The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-10,11,12-2013 Item B1, PH1, PH2 - Lichtig7JUNRTVED 0 2013d1hadcouncit memojzAn6uM,_,_,_,___ city of san Luis osispo, admmistization aepaatment DATE: June 7, 2013 TO: Mayor Marx and Council FROM: Katie Lichtig, City Manager SUBJECT: Budget Questions and Response (B-1, PH -1, PH -2) AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Datedis _s p I Wem#_'3 _1 L �44 L A Council Member has asked the several budget -related questions and staff in Public Works, Parks and Recreation, and Administration have developed the following responses. 1. Is there funding for the Jack House Gazebo Project? A. This project is not included in the proposed 2013-18 Capital Improvement Plan. 2. Why is the Ranger maintenance position being funded entirely with cuts from the Open Space CIP fund (#111) when the position meets several other budget goals and departmental work programs? (BI -7,13) Since it is a Parks and Rec position, why does that department not contribute to its cost? (E-115) Why do other departments not contribute? A. During the April 9 Strategic Budget Direction meeting, a majority of the City Council expressed support for an increase to the Ranger Service Staffing SOPC to create a new full- time, permanent position, provided there was available funding. This is a General Fund supported function and as such is not funded by any particular department. The Council's direction was made in recognition of the ongoing need to balance City acquisition and conservation of open space resources with the maintenance and monitoring of these lands. The Preliminary Financial Plan identifies this balance by making some of the funding for the proposed staff position available from the Open Space Acquisition Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) project. In practice, the amount of reduction to the CIP is not considered significant enough to be detrimental to the City's ability to make high priority open space acquisitions. As staff continues to pursue acquisition of land in the City's greenbelt, it will work closely with other local agencies, granting agencies, and conservation groups to leverage City funding to the greatest extent possible. Staff will also continue to consult with the City Council regarding its specific budgetary needs as acquisition projects come to fruition. 3. When is the appropriate time for the council to review the parking garage rates? A. While the Council has the discretion to set parking rates during an annual fund review, our process has been to do the financial analysis and do outreach to our downtown stakeholders before Council has increased rates. This would include the Downtown Association and the Chamber of Commerce. One assumption we make is that traditionally we have increased rates by 10% about every three years. This assumption was programmed in 2015-16 because we just raised super core meter rate, added the credit card meters, and expanded to Sundays June 7, 2013 Page 2 this year. In the two year span of this budget we have sufficient revenues to meet our expenses. 4. During these budget hearings, could we consider making only the first half hour free? A. Yes, but this option has not been evaluated in terms of parking demand management and fiscal impacts. If the Council wants to consider this option staff will be prepared to respond to impacts on parking structures, lots and on -street parking at the parking fund review meeting on June 12. 5. How does the 50% loss of revenue from lots 2, 3 and 11 impact the construction of the Palm- Nipomo parking structure? (PHI -11) A. As for its impact on the affordability of the Palm Nipomo parking structure, we ran our analysis for the fund's Changes in Working Capital out another 5 years or to 2022-23 and the analysis shows we can afford the structure including operational costs and debt service. This is our best forecast so it is not an absolute, however, it does include the conservative loss of 50% of the revenues for the parking lots lost to developments. 6. How did we arrive at the figure of $25, 000 each year for bikeway improvements (#63)? A. This amount was based on an estimate of historic contributions to this fund. And — is consistent with past amounts from TDA Article 3. Also this amount was the Bicycle Advisory Committee recommendation (Attached). 7. Did the Bike Committee submit a list of proposed projects or unmet needs to the budget committee? If yes, please give council a copy. A. The bike committee submitted a list of goals for Council consideration as part of the Major Council Goal process, which is attached for the convenience of the Council. 8. Is the funding for bike paths secure, or only in the grant application stage? A. The Rail Road Safety Trail is dependent on grants that are competitive and not yet secure. The Bob Jones connection to LOVR grant has already been awarded to the City in an amount of $600K. 9. What is the dollar amount of the Cal Poly bus subsidy? (PH2-4) 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16* 2016-17** 2017-18** $395,200 $403,104 $415,197 $427,653 $449,036 $462,507 *2015-16 is the last contract year **2016-17 is 5% increase projection ***2017-18 is 3% increase projection The Cal Poly subsidy makes up approximately 62% of Transit's total annual service charges. June 7, 2013 Page 3 10. What portion of Street reconstruction and Resurfacing (#53) and other CIP items will be devoted to striping for bike lanes and other bike related operations? Staff is working on a response to this question. 11. What is the total amount budgeted in all categories for bike paths and maintenance? Staff is still working on a response to this question. Attachment Bicycle Advisory Committee 2013-15 Goals for Council Consideration On November 20, 2012, the Bicycle Advisory Committee drafted its recommended FY 2013-15 goals for Council consideration. The following table presents the Committee's draft goals which are designed to implement Measure Y priorities of Traffic Congestion Relief, maintain the City's silver level "Bicycle Friendly City" designation by the League of American Bicyclists and make the best use of the City's limited financial resources. Goals are not listed in any specific order. The Committee recommends that what can be done, should be done. Recommended Goal Why Goal is Important Measure Y/Major Candidate Funding City Goal Relationship Maintain 1/2 time The Principal Direct relationship: Principal Transportation Planner Traffic Congestion - General Fund Transportation Planner position oversees the Relief position and as the City's City's bicycle fiscal health improves, transportation program. Also supports restore funding to 1.0 Preservation of FTE. Essential Services and Fiscal Health Maintain 1/4 time This position seeks out Direct relationship: temporary staffing and applies for grants as Traffic Congestion - General Fund position for well as assists in the Relief Transportation implementation of the Programs Bicycle Transportation Also supports Implementation and as Plan. Preservation of the City's fiscal health Essential Services improves, restore funding and Fiscal Health to 0.50 FTE and make the position permanent. Continue improving the Increases the usability & Direct relationship: - Traffic Impact fees maintenance & safety of safety of bicycle & Traffic Congestion bicycling & pedestrian pedestrian facilities Relief facilities in conjunction which promotes with Pavement alternative transport. Also supports Management projects. Including these Infrastructure ($25,000 annually). improvements in the Maintenance Pavement Management cycle results in substantial cost savings.. Continue design and This goal provides a huge Direct relationship: - General Fund construction of the safety enhancement for a Traffic Congestion - BTA grants Railroad Safety Trail: large volume of Relief - STIP funding Taft to Pepper. bicyclists, a safe bike - City debt financing route to the University, Also supports Climate for construction schools, & parks: Protection - Fundraising efforts implements General Plan goals to increase bicycle use and supports Grand Jury recommendations to close a s. Continue design and This project continues to Direct relationship: - Grants -5- construction of the Bob be a high priority among Traffic Congestion Jones City to Sea Trail. residents and SLO Relief County is moving forward with their section Also supports Climate of the trail. Protection Maintain $7,500 in Education efforts reduce Direct relationship: - Transportation funding for Bicycling collisions. Also supports Traffic Congestion Development Act Safety Education. Grand Jury goal of Relief (TDA) funds romotinE safe c cling. Fund the design and Bike boulevards are Direct relationship: - General Fund construction of Bicycle relatively inexpensive to Traffic Congestion - Traffic Impact fees Boulevards, construct and increase Relief and ridership as they appeal Neighborhood to risk-averse, Wellness inexperienced and younger bicyclists. Also supports Climate Protection Implement multiple lower The City's bicycle Direct relationship: - General Fund cost Bicycle infrastructure can be Traffic Congestion - Traffic Impact fees Transportation Plan greatly expanded for Relief projects. minimal costs if many small projects in the Also supports Climate Bike Plan are Protection implemented. -6-