HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/17/2018 Item 11, Lopes
From:James Lopes <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:City Council Meeting April 17, 2018: Item 11 - Fiscal Health Response Plan
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
RE: April 17, 2018: Item 11 - Fiscal Health Response Plan
Dear Mayor Harmon and Council Members:
Will the problem worsen? How would you answer whether the City will be able to meet the growth of CalPERS pension
costs beyond this three-year plan? The plan states on page 1, "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." While
the report describes how the current shortfall can be met, would you please ask staff to identify how the increasing cost
of the pension fund will be met? Does this fiscal plan just ignore time after the next three years?
Will other taxes than marijuana sales be necessary? I suggest that more sales and transient occupancy tax revenue
should be planned than shown. Instead of raising hotel and sales taxes to pay for the long list of capital projects, the
City should be using these fund sources for increased revenues for three or four years to pay for the revenue shortfall in
this Fiscal analysis. The City should postpone the venture of greater capital spending until after the shortfall is funded,
before proposing using these tax sources to pay for the long list of current and projected projects.
Should strategic (goal-oriented) spending cuts be determined? Budget reductions might be made, but the should not
be where public health or safety or the City's Climate Action Plan would be negatively impacted. For instance, the Police
Department apparently needs more traffic patrols, since very few officers are present on the major arteries,
unfortunately during the now-crazy commute times. The City Arborist needs an increase in funding to manage the vast
tree inventory and improve the health and appearance of city trees, citywide. A healthy urban forest is necessary to
mitigate air pollution and increase carbon capture.
Competing demands on City residents' municipal financial support should be avoided. I ask that your Council
postpone for four years any new or expanded Enterprise Funds projects in Water, Sewer and Reclamation. We have
experienced the shock effect of staff increasing water and sewer rates to pay for previous capital projects: the public
reacted by reducing water and sewer consumption to avoid the higher costs of these increased rates. I think that staff
convinced previous Councils to increase rates 10 percent, three times in three years, but twice. Because water
consumption was reduced in the first round of increases, the City increased the rates similarly again in a second three-
phase round. The reduction in water use was not due primarily to the drought but to these attempts to charge the high
costs of the Nacimiento Pipeline onto the rate payers, rather than by a bond onto the property tax payers. This
approach should be avoided in favor of scheduling a bond election to pay for the currently requested major project - the
WRRP (?). Why: Because adding these rate increases to the public's municipal expenses will burden the public's ability
to pay other municipal costs, such as sales taxes.
Thank you for considering my comments.
James Lopes
San Luis Obispo
1
2