HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-17-2018 Item 12 Future SLO Capital Improvement Program
Meeting Date: 4/17/2018
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: COUNCIL DIRECTION REGARDING FUNDING THE FUTURE OF SLO
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive a Report on the projects, community feedback, and funding sources for Funding
the Future of SLO; and
2. Direct Staff to return to Council as part of the 2019-2021 Financial Plan with an outreach
and engagement plan, a prioritized project list, and recommendations to fund Capital
Projects within the Funding the Future of SLO initiative.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
Funding the Future of SLO represents the first time in the City’s recent history that staff has
taken a comprehensive review of the specific projects that create the vision as articulated in
various planning documents. These documents were not completed in isolation – but rather are
the result of extensive public engagement, advisory body review and public hearings. In total, the
projects that implement these plans fulfil the vision and social, environmental and economic
goals of the City and the community. The planning documents therefore, are the expression of
public and Council desires for the future of San Luis Obispo. Funding the Future of SLO takes
the city’s preferred future as described in the Land Use and Circulation Element, the Bicycle
Transportation Plan, the Downtown and Mission Plaza Concept Plans, and other documents –
and summarizes the projects required to implement the described visions. In addition, it is
significant to note that Measure G and the Council’s priority to maintain existing infrastructure –
enable the City to look to the future. Without the current healthy investments toward maintaining
the City’s existing infrastructure – it would be difficult to justify plans to build additional
infrastructure.
This report includes three related but distinct sections. The first section summarizes the capital
projects that constitute the Funding the Future of SLO proposal. The second section provides the
Council with a summary of the outreach to date – including community meetings, Open City
Hall, phone an on-line survey, and a Community Forum. The third and final section summarizes
the potential funding options for consideration.
DISCUSSION
On December 12, 2017, and January 16, 2018, the City Council reviewed the proposed projects
included in what was then called the “10 Year CIP.” Since the January meeting, staff has
completed the following:
1. Continued to refine the projects included on the list;
2. Expanded the implementation time frame to 20 years;
Packet Page 181
12
3. Ensured projects in Capital Facilities Fee Program are appropriately reflected in Funding
the Future of SLO;
4. Began work with a consulting firm on analyzing various funding options; and
5. Met with community groups, conducted a survey, hosted a community forum.
This report is crafted into three distinct sections as follows; Projects, Community Outreach and
Funding Sources.
Section 1: Projects
There were three primary factors that led to a comprehensive analysis of the City’s Long-term
Capital needs. They are as follows:
1. City Council Major Council Goal on Financial Sustainability and Responsibility included
a particular task to develop a plan to finance the City’s long-term capital needs. The due
date for this task is Spring of 2018.
2. The City’s Capital Facilities Fee Program (CFFP) update, adopted by Council on April 3,
2018, included a detailed look at projects to be included in the impact fee program.
3. The City has concluded, or has in process, several important planning documents,
including the updated General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element, Bicycle
Transportation Plan, Open Space Master Plan, Downtown Concept Plan, Mission Plaza
Concept Plan, Facilities Master Plan, and several other documents. Each of these
documents include a list of projects which reflect community needs and interests for the
future.
Fundamental assumptions in the development of the Funding the Future of SLO include the
following:
1. This list only includes projects supported all or in part by the City’s General Fund.
Enterprise Fund projects will be considered in future Financial Plans as part of the fund
review of each individual Enterprise Fund.
2. The project list will differ from the CFFP project list in that the CFFP list extends to full
build-out in 30 years. The Future of SLO includes projects that can be completed in 20
years.
3. Project costs are in various stages of definition. Some projects, like Prado Road
Interchange, are in the engineering and environmental phase, and others, such as
Ludwick Center has undergone a general Needs Assessment. Given the 20-year time
horizon, there could be changes in scope which could modify individual costs as the
project gets closer to construction.
After continued analysis of the project list provided to the Council in January, Chart 1 below
summarizes the General Fund contribution to all funded and unfunded projects over the next
twenty years.
Packet Page 182
12
Chart 1
Maintenance of
Existing Infrastructure
Enhancement of
Existing Infrastructure
New
Projects
Total
Unfunded
Total projects 43 57 16 73
Total Cost $150 M $322 M $ 96 M $418 M
Funding Status Funded primarily
through Measure G and
SB 1 (state Gas Tax
increase)
Unfunded Unfunded
The above chart emphasizes a very important point. That is, Measure G and the Council’s
priority, reinforced by the Revenue Enhancement Oversight Committee, enables the City to
maintain existing city assets. This focus on maintaining and replacing existing streets, storm
drains, parks play equipment, urban forest, sidewalks, bike facilities and other infrastructure
enables the city to look to the future. Since priority goes toward maintaining existing
infrastructure, there are no current projected revenues available sufficient to fund projects in
Funding the Future of SLO. Therefore, significant enhancements of existing infrastructure (such
as replacement of Police Headquarters) and new projects (such as Prado Road Overpass), are
currently not funded given the City’s General Fund future assumed capital contributions.
While much of the discussion regarding Funding the Future of SLO has been on project lists and
total costs, the focus of the initiative is to create the city that was envisioned by the community
as reflected in numerous public processes and forums. Specifically, the list of projects:
1. enhances the quality of life for current and future generations,
2. provides safer and less circuitous transportation options,
3. provides safer facilities for biking and walking,
4. improves police and fire services and emergency response, and
5. enhances cultural, artistic, recreation, entertainment and economic activities.
The projects are not ends in themselves – they are a means to the end of a better quality of life
for San Luis Obispo residents and visitors.
To better understand the types of projects in the two unfunded categories of 1) Enhancement of
Existing, and 2) New Projects – staff grouped all the unfunded projects into Service Areas of 1)
Transportation, 2) Community Improvement and 3) Public Facilities. In addition, within each of
those Service Areas, staff prioritized the projects by decade. In other words, the higher priority
was placed in the 1-10 Year time horizon, and the second priority were placed within the 11-20
Year time horizon.
As noted above, there are 73 projects in the three Service Areas of Community Improvement,
Transportation and Public Facilities. In each of those Service Areas, a critical few projects
represent a large share of the total costs. In addition, they represent the public benefits and
service provided to city residents, businesses and visitors. In the list below, only those projects in
the 1-10-year time frame are considered. Each project includes public benefits, General Fund
costs, and total costs if different from the General Fund contribution.
Packet Page 183
12
Transportation
The projects discussed below are approximately 48% of the total General Fund cost of all
projects within in the Transportation Service Area’s 1-10-year priority list.
1. Prado Road Interchange
• New cross city connection, local and regional link to jobs, housing, recreation and
commerce
• $35 M project, General Fund $4 M
2. Prado Road extension; Higuera to Broad
• New cross city connection, reduced travel times in critical east-west corridor
• $ 25 M project, General Fund $7.7 M
3. Tank Farm Widening, Horizon to Santa Fe
• Improved cross-city connection, reduced travel times, improved safety, improved
safety and access for bicycles and pedestrians
• $ 22 M project, General Fund $12.6 M
4. Railroad Safety Trail Completion
• Completion of Class 1 bike path (separated bike facility) that links northern and
southern sections of the city and improves safety for all levels of bike users
• $ 11 M project. General Fund $10 M
5. Bob Jones Trail Completion
• Completion of Class 1 bike path (separated bike facility) that links to County trail
and provides access for southern parts of the city and improves safety for all
levels of bike users
• $11 M project, General Fund $10 M
Community Improvements
The projects below are approximately 82% of the total General Fund costs of all projects in the
Community Improvement Service Area’s 1-10-year priority list
1. Mission Plaza Revitalization and Restroom Improvements
• Cultural center and gathering space
• $ 9 M General Fund
2. Laguna Lake Improvements
• Protect vital natural resource
• $ 14 M General Fund
3. Downtown Street Conversions – Monterey and Monterey/Broad streetscape
• Enhanced downtown safety, vitality and cultural, artistic and historic town center
• $ 15 M General Fund
Packet Page 184
12
4. Implement Parks Master Plan
• The Parks and Recreation Element and Master Plan are in the process of being
updated. At this time, community needs are just starting to be assessed. At the
end of this major work effort, anticipated in late 2019 early 2020 the City will
have a prioritized list of future parks and recreation projects that have b been
costed over their lifecycles and prioritized by the community through a robust
engagement process. The results will be a focused effort for the future to use
limited funds wisely and enhance public parks and recreational resources.
• $ 26 M project, $23 M General Fund
Public Facilities
The projects below are approximately 91% of the total General Fund costs of projects in the
Public Facilities Service Area in the 1-10 Year priority list
1. New Police Headquarters
• Enhanced public safety, improved response times and investigation capability
• $ 47 M total project cost. $43 M General Fund
2. Rebuild Fire Station 2
• Enhanced emergency response, increased emergency service reliability during
disaster
• $ 7.5 M General Fund
3. Fire Vehicle Maintenance Building and Emergency Operations Center
• Improved city-wide emergency response capability, and increased vehicle
maintenance capability to insure ongoing reliable emergency response
• $ 8 M General Fund
A complete project list is included as Attachment A. All the projects within each theme are
included on that list.
Attachment B includes a summary of the Plans and Concept Plans reviewed, discussed and
conceptually approved; with the applicable projects recommended in that Plan. It should be
noted the Facilities Master Plan and Parks and Recreation Master Plan are currently ongoing.
Chart 2 below is a summary of that Attachment, with the additional inclusion of the plans that
constitute the Maintenance of Existing Infrastructure. All the costs below are costs over twenty
years.
Packet Page 185
12
Chart 2
Plan title (Maintenance of Existing) Funded projects and source
1. Pavement Management Plan Measure G and Capital Outlay
2. Storm Drain Master Plan Measure G and Capital Outlay
3. Waterways Master Plan Measure G and Capital Outlay
4. Specific Infrastructure Asset Plans (parks,
streets, park facilities, sidewalks, urban forest)
Measure G and Capital Outlay
5. Fleet, facilities and IT needs Measure G and Capital Outlay
Total $150 M
Plan Title (from Attachment B) Unfunded Projects
1. Facilities Master Plan $ 127 M
2. Downtown Concept Plan $ 92 M
3. Bicycle Transportation Plan $ 70 M
4. General Plan Circulation Element $ 51 M
5. Parks Master Plan $ 23 M
6.. General Plan $ 15 M
7.. Laguna Lake Natural Resource
Conservation Plan
$ 14 M
8. IT Strategic Plan $ 7 M
9. Other $ 7 M
10. South Broad Street Plan $ 5 M
11. ADA Plan $ 2 M
12. Parks Strategic Plan $ 1 M
13. Conservation and Open Space Element $ 1 M
Total $ 418 M
The chart below is intended to provide Council with a general sense of the number and costs of
projects within the three Service Areas and within the 1-10 and 11-20-year time frame. In
addition, the list summarizes the projects which have a nexus with and funding source from the
CFFP the Council heard on April 3. These projects are called ‘Partnership Projects’ in that they
are a partnership between existing residents and future residents.
The purpose of the chart below is to provide the Council with information on the relative cost
differences of projects within each Service Area, the magnitude of the Partnership Projects in
comparison with the General Fund only projects, and information total project costs on the
projects in the 1-10 Year and 11-20 Year time horizon.
Packet Page 186
12
Chart 3
Year 1 -10
Transportation Community
Improvement
Public
Facilities
Totals – All
Categories
Partnership Projects 27 1 3 31
General Fund contributions $112 M $24 M $64 M $200 M
Grants and other sources $112 M $5 M $ 4 M $121 M
Total Project costs $224 M $29 M $68 M $321 M
General Fund projects 0 15 3 18
General Fund contributions 0 $50.5 M $3.5 M $54 M
Grants and other sources 0 $ 8 M 0 $ 8 M
Total Project costs 0 $58.5 M $3.5 M $62 M
All projects 27 16 6 49
Total General Fund
contributions
$112 M $74.5 M $68 M $254 M
Total project costs $224 M $ 87 M $72 M $383 M
Year 11-20
Transportation Community
Improvement
Public
Facilities
Totals – All
Categories
Partnership Projects 11 0 4 15
General Fund $36 M 0 $47 M $ 83 M
Grants and other sources $28 M 0 $3 M $31 M
Total Project costs $64 M 0 $50 M $114 M
General Fund Projects 3 3 3 9
General Fund $18 M $26 M $37 M $81 M
Total Project costs $18 M $26 M $37 M $81 M
All projects 14 3 7 24
General Fund $54 M $26 M $84 M $164 M
Total Project costs $83 M $26 M $86 M $1954 M
Grand Totals Years 1-20
Total Projects – 20 Years 41 19 13 73
Total General Fund- 20
years
$166 M $100.5 M $152 M $418.5 M
Total Project Costs – 20
Years
$307 M $113 $158 M $578 M
Packet Page 187
12
Project Prioritization Options
If Council wants to proceed with the Funding the Future of SLO but with a smaller project list,
below are potential options for refining the list. Any of the options could include various
methods of public and advisory body involvement. Should Council direct staff to return with this
initiative as part of the 2019-21 Financial Plan, staff could include a process on project
prioritization.
Section 2: Community Outreach and Public Engagement
To provide Council with a sense of citizen interest in the benefits of future projects, and, citizen
perspectives on various funding sources, city staff engaged in an intensive public outreach in the
last few weeks. To accomplish this the City used a variety of tools and approached to engage the
community (in accordance with the Public Engagement and Noticing Manual) which included:
- Press releases, website news items, e-notifications and social media posts to inform the
community about the infrastructure needs and various funding options. There were two
television interviews and two newspaper interviews.
- Stakeholder presentations to various groups and associations. Presentations were made to
groups such as city Committees and Commission such as Parks and Recreation Board,
Mass Transit Committee, Planning Commission, Architectural Review Commission,
Active Transportation Committee. In addition, presentations were made to the Downtown
Association Board, Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee,
Developers Roundtable and other organizations. During the month of March there were
seventeen separate presentations to various public bodies.
- The City also hosted a community forum at the Police Department on March 26 to
provide the same outreach presentation. The event also included a tour of the building
and opportunity for Q&A.
- For members of the public who are not a part of a stakeholder group or were unable to
attend the community forum, the City posted the outreach presentation on the City’s
website through the Open City Hall tool. This tool allows individuals to review the same
information from in-person presentations and provide feedback. In total, the Open City
Hall topic had 304 visitors and 80 statements or the equivalent of 4 hours of public
comment. All statements received are included in Attachment D.
Packet Page 188
12
- The City also engaged a firm to complete a statistical survey of residents’ preferences on
identified projects and various funding options. The survey had 846 responses and +/-4.9
margin of error. The results of the survey are included as Attachment E and are
summarized below:
o A majority supports a sales tax measure at one cent or one-half cent at 57% and
61% respectfully to improve City infrastructure, but support is soft and falls short
of the threshold needed for a special tax.
Support for a One-Cent Sales Tax Versus a ½-Cent Sales Tax
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
29%
22%
6%
4%
11%
25%
3%
Total
Yes
57%
Total
No
40%
Initial One-Cent
37%
17%
7%
4%
8%
22%
5%
Total
Yes
61%
Total
No
34%
Half-Cent
o A majority would oppose the measure if the funding mechanism were a parcel tax
instead of a sales tax.
o Voters favor a mix of projects that focus on both infrastructure and City services.
▪ Addressing Homelessness (67% extremely or very important; 37%
extremely important);
▪ Keeping public areas safe and clean (66%; 25%);
▪ Upgrading fire stations that have been determined by structural engineers
to not meet current seismic earthquake standards (61%; 25%);
▪ Retaining and attracting local businesses (61%; 22%);
▪ Improving traffic circulation across town (60%; 28%);
▪ Improving traffic flow (59%; 26%);
▪ Preparing for natural disasters and other related threats (59%; 22%);
▪ Improving safe routes to school (57%; 27%);
▪ Ensuring City buildings are earthquake retrofitted to meet the current
California Seismic Safety Act standards (57%; 21%);
▪ Improving pedestrian and bike safety (55%; 28%);
▪ Improving traffic safety (55%; 18%); and
▪ Helping ensure safe places to play (51%; 17%)
o Voters prefer funding projects that maintain current City services and
infrastructure over projects that would improve them.
Packet Page 189
12
“Maintaining” Versus “Improving” Services and Infrastructure
68%
64%
58%
47%
43%
42%
32%
37%
43%
53%
57%
58%
Extremely/Very Important Somewhat/Not Too Important/ Don't Know
Maintaining police and fire services
Maintaining essential City services
Maintaining City infrastructure
Improving City infrastructure
Improving police and fire services
Improving essential city services
o The infrastructure measure was asked in conjunction with a potential cannabis tax
measure and the infrastructure measure loses support when respondents are
informed that both measures could be on the same ballot.
Total Support for One-Cent Sales Tax and Cannabis Tax Measures
When Both are on the Ballot
Total Yes
Total No
Undecided
One-Cent Sales Tax Cannabis Action Tax
62%
28%
10%
44%
46%
10%
Section 3: Potential Funding Sources
The City monitors its financial condition on a continuous basis through long-term forecasting.
The Capital Improvement Program is an important element of long-term fiscal health.
Maintenance of the City’s facilities as well as building infrastructure to facilitate planned growth
are part of the City’s long term fiscal sustainability.
Even though, the City’s long-term forecasts include assumptions to fund maintenance of existing
facilities, primarily funded by the existing Local Revenue Measure (Measure G), the current
revenue sources are not sufficient to pay for the Capital Improvement Program envisioned for the
Packet Page 190
12
future of San Luis Obispo as described in various Council approved planning documents. To
fully fund the program, a $418 million dollars budget gap has been identified. Due to existing
General Fund debt expiring between 2019 and 2048, approximately $46 million could be
diverted to this need over time as the existing revenue bond debt is paid off.
A new revenue source will be required to fund the projects. The City has contracted with the
City’s debt advisor, Professional Financial Management (PFM) consulting firm, to analyze the
top three financing and funding mechanisms that can generate required dollars to fully fund the
program. The three options are an increase in sales tax, issuance of a General Obligation Bond
(GOB), and formation of a citywide Community Facilities District (CFD). All the above options
would require voter approval.
The full analysis of funding options provided by PFM is in Attachment C.
In summary, the City has the following options to fully fund the identified needs:
One Cent Special or General Sales Tax:
A one cent sales tax for the duration of 25 to 30 years would be required to be approved by the
voters to fully fund the program. It is estimated that one cent over the 30 years, would generate
approximately $616 million dollars and a one cent for the duration of 25 years would generate
approximately $486 million.
A 25-year one cent sales tax measure most closely aligns with the total funding needed to fully
fund the identified projects; however, it is the most expensive sales tax option in terms of costs
of debt, which is estimated at $107 million.
A 20-year one cent sales tax measure does not generate enough revenue to fully fund the
program and the 30-year one cent sales tax option allows for more projects to be funded on pay
as you go basis. One-half cent measures do not generate sufficient revenue to fully fund the
program as proposed.
The City’s current sales tax rate is 7.75 percent which includes a half cent Local Revenue
Measure. This level of taxation is aligned with the median sales tax across the State of
California; however, the average sales tax is slightly higher at approximately 8%.1 This is
because rural cities tend to have lower sales tax base than major metropolitan areas. The highest
level of sales tax in California is the City of Long Beach at 10.25 percent, which is equivalent to
the rate in Chicago, Illinois. One cent sales tax would raise the City’s sales tax to 8.75 percent.
Based on a study completed in 2013 by Strategiceconmics Inc. which showed that approximately
72% of total sales tax is generated by non-residents. Based on general assumptions, Bureau of
Labor Statistics data on consumer spending, United States Census Statistics for San Luis Obispo
average income, and application of local sales tax to taxable goods, the average annual tax
burden per household is roughly estimated at $135 per year.
1 Analysis is based on information from California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.
http://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/sales-use-tax-rates.htm
Packet Page 191
12
The Council has the following options in consideration of placing a sales tax measure for the
November 2018 ballot measure:
1. General Tax: General sales tax requires simple majority vote of 50 percent plus one
voter approval. General sales tax is not legally restricted to a specific purpose.
Pros: Requires only majority voter approval, lowest aggregate cost of debt
Cons: Transportation projects debt financing would not be allowed to be used to finance
the projects themselves as collateral and would require pledge of City owned properties.
2. Special Tax: Special sales tax requires super majority vote of 66.67 percent Special sales
tax is dedicated to a specific purpose as proposed in the ballot measure. Special sales tax
would allow for the use of sales tax revenue bond financing mechanism which can be
used to finance transportation type projects.
Pros: Allows for financing of transportation type projects
Cons: According to data from 2001 to 2012, only half of special tax measures have
passed in the State of California due to higher level of approval required.
3. General Tax with Continuation of Measure G: The City financial long-term fiscal
forecasts assume continuation of Local Revenue Measure. The Local Revenue Measure
(Measure G) will sunset in April of 2023. The Council may consider placing an extension
of Measure G with the ballot measure for the proposed one cent increase.
Pros: Ensures continuation of the funding source to fund existing capital improvement
program
Cons: Voters may or may not be favorable to extension which could impact the voter
rating approval for overall measure
4. Duration of Sales Tax Measure: The City may consider various options for the duration
of the sales tax measure including no sunset date with periodic review and approval by
the City Council, 30-year sales tax, 25-year sales tax, and 20-year sales tax.
No sunset date:
This option would fully fund the need and would secure the City’s future ability to
continue to invest in its infrastructure post the 20-year period. This option would also
minimize the cost of debt issuance by allowing for more projects to be funded on pay as
you go basis and leave flexibility for how the City may elect to issue debt.
30-Year Sales Tax:
This option would fully fund the need within the 20-year period, plus leave a balance of
additional $184 million, which could be used to fund projects beyond the 20-year horizon
or other services. This option provides with flexibility for the City to use pay as you go or
debt financing options.
Packet Page 192
12
25-Year Sales Tax
This option would fully fund the need leaving a surplus of $46 million, which could be
used to fund projects beyond the 20-year horizon or other services. This option would
require the highest amount of debt issuance due to the limited duration.
20-Year Sales Tax
This option would not fully fund the entire identified need with a budget gap of
approximately $42 million unfunded. Thus, this option does not fully fund the Capital
Improvement Program as proposed.
Based on citizen survey summarized in Attachment D, voters are much less supportive if
the sales tax measure includes a sunset clause and favor a shorter period of 20 years over
30 years.
5. Level of Taxation: The City may consider a half-cent tax as opposed to one cent tax.
Half-cent tax is not sufficient to fund the entire identified need within the identified time
frame.
The following table illustrates the level of taxation and the amount that can be funded for each
option.
Duration Tax Rate Amount Generated Existing Debt Service
Offsetting Funds Projects Funded*Surplus/Unfunded
Projects
30 years 1 cent $615.9 million $45.8 million $418.5 million 183.6 million
30 years 1/2 cent $307.9 million $45.8 million $267.3 million (151.2 million)
25 years 1 cent $486.2 million $36 million $418.5 million $45.8 million
25 years 1/2 cent $243.1 million $36 million $236.2 million ($182.3 million)
20 years 1 cent $368.9 million $25.3 million $376.7 million ($41.8 million)
20 years 1/2 cent $184.4 million $25.3 million $200.1 million ($218.3 million)
* Projects funded may be less than the amount generated due to interest and finance charges.
It should be noted that the sales tax revenue assumes a long-term growth of 2% and the interest
on debt is assumed at 5%. These assumptions are based on long-term averages and may fluctuate
over this long-term horizon. Sales tax is a volatile source of revenue and is impacted by
economic fluctuations.
General Obligation Bond:
The General Obligation Bond option would fully fund the identified Capital Improvement
Program as proposed with required bonding in the amount of $390.9 million ($418.5 million less
$27.6 offsetting funds) at an aggregate cost of debt issuance to the city estimated at $378.4
million. Thus, the actual dollars collected from the residents almost double for this option. The
proposed debt issuance structure assumes seven distinct 30-year General Obligation Bonds at
three-year intervals to align the need for the funds with the projects schedule and minimize
interest paid to extent possible. Even though General Obligation Bonds are considered the most
secured type of debt and the assumption is that the cost of debt would be at 4.9% as opposed to
Packet Page 193
12
5% assumption for other debt, because all proceeds must be derived through borrowing, the
overall cost of debt under this option is the highest.
General Obligation Bonds are secured by ad valorem property tax based on the property’s
assessed value. Thus, similar properties with varying assessed values, may be paying different
amounts. The assessed value is assessed at the time of sale (unless the property value falls below
the purchase price and is de-valued) in the State of California (Proposition 13) and the annual
increase (if property value is growing) is limited to 2% annually. The model assumes issuance of
the bonds starting in 2019 with the last issuance fully expiring in 2069. The tax burden per parcel
varies and picks at approximately $200 dollars per $100,000 of assessed valuation for a duration
of approximately 12 years as is shown in Figure 6 of Attachment C. If only half the proposed
Capital Improvement Program was to be funded, the tax burden would fall to approximately
$100 dollars per $100,000 of assessed valuation in the peak years. The PFM analysis assumes a
continuous property tax annual growth of 2%, which could be lower in the unlikely event of
devaluation or higher if the overall City tax growth exceeds 2%.
The following table shows an example of what the tax burden would be during highest taxation
years for a home assessed at $500,000 or a $700,000. The tax rate progression over-time can be
seen in Figure 6 of the Attachment C.
Property Value
Tax Burden All CIP Funded
($390.9 Bonds)
Tax Burden 1/2 CIP Funded
($200 Bonds)
$500,000 $1,000 $500
$700,000 $1,400 $700
General Obligation Bond requires super majority voter approval (66.67 percent).
Pros: fully funds the proposed program
Cons: total dollar amount paid by the city and its citizens is significantly higher than any sales
tax option and all costs are derived from city residents with relative high burden per household;
high burden of debt which may negatively impact credit agency ratings
Capital Facilities Improvement District
A citywide Capital Facilities Improvement District (CFD) is another option that can fully fund
the proposed Capital Improvement Program. Super majority or 66.67 percent voter approval is
required to form the district to assess parcel tax that can be used to secure debt issuance or pay as
you go. Unlike General Obligation Bond, parcel tax rates via a CFD can vary by type, size, and
property. It is estimated that required parcel tax to fully fund the program would be $1,400 per
parcel for the duration of 30 years. This is a special tax and requires super majority or 66.67
percent voter approval.
Pros: fully funds the proposed program;
unlike the General Obligation bond, allows for pay-as you go option which lowers overall cost of
debt; ability to overcome perceived equity concerns
Cons: all costs are derived from city residents and high burden per household.
Packet Page 194
12
Focus Questions
There are several factors for the Council to consider in choosing policy direction. If Council is
inclined to take immediate steps to Fund the Future, the following factors should be taken into
consideration and discussed:
1. Should the tax be general or special in nature? General tax is for general purposes while
special tax is designated for a specific purpose, in this case capital improvements?
Whether the Council elects to pursue a General tax requiring majority vote approval or a
Special tax requiring super majority vote approval, the Council can fully allocate the
revenue derived to the capital improvement program.
2. Should the funding source be derived from a sales tax or a property-based tax? The
important factors in this consideration is the burden placed on the city residents.
According to a study done in 2013 for the City, approximately 72% of sales tax is paid by
visitors to the City; whereas the full burden of parcel tax would be paid by the owners of
the parcels.
If sales tax option is chosen, should it be for unlimited duration with periodic Council
approval, 30, 25 or 20 years??
3. If the sales tax option is chosen, should it be one cent to fund the entire CIP program as
proposed or should it be half cent funding approximately half of the program?
4. If parcel tax is chosen, should it be property tax via General Obligation Bond which is
assessed based on assessed valuation or a Citywide Capital Facilities District with an
assessment of a parcel tax which can vary by type and size of the property?
No Sunset 30 years 25 years 20 years No Sunset 30 years 25 years 20 years
SALES TAX GOB CFD
1 Cent 1/2 Cent
Duration Duration
YES NO NO
Extend Measure G?Extend Measure G?
YES NOYES
Full CIP Lower level?Full CIP Lower level?
YES NO YES NO
5. Another option is to provide direction which explores more than one solution. For
example, Council could a), direct staff to refine the list and remove some projects, b)
direct staff to explore the implications of directing existing funds and then prepare a
Packet Page 195
12
scenario where staff redirects funds from existing CIP priorities and utilizes the freed-up
debt obligations described above, and c) returns to Council with a reduced project list and
total cost obligation – therefore requiring a smaller long-term new revenue solution.
There could of course be variations of this theme.
CONCURRENCES
All City Departments participated in the process to inform Council of projects and options for
Funding the Future.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The review of the 10-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and consideration of potential
funding options is exempt from environmental review as a Statutory Exemption under Section
15262, Feasibility and Planning Studies (CEQA Guidelines). Each project list as part of the 10 -
Year CIP will need future authorization and environmental review prior to actual funding and
construction.
FISCAL IMPACT
Council direction on which alternative to pursue does not have fiscal impact at this time. Any
direction to pursue further analysis will require staff time already within the existing City budget.
It should be noted that the City long-term fiscal models do not assume the required levels of
revenue sources to fund the identified Capital Improvement Program and a new funding source
or significant reallocation of existing resources will be required to achieve the objectives.
Attachments:
a - Project List
b - Project Source
c - PFM San Luis Obispo CIP Planning Memo
d - Funding the Future Open City Hall Public Comment
e - FM3 Survey Results
Packet Page 196
12
Line # General Fund Project Costs GF Cost Total Project Cost
1 1 To 10 Years $254,379,811 $383,433,608
2 Community Improvements $74,460,435 $87,010,000
3 Partnership Project $23,950,435 $29,000,000
4 Implementation of Parks Master Plan $23,950,435 $29,000,000
5
6 General Fund Component Cost $50,510,000 $58,010,000
7 Dog Park(s)$623,700 $623,700
8 Emerson Park Rehabilitation $1,276,000 $1,276,000
9 Emerson Park Restroom $638,000 $638,000
10 Mission Plaza Restroom Replacements and Enhancements $1,444,200 $1,444,200
11 New Park Amenities $378,000 $378,000
12 New Street Lights $963,900 $963,900
13 Open Space Acquisition $1,450,000 $8,950,000
14 Downtown Sidewalk Installations $1,159,200 $1,159,200
15 Downtown Lighting Installations $630,000 $630,000
16 Multimodal Street Conversion Studies $477,000 $477,000
17 Downtown Multimodal Street Conversion (woonerfs)$15,312,000 $15,312,000
18 Laguna Lake Dredging $13,920,000 $13,920,000
19 Mission Plaza Revitalization $7,656,000 $7,656,000
20 Mitchell Park Senior Center Expansion and Renovation $1,102,000 $1,102,000
21 Sinsheimer Stadium: Concession and Restroom Replacement $3,480,000 $3,480,000
22
23 Public Facility $67,642,756 $71,856,000
24 Partnership Project $64,043,756 $68,257,000
25 Police Station Replacement $43,709,205 $47,435,000
26 Rebuild Fire Station 2 $11,716,000 $11,716,000
27 Fire Station 1: New Emergency Operations Center and Maintenance Building $8,618,551 $9,106,000
28
29 General Fund Component Cost $3,599,000 $3,599,000
30 Implementation of IT Strategic Plan $1,000,000 $1,000,000
31 Corporation Yard Work Area Rehabilitation $583,000 $583,000
32 Implement Accessibility Improvements $2,016,000 $2,016,000
33
34 Transportation $112,276,620 $224,567,608
35 Partnership Project $112,276,620 $224,567,608
36 Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard / Anholm Bikeway Including Broad St. Ramp Closure & Bike/Ped Overpas $6,960,000 $7,518,883
37 Fixilini & Flora Bike Boulevard $686,700 $686,700
38 Hwy 101/Prado Rd Interchange $4,129,600 $40,600,000
39 Intersection Control Upgrades $15,498,000 $22,869,000
40 Jennifer Street Bridge Morro St. Expansion $707,600 $707,600
41 Madonna Class I (Hwy 101 to Oceanaire)$1,792,200 $2,199,360
42 Bob Jones Trail Connections: Marsh Street to Prado and Los Osos Valley Road to Southern City Limits $15,544,000 $16,773,542
43 Broad at Tank Farm Intersection Improvements $1,212,200 $1,789,010
44 Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge: Bullock to Industrial over Railroad Tracks $1,003,400 $2,702,870
45 Broad Street Intersection Improvements $3,804,800 $6,774,400
46 South Broad Street Medians $1,519,600 $2,707,440
47 Santa Fe Bike Path: Class I Bike Path from Buckley to Tank Farm $2,320,000 $2,862,880
48 Santa Fe Road Connection: Tank Farm to Prado Road $411,800 $1,163,480
49 Tank Farm Creek Bike Path: Class I Bike Path from Buckley to Tank Farm $2,146,000 $2,634,592
50 Tank Farm Road Widening: Horizon to Santa Fe $12,644,000 $28,752,920
51 Citywide Traffic Model Updates and Data Collection $581,940 $954,000
52 Vachell Lane Bike Path: Class II Lanes on Vachell from Buckley to South Higuera Street $777,200 $777,200
53 Orcutt at Johnson Intersection Improvements $1,426,800 $2,685,400
54 Class II Bike Lane Installations $3,055,500 $3,055,500
55 Class III Bike Lane Signage and Markings $378,000 $378,000
56 Orcutt at Tank Farm Intersection Improvements $1,715,060 $2,484,140
57 Prado Road Widening: West of Higuera Street widening $4,602,000 $15,306,960
58 Extend Prado Road: Higuera Street to Broad Street $7,722,120 $32,822,383
59 Prado at Higuera Intersection Improvements $2,419,000 $3,569,500
60 Railroad Safety Trail: Class I Bike Path from Cal Poly to Southern City Limits $15,370,000 $16,595,688
61 Higuera at Tank Farm: Intersection Improvements $1,902,400 $2,807,200
62 Upgrade of Pedestrian and Bike Crossing Controls $1,946,700 $2,388,960
63
64 11 To 20 Years $163,962,690 $194,746,680
65 Community Improvements $25,756,190 $25,756,190
66 General Fund Component Cost $25,756,190 $25,756,190
67 Laguna Lake Golf Course Club House $4,680,600 $4,680,600
68 San Luis Creek Walkway Expansion $2,863,590 $2,863,590
69 Swim Center Site and Deck Improvements $18,212,000 $18,212,000
70
71 Public Facility $83,888,200 $86,208,200
Packet Page 197
12
72 Partnership Project $46,864,000 $49,184,000
73 Rebuild Fire Station 3 $18,548,400 $18,548,400
74 Rebuild Fire Station 4 $13,142,800 $14,302,800
75 New Fire Station: Fire Station 5 $11,414,400 $12,574,400
76 Fire Station 1: Provide Additional Operational Area $3,758,400 $3,758,400
77
78 General Fund Component Cost $37,024,200 $37,024,200
79 Implementation of IT Strategic Plan $6,000,000 $6,000,000
80 Replacement of the Ludwick Community Center $24,244,000 $24,244,000
81 Parks and Recreation Administration Expansion and Renovation $6,780,200 $6,780,200
82
83 Transportation $54,318,300 $82,782,290
84 Partnership Project $36,145,300 $64,609,290
85 Higuera Widening: High St to Marsh St $4,060,000 $4,060,000
86 Higuera Widening: Madonna Rd to City Limits $3,103,000 $7,647,532
87 Horizon Lane Extension South of Tank Farm $3,451,000 $5,020,480
88 Laguna Lake Bikeways $5,626,000 $6,576,040
89 Broad Street Bike Path: Class I from Rockview to Damon Garcia Sports Fields $1,276,000 $1,276,000
90 West Side of 101 Bike Path: Class I Bike Path from Broad to Marsh Street $3,770,000 $3,770,000
91 Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge: Over Tank Farm along east side of railroad tracks $654,900 $654,900
92 Los Osos Valley Road Interchange Class I Bike Underpass $1,628,400 $1,628,400
93 Orcutt Road Bridge over Railroad Tracks $4,543,000 $25,551,720
94 Boysen at Santa Rosa Street: Pedestrian and Class I Bike grade separate crossing $6,612,000 $7,003,218
95 Cerro Romauldo Bike Path: Class I from Tassajara to Chorro Street $1,421,000 $1,421,000
96
97 General Fund Component Cost $18,173,000 $18,173,000
98 Downtown Multimodal Street Conversion (Type B)$7,157,200 $7,157,200
99 Downtown Multimodal Street Conversion (Type C)$5,892,800 $5,892,800
100 Marsh at Higuera Intersection Improvements $5,123,000 $5,123,000
101
102 Grand Total $418,342,501 $578,180,288
103
104
105 General Fund Cost Total Cost
106 Partnership Project $283,280,111 $435,617,898
107 Other General Fund Projects $135,062,390 $142,562,390
108 Total Cost $418,342,501 $578,180,288
Packet Page 198
12
General Fund Project Costs GF Cost
$7,135,300
New Street Lights $963,900
Los Osos Valley Road Interchange Class I Bike Underpass $1,628,400
Orcutt Road Bridge over Railroad Tracks $4,543,000
Facilities Master Plan $127,533,556
Laguna Lake Golf Course Club House $4,680,600
Police Station Replacement $43,709,205
Corporation Yard Work Area Rehabilitation $583,000
Mitchell Park Senior Center Expansion and Renovation $1,102,000
Rebuild Fire Station 2 $11,716,000
Rebuild Fire Station 3 $18,548,400
Rebuild Fire Station 4 $13,142,800
Sinsheimer Stadium: Concession and Restroom Replacement $3,480,000
New Fire Station: Fire Station 5 $11,414,400
Fire Station 1: Provide Additional Operational Area $3,758,400
Fire Station 1: New Emergency Operations Center and Maintenance Building $8,618,551
Parks and Recreation Administration Expansion and Renovation $6,780,200
ADA Transition Plan $2,016,000
Implement Accessibility Improvements $2,016,000
General Plan $15,498,000
Intersection Control Upgrades $15,498,000
IT Strategic Plan $7,000,000
Implementation of IT Strategic Plan $7,000,000
Downtown Concept Plan $92,084,990
Emerson Park Rehabilitation $1,276,000
Emerson Park Restroom $638,000
Mission Plaza Restroom Replacements and Enhancements $1,444,200
Downtown Sidewalk Installations $1,159,200
Downtown Lighting Installations $630,000
Multimodal Street Conversion Studies $477,000
Downtown Multimodal Street Conversion (Type B)$7,157,200
Downtown Multimodal Street Conversion (Type C)$5,892,800
Downtown Multimodal Street Conversion (woonerfs)$15,312,000
Mission Plaza Revitalization $7,656,000
Marsh at Higuera Intersection Improvements $5,123,000
San Luis Creek Walkway Expansion $2,863,590
Replacement of the Ludwick Community Center $24,244,000
Swim Center Site and Deck Improvements $18,212,000
Parks Master Plan $23,950,435
Implementation of Parks Master Plan $23,950,435
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan $1,001,700
Dog Park(s)$623,700
New Park Amenities $378,000
Broad Street Corridor Plan $5,324,400
Broad Street Intersection Improvements $3,804,800
South Broad Street Medians $1,519,600
Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan $13,920,000
Packet Page 199
12
Laguna Lake Dredging $13,920,000
Bicycle Transportation Plan $70,512,300
Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard / Anholm Bikeway Including Broad St. Ramp Closure & Bike/Ped Overpass $6,960,000
Fixilini & Flora Bike Boulevard $686,700
Jennifer Street Bridge Morro St. Expansion $707,600
Laguna Lake Bikeways $5,626,000
Madonna Class I (Hwy 101 to Oceanaire)$1,792,200
Bob Jones Trail Connections: Marsh Street to Prado and Los Osos Valley Road to Southern City Limits $15,544,000
Broad Street Bike Path: Class I from Rockview to Damon Garcia Sports Fields $1,276,000
Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge: Bullock to Industrial over Railroad Tracks $1,003,400
West Side of 101 Bike Path: Class I Bike Path from Broad to Marsh Street $3,770,000
Santa Fe Bike Path: Class I Bike Path from Buckley to Tank Farm $2,320,000
Santa Fe Road Connection: Tank Farm to Prado Road $411,800
Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge: Over Tank Farm along east side of railroad tracks $654,900
Tank Farm Creek Bike Path: Class I Bike Path from Buckley to Tank Farm $2,146,000
Vachell Lane Bike Path: Class II Lanes on Vachell from Buckley to South Higuera Street $777,200
Class II Bike Lane Installations $3,055,500
Class III Bike Lane Signage and Markings $378,000
Railroad Safety Trail: Class I Bike Path from Cal Poly to Southern City Limits $15,370,000
Boysen at Santa Rosa Street: Pedestrian and Class I Bike grade separate crossing $6,612,000
Cerro Romauldo Bike Path: Class I from Tassajara to Chorro Street $1,421,000
General Plan Circulation Element $50,915,820
Higuera Widening: High St to Marsh St $4,060,000
Higuera Widening: Madonna Rd to City Limits $3,103,000
Horizon Lane Extension South of Tank Farm $3,451,000
Hwy 101/Prado Rd Interchange $4,129,600
Broad at Tank Farm Intersection Improvements $1,212,200
Tank Farm Road Widening: Horizon to Santa Fe $12,644,000
Citywide Traffic Model Updates and Data Collection $581,940
Orcutt at Johnson Intersection Improvements $1,426,800
Orcutt at Tank Farm Intersection Improvements $1,715,060
Prado Road Widening: West of Higuera Street widening $4,602,000
Extend Prado Road: Higuera Street to Broad Street $7,722,120
Prado at Higuera Intersection Improvements $2,419,000
Higuera at Tank Farm: Intersection Improvements $1,902,400
Upgrade of Pedestrian and Bike Crossing Controls $1,946,700
General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element $1,450,000
Open Space Acquisition $1,450,000
Grand Total $418,342,501
Packet Page 200
12
1 of 7
April 4, 2018
Memorandum
To: Xenia Bradford, Finance Director, City of San Luis Obispo
From: Sarah Hollenbeck, Managing Director, PFM Financial Advisors LLC
Kevin Dong, Senior Analyst, PFM Financial Advisors LLC
Patrick Malloy, Senior Analyst, PFM Financial Advisors LLC
RE: Capital Improvement Plan Financing Options
Introduction
PFM Financial Advisors LLC (“PFM”) is pleased to provide an analysis of financing options for
the 20-year Capital Improvement Plan (“CIP”) of the City of San Luis Obispo (the “City”). City
staff and elected officials have identified approximately $419 million of capital projects to deliver
over the next 20 years, including enhancements to and new construction of transportation,
public safety, and recreational facilities. A program of this scope will require additional
revenues beyond what are currently available from the General Fund. This memorandum will
present the options available to the City along with their pros, cons, and relative costs.
Overview of Financing Alternatives
The proposed CIP includes $418.5 million of projects to be delivered between 2019 and 2044.
Figure 1 below shows the expected timing of expenditures. The expenditure schedule is fairly
consistent from year to year, with the exception of large expenditures in 2023, 2030, and 2040.
Nearly all project expenditures will be complete by 2040, with only approximately $50,000
expected annually thereafter to complete a streetlight program.
Figure 1: Project Expenditures
Several types of revenue measures and financing tools are available to the City to finance the
CIP. Each option has different characteristics in terms of its costs, ease of implementation,
suitability to different types of projects, and impact on City residents both in aggregate and in
Packet Page 201
12
2 of 7
the distribution of costs among residents. The remainder of this memo presents the
considerations related to each of the following options:
• General sales tax with lease revenue bonds
• Special sales tax with sales tax revenue bonds
• General obligation bonds
• Citywide community facilities district (“CFD”) or parcel tax
PFM has also taken into account the structure of the City’s existing debt in evaluating each
scenario. The City’s General Fund budget for lease revenue bond debt service for fiscal year
2018 is $2.56 million. A decrease in debt service over time, as well as a refinancing that was
just completed, would allow the City to redirect this annual budget to capital projects or to new
debt service. This source provides up to $45.8 million of cash flow between 2019 and 2048,
and we have assumed the City uses these funds to offset project costs or pay new debt service.
Later sections offer specific detail about how the City can use these funds under each option.
General Sales Tax
A sales tax measure offers a high degree of flexibility and a simpler implementation process
than other options. The most common approach to a sales tax is to implement a general tax
that requires a simple majority vote. The City would have the ability to use the funds for any
purpose, but could direct them to CIP implementation. Under this approach, the City could cash
fund projects to the extent possible and then issue lease revenue bonds in years that revenues
and/or fund balance are insufficient to cover project expenses. The City has previously issued
lease revenue bonds for projects such as 919 Palm Street. A key advantage to a sales tax is
that City residents do not bear the full burden of the tax.
PFM modeled various sales tax measures to project their capacity to support the proposed
program. We evaluated one cent and ½ cent measures beginning in 2019 with terms ranging
from 20 to 30 years. Projected revenues are based on current Measure G collections and
assume 2.0% annual increases. The bond interest rate is assumed at 5.0%. Figure 2 shows
the results of our modeling assuming the City uses all offsetting funds described above.
Figure 2: Comparison of Sales Tax Options
Duration Tax Rate Revenue Offsetting Funds1 Projects Funded2 Surplus/(Unfunded Projects)
30 years 1 cent $615.9 million $45.8 million $418.5 million $183.6 million
30 years ½ cent $307.9 million $45.8 million $267.3 million ($151.2 million)
25 years 1 cent $486.2 million $36.0 million $418.5 million $45.8 million
25 years ½ cent $243.1 million $36.0 million $236.2 million ($182.3 million)
20 years 1 cent $368.9 million $25.3 million $376.7 million ($41.8 million)
20 years ½ cent $184.4 million $25.3 million $200.1 million ($218.3 million)
1. General Funds contributed (representing reduction in lease revenue bond debt service from FY2018 level) during specified term of sales tax.
2. Projects funded may be less than the amount generated due to interest and finance charges.
Packet Page 202
12
3 of 7
Funding the full CIP is projected to require a 25- or 30-year one cent sales tax. The 25-year
option is expected to require redirecting at least a portion of available debt service capacity
through 2044 as described on page 2. A 30-year tax is projected to support the program without
redirecting funds. Any half cent program or a 20-year one cent program would require that the
City reduce the scope of the CIP.
An important consideration to using lease revenue bonds is that they must be secured by
physical assets equal in value to the borrowing. Public safety and recreational facilities are
well-suited to lease revenue financing, but transportation infrastructure such as roads is not
because it cannot be leased. Figure 3 shows an analysis of bonding versus leasable assets
under the 25-year one cent scenario. We show this scenario in more detail because it can fund
the full CIP but has more borrowing, at $107.2 million, than the 30-year one cent option due to
less aggregate revenue. We project issuances occurring in 2023, 2026, 2029, 2033, 2036, and
2040 and total interest and finance charges of approximately $57.9 million. Bondable projects
are the sum of bondable projects occurring between each financing and the estimated par is
the estimated borrowing amount in a given year. Although the total bondable projects exceed
the estimated par amount, there are mismatches in 2026 and 2029. The City may be able
address them by pledging existing assets (i.e. City Hall, police or fire stations, etc.), but it will
be important to confirm that sufficient unencumbered assets exist to cover the shortfall.
Figure 3: Bonding versus Leasable Assets under 25-Year One Cent Sales Tax
Financing Year Bondable Projects Estimated Par Surplus/(Shortfall)
2023 $53,917,756 $35,515,000 $18,402,756
2026 $12,444,000 $12,855,000 ($411,000)
2029 $2,900,000 $29,990,000 ($27,090,000)
2033 $20,810,400 $7,330,000 $13,480,400
2036 $39,405,200 $9,360,000 $30,045,200
2040 $40,565,200 $12,180,000 $28,385,200
Total $170,042,552 $107,230,000 $62,812,556
The primary risk of bonds issued in a sales tax program is that revenues do not meet
expectations. The City can adjust the project delivery schedule prior to bond issuance, but will
have a fixed liability after issuance. Failure to appropriate funds for debt service could cause a
default, result in a loss of an investment grade credit rating, and hamper the City’s ability to
access public debt markets in the future. Consequently, the most likely option to address a
revenue shortfall would be to first reduce or eliminate additional capital expenditures and then
redirect other resources from the General Fund to pay debt service.
The borrowing program could also put some pressure on the City’s bond rating. Figure 4 shows
two metrics that Standard & Poor’s tracks: 1) debt service as a percentage of governmental
fund expenditures, and 2) direct debt as a percentage of governmental fund revenues. Note
that S&P would include debt of overlapping jurisdictions in direct debt, though we have omitted
Packet Page 203
12
4 of 7
that information since the City cannot control it and long-term plans are unknown. S&P
considers debt service below 8.0% of expenditures to be very strong, and between 8.0% and
15.0% to be strong. We project the metric remaining below 8.0% until 2031 and peaking at
11.4% in 2042.1 The second of the S&P measures presents more risk. S&P considers direct
debt as a percentage of revenue between 30.0% and 60.0% strong and between 60.0% and
120.0% adequate. We project this metric to rise to 76.3%, though issuance of debt by other
jurisdictions could push the figure higher.
Figure 4: Rating Metrics for Lease Revenue Bonds
Special Sales Tax
Another approach to a local sales tax measure would be to seek authorization for a special tax
rather than a general tax. A special tax could be exclusively dedicated to the CIP and would
require a 2/3 supermajority vote. Cities rarely select this option due to the supermajority
requirement, but it would have the advantage of allowing the City to issue sales tax revenue
bonds rather than lease revenue bonds. Sales tax revenue bonds have a lien on the sales tax
revenues and are well-suited to transportation projects because they do not require leased
assets. They require that the City maintain a certain level of debt service coverage – typically
at least 1.25 for A-rated debt – though our model indicates coverage would remain above 1.30
with a 25-year one cent sales tax. Our coverage projection does not include the offsetting
revenues since only sales tax would be pledged to the bonds.
General Obligation Bond Measure
A general obligation bond measure is an alternative to a sales tax. As distinct from sales tax
bonds, General Obligation (“GO”) bonds would be repaid from the revenue generated by a tax
levied on all property within the City. GO bonds require a 2/3 supermajority vote and property
owners in the City would pay a tax based on the assessed valuation of the property. Because
the tax levy is based on assessed valuation, it can have the effect of similar properties paying
significantly different levels of tax. Such a situation sometimes results in opposition to GO
1 Assumes no additional debt outside of CIP and 2.0% growth in revenues and expenditures
Packet Page 204
12
5 of 7
bonds that may not exist for a sales tax measure. Nevertheless, for a given amount of principal,
the credit ratings on a GO bond would be the highest and the borrowing cost the lowest of all
financing options. The proceeds of GO bonds can also be used for any type of long-lived capital
asset (not furniture, fixtures, or equipment), which avoids the challenge of financing
transportation projects with lease revenue bonds. The primary risk of GO bonds is that project
costs exceed the authorization. Because revenue is generated via a property tax, the risk of
non-payment is limited and further mitigated by the City’s participation in a Teeter Plan with
San Luis Obispo County.
PFM performed two analyses to assess the effect on the City’s property tax rate and debt
burden. For the purpose of our analysis, we assumed seven series of 30-year GO bonds issued
at three-year intervals through 2038. We applied $27.6 million of the existing debt service
budget described on page 2 to offset project costs, which is the amount available through 2040
plus small amounts through 2044 to cover the streetlight program. Note that we do not apply
any funds after 2044 because there are no additional project costs and cities do not typically
use General Fund monies to offset GO debt service. The interest rate was estimated to be
4.9%, or 0.1 percentage points lower than the interest rate assumed on sales tax bonds, which
reflects the higher rating that the GO bonds would have. The first scenario examined $390.9
million of bonding ($418.5 million less $27.6 million offsetting funds) and the second examined
$200.0 million, which would only fund about half the CIP. Figure 5 shows the change of property
tax rate per $100,000 of assessed valuation, assuming the City’s total assessed value
increases 2.0% annually. We project the rate reaching $215 per $100,000 assessed value in
2039 under the scenario that funds the full CIP.
Figure 5: General Obligation Bond Measure
Although the GO bonds are usually rated higher than sales tax bonds, resulting in lower interest
costs for a given amount of principal, we project that they would carry significantly higher total
financing costs for the City’s capital program due to the need to borrow for all project expenses.
The tax revenues collected under a general obligation measure can only be used to pay debt
Packet Page 205
12
6 of 7
service whereas sales tax revenues can fund the project costs on a pay-as-you-go basis. The
annual debt service of GO bonds thus peaks in the fiscal years 2039-2050 at approximately
$25.6 million if the City funds all projects, nearly twice the initial sales tax revenue. Figure 6
below compares estimated bonding and interest and financing charges under both GO
scenarios and the 25-year one cent sales tax scenario.
Figure 6: Comparison of GO and Sales Tax Financing
Scenario Bonding Interest & Finance Charges
Full GO measure $390.9 million $378.4 million
$200 million GO measure $200.0 million $193.6 million
25-year one cent sales tax $107.2 million $57.9 million
The rating implications of relying exclusively on GO bonds could also be meaningful. Due to
the need to fund all projects with debt, the GO approach would result in nearly four times as
much borrowing. Direct debt as a percentage of governmental fund revenues would rise to
227.1% and debt service as a percentage of governmental fund expenditures would rise as
high as 24.8%. S&P would consider such a debt profile to be very weak.
Citywide CFD or Parcel Tax
A citywide CFD or parcel tax could address some of the challenges of GO bonds. A CFD is a
district in which the City would levy a special tax determined via a formula of the City’s
choosing. Tax rates can differ by type and size of property, for example. W hile most commonly
used for a single development controlled by one developer, there are examples of CFDs that
are contiguous with a municipality’s boundaries. A parcel tax is a more simplistic approach in
which an identical tax is levied on every parcel. The City could then use the revenues from
either approach for pay-as-you-go or issue special tax bonds against the revenue stream.
There are two key advantages to a citywide CFD or parcel tax:
1. Ability to fund projects on pay-as-you-go basis: Unlike with GO bonds, the City can
use the revenues for pay-as-you-go expenses.
2. Ability to overcome perceived equity concerns: Because the tax rate is not determined
by assessed value, neither approach encounters the same concerns about unfairness
that sometimes arise related to a GO measure.
PFM modeled a CFD/parcel tax option. Our analysis assumes a 30-year special tax that
generates $16.8 million per year, which is the amount needed to fully fund the program and
maintain the minimum of 1.10 times debt service coverage for bonds that the current market
would require. We have assumed a 5.0% interest rate on debt, the same rating as the City’s
lease revenue bonds (currently AA), and no annual changes to the revenue stream. We applied
$27.6 million of the offsetting funds to project costs through 2044 in the same manner as with
the GO bonds, and base the 1.10 times debt service coverage constraint off of only the CFD
or parcel tax revenue since General Fund resources would not be pledged to the bonds. This
Packet Page 206
12
7 of 7
scenario allows for $365.3 million of pay-as-you-go and requires $151.1 million of bonding. We
estimated $94.5 million of interest and finance charges.
The CFD or parcel tax options have several downsides. Both require a 2/3 supermajority vote
similar to GO bonds. These options are also costly for residents. Assuming 12,000 parcels,
we estimate an annual per parcel cost of about $1,400. The City could customize a formula for
a CFD special tax that would distribute the tax differently, but increased complexity could make
it administratively burdensome. The risks of bonds issued for a CFD or parcel tax are similar
to those of issuing GO bonds since such taxes would be administered through the property tax
system.
We hope this evaluation of the financing options available to the City is helpful. If you should
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at (415) 982-5544.
Packet Page 207
12
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM
Open City Hall is not a certified voting system or ballot box. As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is
voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of
any government agency or elected officials.
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
Packet Page 208
12
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM, this forum had:
Attendees:308
All Statements:80
Hours of Public Comment: 4.0
This topic started on March 1, 2018, 4:29 PM.
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 2 of 27
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
Packet Page 209
12
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 1 (registered)April 5, 2018, 6:23 PM
I prefer a sales tax to a property tax as it is "user" oriented. We cannot afford to have the 50% full-time and 50%
land-lords w/ transient residents continue to foot the bill. We are moving toward a "usage-tax" environment. If
you use it, you pay (sales tax.) If you don't use it you maintain the infrastructure you benefit from (Property Tax.)
Not unlike Europe which has dealt with this situation hundreds of years before us in the USA, the "Value Added
Tax" (i.e.: "Sales Tax"), is more fairly and evenly distributed and economically efficiently measured, and
collected.
There is no "perfect solution." One can only hope to "cover" costs and plan for needed maintenance of critical
infrastructure.
Name not available (unclaimed)April 4, 2018, 7:51 PM
I support the additional tax. My preference would be to finish the Bob Jones Trail and extend the Railroad
Safety Trail from Cal Poly all the way to the Neighborhoods near Islay Park and French Park. We should talk to
the County about planning someday to extend it all the way to Pismo Beach along the RR track in Price
Canyon. Next I favor continuing to look for opportunities to purchase land for open space around our city. The
property on the corner of Orcutt Road and Tank Farm that extends up into the Santa Lucia Foothills would be a
tremendous addition - linking to Reservoir Canyon. The Prado Road overpass is needed. Thank you for all you
do.
Jan Marx inside Neighborhood 2 (registered)April 4, 2018, 9:13 AM
I support raising the sales tax to 1% to fund projects including prioritizing upgrading the bathrooms on Mission
Plaza and a renovated police station. The City owns property on Walnut adjacent to the existing station and
should try to acquire Ilan Funke Bilu's property. A new wing could be built utilizing that next door property as
well as building over the downhill parking lot. This would allow the present station to continue in use until the
new wing is completed, at which time the present station could be renovated. Look to the police station
renovation in Grover Beach for an example of police officer design and thrifty budgeting. As more and more
housing is added to the City, we will need a fifth fire station to maintain standard response times. This cost
should be borne by the new neighborhoods as a special benefit district or cfd. The public benefit portion of the
Prado overpass (not full interchange) construction could be partially funded by the increased sales tax. I
oppose a city wide increase in property tax. Open space preservation and acquisition (Miossi) is a top priority
for city residents and should be paid for through revenue enhancement funds. I support increased bicycle and
pedestrian safety projects, but they should not take priority over maintenance of present roadways, traffic
mitigation, parking or the well being of established neighborhoods. The needs of older and disabled city
residents, their inability to use bicycles and their obvious reliance on automobiles should not continue to be
discounted or ignored.
Mike Harkness inside Neighborhood 3 (registered)April 3, 2018, 5:12 PM
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 3 of 27
Packet Page 210
12
I am a 40 year resident of San Luis Obispo, and a retired public safety employee. While all of the goals listed
are worth, I would like to give my overwhelming support to protected bike lanes, and improving cross town bike
safety. It's good for the environment, it's good for residents health, and it provides safer transportation. Michael
Harkness
Name not shown outside Neighborhoods (registered)April 3, 2018, 4:46 PM
Not currently a resident but I will be very soon. I could support a bond or sales tax increase dedicated to
significant improvements to the cycling infrastructure. I would ride instead of drive if the cycling infrastructure
made it more practical and safer to do so. Any increases I would pay in taxes could be partially offset by fewer
expenses for auto use. Not to mention it would be one less car on the streets and the added health benefits of
cycling rather than driving.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 6 (registered)April 3, 2018, 10:47 AM
This: Extending cross-town corridors and separated bike paths (such as the Prado Road extension, Tank Farm
Road widening and completion of the Bob Jones and Railroad Safety Trails) to better provide for bicycling as a
transportation mode of choice. I would vote yes for the tax on this provision alone. All of the people saying that
bike paths are too expensive, please remember that ALL roads are expensive, and that even people who don't
drive cars pay for them through taxes. We need a much better connected network of streets where people who
choose not to burn fossil fuels on their commutes can bike and walk safely. The climate is changing and we
need to change with it or perish.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 11 (registered)March 31, 2018, 3:47 PM
I am very interested in seeing cross town infrastructure improvements (widening of Tank Farm Road, extending
Prado Road to Industrial Way/Broad Street) as we really need those. I am interested in new/ remodels for
public safety including police, dispatch, and fire department facilities. While these improvements may not be as
visible as the downtown Mission Plaza project, they are essential to the health and safety of our community.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 2 (registered)March 28, 2018, 1:30 PM
The city needs to prioritize wants vs needs. We need Prado extended and an interchange built. We need new
police and fire stations. We could use an extended railroad safety trail. Bob Jones completion is a want, not a
need. We do need to replace aging water distribution infrastructure. In the face of changing climate and rain
patterns, and extended drought periods, we can not have nearly 100 year old water mains under our streets
breaking and losing thousands or millions of gallons of water every year. We need to replace this aging
infrastructure. More people on bikes in SLO is not going to impact this global change, so while some may want
to, we do not need to spend money on bike boulevards. I can not vote for yet another increase to our already
incredibly expensive cost of living here, without a modification or elimination of other pet projects that are a
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 4 of 27
Packet Page 211
12
want and at this point wasteful in comparison to the needs of SLO. Reset priorities, eliminate pet project waste,
and then present it again.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 10 (registered)March 28, 2018, 8:06 AM
It is good that the City is looking at costs for projects that residents want. To fund these projects, I support the
sales tax measure in conjunction with revising all pension plans (including police and fire) to align with the
typical private sector plans. It is not sustainable nor necessary to pay retired "safety" personal a defined benefit
retirement plan of 90% of their $140,000 annual salary starting when they are 50 years old.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 7 (registered)March 28, 2018, 8:05 AM
I am against the extra tax. Some of the proposed projects should be put off until we have more information on
how the closing of Diablo Canyon will effect available funds. Also, how is taxing current home owners into
homelessness helping the homeless and housing situation?
Carol Jefford inside Neighborhood 7 (registered)March 28, 2018, 7:01 AM
Given the current fiscal crisis, capital projects should be postponed. There should be a focus on delivering
critical services, based upon my observations, there is not a critical need for additional capital projects at this
time. These should be postponed. Consider contracting out fire department and other city services. Consolidate
with the County and/or CalPoly to reduce duplication of effort and maximize economy. There are many similar
services provided within the three agencies which could be consolidated.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 8 (registered)March 27, 2018, 8:29 PM
Enough, I say. There are so many unnecessary projects that money is being wasted on. I am SO tired of going
downtown and seeing one project after another underway - do we really need to change the curb access again.
It seemed to be working just fine - now, they’re being torn up and redone. And, sadly, I rarely go downtown
because of ALL the projects underway - how long has Garden Street re-vamp taken ?? That’s nuts. So use the
money you already have, discard unneeded and unnecessary projects - make every dollar count. Tighten up -
as citizens, that’s what we are all having to do so the city needs to do the same. NO MORE TAXES.
Jo Ann Wheatley inside Neighborhood 7 (registered)March 27, 2018, 2:28 PM
I’ve no intention of voting for proposed city sales tax increase. I have a deep seated belief that I know how to
spend my money better than the city does.
Name not available (unclaimed)March 27, 2018, 9:26 AM
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 5 of 27
Packet Page 212
12
Although I agree with improving the quality of life in San Luis Obispo, I feel that increasing property taxes
unfairly burdens the already struggling property owner. City improvements benefit the entire community and
funding should be shared by all residents. A sales tax increase would be the best way to accomplish a more
equal distribution of financial responsibility for everyone living in San Luis Obispo.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 10 (registered)March 26, 2018, 9:54 PM
Let’s live within our means. For the last 15 years, we’ve had our water rates raised annually. We already tried
the TEMPORARY sales tax. No to the sales tax.
Do not dredge Laguna Lake, cut way back on expensive bike paths.
Name not available (unclaimed)March 26, 2018, 6:35 PM
Of the 3 funding options outlined, the sales tax appears to be the best as is born mainly by visitors (est. AT
70%) and at $15m/year would cover 75% of costs phased in over 20 years ($15mX20=$300m). The rest
should be put to a vote of the city residents before their property taxes are burdened more. Burdening property
will increased costs just raises the amount renters have to pay to cover owners costs and less people can afford
buying property due to the higher costs burdened on to each parcel in the city. Creating a tax district seems to
have all the down side mentioned above without the upside of a vote by the residents of the city.
Kurt Pacheco inside Neighborhood 7 (registered)March 26, 2018, 3:04 PM
I do NOT support the plan for a $400 million expenditure. The city council has made much of the shortage of
affordable housing, and yet to fund these projects not only do they want to raise the sales tax but they want to
add a fee to the property tax. Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways. One of my questions is if the staff has
been working on this, and you knew the police station needs replacing, why weren't there any additional
developer fees on the 1,200 homes recently approved by the council? These will definitely impact our city,
especially tank farm road. For the mission plaza improvement there is mention of a café, why would this be
included when there are so many restaurants downtown? As seen from the recent conflict on the bike path on
broad street, there is not clear consensus on the need for cross town bike paths, regardless of the council's
vision. These additional taxes on top of the recent $.12 gas tax just makes it that much more unaffordable to
live in SLO. But this is NOT the most serious issue.
The City Manager stated that employee pension shortfalls will not be subject to this tax proposal and that it is a
separate issue. That is all well and good except for one little problem. The taxpayers are the ones you are
going to come to for fixing the pension problem and then we're faced with additional taxation!
I won't support ANY tax increase for these capital projects until the city resolves the unfunded pension
liabilities! Unfunded pension liabilities is the most pressing matter facing the city and its residents, and must be
addressed FIRST!
Lindsey Haring outside Neighborhoods (registered)March 26, 2018, 1:57 PM
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 6 of 27
Packet Page 213
12
Many of the statements in opposition to another tax resonate with me, but I struggle because I love our
community and know there's a need. As a mother of three young children and wife to a small business owner, I
am acutely aware of the stresses of building a life in San Luis Obispo. I count myself among the fortunate to be
trying to do just that but I question our ability in the long term as costs continue to rise.
I think we need to have more community discussion about the prioritization of projects --- which ones will
enhance quality of life for most/all residents? Though I love the Bob Jones trail, perhaps we wait to fund its
extension until the Prado Road Interchange and Extension is completed? There is so much work that has gone
into thoughtful planning/visioning, but I think we need more discussion about what to execute and when due to
budget constraints.
I also think more consideration needs to be given to the impact of another sales tax hike on small, locally
owned businesses. We talk a lot about small/medium businesses being both an important economic driver and
source of character/uniqueness/connectedness in our small town. Continued increases in sales tax drive
consumers to online retailers where they are not subject to sales tax. I have a hard time believing this 1% hike
would be the last, and I have a hard time believing that consumers will continue to pay more to shop local when
the costs of living are rising...and with no end in sight.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 5 (registered)March 26, 2018, 1:46 PM
If it can be confirmed that approximately 70% of sales tax is paid for by visitors who live out of County, I could
support an increase in the sales tax to help pay for improvements our residents feel is worthwhile.
I am not supportive of a parcel tax or general obligation bond. SLO County is consistently one of the least
affordable in the country - don't make the problem worse. Additionally, any proposed parcel tax affects ONLY
those who own real estate, not the general public. If improvements are going to provide for a public benefit, any
solution should be borne by all taxpayers. I vehemently oppose a tax that is directed at a specific, determined
group.
Name not available (unclaimed)March 26, 2018, 12:09 PM
All of the 400 million dollar things the city wants is non essential, our family will vote no.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 1 (registered)March 26, 2018, 10:16 AM
We are opposed to more taxation for SLO which under the present Mayor & City Council is working against its
residents. "Stakeholders" who do not reside in SLO, are now being represented by the Mayor, City Council &
staff who should be representing residents only. The salaries are out of control, lower them & put a hiring
freeze in place.. Stop hiring so many expensive administrators & administrative assistants. One of the huge
ways to save money is to have staff actually do the work & stop hiring "consultants" who are often clueless
about SLO and write what the department heads want. Learn to live within your means, pay down our debts
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 7 of 27
Packet Page 214
12
first. We would only be willing to pay for more conservation & preservation of Natural Resources and
increasing and preserving the greenbelt. That's not even on your list! In fact the powers that be are not
protecting our natural environment in SLO at all and actually think they are "environmentalists." The rest is
unnecessary. Police should be out & about and with electronic communication there should be less need for
them to be in a building. Cal Poly needs to pay for their share of Police & Fire & other impacts on SLO.
Developers need to pay for the increased infrastructure that their projects necessitate. "Fair Share" is not fair to
residents. Stop spending money that we do not have & stop ruining the character & quality of SLO with tall,
massive buildings!
Name not shown outside Neighborhoods (registered)March 26, 2018, 9:36 AM
I will NOT support raising Property Taxes. I pay enough already. Its time for SLO to live with in its means. Find
a different way to generate funds for your wish list. Most of our grown children can NOT even afford buying a
home here as it is now. Causing many to move away from their home town and leave their family just to make a
living. Home Towns should be affordable for family to live and prosper. Right now, Rent is through the roof
expensive. Buildings are sitting empty because local businesses can not afford to pay the rent. SLO County
seem's to think money grows on trees. Generate a Public Fund Raiser for your projects one at a time and quit
acting like spoiled children, who always have their hand out saying "Give me, Give me", at the expense of
someone else while those elected in charge take the easy road to funding their Dreams. All of us have Dreams
for improvement in many areas of our lives, that does not mean, All dreams come true. I am tired of paying for
dreams of elected officials when my children scrape and save just to live here in their home town. Start with the
little projects, like the bathrooms at Mission Plaza and have a FUND RAISER to generate those funds for
repair. Work your way up to larger projects.. Its called WORK.. It takes WORK to generate funds for a CAUSE..
Its NOT called Raise Taxes at the tune of a 400 Million Dollar Wish List. This wallet is closed and if you all keep
this up.. This wallet is leaving the area..Sad because I have been here since 1960 and it is MY home..Quit
trying to suck blood out of a Turnip. The Well is Dry. The Wallet Closed.. Find a different way >> Its called
WORKING for a cause.. Not Milking someone dry..
Tonia Harrell inside Neighborhood 12 (registered)March 26, 2018, 9:30 AM
The City is trying to be the next Santa Barbara or San Francisco.... Let the Mission take care of the Plaza, they
bring in plenty of $$$ and it’s on their property... start doing something about the homeless... forget the waste of
$$$ roundabouts... they are not even in the right spots ... the whole info structures of SLO need revamping from
the Mayor on down the line... Make SLO great again
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 1 (registered)March 26, 2018, 9:23 AM
March 20, 2018, 10:48 AM
I am a homeowner and live near Cal Poly off of Highland Drive. I think the City budget should work like a family
budget, figure out what can be afforded and then pick the project, rather than approving projects that you don't
have funding for and imposing the costs on to the residents. I am definitely against having my property tax
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 8 of 27
Packet Page 215
12
increased for projects that I don't think are necessary. I've been paying property taxes here in SLO for 27 years
and while I approve of keeping up on our infrastructure, I think the projects noted are above and beyond what
we actually need. I see downtown buildings and housing developments being built all over town and am
wondering what happened to the "slow growth" mantra that used to be in San Luis Obispo planning. Downtown
is becoming too gentrified and our current water supplies and streets are already stressed so I do not
understand the approval for all the new housing developments and hotels in town. Why are we growing so fast?
Let's slow down and do one necessary thing at a time that can be financed through our current sales tax and
property tax revenues.
Bob Tedone inside Neighborhood 4 (registered)March 26, 2018, 9:15 AM
Add my voice to those who oppose this plan. On one hand the City pushes "affordable housing" and then with
this proposal asks to make it less affordable. Additionally, I suspect most of the projects would be ones that I
don't favor. I'm for a new police station and good bike lines on Tank Farm (no need to make it four lanes all the
way, IMHO). Quite honestly, given its track record I don't trust the City to make "improvements" that make the
town better.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 2 (registered)March 26, 2018, 8:40 AM
SLO is a wonderful city and has many terrific aspects already. I won't support any increases in property taxes
as I'm a homeowner and feel that living in SLO is financially straining already. The other financing options aren't
very appealing either and I'd like to see a more modest approach to capital projects. While some may be
necessary, others I feel are a wish list item and don't need to be undertaken right now. Let's not try to make this
the best city in California, but the best city for the citizens and many citizens are so happy here and fearful of an
additional financial burden.
Wendy George outside Neighborhoods (registered)March 23, 2018, 5:18 PM
I support enhancing Mission Plaza, which has begun to look shabby. Much effort and expense occurred in
updating the Mission Plaza Plan. Now it is time to fund its implementation. However, that funding should
include support for the arts district surrounding the Plaza, including capital support for new buildings for SLOMA
and SLORep and the expansion of public art in Mission Plaza.
Name not available (unclaimed)March 23, 2018, 4:20 PM
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 9 of 27
Packet Page 216
12
I am in favor of the city supporting the arts in SLO and enhancing the Mission Plaza.
Bob Ehlers inside Neighborhood 8 (registered)March 22, 2018, 4:48 PM
There are many immediate needs for San Luis Obispo. Building out an amphitheater in the Mission, adding
more disruptive bike lanes and roadblocks, and expanding the EOC are not among them. The Mission square is
perfectly serviceable as it is and lovely. Maybe renovation of the bathrooms would be ok. We have plenty of bike
lines crisscrossing the city and each new addition only serves to cause more congestion and disrupt the
neighborhoods in which it exists. The county operates a perfectly fine EOC out at the Kansas Ave. area and
there is an existing facility for the City at Firestation 1. So why is this needed?
I do not support any increase in sales tax, property tax, bond issues, or other revenue generation beyond what
exists today, adjusted for inflation. Look to Cities like Huntington Beach and Santa Ana who have balanced
budgets, good infrastructure, and reliable city services without incremental tax burdens on property and
business owners.
We should look at increasing impact fees for Cal Poly. They should be carrying the burden for increased traffic,
police resources, etc. As they build more dorms and increase student enrollment, the city should get a greater
source of revenue. Maybe add dorms as transient occupancy tax. Poly is not going anywhere, but consumes a
lot of city services, including demands for bike lanes, police, crowd control (rowdy parties etc), and traffic
enforcement.
Can the City sell off the water district to a private entity?
What about contracting to the YMCA or other community organization to operate the Parks and Rec Dept?
What about contracting out building maintenance and management to a third party?
What about full automation of permitting process, on line records, etc? Can't business, building and other
permits be handled on line?
Contract fire services to Cal Fire or a private firm.
There are many ways to save money so that taxes do not need to be raised, or new debt incurred.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 8 (registered)March 21, 2018, 9:45 PM
My husband and I would not vote for an increase in sales tax or property tax. This and previous councils have
expressed they want affordable housing in SLO but making property owners pay more property taxes will not
make housing more affordable. Even though visitors pay a larger portion of our sales taxes, we residents have
to pay it too, making costs of goods we purchase in the city higher--again making it less affordable to live here.
The city needs to live within its means and not ask for money for "wants" as opposed to "needs." That's the
way most of us budget our personal finances--the city needs to do the same. It's insulting to ask for more
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 10 of 27
Packet Page 217
12
money from residents when our tax dollars have been squandered for expensive unnecessary things like
retractable bollards and two way bike tracks that cost millions of dollars. We refuse to vote to fund these types
of frivolous, unnecessary things.
Sheryl Mcintire inside Neighborhood 6 (registered)March 21, 2018, 11:17 AM
Thank you for this opportunity to give our opinions, I hope they are truly taken into consideration!
I feel it's asking too much of property owners to chip in more money to help city planners spend money on plans
that are a bit eccentric, we are a small town( that was so much less crowded only a few years ago) not a
European town built for bicycles and pedestrian only streets. Why not keep it in perspective, improve things we
need to see upgraded, no changing the plaza ect.. I'm not sure what responsibility Cal Poly plays as a
contributor to these funds, but shouldn't they shoulder some expense along with bed taxes for all they family
that also arrives several times a year.? Also I feel they should pay a great portion of the money neede for more
police and emergency responders because downtown seems actually like a big campus these days, and the
students are a big part of the need for maintaining peace and control . Especially at night here.
It's a shame to see large buildings going up in town ( especially the one at foothill and chorro !!). Growth is fine
and necessary, but I find the way this town is approaching it is disappointing. Such high density and all the track
home projects will hurt us in the end. The lack of neighborhood character and charm will be gone, and
downtown will be annoying because the sidewalks aren't wide enough to enjoy walking anywhere with all the
crowds of people.
I have so many ideas, but don't want to bore you all at one time! I've lived here 32 years and I cry for the town
we moved here to live in.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 12 (registered)March 21, 2018, 8:19 AM
I do not believe that any redevelopment of Mission Plaza is needed other than bathrooms at this time. As far as
the emergency operation center, it's not at the police department (which could probably use some freshening
up), it's at Fire station number 1 and when I toured it, it seemed perfectly adequate.
Other than bed taxes, I will not support any increase of any type of taxes.
Asking developers to fund these projects isn't going to help either since all that will do is increase the amount
that they ask for new houses or for rent on commercial space. Putting a freeze on all this development
however would be a great idea, we're getting way too crowded here.
I've paid property taxes for over 30 years in San Luis County and while part of it supposedly goes for the
schools, I have not had a student in any of the schools. But have friends that have children in our schools and
have friends that are teachers and always hear how they do not have the funds to properly buy supplies or for
field trips. In fact I just donated to a friends daughter for a field trip. These teachers are dipping into their own
pockets so they will be able to responsibly do what they love to do, teach our future leaders. That's not fair at
any level and you want to raise our property taxes for other ventures? It's hard enough living here as it is
especially with all the increased taxes from our state. The city needs to live within its means, put away money
for a rainy day and save money to fund other expenditures like everybody else should be doing. If I want to buy
a new expensive item, I have no one to ask to help me fund it; I have to save the money and then buy it since I
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 11 of 27
Packet Page 218
12
don't like to go into debt. Our city and county should do the same thing.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 8 (registered)March 20, 2018, 4:37 PM
I am VERY against raising property or sales taxes. It’s hard enough to afford living here, if this goes through I
will certainly be listing my house and moving to south county. The residents should not have to pay for the City’s
inability to keep a balanced budget and hire and spend within their means. Modifying bike lanes on Broad is a
huge mistake on a heavily traveled road. There are other safe options currently in place for cyclists that they
can utilize. Mission Plaza does not need a cafe, there are a plethora of dining options in the downtown core that
this would compete with. As it is, the plaza can accommodate larger events very well and shouldn’t be a
primary focus of the city aside from installing some additional safety measures.
Name not available (unclaimed)March 20, 2018, 3:40 PM
I second the lady who said,
I oppose raising property or sales tax at this time. The present Council is spending money unnecessarily and
utilizing staff time on projects with no purpose other than feeding their own egos. Plastic straws only if you ask
or take it yourself, no purchased water bottles unless an athletic event or someone at City Hall says okay, new
developments plumbed for solar (but not installed). Measure G funds have been subject to bait and switch and
any funds here will be too. The assertion that we need to raise taxes to fund approved projects demonstrates
the error in the thinking and attitude of the CC, City Manager and City Attorney, it is high time to live within our
means. Although the City Manager claims the funds won’t be used to pay down our unfunded pension liabilities,
these funds will pay for projects that should come from the general funds thereby allowing general fund money
to be used for that purpose. The largest sales tax items like car purchases will affect residents and those
businesses. The TOT is quite low and not a determining factor in where visitors choose to stay. With all the call
for affordable housing, property tax increases will only raise rents and render housing more costly.
Name not available (unclaimed)March 20, 2018, 1:08 PM
No way di we need any of these so called improvements and why should I have to pay for them with increased
property taxes, that's just wrong
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 1 (registered)March 20, 2018, 11:47 AM
I applaud the City for calculating all of the proposed projects and giving citizens a view of their overall cost.
However, I find myself supporting some projects and opposed to others. I can see the need to upgrade the
public safety buildings and some of the bicycle proposals. There are projects that I oppose, such as the
redesign of Mission Plaza (I do not think that the redesign is an improvement), the Prado Road interchange, or
the bicycle paths that disrupt existing neighborhoods. Consequently, although I am willing to support financing
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 12 of 27
Packet Page 219
12
some projects, if presented to me as an entire group, I will oppose funding.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 7 (registered)March 20, 2018, 10:48 AM
I'm supportive of taxing visitors first and not taxing residents more. Therefore I'd support increasing TOT first,
then possibly raising the sales tax higher (since 70% is paid by non-residents). With all the new hotels being
built this should raise a significant amount of $. Also look into other creative ways to generate tax/fee revenue
from visitors. The City Mgt/Council should wait to see how much revenue this generates before considering
other options. I'm against any increase to property taxes or other taxes that are solely borne by the residents.
JEAN'NE BLACKWELL inside Neighborhood 6 (registered)March 19, 2018, 10:49 PM
Save the city $5.000 a year and improve the quality of our water and life by not putting fluoride in the city water.
San Luis Is the only remaining municipality in SLO county that still puts fluoride in the water. Fluoride in the
water can really be doing more harm than good. Naturally occurring fluoride is not the same as fluoride
manufactured from the waste by products of the uranium manufacturing industry. The idea that the waste
dumped into water supplies was so “low level” as to be completely harmless is likely dubious and hopeful at
best. Fluoride, a by-product of the nuclear power industry, was one of those constituents, and was transformed
from being known as a rat poison to being known as a dental benefit by the original spin doctor and
propagandist, Edward Bernays.
In his book The Fluoride Deception, author Christopher Bryson revealed how the nuclear industry also used
fluoridation of the public water supply as a means of secretly dumping industrial waste after fluoride was a
major by-product in the uranium enrichment process for building the atomic bomb. Bryson told Democracy Now:
The Manhattan Project needed fluoride to enrich uranium. That’s how they did it. The biggest industrial building
in the world, for a time, was the fluoride gaseous diffusion plant in Tennessee the Manhattan Project and Dr.
Hodge as the senior toxicologist for the Manhattan Project, were scared stiff less that workers would realize that
the fluoride they were going to be breathing inside these plants was going to injury them and that the
Manhattan Project, the key — the key of U.S. Strategic power in the Cold War Era, would be jeopardized
because the Manhattan Project and the industrial contractors making the atomic bomb would be facing all these
lawsuits from workers, all these lawsuits from farmers living around these industrial plants and so Harold Hodge
assures us that fluoride is safe and good for children.
More recently, an Associated Press investigation found in 2011 that 48 of 65 nuclear sites in the United States
were leaking tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, into groundwater supplies via corroded pipes and tunnels.
AP found at least 37 locations were in direct violation of federal drinking water standards for tritium, in some
cases hundreds of times over.
Fluoride has never been approved by the FDA, http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/2005/12/fluoride-never-fda-
approved-for.html Children could inadvertently be getting too much causing unnecessary harm. Dentist give
kids drops, fluoride in toothpaste and the fluoride in the water. There is always a way to get fluoride voluntarily
so my suggestion is save the city $5,000 a year and improve the quality of the water by eliminating fluoride in
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 13 of 27
Packet Page 220
12
our water. thank you.
Name not available (unclaimed)March 19, 2018, 8:27 PM
As a recent first time home buyer in SLO I am against a hike in the property taxes. I know I am super fortunate
to have the opportunity to buy a home in SLO but the hike will be a burden for local families. I am okay with a
increase in sales tax or hotel taxes... I am not sure how that works... Also why do we need a new police station?
A new location?
Hilliard Wood inside Neighborhood 4 (registered)March 19, 2018, 3:57 PM
The property tax is extremely inequitable due to Prop 13. Therefore, I think it not a viable choice for use to fund
any City expenses; and would vote against any Propositions using that funding method.
Name not available (unclaimed)March 19, 2018, 3:18 PM
With the increased number of housing being built and/or approved, I find it irresponsible that the City does not
have road improvement as a number one goal. Traffic within the City is already bottle necked at key times of
the day, yet I don't see any significant traffic plan for strategic thoroughfares to address increased use due to
housing and population growth. Given the constraints of space, it's a pipe-dream to think that significantly more
people will ride bikes and or use public transportation. Road improvements and traffic management must be a
key project for the City.
Lydia Mourenza inside Neighborhood 1 (registered)March 19, 2018, 2:26 PM
I oppose raising property or sales tax at this time. The present Council is spending money unnecessarily and
utilizing staff time on projects with no purpose other than feeding their own egos. Plastic straws only if you ask
or take it yourself, no purchased water bottles unless an athletic event or someone at City Hall says okay, new
developments plumbed for solar ( but not installed). Measure G funds have been subject to bait and switch and
any funds here will be too. The assertion that we need to raise taxes to fund approved projects demonstrates
the error in the thinking and attitude of the CC, City Manager and City Attorney, it is high time to live within our
means. Although the City Manager claims the funds won’t be used to pay down our unfunded pension liabilities,
these funds will pay for projects that should come from the general funds thereby allowing general fund money
to be used for that purpose. The largest sales tax items like car purchases will affect residents and those
businesses. The TOT is quite low and not a determining factor in where visitors choose to stay. With all the call
for affordable housing, property tax increases will only raise rents and render housing more costly.
Sandi Sigurdson inside Neighborhood 6 (registered)March 19, 2018, 1:38 PM
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 14 of 27
Packet Page 221
12
If we don't invest in retaining a vibrant, attractive downtown, Carmel and Santa Barbara will be happy to do
it...and reap the TOT benefits. Please make the case again for our relatively average SLO sales tax percentage
against comparable coastal destinations. I'm all for visitors substantially helping residents bear the cost of living
here.
I'd also like to hear a stronger case for a new police station. The safety folk I know are pretty stoic so I am
unaware of any shortcomings in existing facilities. Tell me more so I can support our first responders effectively.
I don't know about bike lanes. I just know that how people move around is going to change dramatically in the
next 2 + decades- the planning horizon for our professional staff vis parking structures, lane widening, and
public transit.
Thanks for asking!
Susan Shalit inside Neighborhood 7 (registered)March 14, 2018, 7:29 PM
I am against using limited funds to "enhance" Mission Plaza. The city has many more pressing needs. As a
local resident our Plaza is fine the way it is. If the bathroom needs improvement that's reasonable. Thank you.
Respectfully, Susan Shalit
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 7 (registered)March 14, 2018, 12:34 PM
As a property owner in this city, I am completely against funding public use projects with property taxes.
Property owners currently fund bonds for the State Water Project (which we don't have access to), the San Luis
Coastal Schools, and Cuesta College. I have lived in my property for almost 20 years and these bonds and fees
continue to rise along with my assessed home value. I can't imagine how new property owners can afford their
property taxes with the current price of housing and all of the bond add-ons. Tourists, students, renters, and
visitors who live outside of our area will use these facilities and I feel it only fair to have them pay their fair
share. I would not be opposed to a .5% sales tax increase for a limited time, however, I feel any approved
project should have sufficient oversight to ensure that funds collected are used only for the intended project and
not funneled into the cities’ budget to fund things like pensions or annual budget shortfalls. I also feel
developers should contribute their fair share or provide total funding for road improvements such as the Tank
Farm Road project, particularly when the road impacts are a direct result of their project.
Name not available (unclaimed)March 12, 2018, 10:02 PM
I thought this was to be a questionaire. Maybe that will be the case, as I go forward with this.
I feel the the Council has done a very poor job being fiscally accountable, for at least the last ten years. If a
skate board park is desired then the strategy is to flood the Chamber at budget time for several years and
presto, you get a skate park. If you want to correct housing conditions in rental properties, get a vocal mob to
have the Council write a draconian law that raises dollars for CD, yet doesn't solve the problem. If you are a
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 15 of 27
Packet Page 222
12
cyclist, petition the Council for a cyclist's roadway and propose changes that are dangerous because of
ignorance of the cultural factors operative in this town, TODAY. [ My wife is Dutch so I've seen and spent time in
a society that provides for separation of vehicular, cycling & pedestrian traffic......it's a good idea, if done
properly ]
Twenty years ago the City had acquired four historic adobes by various means [ gifts from developers of
parcels, bequests, tax advantaged parcels.... ] with the understanding they would be stewards of these
examples of our cultural past. One adobe was restored so as to be "weathered" 20 yrs. ago; one had some
CDBG funds spent a few years ago; but no planning has been done as to ascertain what needs to be done to
them to sustain them, or if the City can even afford to be the steward of these iconic parts of our built
environment. Twenty years of derelict stewardship !
These things come to mind, now that once again, you ask the citizenry to "go to the well again".
Garrett Otto inside Neighborhood 1 (registered)March 12, 2018, 2:01 PM
I would be in favor of a sales tax and TOT increase as this put the majority of the burden on tourist dollars. I
would not support an increase to property taxes due to our high housing cost in SLO. Funds should be
allocated to projects that are ranked on quality of service for all users, environmental mitigation, and potential to
generate future revenue. I would also like to know what sort of grants and funding support we would qualify for
if we become a self help community by allocating fund as part of a sales tax increase.
Patrick Scrivner outside Neighborhoods (registered)March 9, 2018, 10:24 PM
My vote will against bond measure G.
Sales taxes are too high already.
Property taxes are too high already.
Do you have any wonder why families and businesses are leaving California in droves?
Live like the citizens, and don’t spend what you don’t have.
Name not available (unclaimed)March 9, 2018, 9:36 PM
All the lofty plans for the beautification of this city sounds wonderful, but you are planning to spend money you
don’t have to pay for it; at the cost of everyone who lives in the county, not just the city of SLO. Sure, everyone
would like to make “home improvements” but if you don’t have the money to complete the project, you don’t do
the project. Our property taxes are already well over 1% and the cost of homes are already unaffordable.
Another increase in sales tax will bring us to almost 10%! SLO is a great place to live, but not when your living
expenses eat up most of your income. Living costs are high here and salaries are low, why make it worse? The
people of this county are taxed to death as it is-NO MORE!
Gary Havas inside Neighborhood 10 (registered)March 9, 2018, 6:44 PM
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 16 of 27
Packet Page 223
12
I regret that Measure J failed. I appreciate that work needs to be done and wish to see that happen. If another
sales-tax based revenue mechanism needs to be created, I would vote for it.
Name not available (unclaimed)March 9, 2018, 4:27 PM
As a member of the LUCE TF I voted in the minority on at least some of the anticipated programs and was told
that existing sales taxes were able to fund most of what was being discussed. I have no objection to taxes
paying for improved fire and police response time and facilities and for upgrading worn roads, water
infrastructure pipes, and the like. I definitely oppose taxes being levied to pay for new developments in bicycling
facilities,mass transportation facilities, new upscale housing, and downtown bars and restaurants that are
already way too big for our permanent population size and small town. I disagree with the whole idea of
crowding our small space with a bunch of tourists who spend their money on restaurants, bars, and other luxury
items. SLO should be for the permanent residents first and foremost, not for students, their parents, and
tourists.
David Blakely inside Neighborhood 1 (registered)March 9, 2018, 4:07 PM
I would like to know more about this proposal before I could support it or reject it. It is very early in the process.
A couple of thoughts
1. If the money is being used for more bike lanes the city council needs to do a better job of working with the
neighborhoods. The Broad Street bike way issue was very controversial and has turned people off to what
should be a good thing for the city.
2. It must be demonstrated that the money raised by this tax would not just supplant other monies used by the
city for these purposes.
3. A long time high priority for the residents of the city of slo has been the acquisition of open space. I would
suggest that this be a high priority for the spending of this money. But it must be real and not just lip service for
more open space. The residents of SLO have consistently picked open space acquisition as a high priority but
the money gets spent on roads, bikelanes and public safety.
4. Since it is so early in the process I am not sure what this money can be spent on. I would love to see the city
start a legal challenge to the state in regards to the housing mandates the state is putting on the city. Or if
possible use some of the money to revise the general plan so that the city council can have as much discretion
as possible when it comes to the approval of projects in the city.
5. Non of this money should be used to stimulate and provide for additional growth in the city. New growth must
pay to mitigate all of their impacts to a level of insignificance and if they cannot the city should not cover any of
those costs and projects should be denied.
6. Use this money for neighborhood wellness. Foster a positive relationship between the city and the
neighborhoods. Respect neighborhood input. 22 Chorro and Palomar are two examples where the
neighborhoods have not been respected.
Allen Root inside Neighborhood 8 (registered)March 9, 2018, 2:13 PM
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 17 of 27
Packet Page 224
12
I applaud the efforts of our Mayor and Council, City staff, and community members for having the foresight to
delve into this important topic. The maintenance and upgrading of our community is vital in so many ways. One
of the most important in my mind is maintaining a high degree of attractiveness in San Luis Obispo. To keep up
the high level of visitors, ( and the visitor's wallets ), and to help lure the skilled workforce our local industries
need. How to fund? I know that with certain factions making development even more expensive can be un-
popular, I do think it is a good place to look. Making sure that the developments coming to fruition are paying
their fair share of infrastructure improvements is important. Assessment districts could work, and I can't
imagine a 1% sales tax increase would cause much heartburn. It would be good to know how SLO compares
sale tax wise to other comparable communities, and it is a very good idea to keep the citizenry informed about
how the money is spent.
I would also like City to study the efficacy of all our dreamy proposals. As a lover of all things cultural, I'm
excited by the prospects of the envisioned "Cultural District". A strong component of community attractiveness,
I'm doing what I can to advance that. I can see the need for a new Police Station, it must be, what, 45 years
old? Our community has grown a bit in those years. Do we really need a new communication center? I don't
think it is even 10 years old. We need to be critical in our priorities.
So I say "do all of the above" in terms of financing our Community and infrastructure needs. Let's keep San Luis
Obispo riding on the top edge of the wave!
Name not shown outside Neighborhoods (registered)March 9, 2018, 10:48 AM
With recent water / sewer and property tax increases, (not to mention related expenses) I would submit that
new development shoulder the costs of infrastructure and that the city SCALE BACK it's plans until there is a
sensible plan in place to do so. Mandating a county wide tax hamstrings the populous by overdeveloping &
over-promising - but what happens when the exodus begins - (witness Santa Barbara and Ventura) - a sound
plan would budget 'needs" & "desires" with practical expenditures and a more cautious approach.
Cheryl Lyon outside Neighborhoods (registered)March 8, 2018, 5:06 PM
I am completely against a 400 million dollar upgrade because I haven't heard how the county is going to
remedy the situation that they came up 10 million dollar short this past year AND when PG&E Diablo Canyon
closes, 85 million will not be pouring into our economy anymore!
Having lived in Los Osos since 1983, I am being strangled by tax hikes, sewer fees, sewer pipe improvements,
and water rate increases of 195% !
I'm low income and it's going to soon pass a line where I cannot live in the home that I've enjoyed for decades!
Please please please don't force gentrification on this County!
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 2 (registered)March 8, 2018, 3:16 PM
SLO is already famously unaffordable. Landlords will be able to pass any increase in property taxed onto their
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 18 of 27
Packet Page 225
12
tenants. The rental housing market is tight; if the current tenant will not tolerate the increased rent, another
tenant will. Rather than compound this problem with another tax on residents, consider raising the bed taxes
charged to the visitors staying in the hotels.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 6 (registered)March 8, 2018, 8:20 AM
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't raise my taxes. It's getting harder and harder for "us", middle income home
owner dual income family small business owner, to be able to afford the SLO life. It just seem so irresponsible to
ask "us" to keep funding things we can't afford. Please stop this silliness.
Justin Bradshaw inside Neighborhood 1 (registered)March 7, 2018, 9:56 PM
I'm very much in favor of improving bike access, mission plaza and public services like police and fire. After
reading the comments you've received thus far, it seems like you're getting some religious pushback on raising
taxes. It's a thing, I get it. I don't like my taxes raised either.... but I also understand that projects take money
and a citizen like me that wants to ride his bike more and loves the mission and our safe city should be willing to
pay a bit more to get those things.
All that said, I think you're going to have to take a multi-faceted approach to this. You can probably raise sales
tax a half of a percent and some property taxes marginally, too... but you'll also have to commit to trimming the
city budget in places that may require some sacrifice on your part. I have not noticed this myself, but have
certainly noted the public perception that the city is fat and happy. You will need to combat that perception in
any campaign asking for more funds from your residents.
Oh and don't forget the money you can raise from cannabis. From cultivation to distribution, manufacturing and
retail... you'd be crazy not to capitalize on this once in a lifetime opportunity to bring significantly more revenues
into the city.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 6 (registered)March 7, 2018, 9:40 PM
I will not vote for more bonds or general taxation due to previous waste of my money eg Decorative street tiles
now cracking and buckling. Higher taxes on alcohol could pay for more police "protection" and the cannabis tax
can pay down the pension "debt". Higher taxes on developers should pay for "infrastructure" 4 the 3,000 new
dwellings they bring. Why tax retirees pensions and social security to enhance the carpet baggers profits off
newbee residents? and Traffic jams, band width competition, blackouts, and water depletion they will bring?
Making just another Dustbowl out of SLO.
Name not available (unclaimed)March 7, 2018, 9:23 PM
I will not vote for more bonds, sales taxes etc due to wasteful govt decisions of last decade eg: decorative street
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 19 of 27
Packet Page 226
12
tiles now breaking. The cannabis tax has my approval, first to cover the "pension shortfall", an artificially
created crisis example of govt mismanagement ,and a higher tax on alcohol consumption to pay for more police
"protection" specifically ?.Why are we adding huge hotels and 3,000 dwellings when we have maxed out our
water supply already????? Let developers pay for the "new infrastructure" from their profits, vs our "income"
Social Security or pensions.
Name not shown outside Neighborhoods (registered)March 7, 2018, 9:49 AM
I question the thinking on increasing sales tax levies in the city of SLO, especially when put in the context of
other troubling decisions. In the meantime, the Measure G tax already goes on. The "improvements" to
LOVR (I use the term loosely) have not helped the worst traffic congestion in the city (between Madonna and
Higuera). The oversized building permitted at Chorro and Foothill is really out of place. The downtown
construction mess goes on and on and has added significantly to the loss of parking to an already problematic
parking situation; very few people want to see any buildings rise above two stories. Thousands of new homes,
cars and people on the drawing boards-- yuck, that just sounds like a huge infrastructure problem coming
along.
So to the immediate question; Want more bike paths? Tax the bikers--they use them I guess. Mission Plaza
does not need the improvements listed. Police station...I cant comment on that, because I don't know what is
wrong with the one we have. But there are PLENTY of empty storefronts in Madonna Plaza...why cant we use
that for police and housing? Can't we try to live within our means??
Name not available (unclaimed)March 7, 2018, 7:36 AM
Why not use the $400 million to create low-income housing or rent vouchers so people who run the city can
actually afford to live here? This measure sounds like the city is planning to spend $400 million to attract
tourists and does nothing to benefit the residents of the city.
Name not available (unclaimed)March 6, 2018, 11:00 AM
How about better fiscal management of taxpayer money? Keep raising taxes and eventually the tourism that
helps pay for so much in this city will dry up just like the pension funds
Name not available (unclaimed)March 6, 2018, 2:10 AM
No more sales tax.
No more property taxes.
Rents are tooo high.
Taxes are tooooo high.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 6 (registered)March 5, 2018, 3:49 PM
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 20 of 27
Packet Page 227
12
San Luis Obispo is frightfully unaffordable. A 1% sales tax will make it 1% less affordable. Property taxes will
also force out property owners and renters who are currently on the margins (rents in SLO county are already
increasing faster than anywhere else in the state). The SLO city government needs to put more time and
attention into trimming itself down so that it can do essential functions in-budget and so that its regulations and
fees are less of a burden, and less time and attention into dreaming up ways of spending more of the money of
city residents who are already scraping for what they can get.
Susie Link inside Neighborhood 7 (registered)March 5, 2018, 2:26 PM
Our taxes are high enough in this community. I do not appreciate the mentallity of keeping up with the Jones.
We are not Santa Barbara and I don't want to live in Santa Barbara. Our police are fine with the current
station. We don't even have the man power to cover the current police station. We down officers. We don't
even have a Resource Officer at the High School. Why? The City Council's priorities are so skewed. Please
take it to a vote of the community instead of making continual bad decisions like raising taxes. Its expensive
enough to live here.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 1 (registered)March 5, 2018, 9:50 AM
The city is like a spoiled child who wants, wants, wants, not like an adult who recognizes limitations and tries to
live within them. So we spend $1.3 million on bollards to protect Farmers Market! (from what? Not from the real
threats, guns and explosives) and want to constantly be redoing everything into some shadow of what it once
was (MIssion Plaza's just fine as it is). Then the city bullies its residents with stuff like the Anholm Bikeway,
builds all sorts of stuff we don't need (the $250K welcome sign on Santa Rosa at Highland), and incessantly
whines about not having enough money. It's tiresome, KIds, Grow up! As for sales tax, this is the most
regressive tax in the world -- hurts those with the least the most. Doubling our local sales tax is a really
obnoxious idea. So are parcel taxes. Paying the city manager's and city attorney's salaries and pensions out of
our sewer/water charges because those can be raised every year is obnoxious too, but few know you're doing
that. The city must learn, like all of us, to live within its means. It seems there's a total lack of trust anymore
because of the antics of folks at city hall. If your revenue enhancements get voted down by the people, well will
the city learn anything. or will is just hire another consultant to figure out how to manipulate us into voting yes
next time around?
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 5 (registered)March 5, 2018, 9:22 AM
Please don’t raise my property taxes. These taxes are already difficult for me so please be pro-housing stability
and don’t raise my taxes.
Name not available (unclaimed)March 4, 2018, 5:55 PM
First, there are not 22,000 relatively affluent Cal Poly students in the city Mr. Cooper. There are of course at
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 21 of 27
Packet Page 228
12
least that many affluent residents in the north part of the city. This city spends too much money pandering to
the political and personal agendas of its current councilmembers. We do not need any more bike trails nor any
further work on the Mission Plaza area. I agree the Mission and the downtown area is a hangout for transients.
Our current council apparently sees them as "yard art." Whether a large number camp in their vehicles down in
the south end of town where they can leave without consequences for dumping their trash and sewage. This
thanks to our mayor who is more concern about the homeless (many who are not locals) then she is about the
residents who live and pay taxes here. It's time the city start upgrading the police and fire stations, addressing
abandon or damaged buildings (i.e. the Sub which has been left as an eyesore for over two years while the
individuals pretending to do work on it leave rent-free in their motorhome on the property. Spend more money
addressing issues in other areas of the city not just the constantly well-funded downtown. The city continues to
dump discount stores and unpopular but necessary businesses in the south end of the city while spending most
of the money and time on the north end of the city,
Odile Ayral inside Neighborhood 1 (registered)March 4, 2018, 1:04 PM
When she was 16, my daughter said to me: "Mom, I learned from you that when you want something, you have
to put your priorities in order." She could teach the City a thing or two. I voted for measure G, and I watched
crews coating what appeared to be perfectly good streets on Ferrini Heights, while streets like Dana still exist
only because potholes are holding hands. Now the city is planning to spend a portion of $1 million and a half
on bike tracks in the Anholm neighborhood where it's not needed and not wanted, and another million and a
half on bollards to block streets at Farmer's Market, when a few big trucks would work perfectly well. And we
see huge buildings rising downtown, and developments like San Luis, Avila Ranch, Froom Ranch, etc., being
planned without any concern for infrastructure or the availability of water. Where are the city's priorities? You
want us to fund many more millions to give a facelift to Mission Plaza, but you don't have the money to fund
pensions. Again, where are your priorities? I suggest that you closely read the comments posted by Allan
Cooper (he has good ideas), and forget what you can't afford. As for me, I refuse to vote for new taxes as long
as you haven't put your priorities in order.
Name not shown outside Neighborhoods (registered)March 4, 2018, 12:54 PM
The residents have fought tax increases over and over. SLO needs to scale back as Diablo is closing and many
of our high paying jobs and our tax base will be leaving. $43M for a government office center, $40M for a
women's jail, $15M proposed for a pet facility!!! Enough is enough. Money does not grow on trees. Live within
your means, downsize, and be more cost effective. Pensions are too high, salaries are too high, wasteful
government practices are everywhere I look.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 7 (registered)March 4, 2018, 11:08 AM
I do not support the tax increase. The overall budget includes the Pension liability which needs to be dealt with
by whatever means to lower the liability. Also, an audit of the previous tax measure shows some money was
spent toward staff benefits and/or salaries, redecorating offices, staff retreats, new vehicles for staff, a $4 million
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 22 of 27
Packet Page 229
12
software system... the list goes on. MUCH LIKE A FAMILY WITH A CERTAIN MEANS, THE CITY NEEDS TO
LEARN TO LIVE WITHIN ITS MEANS. Take an overall assessment and cut back where needed if other
priorities are more important. Continually adding assessments on the residents is not the solution.
Name not available (unclaimed)March 4, 2018, 9:13 AM
This is an absolutely ridiculous idea. I live in Arroyo Grande, and am one of the 70% who end up paying your
sales taxes. I come to SLO at least once a week, to spend money there. If this tax passes, I will refuse to
spend another single dollar in SLO going forward. Use some of the taxes from legalized marijuana to blow on
"nice" for the community projects. We are all being taxed to death around here, including property taxes and
gas taxes also.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 10 (registered)March 4, 2018, 7:19 AM
I am unwilling to support any tax increases until the city comes to grips with the homeless situation. Spending
more money in the Mission area for improvement of the ampitheater at the time when you have many people
sleeping there during the day and bringing their dogs with them, and just generally trashing up the center of
tourist district is a ridiculous concept. No additional tax is justified until the city comes to grips with getting the
homeless out of tourist areas and our neighborhoods and parks.
Allan Cooper inside Neighborhood 5 (registered)March 3, 2018, 4:52 PM
San Luis Obispo is unique in that it is one of seven college towns in California and, among these college towns,
San Luis Obispo has one of the highest ratio of students per capita in the State. There are approximately
22,000 relatively affluent Cal Poly and Cuesta College students residing in San Luis Obispo. These students
cost the City additional community safety expenditures, 44% of the General Fund (see:
http://slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=16638), infrastructure and transportation expenditures,17% of the
General Fund and community and neighborhood livability expenditures, 12% of the General Fund. Owing to the
presence of these students, they and their families account for a large share of the City’s bed taxes (TOT’s) and
sales taxes. Therefore, it is only logical that part of the City’s $8,900,000 annual budget shortfall should be
made up by raising both the City’s bed taxes (per Council Member Rivoire’s suggestion) and sales taxes so that
these taxes are more in line with the other six California college towns.
For the year 2016-17, SLO’s Transient Occupancy Fund brought in $7,186,000 (see page A1-14 @
http://slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=15625). Note that four of the seven California college towns listed
below charge more than 10%. Assessing a bed tax at the same level as Berkeley (12%) would bring in an
additional $1,437,200 per year.
For the year 2016-17, SLO’s Sales Tax brought in $16,584,000. Note that five of the seven California college
towns listed below charge significantly more than 7.75%. Assessing sales taxes at the same level as Davis
(8.25%) would bring in an additional $1,069,935 per year.
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 23 of 27
Packet Page 230
12
These two increases would bring an additional $2,507,135 per year into the City coffers and this would
represent 33% of the City’s budget shortfall. This comes close to your target 30% - 40% in new revenue
sources for the $7.5 million share of the total budget shortfall.
Transient Occupancy Taxes For California Cities (Bold Type: University Towns)
“Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) For the privilege of occupancy in any hotel, each transient is subject to and
shall pay a tax in the amount of _____ percent of the rent charged by the operator.”
City of Modesto 9%
City of San Diego 9%
City of San Luis Obispo 10%
City of Pismo Beach 10%
City of Morro Bay 10%
City of Arroyo Grande 10%
City of Atascadero 10%
City of Paso Robles 10%
City of Pacific Grove 10%
City of Ventura 10%
City of San Jose 10%
City of Chico 10%
City of Claremont 10%
City of Monterey 10.5%
City of Santa Cruz 11%
City of Berkeley 12%
City of Santa Barbara 12%
City of Mammoth Lakes 13%
City of Davis 14%
City of Los Angeles 14%
City of San Francisco 14%
City of Palo Alto 14%
Sales Taxes For California Cities (Bold Type: University Towns)
City of Chico 7.25%
City of San Diego 7.75%
City of Pismo Beach 7.75%
City of Morro Bay 7.75%
City of Arroyo Grande 7.75%
City of Atascadero 7.75%
City of Paso Robles 7.75%
City of San Luis Obispo 7.75%
City of Ventura 7.75%
City of Santa Barbara 7.75%
City of Mammoth Lakes 7.75%
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 24 of 27
Packet Page 231
12
City of Modesto 7.875%
City of Davis 8.25%
City of San Francisco 8.50%
City of Pacific Grove 8.75%
City of Monterey 8.75%
City of Santa Cruz 9.00%
City of Palo Alto 9.00%
City of San Jose 9.25%
City of Berkeley 9.25%
City of Claremont 9.50%
City of Los Angeles 9.75%
As for meeting the 30% - 40% operating cost reductions, it is clear that both City salaries and positions should
be frozen if not reduced.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 7 (registered)March 3, 2018, 9:48 AM
It is past time that this city, and other cities in California, live within our means. Burdening the future with
millions of dollars of debt for "nice to do" things makes no sense. Things that "need" to be done include the
Prado Road overpass and widening Tank Farm. A new Police station goes along with that too. Mission Plaza
and Monterey street? Sure, in an ideal world it would be great to do these "nice to do" projects. But, how about
we focus on the other important financial issues facing our community? What about the pensions we've
committed to? It may not be fun but we as a community need to fund the CalPers system whether we like it or
not. To start spending borrowed money to fix things that are not broken (Mission Plaza, for example) while
ignoring the pension issue is not good governing. The pension issues will not solve themselves and need to be
addressed. Thank you.
Lee Bren inside Neighborhood 6 (registered)March 2, 2018, 4:25 PM
The City of San Luis Obispo was founded in1856. Dated and antiquated infrastructure in the 21st century will
not meet the future needs of our community. The economic vitality and financial stability of our businesses, our
citizens, our government, Cal Poly/Cuesta and our tourists need to be taken into consideration in this
evaluation, assuring the needed infrastructure to remain relevant and financially viable in the decades ahead.
Too many communities in our state prefer to defer investing in their future, and kick the can down the road. It is
human nature to ignore the future, when the current challenges seem daunting. Deferrals of solutions to
community needs generally have bad outcomes, and in the long run, are more expensive to cure. At the same
time, every community carries forward that year’s fiscal responsibilities. Many communities, unlike SLO, don’t
offer community stakeholders the opportunity to share their insights regarding fiscal management; I am grateful
that SLO welcomes this kind of citizen input.
While, yes, we do have fiscal challenges in our city, I firmly believe we cannot simultaneously ignore the future.
The future loss of Diablo Canyon seems to bode loss for our economy; yet, we are growing a high-tech
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 25 of 27
Packet Page 232
12
business community, with which SLO can build stronger alliances each year, and upon which SLO can plan and
implement community projects. There is no free lunch; we plan and invest collaboratively overtime, doing our
collaborative best to avoid large unintended consequences down the road.
A combination of sales tax dedicated increases, with long-term city bonds, and other prudent financial
techniques is the right way to secure our future.
Leslie Halls inside Neighborhood 8 (registered)March 2, 2018, 3:25 PM
Our city is head over heels in debt to CalPERS, and yet you want to go on a spending spree for what are
mostly "fluff" projects. Mission Plaza is fine as it is. As long as we owe CalPERS over $155 MILLION, we can
never be sure any additional taxes will go where they are promised to go. You need to live within your means.
People aren't leaving SLO because it's a mess, they are leaving because it is getting entirely too expensive to
live here. Raising taxes only exacerbates this. Cut spending, pay down CalPERS, put the NEEDS (not wants) of
residents first, and then figure it out. We are in this financial mess in part because you have catered to "wants"
at the expense of needs. Grow a backbone and make tough decisions, to major on the majors. No new taxes.
Period.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 5 (registered)March 2, 2018, 2:44 PM
We live in a lovely City but there are too many people trying to over engineer the lifestyle here. If you don't have
the funds to create a bike path, we are fine without a dedicated bike path through the city. If you can't afford to
change the Mission Plaza, then leave it as is. Alternatively, sacrifice your habit of all new vehicles for City Staff
or First Responder Vehicles and Double Decker buses that cost millions of dollars. Cities like SLO need to
learn to live within a budget. You raised a "temporary sales tax" years back to meet your funding needs and it's
never been repealed back as far as I can tell. So my feeling is NO!!!! No on raising taxes - Cut back on some
other area in your budget and re prioritize your spending. That's what we as individual tax payers have to do!
dia Hurd inside Neighborhood 7 (registered)March 2, 2018, 2:37 PM
I say fully fund your pension liabilities PRIOR to developing new projects and allowing and approving
developments as rapidly as you are able WITHOUT consideration of the limits of available utilities such as
WATER, ROADS and traffic overload. It would be seriously premature and not in the residents benefit to simply
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 26 of 27
Packet Page 233
12
start raising the taxing of the residents to PROVIDE RESOURCES FOR NEW RESIDENTS. WE DO NOT
WANT ANY NEW RESIDENTS until it can be shown that water, not money is sufficient to support the myriad
dozens of developments this city is proposing. You are way out of line even considering raising taxes on
property or sales (if that occurs, we will not shop in slo any longer) for future whatevers that are ill advised at
this time. Stay within your budget, and FULLY FUND THE PRESENT SLO. And your current pension
requirements. It is a travesty of the first water, to be so shortsighted as to propose to pump up your funding for
the future. Where do you guys come up with this stuff?
dia hurd
Funding the Future of SLO Survey
What feedback do you have on the options to Fund the Future of SLO?
All Statements sorted chronologically
As of April 9, 2018, 12:36 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/6046 Page 27 of 27
Packet Page 234
12
12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 350 | Los Angeles, CA 90025
Phone: (310) 828-1183 | Fax: (310) 453-6562
1999 Harrison St., Suite 2020 | Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 451-9521 | Fax: (510) 451-0384
TO Interested Parties
FROM Dr. Richard Bernard and Laura Covarrubias
FM3 Research
RE: City of San Luis Obispo Community Issues Survey Results
DATE April 2, 2018
A recent survey of 8461 voters was conducted in the City of San Luis Obispo to examine the local population’s
general attitudes and concerns about their city and the local government. The primary purpose of the survey was
to test the feasibility of two local revenue measures in the City of San Luis Obispo. The results suggest that a
majority of voters (57%) in San Luis Obispo favor a one-cent sales tax to improve City infrastructure; however,
the intensity of support (those who said they would definitely vote yes) was quit e soft at 29 percent. Overall
support for a sales tax measure increases if the measure is for a half-cent sales tax as opposed to a full-cent, but
decreases when a sunset is included. Voters also generally prefer to use funds from a potential revenue measure
for a mix of both infrastructure and service-based projects, and have a clear preference for projects that maintain
infrastructure and services over projects that improve them, based on the information provided. A majority of
voters (68%) are strongly in support of a cannabis activity tax; however, support for the one-cent sales tax drops
when both measures are presented on the ballot. Under this scenario, the cannabis measure continues to appear
viable, but the one-cent sales tax does not. Finally, voters generally have a favorable opinion of the City of San
Luis Obispo, as nine in ten voters (92%) indicated it is an excellent or pretty good place to live.
One-Cent Sales Tax Measure
• The majority of voters initially support a measure that would implement an additional one-cent sales tax
to generate funds to improve City infrastructure.2 Initially, 57 percent of voters indicated support for this
measure, with 29 percent having said they would definitely vote yes for it. Forty percent of all voters indicated
they would not vote in favor of the measure, marking a strong opposition. As Figure 1 on the following page
shows, however, the percentage of strong supporters who would vote definitely yes on the measure modestly
increases (within the margin of error) after voters receive more information about the measure, even if overall
support remains about the same.
1 Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) conducted a telephone survey between March 18-25, 2018, consisting of 846 registered voters
in the City of San Luis Obispo likely to vote in the November 2018 General Election. The margin of error for the full sample is +/- 4.9% with a 95%
confidence interval. Margins of error for population subgroups will be higher. Some percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
2 The infrastructure projects and services would inclu de replacing aging police and fire stations; establishing an emergency operation center;
restoring Laguna Lake; improving traffic circulation across town and pedestrian and bike safety; revitalizing Mission Plaza; and upgrading the Senior
Center.
Packet Page 235
12
Page 2
Figure 1: Initial Vote on One-Cent Sales Tax Measure and Vote After Receiving Information
• Support for the one-cent sales tax measure drops to 53 percent when voters hear a critical message about
the measure. The critical message stated that the City should cut wasteful spending and inefficiencies, and
that local residents are already overtaxed as it is. Figure 2 below shows how reading/listening to one critical
message increases the percentage of voters who oppose the measure, with three in ten saying they would
definitely vote no.
Figure 2: Support for 2-Cent Sales Tax Measure After Information and After Critical Message
Half-Cent Sales Tax Measure
• Support for a one-half-cent sales tax is higher, and has a stronger intensity of support (voters who would
definitely vote yes for the measure) than a one-cent sales tax increase. Sixty-one percent of all voters
indicated they would support the measure if it increased the sales tax by one-half-cent. Although the overall
support is only marginally higher for the half-cent sales tax, the number of voters that indicated they would
definitely vote yes for the one-half-cent sales tax is significantly higher (37 percent, compared to only 29
percent for the one-cent sales tax—see Figure 3 below).
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
29%
22%
6%
4%
11%
25%
3%
Total
Yes
57%
Total
No
40%
Initial One-Cent Vote
32%
21%
5%
3%
8%
27%
3%
Total
Yes
58%
Total
No
39%
Vote After Information
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
29%
22%
6%
4%
11%
25%
3%
Total
Yes
57%
Total
No
40%
Initial One-Cent Vote Vote After Critical StatementVote After Information
32%
21%
5%
3%
8%
27%
3%
Total
Yes
58%
Total
No
39%
28%
20%
5%
3%
10%
30%
4%
Total
Yes
53%
Total
No
43%
Packet Page 236
12
Page 3
Figure 3: Support for a One-Cent Sales Tax Versus a ½-Cent Sales Tax
• In contrast, voters are much less supportive if the sales tax measure includes a sunset clause.3 Only 48
percent of voters indicated they would vote yes for the one-cent sales tax measure if it was legally required
to end in twenty years. Support is lower when the number of years of the sunset is higher: only 37 percent
indicated they would vote yes if the measure is set to end in 30 years (See Figure 4 below).
Figure 4: Total Support for One-Cent Measure Including 20- and 30-Year Sunsets
• Voters favor a mix of projects that focus on both infrastructure and City services. Voters selected maintaining
streets and repairing potholes (72%), and preserving open space and natural areas (67%) the most often as
“extremely” or “very important” projects to fund with a potential new City revenue measure. Other
infrastructure improvement projects and services that received higher importance ratings for funding include:
o Addressing Homelessness (67% extremely or very important; 37% extremely important);
o Keeping public areas safe and clean (66%; 25%);
o Upgrading fire stations that have been determined by structural engineers to not meet current seismic
earthquake standards (61%; 25%);
3 The original question testing the one-cent sales tax measure did not specify a date for when the measure would end.
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
29%
22%
6%
4%
11%
25%
3%
Total
Yes
57%
Total
No
40%
Initial One-Cent
37%
17%
7%
4%
8%
22%
5%
Total
Yes
61%
Total
No
34%
Half-Cent
Total Yes
Total No
Undecided
57%
40%
3%
Initial One-Cent Sales Tax
48%
46%
6%
20-Year Sunset
37%
55%
8%
30-Year Sunset
Packet Page 237
12
Page 4
o Retaining and attracting local businesses (61%; 22%);
o Improving traffic circulation across town (60%; 28%);
o Improving traffic flow (59%; 26%);
o Preparing for natural disasters and other related threats (59%; 22%);
o Improving safe routes to school (57%; 27%);
o Ensuring City buildings are earthquake retrofitted to meet the current California Seismic Safety Act
standards (57%; 21%);
o Improving pedestrian and bike safety (55%; 28%);
o Improving traffic safety (55%; 18%); and
o Helping ensure safe places to play (51%; 17%)
Noteworthy is the finding that the intensity of importance ratings—as measured by the percentage of
respondents that consider the specific infrastructure improvement projects and related services to be
extremely important—is generally quite modest based on the information provided.
• Voters prefer funding projects that maintain current City services and infrastructure over projects that
would improve them, suggesting voters are satisfied with the services and infrastructure the City currently
offers. When asked about services and infrastructure separate from the measures, as independent elements,
roughly two-thirds (64%) of voters indicated that maintaining essential city services is an extremely or very
important project to fund. In contrast, only 42 percent of voters indicated that improving essential city services
is extremely or very important (see Figure 5 on the following page). Similarly, over two-thirds (68%) of voters
indicated it is extremely or very important to maintain police and fire services, while 58 percent indicated the
same for maintaining City infrastructure. Meanwhile, less than 50% indicated it is extremely or very important
to improve these services: only 43 percent responded that improving police and fire services is extremely or
very important to fund, while 47 percent indicated the same about improving City infrastructure.
Packet Page 238
12
Page 5
Figure 5: “Maintaining” Versus “Improving” Services and Infrastructure
• Voters are more inclined to vote in favor of the one-cent sales tax measure after learning that nearly three-
quarters of the sales tax dollars collected in San Luis Obispo come from visitors and tourists in the area.4
Nearly two thirds (63%) of voters indicated being either much more or somewhat more inclined to vote yes
on the measure after hearing that visitors would be paying a fair share of the taxes for the resources they use,
and that it will not be paid exclusively by residents. Similarly, 57 percent of all voters are also more inclined
to vote in favor of the measure after learning about the measure’s strict accountability requirements, which
include independent financial audits and a requirement that all funds stay local. Fifty-five percent indicated
the same after learning that the measure will be used to help repair the City’s 162-year-old infrastructure, and
the costs will only increase if the City waits while its condition worsens.
Cannabis Activity Tax Measure
• Over two-thirds (68%) are in support of passing a cannabis commercial activity tax measure to generate
additional revenue for essential City services.5 The possible measure would establish a tax not to exceed 10%
of gross receipts of cannabis retail dispensaries, and a square foot tax up to $25 for marijuana cultivation.
Among those who are in favor of the cannabis tax measure, 43 percent responded they would definitely vote
yes, indicating strong support for this simple majority measure. Meanwhile, only about a quarter (26%)
responded they would vote no on the measure (see Figure 6 on the following page).
4 The half-cent sales tax measure was tested only once prior to providing informational statements to the respondents.
Informational statements about the half-cent sales tax measure were not provided.
5 The service areas could include public safety; senior, youth, and park services; programs retaining and attracting businesses,
and addressing homelessness.
68%
64%
58%
47%
43%
42%
32%
37%
43%
53%
57%
58%
Extremely/Very Important Somewhat/Not Too Important/ Don't Know
Maintaining police and fire services
Maintaining essential City services
Maintaining City infrastructure
Improving City infrastructure
Improving police and fire services
Improving essential city services
Packet Page 239
12
Page 6
Figure 6: Initial Support for Cannabis Commercial Activity Tax Measure
Feasibility of Both Measures on the Same Ballot
• Although both the one-cent sales tax measure and the cannabis activity tax measure initially receive
support from a majority of voters, the sales tax measure loses support when respondents are informed that
both measures could appear on the same ballot. As mentioned earlier, the one-cent sales tax measure is
supported by a total of 53 percent of voters after hearing all statements. However, when voters are informed
that both the sales tax and the cannabis tax measures could be on the same ballot, support for the one-cent
sales tax drops to a low 44 percent (see Figure 7 below). In contrast, while support for the cannabis tax
measure also drops from its initial 68 percent, it still receives support from 62 percent of all voters when both
measures are on the ballot.
Figure 7: Total Support for One-Cent Sales Tax and Cannabis Tax Measures
When Both are on the Ballot
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
43%
20%
5%
3%
5%
17%
6%
Total
Yes
68%
Total
No
26%
Total Yes
Total No
Undecided
One-Cent Sales Tax Cannabis Action Tax
62%
28%
10%
44%
46%
10%
Packet Page 240
12
Page 7
Additional Findings
• Voters in San Luis Obispo are significantly less likely to vote in favor of a parcel tax measure as an alternative
revenue measure. Overall, nearly two thirds (65%) of all voters indicated they were less likely to vote for a
property sales tax measure, indicating that a property tax is not a feasible alternative for a sales tax measure
at this time.
• Respondents continue to think highly of the City of San Luis Obispo as a place to live. Over nine in ten (92%)
indicated that the City of San Luis Obispo is an “excellent” or “pretty good” place to live. This favorable review
of the City is consistent with past City surveys dating back to 2002, although the percentage of individuals that
responded “excellent” has comparatively fallen in the most recent survey. Further research may be needed
to determine why more respondents have shifted to rating the City less than an “excellent” place to live.
Conclusions
While a simple majority of voters are in favor of a one-cent sales tax measure to improve City infrastructure,
voters have a higher preference for either a one-half-cent sales tax or a cannabis activity tax. Furthermore,
when both the one-cent sales tax measure and the cannabis activity tax are on the ballot, fewer voters support
the sales tax. A majority of voters reject the idea of a sunset clause, and highly dislike a parcel tax as an alternative
to a sales tax. Voters also have preferences for the types of projects a potential revenue-generating measure could
fund: preference for funding is given to projects that maintain City infrastructure and services over funding to
improve them, based on the information provided. Overall, voters also prefer a mix of specific infrastructure-
based projects and services, such as maintaining streets and repairing potholes; preserving open space and natural
areas and addressing homelessness.
Packet Page 241
12
4/17/2018
1
220‐5026
Survey Conducted March 18‐25, 2018
1
Conducted a Dual Mode Survey, online and by phone
(cell and landline) between March 18‐25, 2018
Surveys were completed using a random sample of
846 voters registered in the City of San Luis Obispo
likely to vote in November 2018
Overall margin of error for whole sample: +/‐4.9%
Margin of error for half the sample: +/‐6.9%
Some percentages may not sum to 100% due to
rounding
Survey Methodology
Staff Presentation - Item 12
4/17/2018
2
2
San Luis Obispo Future Infrastructure and
Related Services Measure:
Q2. If the election were held today, do you think you would vote “yes” in favor of this measure or “no” to oppose it?
Shall an ordinance be adopted to fund City infrastructure
and services such as improving City of San Luis Obispo
police and fire services by replacing aging police and fire
stations; establishing an emergency operations center;
restoring Laguna Lake; improving traffic circulation
across town and pedestrian and bike safety; revitalizing
Mission Plaza; upgrading the Senior Center; by
establishing a one‐cent sales tax providing approximately
$14 million annually until ended by voters; requiring
audits, citizens oversight, and all funds used locally?
Shall an ordinance be adopted to fund City infrastructure
and services such as improving City of San Luis Obispo
police and fire services by replacing aging police and fire
stations; establishing an emergency operations center;
restoring Laguna Lake; improving traffic circulation
across town and pedestrian and bike safety; revitalizing
Mission Plaza; upgrading the Senior Center; by
establishing a one‐cent sales tax providing approximately
$14 million annually until ended by voters; requiring
audits, citizens oversight, and all funds used locally?
3
29%
22%
6%
4%
11%
25%
3%
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
Total
Yes
57%
Total
No
40%
A majority supports the one-cent sales tax
measure initially, but support is soft.
51%
Q2. If the election were held today, do you think you would vote “yes” in favor of this measure or “no” to oppose it?
Staff Presentation - Item 12
4/17/2018
3
4
Support for the measure increases slightly if the
sales tax is set at a half-cent instead of a
full-cent, and those saying they would
“definitely” vote yes increases 8%.
Q2. If the election were held today, do you think you would vote “yes” in favor of this measure or “no” to oppose it?
Q3. If the SAN LUIS OBISPO FUTURE INFRASTRUCTURE AND RELATED SERVICES MEASURE that I just described were a one‐half cent sales tax increase
rather than a one‐cent increase, which would generate about $7 million annually, would you vote “YES” in favor of it or “NO” to oppose it?
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
29%
22%
6%
4%
11%
25%
3%
Total
Yes
57%
Total
No
40%
Initial 1‐cent
37%
17%
7%
4%
8%
22%
5%
Total
Yes
61%
Total
No
34%
½‐cent
51%54%
5
Support for the measure falls below the
threshold when a sunset clause is introduced,
though voters are relatively split in the
case of a 20-year sunset.
Q4 Split A & B. What if the local one‐cent sales tax measure that I described to you earlier was written so that it would be in effect for _____________,
and would then be legally required to end at that time? If that were the case, would you vote yes in favor of it, or no to oppose it? Split Sample
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
18%
11%
8%
7%
13%
35%
8%
Total
Yes
37%
Total
No
55%
30 Year Sunset
24%
13%
10%
5%
10%
31%
6%
Total
Yes
48%
Total
No
46%
20 Year Sunset
29%37%
Staff Presentation - Item 12
4/17/2018
4
6
Much more likely
Somewhat more likely
Somewhat less likely
Much less likely
Makes no difference/
DK/NA
3%
3%
10%
60%
24%
Total
More
Lkly.
6%
Total
Less
Lkly.
70%
$300 per
$100,000
Property Tax
Combined
$150 per
$100,000
A majority would oppose the measure
if the funding mechanism were a
parcel tax instead of a sales tax.
Q5, Q6 & Q5/6 Combined. The type of tax has not been decided for the measure we have been discussing. What if, instead of a one‐cent sales tax, the
City placed an alternative finance measure on the ballot that would ask voters to approve a property tax of approximately $300/$150 per $100,000 of
assessed value. Would having this proposed property tax rather than a sales tax make you more or less likely to vote yes in favor of the measure?
6%
5%
10%
50%
29%
Total
More
Lkly.
11%
Total
Less
Lkly.
61%
4%
4%
10%
55%
27%
Total
More
Lkly.
8%
Total
Less
Lkly.
65%
7
Ext./Very
Impt.
68%
64%
58%
47%
43%
42%
28%
27%
21%
16%
15%
14%
40%
37%
37%
31%
27%
28%
20%
26%
28%
31%
34%
32%
12%
11%
15%
22%
23%
26%
Ext. Impt.Very Impt.Smwt. Impt.Not Too Impt./DK/NA
Q7 a, b, c, x, y & z. I am going to read you a list of possible infrastructure projects and services that could be funded by a potential new City revenue
measure. Regardless of how you feel about a revenue measure, please tell me how important it is to you personally that each of the following
infrastructure projects or services is included in the measure? Split Sample
Voters prefer projects that maintain current
infrastructure and services rather
than improve them.
(Ranked by Extremely/Very Important)
Maintaining
Improving
Maintaining police and fire services
Maintaining essential city services
Maintaining City infrastructure
Improving City infrastructure
Improving police and fire services
Improving essential city services
Staff Presentation - Item 12
4/17/2018
5
8
Ext./Very
Impt.
72%
67%
61%
60%
27%
42%
25%
28%
45%
26%
36%
32%
23%
22%
25%
25%
5%
11%
14%
15%
Maintaining streets and repairing
potholes
Preserving open space and natural
areas
Improving traffic circulation across
town
Ext. Impt.Very Impt.Smwt. Impt.Not Too Impt./DK/NA
Q7 d‐g, j‐w, aa‐ii, kk, ll, nn, oo‐rr & tt. I am going to read you a list of possible infrastructure projects and services that could be funded by a potential
new City revenue measure. Regardless of how you feel about a revenue measure, please tell me how important it is to you personally that each of the
following infrastructure projects or services is included in the measure? Split Sample
Among specific City infrastructure projects
and services, maintaining streets, and
preserving open space and natural areas
are considered the most important.
(Ranked by Extremely/Very Important)
Upgrading fire stations that have
been determined by structural
engineers to not meet current
seismic earthquake standards
9
Ext./Very
Impt.
59%
59%
57%
57%
55%
55%
51%
26%
22%
27%
21%
28%
18%
17%
33%
37%
30%
37%
27%
37%
33%
27%
26%
24%
26%
25%
25%
29%
13%
15%
19%
16%
19%
20%
20%
Improving traffic flow
Preparing for natural disasters and
other related threats
Improving safe routes to school
Ensuring City buildings are earthquake
retrofitted to meet the current
California Seismic Safety Act standards
Improving pedestrian and bike safety
Improving traffic safety
Helping ensure safe places to play
Ext. Impt.Very Impt.Smwt. Impt.Not Too Impt./DK/NA
Q7 d‐g, j‐w, aa‐ii, kk, ll, nn, oo‐rr & tt. I am going to read you a list of possible infrastructure projects and services that could be funded by a potential
new City revenue measure. Regardless of how you feel about a revenue measure, please tell me how important it is to you personally that each of the
following infrastructure projects or services is included in the measure? Split Sample
(Ranked by Extremely/Very Important)
Continued
Staff Presentation - Item 12
4/17/2018
6
10
Ext./Very
Impt.
48%
44%
43%
43%
43%
42%
42%
20%
24%
21%
20%
17%
15%
14%
27%
20%
22%
23%
26%
27%
28%
25%
29%
36%
23%
30%
32%
32%
27%
27%
21%
34%
26%
27%
25%
Creating a Prado Road interchange at
the 101 to connect the west and east
sides of the City
Expanding biking and walking trails
Improving traffic flow and safety by
widening Tank Farm Road from South
Higuera Street to Broad Street
Extending, widening and connecting
Prado Road from the 101 to
Broad Street
Improving downtown core, with more
sidewalk improvements, lighting and
safe places for people to gather
Synchronizing traffic signals
Improving disabled accessibility on
sidewalks and city buildings
Ext. Impt.Very Impt.Smwt. Impt.Not Too Impt./DK/NA
Q7 d‐g, j‐w, aa‐ii, kk, ll, nn, oo‐rr & tt. I am going to read you a list of possible infrastructure projects and services that could be funded by a potential
new City revenue measure. Regardless of how you feel about a revenue measure, please tell me how important it is to you personally that each of the
following infrastructure projects or services is included in the measure? Split Sample
(Ranked by Extremely/Very Important)
Continued
11
Ext./Very
Impt.
41%
37%
32%
31%
31%
29%
27%
26%
25%
16%
13%
13%
11%
8%
11%
7%
10%
9%
25%
24%
20%
20%
23%
18%
21%
16%
16%
27%
33%
34%
34%
38%
31%
36%
31%
38%
31%
30%
34%
35%
31%
41%
36%
43%
37%
Improving street lighting
Establishing an emergency
operations center
Replacing aging fire stations
Enhancing public parks and sports
fields
Establishing additional City parks
Replacing an aging police station
Creating an arts and culture area
downtown
Restoring Laguna Lake
Ext. Impt.Very Impt.Smwt. Impt.Not Too Impt./DK/NA
Q7 d‐g, j‐w, aa‐ii, kk, ll, nn, oo‐rr & tt. I am going to read you a list of possible infrastructure projects and services that could be funded by a potential
new City revenue measure. Regardless of how you feel about a revenue measure, please tell me how important it is to you personally that each of the
following infrastructure projects or services is included in the measure? Split Sample
(Ranked by Extremely/Very Important)
Continued
Expanding biking and walking
opportunities along Bob Jones
and Railroad Safety trails
Staff Presentation - Item 12
4/17/2018
7
12
Ext./Very
Impt.
24%
23%
21%
17%
16%
11%
9%
9%
7%
7%
5%
14%
16%
14%
13%
11%
9%
6%
33%
34%
45%
33%
32%
32%
24%
43%
43%
34%
51%
53%
57%
66%
Replacing a 50‐year‐old police station
Upgrading the Senior Center
Upgrading the SLO Swim Center
Revitalizing Mission Plaza
Upgrading the Ludwick Community
Center
Upgrading Sinsheimer Park Baseball
Stadium
Ext. Impt.Very Impt.Smwt. Impt.Not Too Impt./DK/NA
Q7 d‐g, j‐w, aa‐ii, kk, ll, nn, oo‐rr & tt. I am going to read you a list of possible infrastructure projects and services that could be funded by a potential
new City revenue measure. Regardless of how you feel about a revenue measure, please tell me how important it is to you personally that each of the
following infrastructure projects or services is included in the measure? Split Sample
(Ranked by Extremely/Very Important)
Continued
Revitalizing Monterey Street from
Nipomo to Santa Rosa Street by
widening sidewalks and improving
public spaces
13
Ext./Very
Impt.
67%
66%
61%
49%
45%
40%
37%
25%
22%
17%
11%
11%
30%
41%
38%
32%
33%
29%
20%
24%
24%
33%
33%
35%
13%
10%
16%
18%
22%
26%
Addressing homelessness
Keeping public areas
safe and clean
Retaining and attracting local
businesses
Maintaining and improving
youth services
Maintaining and improving
senior services
Improving park safety
Ext. Impt.Very Impt.Smwt. Impt.Not Too Impt./DK/NA
Q7 h, i, jj, mm & ss. I am going to read you a list of possible infrastructure projects and services that could be funded by a potential new City revenue
measure. Regardless of how you feel about a revenue measure, please tell me how important it is to you personally that each of the following
infrastructure projects or services is included in the measure? Split Sample
(Ranked by Extremely/Very Important)
Among specific city services, addressing
homelessness and keeping public areas safe and
clean are considered the most important.
Staff Presentation - Item 12
4/17/2018
8
14
After receiving more information about the
1-cent sales tax measure, support remains
statistically the same.
Q2 & Q9. If the election were held today, do you think you would vote “yes” in favor of this measure or “no” to oppose it?
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
29%
22%
6%
4%
11%
25%
3%
Total
Yes
57%
Total
No
40%
Initial 1‐cent Vote
32%
21%
5%
3%
8%
27%
3%
Total
Yes
58%
Total
No
39%
Vote After Information
51%53%
15
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
29%
22%
6%
4%
11%
25%
3%
Total
Yes
57%
Total
No
40%
51%
Initial 1‐Cent
Vote
Vote After Critical
Statement
Vote After
Information
32%
21%
5%
3%
8%
27%
3%
Total
Yes
58%
Total
No
39%
28%
20%
5%
3%
10%
30%
4%
Total
Yes
53%
Total
No
43%
53%48%
After the critical statement, support drops
to 53%, which is within the margin
of error for passage.
Q2, Q9 & Q10. If the election were held today, do you think you would vote “yes” in favor of this measure or “no” to oppose it?
Staff Presentation - Item 12
4/17/2018
9
16
17
San Luis Obispo Commercial
Cannabis Activity Tax
Shall an ordinance be adopted to maintain and improve
essential City services, such as public safety; senior,
youth and park services; programs retaining and
attracting businesses and addressing homelessness;
unrestricted general revenue purposes; by establishing a
tax not to exceed ten percent of gross receipts of
cannabis retail dispensaries and a square foot tax up to
$25 for marijuana cultivation, raising approximately
$3 million annually until ended by voters, with audits,
oversight, and all funds used locally?
Shall an ordinance be adopted to maintain and improve
essential City services, such as public safety; senior,
youth and park services; programs retaining and
attracting businesses and addressing homelessness;
unrestricted general revenue purposes; by establishing a
tax not to exceed ten percent of gross receipts of
cannabis retail dispensaries and a square foot tax up to
$25 for marijuana cultivation, raising approximately
$3 million annually until ended by voters, with audits,
oversight, and all funds used locally?
Q11. If the election were held today, do you think you would vote “yes” in favor of this measure or “no” to oppose it?
Staff Presentation - Item 12
4/17/2018
10
18
Having just heard/read ballot title and
summary, approximately two-thirds would
vote in favor of this simple majority measure.
Q11. If the election were held today, do you think you would vote “yes” in favor of this measure or “no” to oppose it?
43%
20%
5%
3%
5%
17%
6%
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
Total
Yes
68%
Total
No
26%
63%
19
Staff Presentation - Item 12
4/17/2018
11
20
Q10. If the election were held today, do you think you would vote “yes” in favor of this measure or “no” to oppose it?
Q12/Q13 Combined. Suppose that both measures—the FUTURE INFRASTRUCTURE AND RELATED SERVICES PROTECTION MEASURE which we first
discussed, and the COMMERCIAL CANNABIS ACTIVITY TAX MEASURE which we discussed second—were on the ballot at the same time. If that were
the case, do you think that you would vote yes on both measures, vote yes on only one of the two measures, or vote no on both measures? Which one of
the two measures do you think you would support?
Total Yes
Total No
Undecided
53%
43%
4%
Only Sales Tax
on Ballot
Both Sales/Cannabis
Taxes on Ballot
When voters are asked to vote with
both measures on the ballot, support
for the sales tax drops.
44%
46%
10%
Overall Support for 1‐Cent Sales Tax
9% Gap
3% Gap
6% Gap
21
Conclusions
A majority of voters support a one‐cent sales tax, but
throughout the survey, the support is very soft.
There is greater support for a half‐cent sales tax
alternative – though this measure was only asked about
once.
Voters appear to reject the idea of a sunset clause, as
well as a parcel tax option.
Importance ratings are generally higher for the concept of
maintaining rather than improving –suggesting voters are
happy with what they have now.
Maintaining streets and preserving open space and
natural areas are among the most important
infrastructure projects.
Staff Presentation - Item 12
4/17/2018
12
22
Conclusions; continued
Two ‐thirds of voters report they would vote yes on a
Cannabis Activity Tax.
Having both a one‐cent sales tax and a Cannabis Activity
Tax on the same ballot appears to further weaken the
sales tax, which would have been an uphill battle to pass;
but the Cannabis Tax appears to remain viable.
Staff Presentation - Item 12
4/17/2018
1
220‐5026
Survey Conducted March 18‐25, 2018
1
Conducted a Dual Mode Survey, online and by phone
(cell and landline) between March 18‐25, 2018
Surveys were completed using a random sample of
846 voters registered in the City of San Luis Obispo
likely to vote in November 2018
Overall margin of error for whole sample: +/‐4.9%
Margin of error for half the sample: +/‐6.9%
Some percentages may not sum to 100% due to
rounding
Survey Methodology
Staff Presentation - Item 12
4/17/2018
2
2
San Luis Obispo Future Infrastructure and
Related Services Measure:
Q2. If the election were held today, do you think you would vote “yes” in favor of this measure or “no” to oppose it?
Shall an ordinance be adopted to fund City infrastructure
and services such as improving City of San Luis Obispo
police and fire services by replacing aging police and fire
stations; establishing an emergency operations center;
restoring Laguna Lake; improving traffic circulation
across town and pedestrian and bike safety; revitalizing
Mission Plaza; upgrading the Senior Center; by
establishing a one‐cent sales tax providing approximately
$14 million annually until ended by voters; requiring
audits, citizens oversight, and all funds used locally?
Shall an ordinance be adopted to fund City infrastructure
and services such as improving City of San Luis Obispo
police and fire services by replacing aging police and fire
stations; establishing an emergency operations center;
restoring Laguna Lake; improving traffic circulation
across town and pedestrian and bike safety; revitalizing
Mission Plaza; upgrading the Senior Center; by
establishing a one‐cent sales tax providing approximately
$14 million annually until ended by voters; requiring
audits, citizens oversight, and all funds used locally?
3
29%
22%
6%
4%
11%
25%
3%
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
Total
Yes
57%
Total
No
40%
A majority supports the one-cent sales tax
measure initially, but support is soft.
51%
Q2. If the election were held today, do you think you would vote “yes” in favor of this measure or “no” to oppose it?
Staff Presentation - Item 12
4/17/2018
3
4
Support for the measure increases slightly if the
sales tax is set at a half-cent instead of a
full-cent, and those saying they would
“definitely” vote yes increases 8%.
Q2. If the election were held today, do you think you would vote “yes” in favor of this measure or “no” to oppose it?
Q3. If the SAN LUIS OBISPO FUTURE INFRASTRUCTURE AND RELATED SERVICES MEASURE that I just described were a one‐half cent sales tax increase
rather than a one‐cent increase, which would generate about $7 million annually, would you vote “YES” in favor of it or “NO” to oppose it?
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
29%
22%
6%
4%
11%
25%
3%
Total
Yes
57%
Total
No
40%
Initial 1‐cent
37%
17%
7%
4%
8%
22%
5%
Total
Yes
61%
Total
No
34%
½‐cent
51%54%
5
Support for the measure falls below the
threshold when a sunset clause is introduced,
though voters are relatively split in the
case of a 20-year sunset.
Q4 Split A & B. What if the local one‐cent sales tax measure that I described to you earlier was written so that it would be in effect for _____________,
and would then be legally required to end at that time? If that were the case, would you vote yes in favor of it, or no to oppose it? Split Sample
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
18%
11%
8%
7%
13%
35%
8%
Total
Yes
37%
Total
No
55%
30 Year Sunset
24%
13%
10%
5%
10%
31%
6%
Total
Yes
48%
Total
No
46%
20 Year Sunset
29%37%
Staff Presentation - Item 12
4/17/2018
4
6
Much more likely
Somewhat more likely
Somewhat less likely
Much less likely
Makes no difference/
DK/NA
3%
3%
10%
60%
24%
Total
More
Lkly.
6%
Total
Less
Lkly.
70%
$300 per
$100,000
Property Tax
Combined
$150 per
$100,000
A majority would oppose the measure
if the funding mechanism were a
parcel tax instead of a sales tax.
Q5, Q6 & Q5/6 Combined. The type of tax has not been decided for the measure we have been discussing. What if, instead of a one‐cent sales tax, the
City placed an alternative finance measure on the ballot that would ask voters to approve a property tax of approximately $300/$150 per $100,000 of
assessed value. Would having this proposed property tax rather than a sales tax make you more or less likely to vote yes in favor of the measure?
6%
5%
10%
50%
29%
Total
More
Lkly.
11%
Total
Less
Lkly.
61%
4%
4%
10%
55%
27%
Total
More
Lkly.
8%
Total
Less
Lkly.
65%
7
Ext./Very
Impt.
68%
64%
58%
47%
43%
42%
28%
27%
21%
16%
15%
14%
40%
37%
37%
31%
27%
28%
20%
26%
28%
31%
34%
32%
12%
11%
15%
22%
23%
26%
Ext. Impt.Very Impt.Smwt. Impt.Not Too Impt./DK/NA
Q7 a, b, c, x, y & z. I am going to read you a list of possible infrastructure projects and services that could be funded by a potential new City revenue
measure. Regardless of how you feel about a revenue measure, please tell me how important it is to you personally that each of the following
infrastructure projects or services is included in the measure? Split Sample
Voters prefer projects that maintain current
infrastructure and services rather
than improve them.
(Ranked by Extremely/Very Important)
Maintaining
Improving
Maintaining police and fire services
Maintaining essential city services
Maintaining City infrastructure
Improving City infrastructure
Improving police and fire services
Improving essential city services
Staff Presentation - Item 12
4/17/2018
5
8
Ext./Very
Impt.
72%
67%
61%
60%
27%
42%
25%
28%
45%
26%
36%
32%
23%
22%
25%
25%
5%
11%
14%
15%
Maintaining streets and repairing
potholes
Preserving open space and natural
areas
Improving traffic circulation across
town
Ext. Impt.Very Impt.Smwt. Impt.Not Too Impt./DK/NA
Q7 d‐g, j‐w, aa‐ii, kk, ll, nn, oo‐rr & tt. I am going to read you a list of possible infrastructure projects and services that could be funded by a potential
new City revenue measure. Regardless of how you feel about a revenue measure, please tell me how important it is to you personally that each of the
following infrastructure projects or services is included in the measure? Split Sample
Among specific City infrastructure projects
and services, maintaining streets, and
preserving open space and natural areas
are considered the most important.
(Ranked by Extremely/Very Important)
Upgrading fire stations that have
been determined by structural
engineers to not meet current
seismic earthquake standards
9
Ext./Very
Impt.
59%
59%
57%
57%
55%
55%
51%
26%
22%
27%
21%
28%
18%
17%
33%
37%
30%
37%
27%
37%
33%
27%
26%
24%
26%
25%
25%
29%
13%
15%
19%
16%
19%
20%
20%
Improving traffic flow
Preparing for natural disasters and
other related threats
Improving safe routes to school
Ensuring City buildings are earthquake
retrofitted to meet the current
California Seismic Safety Act standards
Improving pedestrian and bike safety
Improving traffic safety
Helping ensure safe places to play
Ext. Impt.Very Impt.Smwt. Impt.Not Too Impt./DK/NA
Q7 d‐g, j‐w, aa‐ii, kk, ll, nn, oo‐rr & tt. I am going to read you a list of possible infrastructure projects and services that could be funded by a potential
new City revenue measure. Regardless of how you feel about a revenue measure, please tell me how important it is to you personally that each of the
following infrastructure projects or services is included in the measure? Split Sample
(Ranked by Extremely/Very Important)
Continued
Staff Presentation - Item 12
4/17/2018
6
10
Ext./Very
Impt.
48%
44%
43%
43%
43%
42%
42%
20%
24%
21%
20%
17%
15%
14%
27%
20%
22%
23%
26%
27%
28%
25%
29%
36%
23%
30%
32%
32%
27%
27%
21%
34%
26%
27%
25%
Creating a Prado Road interchange at
the 101 to connect the west and east
sides of the City
Expanding biking and walking trails
Improving traffic flow and safety by
widening Tank Farm Road from South
Higuera Street to Broad Street
Extending, widening and connecting
Prado Road from the 101 to
Broad Street
Improving downtown core, with more
sidewalk improvements, lighting and
safe places for people to gather
Synchronizing traffic signals
Improving disabled accessibility on
sidewalks and city buildings
Ext. Impt.Very Impt.Smwt. Impt.Not Too Impt./DK/NA
Q7 d‐g, j‐w, aa‐ii, kk, ll, nn, oo‐rr & tt. I am going to read you a list of possible infrastructure projects and services that could be funded by a potential
new City revenue measure. Regardless of how you feel about a revenue measure, please tell me how important it is to you personally that each of the
following infrastructure projects or services is included in the measure? Split Sample
(Ranked by Extremely/Very Important)
Continued
11
Ext./Very
Impt.
41%
37%
32%
31%
31%
29%
27%
26%
25%
16%
13%
13%
11%
8%
11%
7%
10%
9%
25%
24%
20%
20%
23%
18%
21%
16%
16%
27%
33%
34%
34%
38%
31%
36%
31%
38%
31%
30%
34%
35%
31%
41%
36%
43%
37%
Improving street lighting
Establishing an emergency
operations center
Replacing aging fire stations
Enhancing public parks and sports
fields
Establishing additional City parks
Replacing an aging police station
Creating an arts and culture area
downtown
Restoring Laguna Lake
Ext. Impt.Very Impt.Smwt. Impt.Not Too Impt./DK/NA
Q7 d‐g, j‐w, aa‐ii, kk, ll, nn, oo‐rr & tt. I am going to read you a list of possible infrastructure projects and services that could be funded by a potential
new City revenue measure. Regardless of how you feel about a revenue measure, please tell me how important it is to you personally that each of the
following infrastructure projects or services is included in the measure? Split Sample
(Ranked by Extremely/Very Important)
Continued
Expanding biking and walking
opportunities along Bob Jones
and Railroad Safety trails
Staff Presentation - Item 12
4/17/2018
7
12
Ext./Very
Impt.
24%
23%
21%
17%
16%
11%
9%
9%
7%
7%
5%
14%
16%
14%
13%
11%
9%
6%
33%
34%
45%
33%
32%
32%
24%
43%
43%
34%
51%
53%
57%
66%
Replacing a 50‐year‐old police station
Upgrading the Senior Center
Upgrading the SLO Swim Center
Revitalizing Mission Plaza
Upgrading the Ludwick Community
Center
Upgrading Sinsheimer Park Baseball
Stadium
Ext. Impt.Very Impt.Smwt. Impt.Not Too Impt./DK/NA
Q7 d‐g, j‐w, aa‐ii, kk, ll, nn, oo‐rr & tt. I am going to read you a list of possible infrastructure projects and services that could be funded by a potential
new City revenue measure. Regardless of how you feel about a revenue measure, please tell me how important it is to you personally that each of the
following infrastructure projects or services is included in the measure? Split Sample
(Ranked by Extremely/Very Important)
Continued
Revitalizing Monterey Street from
Nipomo to Santa Rosa Street by
widening sidewalks and improving
public spaces
13
Ext./Very
Impt.
67%
66%
61%
49%
45%
40%
37%
25%
22%
17%
11%
11%
30%
41%
38%
32%
33%
29%
20%
24%
24%
33%
33%
35%
13%
10%
16%
18%
22%
26%
Addressing homelessness
Keeping public areas
safe and clean
Retaining and attracting local
businesses
Maintaining and improving
youth services
Maintaining and improving
senior services
Improving park safety
Ext. Impt.Very Impt.Smwt. Impt.Not Too Impt./DK/NA
Q7 h, i, jj, mm & ss. I am going to read you a list of possible infrastructure projects and services that could be funded by a potential new City revenue
measure. Regardless of how you feel about a revenue measure, please tell me how important it is to you personally that each of the following
infrastructure projects or services is included in the measure? Split Sample
(Ranked by Extremely/Very Important)
Among specific city services, addressing
homelessness and keeping public areas safe and
clean are considered the most important.
Staff Presentation - Item 12
4/17/2018
8
14
After receiving more information about the
1-cent sales tax measure, support remains
statistically the same.
Q2 & Q9. If the election were held today, do you think you would vote “yes” in favor of this measure or “no” to oppose it?
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
29%
22%
6%
4%
11%
25%
3%
Total
Yes
57%
Total
No
40%
Initial 1‐cent Vote
32%
21%
5%
3%
8%
27%
3%
Total
Yes
58%
Total
No
39%
Vote After Information
51%53%
15
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
29%
22%
6%
4%
11%
25%
3%
Total
Yes
57%
Total
No
40%
51%
Initial 1‐Cent
Vote
Vote After Critical
Statement
Vote After
Information
32%
21%
5%
3%
8%
27%
3%
Total
Yes
58%
Total
No
39%
28%
20%
5%
3%
10%
30%
4%
Total
Yes
53%
Total
No
43%
53%48%
After the critical statement, support drops
to 53%, which is within the margin
of error for passage.
Q2, Q9 & Q10. If the election were held today, do you think you would vote “yes” in favor of this measure or “no” to oppose it?
Staff Presentation - Item 12
4/17/2018
9
16
17
Q10. If the election were held today, do you think you would vote “yes” in favor of this measure or “no” to oppose it?
Q12/Q13 Combined. Suppose that both measures—the FUTURE INFRASTRUCTURE AND RELATED SERVICES PROTECTION MEASURE which we first
discussed, and the COMMERCIAL CANNABIS ACTIVITY TAX MEASURE which we discussed second—were on the ballot at the same time. If that were
the case, do you think that you would vote yes on both measures, vote yes on only one of the two measures, or vote no on both measures? Which one of
the two measures do you think you would support?
Total Yes
Total No
Undecided
53%
43%
4%
Only Sales Tax
on Ballot
Both Sales/Cannabis
Taxes on Ballot
When voters are asked to vote with
both measures on the ballot, support
for the sales tax drops.
44%
46%
10%
Overall Support for 1‐Cent Sales Tax
9% Gap
3% Gap
6% Gap
Staff Presentation - Item 12
4/17/2018
10
18
Conclusions
A majority of voters support a one‐cent sales tax, but
throughout the survey, the support is very soft.
There is greater support for a half‐cent sales tax
alternative – though this measure was only asked about
once.
Voters appear to reject the idea of a sunset clause, as
well as a parcel tax option.
Importance ratings are generally higher for the concept of
maintaining rather than improving –suggesting voters are
happy with what they have now.
Maintaining streets and preserving open space and
natural areas are among the most important
infrastructure projects.
19
Conclusions; continued
Two ‐thirds of voters report they would vote yes on a
Cannabis Activity Tax.
Having both a one‐cent sales tax and a Cannabis Activity
Tax on the same ballot appears to further weaken the
sales tax, which would have been an uphill battle to pass;
but the Cannabis Tax appears to remain viable.
Staff Presentation - Item 12
4/17/2018
1
220‐5026
Survey Conducted March 18‐25, 2018
1
Conducted a Dual Mode Survey, online and by phone
(cell and landline) between March 18‐25, 2018
Surveys were completed using a random sample of
846 voters registered in the City of San Luis Obispo
likely to vote in November 2018
Overall margin of error for whole sample: +/‐4.9%
Margin of error for half the sample: +/‐6.9%
Some percentages may not sum to 100% due to
rounding
Survey Methodology
Staff Presentation - Item 12
4/17/2018
2
2
3
San Luis Obispo Commercial
Cannabis Activity Tax
Shall an ordinance be adopted to maintain and improve
essential City services, such as public safety; senior,
youth and park services; programs retaining and
attracting businesses and addressing homelessness;
unrestricted general revenue purposes; by establishing a
tax not to exceed ten percent of gross receipts of
cannabis retail dispensaries and a square foot tax up to
$25 for marijuana cultivation, raising approximately
$3 million annually until ended by voters, with audits,
oversight, and all funds used locally?
Shall an ordinance be adopted to maintain and improve
essential City services, such as public safety; senior,
youth and park services; programs retaining and
attracting businesses and addressing homelessness;
unrestricted general revenue purposes; by establishing a
tax not to exceed ten percent of gross receipts of
cannabis retail dispensaries and a square foot tax up to
$25 for marijuana cultivation, raising approximately
$3 million annually until ended by voters, with audits,
oversight, and all funds used locally?
Q11. If the election were held today, do you think you would vote “yes” in favor of this measure or “no” to oppose it?
Staff Presentation - Item 12
4/17/2018
3
4
Having just heard/read ballot title and
summary, approximately two-thirds would
vote in favor of this simple majority measure.
Q11. If the election were held today, do you think you would vote “yes” in favor of this measure or “no” to oppose it?
43%
20%
5%
3%
5%
17%
6%
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
Total
Yes
68%
Total
No
26%
63%
Staff Presentation - Item 12
Funding the Future of SLO:Item 12, Staff Presentation
Recommendation1.Receive a Report on projects, community feedback, and funding sources.2. Direct Staff to return to Council as part of the 2019-2021 Financial Plan with an outreach and engagement plan, project priorities to fund future enhanced and new Capital Improvement Plan needs.Item 12, Staff Presentation
BIG PICTUREWe are San Luis ObispoJobs (Diablo)HousingTransportationQuality of LifePlans and Policies to Guide UsPensions are a driving factorThis Photoby Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SAThis Photoby Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-NDItem 12, Staff PresentationItem 12, Staff Presentation
Overview1. Projects and Public Benefits Daryl Grigsby2. Funding Options Sarah Hollenbeck, PFM3. Community Outreach and Engagement Richard Bernard, fm3ResearchItem 12, Staff PresentationItem 12, Staff Presentation
All ProjectsFunded and Unfunded15032296City Capital Needs 2018-2038 $568 M Amounts shown in millionsMeasure G funds Maintenance Maintenance of Existing InfrastructureEnhancement of Existing InfrastructureNew ProjectsItem 12, Staff PresentationItem 12, Staff Presentation
City Service Areas166152100City Unfunded Capital Needs 2018-2038 $418 MProjects by City Service AreaTransportationPublic FacilitiesCommunity ReinvestmentsItem 12, Staff PresentationItem 12, Staff Presentation
Project HighlightsTransportationPrado Road ExtensionPrado Road InterchangeTank Farm Road WideningBob Jones Trail CompletionRailroad Safety Trail CompletionItem 12, Staff PresentationItem 12, Staff Presentation
Project HighlightsCommunity Reinvestments Monterey Street RevitalizationMission Plaza RehabilitationLaguna Lake DredgingDowntown ImprovementsItem 12, Staff PresentationItem 12, Staff Presentation
Project HighlightsPublic Facilities Police Station ReplacementFire Station ReplacementsEmergency Operations CenterAccessibility EnhancementsLudwick Center RenovationItem 12, Staff PresentationItem 12, Staff Presentation
Project Priority Options1125474266884020406080100120Years 1-10 Years 11-20Years 1-10 $254 M Years 11-20 $164 MTransportationCommunity ReinvestmentPublic FacilitiesItem 12, Staff PresentationItem 12, Staff Presentation
Partnership Projects25416412931050100150200250300350400450Year 1-10Year 11-20Year 1-20 Total Project Costs $578 M General Fund $418 M, Other $160 MImpact FeesGeneral FundItem 12, Staff PresentationItem 12, Staff Presentation
Project Priority Options12892705124171422Facilties Master PlanDowntown Concept PlanBicycle Transportation PlanGen Plan - LUCEParks Master PlanGeneral PlanLaguna Lake PlanOther0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140Projects by Source DocumentsItem 12, Staff PresentationItem 12, Staff Presentation
FundingOptionsFour primary funding options have been analyzed:Options vary as to vote requirement and distribution of the tax burden among City residents, and between City residents and non-residentsOptionVote Requirement Tax BurdenSales tax with lease revenue or special tax revenue bonds50% + 1 for general tax2/3 for special taxAny buyer of covered goods and servicesGeneral Obligation bonds2/3Property owners in the City based on assessed valuationCitywide Community FacilitiesDistrict (CFD) with special tax bonds2/3Property owners in the City based on formula of City’s choosingParcel tax with revenue bonds2/3Property owners in the City typically with equal annual tax for each parcel•Sales tax •General Obligation bonds•Community Facilities District•Parcel taxItem 12, Staff Presentation
Sales TaxGeneral sales tax is a common approachFunds can legally be used for any purpose but the City could choose to direct them to the CIPFlexibility to use funds on pay-as-you-go basis to the extent possible, which reduces need for borrowingLease revenue bonds used when required by project cashflowsMore challenging to finance transportation projects since they generally cannot be leasedSpecial sales tax is less commonFunds can be dedicated to the CIPSame mix of pay-as-you-go and borrowingCould issue sales tax revenue bonds, which can be used for all types of projects including transportation projectsItem 12, Staff Presentation
Sales Tax CapacitySales tax measures of ½ cent and one cent and ranging from 20 to 30 years have been analyzedFunding full CIP would require one cent measure for 25 or 30 yearsUnder 25-year, one cent measure:Six borrowings projected from 2023 through 2040 for a total of $107.2 million Timing and amount of borrowings would have to be aligned with available leased assetsDuration RateRevenue(Million)Borrowing(Million)Finance Charges(Million)Surplus/(Unfunded)(Million)30 years 1 cent $615.9 $75.0 $59.6 $183.630 years ½ cent $307.9 $134.5 $86.4($151.2)25 years 1 cent $486.2 $107.2 $57.9 $45.825 years ½ cent $243.1 $86.4 $42.9($182.3)20 years 1 cent $368.9 $36.9 $17.4($41.8)20 years ½ cent $184.4 $20.3 $9.6($218.4)Item 12, Staff Presentation
Rating Impact of Sales Tax MeasureFunding the full CIP with a 25-year, one cent tax could put pressure on City’s bond rating by elevating two key debt measures1. Debt service as percent of governmental fund expenditures: Projected to increase to 11.4% from current 4.4% 2. Direct debt as percent of governmental fund revenue: Projected to increase to 76.3% from current 32.1% The combination of these changes could result in a reduction in S&P’s assessment on these criteria from “strong” to “weak”Note: Assumes 2% annual growth in revenues and expenditures.Item 12, Staff Presentation
General Obligation BondsGeneral Obligation (GO) bonds typically carry higher ratings and lower interest rates than lease revenue bonds, but revenues cannot be spent on projects on a pay-as-you-go basisWould increase overall cost of the CIP program because tax revenue can only be used for debt serviceUp to $400 million of borrowing with interest and finance charges estimated at $378.4 millionCould result in “very weak” assessment of City’s debt profile by rating agenciesUse of assessed value to apportion tax can mean similar properties pay significantly different amountsItem 12, Staff Presentation
General Obligation Bonds, continuedEstimated debt service and tax rate impact for full program and $200 program are shown belowItem 12, Staff Presentation
Citywide CFD or Parcel TaxAdvantages:Can use revenue on a pay-as-you-go basis to reduce need for borrowingNot based on assessed value, so can avoid differential tax amounts on similar propertiesDisadvantages:CFD can be administratively complexCost estimated at $1,400 per year per parcel if each parcel pays the same amountEstimated need for $151.1 million of borrowing with $94.5 million of interest and finance chargesItem 12, Staff Presentation
Public Engagement What we learned City CouncilCommunityForumOpen City Hall Presentations to Key StakeholdersStatistical Resident SurveyItem 12, Staff Presentation
Public Engagement SummaryUnclear on benefits.Measure G? Pensions?No Property TaxProjects enhance public safety, mobility and community health; Good engagementItem 12, Staff PresentationItem 12, Staff Presentation
Funding the Future of SLO1. Infrastructure Financing is part of the Major City Goal: Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility2. Holistic view of needs over the next several decades allows us to plan for revenue source now 3. Federal and State funding no longer reliable4. Measure G pays for maintenance and some enhancement/new building now, but will not continue to be adequate to address future infrastructure needsSelf help Counties set-up to offset cuts in State & Federal fundsItem 12, Staff PresentationItem 12, Staff Presentation
Financial Context 1. Financial context of Funding the Future of SLOa) Cannabis tax 2018b) Funding Future of SLO 2020c) Measure G renewal d) Regional Transportation Self-HelpItem 12, Staff Presentation
Impact of Potential Regional Transportation Self-HelpItem 12, Staff Presentation
Questions and the Road Ahead Item 12, Staff Presentation
Recommendations1.Receive a Report on projects, community feedback, and funding sources.2. Direct Staff to return to Council as part of the 2019-2021 Financial Plan with an outreach and engagement plan, project priorities to fund future enhanced and new Capital Improvement Plan needs.Item 12, Staff Presentation