HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/04/2009, W5 - PRELIMINARY 2009-11 FINANCIAL PLAN council June 4&9 2009
j acEnaa Report N�
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Ken Hampian, City Manager
Bill Statler, Director of Finance& Information Technology
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY 2009-11 FINANCIAL PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
Review and consider the Preliminary 2009-11 Financial Plan at the budget workshops scheduled
for June 4 and 9, 2009.
DISCUSSION
Enclosed for your review and information in preparing for the June 4 and 9 budget workshops are
the following three documents:
1. Preliminary Financial Plan. This includes:
a. The budget message from the City Manager highlighting challenges facing us and
proposed solutions in addressing them (Section A)
b. Policies and objectives, including work programs for Major City Goals and Other
Important Council Objectives (Section B)
c. Simple graphics and charts summarizing the City's budget (Section C)
d. Operating programs (Section D)
e. Summary of capital improvement plan (CIP)projects and funding sources (Section E)
f. Debt service requirements (Section F)
g. Changes in financial position for each of the City's operating funds (Section G)
h. Financial and statistical tables (Section H)
i. Budget reference materials (Section I)
2. Appendix A: Significant Operating Program Changes.
This Appendix provides additional supporting documentation These are intended to be
for each of the significant operating program changes used as supplemental
proposed in the Preliminary Financial Plan. This also " resources if Council
includes detailed information on proposed operating members have questions
program reductions to balance the budget. An overview is on a program or project
included in the Appendix that further describes its purpose, as they review the
organization and content. Preliminary Financial
Plan. In short, while the
3. Appendix B: Capital Improvement Plan Projects. This Council may choose to
Appendix provides supporting documentation for each of the uead the Appendices from
cover-to-cover, this
CEP projects proposed in the Preliminary Financial Plan. An information is summarized
overview is included in the Appendix that further describes in the Preliminary
its purpose, organization and content. Financial Plan.
Preliminary 2009-11 Financial Plan Page 2
The June 4 and 9 workshops are the first of several study sessions and public hearings scheduled
to review the Preliminary Financial Plan. One of the fundamental purposes of these workshops
is to review these documents with the Council in some depth. Accordingly, we do not anticipate
that the Council will have reviewed all of this material in detail by the June 4 workshop.
Best Place to Start. The Budget Message and Financial
Highlights (starting on page A-1) are recommended as a
good starting point in reviewing the Preliminary Financial The Budget Message
Plan and in preparing for the June 4 workshop. It has been provides a concise
summary
written with the goal in mind of discussing all of the key the proposed
budget.balancing actions
issues reflected in the Preliminary Financial Plan in a based on the direction
concise but comprehensive manner. provided by the Council on
April 14, 2009.
Focus of the June 4 and 9 Workshops. As summarized
below, the primary focus of these two workshops will be on
General Fund programs and projects; a separate budget workshop/public hearing has been
scheduled for June 11, 2009 to review enterprise fund programs, projects and revenues, and
adopt rates for 2009-11.
June 4 Budget Workshop (Starts at 4:00 PM)
4:00 PM 1. Overview of key budget issues, strategies and fiscal outlook.
2. Fiscal policies and Council goals.
3. General Fund revenues: key assumptions.
7:00 PM 4. General Fund operating programs.
June 9 Budget Workshop (Starts at 7:00 PM)
7:00 PM 1. Continued review of General Fund operating programs, if needed.
2. General Fund CIP projects (and other non-enterprise fund projects).
3. Follow-up direction from the Council for subsequent workshops and hearings.
Remaining Budget Review Schedule
The following four dates have been scheduled for review and adoption of the 2009-11 Financial
Plan:.
Council Budget Review Schedule: Remaining Steps
June 4 Preliminary Financial Plan review; General fund operating programs
June 9 Continued review; General Fund CIP and other non-enterprise fund projects
June 11 Enterprise fund programs,projects,revenues and rates (Note: Starts at 4:00 PM)
June 16 Continued Preliminary Financial Plan review; approval of General Fund master fee
schedule; and Financial Plan adoption.
Preliminary 2003-11 Financial Plan Page 3
Major City Goals and Other Council Objectives
Consistent with Council priorities and direction, the results of the Council's goal-setting process
has been integrated into the Preliminary Financial Plan. The way this has been accomplished is
discussed at some length in the Budget Message (beginning on page A-1) and in the Policies and
Objectives section(in the"Overview"beginning on page B-3).
As discussed in the Budget Message, all of the Major City Goals set by the Council as well as the
"Other Important Council Objectives" are reflected in the Preliminary Financial Plan based'on
the work programs approved by the Council on April 14, 2009. The Budget Message also
discusses how the "Other Council Objectives"are reflected in the Preliminary Financial Plan.
Community Engagement
The City is committed to providing the community with meaningful opportunities to participate
in the goal-setting and budget process. Provided in Attachment 1 is the notice we sent to over
200 community groups and interested individuals about the budget workshops and hearings
ahead of us, and how to find out more information about the budget; and provided in Attachment
2 is the notice we sent to over 60 community groups and interested individuals who have asked
to be notified about fee increases. Additionally, links to budget information are provided on the
home page of the City's web site at www.slocity.org.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Notice on upcoming budget workshops and hearings
2. Notice on proposed fee increases
ENCLOSURES
1. Preliminary Financial Plan
2. Appendix A: Significant Operating Program Changes
3. Appendix B: Capital Improvement Plan Projects
G:Budget Folders/Financial Plans/2009-11 Financial Plan//Preliminary Financial Phm/Agenda Report
city of Attachment_
�m san IUls OBIsPO
990 Palm Street■San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 ■(805)781-7125■Fax: (805)781-7401 ■Email: bstatler@slocity.org
UPCOMING BUDGET WORKSHOPS AND HEARINGS
May 21,2009
The City's Preliminary 2009-11 Financial Plan will be distributed to the Council on May 28, 2009. This
will be followed by series of public workshops and hearings as outlined below. Each of these will be held
in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street.
Council Budget Review Schedule
June 4 4:00 pm Preliminary Financial Plan and General Fund Overview
7:00 pm General Fund Operating Programs
June 9 7:00 pm General Fund Capital Improvement Plan Projects
June 11 4:00 pm Enterprise Fund Budget and Rate Reviews: Golf and Parking Funds
7:00 pm Enterprise Fund Rate and Budget Reviews:Transit,Water and Sewer Funds
June 16 7:00 pm Continued Preliminary Financial Plan Review and Adoption of the Financial Plan.
All interested community groups and individuals are encouraged to attend any of these public meetings.
Another Very Tough Budget that Would Be Much Worse Without Measure Y
The City is facing a very tough fiscal situation in 2009-11 that is largely due to the greatest economic
downturn since the Great Depression. Based on the strategic budget direction approved by the Council on
April 14,2009,the Preliminary Financial Plan details how the City plans to address this challenge. It also
shows how the City will accomplish the top goals adopted by the Council for 2009-11.
Copies of the Preliminary 2009-11 Financial Plan and supporting documents (Appendix A for Significant
Operating Program Changes and Appendix B for Capital Improvement Plan Projects) are available for
public review as follows:
• Electronic copies are available at no cost on the City's web site at: www.slocity.or¢.
• Printed copies are available as follows:
Selections . Budget Message,Financial.Highlights,Major City Goals and up to 10 other
at no cost selected pages from the Preliminary Financial Plan, Appendix A or Appendix B
Review copies . City Clerk's Office, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
at no cost • City/County Library, 995 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Complete "hard copies" of these documents are available at the City's direct printing costs. If you have
any questions concerning the City's budget process, or require additional information, please call me at
781-7125 or email me at bstatler(&slocity.org. Please join us at any of these sessions as we finalize the
City's course of action in these difficult economic times for the next two years.
Sincerely,
���p
Bill Statler,Director of Finance&Information Technology
® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including disabled persons in all of our services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
�-�"A� city of
iIr San LUIS OBISPO
990 Palm Street ■San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 ■ (805)781-7125 ■ Fax:(805)781-7401 ■ Email:bstader@slocity.org
May 28, 2009
Preliminary 2009-11 Financial Plan
PROPOSED FEE INCREASES
Based on the budget-balancing strategy conceptually approved by the Council on April 14, 2009, the
Preliminary 2009-11 Financial Plan recommends selected fee increases in helping to close an $11.3
million annual budget.gap in the General Fund. As shown in the chart below, expenditure reductions play
the leading role in our recommended budget-balancing actions, accounting for about 80%of the solution.
However, improved cost recovery in the following areas will,also play a role, accounting for about 11%
of the"gap-closing" solution.
2009-11 Budget Balancing Strategy:
• Open alcohol container violations $11.3 Million Gap
O Improved
• Hazardous occupancy and underground Cost o Reserve
storage tank("CUPA")permits Recovery 4%
• Development review fees for planning, 11%
building, engineering and fire review o use of
services Property
• Recreation fees for child care, swim center, 3% ° capital
Program
facility rentals and golf ❑Mutual Aid Reductions
• Business license fees iamb 43%
3%
These fee proposals are described.in detail in Expenditure Reductions:79%
the Preliminary 2009-11 Financial Plan and in o operating
the Cost of Services Study, which are Programs
available for review on the City's web site 28%
(www.slocity.org) and upon request to me ° Employee
Concessions
either in"hard copy" form or electronically. 8%
Formal Fee Adoption: June 16, 2009. While the Council has conceptually approved these changes, no
final action has been taken. Consideration of adopting the proposed fees is scheduled in conjunction with
approval of the 2009-11 Financial Plan as follows:
Tuesday,June 16,2009,7:00 PM
City Hall Council Chambers,990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo
Want More Information? Upon request, we will be happy to meet with you or your organization at
your convenience to discuss these proposed fee increases with you. Please call me if have any questions
about these proposed fee increases or the City's budget process in general.
Sincerely,
Bill Statler,Director of Finance&Information Technology
® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including persons with disabilities all of our services,programs and activities.
Telecommunications device for those with hearing Impairments:(805)781-7410.
WJI��
Page 1 of 3
' RED FILE CWP �iyl «1
- 'MEETING AGENDA �-COUNCiL p-CDD DIR
f{*&orf m62 C'rFIN DIR
Hampian, Ken pA��T ITEM CWS 0' 4ZrCg4W_1 'FIRE CHIEF _
CLERWORIG PW DIR
From: Carter, Andrew 13 DEPT HEADS LZ'[�J"PEC DIR CHF
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:29 AM ErUTIL DIR
To: Hampian, Ken; Council_ALLfi— '-r-R'- ff -iR DIR
Cc: Linden, Deborah; Tregenza, Ardith NtrmFs %CBS.[UCL
Subject: RE: Noise/Neighborhood Follow-Up i fit" n462
C Lae—
I appreciate the time Deb and staff spent preparing the Noise Complaint memo in response to Naoma
Wright's letter and my e-mail. I appreciate the fact that the Police Department is in the process of
reviewing our noise enforcement efforts. I appreciate the increased number of noise citations issued last
year. Nonetheless, I remain extremely frustrated by our neighborhood patrol efforts: Let me explain
why.:.
Measure Y Spending
To start, I will return to an issue I raised in my original e-mail. It's that we collectively prioritized
traffic patrol over neighborhood patrol when it came to the Police Department's first and ultimately only
use of Measure Y funding. In other words, we decided to go looking for traffic violations instead of
dealing with the noise violations being called in by our citizens and thus staring us in the face. How
many complaint calls do we receive each year for speeding? Certainly not 3000. Do we even get 300?
We placed an issue which isn't on most residents' "radar" over one which definitely is.
I acknowledge my own complicity in this decision. I didn't raise concerns then, so it's difficult for me
to do so now. Before the economic crisis, we all thought that neighborhood patrols would be coming
next. Unfortunately, we were wrong.
The Numbers
Let me move to the numbers presented in the Noise Complaint memo. In 2008, the number of noise
complaints was virtually unchanged (-5) from 2007 while the number of DAC's issued increased by
7.5% (+95) and the number of citations issued increased by 24.0% (+44). Deb presents this as evidence
that "officers have been extremely diligent [my emphasis] about issuing noise complaints when
appropriate."
The increased number of DAC's and citations is certainly proof that SNAP employees and police
officers are being more diligent about enforcing the law. Whether it means they are being extremely
diligent, I can't say, but I have my doubts.
From a numbers' perspective, it would be interesting to prepare separate charts for SNAP employees as
a group vs. police officers as a group and even separate charts by individual SNAP employee and
individual police officer to measure the varying degrees of diligence being exercised. I would urge Deb
to do this. I imagine we would find great variation, particularly among our officers.
Where I am going with this line of thought is that, even with the greater number of citations issued in
2008, citations were written only 8%of the time. What I'm really saying is that I don't trust the "No
Violation"number. "No Violation" actually means two different things. The first is that there is, in
fact, no violation. The second is that SNAP or the Police choose not to fmd a violation. I believe the
second case is true much more often than any of us would care to admit. That's particularly true since
6/3/2009
Page 2 of 3
the threshold fora noise violation between 10 pm and 7 am is so small, i.e. noise crossing a property
line.
In fact, unless one is prepared to argue that parties suddenly got noisier in 2008 vs.2007, Police
Department numbers implicitly acknowledge this point. Presented with virtually the same number of
noise complaints in 2008 vs. 2007, SNAP and Police chose to find 95 more DAC violations and 44 more
citation violations.
An Alternate Reality
Instead of simply walking through our noise complaint procedures and explaining the specific issues I
have with them, I thought it would be interesting to do that while talking about an alternate reality. I
think that alternate reality may make the "strangeness" of our noise complaint procedures hit home.
Let's pretend we were talking about speeding. Let's pretend that in our enforcement against speeding
we followed the same procedures as we do with noise. That would mean, unless I was already on the
"speeding list," I could drive 100 mph from my house on Woodside Drive out to Marigold Center and
back on a Friday or Saturday night to do my shopping without any risk of a citation. The worst thing
that could happen is that I would be issued a"SAC" (Speeding Advisory Card) by a"SSAP" employee
(Student Speeding Assistance Program)because there were too many other people who might be
speeding downtown at the same time for our officers to patrol the neighborhoods.
Let's say I was issued that SAC on my way to Marigold. If I then obeyed the speed limit on my way
home, we'd consider this a success because I'd "stopped" speeding. It would be considered a success
even if I sped next weekend. Of course, if I got caught speeding again next weekend by a SSAP, I still
wouldn't be issued a citation. I'd simply go on the speeding list. If I didn't re-offend for six months, I'd
come off the list and could start all over again, never having received a citation. Even better, I could
simply decide to speed only once every 61 days, and I'd never get on the speeding list. Finally, if I ever
did receive a citation, I'd discover that the fines aren't too high because the Police Department has
determined that"financial sanctions tend to be the least effective in discouraging the behavior."
Let's also say that the City was thinking about changing its speeding enforcement program. I'd be
happy to learn that I and all speeders were considered "stakeholders" and would be consulted before any
change was made. Also, instead of a citation, I might get to take advantage of the SLO'Solutions
Program so that my neighbors could tell me about the impact of my speeding on their lives. And if my
neighbors chose not to participate in SLO Solutions, I would be pleased to learn that the Police
Department would be disappointed with their"resistance"to using this service.
Okay, I'm being cynical to make a point. I don't want to denigrate plans to consult with student leaders,
nor do I want to denigrate the use of SLO Solutions. I approve of both. In total, however, I think I have
illustrated some of the problems with our current DAC process.
Specific Suggestions
So here are some specific suggestions:
1) I do believe in warnings—that is, the use of DAC's. I don't see the need for two warnings,
however. I don't understand "resetting the clock to zero" after 60 days. I don't understand taking
homes off the premise list after six months. I think the rule should be that you go on the premise list
after one DAC and you stay on the premise list for twelve months or at least until the beginning of
the next school year.
6/3/2009
Page 3 of 3
2) I believe threshold for number of partiers getting on the DAC list is too high. I would reduce it
from 75 to 20. If there are more than 20 people at a party, it's pretty damn big.
3) The issue of"no violation" needs to be addressed. It is, I believe, the gorilla in the room. I can't
believe that 41% of the time no violation is occurring, since the current noise violation threshold is
so low. I've heard people complain that"police officers don't want to do their jobs." What I
suspect is that officers aren't comfortable with the current ordinance. If that's the case, then there
are two options. A) Focus on those officers who are writing few citations and"counsel" them to
write more. B) Change the ordinance. Maybe we need to issue every squad car a noise meter and
enforce a decibel rule for the allowable sound level at the property line. In that way, enforcement
would not be a"judgment call."
4) I applaud the Police Department's desire to hold landlords accountable. Hitting landlords in the
pocketbook would have an impact.
Summary
Noise in the neighborhoods has been on my radar since 2002 when I first started getting involved in city
politics. The issue predates that by years. The only seeming progress, at least recently, is 44 more
citations in 2008 and 5 fewer noise complaints. That's not much progress at all, particularly since those .
5 fewer complaints are more likely a function of the opening of Poly Canyon Village last fall and thus
fewer students in the neighborhoods instead of a real decrease in noise violations. In my opinion noise
is a bigger issue in this town than speeding, we need to adjust our Police Department and spending to
reflect this fact.
I will be sending a copy of this e-mail to Naoma Wright and RQN.
Andrew Carter
Council Member
City of San Luis Obispo
6/3/2009
, mcmomnbum
city of san wis oslspo.
DATE: May 29,2009
TO: City Council
FROM: Deborah Linden, Chief of Police
VIA: Ken Hampian, City Manager W,
SUBJECT: Noise Complaint and Response Information
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to the concerns recently expressed to some
council members by neighborhood advocates about the noise violations in our City. In this
memo, I will also try to address concerns set forth in an email forwarded to staff by Council
member Carter. The memo also includes added information about our noise complaint
procedures and call data, our recent progress in impacting the problem, and our plans for moving
forward. We wish toXrovide this "baseline" information ahead of the first budget hearing, set
for Thursday, June 4 , during which time this subject may be raised in the context of our
proposed budget reductions and allocation of resources.
Noise Complaint Procedures
When someone calls in a noise complaint to our dispatch center, the complaint is classified one
of three ways (all noise complaints and associated data in this memo refer to noise complaints
associated with a gathering or party vs. construction noise or leaf blowers):
1. First response noise complaint: A report of a noise violation at a location that is not on
the Police Department "premise list" (defined below). These complaints are normally
handled by Student Neighborhood Assistance Program (SNAP) employees who are
authorized to issue written warnings called Disturbance Advisory Cards(DACs).
2. Premised location: A noise complaint at a residence that is on the Police Department's
"premise list." A residence is placed on our premise list if it receives two or more DACs
and/or noise citations in a 60-day period,and the residence remains on the premise list for
six months. Once a residence is on the premise list,any subsequent violation results in an
officer responding rather than a SNAP employee. Officers are authorized to issue a
warning or a citation. A residence may also be placed on the premise list if they host a
party with more than 75 people present and there is a noise complaint. All fraternities and
sororities are automatically on the premise list.
3. Second response complaint: If we receive a second verified noise complaint at the same
residence within a 24-hour period, it is considered a"second response" violation and an
officer responds rather than a SNAP employee.
When SNAP or an officer responds to a noise complaint,they must first verify that the activity is
a violation of our noise ordinance. If they determine the activity is not in violation, no further
action is taken. The employee must actually witness the violation in order to issue a DAC or
citation.
Noise Complaint Data for Calendar Years 2007 and 2008
Type of complaints:
The following table depicts the types of noise complaints received in 2007 and 2008, using the
categories described above:
Type of Noise.Com faint _ 2007 2008
Number % Number %°
First response not on premise list 2339 79% 2361 80%
Premised location 515 17% 473 16%
Second response 104 4% 119 4%
Total 12958 100% 2953 100%
Of the noise complaints received in 2007 and 2008, SNAP employees responded to about 50%
and officers to about 50%. Officers respond to all premised locations and those necessitating a
second response, as well as a large number of first response complaints. The data indicates that
the number of complaints requiring a second response to the same location within a 24 hour
period is quite low — about 4% of the total, or about two calls per week. Staff believes the
primary reason for this are:
• Most noise violations are resolved with the first response of either a SNAP employee
issuing a DAC,or an officer responding and issuing either a DAC or a citation.
• A large number (over 401/6 - see table below) of initial complaints do not result in any
actionable activity because the perceived violation either does not constitute a violation
of the City noise ordinance or the noise has stopped before the SNAP employee or officer
arrives on scene.
Disposition of cotnylaints:
Once a SNAP employee or officer responds to a noise complaint,they will indicate the outcome
of the call by assigning the call a disposition. The following table depicts the dispositions of the
noise complaint calls for 2007 and 2008 as a percentage of the total calls:
Disposition 2.007 2008
Total calls 2958 2953
No violation observed 47% 41%
DAC issued 43% 46%
Citation issued 6% 8%
Other 4% 5%
Other category includes calls cancelled before officer arrives, calls determined to be a different violation, unclear
disposition.
2
The disposition of"no violation observed" indicates that once the SNAP employee or officer
arrived at the location of the complaint, they determined that either the noise that generated the
complaint did not constitute a legal violation of the City's noise ordinance, or the noise had been
stopped prior to arrival. This category also includes calls where the employee was unable to
locate the source of the reported noise, or where the report was determined to be unfounded
(both small percentages of calls).
The disposition data indicates that of the noise complaints received, almost half are determined
not to be a violation of the noise ordinance and no action can be taken by SNAP or an officer. Of
the verified violations, either a DAC or a citation is issued in almost every case. If averaged over
a year period, the verified violations constitute approximately 30 calls per week, with the
majority of calls occurring on weekend nights.
Progress in Calendar Years 2007 and 2008
Noise complaints constitute about 10% of total police calls for service. This is a significant
number, and poses a challenge to both our neighborhood residents and Police Department
resources that we take very seriously. In 2007, in response to the increasing number of noise
complaints, we modified certain internal procedures and refocused patrol and SNAP efforts in
order to impact the problem. Officers have been responding to initial noise violations when
SNAP is unavailable or backlogged with calls. Staff has worked diligently to reduce response
times to noise violations. Most significantly, officers have been extremely diligent about issuing
noise citations when appropriate. As a result, we have made very positive progress in 2007 and
2008,even without the addition of the newly envisioned Neighborhood Team.
Number of complaints DACs and citations:
From 2004 to 2007, noise complaints increased an average of 22% per year; however the
number of Disturbance Advisory Cards (DACs) and citations did not increase. In contrast, after
we focused additional effort on the problem, there was a small decline in noise complaints in
2008 (the first decline in many years). At the same time, from 2006 to 2008, the number of
DACs issued increased over 12% and, most significantly, the number of citations issued
increased 41%. This data reinforces how seriously the officers took their charge, and how
committed the Police Department is in doing our best to impact the problem. The following
table depicts these trends:
2006 2007 %Change 2008 % Change 2008
from 2006 from 2007 compared
to 2006
Complaints 2892 2958 +2.3% 2953 -0.2% + 2%
received
DACs issued 1215 1272 +4.7% 1367 +7.5% +12%
Citations issued 1 161 183 + 13.7% 227 +24% +41
Response time improvements:
In 2007 and 2008,patrol, SNAP and dispatch staff worked diligently to reduce response times to
noise complaints. The following table depicts the very positive results:
3
Type of Complaint 2007 response time 2008 response time Percent Change
in minutes in minutes
First response 24 20 - 16%
Premised location 25 23 -18%
Second response 37 22 -40%
Average 28 21 -25
Response times are dependant on various factors, including the availability of SNAP or officers
to respond to a call; the distance of the available employees from the call; the existence of a
backlog(waiting list) of calls for SNAP or officers; other calls that take higher priority or divert
officers from noise complaint responses; and the occurrence of major incidents that require
multiple officers for extended periods of time. The majority of noise complaints are received
after 10:00 PM on weekend nights. This is the same period of time that other types of calls and
activity peak, especially alcohol-related crime and activity in the downtown (including violent
crime and assaults). In addition, officers are responsible for policing the entire City and
responding to other priority calls such as domestic violence, DUIs, traffic collisions, in-progress
thefts and burglaries,alarm calls,assaults and various other calls for service.
Additional Efforts Now Underway
Noise Ordinance Review and Property Owner Responsibility Research
I indicated to Council during the introduction of the new Social Host ordinance at the March 17,
2009 Council meeting that we already have planned a very comprehensive review of our noise
ordinance and procedures, which will occur this summer (after budget adoption) with a goal to
bring recommendations to Council in the fall once the students have returned(since they are also
stakeholders in these issues). I also indicated we would be researching potential legal tools to
hold property owners responsible when the behavior of their tenants generates police responses.
Police Department staff members, including me, have met with the RQN Board and members to
inform them of our plan and we will work with RQN as our research and discussions proceed.
During this review and research, staff will consider potential changes to our noise ordinance and
procedures, including the noise violation fine levels, use of DACs, and use of the premise list.
Such a review will include the advantages and potential unanticipated consequences of changing
the ordinance or procedures, and will involve various stakeholders. Any recommendations to
Council for adoption of additional ordinances, or modifications to existing ones, will include
research regarding ordinances in effect in similar communities and an analysis of the impact of
implementing any changes.
Some of the strategies being suggested have been considered in the past and have not been
implemented for very good reason. For example, it has been suggested that staff do away with
issuing warnings for noise violations altogether and issue citations for all offenses. Staff has
previously examined this proposal and has serious concerns with it. Currently, SNAP responds to
approximately 50% of noise complaint calls. If officers were expected to provide the initial
response to all noise complaints, the number of calls would quickly overwhelm our resources
and no-one would be available to respond to many noise complaints. Although issuing citations
for all offenses might reduce the overall number of complaints somewhat, staff does not believe
the number of complaints would drop low enough to be manageable without SNAP employees.
4
The SNAP program was implemented to address the fact that officers were not able to respond to
all the noise complaints.
Based on the analysis of the noise complaints presented in this memo, it is clear that the focus of
our efforts needs to be on strategies most likely to reduce the number of first time noise
complaints since most offenders cooperate with responding SNAP and police personnel and stop
the violation. Enforcement and sanctions are important strategies in impacting the problem, but
they cannot be the only strategies, especially since financial sanctions tend to be the least
effective in discouraging the behavior. In addition, approximately 25% of the students living in
the City each year are either new to the community, or are transitioning from on-campus
housing.Impacting the problem requires constant re-education of student residents every year.
These factors call for consideration of strategies that compliment and support sanctions and
enforcement efforts, such as: enhanced education and outreach to students living in on-campus
residences; the involvement and partnership of Cal Poly and Cuesta administrators and student
leaders in setting expectations and messaging to students; the creation of tools to hold property
owners more accountable for the behavior of their tenants; and the continued use of alternative
resolutions such as the SLO Solutions Program. Staff will work with all of these stakeholders as
we strive to further impact the problem. And each suggested modification needs to be carefully
considered and analyzed before implementing any changes. Staff has outlined a process to do
this, and anticipates making thoughtful and balanced recommendations to Council in the fall.
And Many Other Current Initiatives
In addition to the comprehensive review of our noise ordinance and procedures, and of property
owner responsibility tools,the following efforts are also underway to address the noise issues:
• COPS Grant Application: With Council approval, staff has submitted a federal grant
application for two police officer positions to staff a modified Neighborhood Team. This
is a highly competitive grant with award notifications anticipated in September or
October 2009.
• SAFER California Grant Partnership: The Police.Department is partnering with Cal Poly
(health center and university police department), CHP, ABC and Sierra Vista Medical
Center to conduct an education and enforcement program focused on underage and high
risk drinking during the 2009-10 academic year. Several strategies will be utilized,
including the deployment of additional officers on peak weekend nights to enforce
alcohol and noiselparty laws, conducting DUI checkpoints, and promoting alcohol
overdose prevention education.
• SCLC Goal: At a recent end-of-year meeting of the Student Community Liaison
Committee(SCLC), I suggested SCLC make the reduction of noise complaints one of the
focuses of the committee for the 2009-10 academic year. Committee members were
supportive of this idea This will engage additional stakeholders in considering potential
strategies to improve the situation, including student leaders and administrators from Cal
Poly and Cuesta,rather than viewing this issue as primarily a"police problem."
• Responsible Retailer Program Review: Staff has researched two different "responsible
retailer"programs in place in the Cities of Santa Cruz and Ventura. The programs charge
businesses that have alcohol licenses (both on-sale and off-sale) an annual fee to fund a
police officer and support materials to help educate retail employees and enforce alcohol
5
. 1
license laws and regulations at licensed establishments. The legal basis for the program
O is to recover costs for the resources necessary to regulate the licensed establishments,
creating a direct link between the services provided and the fee charged. The programs
are not based on an "alcohol tax"to fund law enforcement to police parties or respond to
alcohol-related incidents. In fact, in order to implement any sort of local tax on alcohol, a
measure would have to be passed by voters, and if the revenue is to be used for a specific
purpose (such as funding additional officers to respond to noise violations and police
parties and neighborhoods),the measure would require a 2/3 vote for passage..
• SLO Solutions Program Continuation: Staff is recommending the continuation of the
SLO Solutions Conflict Resolution and Mediation Program offered by Creative
Mediation. The program has proven extremely successful in resolving serious and
sometime longstanding conflicts among neighbors, including conflicts between student
and non-student neighbors over issues of noise, parties, parking etc. Unfortunately, staff
has encountered resistance from some permanent resident to engage the services of SLO
Solutions in situations where staff felt the program could be very effective.
Summing Up
The Police Department and its officers take our noise ordinance very seriously and we have good
procedures in place for leveraging our limited resources in effective and legal ways. As the data
shows, over the last two years we have made significant progress in complaint response times
and DACs and citations issued. Since March, we have gained formal Council direction to return
in the Fall with a comprehensive review of our noise ordinance and procedures, and with
recommendations to hold property owners more accountable for tenant behavior. There are
several other initiatives now underway.
Therefore, I hope this memo adequately addresses the recent concerns raised by some RQN and
council members. I would be happy to respond to any questions Council may have. In the
meantime, staff will continue to keep RQN aware of the plans already underway and the
timeframe for bringing those plans forward to the City Council for action.
C
6
k%KD Gly)W« Page 1 of 2
E?tOUNCIL
--CDD DIR
C'LA9-G7tjM6,t._ [rFIN DIR
[] AeAeA%rerrinauc 2,FIRE CHIEF
RED FILE �'ATTORNEY CTPW DIR
Hampian, Ken _ (MEETING AGENDA LTCLERK/ORIQ Z-POLICE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS 2`REC DI
From: Stater, P1 15
13Rr 'T E to ITE # oeu �RILD DIR
LA;U c� -
Sent Wednesday, June 03, 2009 12:43 PM
To: 'barascharc@aol.com'; 'Spangler1945@yahoo.com; 'marcolrizzo@gmail.com'; 'leslie@slocbe.com'
Cc: Council ALL; Hampian, Ken; Ehrbar, Barbara; Hooper,Audrey; Malicoat, Debbie
Subject Response to Property Owners Association Letter of June 3, 2009
Your letter from the Property Owners Association dated June 3, 2009 to the Council was
referred to me for a response.
Let me begin by expressing my appreciation for your interest in the City's fiscal health and for
the opportunity you recently provided to me to discuss the challenges facing the City and
proposed budget-balancing actions in your Spring/Summer newsletter.
I would also like to note that all of the information requested in your letter is clearly and fully
presented in the Preliminary 2009-11 Financial Plan. In general, the Budget Message and
Financial Highlights section concisely but comprehensively covers each of your questions; and
the balance of the budget answers your questions in more detail. More specifically:
1. Proposed operating reductions are summarized in the Budget Message and fully detailed in
Appendix A, including the program affected, staffing impacts, savings, how the reduction will
be implemented and the impact on service levels.
2. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects are summarized in the Budget Message and
Financial Highlights; outlined further in Section E of the Preliminary Financial Plan; and fully
detailed in Appendix B.
3. Again, long-term strategies are fully discussed in the Preliminary Financial Plan. The short
story: as conceptually approved by the Council on April 14, the budget-balancing strategy
proposed in the Preliminary Financial Plan closes the long-term gap (estimated at$11.3
million, if no action was taken) and results in a structurally balanced budget, now and in the
future. Stated simply, based on our assumptions (which are also detailed in the Preliminary
Financial Plan) and proposed budget-balancing actions, there are no gaps in the future.
4. Strategies for an uncertain future are also discussed in the Preliminary Financial Plan and
specifically addressed on pages A-12 and 13. Moreover, as noted on page A-3, the City has a
formal Fiscal Health Contingency Plan that has held us in good stead in responding to tough
fiscal times in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
As discussed in the May 22 notice to you, the City's Preliminary Financial Plan —and all of the
other budget-related reports and documents that the Council has considered since September
2008—are provided in full on the City's web site. This is the first topic on the City's home page
(www.slocity.org); and the direct link is as follows:
http://www.slocity.oM/finance/bud etO9-1 1.asp
As a final comment, your letter notes the previous recommendations made by Dr. Frades. In
his 2006 report, there were only five specific recommendations for City action, all of which
6/3/2009
Page 2 of 2
' related to providing added information in City budget documents. Since 2006-07, all of the
City's budget documents (including the Preliminary 2009-11 Financial Plan) have included this
information.
believe this addresses all of the questions raised in your letter. Please join us at any of the
upcoming budget workshops and hearings on June 4, 9, 11 and 16 to learn more about the
fiscal challenges facing the City and proposed strategies for meeting them.
- Bill
Bill Statler
Director of Finance & Information Technology
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Phone: 805.781.7125
Fax: 805.781.7401
Email: bstatler@slocity.org
6/3/2009
'�u�����iiii���Illlllll IIIIIU
council mcmonanoum
Date: June 1, 2009
TO: City Council
VIA: Ken Hampian, City Manager4ro"��
FROM: Jay D. Walter, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Red File Item — Preliminary 2009-11 Financial Plan (Other Important
Objective) June 4, 2009 City Council Meeting
In keeping with the new "Other Important Objective — Green House Gas Reduction &
Energy Conservation" the City is upgrading one of its electric car charging units to the
new high powered SAE J1772 charging station. This is the new standard for quick
charging electric vehicles (EV). The upgrade will not cost the City to replace and install
the charger because it is part of a grant obtained by Tesla Motors which currently has
300 to 400 vehicles on the road in California. They expect to have 700 to 1,000 on the
road by next year. Other vehicles will be able to use this charging station in the coming
year or two, because the connector will be modified at no cost to the City in order to
standardize it as more vehicles are put in production.
Promoting the parking and convenient charging for these types of vehicles is beneficial
to the environment They reduce our dependency on foreign oil, have zero emissions,
cost less per mile to drive, use less fuel per mile, and produce less pollution per mile
than other types of alternative fuel vehicles.
We are allowing the conversion of an older, seldom used (never, actually!) charging
station located near the exit of the Marsh Street parking structure. Tesla Motors will
promote this location as a charging destination, which will have an attractive side benefit
in that more people will visit our downtown while their vehicle is being recharged.
This new charger is good for the environment by helping us to reduce our carbon
footprint while promoting San Luis Obispo as a destination. If you have further
questions, please contact Parking Services Manager Robert Horch.
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA 2-COUNCIL ❑'CDD DIR
DATE.4 y o ITEM # t� ErCA-0 CeOA&'k- SIN DIR
A`Gr -0fli.,z, 2-FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY 2'PW DIR
9AAW4epmlq.� camms%MMWWwd,.dm OCLERK10RIa @'POLICE CHF
❑ EPT MEADS ErFIEC DIR
C�,,,,,,--�� @'GTILDIR
Vy "u
12-FIR DIR
i ec�e�
c o u p c,L m E m o 1Za n 6 u m
BCCUNCIL G CDD DIR
rnGA- 2FIN DIR
TO: City Council Members CHIEF
9AA�
TTORNEY VOW On
CLERK/ORIQ POLICE CHF
VIA: Ken Hampian, CM p PEPT MS MJIEC Dip
41TIL DIP
FROM: Betsy Kiser, Parks and Recreation DirectorHR LIR
SUBJECT: Request from School District to Run Teen Competitive Sports Programme epi foea.-
&—Oek
Background
For years,the City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Department(P&R)has operated the
Teen Recreational Sports Program at Laguna.Middle School. The program offers girls and boy's
basketball,volleyball, track and field, and cross country, and places an emphasis on recreational
play rather than competitive play.
Ten years or so ago,when San Luis Coastal Unified School District(SLCUSD)experienced
severe budget cuts, it eliminated the.Teen Competitive Sports Program at Laguna Middle School.
In turn,P&R picked up portions of the competitive sports program in order to preserve
competitive opportunities for teens wanting more than just recreational play. Specifically, except
for basketball, P&R assumed both operational and financial responsibility for the Middle
School's competitive sports program, including girls and boy's volleyball,track and field and
cross country programs.
Over the years,this arrangement became protocol. However,when the City recently was faced
with a$10.4 million budget gap, staff took a hard look at budget saving measures and the Teen
Competitive Sports Program was identified for elimination. The rationale for this decision lay in
the fact that 1)traditionally school districts operate the competitive sports programs in their
schools, and 2)P&R would continue to operate the recreational sports programs so opportunities
for sports play for our youth remained a viable option. As such,the current 2009-11 Financial
Plan reflects the elimination of the Teen Competitive Sports Program from the P&R operating
budget. With program operating costs of$14,900 and revenues of$4,000,the savings to the City
total $10,900.
San Luis Coastal Unified School District's Request for Continuance of Program
This past week,after hearing from concerned parents and school staff,administrators from
SLCUSD approached the City with an offer to subsidize the Teen Competitive Sports Program
by reducing facility use fees(those fees paid to the school district for our use of school gyms,
classrooms, fields, etc. for City-run programs)by$15,000 if the City would continue to operate
the program as it has done so for the past ten years. (See attached letter.) Parents, students and
school district staff like and respect our programs,and at this time the school district is not in a
position to assume responsibility for the program. RECEIVED
= RED FILE JUN 2 1009
- MEETING AGENDA
DA �, 09 ITEM # 1-15 SLO CITY CLERK
In the spirit of cooperation and collaboration, especially in these tough fiscal times, staff feels
that the reduction in facility use fees of$15,000 in combination with recovering$4,000 in
revenues generated by the program provides sufficient funding for the P&R Department to
operate the program and the financial impact to the City is cost-neutral.
If approved, $15,000 from the facility use fee line item will be transferred to corresponding
Temporary Staffing and Equipment and Supplies line items.
v�G .n1U+uFadO
MEMORANDUM � �M
To: Betsy Kiser, Director, Parks & Recreation
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Fsorc:Russell Miller, Assistant Superintendent
Business Services, San Luis Coastal Unified Schoo
DATE: June 2, 2009
suBjEcr. Competitive Sports Programs at Laguna Middle School
Thank you for meeting with us on Thursday, May 28, to discuss matters of
importance to both the City of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Coastal Unified
School District.
One of the matters discussed at the meeting was the competitive teen sports
programs at Laguna Middle School operated by the City Parks & Recreation
Department. Per our discussion at that meeting, the school district would like the
City to continue to operate these programs, which are valuable for our students,
for the 2009-2010 school year. In exchange, the school district will waive $15,000
in facility use fees. The City will continue to receive the revenue generated from
these programs.
We appreciate the collaboration of our two agencies in matters of benefit to
the community and our students. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
RM:iko
C:vrpocuments and SettInternet File s,"OLKC4`vSL0 LANDS Fee
','iahver.dcc
I I
San Luis Obispo Property Owners Association
= RED FILE P.O.Box 12924
San Luis Obispo,CA 93408
— MEETING AGENDA (805)5442600
DATITEM #—W—S— P�
E 2rcoo RI`
3'�L"CITh ntG,C. 2'FIN DIR
June 3,2009 2rAGA6A1M-cg4Ar_e ErFIRE CHIEF
2�A=RNEY Z1W DIR
CLERK/ORIQ R:' DLICE CHF
Mayor and Members of the San Luis Obispo City Council f WbEP.T HEADS [JSEC DIP
City of San Luis Obispo ,/ i�� [_SHR DIP
_ 'LfHDIR
990 Palm Street i NG+✓ rllll� i COLING[-.
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 EiT17 Mat
Honorable Mayor and Honorable Members of the San Luis Obispo City Council: °i L
Our primary goal in writing this letter is to ensure that the rights of property owners are protected through: (1)
Limiting the adoption of new excessive,or onerous fees paid primarily by local property owners,and (2)
Eliminating the perceived ambiguity in the effective reduction of city operating expenses and employee benefit
and pension related costs borne by the taxpayers.
The San Luis Obispo Property Owners Association(SLOPOA)has gone on record'with San Luis Obispo City
Council on multiple occasions regarding the financial challenges facing our city. SLOPOA,as many of you
know,hired a professional economic consultant,(Dr. Steven F.Frades,from the Center for Governmental
Affairs)in 2005 to review the city's finances and make recommendations for future city expense reductions and
city budget reporting procedures.
SLOPOA has submitted both general and specific recommendations for potential savings in city expenditures as
well as reasonable additional revenue.sources. SLOPOA lias repeatedly offered to be part of a working group to
provide public input for resolution of the city's ongoing expense problem. SLOPOA members have actively
participated in numerous public meetings and forums on the city's budget process,and have advocated for
reasonable reform measures.
SLOPOA has also continued to research and make available to the City a broad range of options being used in
other nearby cities and throughout the United States to reduce costs and make a our city more"business
sensitive" SLOPOA has also continued to assist the City Council,the Senior City Management Team as well as
other city staff in defining a fiscally prudent and realistic economic public policy plan for the City of San Luis
Obispo.
As the City Council deliberates the 2009-2011 overall budget, SLOPOA's Board of Directors and diverse
membership base wishes to clearly understand the following basic budget related information including:
' l�l
1) What are the City of SLO's specific proposed operating expense savings? What are the actual employee.
costs and employee salaries and benefit savings included in these proposals,and how will these be impacted
by the proposed 28%cut in"Operating Programs"? Please name specific programs and potential personnel
positions(not names)that will be reduced or eliminated to result in the planned 30%reduction in operating
costs.
2) What are the specific proposed Capital Improvement Projects savings? Which Capital Improvement Projects
does the City currently plan to postpone? Would deferred Capital Improvement Projects actually become
significantly more costly to do in future years?(Does this really represent true or actual budget cost savings
over time?) If the current proposed budget reduction plan is to reduce street or infiastructure maintenance,
flood control improvements,etc.,then this may result in a potential conflict with the intent of the original
Measure'Y' commitments and could in fact further erode property values in our city and region.
3) What is the City's current proposal to reduce actual city expenses to address the projected$55-$60 million
city budget gap(budget shortfall)over the next five years? (Note_ It has become apparent that the financial
decisions made in 2009,will have a tremendous impact on future city finances two to five years from now
and beyond.) What long range plan does the City have starting this fiscal year to close the budget gap by
reducing City expenses to minimize future budget shortfalls with limited ways to create major increases in
city revenues in the"near-term future."
4) What,-.additional,if any,"Contingengy Plans"does the City of San Luis Obispo have in place(or proposed)
beyond the current 200/6 General Fund Reserves to respond to any future economic downturns and/or
additional future State of California"take aways" in the next 5 years and beyond?
SLOPOA needs concise responses to the four preceding questions prior to the adoption of any two-year city
budget to understand the city's long-term budget priorities and how future Measure `Y' money will actually be
spent through 2014 when the sunset clause is invoked. As Mr.Bill Statler has repeatedly stated,"Our city is
facing the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression" .Drastic times truly call for drastic actions.
Thank you very much for your detailed attention to this matter,and SLOPOA looks forward to your response.
Marco Rizzo, SLOPOA President
Leslie Halls, SLOPOA Immediate Past President
Steve Barasch,SLOPOA Past President
Mike Spangler,SLOPOA Past President
On behalf of the SLOPOA Board of Directors and the General Membership
. �� v- : M : :ice . : � •:
3212 Broad Street, Suite 200, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401,
805.544.1144 805.543.2476 fax
June 3, 2009 h�g�d CcPr �mg�L
L-2r 2r coo Dip
2r coo DiRED FILE MMayor Dave Romero Y a FIRE CH1EF
City of San Luis Obispo - MEETING AGENDA. ; �PW DIR
990 Palm Street DA !r y of ITEM # S o9 9L-ICE CHF
F1EO Dlfi
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 E. ffOL bin
CfHR DIR
s j�L'otcn�
Dear.Mayor Romero, >9 el, y 1"44
Please consider this letter as my petition to reinstate the reimbursement which until recently
was a part of the 2009-10 proposed.budget. A copy of this item is attached.
In 2003 we completed capital improvements to Broad Street and Orcutt Road which were city
requirements for the building of our small shopping center. The cost of these improvements
far exceeded the usual costs estimated for TIF charges for such buildings:
As a result, hundreds of thousands of extra dollars ($425,000 in total costs) had to be fronted
by us to pay for these off-site capital improvements..We felt a level of comfort in fronting these
costs since we had an agreement with the city to reimburse us for costs which were over and
above aproperty owner's reasonable outlay. Please note that.we are not a huge developer
who can afford such outlays, but rather ordinary local citizens just trying to make a go of it.
Unfortunately, we had to fight for the return of these funds and finally reached an agreement
with the city for reimbursement in the amount of$204,625 in January of 2006. But the city
attorney threw in a provision at the last minute_allowing the reimbursement to be paid over a
period of 15 years—a provision we would have had to'fight in court in order to change.
The balance due us has currently been reduced to $114,800 (originally proposed to be paid in
fullin the 2009 budget). We have fought to have this included in the current:budget because
we thought it unfair to see the balance further reduced over time as a result of inflation. Now
the proposed budget has,divided it into four payments to be paid over four years. We ask you
to consider the fact that we have already been waiting over five years to recoup these costs.
The problem with this change is that it only includes half of what we are owed in the current
budget, not to mention the fact that inflation continues to erode the balance (since there is no
provision for the city to pay interest, which would have.been much more fair). And it causes us
once again to have to fight for inclusion of the remaining balance in a future budget.
Therefore, we propose a compromise.Reinstate the full $114,800 remaining balance in the
2009-10 budget to be paid in two annual installments of$57,400 beginning in July. We feel
this is a just and equitable solution for both parties..1 will appear.at the June 9, 2009 city
council meeting to.speak to this issue. Thank you.
rel ,
Dan L m
TRANSPORTATION
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT
CIP Project Summary
Reimbursing a developer for project improvements from the Transportation Impact Fee Fund will cost$114,700
in 2009-10.
Project Objectives
Reimburse the Village for the oversizing of transportation facilities.
Eidsting Situation -
Occasionally the City requests that private development projects construct additional improvements to public
infrastructure beyond those normally required to build their project. This "oversizing" of public improvements is
encouraged to complete necessary infrastructure sooner rather than later and allow orderly development to occur
without addition disruptions to the public or numerous construction projects to complete needed improvements.
In order to ensure this work, the City has normally agreed to reimburse theseprivate projects for the oversized
improvements recognizing that if the City was to undertake the improvements, it would require similar
expenditures of public funds to complete the necessary improvements.
One such case has been street and signal improvements performed by Minor Subdivision 99-214 (Source
Commercial Group) at the intersection of Broad Street at Orcutt Road and the now called Village Marketplace.
This commercial project was built on the southeast comer of the intersection and as part of that development
approval, was required to complete frontage improvements that included curb, gutter and sidewalk along with
additional paving on Broad Street and Orcutt Road. As part of the approvals of the project the City requested that
they complete additional improvements to construct the dual.left turn lanes in the southbound direction from
Broad Street to Orcutt Road. The timing of this improvement made sense in that the project would be widening
Orcutt Road and the second receiving lane could be constructed to allow the dual left turn lane to be completed.
The dual left tum lane (including changes to the traffic signal) was not a project specific requirement of the
development project and as such was considered an oversizing of public infrastructure. The costs for this
improvement are eligible for reimbursement from the City Transportation Impact Fee ('TIF) fund which is impact
mitigation money collected from all new development.
Goal and Policy Links
1. Reimbursement Agreement approved by the City Council on January 17,2006.
2. Section 16.20.110 of the City's Municipal Code"Reimbursement Agreements"
Project Work Completed
The physical improvements to the intersection were completed in late 2004 and accepted by the City. A
reimbursement agreement was approved by City Council on January 17,2006 in the amount of$204,625.56.
Environmental Review
None required.
r
3-230
TRANSPORTATION
1
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT
Project Constraints and Limitations.
There are no significant project constraints or limitations.
Stakeholders.
The stakeholder is the Village Marketplace developer and those that will rely on the TIF for other TIF projects..
Project Phasing and Funding Sources
Pro'ect Costs by Phase
Project Costs
Budget-to-Date 2007-08 .2008-09 .2009.10 2010-11 Total
Total Reimbursement Amount 114,700
Previously Reimbursed 12/200 36,000
Previously Reimbursed 01/2M 40,600
TIF Credit 3220 Broad 13,300
Total 1 89,9001 1 - 114,700 - 89,900
Project Funding by Source
Transportation Impact Fee Fund.
Key Project Assumptions
Costs are based on a completed project and the agreed to reimbursement agreement.
Project Manager and Team Support
Project Manager
Public Works—Development Review
Project Team.
Public Works—Development Review
Finance
Alternatives
1. Deny the Project. If we do nothing the current Council Approved reimbursement agreement still exist and
will require future action.
2. Defer or Re phase the Request. The reimbursement agreement and City Municipal Code allows for a 15
year reimbursement period.
3-231
• i i
iTRANSPORTATION
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE CREDIT(VILLAGE MARKETPLACE)
Project Constraints and Limitations
There are no significant project constraints or limitations.
Stakeholders
The stakeholder is the Village Marketplace developer and those that will rely on the TIF for other projects.
Project Phasing and Funding Sources
Pro'ect Costs by Phase
Project Costs
Budget-to-Date 2009-10 2010.11 2011-12 2012-13 Total
Total Reimbursement Amount 28,700 28,700 28,700 28,700 114,800
Previously Reimbursed 12/2001 36,000 36,000
Previously Reimbursed 0 1/2001 40,600 40,600
TIF Credit 3220 Broad 13,300 13,300
Total 89,9001 28,7001 28,7001 28,700 28,700 204,700
Project Funding Source
Transportation Impact Fee Fund
Key Project Assumptions
Costs are based on a completed project and the reimbursement agreement.
Project Manager and Team Support
Project Manager
Deputy Director of Public Works
Project Team
Engineering Development Review
Finance&Information Technology
Alternatives
1. Deny the Project If we do nothing the current Council Approved reimbursement agreement still exist and
will require future action.
2. Defer or Re-phase the Request The reimbursement agreement and City Municipal Code allows for a 15 year
reimbursement period.
3-191