HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/17/2008, PRESENTATION - PRESENTATION OF THE COUNTYWIDE VECTOR PROGRAM BENEFIT ASSESSMENT council Mw,Du 611-2008
j acEnoa Repom 5Z11,0 ,o,1
CITY OF SAN LUI S OBI SPO
FROM: Shelly Stanwyck, Assistant City Administrative Officer
Prepared By: Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager
SUBJECT: PRESENTATION OF THE COUNTYWIDE VECTOR PROGRAM
BENEFIT ASSESSMENT
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Receive a report on the Countywide Vector Program Benefit Assessment and appoint Natural
Resources Manager,Neil Havlik to represent the City on a countywide committee.
DISCUSSION
Background
Since 2004, the City has had a policy advocating for a countywide vector control district for
additional mosquito abatement and pest control. Most recently, on November 19, 2007
(Attachment 1), and on behalf of the Council, Mayor Romero provided a letter to the Board of
Supervisors indicating the City's continued support for such a district.
County Response to Grand Jury Report
The 2006-07 Grand Jury issued a Report recommending that the Board of Supervisors consider
conducting an information campaign informing residents of the need for and benefits of a
mosquito abatement and pest control special assessment district. As a result the County
conducted a Vector Control Program benefit assessment. Voters were surveyed to determine the
likelihood of success for the passage of a special assessment to provide funding for a vector
control program. Over fifty percent of those surveyed supported such an assessment. Those
surveyed also established top priorities for services ranging from testing and responding to
disease outbreaks associated with rodents, ticks, or fleas to reducing mosquito populations.
Health Agency Presentation
In preparation of a Countywide ballot measure to create this benefit assessment the County
Health Agency is providing a summary presentation to local agencies. Curt Bateson, Director of
Environmental Health for the County will make a presentation to the Council summarizing the
Agency's survey results and describing the anticipated steps necessary to successfully accomplish
the formation of such an assessment district. Following this presentation, a community
Citywide Tourism Business Improvement District Page 2
committee will be formed. The County has requested representation from the City and staff
recommends that Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager serve as the representative on this
technically focused committee.
ATTACHMENTS
1. November 19, 2007 Letter from the Mayor
2. April 1, 2008 County Board of Supervisors Report
00so
ATTACHMENT 1
Clt O SAn PIIS OBIS y p0
OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
990 Palm Street ■ San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-3249 ■ 8 051781-711 9
November 19, 2007
Chairperson Jerry Lenthall
Supervisor K. H. Achadjian
Supervisor Bruce Gibson
Supervisor Harry Ovitt
Supervisor James Patterson
County Board of Supervisors
County Government Center
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
Dear Chairperson Lenthall and Members of the Board of Supervisors:
It is my understanding that at its meeting of November 27. 2007, the Board of Supervisors is slated to
discuss the following Grand Jury recommendation:
The Board of Supervisors should consider conducting an inforinational cainvaign infornting
residents of the need for and benefits of additional mosquito abatement and hest control,followed
by a voter suuvev to deternu.ne the likelihood that a special assessment would be passed by 2/3 of
the voters.
The City of San Luis Obispo has long advocated the formation of a vector control district for additional
mosquito abatement and pest control and continues to support its formation as of this time. I am
enclosing for your information a letter dated September 1, 2004, and Resolution No. 9602 (2004 Series),
which the City previously had sent to the Board requesting the formation of such a district. I plan to
appear and testify at the November 27`h hearing.
Sincerely yours,
David Romero
Mayor
Enclosure
G� LY off. (\
ATTACHMENT 1 .
444 o cityo san tuts oBispo
OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
(/Is/ S 0 990 Palm Street ■ San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 a 805/781-7119
September 1..2004
Chairperson Harm Ovitt
Supervisor Shirley ; ianchi
Supervisor Peg Pinard
Supervisor K. H. Achadjian
Supervisor Alike Ryan
County Board of Supervisors
County Government Center
San Luis Obispo. CA 93408
Dear Chairperson Ovitt and members of the Board of Supervisors:
On August 31, 2004, our City Council held a special meeting to discuss mosquitoes, particularly in the Laguna
Lake area, and the overall Nest Nile Virus problem. The County's Public Health Director, Dr. Gregory Thomas,
was very helpful to our staff in preparing for the meeting and in presenting the information to the Council.
Our Council approved the attached resolution, asking that the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors
support the formation of a vector control district. As you know, we are one of the few counties in the State without
the protection of either a mosquito or vector control district. While you may have had good reasons for the earlier
deferral of district consideration, with the presence of West Nile Virus, we. feel strongly that the time has arrived for
action.
In recent months, our respective staffs' have worked collaboratively to address the mosquito problem at Laguna
Lake due to the potential health hazards involved. Traditionally, however, public health has been the responsibility
Of County government. Unfonunately, as we know too well. State takeaways and other fiscal pressures have
caused mann counties to retrench, or totally withdraw, from traditional county responsibilities. Therefore. while we
recoaniie that the County cannot simply launch a new, major program with your already strained general fund.
Your- Board can make the decision to bring this issue to voters. We believe that voters, given the choice and enough
information, will support providing you with the resources needed to fulfill your public health mission as it relates
to mosquitoes and other health related pests.
Therefore, the San Luis Obispo City Council respectfully requests Board action to place a vector control district—
or at least a mosquito control program assessment measure—before the voters of the County at the earliest possible
time. Even with timely action on the part of the Board and subsequent voter approval, the City is concerned that we
are already late in addressing the West Nile problem. In the meantime, we continue to appreciate the efforts of
your staff and we will continue to work collaboratively with them with the resources now available to us.
Sincerely yours,
David Romero
Mayor.
cc: City Council. Dr. Gregory Thomas, City Staff Distribution
C ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 9602 (2004 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
REQUESTING THAT THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SUPPORT THE FORMATION OF A VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, it has been found that the disease West Nile virus, a serious threat to [fie
health of our community, has been discovered within San Luis Obispo County; and
WHEREAS, West Niie virus has caused the deaths of at least four people with the State
of California, and infected over one hundred more; and
WHEREAS, the West Nile virus is spread to people and animals by mosquitoes infected
with the disease; and
WHEIREAS, other health problems associated with mosquitoes and other pests can only
be effectively addressed in a regional fashion; and
WHEREAS, the Count), of San Luis Obispo is one of the only counties within the State
that currently does not have a Vector Control District in place.
NO\1', THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo that the formation of a Vector Control District within the County of San Luis Obispo
should have a high priority with the Board of Supervisors and should be authorized for voter
approval at the earliest possible time.
Upon motion of Council Member Settle, seconded by Council Member Ewan,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Ewan. Mulholland and Settle. Vice Mavor Schwartz
and Mayor Romero
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 31" day of August, 2004.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Ho -r
Citv Clerk
R 9602
St " LUIS OBISPO COUNT HEALTH A T
0 2
J 2180 Johnson Avenue
San Luis Obispo, California 93401-4535
805-781-4719•FAX 805-781-1273
Jeff Hamm
_.. - Health Agency Director
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Jeff Hamm, Health Agency Director dv�b
DATE: April April 1,2008
SUBJECT: Submittal of public opinion survey results in continuing response to a 2006-07
Grand Jury Report on the possible creation of a Vector Control Program Benefit
Assessment
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Board direct staff to proceed with a ballot measure to create a benefit
assessment that will provide permanent annual funding for a vector control program.
Discussion
Survey Results and Recommendations
On November 27, 2007, the Board directed staff to conduct.a survey and informational outreach
to determine the level of support for the development of a benefit assessment that will provide.
permanent annual funding for a vector control program. The primary purposes of the survey
were to:
1. Evaluate property owners' support, desires and priorities with respect to the proposed
vector control program.
2. Measure the relative level of support and priorities of the property owners and voters
overall in the area by type of property owner and voter.
3. Measure the level of financial support for the proposed vector control program.
The survey presented information regarding the proposed services and an annual rate of
assessment for a typical single-family home of$9.80. The actual proposed assessments were
independently calculated for each property owner and were based upon property use and
property size and the proposed assessment was individually printed on each survey. Examples of
typical assessments are as follows:
E1-2
4/1/2008
Vector Control Program Benefit Assessment
Page 2 of 6 �I 111CHME 2
Property Type Benefit Assessment per year
Single Family residence less than one acre $9.80
-Single Family,residence 5 acres $22.15
100 unit apartment complex $162.60
%2 acre office property $27.84
%2 acre retail store $9.80
1000 acre open range land $16.46
20 acre shopping center $392.00
100 acre agriculture property $8.23
Vacant lot $2.94
The survey found the overall weighted support for the proposed benefit assessment to be 53.8%
with a margin of error of+1.9%. The margin of error means that there is a 95%certainty that the
actual levels of support in the County are between 51.9%and 55.7% average weighted support.
A benefit assessment requires a 50%plus one average weighted support for passage.
The survey was designed to be predictive in evaluating the support a benefit assessment measure
would likely receive in the actual mailed-ballot election. In January 2008, over 10,000 surveys
were mailed to property owners within the County. The survey included general information
about the funding measure and a questionnaire with an enclosed postage-paid return envelope.
Over 2,500 surveys were received from the property owners, representing a response rate of over
26%. Based on the consultants experience with other similar projects, this-response rate is very
good.
In 2004, a similar survey of property owners in San Luis Obispo County was conducted. The
following table shows a comparison of weighted support between the 2008 survey and the 2004
survey. It also shows the percent of vote by property type for the 2008 survey. This comparison
shows that the current level of support for the proposed benefit assessment is only slightly less
than it was in 2004. Taking into consideration that the 2004 survey occurred after extensive
outreach to the community and discussions at the Board and the 2008 survey did not have similar
outreach or discussions, the results indicate a core level of support for funding a vector control
program at the annual assessment rate of$9.80 per single-family residence.
Weighted Support Percent of Vote
Property Type 2004 Survey 2008 Survey 2008
Single Family 63.5% 59.1% 63.2%
Residential
Apartment and 45.5% 44.8% 16.7%
Investment Property
Business and Industrial 51.9% 39.6% 11.6%
Large Property Owners 45.9% 29.9% 2.5%
Agriculture, Other 52.0% 53.7% 6.0%
Overall 56.2% 53.8% 100%
E1-3
4/1/2008
Vector Control Program Benefit Assessment A�ACHMENT 6
Page 3 of 6 R MC
In addition to quantifying the level of support and at what annual rate_, the survey results
identified the top priorities for services as follows:
• Test and respond to disease outbreaks associated with rodents, ticks, or fleas..
e Reduce mosquito populations using environmentally safe approaches.
a Improve control of mosquitoes and the diseases they carry: West Nile Virus,
Enchephalitis, Dog Heartworm.
In summary,the survey found thatdf San.Luis Obispo County proceeded today with a benefit
assessment of$9.80 per year for a typical single-family property and the measure was supported
by effective outreach to the community, the measure would likely achieve a weighted majority of
property owner support.
The following recommendations for a benefit assessment ballot to fund the vector control
program are:
1. A vector control program funding measure not to exceed $9.80 per single-family
residence.
2. The funding measure should be centered on funding a vector control program that uses
environmentally safe methods to control mosquitoes/vectors and the diseases they carry.
3. An effective informational outreach focusing on the need for a stable source of funding
for vector control services and the need to control mosquitoes and other vectors and the
diseases they carry is necessary to educate people about the benefits of a vector control
program.
Benefit Assessment Ballot Process and Milestones
The Health Agency recommends retention of a consultant to conduct a benefit assessment rate
analysis,mail out a ballot measure, and provide an engineering assessment report to assist the
Health Agency in pursuing a new financing source to fund a vector control program in San Luis
Obispo County.
The ballot proceeding will be conducted in three phases as follows:
Phase 1 —Assessment Engineering
This phase identifies the budget for the proposed vector control program and the
corresponding assessment rate matrix as well as the benefit assessment methodology.
This phase answers the questions What is the benefit assessment for each of the property
types? This phase includes an Engineer's Report that meets the requirements of a
Proposition 218 ballot proceeding.
Phase 2—Assessment Ballot Proceeding
This phase includes designing, printing, addressing and mailing the notice and
assessment ballots to approximately 100,000 affected property owners. The returned
ballots will be tabulated by the San Luis Obispo County Clerk of the Board office.
E1-4
4/11/2008
�Vector Control Program BeA�ACHMENT 2
Benefit Assessment
Page 4 of 6
Phase 3 —Project Administration
This phase includes preparation of the property database, levy, ownership information
and other data required for administration of the assessment. This phase also includes
updating the assessment rolls and assessments to reflect all changes in the ownership,
property type and assessments. It also includes submitting final assessment to the San
Luis Obispo County Auditor's office.
If the Board decides to conduct a ballot proceeding, details of the three phases will be provided
in a formal written proposal of services. The following is a milestone chart that outlines the
process for conducting a mail-out ballot:
Note: Bolded items are for public hearings with the Board of Supervisors
Milestone Date
Board authorization to conduct a benefit April 1,2008
assessment ballot measure
Board authorization to contract with a September 30,2008
qualified consultant to assist with the
process
Request support from cities for the benefit November—December 2008
assessment ballot measure
Board Update about City status January 2009
PHA: 1
Draft Engineer's Report submitted to February 2009
County
Complete Assessment Engineer's Report March 2009
Notification of Public Hearing February 2009
Return to BOS for Public Hearing on 1) March 30,2009
Preliminarily approve budget,
assessment rates and Engineering
Assessment Report and Resolution of
Intention to mail-out ballot and 2) Adopt
Prop 218 Assessment Ballot Proceedings
EHA'SE
Notice and Ballot created and finalized Aril 2009
Print and address notices and Ballots May 1 — 10, 2009
Mail-out ballot to property owners May 11, 2009
Balloting Period (45 days minimum) May 12,2009—June 30, 2009
Public Hearing accepting and closing June 30,2009
mail-out ballots
Counting returned ballots Jul 1-13, 2009
Return to BOS for approval of the July 14-31,2009
results and resolution levying
assessments for FY 2009-10 if weighted
majority support
E1-5
4/1/2008
�- ATTACHMENT
Vector Control Program Be`hAt Assessment J
Page 5 of 6
PHASE-3.
Per parcel assessment charges to Auditor's Before August 10, 2009
Office
First installment of assessment proceeds January 2010
Environmental Health staff will meet with city officials to request support for the benefit
assessment ballot measure. Each city has the option of participating in the vector control
program. If a city wishes to not participate in the program, then properties in that city will not be
sent a ballot and will not participate in the ballot proceeding and will not receive services from
the program.
Proposed Vector Control Program (if funded through a benefit assessment)
The proposed vector control services will consist of public education, surveillance, abatement,
and response to disease outbreaks for all vectors and vector-borne diseases. However, it will
primarily focus on mosquitoes, ticks, fleas, and rodents. In response to mosquito-borne diseases
such as West Nile Virus, most of the resources would be dedicated to the abatement and
surveillance of the mosquito populations as well as public education focused on mosquito-borne
diseases. In the future, at the direction of the Health Officer and the county decision.makers,
resources may be reallocated to respond to other vectors and vector-borne diseases.
The goals of the vector control services are proposed as follows:
• Increase public awareness of vectors and vector-borne diseases through public education and
outreach.
• Conduct surveillance activities to identify the presence of vector species and vector-borne
diseases as well as vector population densities and anticipate conditions that would increase
vector populations.
• Prevention and abatement efforts to reduce vector populations.
• Respond to disease outbreaks in a timely and targeted fashion and coordinated with local
and state agencies.
The vector control program,based on a countywide program, projected levels of staffing,
necessary equipment and supplies to carry out the above goals, and overhead costs is expected to
cost as indicated in the following table:
Description Estimated Costs
Salaries $500,000
Services and Supplies $325,000
Overhead $100,000
Total $925,000
E1-6
4/1/2008
P i
Vector Control Program BLfit Assessment ^ p �j pI
Page 6 of 6 ATTACHMENT 2
Other Agency Involvement/Imnact
The Clerk of the Board has been consulted on this matter and will tabulate the returned ballots.
In addition,the West Nile Response Task Force consisting of representatives from the
Agriculture Department, Animal Services, and State Department of Health Services/Vector
Control Branch support the vector control program. Numerous vector control jurisdictions
throughout the state including, Santa Cruz,Napa, San Mateo, Kern, Ventura, and others were
consulted for information on staffing, budget, and services. Support for the vector control
program and the benefit assessment ballot measure to fund the program will be requested from
each city.
Financial Considerations
Staff has obtained cost estimates for the project from a qualified consultant. Estimates are indicated
below,broken out into three phases. The third phase, project administration, would only occur if the
measure passed. Tabulation of the ballots is proposed to be through the Clerk of the Board. Estimated
cost for the tabulation of ballots is $63,000. The three phases of the project are as follows:
Phase 1 -Assessment engineering$22,000
Phase 2 -Assessment ballot proceeding including ballot tabulation$165,000+$63,000
Phase 3 - Project administration$30,000 (contingent upon a successful ballot outcome)
This cost estimate includes assistance with the planning for the educational outreach campaign.
If the Board decides to proceed with the ballot measure,the Health Agency would require General
Fund support to finance the three phases identified above for an estimated total of$280,000. If the
ballot initiative succeeds,there will be sufficient funds recovered to return the cost of the ballot
measure to the General Fund. If the measure fails,we would not proceed with Phase 3 costs, and the
County's one-time loss would be $250,000.
At the present time a benefit assessment of$9.80 per single-family residence and equivalent rate for
other property types is the best estimate to recover the Vector Control Program's estimated annual
operating costs of$925,000.
Results
If approved, the results of this action will be to conduct a ballot measure for creation of a benefit
assessment that will provide permanent annual funding for a vector control program. If
successful,the ballot measure would accomplish the following:
• Provide estimated annual revenues of$925,000 to fund a vector control program.
• Return the cost of the benefit assessment ballot proceeding to the General Fund by June
2010.
Attachment: Report on Opinion Research and Survey of Property Owners
E1-7
4/1/2008
ATTACHMENT 2
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR
CONTROL PROGRAM
OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY
OF PROPERTY OWNERS
FEBRUARY 15,2008
PREPARED FOR:
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
PREPARED BY:
S 11
IC11 Consulting Group
4745 MANGELS BOULEVARD
FAIRFIELD,CALIFORNIA 94534
PHONE 707.430.4300
FAx 707.430.4319
www.sci-cg.com
rv.xC,A�
E1-8
4/1/2008
ATTACHMENT2
Page
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or copied in any form or by
any means—graphic, electronic or mechanical, including any photocopying, recording,
taping or information storage and retrieval systems — without permission of SCI
Consulting Group.
SCI Consulting Group
4745 Mangels Boulevard
Fairfield,CA 94534
PH: 707.430.4300
FAX: 707.430.4319
SAN LUIS Own COUNTY MOsQurro AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM
OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 =' ConsultingGroup
E1-9
4/1/2008
ATTACHMENT 2
Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LISTOF FIGURES..........................................................................................................:........111
INTRODUCTION.. .........................................................................................................1
PURPOSE........................................................................................................................1
SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATION ................................................................1
METHODOLOGY....................................•....•......•.............•...........................................•....2
SAMPLE..................................•.......................................................................................2
DATA COLLECTION METHOD.............................................................................................2
MARGINOF ERROR..........................................................................................................3
BENEFIT ASSESSMENT FUNDING OVERVIEW................::..........................................................4
BENEFIT ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW...............................•...................................................•4
COMPARISON OF BENEFIT ASSESSMENT WITH SPECIAL TAX..............................•.................5
SURVEY RESULTS ADJUSTED TO PROJECT WEIGHTED BALLOT OUTCOME............................6
SURVEYFINDINGS..................................................................................................................7
TYPES OF PROPERTY AND WEIGHTED VOTES THEY HOLD................................•..................7
FIRSTSURVEY QUESTION....................................•...........................................................8
OVERALL SURVEY RESULTS.............................................................................................8
SUPPORT FROM SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNERS ONLY........................................................8
OVERALLSUPPORT.......................................................................................................11
OVERALL WEIGHTED SUPPORT BY OWNER TYPE......•......................................................12
SERVICEPRIORITIES......................................................................................................15
RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................17
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM
OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 !ConsultingGroup
E1-10
4/l/2008
C C ATTACHMENT 2
Page iii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1—COMPARISON OF PARCEL TAXES AND BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS.................................6
FIGURE 2—WEIGHTED ASSESSMENT BY PROPERTY TYPE—OVERALL........................................7
FIGURE 3—SUPPORT BY RATE,SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNERS ONLY........................................9
FIGURE 4—DETAILED SUPPORT BY RATE,SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNERS ONLY—OVERALL......10
FIGURE 5-OVERALL SUPPORT BY PROPOSED RATE-OVERALL.........................................:... 11
FIGURE 6-DETAILED WEIGHTED SUPPORT-OVERALL...................................,......................12
FIGURE 7-DETAILED WEIGHTED SUPPORT-COMPARISON WITH 2004 SURVEY....................... 12
FIGURE8-SUPPORT BY AGE...............................................................................................13
FIGURE 9-SUPPORT BY HOUSEHOLD PARTY AFFILIATION......................................................14
FIGURE 10-PROPERTY OWNER SUPPORT LEVEL..................................................................16
SAN Luis OBIsPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM "' C —�
OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 :ConsuttingGroup
E1-11
4/l/2008
C` AURACHMEW 2
Page 1
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
This report presents the findings of a scientific survey of voters and the owners of property
located within San Luis Obispo County (the County) conducted by SCI Consulting Group
(SCI).
The primary purposes of the study were to:
a. Evaluate property owners' support, desires and priorities with respect to the
proposed mosquito, vector and disease control services.
b. Measure the relative level of support and priorities of the property owners and
voters overall in the area by type of property owner and voter.
c. Measure the level of financial support for the proposed mosquito, vector and
disease control services.
The survey presented the proposed services and an annual rate of assessment for a
typical single family home of $9.80. It should further be noted that the actual proposed
assessments were independently calculated for each owner and were based upon on
property use and property size, and individually printed on each survey.
After a brief overview of the methodology employed in the survey, this report presents a
summary of the key survey findings. The survey utilized a mailed survey approach
because SCI has found this survey technique to more closely and accurately model actual
ballot results for a property owner mailed ballot proceeding.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATION
The survey found the overall weighted ballot support for the proposed funding measure for
the proposed annual rate of$9.80 to be 53.8°/x.
Based on these results, and as described in more detail below, SCI recommends that the
County could proceed with a successful funding measure if there will be an organized and
active effort to educate property owners about the measure before the ballots are mailed.
SAN LUIS Deism COUNTY MosourrO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM -'—�
OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 ConsultingGroup
E1-12
4/1/2008
Page 2
METHODOLOGY
The survey was designed to simulate the specifics of a property owner weighted ballot
proceeding for a benefit assessment in the County. The survey accounts for the unique
participant response pool, effect of ballots weighted by proposed assessment amount, one
ballot per household and other unique aspects of the benefit assessment ballot
proceeding. In this way, the survey results will be predictive in evaluating the support an
assessment measure would likely receive in the actual mailed-ballot election.
SAMPLE
SCI created a randomized, stratified sample pool comprised of property owners in the
County. The sample was designed to draw from the property owners who would be eligible
to participate in the mailed ballot proceeding for this funding mechanism and in proportion
to their representation of property ownership throughout the area. Oversampling for certain
types of property owners was also employed.
Next, a sub-sample was created from this pool. The sub-sample was designed to test
different levels of support at an annual assessment level of $9.80 per single family
dwelling. The sub-sample for this research project was created using a randomized,
stratified approach designed to replicate the ownership profile of property owners in the
County.
DATA COLLECTION METHOD
Surveys were designed as a mail-based survey to replicate the mailed-ballot proceeding
that would be used if the County proceeded with a benefit assessment measure. In
January 2008,over 10,000 surveys were mailed to property owners within the County.
The survey included general information about the funding measure and a questionnaire
with an enclosed postage-paid return envelope.This data collection method closely mirrors
the mailed-ballot proceeding and has proven to be highly reliable far predicting the results
from an actual benefit assessment ballot measure.
Over 2,500 surveys have been received from the property owners, representing a
response rate of.over 26%. Based on SCI's experience with other similar projects, this
response rate is very good.
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM _ �®
OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 ConsultingGroup
E1-13
4/1/2008
Page 3
MARGIN OF ERROR
The overall statistical margin of error for the results presented in this report is about 1.9%.
This margin of error means that there is a 95% certainty that the actual levels of support.in
the County are t 1.9%from the results presented in this report.
SAN LUIS Oaispo COUNTY MOsourro AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM
OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 ConsultingGroup
E1-14
4/1/2008
C, ATTACHMENT 2
Page 4
BENEFIT ASSESSMENT FUNDING OVERVIEW
BENEFIT ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW
As noted, the funding mechanism being considered in this study is a benefit assessment.
Benefit assessments are a common local funding alternative for mosquito, vector and
disease control services and such assessments have been approved in many other areas
in California. Benefit assessments are levies on real property that are based on the
°special benefit" each property receives from the mosquito, vector and disease control
services to be funded by the assessments. Such assessments for mosquito, vector and
disease control services have a long history of use in California.
The application of special benefits generally means that the amount of proposed
assessment will not be uniform for all properties. Properties that are deemed to receive
greater benefit (larger properties and properties with higher numbers of dwelling units) will
typically have relatively higher assessments.
The benefit assessment is different from other revenue vehicles in its makeup, design, and
voter participation. In short, it is charges levied upon parcels of real property to pay for
benefits the parcels receive from local improvements and services. The charge is derived
from the "special benefit," or a particular and distinct benefit over and above general
benefits conferred on real property located in the County or to the public at large. All
property owners who would pay the proposed assessments are eligible to vote.
Furthermore, the method of voting is through a mailed ballot procedure by which every
property owner receives a ballot indicating the total amount of the proposed assessment
for their property. The property owners who cast their ballots are voting based on the total
dollar amount of their proposed assessment. Therefore, the results are determined by a
weighting of total 'proposed assessments of the returned ballots. In order for the benefit
assessment to pass, a majority of the weighted amount of the proposed assessments of
the returned ballots is needed.
In other words, the weighting of assessment ballots is the equivalent of one vote per dollar
of proposed assessment. If the proposed assessment is$10 per home and $5.00 per fifth
acre for business properties, an owner of a single family home could cast a ballot that is
worth $10.00 in weighted votes, and the owner of a business on acre could cast a ballot
that is worth half as much, or$5.00 in weighted votes,
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM
OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 ConsultingG roup
E1-15
411/2008
MACHMENT
Page 5
COMPARISON OF BENEFIT ASSESSMENT WITH SPECIAL TAX
The primary local funding alternatives for the proposed services are a special tax (parcel
tax) or a benefit assessment. A parcel tax is decided by registered voters in the proposed
service areas, typically in a one-day election, and it requires 66.7% voter support. As
noted, a benefit assessment is decided by all property owners in the proposed service
areas, including business owners, apartment owners and agricultural property owners, and
it requires a weighted majority support from property owners.
In an election to approve a parcel tax, only registered voters are eligible to vote. This
includes tenants who will not pay the proposed tax and excludes property owners such as
business owners, apartment owners and others who will have to pay the tax. Because non-
owner voters have a significant say in parcel tax elections and many other property owners
who would pay the taxes are excluded from the voting, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
Association ("HJTA"), via Proposition 13, established a two thirds (super-majority)
requirement for parcel tax elections.
Conversely, all property owners being asked to support an assessment, including the
owners of businesses, apartments and agricultural property, can vote on benefit
assessments, and these property owners have a "say" that is proportional to their
proposed assessment. Therefore, because all property owners who own property within
the proposed service areas can vote and each owner's vote is proportional to how much
they are being asked to pay, the HJTA established a weighted majority threshold for these
mailed ballot measures(via Proposition 218).
Figure 1 on the next page provides a further comparison of parcel taxes and benefit
assessments:
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAMF ---
OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 _-:ConsultingGroup
E1-16
4/1/2008
AnkNOR
Page 6
FIGURE 1—COMPARISON OF PARCEL TAXES AND BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS
111121 1111111,111 INI
110111
Who Votes? Registered Voters Property Owners
Who Created Requirements? Jarvis Taxpayers Jarvis Taxpayers
Election Venue Polling Booth Mail Ballot
Election Period 1 Day 45 Days
Does Everyone Who Will Pay Get a Vote? No Yes
Are Votes Proportional to How Much You Will Pay? No Yes
Tax/Assessment Amounts Based on Benefit? No Yes
Threshold of Vote Required for Success Super Majority Weighted Majority
Common For Mosquito and Vector Control Agencies No Yes
SURVEY RESULTS ADJUSTED TO PROJECT WEIGHTED BALLOT OUTCOME
This survey was specifically designed to predict the outcome of a benefit assessment
mailed-ballot proceeding, including the relatively higher weighted ballots for the owners of
larger business and investment properties and the likely participation rates for various
types of property owners. Unless otherwise noted, the level of support presented in this
study is the projected actual weighted ballot result for the overall measure, including ballots
from the owners of residential property, businesses, apartments, investment property and
other properties.
SAN LUIS OmsPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM
OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 '.ConsultingGroup
E1-17
411/2008
C Oq P`is
SURVEY FINDINGS
Before discussing the survey findings, it is helpful to review the types of property in the
surveyed area and their respective"weighted"votes.
TYPES OF PROPERTY AND WEIGHTED VOTES THEY HOLD
The following Figure presents the percentage of overall weighted "votes" for each type of
property surveyed. As shown, in the areas surveyed, single family residential owners
represent approximately 63% of the overall weighted vote, apartment and investment
property represents 17%, business and industrial properties represent 12%; agricultural
and other properties(which are primarily vacant parcels) represent 6%.
FIGURE 2—WEIGHTED ASSESSMENT BY PROPERTY TYPE—OVERALL
o Seriesl, Percent of Vote o Series/, Single
Agricultural and Family
Other,6.0% Residential,
63.2%
o Series1, Large
Property Owners,
o Series1 Business .
and Industrial,
11.6% *'
Series/,
Apartment and
Investment
Property, 16.7%
Note: weighting of assessments and'votes'is based on likely assessment methodology based on experience by SCI.
SAN LUIS Osispo COuNTY MOsourro AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM = �'
OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 `ConsultingGroup
E1-18
411/2008
ATTACHMENT2
Page 8
FIRST SURVEY QUESTION
After the potential assessment rates and potential weighted votes were calculated for each
property, the survey questionnaire and informational sheets were finalized and mailed. As
noted, a postage-prepaid survey and informational document were mailed to a stratified
sample of property owners within San Luis Obispo County. In the survey, property owners
were first asked whether they would support or oppose a proposal to pay an annual
property assessment for the information being presented.
The first survey question on the proposed local funding measure was as follows:
Question#1 (First Survey Question)
In order to:
• Improve services to control mosquitoes and the diseases they cant';
• Establish more thorough testing,monitoring, and public education programs for
diseases carried by mosquitoes and other vectors(such as rats and ticks)
would you support a new annual assessment for your pmperty(s)*in the amount of
'(Note the specific amount of proposed assessment for all of the properties owned by each surveyed
owner was printed on each survey In the area underlined)
OVERALL SURVEY RESULTS
SUPPORT FROM SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNERS ONLY
Figure 3 on the next page summarizes the level of support from single-family homeowners
only for the proposed .measure. It is important to note that the percentage of support
displayed in these tables does not include other property owners, such as business,vacant
and apartment owners. The analysis for single-family homeowners only is presented as an
important datum to evaluate levels of support versus other measures, areas,etc.
As shown in this Figure, support from single family homeowners overall was 59.1% at the
proposed rate of$9.80 per year.
SAN Luis Osism COUNTY MOsGurrO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM
OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 ;ConsultingGroup
E1-19
4/1/2008
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 9
FIGURE 3-SUPPORT BY RATE,SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOMERS ONLY
S.FR Support by Proposed Rate
100.0% --`--
90.0%
i
80.0%
70.0%
59.1°k
c 60.0% i
CL 50.0%
N
40.0%
i
30.0% INN
i
20.0%
i
10.0%
0.0%
$9.80
Rate
SAN LUIS Own COUNTY MosQURO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM
OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 ConsultingGroup
E1-20
4/l/2008
A�ACHME�T �
Page 10
Figure 4 below presents further details about the degree of support or opposition from single
family owners in the County.
This figure shows that many of the property owners are in the "Probably Yes" category.
SCI has typically found that such owners will vote yes on the actual ballot measure if clear
information about the proposed services is provided and an active opposition campaign
does not develop.
An equal percentage of respondents were in the "Definitely Yes" and °Definitely No"
categories. This indicates that equal numbers of property owners are in strong support or
opposition. SCI has found that most often these respondents will not be influenced to vote
differenfly on the actual ballot measure.
FIGURE 4—DETAILED SUPPORT BY RATE,SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNERS ONLY—OVERALL
9 27.1% 32.0% 13.8% 27.1%
Detailed SFR Support by Proposed Rate
100%
90%
80%
701/0
D
BD/o
Y
0 50°/D Sfe.S�1 _ fiy �L
60°/1
IIIIN0000 YY1 �'�.:•s f [ �".61�f�ii�k i r
30 k a,:,rw <.
20%
10°/D
0%
$9.80
Rate
oDetinitelyYes oProbabyYes oProbablyNo oDefinitelyNo
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM
OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 IiConsuitingGroup
E1-21
4/1/2008
Page 11
OVERALL SUPPORT
As noted, one rate, $9.80 was tested for mosquito and vector control services. Figure 5
below shows the overall level of projected weighted support from all types of property
owners at the $9.80 rate tested. Given the overall support is above the threshold of 50%,
a ballot measure for an assessment amount at or below$9.80 could be successful if it is
preceded and accompanied by an actual educational outreach effort.
FIGURE 5—OVERALL SUPPORT BY PROPOSED RATE—OVERALL
Detailed Overall Support by Proposed Rate
100°k i
90%
80%
70%
e0%
30%
20%
110/0 -
4—
$9.80
0% $9.80
Rate
oDefinitelyYes oProbablyYes oProbabtyNo oDeflrii IyNo
SAN LUIS OBisP0 COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM
OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 !ConsultingGroup
E1-22
4/1/2008
� �1�ACHM'E�T z
Page 12
OVERALL WEIGHTED SUPPORT BY OWNER TYPE
Figure 6 provides more detail on the survey findings from all property owners. As shown,
the level of support is highest from single family residential and agricultural property
owners with support declining among business and industrial and apartment and
investment property owners.
FIGURE 6—DETAILED WEIGHTED SUPPORT—OVERALL
Of Weighted:l
'PL e!jtType . - p
Single Family Residential 63.2% 59.1%
Apartment and Investment Property 16.7% 44.8%
Business and Industrial 11.6% 39.6%
Large Property Owners 2.5%. 29.9%.
Agricultural and Other 6.0% 53.7%
Total 100.0% 53.8%
In January 2004 SCI conducted a similar survey of property owners in San Luis Obispo
County. Figure 7 below provides a comparison of the overall survey findings from the
2004 survey with the survey findings from the recent survey. This comparison shows that
current support for the proposed assessment is only slightly less than it was in 2004.
FIGURE 7—DETAILED WEIGHTED SUPPORT-COMPARISON WITH 2004 SURVEY
Wei -.
Support 2004 '�Uppoi
!iProperty Type
Single Family Residential 63.5% 59.1%
Apartment and Investment Property 45.5% 44.8%
Business and Industrial 51.9% 39.6%
Large Property Owners 45.9% 29.9%.
Agricultural and Other 52.0% 53.7%
Total 56.2% 53.8%
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MOsQurrO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM —�
OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 'ConsultingGroup
E1-23
411/2008
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 13
Figure 8 presents an analysis of levels of support from property owners by age groupings.
This data demonstrates that support for the proposed funding measure increases as the
age group increases, with the 65 to 90 age group being most supportive. It should be
noted that the 18-29 age group held the smallest number of property owners, so the
results for that age group have a higher margin of error.
FIGURE 8—SUPPORT BY AGE
Support by Rate and Age
70.0%
60.0% U
50.0%
0 40.0%
CL
C
ro 30.0%
a
20.0%
10.0%
r
0.0%
18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 to 99
Age
SAN Luis OSisPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM
OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 =:lConsultingGroup
E1-24
4/1/2008
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 14
Figure 9 presents the analysis of levels of support by political party affiliation for
households whose owners are registered to vote. This data shows that support is higher
among Democrat and Mixed households, and lower among Other and Republican
households.
FIGURE 9—SUPPORT By HOUSEHOLD PARTY AFFILIATION
Support by Political Party and Rate
80.0%
70.0%
i
60.0%
50.0%
0
40.0% 0$9.80
a�
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% '
D DD MX OR R RR
Political Party
Source: San Luis Obispo County Registrar of Voters
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM "
OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 '='IiConsultingGroup
E1-25
41112008
ATTACHMENT
Page 15
SERVICE PRIORITIES
After indicating their degree of support for the measure, property owners were presented
with a list of potential features and arguments for and against the measure, and were
asked to indicate the degree to which each feature or argument would persuade them to
vote for or against the measure. These questions were asked even of those owners who
indicated that they intended to vote against the measure. This ensures that the reaction to
the features and arguments reflect the overall community reaction, not dust the reactions of
those who intend to vote for the measure. As the figure on the following page illustrates,
the top priorities and services, garnering more than 60% favorable responses or better
were:
■ Test and respond to disease outbreaks associated with rodents, ticks
or fleas
■ Reduce mosquito populations using environmentally safe approaches
■ Improve control of mosquitoes and the diseases they carry.- West Nile
Virus, Encephalitis, Dog Heartworm
These reactions to the services provide important insight.to the community. The top
priorities relate to reducing mosquito and vector populations and the diseases they cant'.
The results for all the services, issues and arguments are summarized in Figure 9 on the
next page.
SAN LUIS Osispo COUNTY MOsouR0 AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM
OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 ?ConsuttingGroup
E1-26
4/1/2008
� S
m ; * 0
L
a'; C
g
CL
Ism 0)
a
z.,. A
N J
O A,
� CL
0
CO) < c
y Y
LU
m
W
CL
W di p
zi $ E r
a P g $ C2
y p C
U
K m $ a g
O
v v ao
lL Q > � g. o o p
v! 2 ffi a E
Ge
(L
o q € s $ a
m x E $ y z
.12
r s m 3 m o
a o E w °°
czm
N
a B O� _
R a O W
a 5
•p pappp o g O coCY
m a B Z
U
J N
LULU
e "a is O x
c 4
p j j 5 Z
Y p 9 O
o n W z Z
° E = a
co O
El-27
4/l/2008
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 17
RECOMMENDATIONS
The survey respondent pool closely parallels the likely universe of property owners who
would probably vote in a mailed-ballot proceeding, and the survey results presented in the
Report have been adjusted to account for the projected ballot participation and ballot
weighting aspects of a benefit assessment ballot proceeding:Therefore, the overall results
presented in this survey should be reflective of the actual weighted ballot outcome from a
benefit assessment ballot proceeding, assuming the measure does not receive organized
opposition and-the local and national economic conditions remain similar to the.time of the
survey.
This survey found that if the San Luis Obispo County Mosquito Abatement Program
proceeded today with a benefit assessment of $9.80 per year for a typical single family
property and the measure was supported by extensive and effective outreach to the
community, the measure would likely achieve a weighted majority of property owner
support.
SCI makes the following recommendations for a benefit assessment ballot to fund the
proposed services:
1) Rate Recommendations
As noted, based on the findings from the survey, SCI recommends that a mosquito, vector
and disease control services funding measure can be successful if the rate is not more
than $9.80. Section 3 below lists further educational outreach recommendations td build
community support.
2) Controlling Mosauitoes,Vectors and the Diseases they Cann are Top Issues.
The top priorities for a local funding measure centered on controlling mosquitoes, vectors
and the diseases they carry, as well as the use of environmentally safe methods to do so.
This indicates that property owners will support a local funding measure if it is centered on
effectively controlling mosquitoes,vectors and the diseases they transmit.
3) Education and Outreach Recommendations.
An educational outreach and informational messaging approach is highly recommended.
The message focus should be on the need to provide a stable funding source for
mosquito, vector and disease control services, and the need to control mosquitoes, vectors
and the diseases they carry.
SAN Luis OeisPo COUNTY MOsourro AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM 5"1 - �
OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 F C:ConsultingGroup
E1-28
4/1/2008
C' AITRCHMM
Page 18
Following are additional recommendations:
❑ Address the Key Issues and Form a Consistent Message. The County will need to
address the key issues controlling mosquitoes, vectors and the diseases they carry,
and environmental concerns raised in the survey and form several concise messages
to present to the public. These messages should be designed to further educate the
public about the value of mosquito and vector control services and the need for
funding to continue the County's current level mosquito.and vector control services
and to expand future services. The County should also inform residents of all current
and future efforts to improve mosquito and vector control services. The outreach effort
should also work to increase participation in educational outreach programs.because
increased participation and awareness translates into increased support.
❑ Explain that all funds raised will be used locally. The County should include in all
messaging a statement that all of the funds raised by this assessment will be used for
services and projects in the County, and that none of the money raised can be
appropriated by Sacramento or Washington.
❑ Educate the Large Agricultural, Business and Apartment Owners. Most of the
votes in a benefit assessment ballot are held by the owners of residential properties.
SCI's experience has shown that providing sufficient information and establishing
dialogue with the owners of these types of property can translate into higher levels of
understanding and even support for the funding measure. These property owners
typically require more detailed information in order to make an informed decision on
this issue. SCI's experience has shown that with additional information_and.oersonal
contacts, such -owners will likely-better understand the .need_ for the proposed.
assessment. These owners typically recognize that their property and the local
economy benefits from mosquito and vector control services.
❑ Use Media as a Conduit. Work with local media, particularly newspapers, to raise
community awareness of the proposed services. Also utilize sections in all available
publications to continue the educational outreach approach.
❑ Involve Community Leaders. Identify important community leaders and enlist them
to assist with the planning and outreach efforts..
❑ Make Contact with Community. The most.effective way to build awareness and
understanding of a local funding measure is for local volunteers to contact other
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM
OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 '.ConsultingGmup
E1-29
4/1/2008
ATIACHMENT 2
Page 19
property owners in the area. Such contacts, which can be by phone or in person, are
the best way to build support for a local funding measure.
a Involve the Community Stakeholders. Community Stakeholders are those who may
benefit most significantly from the improved mosquito and vector control services.
These stakeholders could include homeowners associations, agricultural associations,
seniors, and families with children. Stakeholder leaders will need to communicate the
need for improved mosquito and vector control services, within the consistent
message,to their memberships.
SAN Luis Oaispo COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM
OPINION RESEARCH AND SURVEY,2008 :ConsultingGroup
E1-30
4/1/2008
CodePink— Women for Peace
3091 Johnson Ave
San Luis Obispo, CA
June 17, 2009
Mayor Dave Romero
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA
Dear Mayor Romero,
We, the undersigned citizens who live here, work here, play here and shop here, wish to make known our
deep disappointment and confusion in your refusal to meet with us. Under what extenuating circumstance
would you refuse to grant your own citizens 15 minutes of your time? Government is "of the people, by
the people and for the people." We are your constituents, the source of your power in office and to us you
are accountable. Choosing to not even meet and speak with us as friends and neighbors is both
disheartening and disappointing. It is with this ugly disenfranchised feeling that we write this letter,
requesting an explanation for your silence.
As your staff informed us, it is your policy to refrain from commenting on matters of national politics.
Think of the tragedy that would have befallen our country if Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. or Cesar Chavez
had shared your perspective. Even our children are taught in school: think globally, act locally. This
wrongfully-begotten war in Iraq certainly influences our local economy, as at least $60 million from San
Luis Obispo taxpayers has been surrendered to it. When SLO County has a deficit of$18 million, we can
use every tax dollar we deserve. Personally, we would hate to inform the families of the two San Luis
Obispo County soldiers killed in action that their sons' deaths did not affect their towns. In truth, the U.S.
Conference of Mayors has working sessions with topics such as climate change, global competitiveness,
military relations and the 2009 White House transition; in.addition to the attendance of both Presidential
candidates. Apparently, those attending Mayors certainly do feel,that they affect national politics, why
shouldn't you? As for the Resolution Opposing Military Intervention in Iran, it is merely upholding the
U.S. Constitution, the Geneva Conventions and diplomacy, hardly a reason for a small-town mayor to
refuse to meet with his citizens.
Finally, we would like to comment that San Luis Obispo has a strong history of breaking new trails. We
were the first smokeless city in the country, among the first to offer curbside recycling, and the City
Council and Mayor signed a Peace Resolution in 2003. These progressive and humane traditions
contribute to San Luis Obispo's place near the top of desirable cities to invest and do business. With all
this in hand, and no further excuse, we believe that you have the ability to lead our City into a wider
future.
Thank you for your time.
With respect,
✓f/f LLQ� �rY�d�LL�aL�st,.lJ �K-e�+�vt�v .liG�'""�
Women for Peace
To: SLO City Clerk Audrey Hooper
Subject: — Official City report to Public Access Board ordering end of violations of Contract with the
City of SLO, "discrimination"
—Anti-Jewish, anti-minority, etc. "whistleblowers" still punished?
—Corrections to report?
Dear Audrey,
Again, many producers and community leaders following Public Access appreciate the interest the
San Luis Obispo City Council has shown to look into and help supervise Charter's Channel 2 Public
Access nonprofit, SLOCOPA, or San Luis Obispo County Public Access.
I was a Founding Board member in 2005 and elected to a two-year term in 2006, then removed
"illegally" in 2007 for being a "whistelblower" and standing up forthe minorities targeted as"ghost
producers" by others wanting to keep their low-priority time slots.
As you know, the City has the contract or Franchise Agreement" with Charter Communications plus
a contract with the nonprofit that advises Charter on how to run Public Access. "Equal aces", non-
discrimination on sex, race, religion, etc. are included in contracts like these.
In addition to the positive effects your letter to the SLOCOPA Board have had—and the 5-0 vote
last year against much of what has been going on in Public Access for years -- many are worried
that with the major errors still in the City Staff report that more wrongs will be done using that
report. Please consider that Staff may have been provided inaccurate information that can now be
easily looked into and corrected.
Banned producers have heard nothing from the current Board, meetings aren't announced like they
used to be or are moved from month to month to different days of the week, and more. You were
there when Acting Chair Sal Espana used vulgarities and hand gesters to producers who stood up to
this so far just before the March 2008 Election Meeting. You saw how he changed his list of who
was given ballots or even who could vote, and how he spent 20 minutes trying to get the SLO City
Police to come in and remove law-abiding members of the public.
Lots of documentation or proof is available for you to answer the below the questions or others in
the two reports given to City officials over the last month at City Public Comment. People are waiting
your answerer.
Here are some of the key questions from the City Clerk's report:
Regarding the SLOCOPA Board actions over two years or more:
1) When were any banned or accused producers present at a 2007 or 2008 SLOCOPA Board
meeting in which they or others accused of serious actions. Who was present when they were
banned?What motion was made and what Board members voted to ban other producers?
2) What evidence was ever presented in video records or witnesses against those accused producers
in 2007 and 2008?
3) Were any of the 2007 or 2008 Board members on video record or other records doing exactly
what they accused others of doing that they then would ban or warn or put on "probation"?
4) Were rules put in placed and enforced only against 2007 and 2008 Board opposition members
that changed the outcome of the Board election this year and last?
5) Weren't there more than one unnamed producer with documentation proving the 2008 and, of
course, the 2007 Board elections were not fair, "fixed" or fraudulent?
6) How can the City of San Luis Obispo recognize this nonprofit if those claiming to control it haven't
followed the Bylaws in years? How can the City of San Luis Obispo recognize this nonprofit Board if it
was bold July 3, 2007 to rewrite the convaluted Bylaws, and as of April 2008 announced Bylaws will
be rewritten "in six months" to make them more legal?Aren't the Bylaws being rewritten by some of
the same people who originally wrote them in secret meetings, banning even producers who were
spouses of Board members from knowing what was going on?
Regarding Charter Communications local staff:
1) Who is it that the Charter staff you interviewed and referred to in your report were"disruptive" by
their "presence"?What occurred and when? Is it true that Charter is on record against only the
minorities banned as to Ding "disruptive" or not welcome at Charter vs. the non-minorities on record
WITH CHARTER of never being a problem for Charter?
2) Wasn't Charter staff involved in influencing Public Access elections in recent years? Didn't Charter
staff"support 100%" the producers you and mediation have shown to be in violation of the City of
San Luis Obispo contract, SLOCOPA Bylaws, "censorship" of free speech about Charter on Charter
shows or "in public", etc.? Did such rules have to be taken back by the 2007 or 2008 Boards?
3) Do shows misplay maybe on a daily basis from what is scheduled? Why is that?
4) Did Charter staff put up signs at Charter banning minorities and others from the telethon for
Martin Luther I(ing's birthday celebration, and put in other restrictions or made special statements
against producers when many minorities were involved?
The answer to that and many other questions is "yes", and is proven in the documentation available
to you.
5) What-authority does SLOCOPA Boards have to order Charter to do anything?They have no
contract with Charter, so doesn't Charter staff just do what they want regarding SLOCOPA's rules or
"directives", other than when Charter banned members of the"public" from "Public Access" shows,
also with no hearings or meeting with Charter staff?
6) Considering Charter staff is on record stating things like, "I'm not going to mediate this.", or "I'm
just trying to keep my job", or similar to that(see the records), is it possible that Charter
Communications has put a lot of pressure on local staff to cut local costs, including Public Access
costs,especially making sure it never has to provide the additional Public Access channels it agreed
to provide under circumstances similar to those by late 2006?
Regarding documented "discrimination":
1) Isn't it known by now to the City Clerk that no female technicians have been included in paid
SLOCOPA contracts or projects, even banned or personally attacked by SLOCOPA 2007 and 2008
Board members, all unfoundedly?Isn't that sexual discrimination?
2) Who are the minorities mentioned in your report who allegedly had disagreements with the Board
BEFORE they reported discrimination about them or others? Isn't what the City of San Luis Obispo
now saying is they MADE UP their allegations because they thought it would help there win some
other fight, that they claimed "racism" falsely, despite all the documentation that the City has or
should know about by now?
3) Is it true that the City Clerk met for only 15 minutes with the Founder of the "Cultural Collective"
and Vice President of Martin Luther Kng's"Dream" nonprofit of"Sharing The Dream" in her office?
Didn't he have more proof to go over before the report was written, and wouldn't City Staff like to
hear what that is from him and other minority producers, or others?
4)To report that there"appears"to be "diversity" on the channel or Board leaves out the facts that
Channel 2 has only on Hispanic on-air host left:, correct?That all the African-American and Asian
hosts and nearty all the guests are now gone, other than one or two black preachers. Does the City
Clerk believe that is "diversity"?
Of all the dozens of Latino people who used to be on Channel 2 regularly, only two are on the
Board, yet both first appeared on Channel 2 or started on the air on shows now banned by them.
n
Does that seem odd to the City Staff? Both also are on record not following SLOCOPA rules or their
own new rules, including not playing old shows after 30 days of airing or"import" material that also
is old, or not allowing one producer to host another's show, as current Chair Sal Espana accused
banned Carlton Brown and Patrick Germany of doing.
5) Isn't City Staff concerned about the "establishment" of a religion when almost all religious people
preach almost one religion? Is Staff concerned about the diversity of religious expression before the
bans but during the time the City of San Luis Obispo funded SLOCOPA and had a contract with
Charter itself?
These are serious questions that judges and "the court of public opinion" or even the Los Angeles
Times or others greater than any of us may have to decide. But they are easy questions for anyone
to answer, thanks to the tremendous work by many to DOCUMENT all that has happened.
Please consider a revision to your initial report to make sure all the facts available are inicuded,
Audrey.
Also, thank you for the time you have spent meeting with me or others, coming to meetings recently
and for the City Council showing such interest in this issue. Over 65,000 homes get Charter and
Channel 2 is one of the first on the listings. Thousands used to be on the channel and many are
determined to restore what was lost and put justice and fairness back in place.
I still would like to meet with you as do others to help answer these key questions as soon as
possible.
Thank you,
Leslie Bearce
Founding SLOCOPA Board member 2005
Elected to two-year term 2006-2008
Producer of two shows, still banned by Charter without any hearings or meetings
dos Anades rtrh6
-U"Vi f-41 G
L.A. to sue Time Warner Cable over poor service
The city alleges that the company caused 'major havoc and distress' when it became the No. 1 pay TV provider
two years ago.
By Andrew Blankstein
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer June 5,2008
The Los Angeles city attorney's office plans to sue Time Warner Cable Inc.today,alleging that the company caused "major
iavoc and distress" when it became the No. 1 pay TV provider in Southern California two years ago.
City Arty. Rocky Delgadillo said Wednesday that Time Warner violated state law by making false and misleading
statements to subscribers.The 25-page lawsuit,a copy of which was reviewed by The Times,claims the company violated its
;ranchise agreement with the city by having subscribers spend hours on hold with customer service representatives and
Blowing excessive repair work delays.
"Hundreds of thousands of Los Angeles residents were ripped off," Delgadillo said in a statement. 'Time Warner must be
field accountable for its promises."
City prosecutors said the suit would be filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
Time Warner Cable representatives had no immediate comment.
The New York-based company could face civil penalties of tens of millions of dollars.
Delgadillo's office has taken corporate interests to court several times,suing local hospitals on allegations that they dumped
ndigent patients in downtown Los Angeles and accusing Anthem Blue Cross of scheming to cancel health insurance for
)eople diagnosed with serious and expensive medical conditions.
Time Warner became the major cable TV provider in the area when it joined with Comcast Corp. in 2006 to buy out
)ankrupt Adelphia Communications Corp.Time Warner and Comcast then swapped franchises so each would dominate
markets in different U.S. regions.
The combination was difficult because Time Warner Cable had to upgrade the old Adelphia and Comcast systems and
verge them with its own. Nearly 500,000 subscribers in the city were affected.
In the suit, which focuses on service from the fall of 2006 to the spring of 2007,city prosecutors cite brochures and
elevision advertisements that they say gave the false impression that pricing for cable and Internet services would stay the
same.
The suit says the company failed to live up to its part of the franchise cable agreement requiring
hat a company answer subscribers' calls within 30 seconds and begin repairs of service interruptions
within 24 hours of notification in 90% of its calls for service. The suit claims that no more than 60% of
:ustomer service calls were answered in time.
Service also was sub-par, the suit says, quoting a brochure saying that if a customer needed a service
appointment, technicians would "fix the problem fast." Instead, technicians failed to show up on time
;o appointments to fix outages, the suit says.
Cable and Internet service "was so intermittent and inferior in quality that it was not much
xetter than no service at all," the suit says.
andrew.blankstein
@latimes.com