show that our review fees—both current and proposed—are among the highest in the County. However, as noted above, we need to be cautious in drawing any conclusions from these results in setting our own fees. Stated simply, while it is interesting to know how our fees compare with others, it is important that we set fees in accordance with the City's circumstances—such as our cost recovery goals and service standards—and not those of other agencies. Some may say, however, that higher development review fees will place San Luis Obispo at a "competitive disadvantage" in attracting desired commercial/industrial projects, and will raise housing costs. In response to these concerns, staff simply offers that: I. The City's fees have traditionally been higher than other cities in the county, and yet we continue to experience a high level of development interest in the community (in fact, in recent years our permit loads have been record-breaking); and 2. If development fee increases were major factors in housing prices, then housing cost increases over the last several years should have been modest, since the City's fee increases have simply reflected cost-of-living-adjustments in the 2% to 3% range. The simple fact is that there are many forces that determine the market price.of housing, and City fees are a small part of this. In short, regardless of City fees—or the cost of land, construction, insurance, marketing or other cost drivers—any financially responsible developer will always charge the market price for new housing. Stated somewhat differently, if the market will bear single family housing that costs $500,000, then that is the price a developer will (and should) set for a new home—regardless of whether City fees are $18,000 per house or $20,000 per house. Review Process There will be ample opportunity over the coming weeks to further consider the consistency of the proposed fee increases with existing City policy, the need for the added revenues in maintaining basic service levels given the tough fiscal challenges facing us, and the impact of the proposed fees on City development costs. As noted above, any fee increases are not scheduled for formal Council approval until June 17, 2003, when we also plan for Council adoption of the Financial Plan. Impact of the Governor's May Revise on the City's Budget The Governor issued.his May Revise just one day before the release of our Preliminary Financial Plan. As such, it is too soon to analyze its specific impacts on us relative to the revenue assumptions reflected in the Preliminary Financial Plan. However, we should have an initial assessment to share with the Council at the May 22 budget workshop. On the other hand, it is important to remember that the May Revue, while a reasonable barometer of the fiscal "pressure" in Sacramento and the way the wind is blowing today, is Preliminary 2003-05 Financial Plan Page 7 news or bad news for us, there is still a long way to go in the State's budget process before anything is close to being finalized. This is especially true given the magnitude of the State's fiscal problem, and the highly partisan and political environment in which hard decisions need to be made. For that reason, other than remaining steadfast in opposing any further State takeaways from cities in balancing its budget (we have more than paid our fair share of dues to that endeavor via ERAF and other State budget grabs), we need to avoid over-reacting to day-to- day changes in the State's budget process. ATTACHMENTS A. City Development Costs: Current and Proposed B. Comparison of City Development Review Costs with Other Agencies ENCLOSURES ■ Preliminary Financial Plan ■ Appendix A: Significant Operating Program Changes ■ Appendix B: Capital Improvement Plan Projects G:Budget Foldes/2003-05 Financial Plan//Preliminary Financial Plan/Agenda Reports/Preliminary Financial Plan Attachment A: City Development Cost Scenarios SCENARIO 1 a 120,000 Square FootOffice Building Current Pro osed %of %of Amount Total Amount Total Planning Fees Application Fee 2,187 2% 2,187 10%/6 Assessment Due with Building Permit Fees 7,824 5% Building Plan Check& Permit Fees 21,317 15% 21,317 14% Fire Plan Check& Inspection Fees 3,357 2% 3,357 2% Engineering Plan Check, Ins ectn&Encroachment Fees 1,106 1% 33�,,040 2% Water Impact Fees 16,130 11% 16,130 10% Water Meter Installation 151 0% 151 0% Wastewater Impact Fee 6,700 5% 6,700 4% Transportation Impact Fee 58,440 41% 58,440 38% Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee 28,000 19% 28,000 18% Public Art In-Lieu Fee 6,500 5% 6,500 4% A)I kS d u. " Percent Increase Scenario 1(a) Scenario 1(a) Existing Development Costs Proposed Development Costs �Revlew ®Impact DReview ®Impact Fees Fees Fees Fees a;' 81% 75% 19% 25% ASSUMPTIONS a Exempt from CEOA review ■ Infrastructure largely in-place,so no significant engineering plan check and inspection services ■ 1 inch water meter ■ Construction value of$1.4 million �ll Attachment A: City Development Cost Scenarios SCENARIO I(b 115,000 Square Foot Current Pro sed %of %of • .. •meq_.. qy.,.� _ Amount Total Amount Total ' e ' Y.�.iL.. .'I •..'r. �(�l' 1 SY Y.-.Ii -• 1 � � ��... R.'.Y•( ._f• Planning Fees Application Fee 6,684 1% 6,684 1% Assessment Due with Building Permit Fees 0% 27,311 4% Building Pian Check, Permit and Related Fees 74,291 11% 74,291 10% Fire Plan Check& Inspection Fees 11,722 2% 11,722 2% Ennineering Plan Check, Ins ectn & Encroachment Fees 118,630 17% 165,837 22% walx . Water Impact Fees 32,260 5% 32,260 4% Water Meter Installation 378 0% 378 0% Wastewater Impact Fee 14,868 2% 14,868 2% Transportation Impact Fee 264,270 38% 264,270 34% Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee 139,150 20% 139,150 18% Public Art In-Lieu Fee 34,287 5% 34,287 4% Percentlncrease 10.7°k Scenario 1(b) Scenario 1(b) Existing Development Costs Proposed Development Costs ©Impact ,dl ®Impact Fees EFees EIReview 70% O Review 63/o r Fees Fees 30% ` ASSUMP71ONS ■ Environmental review required;costs for an EIR are not Included if one was subsequently needed. ■ Significant infrastructure improvements needed for streets,storm drains and water and sewer lines with an estimated value of$1.1 million ■ 1.5 Inch water meter ■ Construction value: $7.0 million �- 9 C Attachment A: City Development Cost Scenarios SCENARIO 2 its Square Foot - Family Residence Current Pro osed %of %of Amount Total Amount Total l Planning Fees Application Fee Assessment Due with Building Permit Fees 1,516 1% Building Plan Check&Permit Fees 4,222 23% 4,222 3% Fire Plan Check& Inspection Fees 671 4% 671 0% Engineering Plan Check, Ins ectn& Encroachment Fees 445 2% 1,087 1% elS Water Impact Fees 8,065 44% 8,065 5% Water Meter Installation 151 1% 151 0% Wastewater Impact Fee 3,236 18% 3,236 2% Transportation Impact Fee 1,456 8% 1,456 1% Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Public Art In-Lieu Fee .-•i.�.. ��r•-'r; - ,. �' kms:° ` ,�� a_ ..f: Percent Increase 11.8°k Scenario 2 Scenario 2 Existing Development Costs Proposed Development Costs mimpact ®Impact FeesFees .. v e O Review �� D Review 63% - Fees Fees 29 37% °h ASSUMPTIONS ■ Exempt from CEQA review ■ Infrastructure largely in-place,so no significant engineering plan check and inspection services ■ 3/4 or one inch meter ■ Construction value:$168,000 Attachment A: City Development Cost Scenarios SCENARIO 3 Subdivision Current Pro osed %of %of Amount Total Amount Total p , euie ilG-F.bp,$ T s. g' Planning Fees Application Fee 10,662 4% 10,662 3% Assessment Due with Building Permit Fees 12,446 Building Plan Check&Permit Fees 34,968 12% 34,968 11% Fire Plan Check& Inspection Fees 5,458 2% 5,458 2% Engineering Plan Check, Ins ectn&Encroachment Fees 33,129 11% 47,330 15% "a nit`bt;�CRf"" •Fees -- - ,� �, ,,: � _ .�a ;,2�f Q80',, .. , Water Impact Fees 80,650 27% 80,650 25a/a Water Meter Installation 1,510 1% 1,510 0% Wastewater Impact Fee 32,360 11% 32,360 10% Transportation Impact Fee 14,560 5% 14,560 4a/a Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee 84,000 28% 84,000 26% Public Art In-Lieu Fee 7- Percent Increase 9.09/0 Scenario 3 Scenario 3 Existing Development Costs Proposed Development Costs ®Impact ®Impact FeesFees 720A ` 6696 O Review a Review Fees t{r x Fees mp ASSUMPTIONS ■ Exempt from CEQA review ■ Infrastructure largely in-place, but some infrastructure improvements are needed with an estimated value of$276,500 s 314 or one inch meter ■ Construction value: $168,000 for each home /-It Attachment B: Comparison of Development Review Costs with Other Local Agencies Includes Planning,Building, Fire and Engineering Development Review Fees Scenario 1: 20,000 Square Foot Commercial Office Building $60,000 - -- -- -- $52,560 -- -- — $45,000 - $37,500 21 -- --- �:, $30,000 - $22,00 - $15,000 30,000$2x,500$15,000 MMRpm $7,500 - � a is ir+ $o Pismo SLO County Paso Atascaderc Arroyo Grover San Luis San Luis Morro Bay Beach Robles Grande Beach Obispo: Obispo: Current Proposed Fees Fees 1 Attachment B: Comparison of Development Review Costs with Other Local Agencies includes Planning, Building, Fire and Engineering Development Review Fees $10,000 -- Scenario 2: 2,000 Square Foot Single Family Residence $9,000 $8,000 .- $7,000 -- $6,000 - $5,000 - $4,000 ---- $3,000 8,000$7,000$5,000$5,000$4,000 -$3,000 $2,000 $1,000 , Mimi I 11M R. - .1 H $0 Atascadero Arroyo Paso Pismo Grover SLO County Morro Bay San Luis San Luis Grande• Robles Beach Beach Obispo: Obispo: current Proposed Fees Fees �_r3. Attachment B• Comparison of Development Review Costs with Other Local Agencies Includes Planning, Building,Fre and Engineering Development Review Fees $140,000 - — $120,000 - $100,000 $801000 -- $60,000 -- $40,000 - 80,000 $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 $0 - — - Atascadero Arroyo Grover Pismo SLO Paso Morro Bay San Lula San Luls Grande Beach Beach County Robles Obispo: Obispo: Current Proposed Fees Fees I,lq RED FILE M , .3 AGENDA DATE ITEM # td 01�C�u"b� d ,a'COUN IL &CDD DIR ICAO LZFIN DIR MEMO RECEIVED JaACAO ZFIRECHIEF 8 ATTORNEY Z PW DIR May 21, 2003 MAY 22. 262 ❑ DEPT HEADS ;2 ROC DIR CtiF To: Council colleagues SLO CITY CLERK J2' ;Z'HR D RIR From Ken Schwartz Copies: Bill Statler,Wendy George, John Mandeville, Mike McCluskey Re: Monterey Plaza Technical and Environmental Studies Suggested language changes: Page 54,Appendix'Al, Significant Operating Program Changes As I am particularly keen on this `major goal'for 03-05, I would lice to see the following changes made to staff descriptions in order to more accurately reflect the intent of this goal. Under Key Objectives 2. Pursue . . . . . dependent upon the start up of the Copeland's Court Street retail- commercial and the Palm Morro parkingloffice projects. Under Factors lkiving the Request for Change 1. Beginning second line. . . . for special events. The location of the new County Administrative Center vi-s-6-vis the existing County Government Center will exacerbate Jaywalking between the buildings and pare an increased pedestrian safety problem if Monterey Street remains open to through vehicular traffic The opening of the CopelandlCity parking structure with ingress and egress from Palm Street suggests that south-bound traffic on Monterey Street can/should be diverted via Santa Rasa Sireet to Palm in order for traffic to enter three major parking facilities which will then exist between Osos and Chorro Streets. 2. The City Council authorized staff to hire the architect of the County A&i inistrative Building, Kaplan-McLaughlin-Diaz (KMD) to prepare concept drawings for a public plaza. The citizen design team of the Downtown Concept Plan'reviewed those plans and that team has suggested another design for consideration. K40 will work with staff to produce a final concept for consideration by the City Council(see action plan, Task#1 below). 3. Prior citizen input has been supportive of (a) open space-park uses in this quadrant of downtown and(b) making downtown more `pedestrian;friendly. ' Closure of Monterey Street between Santa Rasa and Osos would achieve these goals and convert both the street ROW and the underutilized forecourt of the County Government Center into a totally imegrated Plaza. No other changes recommended for pp 54 and 55. File:Memo-M®teey Plea council memoRAnoum city of san tuis osispo. aamm�stizatlon aepantment -- DATE: May 21, 2003 RECEIVED TO: City Council MAY 21 2003 VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO SLO CITY CLERK FROM: Betsy Kiser, Principal Administrative Analyst Ep< SUBJECT: Funding Mechanisms for Historic Railroad Freight Warehouse A year ago, Council directed staff to bring back during the next goal setting process, a review of funding mechanisms to expedite rehabilitation of the historic Railroad Freight Warehouse. Since that time, staff has worked to identify potential resources for grant or foundation support and has routinely checked these resources for available funding. Unfortunately, on the state level, funding for historical preservation has been tied to bond measures and with their current fiscal situation, bond money has yet to be released. At times, funding opportunities are publicized by the National Railway Historic Society, but these grants have been available primarily in geographically limited areas (i.e. available to communities within the vicinity of the funding organization, which tend to be back east). Staff continues to remain vigilant in the quest for funding mechanisms to complete the Railroad Freight Warehouse. However, given the status of governmental finances at all levels, significant results in the near-term are not promising. RED FILE MEETING AGENDA DATE -T— ITEM # � neeFcI TCOUNCIL ;cCDD DIR �CAO 2'FIN DIR .9 ACAO 2'FIRE CHIEF JZ ATTORNEY 2'PW DIR 2 CLERK/ORI(3 POLICE CHF © 09PT 09PHEADS REC DIR 2 UTIL DIR Z(HR DIR GAStaf Wiser\Community Partnerships\Railroad Freight Museum\Memo re Historic RR Freight War 0FF�9 city of san Luis oBispo RECEIVED Police Department Memorandum 1042 Walnut rNsob MAY 21 2003 SLO, CA 93401 "Service,Pride,Integrity" SLO CIN CLERK (805) 781-7317 - RED FILE May 21,2003 ME ING AGENDA To: Christine Mulholland, Vice Mayor DATE ITEM #-U t"5 i�Via: Ken Hampian,CAO .Gi COUNCIL CDD DIR From: Deborah Linden, Chief of Police -CAO J.e,FIN DIR J2 ACAO 2r FIRE CHIEF z PW DIR Subject: Annual Costs for DARE Program PATTORNEY O'C ERK/ORIG P-0 CE CHF ❑ DEPT HEADS J3 REO DIR CC: Council e nr Z_UTIL DIR Q�R DIR On May 20, 2003, you contacted me and requested a breakdown of the annual costs for the Police Department's DARE Program. Currently, the Police Department dedicates approximately 75% of one Police Officer position to teach DARE in the City elementary schools. The same Officer is assigned as the School Resource Officer at the Junior High during the remainder of his/her work time. DARE Program Costs: The resources and associated annual costs for the DARE Program are as follows: DARE Officer Salary and Benefits (75% of officer position) $84;000 Program Expenditures (student workbooks, t-shirts, class materials, etc) $ 3,600 Total Costs $87,600 DARE Vehicle: The DARE van was acquired at minimal cost to the City through community and business donations. The only costs associated with the van are routine maintenance and gas. Offseuin�Revenue: The DARE Program is very popular and widely supported by community members and businesses. The Police Department receives an average of$500 to$1000 in donations for the Program each year to help offset the costs. These are unsolicited donations. Many communities take a very pro-active approach by holding fundraisers specifically for their DARE Programs, and they are able to offset much of the Program costs through donations. Please let me know if you desire any additional information regarding the costs of the Dare Program. j Allen Settle- Budget and Open Space _.. __._. ........_.__. _ Page? From: "D. & E. Dollar' <ddollar@pacbell.net> To: John Ewan <jewan@slocity.org>, Allen Settle<asettle@slocity.org>, Ken Schwartz <kschwartz@slocity.org>, Christine Mulholland <cmulholland@slocity.org>, Dave Romero <d rome ro@s locity.org> Date: Mon, May 19, 2003 1:29 PM Subject: Budget and Open Space City Council, RECEIVED As Budget plans draw closer to finalization, I would like you to MAY 2 1 2003 remember Open Space funding. Having Open Space in our city is very desirable for current residents and of course, future residents. In gip CITY CLERK these difficult budget times, it may seem that nothing can be done to get out of the fast approaching fiscal hole. But, I encourage you to think long term in budget actions. Please, defer some road maintenance projects and restore money to Open Space acquisitions. We need some serious seed money so that other grant producing agencies or organization know that we are serious about buying Open Space. The more we defer Open Space acquisitions, the more difficult it will be in the future to develop an effective Open Space program -meanwhile, things like deferred road maintenance can still be accomplished. If you look at the pricing structure of future road maintenance compared to land prices, I think you'll find that land prices are going up much faster: Plus, if key parcels are no longer available, the effectiveness of an Open Space program is compromised. Please put serious seed money into the Open Space land acquisition program. Thank you, Don Dollar SLO 781-0118 dCOUNCIL .2CDD DIR ICAO 0FIN DIR 8 ACAO ,C FIRE CHIEF J2 ATTORNEY ;z- PW DIR RED FILE Ja CLERK/ORIG �POIJCE CHF 13D HEADS REC DIR MEETING AGENDA Z P'UTIL DIR DATE '' orrEM -___ _ Z'HR oIR