HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/18/2006, BUS 5 - REVENUE BALLOT MEASURE IN NOVEMBER 2006 t
councit Maw*D� 7-18-06
j acEnaa REpoRt 1�N
CITY OF SAN LU I S O B I S P O
FROM: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer
Bill Statler, Director of Finance &Information Technology
SUBJECT: REVENUE BALLOT MEASURE IN NOVEMBER 2006
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a resolution placing for submission to the voters a question relating to a general
purpose 1/z-cent sales tax measure for a term of ten years at the general municipal election to
be held on November 7, 2006.
2. Introduce an ordinance, subject to subsequent voter approval in November 2006, establishing
a general-purpose 1/2-cent sales tax for a term of ten years.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
Over the past twelve months, we have engaged the community in an in-depth discussion about
the fiscal challenges facing us in providing essential services and the role of a revenue ballot
measure in helping to address them. The time has now come to place this measure before the
voters so they have the opportunity to directly participate in making this important decision about
the community's future.
In the final analysis, this measure is not about City finances and our budget. We have put our
fiscal house in order. With the difficult cuts we have made beginning in 2003, the Council has
made the tough decisions needed for "structural budget balance" for the long-term. But are the
resulting cuts — like the 67% reduction in street paving — an acceptable level of service for the
community in the long run?
This is the question that will be in front of the voters by placing this measure before them in
November: what kind of community do we want to be?
• What kind of streets do we want?
® What kind of creek and flood protection do we want?
® How much traffic congestion do we want?
® What kind of playgrounds and activities for our youth do we want?
■ Do we want to continue protecting open space?
■ What kind of neighborhoods do we want?
■ What kind of emergency services do we want?
■ What kind of programs and facilities do we want for our seniors?
Recommended Council Actions. Under State law, two actions are required to implement this
new revenue source: approval of the implementing ordinance by two-thirds of the Council and
majority voter approval. Accordingly, the recommended Council action includes adoption of a
�r I
Revenue Ballot Measure in November 2006 Page 2
resolution placing this measure before the voters in November 2006 (Attachment 1); and
approval of the implementing ordinance (Attachment 2).
DISCUSSION
Background
Like many other cities throughout California, San Luis Obispo faces difficult fiscal challenges
that affect our ability to provide community services like neighborhood street paving, police
protection, fire and paramedic services, traffic congestion relief, neighborhood code enforcement,
creek and flood protection, open space preservation and senior programs. While there are a
number of reasons for this on both the revenue and cost side of the fiscal equation, this has been
largely due to State takeaways, which have affected every city in the State. These have cost the
City $22 million over the past 15 years — with a continued takeaway of$3 million annually today
(which is likely to continue indefinitely).
Budget Impacts: Ongoing Service Cuts
We have had to close annual budget gaps for three straight fiscal years:
■ $7.1 million in 2003-04
■ Another$1.4 million in 2004-05 u Reserves
■ And another$2.1 million in 18% ° Capiw
Program
2005-06 o New & cuts
Increased 42%
As reflected in the sidebar chart, we User Fees
have closed these gaps largely14°ia Expenditure Cuts:68%
through service cuts, which account
for about 70% of the strategy we grain
have used in closing almost $10 cuts
million in budget gaps over the last 26%
three years.
In making these service reductions, every service
City clerk area of the City has been affected: there have been
Finance&rr no "sacred cows," with every department
Council&Adnin experiencing reductions. However, these reductions
l e,rran Resources have not been made on a simple "across-the-board"
City Attorneybasis: they have been made based on service
Co nrunity oev priorities, with the smallest cuts in front-line
Parks&Recreation services like police, fire and public works; and the
Public Works largest ones in support departments like the city
clerk and finance & information technology.
Police
Fre For example, the sidebar chart shows the percentage
°% M 2% ]% 4% 6% 6% r/ reductions in costs in each department in 2005-07.
s-a
Revenue Ballot Measure in November 2006 Page 3
As reflected in this chart, every department participated in cost reductions: no one was artificially
protected from being part of the budget-balancing solution. On the other hand, front-line
services like police, fire and public works had the smallest reductions, while support services had
the largest ones.
The same is also true in looking at staffing reductions. Over the last three years, the City has cut
about 25.3 "full-time equivalent" General Fund positions in balancing our budget. As shown in
the chart, every General Fund
department experienced staffing cuts General Fund Staffing Cuts:Last Three Budget Years
during this period; however, the
reductions were not "across-the-board," Finance&IT
ranging from 4% in the Police parks&Recreation
Department at the low-end to almost
14% in the Department of Finance and Admin,Atty,Clerk&HR
Information Technology. Fire
Public Works
Service Impacts of Budget Problems community Development
The fiscal challenges facing the City Police
translate directly into our ability to o% 2% 4% 6% era to% 12% 140/6
deliver essential services to the
community. For example:
■ Sworn police positions have been cut, including traffic officers who help reduce accidents
and manage traffic safety.
■ We do not have a full-time Fire Marshal nor a permanent Fire Training Officer for
firefighters. These should be full-time regular positions in a community like San Luis
Obispo.
■ We have suspended our neighborhood street paving program. As set forth in the 1998
Pavement Management Plan, we know we should be spending about $3 million annually to
keep our streets in good repair. Under this plan, funding for street paving is allocated for
three major purposes: arterial streets, downtown and neighborhoods.
Of the $3 million "target" budget for paving, the lion's share — $2 million (67%) — is
allocated for neighborhood paving. Under this program, the community is organized into 8
neighborhood paving areas, under which the needs of each area are addressed on ongoing
cycle, moving from one neighborhood to the next each year. This approach allows for a pro-
active maintenance approach while minimizing disruption in individual neighborhoods, by
limiting paving (and other infrastructure improvements like sidewalks, water and sewer) to
once every eight years.
We have now completed one full cycle of the neighborhood paving program since the plan
was adopted in 1998. With the completion of recent paving improvements in Area 8, funding
for the neighborhood paving program has been suspended, given the City's fiscal situation.
�-3
I,
Revenue Ballot Measure in November 2006 Page 4
■ There is virtually no City funding available for creek and flood protection.
■ We have been forced to discontinue City funding and support for open space acquisition,
which has been successful in the past in leveraging over $7 million in grants and other
outside funding sources.
■ There is only one Code Enforcement Officer in the City, a key concern in many
neighborhoods.
■ Funding for cultural and social services has been reduced, affecting many local civic
organizations and the important services they provide to our community.
Why are we facing these fiscal challenges?
There are a number of factors on both the revenue and cost side, including:
■ State budget takeaways. These have cost the City more than $22 million over the last 15
years, and now cost the City $3 million each and every year. Although Proposition 1A,
adopted by the voters of California in November 2004, helps protect the City from additional
State takeaways in the future, it does not restore any of the past or current State takeaways.
As such, the City continues to lose $3 million each and every year in State budget takeaways,
and this is going to be the case indefinitely into the future.
■ Insurance cost increases: general liability, property and workers compensation.
■ Tepid growth in key revenues. For example, transient occupancy tax revenues, which are our
"Number 3" General Fund revenue (after sales and property taxes), were essentially flat for
four consecutive years until 2005-06.
■ New service responsibilities, such as maintaining and operating the Damon-Garcia sports
fields.
® Need to update critical emergency response communications, including our public safety
dispatch center and radio system.
■ PERS investment losses. The perfect storm of 9/11, the dot.com blow-up and corporate
scandals have resulted in increased retirement costs.
■ Higher costs in key areas, such as utilities, fuel and construction.
■ Reduced grant revenues. For example, the Prado Day Center for the homeless used to be
wholly funded by grant revenues. However, due to grant cutbacks, this important community
service (in partnership with other government and non-profit agencies) now requires General
Fund support of$50,000 annually..
Revenue Ballot Measure in November 2006 Page 5
However, while there are a number of factors on both the revenue and cost side, as shown in the
recent "benchmark analysis," City stewardship is not one of them. As detailed in this
comprehensive report comparing City finances and service outcomes with similar cities in
California, the City has been an excellent steward of community resources.
■ We've tightened our belt: we're a lean organization.
■ We use "best practices" in managing our fiscal affairs: we're a national leader in financial
planning and reporting.
® We are open and accountable: we routinely receive immaculate audits
The City's stewardship of community resources is succinctly summarized in The Tribune's
recent article on the results of the benchmark study: the City does more and costs less.
SL0 often does more, spends less than other cities, analysis shows
e,I.."G.", HOW SLO S FINANCZS CMPARC:EIGHT CALIFORNIA CITIES SERVE AS BENCHMARKS
tim 4>111ryn tread.mspnd ti,am.® YO Wn k"Cer UOU mr mtfbdry wmme mart _ana owu w lower rab of wnp en>OtvhO+�'ran0e
ONLINE hrCafbuiiatin 41'.�rv�'.-ytrwr+mi'u �fYkpt_ hl�IsWStILf OerpplV.. metrtiRm hli_ o@OM el Wlf pr GW4
CAIRA amN$.:wa n'pn am4il.d 0,ntl td&i%St
Tl--T.1.,}.j.YQLli lllCd wb,dl WRtr� - uy
aHDO-Cem Ur'n++yyJ..wvva«d.mzn ury.a." _ ...,
W rv+ciron b�2r.wrVwfw.dYaW 41'NIm
G:IfY OSVS RIIYRilrC 4rdd�mrw�dYmL.m _ .. w
i�x+ 7DeTn'bnr Flox611Smrarma>,d @a dtr m
:ewa.say.
s:l13nv . MlIi.
.u,. rw�.+u. rgt re.nen.—d =luut.t, ••r.L_._•
i
In fact, as shown in the sidebar chart, we had fewer General Fund regular positions in 2005-06
than we did 15 years ago.
Conclusion on the City's Fiscal 290 General Fund Regular Staffing
Situation. In summary, the City
has made tough decisions in 280
responsibly balancing the budget 270
and living within our means.
However, doing so has meant 260 - — - — — — —
significant cut-backs in essential 250 — —
community services.
240 —
Revenue Growth Won't Fix the r 1]
230
Problem
Rawl Year Ending
Revenue growth from new retail
outlets like Costco and Court
Street won't fix the problem for two reasons:
1. First, we have already included the revenues from these two projects in our budget
projections, and we can't count the same revenues twice.
!'
Revenue Ballot Measure in November 2006 Page 6
2. And second, the problem facing us is just too big.
To place this in perspective, we estimate that Costco will generate about$500,000 in "net" new
sales tax revenues for the City, after adjusting for transfers from other businesses. This makes
Costco one of the City's top sales tax producers. On the other hand, a 'h-cent sales tax measure
will generate about $4.5 million. This means it would take the equivalent of nine Costcos to
generate the same amount of revenue. From an economic perspective, this just isn't going to
happen. Moreover, even if it could, many of our residents would simply not want to see nine
Costcos in our community.
The Short Story: Without new, significant revenues, we are not going to keep pace with our
needs in critical areas such as street paving, traffic congestion and enforcement, flood protection,
paramedic services, open space preservation, neighborhood code enforcement and senior
programs.
Community Outreach
Over the last twelve months, we have engaged in an extensive community outreach and public
education program, consisting of the following:
1. Briefings with every "standing" Council advisory body. This includes the Architectural
Review Commission, Bicycle Committee, Cultural Heritage Committee, Downtown
Association, Housing Authority, Human Relations Commission, Jack House Committee, Joint
Recreational Use Committee, Mass Transportation Committee, Parks and Recreation
Commission, Planning Commission, Promotional Coordinating Committee and Tree
Committee.
2. On going briefings with City employees.
3. Formation of a speakers bureau. We have made 46 presentations to community groups, such
as Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, Chamber of Commerce, Rotary, School District,
Property Owners Association, senior citizen groups, mobile home parks, Board of Realtors
and Kiwanis. We have responded to every question raised during these briefings; and in the
case of the Property Owners Association, provided a detailed response to a study of the City
finances sponsored by them. A summary of the presentations we have made is provided in
Attachment 3.
4. Creation of an ad hoc community group to provide advice to the CAO on our public outreach
program composed of 27 leaders from all walks of community life—business, environmental,
neighborhoods, seniors, youth sports, college students, cultural and social services. This
group asked tough questions and provided extremely valuable advice on how to best present
the City's fiscal story to the community, which influenced other outreach efforts. A listing of
ad hoc community group members is provided in Attachment 4.
5. Four information mailers, each of which focused on a different topic. As summarized in
Attachment 5, the first mailer outlined the fiscal issues facing the City and provided a "tear-
off' return card asking for feedback on community priorities; the second one provided a
S—, 4
I. J
Revenue Ballot Measure in November 2006 Page 7
summary of the priorities we received; the third one provided answers to frequently asked
questions about the fiscal challenges facing the City, and the role of a possible revenue
measure in addressing them; and the fourth one recognized the important role of the ad hoc
group in asking tough questions and advising the CAO on our public outreach program. It
also provided quotes from seven of the members on their thoughts about the need to place a
revenue measure on the November 2006 ballot.
6. Benchmark analysis comparing City finances and service outcomes with similar cities in
California.
7. Mailing of over 550 informational letters to a wide range of community leaders: civic,
cultural, social, business, neighborhoods, students, environmental and media.
8. "Town Hall" forum held on February 15, 2006.
9. Placement of information on our website and public access cable television channel.
10. Working closely with the media to answer questions and provide information to the public.
The Results. The results of this outreach effort have been very positive:
1. Receipt of over 1,200 written feedback comments on community priorities (summarized in
Attachment 6).
2. Face-to-face opportunities to tell the City's fiscal story and answer questions with over 1,300
residents via our speakers program.
3. Improvement in the way we present the City's fiscal information. These range from
providing more "visual" information about City services in our oral presentations, to
incorporating in our budget document all five of the recommendations of the Property
Owners Association.
4. Excellent media coverage of the fiscal challenges facing the City.
Community Priorities
Consistent with the scientific public opinion research we conducted in March 2005 and June
2006, strong consensus has emerged from the feedback we have received as part of our outreach
efforts on top community priorities, which include:
1. Repairing and maintaining City streets, potholes, parks and storm drains.
I. Continuing programs that reduce and effectively manage traffic congestion.
3. Improving public safety services.
4. Protecting senior services and programs.
5. Preserving open space.
Revenue Ballot Measure in November 2006 Page 8
As discussed below, the key purpose of the "sunset" provision included in the proposed measure,
along with requirements for citizen oversight and financial audits, is to ensure accountability that
the funds generated from this new revenue source are used to meet community priorities.
Key Features of the Proposed Ballot Measure
These recommendations have been developed based on substantial community input, including
information gathered through:
1. Public input strategies used during our budget processes.
2. Scientific community public opinion surveys (March 2005 and June 2006)..
3. Ad hoc community group.
4. Public input received, both verbally and in writing, during the information effort over the last
twelve months, including 45 presentations to community groups and responses to community
mailers.
Based on this input, the following summarizes key features of the proposed ballot measure:
1. Adopts a local option sales tax of i/2-cent. As noted above, this is estimated to generate
about $4.5 million annually, which is about 10% of General Fund revenues. This would help
restore the $3 million annually lost to the State and provide some added funds to support
other important services and projects. A 'h-cent increase is the same rate being considered by
the other five cities in the County that are entertaining similar measures. This local-option
sales tax will be administered by the State Board of Equalization, and the proposed ordinance
includes the provisions the Board requires to do so.
2. Allocates the proceeds for general purposes. This includes essential services like street
paving, police protection, fire and paramedic services, traffic congestion relief, neighborhood
code enforcement, open space protection and senior programs. Stated simply, the fiscal
problem facing the City is not related to funding a specific project or a specific service.
Instead, our problem is in funding basic day-to-day, core City services. This is what the
General Fund exists to do, and as such, it is appropriate for the proceeds to be General Fund
revenues. As a general purpose revenue measure, passage will require majority voter
approval.
3. Includes strong fiscal accountability provisions. Along with the City's ongoing
commitment to citizen involvement as a fundamental principle of good government, specific
citizen oversight and fiscal accountability provisions include:
a. Independent annual financial audit. The amount of revenues generated by this
measure and how it is used will be included in an annual financial audit performed by an
independent certified public accountant.
b. Integration of the use of funds into the City's budget and goal-setting process. The
estimated revenue and proposed use of funds generated by this measure will be an
5 -8
Revenue Ballot Measure in November 2006 Page 9
integral part of the City's budget and goal setting process, and significant opportunities
will be provided for meaningful participation by citizens in determining priority uses of
these funds.
c. Annual community report. A written report will be provided annually to every
household in the community detailing how much revenue is being generated by the
measure and how funds are being spent.
d. Annual citizen oversight meeting. An invitation will be extended each year to the entire
community inviting them to participate in a forum to review and discuss the use of
the revenue generated by this measure. City staff will also be available to meet with any
group that requests a specific briefing with their members to discuss and answer
questions about the revenues generated by the measure and their uses.
4. Provides that the measure will expire in ten years, unless extended by the voters. A 10-year
"sunset" will allow enough time to develop a solid track record of use, while still allowing
voters a meaningful timeframe for reconsideration. This timeframe is supported by the recent
public opinion survey, is recommended by the Chamber of Commerce and is timed to
coincide with a regularly scheduled election as suggested by the ad hoc community group.
However, other sunset options are discussed under"Alternatives" below.
Why Sales Tax?
Over the past several years, we have evaluated a wide range of possible new revenue options, and
have concluded that sales tax is the best one for several reasons:
1. The current total combined sales tax rate (which is the lowest in the State) is 7.25%. Of this,
1% currently goes to the City; the balance of
6.25% is dedicated to State or State-mandated
purposes. Allocation or Current 7.27/oP to
2. Even with an increase of 1/z cent, the rate in San o ory:
Luis Obispo would be equal to or less than that 1 oert
paid by 85% of State's residents.
o Starter
625
3. It is very broad-based and does not single-out cuts
any one type of consumer, business or industry;
4. Over 50% of the proceeds will be paid by non-
residents.
5. Basic commodities and services like housing, food and prescription drugs are exempt from
sales tax.
6. With the exception of Paso Robles, every other City in the county has already decided to
place a th-cent sales tax measure on the November ballot (Arroyo Grande, Atascadero and
Grover Beach) or is seriously considering doing so (Morro Bay and Pismo Beach). a
�— l
Revenue Ballot Measure in November 2006 Page 10
In summary, for many of these same reasons, local-option'sales tax measures are being used by a
growing number of California cities to meet their fiscal needs.
Public Opinion Research
March 2005. In May 2005, the Council considered an assessment of the feasibility of a revenue
ballot measure in addressing the City's long-term fiscal needs. The results of this assessment,
which drew on the results of a scientific public opinion survey conducted by the highly regarded
firm of FMMA in March 2005, showed that a general-purpose sales
tax ballot measure of no more than 1/2-cent in November 2006 would
be viable. However, it also showed that its success would depend Both randomly
upon an effective public information and community outreach surveyed 400 likely
program. voters, for a scientific
"margin of error"of
June 2006. In assessing the effectiveness of the outreach program plus or minus 4.9%
over the last twelve months that emerged from the May 2005 analysis,
as well as to assess the feasibility of this measure before taking final action to place it on the
November 2006 ballot, FMMA conducted a follow-up survey on our behalf in late June 2006.
The results continue to show that a 'h-cent sales tax measure in November is viable; and that if
an election were held today, it would pass.
The following summarizes the results of the June 2006 survey compared with March 2005.
Baseline Information About the Community
The June 2006 survey continues to show that the community highly rates San Luis Obispo as a
place to live, as well as the services provided by the City.
1. 95% think San Luis Obispo is an excellent or good place to live (and 67% rate it as
excellent). This is unchanged from March 2005.
2. 71% believe that things in the City are `on the right track." This reflects a significant
increase from 53% in March 2005.
3. About three-quarters (74%) rate City services as excellent or good (and only 4% as poor).
This reflects a significant increase in the City's "excellent and good" approval rating from
68% in March 2005.
4. A majority rates the City's financial management as excellent or good (and only 6% rate it as
poor). This is unchanged from March 2006.
2005March 2004
Rating of San Luis Obispo as a place to live
Excellent 67% 67%
Good 28% 28%
Fair 4% 4%
Poor 1% 1%
^ I �
Revenue Ballot Measure in November 2006 Page 11
March 00 b6.
Are things in San Luis Obispo generally headed
in the right direction or wrong track?
Right direction 53% 71%
Wrong track 23% 21%
No opinion/don't know/unsure 24% 8%
Overall rating of the job done by the City in
providing services
Excellent or good 68% 74%
Fair 27% 20%
Poor 4% 4%
No opinion/don't know 2% 2%
Rating of City officials in managing City funds
Excellent or good 53% 53%
Fair 29% 29%
Poor 6% 6%
No opinion/don't know 12% 12%
Support for a Revenue Ballot Measure
The June 2006 survey shows that support for new revenues has strengthened since March 2005.
As summarized below, initial support increases from 52% to 55%. When information about the
need for the measure is provided, support increases to 60%. Most importantly, when information
in opposition to the measure is provided, support stays at 58%. This is significant, especially
compared with March 2005, when it returned to 53%.
March 2005 June 2006
Initial support
Definitely/probably yes 52% 55%
Undecided: leaning yes 5%
Definitely/probably no 31% 29%
Undecided: leaning no 3%
Need more information 13% 6%
Don't know 3% 3%
Support with added information about need/uses
Definitely/probably yes 59% 60%
Undecided: leaning yes 5%
Definitely/probably no 34% 29%
Undecided: leaning no 1%
Need more information 10% 3%
Don't know 4% 1%
Support with opposition information
Definitely/probably yes 53% 58%
Undecided: leaning yes 6%
Definitely/probably no 34% 30%
Undecided: leaning no 2%
Need more information 10% 3%
Don't know 4% 1%
S— ( 1
Revenue Ballot Measure in November 2006 Page 12
Consistent with past formal and informal results, the following summarizes the relative
importance of the following seven community priorities, all of which received a composite rating
on a scale of 1 to 7 as being important:
Ran k Community Priority Mean Score
1 Restoring funds for street paving 5.2
2 Relieving traffic congestion 4.9
3 Building and maintaining storm drains and flood protection improvements 4.9
4 Improving public safety services by restoring funds to pay for the City fire 4.8
marshal, firefighter/paramedic training and an additional traffic enforcement
officer
5 Restoring open space funding 4.5
6 Funding an improved senior center with dedicated parking 4.4
7 Funding more code enforcement to improve neighborhood health, safety and 4.0
noise control
Respondents were asked to rate the importance of these possible ways that money from the measure might be spent
on a scale of I to 7, with I being not important at all, and seven being extremely important. A "mean score" of 4.0
or higher for any item on this list should be interpreted as"important,"and all seven are rated at least 4.0 or more
by local voters.
Next Steps
If the Council places the measure on the November 2006 ballot, the next key steps are the
preparation of arguments for and against the measure, and rebuttal arguments. Based on dates set
by the State law and the County Clerk, the deadlines for these are:
Monday, August 7: Arguments for and against the measure
Friday, August 17: Rebuttal arguments
While the Council could choose to be the authors of the argument for the measure, we
recommend that this be prepared by members of the community.
FISCAL IMPACT
1. No Direct Impact in the Short-Term There are no direct fiscal impacts in placing this
measure on the November 2006 ballot: it will be consolidated with the general municipal
election, and the minor added cost can be absorbed within the existing election budget.
There is a minor cost-saving option of not including the ordinance itself in the ballot
pamphlet and making it available upon request (and placing it on our web site) instead.
However, we do not recommend this option. At about six pages, not including it in the
pamphlet would only a save about $3,000 in printing costs. Since adequate resources are
available to fund this minor added cost, we believe the benefit of providing this information
in the pamphlet offsets the minor added cost.
Revenue Ballot Measure in November 2006 Page 13
2. Profound Affects in the Long-Term. While there are no direct budget impacts this year, the
results of the election —one way or another— will have profound affects on the City's ability
to provide essential community services for many years in the future.
ALTERNATIVES
While there are a number of options that the Council could consider, two key ones include:
1. Do Not Go Forward with a Measure in November 2006. The Council could choose not to
place this measure on the November 2006 ballot. However, we believe it is important to
place this measure before the voters so they have the opportunity to directly participate in
making this critical decision about the community's future.
2. Different Sunset Term. While we have always believed that a sunset provision is an
essential accountability feature, we have considered several sunset options over the last
twelve months, ranging from five to twenty years. In order to coincide with a general
municipal election, the ad hoc community group has suggested that any term be in an "even-
year" increment, and we agree with this basic framework.
As discussed above, we recommend ten years as a reasonable balance between allowing
enough time to develop a solid track record of use, while still allowing voters a meaningful
timeframe for reconsideration. The results of the June 2006 public opinion survey do not
indicate any significant difference in voter support for the measure between six years and ten
years (although support significantly drops off after ten years, and as such, we should not
consider a longer sunset period than ten years). One option the Council may wish to consider
is eight years. As surfaced by the ad hoc community group, this would coincide with our
eight-year, neighborhood paving program cycle, which we would be able to restore if this
measure passes.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution placing for submission to the voters a question relating to a sales tax measure at
the general municipal election to be held on November 7, 2006
2. Ordinance adding Chapter 3.15 to the Municipal Code, "City of San Luis Obispo Essential
Services Transactions (Sales) and Use Tax," to sunset in ten years, with citizen oversight and
independent annual financial audits, to be administered by the State Board of Equalization
(Exhibit A of the resolution)
3. Summary of speaker bureau presentations
4. Ad hoc community group members
5. Summary of community mailers
6. Summary of feedback results
R:Revenue Ballot Measure Recommendation/July 18,2006 Agenda Report/Council Agenda Report
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. (2006 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLACING SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS A QUESTION RELATING TO A GENERAL
PURPOSE SALES TAX MEASURE AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE
HELD ON TUESDAY NOVEMBER 7, 2006
WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, has been
called for the purpose of the election of officers by Resolution No. 9805 (2006 Series), adopted
on June 20, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Elections Code and applicable local law provide the Council with the
authority to submit a ballot measure to the electorate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to its right and authority, the Council places for submission to the
voters at the General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, the following question:
San Luis Obispo Essential Services Measure: To protect and
maintain essential services—such as neighborhood street paving and
pothole repair; traffic congestion relief; public safety, including restoring Yes
eliminated traffic patrol, Fire Marshal and fire/paramedic training
------------------------
positions; flood protection; senior citizen services/facilities;
neighborhood code enforcement; open space preservation and other vital
general purpose services — shall the sales tax be increased by one-half No
cent for ten years only, with citizen oversight and independent annual
financial audits?
SECTION 2. The complete text of the proposition ordinance to be submitted to the
voters is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
SECTION 3. The Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to the
City Attorney, who shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure showing the effect of the
measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. The impartial analysis shall be filed
by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments.
SECTION 4. In all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held
and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.
SECTION 5. Notice of the time and place of holding the election is hereby given and
the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the
election, in time, form and manner as required by law.
Attachment 1
Resolution No. (2006 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution.
SECTION 7. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution
with the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors and Clerk-Recorder.
On motion of seconded by and
on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by a roll call vote on July 18, 2006.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jo well, City Attorney
i
\ 4 I
Attachment 2
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO. (2006 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ADDING CHAPTER 3.15 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE, "ESSENTIAL SERVICES
TRANSACTIONS (SALES)AND USE TAX,"TO SUNSET IN TEN YEARS,
WITH CITIZEN OVERSIGHT AND INDEPENDENT ANNUAL FINANCIAL AUDITS,
TO BE ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo is facing significant fiscal challenges in providing
essential community services such as neighborhood street paving and pothole repair, traffic congestion
relief, police protection, fire and paramedic services, flood protection, senior citizen services and
facilities, neighborhood code enforcement, open space preservation and other vital general purpose
services and
WHEREAS, this is largely due to State budget takeaways, which have cost the City more than
$22 million over the last 15 years, and now costs the City $3 million each and every year; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 1A, adopted by the voters of California in November 2004, helps
protect the City from additional State takeaways in the future, it does not restore any of the past or
current State takeaways; and as such, the City continues to lose $3 million each and every year in State
budget takeaways,and this is going to be the case indefinitely into the future; and
WHEREAS, in responsibly balancing its budget, the City has been forced to cut back
significantly on essential community services, such as reducing overall infrastructure maintenance by
50%; cutting street paving and pothole repair by 67% (which meant eliminating the neighborhood street
paving and pothole repair program); reducing sworn police positions (including traffic enforcement);
removing virtually all City funding for flood protection or storm drain maintenance projects;
discontinuing City funding for open space preservation (which has been successful in the past in
leveraging over $7 million in grants and other outside funding sources); and cutting other vital general
purpose services; and
WHEREAS, while it has been prudent to do so in the past as a stop-gap measure, the City
cannot continue to use its reserves in mitigating even deeper cuts to essential services; and
WHEREAS, new revenues will be needed in order to restore cuts in essential services and
provide vital general purpose services in the future; and
WHEREAS, a City-adopted sales tax is an appropriate way of adding new funds, since: the
current sales tax rate in the City is the lowest in the State, and as such,even with an increase of 1/2-cent, it
will be equal to or lower than the rate paid by 85% of the State's residents; it is broad-based and does not
single-out any one type of consumer, business or industry; basic commodities and services like housing,
food and prescription drugs are exempt from sales taxes; and over 50% of the proceeds will be paid by
non-residents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council and the Voters of the City of San
Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. TITLE. This ordinance shall be known as the "City of San Luis Obispo
Essential Services Transactions (Sales) and Use Tax Ordinance." The City of San Luis Obispo
S'- 1 lv
Attachment 2
Ordinance No. (2006 Series)
Page 2 of 7
hereinafter shall be called the "City." This ordinance shall be applicable in the incorporated territory of
the City.
SECTION 2. PURPOSE. This ordinance is adopted to achieve the following, among other
purposes, and directs that the provisions hereof be interpreted in order to accomplish those purposes:
A. To protect and maintain essential services — such as neighborhood street paving
and pothole repair; traffic congestion relief; public safety, including restoring eliminated traffic patrol,
Fire Marshal and fire/paramedic training positions; flood protection; senior citizen services and facilities;
neighborhood code enforcement; open space preservation; and other vital general purpose services — by
establishing a general purpose retail transactions and use tax of one-half percent in accordance with the
provisions of Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 725 1) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code
and Section 7285.9 of Part 1.7 of Division 2, which authorizes the City to adopt this general purpose tax
ordinance, which shall be operative if two-thirds of the Council and a majority vote of the electors voting
on the measure, vote to approve the establishment of this new general purpose revenue source at an
election called for that purpose.
B. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that incorporates provisions
identical to those of the Sales and Use Tax Law of the State of California insofar as those provisions are
not inconsistent with the requirements and limitations contained in Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue
and Taxation Code.
C. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that imposes a tax and
provides a measure therefore that can be administered and collected by the State Board of Equalization in
a manner that adapts itself as fully as practicable to, and requires the least possible deviation from, the
existing statutory and administrative procedures followed by the State Board of Equalization in
administering and collecting the California State Sales and Use Taxes.
D. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that can be administered in a
manner that will be,to the greatest degree possible, consistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division
2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, minimize the cost of collecting the transactions and use taxes, and
at the same time, minimize the burden of record keeping upon persons subject to taxation under the
provisions of this ordinance.
SECTION 3. TEN-YEAR SUNSET. The authority to levy the tax imposed by this ordinance
shall expire ten years from the operative date of this ordinance, unless extended by the voters.
SECTION 4. FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY PROVISIONS: CITIZEN OVERSIGHT
AND INDEPENDENT ANNUAL FINANCIAL AUDITS. Along with the City's ongoing commitment
to citizen involvement as a fundamental principle of good government, specific citizen oversight and
fiscal accountability provisions are hereby established as follows:
A. Independent Annual Financial Audit. The amount generated by this new
general purpose revenue source and how it was used shall be included in the annual audit of the City's
financial operations by an independent certified public accountant.
B. Integration of the Use of Funds into the City's Budget and Goal-Setting
Process. The estimated revenue and proposed use of funds generated by this measure shall be an integral
4'- - I '1
� I
Attachment 2
Ordinance No. (2006 Series)
Page 3 of 7
part of the City's budget and goal setting process, and significant opportunities will be provided for
meaningful participation by citizens in determining priority uses of these funds.
C. Annual Community Report. A written report will be provided annually to
every household in the community detailing how much revenue is being generated by the measure and
how funds are being spent.
D. Annual Citizen Oversight Meeting. An invitation will be extended each year
to the entire community inviting them to participate in a forum to review and discuss the use of
the revenue generated by this measure. City staff will also be available to meet with any group that
requests a specific briefing with their members to discuss and answer questions about the revenues
generated by the measure and thew uses.
SECTION 5. TRANSACTIONS (SALES) TAX RATE. For the privilege of selling tangible
personal property at retail, a tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers in the incorporated territory of the
City at the rate of 0.5% of the gross receipts of any retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property
sold at retail in said territory on and after the operative date of this ordinance.
SECTION 6. USE TAX RATE. An excise tax is hereby imposed on the storage, use or other
consumption in the City of tangible personal property purchased from any retailer on and after the
operative date of this ordinance for storage, use or other consumption in said territory at the rate of 0.5%
of the sales price of the property. The sales price shall include delivery charges when such charges are
subject to state sales or use tax regardless of the place to which delivery is made.
SECTION 7. OPERATIVE DATE. "Operative Date"means the first day of the first calendar
quarter commencing more than 110 days after the adoption of this ordinance: April 1, 2007.
SECTION 8. CONTRACT_ WITH STATE. Prior to the operative date, the City shall
contract with the State Board of Equalization to perform all functions incident to the administration and
operation of this transactions and use tax ordinance; provided, that if the City shall not have contracted
with the State Board of Equalization prior to the operative date, it shall nevertheless so contract and in
such a case the operative date shall be the first day of the fust calendar quarter following the execution of
such a contract.
SECTION 9. PLACE OF SALE. For the purposes of this ordinance, all retail sales are
consummated at the place of business of the retailer unless the tangible personal property sold is
delivered by the retailer or his agent to an out-of-state destination or to a common carrier for delivery to
an out-of-state destination. The gross receipts from such sales shall include delivery charges, when such
charges are subject to the state sales and use tax, regardless of the place to which delivery is made. In the
event a retailer has no permanent place of business in the State or has more than one place of business,
the place or places at which the retail sales are consummated shall be determined under rules and
regulations to be prescribed and adopted by the State Board of Equalization.
SECTION 10. ADOPTION OF PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW. Except as otherwise
provided in this ordinance and except insofar as they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of
Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, all of the provisions of Part 1 (commencing with Section
6001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code are hereby adopted and made a part of this
ordinance as though fully set forth herein. 1
�r l�
i
Attachment 2
Ordinance No. (2006 Series)
Page 4 of 7
SECTION 11. LIMITATIONS ON ADOPTION OF STATE LAW AND COLLECTION
OF USE TAXES. In adopting the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code:
A. Wherever the State of California is named or referred to as the taxing agency, the
name of this City shall be substituted therefor. However,the substitution shall not be made when:
1. The word "State" is used as a part of the title of the State Controller,
State Treasurer, State Board of Control, State Board of Equalization, State Treasury, or the Constitution
of the State of California;
2. The result of that substitution would require action to be taken by or
against this City or any agency, officer, or employee thereof rather than by or against the State Board of
Equalization, in performing the functions incident to the administration or operation of this Ordinance.
3. In those sections, including, but not necessarily limited to sections
referring to the exterior boundaries of the State of California, where the result of the substitution would
be to:
a. Provide an exemption from this tax with respect to certain sales,
storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property which would not otherwise be exempt
from this tax while such sales, storage, use or other consumption remain subject to tax by the State under
the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or;
b. Impose this tax with respect to certain sales, storage,use or other
consumption of tangible personal property, which would not be subject to tax by the state under the said
provision of that code.
4. In Sections 6701, 6702 (except in the last sentence thereof), 6711, 6715,
6737, 6797 or 6828 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
B. The word "City" shall be substituted for the word "State" in the phrase "retailer
engaged in business in this State" in Section 6203 and in the definition of that phrase in Section 6203.
SECTION 12. PERMIT NOT REQUIRED. If a seller's permit has been issued to a retailer
under Section 6067 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, an additional transactor's permit shall not be
required by this ordinance.
SECTION 13. EXEMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS. The following transaction shall be
exempted and excluded:
A. There shall be excluded from the measure of the transactions tax and the use tax
the amount of any sales tax or use tax imposed by the State of California or by any city, city and county,
or county pursuant to the Bradley-Bums Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law or the amount of any
state-administered transactions or use tax.
B. There are exempted from the computation of the amount of transactions tax the
gross receipts from:
Attachment 2
Ordinance No. (2006 Series)
Page 5 of 7
1. Sales of tangible personal property, other than fuel or petroleum
products, to operators of aircraft to be used or consumed principally outside the county in which the sale
is made and directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property
under the authority of the laws of this State, the United States, or any foreign government.
2. Sales of property to be used outside the City which is shipped to a point
outside the City, pursuant to the contract of sale, by delivery to such point by the retailer or his agent, or
by delivery by the retailer to a carrier for shipment to a consignee at such point. For the purposes of this
paragraph,delivery to a point outside the City shall be satisfied:
a. With respect to vehicles (other than commercial vehicles)
subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the
Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, and
undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840) of the Vehicle
Code by registration to an out-of-City address and by a declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by
the buyer, stating that such address is, in fact, his or her principal place of residence; and
b. With respect to commercial vehicles, by registration to a place
of business out-of-City and declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer,that the vehicle will
be operated from that address.
3. The sale of tangible personal property if the seller is obligated to furnish
the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this
ordinance.
4. A lease of tangible personal property which is a continuing sale of such
property, for any period of time for which the lessor is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed
by the lease prior to the operative date of this ordinance.
5. For the purposes of subparagraphs (3) and (4) of this section, the sale or
lease of tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for
any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the
contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised.
C. There are exempted from the use tax imposed by this ordinance, the storage, use
or other consumption in this City of tangible personal property:
1. The gross receipts from the sale of which have been subject to a
transactions tax under any state-administered transactions and use tax ordinance.
2. Other than fuel or petroleum products purchased by operators of aircraft
and used or consumed by such operators directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common
carriers of persons or property for hire or compensation under a certificate of public convenience and
necessity issued pursuant to the laws of this State, the United States, or any foreign government. This
exemption is in addition to the exemptions provided in Sections 6366 and 6366.1 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code of the State of California.
3. If the purchaser is obligated to purchase the property for a fixed price
pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this ordinance.
Attachment 2
Ordinance No. (2006 Series)
Page 6 of 7
4. If the possession of, or the exercise of any right or power over, the
tangible personal property arises under a lease which is a continuing purchase of such property for any
period of time for which the lessee is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by a lease prior
to the operative date of this ordinance.
5. For the purposes of subparagraphs (3) and (4) of this section, storage,
use, or other consumption, or possession of, or exercise of any right or power over, tangible personal
property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period of time for
which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon
notice, whether or not such right is exercised.
6. Except as provided in subparagraph (7), a retailer engaged in business in
the City shall not be required to collect use tax from the purchaser of tangible personal property, unless
the retailer ships or delivers the property into the City or participates within the City in making the sale
of the property, including,but not limited to, soliciting or receiving the order,either directly or indirectly,
at a place of business of the retailer in the City or through any representative, agent, canvasser, solicitor,
subsidiary,or person in the City under the authority of the retailer.
7. "A retailer engaged in business in the City" shall also include any
retailer of any of the following: vehicles subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with
Section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with Section 21411 of
the Public Utilities Code, or undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5 (commencing with
Section 9840) of the Vehicle Code. That retailer shall be required to collect use tax from any purchaser
who registers or licenses the vehicle, vessel or aircraft at an address in the City.
D. Any person subject to use tax under this ordinance may credit against that tax
any transactions tax or reimbursement for transactions tax paid to a district imposing, or retailer liable for
a transactions tax pursuant to Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code with respect to
the sale to the person of the property the storage, use or other consumption of which is subject to the use
tax.
SECTION 14. AMENDMENTS. All amendments subsequent to the effective date of this
ordinance to Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code relating to sales and use taxes and
which are not inconsistent with Part 1.6 and Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code,
and all amendments to Part 1.6 and Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code; shall
automatically become a part of this ordinance; provided however, that no such amendment shall operate
so as to affect the rate of tax imposed by this ordinance.
SECTION 15. ENJOINING COLLECTION FORBIDDEN. No injunction or writ of
mandate or other legal or equitable process shall issue in any suit, action or proceeding in any court
against the State or the City, or against any officer of the State or the City, to prevent or enjoin the
collection under this ordinance, or Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, of any tax
or any amount of tax required to be collected.
SECTION 16. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this ordinance or the application
thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance and the application
of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
i t
Attachment 2
Ordinance No. (2006 Series)
Page 7 of 7
SECTION 17. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance relates to the levying and collecting of
the City transactions and use taxes and shall take effect immediately.
SECTION 18. CODIFICATION. Upon adoption of this Ordinance by the voters, the City
Clerk, in consultation with the City Attorney, is hereby authorized and directed to codify this Ordinance
in the City's Municipal Code.
INTRODUCED on July 18, 2006 AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of
San Luis Obispo on August 1, 2006 on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Voters of the City San Luis Obispo on November 7, 2006 by
the following vote talley:
AYES:
NOES:
David F. Romero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jo P.Lowell, City Attorney
C;�
Attachment 3
SPEAKERS BUREAU
PRESENTATI-ONS
Estimated
Date Group Presenters Attendance*
7/14/06 Senior Group: Mt Carmel Lutheran Church Ken, Bill,Deb, Shelly,John 15
7/10/06 Police Officers Association Ken, Bill,Deb,John 5
7/7/06 Downtown Association Quarterly Meeting Ken 50
7/5/06 Creekside Mobile Park Ken, Bill,Deb,John 5
6/14/06 Women's Network Shelly,Deb 35
6/12/06 Rotary Ken,Bill,Deb,John 75
6/8/06 Firefighters Association Ken,Bill, John 5
6/7/06 The Villages (Senior Group) Ken, Bill, Deb 40
5/17/06 Ad Hoc Group Ken, Bill,Deb, Shelly,John 20
5/9/06 Rot (Daybreak) Deb,John 35
5/3/06 Residents for Quality Neighborhoods Bill, Ken, Deb 25
4/26/06 Democratic Club: Prof-Business Caucus Bill, Ken 25
4/19/06 Senior Citizens Center Bill, Ken,John 30
3/14/06 Ad Hoc Group Ken, Bill,Deb,Shelly,John 20
2/22/06 Chamber Legislative Council Ken,John 40
2/21/06 Good Morning SLO Deb,John 300
2/15/06 Community Forum Bill, Ken 20
2/9/06 Chumash Village Mobile Home Park Bill, Ken, Deb 25
1/26/06 Property Owners Association Ken, Bill,Paul, Dave 20
1/24/06 Ad Hoc Group Ken, Bill,Deb, Shelly,John 15
1/11/06 Mass Transportation Committee Bill 15
12/13/05 Manse on Marsh(Senior Group) Bill,Deb,Jay 15
12/13/05 Kiwanas Ken,Paul,John 20
12/13/05 Downtown Association Bill, Deb 15
12/8/05 Lions Club Bill,Ken,Deb,John 20
12/5/05 Architectural Review Commission Bill, Ken 10
12/1/05 Property Owners Association Paul,Dave,Ken 20
11/30/05 Planning Commission Bill, Ken 10
11/28/05 Tree Committee Bill 20
11/17/05 Bicycle Committee Bill 10
11/9/05 Promotional Coordinating Committee Bill 10
11/2/05 Parks&Recreation Commission Bill, Ken,Paul 15
11/2/05 Human Relations Commission Bill, Ken 10
10/25/05 Association of Realtors Bill 80
10/25/05 Ad Hoc Group Ken,.Bill 20
10/24/05 Cultural Heritage Committee Bill, Ken 10
10/20/05 Housing Authority Bill, Ken 10
10/19/05 SLO Republican Women's Club Deb 100
10/15/05 Community 2050 Workshop Bill 40
10/14/05 County Mayors' Meeting Bill,Wendy 10
10/13/05 Adobe Lovers Wendy 15
10/12/05 Jack House Committee Bill, Ken, Paul 5
10/4/05 School District Bill,Wendy,Deb 20
9/27/05 Joint Use Committee Bill,Paul 5
8/23/05 Soro timist Club Deb 30
7/5/05 Rotary Ken 30
*Excluding City Staff
As of July 14,2006
Presentations Given or Scheduled: 46
Attendance Estimate: 1,370
�- Attachment 4
AD HOC COMMUNITYGROUP
Lauren Brown Tylor Middlestadt
Howard Carroll Pierre Rademaker
Brett Cross Ann Ream
Reese Davies Agatha Reardon
Carl Dudley Ken Schwartz
David Edwards Sandi Sigurdson
Bert Forbes Brian Stark
John French Biz Steinberg
Dave Garth Kent Taylor
Cydney Holcomb Bill Thoma
Richard Kriet Anthony Whalls
Matt Mackey Dodie Williams
Kathi Main Marie Wilson
Jan Howell Marx
S- �
Attachment 5
COMMUNITY MAILERS
October 2005
1,
W
a
r.
,. maze
January 2006 i� San IS OBISPO f tn( yes
Q Why does San Luis Wdspo treed QHave ?oa
muemw� . taxi °
LL [hx m hvyF mw hili as h o m a n , fly r
a� )em,dutan ba vepd�epvsm�andomtt c Il
Lry.omm r). - Ii:c pandc repay vd whkh 4 �f
arca m rn -gym may,ono �o aux Q 8oww jn
adanu�pu- ca' udng dxx cors to rr rw..
nluan.m
A plait t i
What has Caused sed these budget a----• haep h e
S11B71tailSi3
AVblle dam x<a uwnb vi uwm b hem ! avaa a �'
moa sgmticane u Sia¢bvdbca vk<auata. nrc'O"g
nn4 ha«dx cm th<Cim$__million mr, Cl - Q
me 6cts dculnwimh ona°inaraleawaynr , om' a-e ,.� 4 lands Rawr
cam
43 rmIG°n dollars cacti and n'rc)'yvr.
Q
Q 159sales
CIXiBL'tEasebElgtl -9Anymn Thank you, San Luis Obispo
cmiside4ed? ; '''' Ad Hoc Advisory Group Members, for Your
A max',° d ommaoU vee`' "� Perspectives on How to Protect and
ha,<bba.n ffarad ry
Maintain Critical City Services
m<nry wmias mar.<
tir,,,,�,;m,i„ab ab Manx In n:a Here's what some members had to say...
n>tae m San Wia UFapo v du lox<x
allowabk In me sure.A v.cont vauau - Ubirpn, l support a local dbtq measure to enable "41e need to heprepared N rorea ue quality
would be equal ry a ku tban mar paid be a vin r "thenmied lang�erne malutenana o/San Luis of life so mu17•Of u5 uork s hard to m7dnta .”
Sa.,r du Suw'r mldenn. = Old"'s uwndrjul embrnment." -Brian Stark
-Bert Forbes ":illy famoq•Matsu lot front ottr Cay the
May 2006 Basic inframtumre.LeCettralmthe suarss fastrstrepomwtomeJrompolice audprr.parks
of!oral bustne.<s and the:comfort of those who and grcetbetts that help aetme"the SLO ijje
thr and visit heree 716b,lnmwsr is by jar the recreation jmyna ns jar kids and.,rnlors.
most reasonable way to share these needed LuckilyJar miefamilyimd so rmmy SLO
cash evenly mwnn those that baieflt hreludbrg (amities,our Cby has been able to meet dune
)dsttors,residents,and lulatim." detande-sepn:R7thoutadeyuaterrrcnar
-Bill Thoma that help Sun Lou kap up wgh remy cusrs,
-I ue trot;,are about maintaining the f see our SID Ilk sllpphml auwy"
qualify of We that ur e7yoy in Soni Lutc -Sandi sigurdson
Obispo,It Is ouretwe duty m do our part "1 support flit City's pian jar a land revenue
to ensure rile Ctt}es ttanome bualth. What manure We need to re,wre pmterL and
-Pleat Ra rmaker sustain our Cay to ensure our quality of lhla
-n s bur r is trlttml for the Car of tion Luis -Agatha Reardon
OBlsgm 0 meet the turce<ary serIlm rtyulted
by the resuktas of thr Cdy."
June 2006 -Bir Steimberg S, -��—
i ]
Attachment 6
COMMUNITYRESPONSE
July 1, 2006
As of July 1, 2006, we have received over 1,200 responses to our mailer (916) and community feedback
surveys (308). Of these, only seventeen said it was not important to protect and maintain vital public
safety and City services.
TOP THREE CONCERNS
As reflected below, the results are very similar between the two feedback methods. The top three
concerns for both are:
■ Repairing City streets (by a wide margin)
■ Reducing traffic congestion
■ Upgrading storm drains
RESULTS SUMMARY
The following summarizes the top eight priorities as of July 1, 2006 in rank order ("1" is the highest
priority):
Mailer Feedback
(916) Service Form (308)
1 Fixing potholes and repairing and maintaining city streets 1
2 Reducing traffic congestion 3
3 Upgrading our 100 year old storm drains 2
4 Protecting open space 4
5 Hiring, training and retaining additional firefighters and paramedics 6
6 Park maintenance 7
7 Protecting senior programs and services 5
8 Hiring more police officers 8
OTHER CONCERNS
Of the 1,224 replies as of July 1, 2006, 22% (275) identified concerns in addition to those above. Those
that generated five comments or more include:
Concern Number
Improved bikeways and public transportation 33
Affordable housing 23
Homeless services 10
Youth programs 10
Laguna Lake dredging 10
Public art 7
Adobe protection 5
d'W
votS"sLO�°°q council memoRanbum
e
July 14, 2006 RED FILE
TO: City Council MEETING AGEND�
A 1 0� ITEM #--3
FROM: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer
Bill Statler, Director of Finance& Information Technology
SUBJECT: PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY RESULTS
Attached for your information is a report from FMMA presenting the results of the public
opinion survey conducted by them on our behalf in late June 2006, which supplements the
summary provided in the Council agenda report regarding placement of a revenue measure on
the November 2006.
In a nutshell, the results show that support has strengthened since the survey conduced by
FMMA in March 2005, with 60% of the respondents indicating support for a general-purpose,
�/2-cent sales tax measure.
Please call Bill Statler at extension 125 if you have any questions concerning the results of the
public opinion survey.
COUNCIL XCDD DIR
CAO 2S FIN DIR
ACAO 9 FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY1HR
PW DIR .
CLERK/ORtO POLICE CHF
DEPT HEADS REC DIR
Pi��_ UTIL DIR
DIR
X"ID
X
C-14 SIC_
=RECEIVED
IFairbank,
Maslin,
Maullin &
Associates
Opinion Research
Public Policy Analysis
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of San Luis Obispo
FROM: Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates
DATE: July 11, 2006
SUBJECT: Survey Results
Faiibank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates (FMM&A) conducted a survey by telephone of 400 likely
November 2006 voters in the City of San Luis Obispo.' The survey followed up a similar survey of San
Luis Obispo voters conducted in March 2005.
Key Findinys
■ When initially asked, before any other information of questions from the survey, sixty percent of
voters said they would vote in favor of an initiative ballot measure that would increase the sales
tax in the City of San Luis Obispo by one half cent to provide additional funding for essential
public services. As the graph below shows, a third of all voters are definite in their support of
the sales tax measure while another 28 percent said they would "probably" support it or lean in
the direction of support.
Favor/Oppose 1/`2 Cent Sales Tax Increase Measure
Definitely yes 32% TOTAL YES
23% 60%
Undecided, lean yes 5%
Undecided, lean no 3% TOTAL NO
10%
Definitely no 19%
NMVDK/NA 8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
The survey was conducted between June 27 and July 1,2006. The margin of error for the sample as a whole is+/-4.9
percent.
f
San Luis Obispo Voter Opinion Su,___y,June-July 2006 page 2
In comparison, these results show that support for a local finance measure has increased in the
ensuing year while public discussion of a possible city financial ballot measure has been
underway.2 In the March 2005 survey, 52 percent said they would vote for a local finance
measure to provide additional funds to maintain and protect the level of essential services
currently being provided to local residents.
• Support for the half cent sales tax measure increased as survey respondents learned more about it
from subsequent survey questions. Following a question in which respondents rated the
importance of spending additional funds on various services and projects, respondents were
again queried about support for the initiative ballot measure. Overall support increased two
percent to 62 percent, but the percentage of definite supporters rose five percent, from 32 to 37
percent. When asked again, after hearing statements that possible proponents and opponents
could make for and against the measure, support increased to 64 percent overall with 41 percent
saying they would definitely vote for the sales tax measure.
® Support for the sales tax measure is rooted in the basic belief among voters that"San Luis
Obispo needs additional funds to provide the level of city services that residents need and want."
Sixty-three percent of voters in the recent survey hold that view, and 61 percent were in
agreement in the Spring of 2005.
■ The March 2005 survey established that voters preferred a city financial measure with a"sunset"
provision ending tax after a specific term. The recent survey tested the ballot initiative summary
including a reference to a ten-year term for the sales tax increase. Testing to see if support
would increase in the term were six years showed no significant benefit for the popularity of the
sales tax increase measure. However, if the term of the tax increase were 15 or 20 years, support
for the measure would diminish in a consequential way.
■ Reviewing a list of possible uses of the funds generated by the sales tax increase measure, voters
attached the highest importance to "restoring funds for the repaving and repairing city streets."3
Other high scoring items included"relieving traffic congestion with better traffic management
technology and engineering;" "building and maintaining storm drains and flood protection
improvements" and"improving public safety by restoring funds to pay for the City fire marshal,
firefighter/paramedic training and an additional traffic safety officer" in the Police Department.
• Voters continue to give San Luis Obispo city government very high marks for the job it does in
providing services to city residents. In this year's survey,. 74 percent said city government's job
rating is excellent or good, a six percent increase over last' year's assessment. Further, 71
percent of voters say that things generally are going in the "right direction" in San Luis Obispo.
■ Additionally, the percentage of voters giving city government an excellent or good rating on the
management of city funds has risen from 49 percent in 2005 to 53 percent in this year's survey.
2 Fifty-eight percent of all respondents in this most recent survey say that they have seen or heardsomething about a possible
ballot measure for the November ballot to raise additional funds for city services.
3 This item obtained a score of 5.2 on a scale of one to seven with one being"not important"and seven being"extremely
important."
2425 Colorado Ave., Ste. 180 1999 Harrison Street, Ste. 1290
Santa;Monica, CA 9 0 4 0 4 Oakland, CA 9 4 6 1 2
Phone: (.310)828-1183 Phone: (510)451-9521
Far: (310)453-6562 Fax: (510)451-0354
Page 1 of 1
- a
SLO Citycouncil - sales tax ballot measure
7RECEIVED
From: The Forbes<bforbes@charter.net>
To: <slocitycouncil@slodty.org> 06Date: 7/16/2006 5:09 PM.Subject: sales tax ballot measure SERK
CC: <khampian@slocity.org>
Dear Dave, Allen,John, Christine and Paul,
As a member of the ad-hoc committee to study the possibility of
and uses for a ballot measure to increase the city's sales tax by
one-half percent, I found that the wonderful life style in our city
that we all like so much is likely to erode unless we put our wallets
where our life-style is. I support putting a proposition for this
sales tax increase on the.November ballot.
Thanks,
Bert Forbes
140 Twin Ridge Dr.
SLO, CA
IF COUNCIL )_9 CDD DIP
ICAO YFIN DIR RED FILE
MACAO Ei FIRE CHIEF
0 ATTORNEY PW DIR MEETING AGENDA
®'CLERK/ORIG ,POLICE CHF
EI DEPT HEADS iiREC DIR DATE_ PTEM #�
❑W' Pim i�o UTIL DIR
C� Y IR DIR
file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}OOOOl.HTM 7/17/2006
Jul 14 06 04: 43p Santa Lucia Chapter 805_-543-8727 p. 1
� 1
RECEIVED
SIERRA JUL 17 2006 Santa Lucia Chapter
CLU B SLO CITY CLERK, P.a- Box 15755
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
FOUNDED 1892 (805) 543-8717
www.santalucia.sierraclub.org
-submitted via FAX 781-7109:for distribution to Councilmembcrs for City Council meeting.7/18/06
July 14. 2006
Dear Mayor Romero and Councilmembers,
We are writing in support of the response of the citizens of San Luis Obispo to your voter survey
for the proposed revenue ballot measure: Based on the results of the survey, you should be
reasonably confident of the success of a proposed sales tax increase that provides funding to the
areas of greatest concern to the respondents.
While the staff report summarizes the telephone poll results in"Community Priorities"(Staff
Report, p. 7),the summaries of the almost 1,000 written responses to the City's mailed survey
and the 308 feedback forms were not.included there. In both, while rankings of other issues
varied slightly between responses to the mailer and the feedback form, the#4-ranked priority was
"Protecting open space."
It is therefore a matter of concern that the City mailer entitled'-We Hear You!: Report Back to
Residents"in purporting to summarize the results of these surveys listed"tic community`s top
five concerns"as repairing streets, reducing traffic congestion; upgrading storm drains, improving
police and fire services, and protecting scrtior serviccs."
We must question the omission of the 44-ranked priority from this summary. The telephone
survey also ranked open space protection in respondents' top five priorities.
The mailer responses, the three community feedback forms and the responses from the telephone
poll all indicate a clear mandate for a revenue measure that provides adequate funding for
implementation of the policies you recently codified in the new Conservation and Open Space
Element and restores City funding for an open space acquisition program.
The community priority for open space protection also provides clear direction for the City's
pending Land Use Element update, serving as a mandate to preserve and strengthen, not weaken
or delete, existing open space protections.
We trust you will note the expressed will of the voters as you deliberate on this matter and draft a
ballot measure that reflects those priorities. We also trust that these community priorities will be
reflected in the City's budget and goal setting process.
Sincerely,
�Girrlc✓`'�
\Karen Merriam c�
Chapter Chair V] COUNCIL CDD DIR
® CAO ir, FIN DIR RED FILE
4 ACAO � FIRE CHIEF
El ATTORNEY t? PW DIR ME ING AGENDA
in CLERK/OR G POLICE CHF
13 DEPT HEADS EIEC DIR DATElff-6—& ITEM #d
UTIL DIR
Y Gao
e ��
JUL-17-2006 11:23 From:CYDNEY HOLCOMB 805 594 0365 To:8057817109 P.1/1
i
�i
J� Ar
-
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
P.O. Box 12604.San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Fi E C E IV ED
RED FILE JUL 17 2000
MEETING-AGENDA SLO CITY CLERK
DA Z ITEM #mss
DATE: July 17, 2006
TO: San Luis Obispo City Council COUNCIL CDD DIR
VIA: Fax to: 781-7109 CAO `f FIN DIR
42
ACAO �`j FIRE.CHIEF
RE: MEETING DATE: 7-18-06, ITEM: Bus 5 ATTORNEY g PW DIR
CLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF
SUBJECT: REVENUE BALLOT MEASURE IN NOVEMBER 2006 DEPT
HEADS REC DO
14
F UTIL DIR
HR DIA
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, f (moo
r cC
RQN supports the CAO recommendation to place the proposed revenue ballot measure on
the November 2006 ballot.
Staff has clearly articulated the financial constraints and challenges that the City has been
facing and will continue to face into the future. It is very apparent that a new revenue
source will be necessary in order for the City to maintain and perhaps enhance services In a
manner that the existing residents of this community desire and have become accustomed
to.
The proposed sales tax measure would provide a reliable source of revenue for the City
through an equitable means of taxation. Incorporating a sunset clause as well as citizen
oversight and auditing provisions into the measure ensures future accountability. Placing
this measure on the ballot allows the citizens to participate in the legislative process.
We therefore strongly urge you to: (a) adopt a resolution placing this measure on the
ballot; and, (b) approve an ordinance that will implement the measure if it is approved by
the voters.
Respectfully submi ,- Q
Cy ney Holcomb 1
Chairperson, RQN
SEC=1\IrD
ROG RECEIVED
JUL 17 2006 SLO CITY COUNCIL
ANG
SLO CITY CLERK
NO U P
G RED FILE
ME ING AGENDA
DATEITEM #-2L!C ]uly 13, 20
Mayor Dave Romero and Members of the City Council
City of San Luis Obispo COUNCIL 0 CDD DIR
900 Palm CAO VIN DIR
San Luis Obispo, California 93401 ACAO .?-FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY �i PW DIR
K
LERK/ORIG t POLICE CHF
Re: Sales 'Tax Ballot Measure. �j DEPT HEADS REC DIR
in -PIA UTIL DIR
!' /�/Ba.�� a HR DIR
Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members
> eem
I have been a member of the SLO Chamber of Commerce Issues Evaluation Committee for
many years and 1 am currently supporting the City's attempt to obtain sufficient revenue to
pay for normal City services. Consequently, I am sending this letter to signify my support
for increasing sales tax income in an amount that will generate that amount of revenue.
In addition to that comment, I personally would like to see the City explore the possibility
of contracting sewer, water, police, and fire protection services with the County in the
event the Dalidio Ranch Initiative passes. It would be only on the basis that the County
agrees to pay the City from sales taxes the estimated amount it would take to cover those
services.
Respectfully submitted,
Ned Rogow , AICP 1
Former County Planni Director
cc: Patricia Wilmore
Vice President for Government Affairs
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
412 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 546-9300 (Fax 542-9949)
Page 1 of 1
SLO Citycouncil -1/2 cent sales tax proposal -support with comments''
From: Dale Sutliff<dsutliff@calpoly.edu> RECEIVED
To: <slocitycoundl@slocity.org>
Date: 7/17/2006 5:56 PM JUL 18 2006
Subject: 1/2 cent sales tax proposal -support with comments
$L0-G1�Y-C—LE�RK--
July 17, 2006
Honorable Mayor and City Council:
A note to let you know that we support the proposed 1/2-cent sales tax
measure you'll decide on at your meeting on July 18. RED FILE
Since we may not be able to attend the meeting we want to point out a
couple of potential concerns for your consideration when MEETING AGENDA
addressing the 1/2-cent tax increase and its distribution: DAT (e ITEM # 13S
1. Adverse growth incentive/potential: Since a major chunk of tax
revenue comes from big sources, e.g. auto dealers, Cog retailers, it could be possible that these may be further P C. � L
encouraged because they help fill the financial coffers- IGCOUNCIL
and could do even more-so with higher sales taxes. The tax is needed Z CAO TCDD DIR
but must not necessarily be an opening-of-the-door to bigger tax ACRO EFIN DIR-1 FIRE CHIEF
generator businesses. Iff ATTORNEY -'PW DIR
i$CLERK/ORIG
❑ DEPT HEAD [;?
S POLICE CHF
2. Fair allocation: Although the Council must make tough budget ,� IR REC DIR
distribution decisions, you may want to consider a cap/ceiling, or � Z LITIL DIR
conversely, a minimum amount allocation, for the various categories of z'HR DIR
need from increased sale tax revenues for the purpose of"equity"
across a score of needs. This would assure that at least some tax t CI �F-
monies are provided to each of the various categories of need. The
Council could hold an "open/general" category for additional, or
supplemental, allocations to critical need areas at times without
jeopardizing the "base allocation" of all. This model would create a
sense of parity in the process, and would not prevent the Council from
addressing critical shop:or long term needs.
Sincerely,
Dale and Sharon Sutliff
1227 Sydney Street
San Luis Obispo
file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW IOOOO1.HTM 7/18/2006
' Page 1 of 2
RECEIV,
Ken Hampian - Ballot Measure & Open Space JUL 18 2006
Ct,T rC L ER
From: Ken Hampian
To: santa.lucia.chapter@sierraclub.org COOUNCIL TCDD DIR
Date: 7/17/06 4:32PM e ACAo � FIN DIR
FIRE CHIEF
Subject: Ballot Measure & Open Space ATTORNEY PW DIR
CC: Havlik, Neil; SLOCouncil; Stan ck Shell 91 CLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF
wy Y ❑ DEPT HEADS W REC_D1B
-----RED-Fl E— — —
MEEI'ING AGENDA �„c DTIL DIR
Hn ®iItI
Dear Ms. Merriam: DATF�611 ITEM #mss :• qco
Karen, I first want to thank you for your support for the recommendation that the Council
place a revenue ballot measure before.San Luis Obispo voters in November 2006. Having the
Sierra Club's endorsement of this recommendation is important and appreciated.
I am also writing to address your concern that open space was not mentioned in a recent
mailer. Your point is well taken - it should have been mentioned. However, please be
assured that open space has been very much "on the ballot measure radar screen" from the
very beginning of our information effort, and the failure to mention it in the mailer is not
reflective of a change in our City's interest in the strength of this program.
Here are a few things that illustrate how often open space has been mentioned during the
information phase of the ballot measure program:
-Open space was included in the list of concerns on our the "Fact Sheet" regarding a possible
revenue ballot measure - and we have literally distribted thousands of these over the last
year, including at every public presenation (attached- see 5th bullet in box).
- Open space was listed in an earlier "We Hear You" mailer (attached - but print out, since it's
upside down for folding purposes!)
-The lack of funding for open space was listed in about a half-dozen examples I used in a
2005 Tribune Viewpoint article I authored concerning our financial concerns (attached).
-Open space was explicitly called out as a concern and priority in my official Budget Message
to the City Council for the 2006-07 Financial Plan, and again in my message to adopt the Mid-
Year Budget this last February (these message are available on line)
-Open space protection was explicitly called out as a concern and priority in the Revenue
Ballot Measure Powerpoint presentation that we have made to over 46 organizations, and
which has run repeatly on Channel 20.
Most important of all: Open space is explicitly listed among the few examples of "essential
services" drafted into the proposed ballot measure language itself (the language next to the
boxes the voter will punch) You can review this language in the agenda report, which is on
our website.
file:HC:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 7/17/2006
• _ Page 2 of 2
I hope this information is helpful in assuring you that while we can't earmark a "general
purpose" measure, open space has been well represented as an "essential service" that lacks
necessary funding during our many months of community information on this topic.
One last note: I had the privilege of being the first supervisor of the City's Natural Resources
Program, which under the leadership of Neil Havlik, has brought in over $7 million in grant
funding since its inception in 1996 to protect thousands of acres in open space. The
availability of the General Fund to match these grants has been a big part of that success - a
success that has been a source of pride,to everyone involved, both in City government and
within the community. Long way of saying: open space is a signficant part of the fabric of
SLO City government and, we hope, will remain a priority for many years to come. Your
support is important to achieving that goal, and once again, I thank you!
Ken Hampian, CAO
abouvblank 7/17/2006
Please support the sales tax measure tonight Page 1 of 1
SLO Citycouncil- Please suppol a Lhe sales tax measure tonight
From: "Amy K. Kardel°<amy.kardel@cnsslo.com>
To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org> RECEIVED
Date: 7/18/2006 4:07 PM
Subject: Please support the sales tax measure tonight JUL 1
Dear Council Members,
I urge you to support the sales tax measure tonight.Our city's budget needs revenue-this source is low impact,fairly
distributed,sustainable and reasonable.We want our city to keep pace with our vision-and with limited options for meeting
our city's revenue needs, I see this as the most sensible. C
Thak you, COUNCIL Zo CDD DIR
Amy Kardel CAO T FIN DIF
Amy ardeBACAO R'FIRE CHIEF
'ATTORNEY [�?PW DIR
11 CLERK/ORIG li'POLICE CHF
-;2DEP HEADS C REC DIR
Amy Kardel g- LEUTIL DIR
CFO tri HR DIR
Computer Network Services
SAVe time: try SAVe, our spam and virus filtering service.
Call for a free demo and trial.
amy@cnsslo.com RED FILE
805.543.1930 x12 phone
805.543.5760 fax MEETING AGENDA
DATE 7 OLP ITEM # 9,'5—
This message has been scanned by F-Secure Anti-Virus for Microsoft Exchange.
For more information,connect to http://www.f-secure.com/
file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 7/18/2006
Page 1 of 2
Ken Hampian - Re: Ballot Measure & Open Space RECEIVED
From: Karen Merriam<kmertiam@digitalputty.com> SLO CITY CLERK
To: <khampian@slocity.org>
Date: 7/18/06 2:34PM
Subject: Re: Ballot Measure & Open Space
CC: Carla Saunders<slofolks@sbcglobal.net>, Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club
<sierra8 @ charter.net>
Dear Ken:
I just became aware of your e-mail, sent to our Chapter office yesterday, and would like this reply to be
reflected in your understanding as you approach the City Council meeting today.
I regret that some of the wording of our letter of July 14th to Mayor Romero and Councilmembers may
have led to a misinterpretation of our Chapter's position vis a vis the proposed sales tax increase. The
Santa Lucia Chapter of Sierra Club has not taken a formal position re: the sales tax increase itself, and
cannot do so without a vote of its Executive Committee, a vote which has not been solicited or taken.
Our letter to the Mayor and Councilmembers was meant to refer only to our long-held support for the
City to prioritize both in word and deed (eg. funding) the preservation,protection, and acquisition of
open space. We continue to urge the City Council to honor its commitment to respond to the
community's wish to make open space protection a top priority.
With best wishes,
Karen Merriam, Chair
Santa Lucia Chapter ---
L� ILM # !1 - -
a -
COUNCIL �b CDD DIR
CAO F FIN DIR
C?ACAO ji?FIRE CHIEF
In ATTORNEY Fj PW DIR
CLERKORIG PfPOLICECHF
DEPT e'REC DIR
w � ;�,UTIL DIR
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
1204 Nipomo Street Sandra.Sarrouf,Chair
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Jan Marx, Vice Chair
Phone: (805)544-1777 Allyson Nakasone,Secretary
Fax:(805)544-1871 Robert Bronte
www.ecoslo.org Pam Heatherington
ENvmONMENTAL CENTER Bob Lavelle
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY Scott Secrest
Protecting and enhancing the Central Coast since 1971 Cal Wilvert
RED FILE
RECEIVED
July 18, 2006 MEETING AGENDA JUL 18 1006
DATE ITEM # I3S SLO CITY CLERK
San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm Street X-O
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 COUCOUNCIL *:)CDD RIR
FIN DIP
R ACAO RJ'FIRE CHIEF
RE: Revenue measure ATTORNEY if PW DIR
Q CLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF
(J DEPT HEADS REC DIR
® UTIL DIR
Dear Mayor Romero and Council Members: 1� �.3c�. HR DIR
a
The Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo County (ECOSLO) believes that the City of
San Luis Obispo's open space deserves the highest level of protection as per the response of
residents in the "community priorities" survey. In any revenue enhancement measure the City
may draft, and in the budget process,ECOSLO supports allocation of funding for
environmental protection,education and open space preservation. We emphasize that the
city residents' mandate to you to"protect open space" is not restricted to the acquisition
of more open space, but includes the protection and preservation of the open space areas
already acquired or designated by the City, as described in the new Conservation and
Open Space Element.
The City is better served by raising needed revenue via such measures rather than a continued
reliance on commercial developers to increase revenues.
Sincerely,
Morgan Rafferty
Executive Director
*printed on 100%recycled,post-consumer paper
I {
4 ' RECEIVED
14A JUL 13 2006
San Luis Obispo 13 July 2006 SLO CITY CLERK
Downtown
Association Mayor Dave Romero and City Council members
990 Palm Street
PO. Box 1402 San Luis Obispo CA 93401
San Luis Obispo
California 93406 Dear Mayor Romero and Council:
Phone:805-541-0286
FAX:8057812647 The SLO Downtown Association Board of Directors, at its July 11, 2006 meeting,
voted unanimously to support placing the sales tax increase item on the November
www.downtownsio.com ballot for the voters to decide the issue. It is hoped the Council will allow this
matter to be determined by the general public who will be affected by this
measure.
Because the Downtown Association serves as an advisory body to the City, it is
felt the Council would invite this viewpoint and also understand that the
Downtown, as beneficiary of services provided by the City, also stands to be
affected by the ultimate decision.
Thank you for your consideration of the item overall and your support of
Downtown.
Sincerely,
I� r✓'-
RED FILE
Deborah Cash, CMSM MEETING AGENDA
Administrator
DA f�� a& ITEM # 35
cc: Ken Hampian, CAO
Board of Directors
o
'W COUNCIL CDD DIR
42 CAO FIN DIR
aACAO FIRE CHIEF
®'ATTORNEY PW,DIR
RrCLERK/ORIC POLICE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS R REC DIR
PiB 2 UTIL DIR
?�iL�aCa H8 DNA
Y C/�
tiP C LE2-�
Elaina Cano- Re: Sales Tax Ballot Measur,;--YES
From: Jan Marx<janmarx@fix.net> RECEIVED
To: Jan Marx<janmarx@fix.net>
Date: 7/12/06 9:33AM JUL 12 2006
Subject: Re: Sales Tax Ballot Measure--YES SLO CITY CLERK
Jan Marx 265 Albert Drive San Luis Obispo CA 93405
Jan Marx wrote:
> Dear Mayor and City Council,
> I have enjoyted serving on the city's Taskforce to consider a sales
>tax measure for the November Ballot. I am writing to voice my opinion
> in favor of placing the proposed measure for a modest increase in
>sales tax. Although the city cannot state the actual uses to which the
> increased revenue would be put, due to the danger of triggering a
> higher percentage of yes votes needed to pass the measure, it is
> important for the council to make it clear that the highest priorities
> (stated in the agenda reprot)would receive funding. Also,the
> increase would simply bring us to a par with most other cities in the
>state. Most important to residents would be the paving program,
>police and fire protection and the open space program, according to
>most people I know. A moderate sales tax increase makes a lot more
>sense than courting developers to bring in more commercial
>development. We need to build more moderate income housing, and a
>sales tax increase would help allow us to accomplish that goal.
>Thank you for considering my perspective.
CC: Dave Romero <dromero@slocity.org>, <pbrown@slocity.org>,John Ewan
<jewan@slocity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org>, "kh >>Ken Hampian"
<khampian @ slocity.org>
COUNCIL o CDD DIR
9FCAO rFIN DIR
ACAO AFIRE CHIEF RED FILE
ATTORNEY PDIR
CLERK/ORIG �POO MEETING AGENDALICE CHF /'//-,
DE /HEADS 5?REC DIR WEE"ITEM # f3.S
i90UTIL DIR
'gHR 91R
v Cf,Fe.c
L��oe
RECEIVED
�o
1856 mos.
NP JUL 12 2006
SLO CITY CLERK
MEMORANDUM
From the Office of the City Attorney
July 12, 2006
To: Mayor and City Council
Via: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer
From: Jonathan P. Lowell, City Attorney 41't"
Subject: Business Item 5, City Council Meeting of July 18, 2006, Revenue Ballot Measure
in November 2006
A minor revision to the draft resolution is being proposed as a part of the CAO's
recommendation. Section 2 of the draft resolution at page 5-14 of your agenda packet is
modified to read as follows:
SECTION 2, The complete text of the pFepesition proposed ordinance to be submitted to
the voters is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The ordinance to be included in the voter
information portion of the sarnple ballot (and the ballot, if apnlicable).shal_l reflect_the
City Council's final action adopting the ordinance.
This revision makes clear that the City Council's vote will be reflected in the materials submitted
to the voters in the November 2006 election. A substitute page 5-14 is attached.
Attachment
�7 COUNCIL LOCDD DIS
AGI CAO 54, FIN DIP I RED FILE
M ACAO FIRE CHIEF
®ATTORNEY PW DIR MEETING AGENDA
-I CLERIQORIO POLICE CHF I DATE / / Qe ITEM #35—
❑ DEPT HEADS REC DIP
/!3
UTIL DIR
�( 10 HR [)IP.
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. (2006 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLACING SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS A QUESTION RELATING TO A GENERAL
PURPOSE SALES TAX MEASURE AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE
HELD ON TUESDAY NOVEMBER 7, 2006
WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, has been
called for the purpose of the election of officers by Resolution No. 9805 (2006 Series), adopted
on June 20, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Elections Code and applicable local law provide the Council with the
authority to submit a ballot measure to the electorate..
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to its right and authority, the Council places for submission to the
voters at the General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, the following question:
San Luis Obispo Essential Services Measure: To protect and
maintain essential services—such as neighborhood street paving and
pothole repair; traffic congestion relief; public safety, including restoring Yes
eliminated traffic patrol, Fire Marshal and fire/paramedic training
positions; flood protection; senior citizen services/facilities;
neighborhood code enforcement open space preservation and other vital
general purpose services—shall the sales tax be increased by one-half No
cent for ten years only, with citizen oversight and independent annual
financial audits?
SECTION 2. The complete text of the proposed ordinance to be submitted to the voters
is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The ordinance to be included in the voter information portion of
the sample ballot (and the ballot, if applicable) shall reflect the City Council's final action
adopting the ordinance.
SECTION 3. The Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to the
City Attorney, who shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure showing the effect of the
measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. The impartial analysis shall be filed
by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments.
SECTION 4. In all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held
and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.
SECTION 5. Notice of the time and place of holding the election is hereby given and
the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the
election,in time, form and manner as required by law.
57 - 14
iLe:v t
71 `--E-
iLEJt 3ED)
EF,U_,_3DPE1VED 11 [ODti
CITY CLERK RED FILE
'
MEFTING AGENDA
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce DAT414& ITEM # S
1039 Chorro Street•San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278
(805) 781-2777• FAX (805) 543-1255 •TDD (805) 541-8416
July 11, 2006 David E. Garth, President/CEO
Mayor Dave Romero and Members of the City Council
City of San Luis Obispo ZCOUN IL --e CDD DIR
990 Palm St. O'CAO Z FIN DIR
A!rACAO ErFIRE CHIEF
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ZATTORNEY E 'PW DIR
fel'CLERK/ORIG rrrPOLICECHF,
13D SCJ�T EAD REC DIR
Re: City Sales Tax Increase Ballot Measure �- 21UTIL DIR
R DIR
Dear Mayor Romero and Council Members: ^
The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce urges you to place on the November, 2006
ballot a sales tax increase measure for the City of San Luis Obispo. We believe that such
an initiative, increasing the sales tax rate in the city from 7.25% to 7.75%, is reasonable
and appropriate.
Our organization strongly values the quality of life in this community and we clearly
understand that our economic vitality relies on this quality of life. It is critical that the
city have adequate funds to maintain the level of services that make our community a
desirable place in which to live and work. We understand that state "takeaways' have,
in recent years, left our own local government with an ongoing challenge in meeting the
needs of its citizens. Tourism, one of our city's major economic engines, is also affected
when such basic services as traffic mitigation, street maintenance and police and fire
protection are reduced because of the need to cut services in order to balance the city's
budget.
A half percent increase in the sales tax rate is a sound fiscal choice for the city as a
means to increase funding for needed services and for reaching community goals.
Currently, our rate of 7.25% is lower than most parts of the state and the increase to
7.75% simply brings us level with neighboring counties but still lower than some other
parts of the state. According to discussions that we have had with our members and
visitors to the city, this increase will not be a detriment to local business or to tourists.
One advantage of taking this route to increase revenue is that about half of our local
sales tax is paid by non-residents.
email: slochamber@slochamber.org 9 websites: www.slochamber.org www.visitsio.com
� _j
c�
We recommend that the provision of a sunset clause requiring, within ten years, voter
approval to continue the increase be included in the measure. We also favor strong
fiscal accountability provisions including an annual citizen oversight meeting and
reports to community groups as requested. We have every confidence, based on the
city's annual budget reports, that the fiscal responsibility shown by the city staff and
elected officials will continue as regards the increased revenues.
The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors has pledged the
Chamber's involvement in a campaign to pass a half cent sales tax increase measure. We
are committed to advocating for support of the initiative among our members and the
general public. Should you decide to put this on the November ballot, we will also
promote participation in a committee of citizens to support and pass the measure.
We respectfully submit that a unanimous Council vote to place this initiative on the
ballot is an important step in moving toward a positive and successful campaign. The
united voice of our mayor and council will send a strong message to our citizens that all
segments of the community can get behind this proposal as it will provide benefit to all
without placing undue burden on any one constituency.
Thank you for considering our request in this matter.
Sincerely,
ary V rdin
Chairperson of the Board
cc: Ken Hampian, CAO, City of San Luis Obispo
Bill Statler, Director of Finance and Information Technology