HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/5/2019 Item 15, Rowley
From:Sandra Rowley <
To:Harmon, Heidi; Christianson, Carlyn; Pease, Andy; Gomez, Aaron; Stewart, Erica
Cc:CityClerk; Johnson, Derek; Grigsby, Daryl
Subject:Item 15, Potential Next Steps for Funding the Future
Meeting Date: February 5, 2019
SUBJECT: Item 15, Potential Next Steps for Funding the Future
Dear Mayor Harmon and Members of the Council,
I had planned to attend this City Council meeting; however, I will not be able to do so.
I was surprised, astonished actually, when I learned during a previous council meeting that the Public
Works budget for handling routine maintenance tasks comes from Measure G funds. Upon hearing this
and subsequently verifying it with the Public Works director and the City Manager, I had one thought,
“Where did the money go?”
Several years ago when the original city sales tax measure (Measure Y) was passed, funds collected from
the additional sales tax were to be spent on extra things. My understanding when the renewal measure
(Measure G) was placed on the ballot was that it, too, was to continue to fund the extras. Normal city
functions, such as routine infrastructure maintenance tasks that Public Works performs, were to continue
coming from the General Fund. Obviously, that is no longer the case; thus, my surprise.
Because of the way Measures Y and G were written, the City’s sales tax was to be a general sales tax not
a specific sales tax (only specified uses allowed). However, we were assured that the funds collected
would be used for the types of items listed on the ballot and would not be used to “supplement” the
General Fund. This is why the Finance Department put out an annual report, i.e., to show the voters that
funds were being spent as promised. And this is why a special oversight committee was established.
So what happened? Where did the General Fund money go that used to be for Public Works? What are
we spending that money on? Measure G does not sunset until 2023, so there is still time to find the
answer to this question before embarking on the path to a new ballot measure or to an extension of the
current ballot measure.
Approving funds for this RFP is the first step in authorizing the collection of additional city sales
taxes. Before you take that step, I urge you to direct staff to prepare a detailed accounting of General
Fund expenditures and Measure G expenditures showing why Public Works is no longer funded by the
General Fund, i.e., where that money went.
I do hope that at least one of you brings up this very perplexing - and very important - question during
the council meeting. Finding an answer to “Where did the money go?” certainly dovetails into the Fiscal
Sustainability and Responsibility Major City Goal. (emphasis added) And, hopefully, it may also preclude
the same thing from happening again.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Sandra Rowley
Resident, SLO
1
1
From:Johnson, Derek
Sent:Tuesday, February 5, 2019 10:06 AM
To:Sandra Rowley
Cc:CityClerk; Grigsby, Daryl
Subject:RE: Item 15, Potential Next Steps for Funding the Future
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Hello Sandy,
Thank you for reaching out to the City Council and perhaps some background and facts might be useful to help
illuminate the challenges and why Funding the Future is being brought forward and the Council is considering a
community engagement process to help understand the community’s support and desire to move forward to fund
various infrastructure projects and/or programs. I hope that this email clears up any misunderstandings and happy to
connect you with City staff so that we can explain how the Council has appropriated Measure G funds consistent with
the voter’s intent and REOC oversight.
As you know, Measure G was approved by the voters (Y‐70.32%, N 29.68%) in 2014 and sunsets in 2023. It replaced
Measure Y which was originally approved in 2006.
The specific language and questions on the ballot stated:
To protect and maintain essential services and facilities ‐‐ such as open space preservation; bike lanes
and sidewalks; public safety; neighborhood street paving and code enforcement; flood protection; senior
programs; and other vital services and capital improvement projects ‐‐ shall the City’s Municipal Code be
amended to extend the current one‐half percent local sales tax for eight years, with independent annual
audits, public goal‐setting and budgeting, and a Citizens’ Oversight Commission? ”
”
Shortly before the approval Measure G by voters, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1605 which established the
Citizen’s Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission (REOC) with a specific charter to …”review, report and make
recommendations regarding the use of revenues collected through the City’s voter‐approved general purpose, half
percent sales tax…” . The REOC provides recommendations directly to the City Council and is further chartered to
review the audited financial report for the use of the Measure G revenues. That review occurs annually with an annual
financial report produced prior to and made available to the public and then approved at a publicly held REOC
meeting. The annual reports cover each fiscal year and summarize both Measure G revenues and expenditures and an
abridgment of the annual report is distributed to each household by mail and copies of each and every annual report can
be found online at http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?dbid=1&startid=26714&row=1&cr=1. The bottom
line is that Measure G funding is General Fund dollars and are annually audited and accounted for separately with
oversight as described above by the REOC.
The City spends more than Measure G dollars on maintenance. The City uses general fund dollars (Public Works) for
maintenance of parks, streets, sidewalks, roads, trees, buildings, etc. The annual budget for all department is available
online and shows for example, that the budget for the current fiscal (18‐19) year for Public Works is $20 million which is
a mix of enterprise (parking), general fund, and some Measure G dollars. The point being that the Public Work’s budget
far exceeds the budgeted Measure G revenue for 18‐19 of approximately $7.5 million. Section F of the 18‐19 budget
2
provides detailed information of appropriated funding for the Measure G for both services and projects. The following
chart is a very useful tool to chart funding overtime related to CIP funding. The dip from 2009‐2014 coincides with the
great recession.
.
The overarching challenge and why the Funding of the Future initiative is being considered is that the City does not have
the ability with current resources to fund new or enhanced public infrastructure. That fiscal conclusion and reality was
reached last year after City Staff prepared a report that highlighted all of the capital projects needed over the next 20
years in conjunction with routine maintenance required to preserve existing capital assets. The Council also
conceptually approved the following prioritization of City capital projects:
• 1st – Annual Asset Maintenance (funded primarily through Local Revenue Measure and,
as of 2017, SB 1)
• 2nd – Asset Replacement
• 3rd – New Assets
A project that really exemplifies the challenge is the Police Station. An evaluation of the facility determined that it is
need of full replacement. Options were considered and ultimately it was determined that the current location was the
best site. The existing facility is over 50 years old, doe not meet a variety of seismic or other important codes, is
inadequate to support current and projected operational needs and has generally outlived its useful life. The cost to
replace the Police Station is approximately $60 million and this type of asset is one of those that is included in the report
that cannot be funded with existing funding resources.
The Police Station is part of the approximate $418 million in shortfall over the next 20 years. Also, none of the projects
in Funding the Future are enterprise fund projects. Each enterprise fund; Sewer, Water, Parking and Transit includes a
long‐term Capital Plan that assumes that fund is responsible for capital costs. Finally, since the Local Revenue Measure
(Measure G) and SB 1 funds are primarily used for maintaining existing infrastructure based on the priority to preserve
existing assets, there are currently no additional funds allocated for those needs in Funding the Future.
3
In summary, all of the Measure G funds have been accounted for in audits, reviewed by the REOC and reported to the
public and can be found in the links above. The needs for new or enhanced capital projects exceeds the City’s current
and projected financial resources and the purpose of tonight’s hearing is to continue a public engagement process to
learn more about community priorities, sentiments, and other relevant factors related to new funding options.
As always, my team is available to meet with you and walk you through the publicly available reports.
Sincerely yours,
Derek Johnson
City Manager
City Administration
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E djohnson@slocity.org
T 805.781.7114
slocity.org
From: Sandra Rowley <
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2019 7:07 PM
To: Harmon, Heidi <hharmon@slocity.org>; Christianson, Carlyn <cchristi@slocity.org>; Pease, Andy
<apease@slocity.org>; Gomez, Aaron <agomez@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica <estewart@slocity.org>
Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org>; Grigsby, Daryl <dgrigsby@slocity.org>
Subject: Item 15, Potential Next Steps for Funding the Future
Meeting Date: February 5, 2019
SUBJECT: Item 15, Potential Next Steps for Funding the Future
Dear Mayor Harmon and Members of the Council,
I had planned to attend this City Council meeting; however, I will not be able to do so.
I was surprised, astonished actually, when I learned during a previous council meeting that the Public Works budget for handling
routine maintenance tasks comes from Measure G funds. Upon hearing this and subsequently verifying it with the Public Works
director and the City Manager, I had one thought, “Where did the money go?”
Several years ago when the original city sales tax measure (Measure Y) was passed, funds collected from the additional sales tax
were to be spent on extra things. My understanding when the renewal measure (Measure G) was placed on the ballot was that it,
too, was to continue to fund the extras. Normal city functions, such as routine infrastructure maintenance tasks that Public Works
performs, were to continue coming from the General Fund. Obviously, that is no longer the case; thus, my surprise.
Because of the way Measures Y and G were written, the City’s sales tax was to be a general sales tax not a specific sales tax (only
specified uses allowed). However, we were assured that the funds collected would be used for the types of items listed on the ballot
and would not be used to “supplement” the General Fund. This is why the Finance Department put out an annual report, i.e., to
show the voters that funds were being spent as promised. And this is why a special oversight committee was established.
4
So what happened? Where did the General Fund money go that used to be for Public Works? What are we spending that money
on? Measure G does not sunset until 2023, so there is still time to find the answer to this question before embarking on the path to
a new ballot measure or to an extension of the current ballot measure.
Approving funds for this RFP is the first step in authorizing the collection of additional city sales taxes. Before you take that step, I
urge you to direct staff to prepare a detailed accounting of General Fund expenditures and Measure G expenditures showing why
Public Works is no longer funded by the General Fund, i.e., where that money went.
I do hope that at least one of you brings up this very perplexing ‐ and very important ‐ question during the council meeting. Finding
an answer to “Where did the money go?” certainly dovetails into the Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility Major City Goal.
(emphasis added) And, hopefully, it may also preclude the same thing from happening again.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Sandra Rowley
Resident, SLO