HomeMy WebLinkAboutFiscal Health a - FHRP 12.12.17
Meeting Date: 12/12/2017
FROM: Derek Johnson, City Manager
Shelly Stanwyck, Parks and Recreation Director
Xenia Bradford, Finance Director
Prepared By: Xenia Bradford, Finance Director
SUBJECT: BUDGET FOUNDATION: FISCAL HEALTH RESPONSE PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
1. Review and provide general direction to staff regarding proposed components and allocations
for the development of a Fiscal Health Response Plan (FHRP) with final adoption of the
FHRP in April 2018; and
2. Provide direction to staff to return in April 2018 with specific recommendations on the use of
one-time fund balance above policy reserve including dollar allocation to fund a Section 115
Pension Trust to address long-term variability in pension costs and address unfunded
liability; and
3. Review a preliminary 10-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and provide general direction
to staff to return to Council in January 2018 for final review including recommendations to
allocate reserves in excess of policy requirements towards community safety project.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
This report has three separate sections for Council to receive and provide direction on:
1. Fiscal Health Response Plan (FHRP).
2. Pension Trust Formation using Reserves in Excess of Policy Level.
3. 10-Year CIP.
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to fiscal health and delivery of quality services to the
community. Due to significant policy changes made by the California Public Employees’
Retirement System (CalPERS) to address unfunded liabilities, the City identified a need to
reduce ongoing expenditures by $8.9 million (in all funds) in order to meet rapidly rising pension
costs. The Budget Foundation sets general strategic direction that will lead to specific
recommendations and adoption of the FHRP in April 2018. The FHRP will establish a roadmap
to long-term fiscal health and financial sustainability implemented during a period of three fiscal
years (2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21).
With the development of the 2017-19 Financial Plan, the Council adopted the Fiscal
Sustainability and Responsibility Major City Goal addressing long-term fiscal health. The Fiscal
Sustainability and Responsibility Major City Goal includes four major work areas: 1) Economic
development and responsiveness; 2) Fiscal responsibility including actions to ensure structurally
balanced fiscal outlook; 3) Addressing long-term unfunded liabilities; and 4) Infrastructure
financing. On November 7th the Council received and filed presentation on the approach and
timeline to develop the FHRP that addresses the second and third major work areas of the goal;
actions to ensure a structurally balanced fiscal outlook and address unfunded liabilities.
The current and anticipated fiscal challenge is driven by rapidly rising pension costs needed
primarily to pay down unfunded liabilities. The City’s fiscal forecast has been extended to a ten-
year timeframe to provide the Council and the community with a longer-term financial outlook.
Along with the 10-year CIP, these tools provide more effective communication of the longer-
term impacts of the proposed solution.
The recommended solution is to reduce an ongoing budget gap of $8.9 million dollars by fiscal
year 2020-21, of which $7.5 million represents the General Fund and $1.4 million represents
Enterprise Funds (Water, Sewer, Parking, and Transit). The recommendations are based on long-
term fiscal health analysis for each operating fund and community and staff feedback. The
recommendation presented for Council consideration and detailed in the “Solution Components
Recommendation” section of the report is presented by fund and outlines associated efficiencies,
service level impacts, and risks associated with the solution.
In order to propose a solution, staff assessed the service level impacts of meeting the $7.5 million
target through General Fund operating reductions alone. Significant reductions in public safety,
infrastructure maintenance, parks services, capital project delivery and other areas would be
necessary so a more balanced approach that includes new ways of doing business, new revenues
and employee concessions is proposed to meet the $7.5 M General Fund target.
New Revenue 30% to 40%
Operating Reductions and New Ways of Doing Business 30% to 40%
Employee Concessions 20% to 30%
The Enterprise Fund solutions totaling $1.4 M will be met through various strategies unique to
each fund. The primary reliance will be on doing business differently and employee
concessions. Enterprise Fund revenues are those revenue projections based on approved and
historic rates and revenue growth trends.
Based on the preliminary fiscal forecasts (Attachment A), it is expected that the recommended
reductions and new general fund revenues will generate adequate one-time resources in the first
three to five years to allocate toward a Section 115 Pension Trust. Specific recommendations for
allocations to that Trust would be made by Council in April 2018, assuming Council provides
direction to form such Trust.
A 10-year CIP is included to introduce the City’s long-term capital improvement plans and
needs. This document takes a preliminary look capital projects planned and to be funded by
General Fund as well as capital projects required by the Enterprise Funds (Water, Sewer, Parking
and Transit) which are funded through the funds own sources of revenue collected through
various fees. Staff will return to Council in January to present the ten-year CIP in detail and seek
direction regarding those long-term needs. The preliminary CIP is presented with this report to
provide a thorough understanding of the long-term fiscal outlook and competing priorities.
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND
Background: Major City Goal -Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility
With the adoption of the City's 2017-19 Financial Plan, Council continued to address the City's
long-term financial sustainability by adopting the Major City Goal - Fiscal Sustainability and
Responsibility. The Major City Goal work program includes engaging residents, staff, businesses
and other interested members of the community in developing strategies to address the fiscal
challenges ahead with a focus on the City's long-term financial sustainability. The FHRP will be
presented to Council in April 2018 and is a key deliverable of this goal.
Background: the Problem
Like almost 3,000 other member agencies in CalPERS, the City is facing significant increases in
required pension contributions. The City's annual CalPERS costs are projected to more than
double in ten years; growing from $7.8 million in 2014-15 to $19 million in 2024-25 for the
General Fund. These costs will continue to grow through 2031-32 and affect all funds including
the City's Enterprise Funds (Water, Wastewater, Transit, and Parking).
The City has determined that expenditures need to be reduced by approximatel y $8.9 million
($7.5 million from the General Fund and $1.4 million from the Enterprise Funds) over the next
three fiscal years to address these rapidly rising costs. The size of the problem has been informed
using fiscal forecasting supported by third party economic models as well as the City's outside
sales tax advisor and actuary specializing in pensions. The City's forecasting is based on
assumptions such as:
1. Continuing current levels of service,
2. Continuing the commitment to capital investment including a slight increase
due to ongoing maintenance needs,
3. Modest long-term revenue growth and inflation,
4. Required pension contributions to CalPERS,
5. Continuing Local Revenue Measure (Measure G) funds used consistent with
voter directive and Council policy,
6. Enterprise Funds revenue projections based on approved and historic rates and
revenue growth trends.
While CalPERS is the driver for the current fiscal challenge, it is not practically feasible for the
City to leave CalPERS. To exit CalPERS, the City would have 30 days to meet its projected
(worst case) financial obligations currently estimated to be from $377 to $495 million at the
time of separation. Furthermore, the current legal framework in California restricts cities’
ability to reduce retirement benefits for current employees, as well as retirees. Lastly, the City’s
contract with CalPERS forbids offering alternative retirement benefits for new employees.
Background: The Fiscal Context for the Problem and for the FHRP Development
1. The City Has a History of Strong Financial Management and Fiscal Policies
The City continuously monitors long-term fiscal health and has a long history of strong
financial management. The 2016 Fitch Credit Rating review affirmed the City’s implied
default rating at AA+ and the City has received positive remarks for financial
management and a quick recovery from the Great Recession (2008 -2010). Along with
community engagement and prioritization of resources, long-term fiscal forecasting is an
integral part of the City’s financial planning.
On July 1, 2014, the City Council adopted a Financial Responsibility Philosophy as a
means for promoting community health and well-being. The philosophy calls on the City
to commit to fiscal responsibility through good economic times, as well as economic
downturns, and focuses on the following (Attachment E: Adopted Financial
Responsibility Philosophy):
a. Informed Decision-making.
b. Shared Responsibility.
c. Increased Transparency.
d. Aligned Investments.
e. Diversified and Aligned Revenue Sources. Long-Term Unfunded
Liabilities.
f. Continued Efficiency and Effectiveness.
In June of 2017, the City Council also formally adopted a fiscal policy regarding
Long-Term Liabilities and Maintenance of Infrastructure. The policy prioritizes
applying unassigned fund-balance due to one-time expenditure savings or one-time
increases in revenue to paying down long-term unfunded liabilities and investment in
infrastructure.
2. Impacts of CalPERS Lowering the Rate of Return
During 2017-19 Financial Plan development, CalPERS’ latest policy change to lower the
discount rate (or assumed rate of return) from 7.5% to 7% over a period of three years,
negatively impacted the City’s long-term fiscal outlook. Expenditures outpace revenues
starting in fiscal year 2018-19 for the General Fund and there are significant impacts to
the Enterprise Funds as well. The financial forecasts and recommendations are based on
current CalPERS policy and actuary analysis assumptions.
In November 2017, CalPERS discussed strategies to further lower the expected rate of
return or to shorten amortization period to pay-off unfunded liabilities in 20 years instead
of 30 years. The decision was delayed and will likely not be finalized until February
2018. The League of California Cities along with other agency representatives have
strongly urged the CalPERS Board not to take such actions due to significant
implications to the participant agencies and call for a legislative reform to address the
benefits.
3. The City’s Fiscal Forecast in General
Attachment A is an updated General Fund fiscal forecast. Attachment B is an updated
fiscal forecast for Enterprise Funds.
The City’s fiscal forecasts and recommendations are based on the facts known today;
some uncertainties are impractical and impossible to model. Significant policy and
budget changes proposed at the Federal level may carry substantial impacts at the
Federal, State, and local levels including potential reductions in federal dollars awarded
to the City. Additionally, the longest steady but slow economic expansion since the Great
Depression has created an additional challenge for economists’ analysis.
The City uses multiple resources to develop its economic forecasts. The City partners
with Beacon Economics to monitor the economic climate and inform financial forecasts.
Beacon uses econometric analysis to take into account the macro economic climate from
Federal, State and local levels. The City also contracts with HdL Companies for detailed
analysis of the City’s sales tax patterns and with MuniServices for analysis of utility
user’s tax trends.
Overall, Beacon Economics foresees continued economic expansion. According to the
Beacon Economics report prepared for the City in November 2017.
Beacon Economics’ forecast represents an optimistic outlook through
2026–27 and assumes that the U.S. economy will grow at a moderate
pace, much as in recent years. Because of uncertainty surrounding
President Trump’s policies, there is an inherent uncertainty within this
forecast. Beacon will closely monitor policies as they are announced and
enacted and will adjust its economic outlook accordingly.
Overall, the San Luis Obispo economy is trending in the right direction,
and nothing on the immediate horizon signals a reversal of that trend. The
regional labor market is tight, although employment levels have been
reaching new highs virtually every month. The residential real estate
market has been characterized by low inventories, which will restrict
resales in the near term, but Beacon expects inventories to return to
historical norms over the coming years. Fuel prices have stabilized and
are trending higher, which will support growth in taxable sales. These
transitory factors are expected to fade, and Beacon sees the fundamentals
of the local economy remaining strong over the near term.
In summary, the City’s ten-year forecasts for the General Fund and the Enterprise Funds
are all constrained by the impact of rapidly rising pensions costs. Ten-year CIP needs for
the General Fund that will be brought to Council in January, are not fully reflected in the
General Fund fiscal forecast, which assumes current levels of allocations to CIP with
slight increases assumed for maintenance needs. More detail can be found in the Fiscal
Forecast analyses detailed in Attachments A for the General Fund and Attachment B for
Enterprise Funds.
4. Impacts of Diablo Canyon Uncertain
The closure of Diablo Canyon presents an uncertain future for the San Luis Obispo
County region. Diablo Canyon is a major employer in the region providing quality, high-
paying jobs. Almost a year ago, Pacific Gas & Electric Company reached an agreement
with the Coalition of the Cities including the City of San Luis Obispo, which would
return significant funding to the region and the City to mitigate the impacts of
decommissioning the plant. However, earlier this month, an administrative law judge
recommended a proposed decision that would negate this settlement agreement.
While the proposed decision is under review, the City continues to work toward an
alternative decision and assessing strategies for economic re-alignment to mitigate the
impacts of Diablo Canyon Plant closure. If a favorable decision is not reached, actions
could include a request for state legislation and more specific economic and financial
impact analyses of Diablo Canyon’s closure. Lastly, the Coalition of Cities and the
County have been discussing how to leverage SB 968, a bill which requires the CPUC
analyze the economic impacts of the Diablo Canyon’s closure. The parties are
regrouping in light of the proposed decision and while the effort and intent continues to
push the CPUC to approve funding through the Joint Proposal, if this effort is fruitless,
the parties may proceed with a separate economic and fiscal analysis. Should an
independent self-funded effort be required, Staff will return to the Coalition of Cities and
the City Council for approval.
FISCAL HEALTH RESPONSE PLAN
FHRP: Foundational Steps in Education and Outreach
In developing recommendations about the components of the FHRP staff followed several steps.
First, the size of the problem was established. Second, staff provided education and outreach
about the problem through community and employee workshops and presentations to various
community partners. During these sessions staff were able to educate and inform the community
and employees while receiving feedback. As informed by adopted Fiscal Polices (discussed
above), a collaborative effort of all City departments and funds resulted in a multitude of options
to achieve the objective of closing an $8.4 million ongoing budget gap. Options were carefully
considered using the following criteria:
1. City policy and goal alignment.
2. Increased operational efficiencies.
3. Minimizing service level impacts to the community.
4. Can the action be fully implemented within three years?
5. Are there factors outside the City control that make the proposed action particularly
risky?
The FHRP to be adopted in April 2018 will achieve a structurally balanced budget and continued
long-term fiscal sustainability through a balanced, multi-faceted approach. The predominate
ones are:
1. New Revenues
2. Operating Reductions and New Ways of Doing Business
3. Employee Concessions
In conducting the analysis of how the three components could be allocated in the FHRP various
scenarios were explored by staff. The “extremes” of allocating the total cost of $8.9 M to one
single solution were analyzed and rejected as infeasible, impossible to achieve and/or too
impactful to community service levels. Ultimately, staff is recommending a balanced approach is
right for San Luis Obispo but examining the extreme scenario is important context.
Upon receiving preliminary direction from Council regarding the approach and how to balance
the proposed solutions, staff will work on developing the detailed FHRP. It is important to note
that as this detailed plan is developed, staff will take into account the many legal requirements
that must be navigated in implementing changes in the public sector. This may include
regulatory requirements, ballot initiatives or further approval from the community, as well as the
City’s obligation to meet and confer in good faith with its represented employee groups
regarding changes to wages, hours, and/or working conditions.
FHRP: Extreme Allocation Analysis Not Recommended
1. Operational Reductions and Efficiencies too Impactful at Sole Solution
Even with operating reductions phased-in over the three-year period and increased efficiencies
considered, service level impacts of achieving $8.9 million through this approach are severe.
Under this scenario, service level impacts would include significant reductions in ongoing
maintenance and capital project delivery; significant reductions in strategic initiatives for
economic and community development; reduction in information technology efforts resulting in
reduced transparency and decreased efficiency; significant reductions to community events,
recreational activities, and public safety; and elimination of multiple community partnerships and
support to a wide variety of organizations; Internal service functions would also be impacted
which could expose the City to higher risk factors over legal, human resources and financial
issues. Approximately 68 full-time equivalent positions would be eliminated and significant
reductions to services currently provided through contract services.
The chart below shows the number of full-time equivalent positions that represent $8.9 million in
operating reductions by function (not by department). This is an illustration only and represents
a scenario where all departments have analyzed the impact to operations based on the same
relative percent share to achieve the total goal.
2. Revenues too Impactful as Sole Solution
Similarly to solving the problem solely through operational reductions, attempting to solve it
solely by increasing revenue was determined to be impractical and overly impactful on the
community. Again, understanding what this extreme solution might look like provides context
for the more balanced decision-making proposed.
In California, State law requires voter approval for municipalities to raise revenue through
taxation. General taxes require a simple majority and special taxes require a super-majority. The
laws also limits municipalities’ powers to recoup expenditures through charges for services or
development impact fees to the actual cost of activity.
Closing the budget gap by pursuing new revenue only is risky due to the limited powers.
The following revenue sources were analyzed: 1) cannabis business taxation; 2) parcel tax to
cover Stormwater program cots; 3) sales tax; and 4) transient occupancy tax. Attachment D is a
detailed analysis of these revenue sources and how taxation works at the local level.
3. Concessions too Impactful as Sole Solution
Aligned with the City’s Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility Philosophy and Labor Relations
Objectives adopted by the Council, staff analyzed employee concessions as part of the tenant of
shared responsibility between the City and its employees to share the burden of health and
retirement benefit costs. Similar to considering solving the problem only through expenditure
reductions or increased revenues, reducing employee compensation as the sole solution has
significant service level impacts as it would be very difficult to achieve and would result in
increased turnover and extraordinary recruitment challenges, all of which may prove more costly
in the long term. To put this in perspective, to achieve an $8.9 million reduction, each employee
would be faced with an eighteen percent (18%) reduction in employee compensation (salary and
Reduction of 68 FTE too Impactful to Service Levels
benefits). This reduction would significantly reduce the City’s ability to attract and retain
employees consistent with its compensation philosophy (Attachment E). Further, such
concessions would require challenging negotiations with the City’s represented employee groups
that would likely take months or even years to resolve.
FHRP: A Balanced Allocation of Components is Proposed
FHRP Components: General Fund
Through careful analysis staff identified a solution in alignment with Council adopted fiscal
policies. The solution emphasizes: 1) new ways of doing business with minimal service level
impacts, 2) actions to implement immediate savings by implementing policies and actions
enhancing prudent spending, 3) revenue options that are aligned with Council goals, 4) employee
concessions recognizing the adopted shared responsibility philosophy and increased CalPERS
costs, and 5) other operating expenditure reductions which will be developed in detail between
December and April with focus on minimized impacts to the service levels provided and
discussions with the community.
The recommended components allocation to close $7.5 million budget gap for the General Fund
are presented in ranges for Council general direction. The following ranges are proposed:
New Revenue 30% to 40%
Operating Reductions and New Ways of Doing Business 30% to 40%
Employee Concessions 20% to 30%
The solutions for the Enterprise Funds will be varied and appropriate to each fund but will
include employee concessions.
1. FHRP Operating Reductions and New Ways of Doing Business 30% to 40%
Operating reductions and new ways of doing business including operational efficiencies are
estimated to reach approximately $3 million dollars over the three-year period with a reduction
of approximately $1 million anticipated in fiscal year 2018-19.
Staff will further analyze the following operational efficiencies and bring a detailed plan back to
Council in April 2018:
a. 2% Operating Program Savings
The City’s financial plans rely on a 2% savings in operating programs each fiscal year.
Historically, through prudent expenditure management, the City has been able to realize
greater savings. Staff will continue to analyze expenditure savings, particularly in areas
of commodity costs such as gas and electricity.
b. Increased Investment in Sustainable Infrastructure
Aligned with the Climate Action Major City Goal, staff will also pursue sustainability
efforts and will consider investment in infrastructure which is expected to result in
ongoing savings.
30% - 40%
1. Reorganizations
Staff will analyze re-organization opportunities and ways of doing business
differently.
2. Proactive Fiscal Management
Staff will engage in proactive management and recoupment of costs through
collection efforts, debt management, and investment management.
2. FHRP Employee Concessions 20% - 30%
Given the increased CalPERS costs aimed at addressing the unfunded pension liability along
with the Fiscal Sustainability Philosophy and Labor Relations Objectives adopted by council,
employee compensation reductions need to account for a portion of the solution. In determining
the appropriate “size” for this portion of the solution staff considered the viability and service
impacts of operating reductions, new ways of doing business, and new revenues, and estimated
compensation reductions that were less likely to exacerbate service level impacts by driving
turnover and/or prohibiting recruitment. The recommendation assumes that approximately $1.7
million dollars will be achieved through employee concessions or 23% of the total target. The
City recognizes its obligation to meet and confer in good faith with its represented employee
groups regarding the impacts of changes to wages, hours, and/or working conditions and is
committed to working in good faith with it labor groups in the event compensation modifications
are determined necessary.
3. FHRP Revenue Options 30% to 40%
The City major operating funds are the General Fund primarily funded by taxes and fees for
services and Enterprise funds (Water, Sewer, and Parking) that fund their own operations and
capital investment programs through rates. The Transit Fund is another Enterprise fund;
however, transit is primarily funded through Federal and State funding with a 20-percent match
from fares.
In California, State law requires voter approval for municipalities to raise revenue through
taxation. General taxes require a simple majority and special taxes require a super-majority. The
laws also limit municipalities’ powers to recoup expenditures through charges for services or
development impact fees to the actual cost of activity.
There are multiple revenue options that the City could pursue. As discussed in more detail in
Attachment D – there are pros and cons to each which range from uncertainty to the time in
which it will take to implement taxes and attendant revenues. As there are multiple options
Council direction on preferred resource is sought.
The chart below depicts the availability of new revenue compared with dollar amount of revenue
that is potentially available. In general the chart illustrates that larger amounts of new revenue
are less available and will take a longer period of time to realize. In the left top corner are
revenue options available to the City Council, which consist of elimination of current subsidies
for services or City owned property subsidized rentals. Elimination of subsidies could raise over
$200 thousand annually. In the middle spectrum is Economic Development that boosts the City’s
ability to maintain and raise major revenues such as Sales Tax, Property Tax and Transient
Occupancy Tax; however, even though economic development is imperative to the region and
positively impacts revenue generated, the City has less direct control over the revenue growth
which is also highly impacted by larger regional, State and National facto rs. On the bottom left
are the taxation revenue options discussed in this report, which can contribute to significant and
attainable dollars generated but which require voter approval.
Availability$ Amount
Ongoing Revenue Options
Eliminate policies
subsidizing services
provided
1.Excise Tax on Cannabis
2.Sales Tax
3.Transient Occupancy Tax
4. Parcel tax for Stormwater
Economic
Development
Revenue Menu
Staff analyzed various revenue enhancement options and the recommendation is based on the
City’s fiscal policies and Council direction.
1. Cannabis Taxation - $500,000 Growing to $3 million Annually1
Following the State election and voter approval of Proposition 64, the Council held a
1 The estimate is based on preliminary research. The forecast will be further refined as information becomes
available regarding restrictions and allowed cannabis activities in the city limits. The estimate reflects an assumption
in fiscal year 2018-19 that development agreements would be pursued with vendors prior to placing a ballot measure
to the voters. It is estimated that the revenue will increase over time as the business activities mature and will reach
up to $3 million by fiscal year 2020-21.
study session regarding the City’s prohibition of cannabis activities within the city limits.
Staff was directed to:
• Monitor developments in other jurisdictions
• Monitor development at the Federal level
• Engage the community regarding various land use and taxation alternatives that
may be appropriate; and
• Return to the City Council recommendations
A significant amount of public outreach has already occurred, and staff continues to
monitor developments in other jurisdictions and at the State and Federal level. The City is
maintaining a website to inform the public about progress on this issue, and has
developed a presentation outlining some of the regulatory options available to the City.
The revenue estimates included in this report are based on high level assumptions about
local regulations and future business activity. Staff plans to check in with the City
Council prior to April 2018 so that assumptions or recommendations included in the
FHRP are in line with Council direction regarding local cannabis regulations.
It is presumed, that if Council changes regulations regarding cannabis activities within
the city limits, direct costs of regulation of such activities will be reimbursed through fees
and permitting costs levied against cannabis businesses. Indirect costs associated with
potential increased health and safety issues are difficult to estimate and staff will continue
to study other’s state experiences as well as monitor regional activities. Statewide grant
funding raised from State taxes are intended to help fund the indirect service impacts of
cannabis.
Staff has performed preliminary analysis of cannabis taxation which is estimated to be a
net revenue generating activity. A more detailed analysis is included in Attachment C to
this report. The recommendation is based on broad ranges of possible allowable activities
and the amount of revenue that could be generated.
Based on preliminary estimates, if the City allows cannabis cultivation and distribution in
fiscal year 2018-19, the City could realize up to $500,000 that year, incrementally
increasing to up to $3 million. The estimates are preliminary and based on all of the uses
allowed by the State regulations. The actual revenues collected would depend greatly on
the range and scale of activities allowed in the City. Preliminary feedback from the public
outreach process indicates that retail sales, cultivation and manufacturing uses should be
allowed, but with limits. As a result, staff plans to check in with the City Council prior to
April 2018 so that the revenue estimates included in the FHRP are tailored to the
Council’s direction regarding regulations.
Under California law, the excise tax on cannabis would require a majority vote approval
and could be put forth to vote with the next general election in Novemb er 2018. It is
important to note that over 67% of City voters supported Proposition 64 in November
2016.
It is important to also highlight that uncertainty of this revenue source is high and
reliance on this revenue source is associated with high level of risk. Staff will continue to
develop recommendations to present to the Council with the FHRP in April 2018.
2. Storm Water Parcel Tax $1.5 million
SB 231 was signed into law this past year and is part of an overall strategy to better
manage water supplies as California’s water continues to be strained by climate change,
continuing cycles of drought and a steadily growing population.
In recent years, as California suffered through a punishing five-year drought, awareness
has grown about the importance of recycling and reusing water and the damage done by
polluted water runoff. SB 231 adds a missing definition of “sewer service” to state law to
include storm water, which was long considered to be part of that definition until a court
decision cast doubt on that interpretation 15 years ago. The measure allows local
governments to finance and build projects that capture and clean storm water.
Staff recommends pursuing a property-related fee to fund the storm water program.
Based on a similar cost structure to Palo Alto, preliminary revenue estimates are
approximately $1.5 million per year. It is recommended that these two options are further
developed and presented as part of the Fiscal Health Response Plan; however, the
likelihood of voter approval is currently untested. See Attachment D for further
discussion.
If the proposed property-related fee is approved by the voters, the timing of this action is
likely to fall within 2019-20 fiscal year with the first revenue collection realized in fiscal
year 2020-21.
Enterprise Funds
All four Enterprise Funds completed a 10-Year Fiscal Forecast similar to the General Fund. The
details of that Forecast are noted in Attachment B. Below is a summary of the assumptions and
findings of that 10-year review.
1. Each fund has unique challenges in addition to the CalPERS issue. For example, the
long-term capital needs in Water and Sewer are a much larger issue for those Utilities
than the CalPERS issue.
2. It is assumed that any concession target directed by Council would apply to the
employees in the Enterprise Funds.
3. It is assumed that the Enterprise funds will not meet any CalPERS related shortfall
through future rate or fee increases, beyond those already approved by Council.
4. Outside of the concession decision, Council direction is not needed at this point, for the
Enterprise Funds. Each Fund manager and the Finance Department will return to Council
with recommendations on how the funds will address any CalPERS and other financial
issues in April 2018 and will be incorporated into the Fiscal Health Response Plan.
ESTABLISHMENT OF A TRUST
Addressing Unfunded Liabilities: Establish Section 115 Pension Trust Fund
Like many cities in California, the City’s unfunded pension liability is the driving factor for
rapidly rising required pension contributions to CalPERS. Due to CalPERS policy changes and
stabilization strategies to pay down the unfunded liabilities and secure assets, required
contributions to CalPERS are rapidly rising. As of June 30, 2016, valuation prepared by
CalPERS, the City’s outstanding unfunded pension liability is $148 million. This amount is
anticipated to show approximately $165 million in total pension unfunded liability for the City
once the full impact of rate of return reduction from 7 percent to 7.5 percent is reflected in
actuary reports in June 20, 2018.
The fiscal forecasts presented, are based on a strategy to address ongoing budget gap within three
years and set funds aside to address unfunded liabilities and mitigate future rising costs. Th e
financial forecasts are based on preliminary 2016-17 fiscal year-end results including one-time
funds above policy reserve. In December 2017 the audited Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report (CAFR) will be recorded and presented to Council in January 2018. The final findings
and fund balances will then be presented to Council in February 2018 with the Mid-Year Report
which will also update the Council with the latest trends in revenue and expenditures through the
first six months of the current fiscal year 2017-18. With the Mid-Year Report, recommendations
regarding the use of one-time funds above policy required reserves will be presented to Council
and included in the FHRP presented in April 2018.
There are two main strategies that can be considered by the City to address paying down
unfunded liabilities and re-directing funds toward the pay-down to achieve long-term savings by
investing early.
1. Accelerated payments to CalPERS using one-time funds.
2. Establishing and funding a Section 115 Pension Trust allowable by the
Internal Revenue Code for the purpose of paying pension costs.
Pros and Cons:
Accelerated payments directly to CalPERS:
Re-directing funds directly to CalPERS increases the City assets set aside for pensions within
CalPERS managed plans and will be immediately reflected in the following actuary valuations.
The pre-payments above required contributions would result in increased savings or interest rate
earnings and decreased unfunded liabilities recorded both in the valuations and the City’s
financial statements. Depending on which plan the pre-payments would be applied to, either
greater overall savings and decreased unfunded liability would be achieved or greater savings in
required pension contributions.
CalPERS policy guides amortization schedules for asset gains and losses as well as for any
adjustments to assumptions. Applying payments to plans with changes that are amortized over a
shorter period of time would yield more significant impacts to lower required contributions from
the City but would lower overall savings in the long-term impacting unfunded liability. Vice
versa, applying pre-payments to plans with longer amortization schedules, would yield greater
overall savings and lower unfunded liability but will be less impactful in lowering required
contributions. The savings calculations would be based on 7 percent interest rate according to
CalPERS current long-term earnings expectation. The reason this analysis is important is
because required contributions affect the City’s liquidity and cash-flow. CalPERS requires the
City to make required contributions based on CalPERS assumptions and actuarial analysis,
which directly impacts the City’s budget.
Establishment of a Pension Trust:
The Internal Revenue Service allows municipalities to establish pension trusts for the purpose of
paying pensions according to section 115 of the Internal Revenue Code. The trust has to be
established by an authorized agent. Two main providers have been active in establishing trusts:
Public Financial Management (PFM) and Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS). PFM
provides a more customized approach to investments; whereas, PARS provides established plans
the City can join. Other jurisdictions such as Paso Robles have formed section 115 pension
trusts.
Staff preliminary analysis estimates a net interest earnings rate of 5 percent by placing funds in a
trust. The benefit of setting funds in a trust is flexibility for the City to utilize the funds from the
trust to make required contributions to CalPERS in the future. The expected interest rate is based
on the provider’s past experience over approximately 10 years. The expected rate of return of 7
percent by CalPERS is a long-term interest rate expectation. The actual rate of return earned in
the future will largely depend on the market conditions for both CalPERS and Pension Trust
funds management provider. Also, higher risk investment strategies yield higher returns but also
expose assets. The loss of assets during the Great Recession is the most significant driver for the
existing unfunded liabilities.
Good performance by the market and prudent management of funds, should yield similar
investment return by both CalPERS and section 115 trust providers. Currently, under GASB
rules, the City’s investments in section 115 trust, would not be reflected on financial statements
as a reduction of unfunded liabilities but would be reflected as assets held by the City. Section
115 trust provides enhanced control of investments by the City working closely with t he trust
provider. It also provides enhanced liquidity by drawing funds from the trust to make payments
to CalPERS in future years as pension costs continue to rise through approximately fiscal year
2030-31.
The recommendations to reduce ongoing expenditures or raise revenues in the amount of $8.9
million dollars assumes redirection of payments toward early pre-payments of unfunded
liabilities to reduce future contributions to pensions, resulting in long-term savings.
Staff recommends that the city form a 115 Pension Trust to maximize the City’s liquidity and
ability to meet its pension obligations in the long-run. Staff will return to Council with detailed
recommendations and actions to utilize one-time funds to address pension costs and capital needs
and recommendations in April 2018 with the Budget Strategic Direction as part of the Fiscal
Health Response Plan. In the interim, staff will return with all actions necessary to establish a
115 Pension Trust.
Unaudited Reserves Above Policy Requirement
The CAFR is scheduled for presentation to the City Council on January 16, 2018. The citywide
financial statements will present audited results for the City as of the end of fiscal year 2016 -17.
The City’s auditors are currently wrapping up their analysis with the CAFR scheduled for release
to the City Council and public by December 31, 2017.
The City’s fiscal and budget policies set requirements for major funds to maintain operating
reserves at certain thresholds. The policies also guide the use of one-time dollars above policy
reserves to be applied to 1) paying down unfunded liabilities, and, 2) fund infrastructure.
Analysis and recommendations for the use of one-time fund available above policy reserves will
be presented with the Mid-Year Report in February 2018 and will be incorporated into the Fiscal
Health Response Plan in April 2018.
TEN-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
This brief presentation of the General Fund Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is merely
an introduction to a more detailed discussion for Council at the January 16th, 2018 meeting. The
CIP is different from the Operating Program in that Capital projects both cost over $25,000 and
result in the construction, acquisition or maintenance of a physical city asset. One key point is
that each Enterprise Fund has developed a Ten-Year CIP as described above. They will be
addressing their needs and potential solutions in their respective Ten Year Financial Forecast.
In the past Council has viewed the CIP in two formats as noted below.
Financial Plan includes a two-year CIP, and a five-year forecast. Projects included in the
Financial Plan are all fully funded by either General fund, Measure G, Impact Fees, grants or
other sources.
Long-Range CIP. All anticipated projects over approximately the 20-year horizon are included
in this list. Every anticipated project, even those for which funds are not identified, are
included in this list. In addition, the Long-Range CIP does not note the anticipated year of
construction.
The 10-Year CIP enables the Council to see at a glance all the projects identified in various
planning documents approved over the last several years. The features of this 10- Year CIP are
as follows:
1) Planning documents were reviewed, and all projects were included which could potentially
be completed in the Ten -Year horizon. Those documents included:
a) Land Use and Circulation Element,
b) Area Specific Plans such as Orcutt, Margarita, etc.,
c) Bicycle Transportation Plan,
d) Mission Plaza Concept Plan,
e) Downtown Concept Plan,
f) Anticipated projects from the Parks and Recreation Element and Facilities Master Plan,
g) Wastewater and Water Master Plans,
h) Long-term Parking and Transit needs.
2) Projects were placed in their anticipated year of implementation within the 10-Year
horizon.
3) Projects were classified in the following Categories:
a) Annual Maintenance (projects which are included in every Financial Plan to maintain
existing city assets such as street paving, storm drain replacement, sidewalk repair, parks
major maintenance);
b) Rehabilitation and Replacement (projects which replace or rehabilitate a city asset, such
as the Marsh Street Bridge replacement);
c) New Project (project which is an addition to the city inventory, the Santa Rosa Skate Park
for example).
The chart below outlines the costs of the preliminary 19-Year CIP. The primary purpose of the
chart is to demonstrate the extent to which the City can afford Annual Maintenance,
Rehabilitation or Replacement and New Projects.
Staff will return with the following actions to address the CIP needs:
1. December-January. Staff will further refine the project list to reflect what reasonably can
be constructed in the Ten-Year time frame
2. January 16, Council review the refined list and provide direction on potential funding
sources for projects which are outside existing city funding capacity
3. Within the Ten-Year CIP are several security related projects which have risen in priority
as a result of the increase in deliberate and accidental threats to public gatherings. Since the
City is host of ongoing public events such as Farmers Market, staff has identified Security
projects which could be implemented if funds were available. Staff is recommending $1.2
million be set aside in anticipation of a specific Security CIP to be presented to Council
during Mid-Year budget discussions in February 2018.
COMMUNITY AND STAFF OUTREACH
The City is committed to involving the community and staff in discussions about potential
solutions to the financial challenges ahead. A number of outreach and engagement efforts have
already been completed and will continue throughout the process. Outreach to date has included:
a. Fiscal Health webpage
b. E-notification category to sign up to receive updates
c. Community Information Session
d. Staff Information Sessions
e. Several press releases, news items and social media posts resulting in media
coverage
f. Open City Hall topic
g. Staff surveys
h. Frequently Asked Questions by topic
i. Regular email updates to staff
All feedback received through the information sessions and Open City Hall is compiled in
Attachment F.
NEXT STEPS
Based on Council direction, staff will further refine recommendations through community
engagement and Council input. In January through March, staff will continue community
engagement and return to Council for additional direction if necessary. Staff will also return to
Council with a detailed review of the ten-year CIP needs assessment. Both operating and capital
needs will be further analyzed based on the input and staff will return to Council with Strategic
Budget Direction in April 2018 with the detailed FHRP to be implemented over the next three
fiscal years, 2018-19 through 2020-21. The 2018-19 Supplemental Budget will implement the
first year of the FHRP.
CONCURRENCES
Leading to this recommendation staff held a community and employee workshops to educate and
receive feedback. Public and employees also had access to the City website to submit comments
and suggestions. The recommendations were developed through a collaborative citywide process
and the City leadership team concurs with the recommendations.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not applicable.
FISCAL IMPACT
In accordance with the City fiscal policies and Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility Major
City Goal, development of Fiscal Health Response Plan is essential to achieve long-term
structurally balanced fiscal outlook. Due to significant changes in pension costs, staff identified
and informed the Council of the need to take action in January 2017. In accordance with general
direction from Council to reduce expenditures and/or increase revenue, staff will continue to
develop the FHRP to achieve a structurally balanced budget.
ALTERNATIVES
Council may provide staff with alternative direction and direct staff to:
1. Pursue greater or lower level of operating reductions,
2. Pursue alternative revenue sources,
3. Pursue greater or lower level of employee concessions.
Further, Council may direct staff to not pursue establishment of a Section 115 Pension Trust.
Council could also direct staff to return during January through March with further analysis
leading to finalization of the FHRP in April 2018.
Attachments:
a - General Fund Fiscal Forecast
b - Enterprise Funds Fiscal Forecasts
c - Budget and Fiscal Policies
d - Revenue Options
e - Compensation Philosophy Resolution No 10248
f - Info Session and Open City Hall Comments
1
ATTACHMENT A: GENERAL FUND FISCAL FORECAST
General Fund
The General Fund ten-year forecast assumptions are based on continuous slow economic growth.
The General Fund’s largest sources of revenue are sales tax, representing approximately 35% of
total revenues including approximately $7.5 million derived from Local Revenue Measure half
cent sales tax; property tax representing approximately 15%, followed by transient occupancy tax
representing approximately 10%.
The forecast assumptions presume slow growth ranging from 2% to 1% growth in sales tax. The
projection is based on detailed analysis by HdL and is a conservative estimate given high volatility
of this revenue source with economic fluctuations. Even though sales tax trends continue to be
positive for the City, increasing transfer of activity to internet sales that are not subject to sales tax
have been putting pressure on sales tax derived from general consumer goods and this trend is
being closely monitored.
Property tax assumptions include 6% to 5% growth due to three major hotel developments in the
City of San Luis Obispo that will add value to the City’s property tax roll and are also expected to
positively impact the sales tax and transient occupancy tax revenue sources. Property tax growth
is more conservatively estimated at 3% in the outer years due to uncertainties described earlier in
this report.
Transient occupancy tax growth rates over the long-run are estimated conservatively at
approximately 2% based on the most recent history in this revenue source. The City will closely
monitor transient occupancy trends as new hotels begin to enter the market, and will continue to
proactively work on tourism enhancement through the City’s economic development program.
Expenditure assumptions for the base line forecast, or “status quo scenario” that does not include
recommendations to eliminate the structural budget gap, are based on a Federal Reserve Bank
target inflation of 2% on annual basis applied to all operating expenditures for the General Fund.
The General Fund forecast also assumes continued commitment to Capital Improvement Program
and the continuation of the Local Revenue Measure beyond its sunset date of 2022. The Capital
Improvement Program assumed allocation increases slightly over time to maintain the
commitment of 70% of Local Revenue Measure funds allocated directly to Capital Improvement
Program and 30% to operating expenditures.
Labor cost assumptions for all fund forecasts are based on total compensation growth aligned with
inflation and actuary analysis of pension costs including paying down unfunded liabilities as
required by the City’s contract with CalPERS. CalPERS projections in the outer years beyond
CalPERS valuation reports have been updated based on Bartell & Associates actuary analysis.
The graph below depicts the ten-year forecast if the City “does nothing”, which means the City
would continue to operate at current expenditure and revenue levels and provide the same level of
services. The blue line represents total revenues and the red line represents total expenditures over-
2
ATTACHMENT A: GENERAL FUND FISCAL FORECAST
time. The yellow line shows cumulative fund balance above or below policy reserve. As shown,
if the City does not address the projected budget gap on an ongoing basis, within ten years, the
City would accumulate a deficit in the General Fund exceeding $90 million. Expenditures are
expected to outpace revenue starting in fiscal year 2018-19 by approximately $700,000 and
exceeding $3 million by fiscal year 2020-21 or the third year of Fiscal Health Response Plan. The
recommendations are based on the premise of reductions or new revenues in the first three years
to reach $7.5 annually diverting the expenditures to paying down unfunded liabilities.
The next graph below, shows the General Fund forecast including closing the budget gap in the
amount of $7.5 by fiscal year 2020-21. The recommendation is detailed later in this report in the
Recommendation section and include both reductions in expenditures and increases in revenue.
The proposed strategy assumes increased payments toward unfunded liabilities in the first five
years. Closing the budget gap early and setting funds aside in a pension trust will increase the
City’s return on investment and enable the City to smooth out the impacts of continuously
increasing required contributions to pay down unfunded liabilities by CalPERS through
approximately fiscal year 2031-32. Aligned with Council adopted fiscal policies, the
recommendation also includes assumptions that one-time available funds will be directed toward
paying down unfunded liabilities and infrastructure.
Based on current assumptions, it is estimated that the General Fund will pay into the pension trust
approximately $15 million over a five-year timeframe and will use these funds in later years to
pay required contributions to CalPERS.
3
ATTACHMENT A: GENERAL FUND FISCAL FORECAST
The General Fund Forecast assumptions are based on the current levels of investment toward the
Capital Improvement Program with a slight increase over time to maintain the Local Revenue
Measure commitment to invest approximately 70% of this revenue toward capital. A ten -year
Capital Improvement Program analysis has been prepared along with the financial forecasts and
staff will return to Council in January to present the Capital Improvement Program needs for the
General Fund and seek general direction for timing of deliverables and funding sources.
1
ATTACHMENT B: ENTERPRISE FUNDS FISCAL FORECASTS
Water Fund
Background
The five-year forecast presented with the 2017-19 Financial Plan shows the Water fund in a
positive working capital position by year five. All assumptions as known at that time for unfunded
liabilities were accounted for and the capital plan began to address the need for infrastructure
renewal. However, the 10-year forecast paints a picture showcasing the impact that the capital
spending has on the current fund reserves and working capital as needed investments begin to
outpace the revenue assumptions. If not addressed, the fund would enter a negative fund position
in 2022-23 and continue the downward trend throughout the 10-year period.
*unreserved WC = Working Capital minus reserves
Capital Improvement Plan
Based on the approved master plans, staff developed three elements to the capital improvement
investment. The first scenario reflects the need of the system over the 10-year period (Need). The
next scenario looks at a level of investment that staff includes in the financials in the same time
period (Afforded at current rates), and the third element provides a picture of what can be
realistically constructed on an annual basis (Deliverable).
2
ATTACHMENT B: ENTERPRISE FUNDS FISCAL FORECASTS
Fiscal Health Response
Staff applied fiscal health response reduction as proposed by the General Fund. The same
assumptions were applied to improve the fiscal standing of the fund. However, it became apparent
that the magnitude of the needed investment for capital infrastructure overrode the applied
reductions. Staff therefore analyzed new revenue opportunities including an aggressive water
meter replacement program and examination of its water portfolio for opportunities to sell excess
water for certain periods under certain conditions. Staff believes that $1 million in new revenue
commencing 2019-20 would keep the fund healthy into the future and afford the needed
investment in the fund’s infrastructure.
Staff was aware that the outer years will jeopardize the fund’s health at current revenues and
therefore requested Council approval for a rate study in 2017. Applicable rate increases were
therefore approved for 2017-18 only and the study results are scheduled to come before the City
Council in January 2018.
3
ATTACHMENT B: ENTERPRISE FUNDS FISCAL FORECASTS
*unreserved WC = Working Capital minus reserves
Sewer Fund
Background
The Sewer Fund’s five-year forecast presented with the 2017-19 Financial Plan showed a healthy
working capital as the fund prepared for the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) Project
to begin in 2018-19. It included all assumptions for unfunded liabilities and the capital plan began
to address the need of the wastewater collection system. However, the 10-year forecast includes
needed investments in the collection systems beginning 2023-24 that are outpacing the current
revenue assumptions through 2027-28. If not addressed, the fund would enter a negative fund
position in 2024-25 that accelerates beyond the 10-year period.
4
ATTACHMENT B: ENTERPRISE FUNDS FISCAL FORECASTS
*unreserved WC = Working Capital minus reserves
Capital Improvement Plan
As in the Water Fund, staff developed three elements to the capital improvement investment based
on the adopted master plan for wastewater collection. The first scenario reflects the need of the
system over the 10-year period (Need). The next scenario looks at what staff currently assumes in
investment over the same time (Afforded current rates), and the third element provides a picture
of what can be realistically constructed on an annual basis (Deliverable).
5
ATTACHMENT B: ENTERPRISE FUNDS FISCAL FORECASTS
Fiscal Health Response
The Sewer Fund included the reduction as proposed by the General Fund. The same assumptions
were applied to improve the fiscal standing of the fund. However, the needed investment for capital
infrastructure still outpaces the available funding. Staff therefore analyzed the capital plan and
especially the WRRF project. At 60% design, the project now allows for a revisiting of the required
funding. Staff feels comfortable that the cost estimate can be reduced to $130 million. The resulting
fund picture is illustrated below.
As in the Water Fund, staff was aware that future action would be required to keep the fund healthy
and the current rate structure study includes the Sewer Fund with conclusion in early 2018.
6
ATTACHMENT B: ENTERPRISE FUNDS FISCAL FORECASTS
*unreserved WC = Working Capital minus reserves
7
ATTACHMENT B: ENTERPRISE FUNDS FISCAL FORECASTS
Parking Fund
Background
The Parking Fund’s five-year forecast presented with the 2017-19 Financial Plan showed a healthy
working capital as the fund prepared for the Palm/Nipomo Parking Garage Project to begin in
2019-20. It included assumptions for unfunded liabilities and the capital plan began to address the
need of the three-existing parking garage infrastructure maintenance needs. Parking rate increases,
designed to incrementally increase over a three-year period, were adopted in August 2017.
Fiscal Health Response
The projected impact of the unfunded liability account on the Parking Services annual budget is
$175,000 and a one-time contribution to the stabilization fund in the amount of $328,381. After
consideration of available options for the Parking Fund to address the increased cost the most
direct fiscal approach for the fund is through operating expense reductions in non-revenue
generating categories. The Council approved multi-year rate and fine increases (2018 thru 2020)
which are included in the base projections. Staffing reductions, particularly in part time employees
will result in an even greater reduction in revenue due to less parking enforcement coverage on
weekends and less booth attendant hours to staff the structure. Each of these services are offset by
collected revenue by the employees themselves. A reduction in staffing thus results in a reduction
in revenue greater than the savings and thus increases the problem. Instead, the Fund will address
the shortfall by reductions in the operating line items for contract services.
As an option, the Parking Fund is in a unique position where it could fund the payoff of the entire
unfunded liability for this enterprise fund (approximately $2.5M) and still meet the annual working
$10,116,569
$11,423,950
$5,165,650
$5,508,430
$5,790,830
$6,054,330
$6,041,070
$5,728,430
$5,257,570
$4,670,230
$3,971,010
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
Parking Fund -
If we do nothing
Revenue Expenditures Unreserved Working Capital
8
ATTACHMENT B: ENTERPRISE FUNDS FISCAL FORECASTS
capital reserves as well as the projected CIP projects. This might assist the General Fund in
allowing some additional short-term possibilities in paying more towards the UAL. The annual
savings (UAL payments) for the Fund would recoup the entire payoff in approximately 10
years. This could potentially benefit both the Parking Fund and the City’s obligation. City staff
is currently reviewing that option to determine if it is a viable way to proceed. Staff will return to
Council with specific recommendations regarding this approach.
Transit Fund
Background
The Transit Enterprise Fund is anticipated to be negatively impacted by the CalPERS unfunded
liability issue an average of $61,177 each year for the next ten years, totaling $672,949. For fiscal
year 2016-17 Transit was a $3.7 million-dollar operation. It is anticipated to grow to $4.3 million
dollars by the end of the ten-year forecast period. The CalPERS impact represents 1.6% to 1.8%
of the yearly Transit Enterprise operating budget. The Unfunded Liability can be absorbed into
Transit’s yearly operational costs with nominal impacts on the overall program primarily due to
use of fuel and purchased transportation reductions. These costs, however, are in the context of
increasingly limited regional funds along with growing service costs amongst the region’s transit
operators. The unfunded liability issue could have impacts to the Capital Improvement Plans (CIP)
$10,116,569
$11,489,489
$5,297,149
$5,711,109
$6,189,789
$6,652,589
$6,842,149
$6,736,049
$6,475,529
$6,102,549
$5,621,649
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
Parking Fund
If we do something
Revenue Expenditures Unreserved Working Capital
9
ATTACHMENT B: ENTERPRISE FUNDS FISCAL FORECASTS
including vehicle replacement needs. These are largely unfunded in the 10-year forecast and are
typically funded by Federal grants that may be limited in the future. Local matches necessary for
federal grants could be impacted by this issue. If Federal funds are not forthcoming, additional
operating costs for maintenance may be necessary or substantial rehabilitation will be needed.
Fiscal Health Response
As a matter of fiscal practice, the Transit Enterprise Fund is budgeted with maximum possible
expenditures and yet very conservative revenues. Local and State revenues sources tend to be
cyclical, with ups and downs, but on average 1% revenue growth is assumed each year.
Meanwhile, and based on existing service contract(s), expenditures are expected to grow on
average by 3% each year over the same period. Under these assumptions, there is a projected
additional shortfall of around $180,000 annually that must be made up by the Transit Program’s
Working Capital/Deferred Revenue; assuming no new revenue sources are realized. However,
historically Transit Fund revenues have better performed than forecasted, while maximum
expenses have rarely ever been fully realized. Regardless, even under the most conservative
forecast, there is sufficient Transit Working Capital to sustain the fund for the next ten years under
this scenario and still leave a modest balance, albeit further reduced.
Like the Parking Fund, the Transit Enterprise Fund is in a unique position that it has one-time
available working capital that could be used to pay off its entire Unfunded Liability upfront. This
is a preferable option because there is some concern that State Transit Development Act (TDA)
rules would prevent Transit from paying into a contingency fund and would require further
research.
Capital Improvement Plan
The major challenge of the Transit Enterprise Fund is projected with regards to Transit related
capital needs particularly, bus replacements. Fourteen vehicles will reach the end of their Federal
Transit Administration defined “Useful-Life” within the next ten years. Without the availability
of awarded (Federal or State) grants, mid-life rehabilitation of vehicle powertrains will be needed
to keep these vehicles in service. Rehabs could directly require the use of Transit’s Deferred
Revenue/Working Capital, creating a more dire ten-year forecast.
10
ATTACHMENT B: ENTERPRISE FUNDS FISCAL FORECASTS
$2,642,204
$2,503,180
$2,284,750
$2,105,635
$1,922,626
$1,746,492
$1,563,931
$1,386,755
$1,202,033
$1,021,825
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
Tranist Fund -If we do nothing
Revenues Expenditures Unreserved Working Capital
$2,810,986
$2,642,204
$2,423,580
$2,205,150
$2,026,035
$1,843,026
$1,666,892
$1,484,331
$1,307,155
$1,122,433
$942,225
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
Tranist Fund -If we do something
Revenues Expenditures Unreserved Working Capital
1
ATTACHMENT C: BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
Long-Term Liabilities and Maintenance of Infrastructure
The City will give priority to applying unassigned fund-balance due to one-time expenditure savings or
one-time increase in revenue to pay down long-term unfunded liabilities and invest in infrastructure and
equipment.
Financial Responsibility Philosophy
On July 1, 2014, the City Council adopted a Financial Responsibility Philosophy as a means for promoting
community health and well-being. The philosophy calls on the City to commit to fiscal responsibility
through good economic times, as well as economic downturns, and includes the following directives:
• Informed Decision-making. The City will identify and consider immediate and long-term
economic, social, and environmental impacts of all decisions considered by the Council.
• Shared responsibility. The City recognizes a shared responsibility between the employee and
employer to appropriately fund employee benefits, including pension benefits. Ensuring an
appropriate balance is a valuable tool in attracting and retaining well qualified employees that
deliver services to the community, while maintaining a long-term, sustainable, and balanced
budget.
• Increased Transparency. The City will conduct all business, including labor negotiations and
other employee compensation matters, with transparency pursuant to all applicable laws and
regulations. The City will continue to develop tools, such as key measures and dashboards that
ma ke information readily available to community members in a timely and useful manner.
• Aligned Investments. The City shall allocate resources in alignment with community needs
and priorities for maintaining and/or adding capital projects, assets, or services .
• Diversified and Aligned Revenue Sources. The City will pursue diversified revenue sources
that are aligned with expenditures and community priorities.
• Long-Term Unfunded Liabilities. The City will identify all long-term liabilities, including
unfunded pension obligations and strive to achieve a higher funded portion of pension
obligations; and shall manage all liabilities to maintain and enhance fiscal responsibility.
• Continued Efficiency and Effectiveness. The City will explore and implement operational
efficiencies including alternative service delivery, best management practices, and cost
containment measures while preserving effectiveness.
1
ATTACHMENT D: REVENUE OPTIONS
REVENUE OPTIONS
The City major operating funds are the General Fund primarily funded by taxes and fees for
services and Enterprise funds (Water, Sewer, and Parking) that fund their own operations and
capital investment programs through rates. The Transit Fund is another Enterprise fund; however,
transit is primarily funded through Federal and State funding with a 20-percent match from fares.
In California, State law requires voter approval for municipalities to raise revenue through
taxation. General taxes require a simple majority and special taxes require a super-majority. The
laws also limit municipalities’ powers to recoup expenditures through charges for services or
development impact fees to the actual cost of activity.
Service charges are approved by the City Council and the City fiscal policies include some
subsidies to programs with the most significantly subsidized activities in parks and recreation
youth and elderly programs. Based on the fee study conducted in fiscal year 2016-17, the overall
subsidy citywide is estimated at $200,000.
The City also leases a number of City assets below the market value as strategic partnerships in
the community.
Several taxation revenue options, subject to voter approval, have been analyzed by staff as follows:
1. Cannabis taxation
In 2016, the State of California legalized medical and recreational cannabis. Currently, the City’s
ordinance prohibits all commercial activities regarding cannabis within the city limits. The City
Council held a study session regarding the State legislation in March 2017 and directed staff to:
1. Monitor developments in other jurisdictions
2. Monitor development at the Federal level
3. Engage the community regarding various land use and taxation alternatives that may be
appropriate; and
4. Return to the City Council with recommendations.
Staff is currently monitoring activities at the local, state and federal level, and conducting a
significant public outreach and community engagement effort. Recommendations for the City
Council to consider will be provided later in the fiscal year. A check-in with the City Council will
be necessary to ensure that any assumptions included in the FHRP are consistent and in line with
Council direction regarding future cannabis regulations.
If the City Council amends the City ordinance and allows cannabis activities within the City limits,
such activities will need to be regulated and can also be taxed. It is assumed that the City policy
will be to fully offset its regulatory efforts of such activities through fees and permits. However, it
is important to note that the City will not be able to recoup potential secondary effects of the
2
ATTACHMENT D: REVENUE OPTIONS
activities in the City at large due to potential overall demands especially on public safety services.
Such secondary effects are difficult to estimate, and staff is studying the experiences from other
States as well as monitoring development of ongoing regulatory changes in the State of California.
The cannabis industry is new in the United States, even though the states of Colorado, Oregon,
and Washington enacted similar legislations prior to California. A regulated California market for
cannabis is conceptually new and different from the illegal market that has existed for years, and
thus bears the risk of high uncertainty. Staff has contracted with MuniServices, a financial
consultant, to provide general advice on taxation and regulation of the cannabis industry. The fiscal
forecasts for revenue in the California cities that have allowed cannabis activities vary greatly.
Aligned with the studies and data on cannabis activities in the other states provided by
MuniServies, staff has prepared the following estimates for cannabis tax related revenue based on
the assumption that the Council amends the City ordinance to allow such activities in the City
limits, and that a general tax will put forth to the voters with the next general election of November
2018.
Because staff does not have Council direction on draft regulations, the estimates are very
preliminary and high level. The maximum total tax burden recommended is 25% to 35%. Any
taxation beyond this level is considered counter-productive for a variety of reasons. The total
burden applied to cannabis by the State is 16%. The City’s Local Revenue Measure of 0.5% would
also apply. Thus, the total burden already imposed on the cannabis industry within the City of San
Luis Obispo would be 16.5%, leaving a range of 8.5% to 18.5% for the City to consider levying
additional tax burden. MuniServices recommends that this additional tax rate be set between 5%
to 10%. Industry representatives advocate for a lower additional tax rate of 3% to 7%. The revenue
that may be derived from allowing cannabis business activities within the City would also depend
on the size and number of these businesses relative to market demand.
Regional comparative data is based on Grover Beach where voters have approved cannabis
taxation at the following rates:
Grover Beach
Commercial Medical Activities - 5% on Gross Receipts
Commercial Non-Medical Activities – 10% on Gross Receipts
Cultivation and Nurseries - $25.00 per sf on first 5,000 sf
$10.00 per sf over 5,000 sf
According to MuniServices, local commercial cannabis tax revenues are dependent on several
factors. The City has control over the tax rate and the types of businesses that will be allowed to
operate. However, there are a number of external factors that are outside the control of the City
that must also be considered when establishing the tax rate. MuniServices recommend s that any
revenue measure placed before the voters seek to authorize a tax rate range, allowing the City
Council some flexibility to adjust based on a variety of factors. The following is a list of some
external factors that can impact local tax revenue.
3
ATTACHMENT D: REVENUE OPTIONS
• State level taxation
• Product price fluctuations
• Consumption
• Competition
• Ongoing unregulated sales (black market)
• Competent business operators
• Federal involvement
• Economic impacts
Selecting the initial tax rate within a range will require additional review and evaluation. An initial
lower tax rate will generate less revenue per sale but could generate a larger number of sales from
customers from within and outside the city. An initial higher tax rate will generate more revenue
per sale but would likely limit the number of customers from outside the city and push some
consumers towards the black market.
Approximately half of the estimated revenue is estimated to be derived from dispensaries and half
from other allowable cannabis business within the city such as cultivation and manufacturing. It is
estimated that up to $3 million dollars could be realized in cannabis related revenue by fiscal year
2020-21 if the City Council moves forward with regulations and pursues voter approval for
additional tax revenue. The estimate would also largely depend on the extent of cannabis business
activities allowed in the city. This estimate is based on the premise of allowing all business
activities allowed by State legislation, however, preliminary feedback from the community and
staff work on draft regulations indicates that limits to the number of dispensaries and amount of
building floor area allowed to be put to cultivation and manufacturing uses should be limited.
2. Sales Tax
The fiscal forecast assumes continued citizens’ support of the Local Revenue Measure beyond
Measure G sunset date in 2022. The Local Revenue Measure dollars currently generate
approximately $7.5 million dollars per year that support critical Capital Improvement Program
infrastructure.
The California state sales tax rate is 7.25% as of January 2017. Counties and cities can charge an
additional local sales tax for a total maximum allowable tax rate of 10.25%. Statutorily, Cities and
Counties may add a maximum of 2% sales tax for local purposes; however, with passage of
additional legislation the sales tax rate burden may be increased to 10.25% total.
According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office for the State of California from 2012, “California’s
Rates Range From 7.5 Percent to 10 Percent. The state’s average rate is roughly 8.5 percent,
including a quarter–cent established by Proposition 30 of 2012. (This quarter–cent rate is
scheduled to expire at the end of 2016.) Although California’s cities and counties have many
different sales tax rates, two rates are much more common than others. As shown in Figure 8,
almost two–thirds of Californians live in cities or counties with 8 percent or 9 percent rates. The
4
ATTACHMENT D: REVENUE OPTIONS
remaining third live in places with other rates. While many rural counties have the lowest rate (7.5
percent), some of these counties contain cities with higher rates. Eight cities have the highest rate,
10 percent. (The tax rates described in this report are as of May 1, 2015.)”
The sales tax rate in for the City of San Luis Obispo is 7.75%, which includes 0.5% Local Revenue
Measure Sales tax.
1% of sales tax generates approximately $15 million annually.
3. Transient Occupancy Tax
Currently the City of San Luis Obispo Transient Occupancy tax is 10% with an additional 2% for
Tourism Benefit Improvement District.
Transient Occupancy Tax rate can be adjusted by voter approval with a majority vote for general
tax and super majority vote for special tax.
5
ATTACHMENT D: REVENUE OPTIONS
1% increase in Transient Occupancy Tax generates approximately $750 thousand annually in
today’s dollars.
4. Stormwater
The City of San Luis Obispo’s team-based Stormwater Program works to achieve objectives such
as water quality protection, groundwater recharge, flood control, education, and compliance with
an extensive regulatory permit regime promulgated by the State Water Resources Control Board.
However, there is no funding put forth at the State or Federal level to support these mandated
activities. At present, the City has 6.15 FTE assigned to associated flood control efforts, but actual
staffing levels are approximately 9.25 FTE. In FY 2018-19, the City anticipates expending
$1,275,000 on various stormwater efforts, while the Ten-Year CIP forecast shows expenditures in
the $12-14 million range during years when larger capital projects are anticipated to occur.
Recent research indicates three potential approaches to funding ongoing stormwater activities and
associated capital improvement. These are: 1.) a revenue measure that is exempt from Prop 218
under SB 231 (Hertzberg) and AB 2403 (Rendon); 2.) a citizens’ initiative that relies on the recent
2017 court case California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland; and 3.) a Prop 218 balloted
revenue measure that demonstrates property-related benefit. The first two of these potential
approaches rely on new legislation or court case precedents, and are not yet proven pathways to a
successful revenue measure, suggesting a “wait and see” approach. The City of Palo Alto recently
passed a Stormwater Management Fee using the third approach, which appears as a model of best
practices. If the City of San Luis Obispo were to utilize a similar methodology using “Equivalent
Residential Units” based on parcel size at more conservative total rate of $9.65, this could result
in annual revenue of approximately $1.5 million.
Staff recommends that the City begin taking steps towards a Prop 218 balloted, property-related
stormwater fee, while also monitoring the SB 231/AB 2402 option, and that funding be set aside
with the 2018 Supplement to support hiring a consultant team to conduct further investigations,
fiscal and legal analysis, public opinion research, and develop educational materials. This type of
inter-disciplinary consultant study is estimated to cost $100,000 and the process to take two years
to complete.
RESOLUTION NO . 10248 (2011 Series )
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MODIFYING IT S
COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY SUPERSEDING PREVIOU S
RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLIC T
WHEREAS,the City of San Luis Obispo strives to provide excellent service to th e
community at all times, and supports this standard by promoting organizational values includin g
customer service, productivity, accountability, innovation, initiative, stewardship, and ethics ; an d
WHEREAS,to achieve our service standards, the City must attract and retain wel l
qualified employees who exemplify our organizational values ; an d
WHEREAS,fostering an environment attractive to such employees depends upon man y
factors, including a competitive compensation program .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Lui s
Obispo that the City's compensation philosophy is adopted as follows :
SECTION 1 .The City is committed to providing competitive compensation as part o f
an overall strategy of attracting and retaining well qualified employees who exemplify ou r
organizational values .
SECTION 2 . The City will consider total compensation, including but not limited to ,
salary, health, retirement, and time off benefits .
SECTION 3 .In evaluating competitive compensation, the City considers :
A.Financial sustainability including the City's financial condition as reflecte d
throughout the financial forecast, competing service priorities, maintenance needs, capita l
improvement and other asset requirements, fund reserve levels, and revenue projections prior t o
implementing changes in compensation .
B.Community acceptability since taxpayers and ratepayers ultimately fund al l
employee compensation .
C.The "relevant labor market"that may vary depending upon classification and i s
primarily defined by the geographic region (local, state-wide, or national) and key market s
(municipal, other government agencies, private sector) where labor talent is found, recruite d
from, and/or lost.
When the relevant labor market is defined as "local"; local private sector compensation data wil l
be considered along with local public sector compensation (municipal and other governmen t
agencies . When the relevant labor market is statewide or national, the City will conside r
compensation date for public sector agencies (municipal and other government) with severa l
R 10248
Resolution No . 10248 (2011 Series )
Page 2
comparable demographic data points including but not limited to population, median home price ,
median household income, median age, median education level, services provided, an d
unemployment rate . Quality of life should also be considered when selecting comparable
municipal and other government agencies .
D."Internal relationships"referring to the relative value of classifications to on e
another as determined by the City . Classifications performing comparable duties, wit h
comparable responsibilities, requiring a similar level of skill, knowledge, ability, and judgment ,
will be valued similarly in the City's compensation structures .
E.Other relevant factors may include unforeseen economic changes, natura l
disasters, states of emergency, changes in City services, and changes in regulatory or lega l
requirements .
SECTION 4 .At least every five years, the City will evaluate its compensation structure ,
programs, and policies to assess market competitiveness, effectiveness, and compliance with Stat e
Law . Adjustments to the compensation structure may be made as a result of this periodi c
evaluation and will be done through the collective bargaining process, if applicable, or othe r
appropriate Council-management processes .
Upon motion of Council Member Carter, seconded by Council Member Carpenter, and o n
the following vote :
AYES :
Council Members Carpenter, Carter and Smith, and Mayor Mar x
NOES :
Vice Mayor Ashbaug h
ABSENT : Non e
The foregoing resolution was adopted on March 15, 2011 .
ATTEST :
Elaina Can o
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM :
1
ATTACHMENT F: INFO SESSION AND OPEN CITY HALL COMMENTS
October 5th, 2017 Informational Session
On October 5th, 2017, City staff held three informational sessions (two for staff and one for the
public) about the City’s projected $8.9 million budget gap and potential solutions to maintain a
balanced budget in the future. Members of the public and staff were encouraged to attend the
event, as well as provide written suggestions for workable solutions which are provided below.
When the state had a financial crisis, it relied on furloughs to help. City employees have been
willing to do this, but have been denied every time. Good enough for the state…but not for SLO?
Offer a “golden handshake” or an early retirement incentive. Yes, it’s a short term, one-time only
solution but it will reduce the number of Tier One employees and increase the number of Tier
Two and PEPPA level employees.
1) Increase retirement age into the 60’s. All retirement (full age should be moved to 62-> 64)
2) Stop all “perks” such as employee free or reduced parking
3) Provide free/secure bicycle parking and reduced bus/RTA rates for staff all
The states pension reform in 2012 was incomplete, a political compromise. Suggestion: City
should continue to work with other cities, The League of California cities, and to the state
(Governor + State Representatives). Develop a Statewide approach to this “local government
crisis” which ultimately could result in reduced services to citizens.
How about floating or producing a ½% sale tax in the City for transportation such as measure J
last year. This could be specified for maintenance and CIP transportation issues. There by freeing
General Funds to pay CalPERS.
Thanks for providing more info/background
1) Make the CalPERS program like that in the private sector. (employee contribution, vacation,
health benefits, etc)
2) Police Chiefs, Fire Chiefs, City Managers, etc. should not have it so easy to come and go
from City to City. This is a drain.
3) I am not sympathetic to your list of reasons for why costs are increasing. All of these have
affected us in the private sector too. Where does all the “Fixed Expenses” CalPERS money
go?
Find & utilize local (or non-local) benefactors to sponsor existing programs/events with their
private funding. Community fundraisers towards general fund…would that money go into
CALPERS funding? Televised dance-a-thon?? Parks & Rec. would host it!! ☺
1) Cancel Cola for Current Retirees.
2) Plan ahead for budget shortfalls
3) Don’t take large payouts
2
ATTACHMENT F: INFO SESSION AND OPEN CITY HALL COMMENTS
More volunteers (unpaid).
Note: It is not just CalPERS that was affected by lower returns. The General Population was
equally affected—whether their savings were in investments or in a bank savings account.
Additional employee contributions to retirement and health plans.
Although probably a drop in the bucket, consider employee rather than City funding any 401k—
type retirement plan. Rationale: City employees receive retirement checks from CalPERS. Any
supplemental retirement can be (should be) established and funded by the individual concerned.
If citizens & rate payers are to bear part of this burden, then so should some (if not all) of the
non-profits that receive City funding. There are other funding mechanisms that can pick up the
difference.
1. Stop street sweep in residential areas—they sweep the middle of the street not the gutters.
2. Stop getting all consultants.
1. Sell/rent/lease unused water allocation i.e. unused naci water to communities that need water.
2. Cal Poly/Cal Poly students use 2 lot of City resources at expense or tax paying residents.
Some sort of compensation from poly/students.
3. Like it or not Marijuana sales are coming-City should consider cashing in on that reserve.
4. Use Diablo closure $ dollars to make lump sum PERS payment.
• Consider parks, recreation, OS & Cultural Resources consolidate-bring Nat Res/ OS &
Adobe/facil. Mgmt. into P&R. Consider all P&R svcs-parks maintenance as well-&park
planning-similar to transp. planning and utilities.
• Why not use some City contingency funds?-> to pre-fund a retirement trust fund?
• Consider consolidation/re-org of CDD -> Why 2 Div. Directors + Principle Planner in Dec.
Rev—Need that many supervisors/mgmt? Consider other structures—less sloed.
• Homestay registration = $ Make it easy to legally provide.
• Consider increasing TOT -> Easy for public to support b/c $ comes from visitors?
• Retirement (early) incentives fir staff who are “close”?
• Corporate sponsorship for Daman Garcia sports fields.
• How to make legalization of cannabis net revenue positive for the City?
• Increase parking fees/ allow more overnight pking in structures for $$,
Move one time surplus dollars into a trust fund to hedge the City’s unfunded liability “moving
target”
Increased fees for public noticing for large development projects.
Use the City’s yearly “surplus” money to help pay down deficit.
3
ATTACHMENT F: INFO SESSION AND OPEN CITY HALL COMMENTS
Retirement incentive (pay flat amount to retire by specific date)
Private citizens (homeowners) save hundreds of $ a month by putting solar panels on their
roof…why not the City? Lots of open space…in the corpyard, for starters—the City’s large
investment in equipment could be protected from sun & rain…
Parking spots & spaces in structures and on the street that offer vehicle charging for additional
payment enhancing electric vehicle use & providing revenue.
Stop hiring expensive consultants. Let staff do work.
Open City Hall Forum
In addition to the October 5th meeting date, an online forum through Open City Hall, has been
available for members of the public to provide feedback and comments/suggestions regarding the
Fiscal Health Response Plan. The comments below are the results of 83 participants answering
the following two questions: 1. What feedback do you have about the potential components of
the Fiscal Health Response Plan? 2. What ideas do you have for workable solutions to address
the problem? The answers to these questions are organized below by question. The responses
include both those that registered through Open City Hall and those that did not.
1. What feedback do you have about the potential components of the Fiscal Health
Response Plan?
I think there needs to be some adjustment to salary schedules for fire and police. When you look
at salaries of City of San Luis Obispo employees One notices that fire fighters and police officers
dominate the first five pages of the sallaries of employees. Lets face it San Luis is not that
"rough" of a place to work. It is not like LA or Chicago etc. Additionally, the number of fires we
have in SLO is not high, again not like a big city. I think we could increase age of retirement of
many public safety officers to decrease Cal pers payments.
Reduction of services is unacceptable. Claw back excessive pensions from every "pensioner"
taking in more than $100K.
GREATER EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO THEIR OWN PENSIONS IS A MUST.
SLO is a member of the CA League of Cities, right?? All members are dealing with this problem
!! Whatever “best practices ” are being developed within that group should be considered for
adoption here!!
We need to stay fiscally viable; so we may have a future for ALL of the visitors revenue
Cut back on the non- essential budget items. Buying open space, re-signage in the City because
someone liked the new font, etc. Focus on working with the employees to come up with
4
ATTACHMENT F: INFO SESSION AND OPEN CITY HALL COMMENTS
solutions. The employees are the experts, listen to them. Holding the retirement system over the
heads of the employees is just not right. Both sides negotiate and both sides agree on contracts.
The employees just gave back 7.5% a few years ago. I would like to see us stop blaming
someone and start resolving the issues.
Have the City merge with County to create a Health Plan, ie a local Single Payer.
I am concerned that this will be insufficient to really address the issue of the unfunded liabilities.
I do not believe that tax payers in the state have been given a clear explanation on how these
pensions became so severely under funded. Before we funnel more and more money into this we
need a complete accounting of this program. Unfortunately our state legislature can not be
trusted to appropriately manage our tax dollars.
Retirement benefits don't exist for the vast majority of City residents yet we are forced to pay for
the wealthy City Staff to live happily ever after. Hardly equitable.
Just like citizens, government should learn to live within its means. Do not spend money you do
not have, and don't mortgage the future.
None
I am sorry this has been handed off for so many years we all new this was coming.
The problem here as I see it is not the employees in this situation but the continued
mismanagement of city funds by the administrators. The city continues to spend money on pet
projects like buying open space, public art, rebranding, bike boulevards, fighting against plastic
straws and other time and money wasting ideas. Government is supposed to provide services to
the city....water, public safety and public works. Our city though thinks that they can spend
money on whims to appease the vocal minority. Why not ask the city a very simple
question.....When the pension system was super funded and the city was not paying its
contribution, where did that money go? It is apparent the city mismanaged that part of it and
instead of saving it in a fund for later they spent it.
Government is a farce
Operational Reductions and employee consessions are the way to go.
I do not understand this question.
We are not alone, as other cities face the same issues with PERS rate increase- which likely will
come down again in near future as PERS recovers in the booming stock market, when all other
City revenue levels are at record or near record highs-drastic measures are not prudent or fair to
the citizens and businesses in town.
Stop spending money
5
ATTACHMENT F: INFO SESSION AND OPEN CITY HALL COMMENTS
Curtail 'feel good' programs. Highest priorities should be clean water, sewers, solid waste, and
road maintenance.
The city must look closely at the cause of this problem - primarily pensions plans. While steps
have been taken to mitigate the future impact of pension plans, the city must look closely at
drastic cuts in this area. Very few private employers are providing any sort of pension. While
cutbacks have been made with the tiered pension plans, further cuts must be made in this area.
Use the 'increase employee contribution' plan first and see how well it addresses the shortfall.
Relunctantly, I recommend raising the SLO city sales tax
See below
Increase employee contributions
This survey makes no sense
The City should look for ways to decrease it's Pension Obligation, not just raise taxes and fees,
or reducing public services. Government pensions are outrageously lucrative to the employee,
and are an unfair burden to place on the taxpayers and citizens of SLO. Current City employees
and retirees need to be asked to take a significant cut to their pension plan, period
reduce expenses to balance budget, employees pay greater share of benefits
Employees need to finance their own retirement accounts, the taxpayers cannot afford any more
money for pensions for past employees, many of whom no longer live in the area
The city is spending millions on new financial software. I'm not sure that software going to
greatly improve staff efficiency and reduce resources usage; they'll have to prove it to me by
showing the fewer number of employees in those roles. Who comes up with these ideas?
It's the pensions. If nothing is done about that the problem with grow with time. Other solutions
are band aids.
I like that the city pays retirement and every business should
I support operational reductions
Not enough.
I think any solution should leverage wealthy SLO community members vs low-middle income
people and students living in the community.
6
ATTACHMENT F: INFO SESSION AND OPEN CITY HALL COMMENTS
I have no real experience or understanding of city government or finances, but I LOVE this city,
and want to protect it from falling apart, so...
The plan lacks a realistic view of what the economy will do within the next couple years, and the
ancillary consequences of each option.
The City must first solve the issue of a defined benefits plan which cannot be funded properly.
You must move to a defined contribution plan where employees manage their own retirement
and annual operating costs are known and fixed. unions must be brought to the table and benefits
redefined. it is the only fair solution.
Increased revenue via operations and increased employee contributions to retirement plans are
the only ones that make any sense.
overpaid staff, overtime allowances, pension out of control. it seems obvious
Think more outside the box
I would form a "consulting group" by aggressively consulting with 3-4 other similar size CA-
cities who are dealing with the same issue. SLO does not have to reinvent the "wheel" here
reduce spending for city employee salaries, benefits, etc.. It appears the spending level for city
employees is not sustainable, and the city cannot provide needed services due to the drain of high
city employees benefits and salaries.
Pension plans must be renegotiated people retire younger live longer and make more money
doing so on the back of the rest of the population
City has plenty of revenue. Focus on cost management measures.
City services are already lacking. It is not fair to punish residents for this problem. I will likely
move as will other high earning families.
The City is out of normals with private business which changed years and years ago. This is why
there is a budget issue. The city never earned its money, and thus wastes money
Cut capital improvement projects. Cut open any future open space acquisitions. Cut the plans and
allocations and any work done on the bike master plan.
I'm not sure what this questions means. I don't think I'm alone since a lot of responders ignored
this one.
7
ATTACHMENT F: INFO SESSION AND OPEN CITY HALL COMMENTS
Stop letting builders and developers buy off the City Councilmans and Board of Supervisors!
This town has been ruined with all the building and traffic- drive the 101 at anytime and enjoy
the parking lot it has become!
Let all person's take some responsibilty for there own issues, take care of YOURSELF
The plan is ultimately on the right track but it needs more stringent and aggressive goals in order
to produce change.
Avoids the real problem of over spending.
Do the right thing for the people you work for,
Prioritize employees and their promised pay and benefits before spending millions on extra and
less priority items with surplus funds, such as a giant skate part, new million dollar park, or sub
par repaving of LOVR. Time to prioritize the core services and start saying ‘no’ to those who
want everything without being able to afford it.
Operate the city like a private business would.
Unfortunately this train has been on the tracks for a long time and the City is standing directly in
front of it.
It's kind of a cop out to blame it all on pensions. They aren't going up $9 million next year. The
budget cites capital improvement projects
Spend more on double decker busses, $40M buildings (gov center, airport, pet shelter, women's
jail). Spend more on city managers, lawyers, studies, and on bothering the existing businesses
that are trying to make a living.
You need to do a better job.
Cut the pensions
Cut pensions
Separate the pension fund and bankrupt it. Or force concessions.
Reduce their benefits
Multi pronged solutions of equal weight is essential to minimize adverse effects while avoiding a
punitive character.
Stop spending so much money
8
ATTACHMENT F: INFO SESSION AND OPEN CITY HALL COMMENTS
1. New ways of doing business..Yes! As in, stop throwing around phrases like "Fiscal
Responsibility" if you don't man them. The city needs to re-evaluate its priorities when it comes
to spending. The city employees are not owners of a company who are entitled to the 'excess'
from a few good years, unless they are willing to put up the capital in the bad years. The decision
makers should not have written checks they can't cash. 2. Revenue Options....I don't agree with
the City seeking additional revenues from residents because it made obligations it can't meet. 3.
Operational Reductions...The residents shouldn't have to experience reductions in basic services.
The city needs to re-evaluate its spending priorities. As example of reduction in services that
doesn't directly negatively impact residents, would be reducing funds put toward attracting
tourists. 4. Employee Concessions...Yes.
The costs are in salaries- you have to cut salaries. You cannot "fix" your problems hoping on the
mythical "pot of gold" at the end of the development rainbow
2. What ideas do you have for workable solutions to address the problem?
I think there needs to be some adjustment to salary schedules for fire and police. When you look
at salaries of City of San Luis Obispo employees One notices that fire fighters and police officers
dominate the first five pages of the sallaries of employees. Lets face it San Luis is not that
"rough" of a place to work. It is not like LA or Chicago etc. Additionally, the number of fires we
have in SLO is not high, again not like a big city. I think we could increase age of retirement of
many public safety officers to decrease Cal pers payments.
AA monetary cap on size of pensions. They should be good pensions, but fire and police with
pensions greater than $100K is just wrong, also for administrators. Cap pensions at $xx and
adjust for inflation from there.
I HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT CITY EMPLOYEE "COMPENSATION"
(INCLUDING ALL PENSION, HEALTH BENEFITS, ETC.) SHOULD BE ON A PAR WITH
THE PRIVATE SECTOR. AS A PROFESSIONAL IN THE CITY FOR 30 YEARS, I HAD TO
PUT AWAY ALL OF MY OWN MONEY TO FUND MY RETIREMENT. A SIMILAR
APPROACH SHOULD BE TAKEN WITH CITY EMPLOYEES. TO CONTINUE WITH A
DEFINED BENEFIT APPROACH TO RETIREMENT (WHICH HARDLY EXISTS IN THE
PRIVATE SECTOR) SHOULD NOT EXIST IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR (MUCH AS THE
PRIVATE SECTOR REALIZED DECADES AGO). ALL OF US HAVE TAKEN A
FINANCIAL HIT TO LIVE IN SLO, ESPECIALLY AS COMPARED TO THE COST OF
LIVING HERE. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES SHOULD NOT BE AN EXCEPTION.
THIS Might be far fetched: Charge for farmers market: lots of outta-towners visit!!!!!!!!!
Collaborate for ideas
Hire out our current employees’ expertise. Why can’t we have our building department, police,
fire, water, offer classes in which we charge a fee. How about getting restitution for fire and
police calls that are deemed intentional? How about advertising on our vehicles? Who wouldn’t
9
ATTACHMENT F: INFO SESSION AND OPEN CITY HALL COMMENTS
want to sponsor the Fire Dept’s medical department or their hose compartment? I’m sure ABC
Bailbonds would love to advertise on a Police car. That’s all “free” money.
Since the elite have restricted taxes on income the City should raise revenues in commercial
areas. Have the City lend money to collect interest. Have the City act as developer for land
converted to housing collecting rent on affordable housing. The City should supply internet
services charging fair amounts for broadband.
Further changes to pensions for new employees. Moving to a defined contribution program.
Lower the cap on pension payout. Give employees the option to contribute for a larger retirement
benefit. Address the issue of waste in these agencies - Overstaffing, outdated policies that waste
money, government red tape that only causes inefficiency, actually terminating employees who
do not perform. Money saved could be used to address the shortfall. As individuals we have all
had to make concession and tighten our belts as we are taxed again and again. Maybe it's time for
the state to do the same thing.
City employees are overpaid when compared to the residents that they serve. They have become
the rich robbing from the poor. General lack of accountability and efficiency.
Whatever changes the city staff comes up with for you (the council) to consider, keep in mind
that the stock market is approaching the end of a 10 year expansion. The likelihood of a
recession in the next year is extremely high. This will have negative effects on the calpers
investments and compound the pension debt SLO will be faced with. So when hearing the city
staff's recommendations for how to handle the pension debt, keep in mind that we are due for a
pension crisis. I would recommend getting a free 14 day trial of Real Vision TV if you want to
understand what state the economy is in, and make more educated/drastic changes than what the
city staff presents to you. Good luck.
City jobs should be paid based on competitive market rates, not comparisons with adjacent
counties. Wage increases should not be 'automatic' but based on merit.
I don't understand why local government thinks they need to provide higher wages and higher
benefit levels than the private sector. Benefit levels should be cut immediately to match what
typical private employers are paying, not phased in over several years. Employees won't quit.
They are not likely to find a better deal anywhere else in the county. If this is not handled
appropriately, when the city goes bankrupt, there will be even more drastic cuts to be made.
Better to make smaller ones now.
I thinks there are 3 solutions: you can raise fees for everything connected to the city 2) you can
spend proposition G money that was promised to the citizens. 3 I thinks it s time we bring the
cost of our city goverdown and I mean the cost in all areas from newly hired park rangers maybe
1 of 2 or 3 rental inspectors cut to 2 cut salaries and redo the pension plan new hires. I am not not
sure this city council has the stomach for what should be done.
10
ATTACHMENT F: INFO SESSION AND OPEN CITY HALL COMMENTS
The reality is that a lot of people on this survey just do not get it. PERS pensions are not going
away and the city will not be going to a 401K system. It would take law at the legislature to
make that happen and to leave PERS would cost the city dearly. The employees negotiated these
benefits fairly based on industry standards to blame them is irresponsible and more blame needs
to be put on the administration and their continued mismanagement of funds. Furthermore you
have an elected body who cannot make a decision due to the fact that the Chamber of Commerce
board think that they should have a say in city business, employee contracts and governing of the
city. Too many of our elected officials need to think for themselves and if they cannot then they
need to be held accountable by being recalled or thrown out of office. The employees already
pay their share of the costs and its time for the city to cut out the fat throughout the city and get
back to back essential services period.
Allow marijuana stores in the city
People are willing to work for less to live in SLO. It happens in the private sector, the same
should be true for the City Gov. We don't have to pay the same amounts as other cities.
It's time to start charging for parking. The zoning update should establish a parking maximum
for developers. By reducing parking and realistically pricing parking, you will reduce traffic
congestion while creating a sustainable revenue source. Do not eliminate transit service.
A thoughtful and well balanced approach, increasing revenues by allowing Marijuana sales in
town is a no brainer. Temporarily reducing spending on non essential services for the next
budget cycle. Make policy to utilize future budget surpluses and/or windfalls that the City comes
by be dedicated to paying down PERS obligation. Consider offering older employees some
reasonable early retirement incentives and freeze position if non essential and refill with new
employee in new PERS tier when appropriate. Work cooperatively with current employees to
increase their contributions- within reason of what other city's are doing so not to create and
exodus of quality work force who make this city the great place it is. Thank you for your
consideration
Stop spending money
Significant employee contributions to their retirement programs. They already receive higher
compensation than equivalent private sector employee
Legalize and tax marijuana
Reduce number of employees; cut back on all non-guaranteed pensions (for example, long term
employees should get what is already promised but future payments into their plans should be
reduced); reduce exorbitant public safety overtime; focus only on essential services such as road
maintenance and public safety)
I am a member of a public employee union, and I have to pay about 45% of the total contribution
(11% of my salary) to that system. The city pays nearly 80% of the total contribution to STRS?
11
ATTACHMENT F: INFO SESSION AND OPEN CITY HALL COMMENTS
Crazy!! Also, reduce the 3% formula for public safety, why do they get 50% more than other
employees, and retire earlier. They are great employees with dangerous jobs but that is just too
much of a perk.
Also, ask employyes to contribute more to their retirement...and maybe have a two-tiered system
where new employees have a less-generous pension plan.
1. Base all pensions only on base salary, not any adders due to overtime or unused sick leave and
vacation. 2. Freeze existing pensions (no annual increases). 3. Increase contributions by current
employees. 4. Future employees use 401k type benefit only.
Reduce the city government payroll by cutting positions & departments that constitute
unnecessary luxuries.
Increase employees contributions and reduce operational costs
City manager should be required to take a course in basis mathematics, with the goal that they
learn to understand the true cost of pension plans , discount rates, etc. If prior management truly
understood the math, no one would have ever agreed to the current pension scheme, as it is not
sustainable even at a planned average rate of return of 7.5% (now 7%).
reduce number of employees, utilize contract workers, modify retirement program, eliminate
defined "benefit" plan, employees responsible for benefits, no OT.
Increase employee contributions to retirement. Decrease employee wages to more properly
reflect the value of the service performed. Stop setting salaries based on similar cities. The wage
should be established as what is best for the citizens, not what is best for the employees. We
should establish a citizen group to negotiate all future salary and benefit packages for city
employees.
Quit following stupid industry guidelines such as replacing computers every couple of years.
Replace them when necessary. Buy used vehicles instead and make use of them longer. Nobody
cares about you're brand new shiny vehicles. Lower salaries. There is no proof one city manager
at 300K is any better than a city manager at 100K. Heck, you can have 3 city managers for 300K
and I'm pretty sure 3 is better than one. I'm sure nothing will change except taxation of the
people. It's the only thing government knows.
Increase worker pension contributions significantly.
Increase taxes to pay for the city. The city is great and everyone wants to live here. Assess each
home $100,000 and have rent control put in so the renters don't pay for it. Fine businesses
$10,000 per year for each location if they do not pay living wages and provide retirement. That
way, the city can hire more people who can live here if the current businesses do not pay a fair
wage. It is such a great place, everyone should be able to live and retire here.
12
ATTACHMENT F: INFO SESSION AND OPEN CITY HALL COMMENTS
Get over it and make $ from marijuana sales
overall, if a transition to 'portable' 401K style retirement plans could be implemented
immediately, transitioning away from the current PERS system, that would be helpful. Fix a
percentage of city payroll budget for safety employees and the associated PERS costs.
Immediate hiring freeze, stop approval of multi-use with minimal bottom floor comercial,
promote storefront marijuana shops near Poly and downtown where tourists frequent.
Policing is an incredibly expensive program to run in any city, and San Luis Obispo is no
different. There is a national movement, led by the likes of Black Lives Matter, Fight for 15,
DAPL, and BDS to divest from institutions that cause our communities danger, and invest in
what keeps us healthy. To take these movement seriously would be to take divestment from
policing seriously. This is not a radical policy idea--in fact, its happening all over the country
(look at Rikers Island, for example!). This would be a perfect opportunity to put progressive
politics into action: divest from policing, invest in health care pensions!
I love the idea of partnering with other small cities facing this, or who have successfully
navigated it already. Taxing weed sounds like a great plan. Solar/wind options that would lower
costs over time; more pay in by employees, raising sales tax, (is there a way to raise it on tourist
focused industries?), and raising property tax on homes not being occupied by the owner (if you
want to own a large portion of our town, pay into it).
Allow recreational marijuana dispensaries in town.
Stop the improvements for frivolous projects, stop giving breaks to residential projects, start
listening to residents and pay in full the pensions earned by last workers.
Tax the rich! Stop taking from people who can barely afford to live here.
Defined contribution plan to replace defined benefits. no other solution will work.
The compensation structure of city employees for a city with our tax revenue is highly
disproportionate. We either need to increase the half cent sales tax to a full penny or really
restructure the benefits packages of employees with 20+ years
the city has indulged its employees for too long; your retired employees ... retire at younger and
younger ages, live here when no young people can afford to and where persons employed in non
city jobs cannot as well. it should be obvious. it should have been obvious decades ago. start here
first, then approve marijuana and tax it , but not before you end the greed of the city employees
here.
Cannabis Taxes
13
ATTACHMENT F: INFO SESSION AND OPEN CITY HALL COMMENTS
Contract Fire Services w/SLO County/CAL Fire will save MILLIONS & PROVIDE THE
SAME LEVEL OF SERVICE.
Yes. Raise employee contribution to pers. It's an excellent retirement program, but employee
contribution have always been too low for the return. They should be more vested.
Also look at how medium size for-profit companies employing unionized-staff are dealing with
these same issues. Most have switched to 401K plans.
Pay city employees lower salaries and benefits. These items are too a large portion of the city's
budget, and this spending expense is not sustainable relative to city revenues
Cost is mostly payroll, so need to reduce it. Cut police and fire staffing. Their cost is outrageous
due to overly generous pensions. Eliminate overtime where possible. Increase employee
contributions across the board. Cut management salaries. We don't need to pay City Manager in
line with Beverly Hills and other "comparable" cities. Of course, you will not do any of this, so
this outreach effort is just another waste of money.
Increase employee contributions, reduce future pensions, band with other cities to force
CALPERS and the state to live up to their obligations
instead of comparing to other cities, which got SLO in trouble, compare to normal private
business. No pension. Stop it now. 401K. Bring the salaries in line with private business
Cut costs, increase revenue- Raise taxes, Hiring freeze. Limit work on any capital improvement.
Employees should pay more into the system. After all, they are really just paying their future
selves. The City should contribute more to the system. This will make it more difficult to give
City employees future raises thus making their payout at retirement less. The City could curtail
wasteful spending such as poorly designed bike plans (yes, Chorro Street) that residents living on
those streets feel is unsafe.
Stop giving the Board of Supervisors raises! Bloated salaries and benefits need to end!
Easy Fix, do not allow double dippers to collect a dime
Offer those who are close to collecting on CalPers another few year so of work with an incentive
to spread the timeline of payment. Insure that overtime is not paid on all levels, this is simple
scheduling to insure overtime does not occur. Implement expectations of performance, and make
sure there is transparency between the city manager and council. Maximize city property as best
possible to insure property is being utilized to its fullest. Reasses salaries offered by the city. As
a local business owner we cannot compete with the rates offered by the city in many of the
positions. In addition, the expectation of productivity in the workforce is laughable. There are no
performance goals, there are no pressures for the city staff/employees to perform. In fact, it still
holds true the stigma of getting hired by the city equates to a well paying easy going job. A
14
ATTACHMENT F: INFO SESSION AND OPEN CITY HALL COMMENTS
typical business hires based on experience and has expectations of deliverables. If not met,
people are fired. The city needs to reasses what current job positions are held and where there
might be overlap where salaries can be modified.
While interest rates are low, float a long term bond that covers the entire shortfall. Mandate a cut
in the budget.
The city is crawling with unpermitted construction. Not just the little things but whole houses
being remodled with no permits. I reported one but the city did nothing. Note these can be seen
from the street yet crickets.....
Make Marijuana sales legal. Tax it
It's easy cut spending like we have to do. Cut benefits. Give higher medical copays or less
coverage for a 5 year period. It's what we do have to do with our post tax money.
Cut jobs. I see no other way. Cut waste where can.
Prioritize government and create a hierarchy for services provided. Realize surplus funds as a
way to pay down debt, rather than splurge on added burdens
Cut from the top. The waste is almost always at the management level.
1. Reduce/eliminate unnecessary expenses. 2. Create new forms of revenue by tapping into areas
not yet capitalized on. For example: 1. Retrofit all parking garages with smart automated tech.
Eliminate staff and double the rates. Current rates are too cheap relative to the value of a
downtown parking garage. Consumers will pay as long as checkout is FAST and easy. 2. Make
sure all equipment using up water/energy is as efficient as possible to ensure best rates and utility
expenses. 3. Sell or lease under utilized city owned property to private parties at market rate.
The only way to truly address this situation is to reduce services and cap the amount of allotted
overtime. Those that remain on staff should be asked to take a voluntary pay cut (especially the
police department as they are the highest paid department in the county).
Hold off on some capital improvements until an infrastructure bill is passed. Focus on
maintaining what we have. Seek grants. Increase enterprise ventures
Spend and tax.
You need to do a better job.
Cut the pensions
Embrace recreational marijuana and thereby increase tax revenue
15
ATTACHMENT F: INFO SESSION AND OPEN CITY HALL COMMENTS
Cut pensions
As above, it is not fair that the citizens have to pay for an inflated pension. This is worse than
simple bureaucratic red tape. Young tax paying families will suffer while non tax paying retired
people benefit... Perfect way to kill an economy
Reduce their benefits
The problem must be recognized as a temporary demographic one as baby boomers retire.
Reducing certain services may go unnoticed by residents. Certain types of fines should be
increased in areas where compliance has not been satisfactorily achieved according to police logs
and especially where the quality of life is impacted, meaning not parking fine which are already
too high. More city sponsored events which generate revenue may be considered while other
sacred events such as Concerts in the Plaza should remain free. Prudent investment of city funds
to generate growing revenue will be essential
Stop spending so much money
Having the City re-evaluate its priorities with regard to spending of available resources.
Cut salaries for employees making above 150k by 20%, between 100k-150k 18%, between 85K-
100K 15%, 55k-85K 10%