Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/16/1994, - RESULTS FROM OPEN SPACE FINANCING FORUM y' MEETING DATE: city of San LaiS OBISpo ITEM NUMBER COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT FROM: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer . Prepared By: Bill Statler, Director of Finance SUBJECT: RESULTS FROM OPEN SPACE FINANCING FORUM CAO RECOMNENDATION ■ Consider the results from the recent community forum on financing open space preservation. ■ Direct staff to evaluate the comments made by forum participants, including the proposal submitted by Lauren Brown, and return with an analysis and recommendation for further action. ■ Authorize staff to meet with the Land Conservancy to discuss ways ithey cau assist the City in implementing the open space element and, depending on the results of these discussions, return with an agreement for services for Council approval. DISCUSSION The community forum on financing open space preservation held on July 18, 1994 was very well attended. There were about fifty participants representing a broad range of interests. The forum began with presentations by City staff on the general purpose of the forum, key goals and objectives of the recently adopted open space element, status update on the parks & recreation element currently under review, and options for financing open space preservation. Provided in Exhibit A are the materials distributed by staff at the forum. A general discussion followed on whether we should set aside funds now for open space purchases, and if so, what the best sources of funding would be. A compilation of the comments, suggestions and ideas presented by participants is provided in Exhibit B. During this discussion, Dr. Lauren Brown presented written materials (Exhibit C) on his vision of how the City should go about funding a wide variety of "quality of life" improvements, including open space preservation. The forum concluded with a brief survey of the general thoughts and impressions of those attending on open space financing issues. A summary of responses to the survey is provided in Exhibit D. Initial Review of Forum Results Although the staff would like an opportunity to more fully analyze the results of this forum before preparing a recommended financing program for Council consideration, one of the strong themes that came forward from the forum was the need for the City to use the existing funds available for open space (about $1.4 million) before implementing a more aggressive ongoing program. In essence, there was consensus on the need for the City to demonstrate the tangible benefits of having funds available for open space preservation before we will be successful in generating broad based community support for raising the additional revenues meaningful o en space acquisition program. m1.1%111111�41city of sar. _JIS OBISPO All COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT During the discussion, both before and after the presentation by Lauren Brown, there was an overall sentiment that an active open space/parkland acquisition program would be for the benefit of the entire community. Therefore, the fairest way to pay for it would be with a multi-source financing program, with everyone paying in some way, as opposed to a single- source financing approach, which would weigh most heavily upon and penalize a particular group of people. Using the property transfer tax proposal as an example, there were expressions that it could be explored as a part of a "package" which had everyone paying something to become part of the solution, but there was no favor for it as the "stand alone" source of financing open space. Before this can begin, however, we need clear direction on acquisition candidates and priorities. For example, there are about 33,400 acres in the greenbelt area of the open space element. Obviously, not all of this area would be necessary, desirable, or financially feasible to purchase as open space; other strategies will need to be used for protecting these areas. We need to identify the most important properties for us to purchase given the amount of property to be preserved,'other protection strategies available to us, and our limited financial resources. The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County is experienced in preparing the type of information that will be necessary for us to develop in order to make wise acquisition decisions. Specific areas where the Land Conservancy can help the City include: ■ preparing an overlay of land ownership ■ inventorying existing public ownership and easements within the greenbelt ■ preparing an open space and greenbelt base map ■ assisting in landowner contacts ■ assisting in developing purchase priorities based on their findings and the criteria included in the open space element Based on initial contacts with the Land Conservancy, we believe the cost for these services will range between $15,000 and $25,000, which can be funded through the open space funds already set aside by the Council. Accordingly, we are recommending that the Council direct staff to discuss with the Land Conservancy ways they can help the City in implementing our open space element, and depending on the results of these discussions, return to Council with an agreement for your approval. EMMITS A. Community forum materials distributed by City staff 1. Agenda 2. Open space element summary 3. Parks and recreation element status update 4. Overview of options for financing open space preservation B. Compilation of comments, suggestions and ideas from forum participants C. Written material provided by Dr. Lauren Brown at the forum D. Summary of survey responses E. Letter sent to all forum participants requesting follow-up information summarizing the results of the forum (if requested, a copy of this agenda report has also been sent to them). COA4N4UNITY FORUM FINANCING OPEN SPACE1�b�t—�= 1. PRELIMINARY C01%4MENTS AND PRESENTATIONS (JD) A- Overview - basic questions (1) Is it a community objective that the City preserve/acquire Open Space? (2) Should this be a near-term or Iona-term goal? (3) What are possible sources of financing for Open Space acquisition? (JM) B. Explanation of City's adopted Open Space Element (1) What is the community value of open space? (2) What does the Element set forth as the City's policies? (3) How is Open Space defined? (AJ) (4) What are the ways open space can be preserved? (PL) C. Explanation of City's Parks and Recreation Element (under preparation) (1) What is it? (2) What is it intended to do? (3) What are some initial conclusions? - (BS) D. Possible sources of financing to obtain above objectives (1) What are the identified potential sources of financing? (2) What are the more workable, probable financing mechanisms? (3) Is there a best one (or best combination)? 2. DISCUSSION, RESPONSES BY FORUM PARTICIPANTS (1) Comments, ideas, suggestions 3. DEVELOPMENT OF SUGGESTED ACTION PLAN (1) Survey of Forum participants (2) Reporting back on results 4. SUMMARY OF "WHERE TO, FROM HERE?" A special "thank you" is given to each of you for being here, for being interested in this issue, and for helping to create a solution to a long-standing community concern. Exhibit 4- 2 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO OPEN SPACE ELEMENT SUMMARY The Open Space Element defines open space. The Open Space Element defines open space as all of he jolloiving: land or water area ivhich remains in a predominately natural or undeveloped stole. Such lands protect and preserve the convnuniry's natural and historical resources, define the urban boundoty, and provide visual and physical relief from urban developmen. Open spaces nray consist of small portions of a parcel or large trocts of land. Such lands may include famung and grazing; creels, marshes, watershed, and floodplain; scenic resources, plant and . animal habitat; historic and archaeological resources; and passive recreation areas.Open-space that is carefully planned and effectively managed can serve _ as the cololyst for physical development which provides for the safety and health, as well as the beoury, of the community. .fictive recreational uses, such as boll fields, sivimming pools, golf courses, community and neighborhood parks, and similor uses, are governed by and provided for in the Pastes and Recreation Element. Although these areas do not strictly meet the definition Of Open space, they provide many of the scone benefits and are viewed as complementary to designated Open space. The following categories of open space Ore important to the beauty, health and welfore of San Luis Obispo: natural areas & natural resources; land for the production offood and other products of economic value; cultural, historic, and archaeological resources,- passive esources;passive recreational uses; public health and safery (lard ivith hazardous conditions & public resource areas); areas designated to provide spatial definition (77.e. urban edge); scenic resources. The Open Space Element establishes a City greenbelt. The Greenbelt Map defines the greenbelt boundaries. Specific policies and programs are provided for the greenbelt. The Open Space Element identifies specific resources to be protected. For each type of resource goals, policies, and programs are stated to provide the protection. The resources addressed include:. hills and mountains; creeks; marshes, seeps, vernal pools, lakes, ponds, and other wetlands; grassland communities; plants and animals; hazard areas; historic, archaeological, and cultural resources; outdoor recreation; and urban edges. The Open Space Element contains strategies for protecting open space. The main protection strategies include: minimizing land use impacts through design regulations & site planning; mitigating impacts that do occur by replacing disturbed resources on- or off- site; acquiring partial interest or ownership of open space areas easements, dedications, or other form of acquisition. The proposed strategies are not intended to be exhaustive. Open space protection programs include direction that the City should pursue implementation of lona term financing mechanisms. g:UM\05EU4P.WKS Exhibit 3. City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Department PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT UPDATE The Parks and Recreation Element, one of several sections of the City of San Luis Obispo's general plan;is a master plan for a balanced park and recreation system. The approved document will allow for the development of park facilities and recreation programs that best meet the needs of the citizens of San Luis Obispo. The Element will: Analyze the existing Parks and Recreation System Determine where recreational needs are not being met - Present a plan to meet those needs Citizen participation is an important part of the Parks and Recreation Element Update. To secure input, the department has held several community meetings, distributed a needs questionnaire, and will soon conduct a phone survey. After gathering this information a draft element update will be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation commission in October. The initial conclusions presented to the commission will include a need for: Youth Athletic Fields. There are 2,900 children in this community involved in soccer, baseball, softball and football. There are 10-12 fields available for use. Perhaps twice that many are needed to adequately meet existing needs.. Neighborhood Parks. Research indicates that residents in at least five neighborhoods do not have access to a local park. Gymnasiums. Programs such as baseball, volleyball and exercise have over 2,000 regular participants. The Parks and Recreation Department has one gymnasium to meet their needs. The Element will contain short and long term solutions to address these needs, along with many others. The Element itself must be reviewed and approved by the Park and Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission prior to submission to the Council. The public is encouraged to comment at any of the hearings that will be conducted. Financing Open Space . ,eservation Exhibit ' -.. _. WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS? In conjunction With preparing the open space element,a comprehensive financial plan was prepared by Economic Research Associates (a national firm specializing in these kinds of analyses)an the options available to the City in funding its open space preservation goals. This report was completed in February of 1993 and is available from the Department of Parks&Recreation upon request at a cost of$4.00,which covers the direct cost of printing. The following is a summary of key findings and recommendations from this report: General Findings & Conclusions •� "If the City wants to commit itself to a signi5cant program of open space preserva tion and acq uisition,it has the fmancial rapacityto do so through a combination ofregulation and purcbase. Thisreport demonstrates that the Citycould fmance tbepurchase ofSlOmiUion to$20mLffon in open space acquisitions. Newrevenue sources would have to be implemented to do so;however there are a broad range of revenue options available to the Cityif open spacepurcbase is a high priority use oflimited public resources." •f Mie Citysbould exhaust its pobee power regulatory methods forpreserving open space,suchasresource protection ordinances, clusterzoninp andsubdivison dedication requirements, before rel}7ng'on public funds to purchase land for open space. Given the binned amount of funds available,publicfunds should only be used to purchase land where no other recourse forpreserva tion is feasible." Funding Options The plan presents and discusses in detail a wide range of funding options for purchasing open space when it can not be preserved some other way. It identifies several financing scenarios for the amount and kind of open space that could be preserved. Attached is an excerpt from the report summarizing the following information for each of the 23 funding sources evaluated in the plan: •t~ Financmgmetbod&briefdescription rt F.xistingstatus •f I Wbo pa}5 rt Pros&cons asa fmancwg source .► Howif is enacted rt I Possible uses(purchase,improvements or maintenance) Leading Resource Candidates The following is a summary of leading resource candidates and the value of open space purchases they could fund, assuming bond financing over a 30 year period. Approval Requirements Funding Special General Annual Purchase Source Description Pur ose Purpose Revenue Potentia General Set tax rate of 5.05 per 5100 of assessed value Two thirds not 51,200,000 516,000,000 Obligation (5%increase in general purpose property taxes voter applicable Bonds or about 510.40 per month for a 52.5UM home) approval Sales Tax Set local rate of 114% Countywide Countywide SI 500,000 518,750,000 Revenue Bonds Set local rate of 112% ?l3 voter a ry ma'voter a ry S3 000.000 S37,500,000 Assessment Set rate at 5530 per month for SFR parcels;set Council after not 51,200,000 514,118,000 District Bonds 1 equivalent rates for MFR&nonresidential parcels I protest hearing applicable Liaiiled.Obti atioa Bonds Sa' orted b rt'crcasci in General Fuad Souices Utility Increase existing rate Two thirds Council 51,228,000 515,350,000 Users Tax from 5%to 72555 voter approval Majority Tranisent Increase existing rate Two thirds Council 5390,000 $4,875,000 Occupancy Tax from 10%to 11.5% voter a ro%al Majority Property Set own rate—increases from existing rate of Two thirds Counul 5800,000 S 10,000,000 Transfer Tai SO-55 per$1,000 of value to$4.40 per 51,000 voter approval Majority L" W L • O < � Z G C C u. . e c c c d � c d E c a i c c a L'+ c • c • • c • • C • c • • C C • c • ' C n E C ° c Y 2. ] LL uE E u E E u E E o f u E E u u E r E E u n E u E E u E E << < _ d < _ • < _ _ < < < _ < _ < < O d < _ d < _ < ca a O o = c • w O ° o E • • O E 0 0 • N.C . 0 0 O > . • e 0 3 - • • S e c � 9 • 9 p O a • • ° E E a C C _ 7 • L'i C ° • V a • C • 0 e E o a i c - • y a a Q s v • i `o • e o c •- L • • e • ° o T : : E i • a = c e • e E 3 D o o a • > oe a o `o a r )° v n _ • o o f o i : o 0 _> _ • 0 = ° _ • 0.9 > ; 0 c C ° • Y e 9 Y C 0 c I e C i ° o ° • e • a i r L ° e CC f c i v i S E a i i ° e e a • O c e ^ Oe e c e a • < ° • w ] O d I e a u ° > E E < a i e a a 0 a e e • = °CL • c c e a • 3 • T i c T : = a • e c C o o • a c = c ° c • • • a • 6 a U G a a g • _ C = • a - n C c 0 0 L C • • c _C V c O ._ > 0 _ • 0 O c • V ` C w • • • • • + ^ • O C O V O C O C T i L o ° ° °e Z ° 2O a 6 c c a c a O u C O v i c a o a • 9 c O e !' a c o n : a v C • 0 e 2 _ i U • C O • u r • • O c > • a : O > Y e e e E c u C `• a ` a e E T ~ f : i c c : • T O a 7 10, ILa • V • ` t i • a 0 x c d • _ o ° • e n • e ■ e a a s o J v a a c a i a • i 9 - : a 2 a E C c o • a a c e a s a ° a c • � ' u e c u•t Z e a < u i n U= 04 P 2 .p u u °u a 5 2 u u a E U a a 2 = = n e . • C3 E ] ~ ~ e i C 4 r • V c i w d E C ' U e • ' ° • '_ S o> a a o ° _> E : a x e e_c o a Y = 3 u o u r) u C : c Y Y a u E s u = i u - • ° u O • ■ O 0 • • • • • • 0 • 0 C • M. ] a ? i o a .0 a c a a D a = c a • i i E = cCc a a O < < O = ? c u U E U u a V c 3 U n U 4 +° a' u° U d a 0 • > G E ° ° a • i • • c • o i _> Y • a i 0 0 0 = C • • • C : >a r V o - i • a 0 e a • p c • 3 a ; • 0 0 v > ■ 0 0 a o e 7i c ° 7 Y • i • ar c ae 9 a IOL c • a a a e ° 5 E e s a 0 S • • _> c • d c a 0, a o • a t 9 _ e _> > i > i ° O > o > _> > G $ W W 9 U L w j �J (7 0 A 6 r 0 V n ti d • 2 gD n e 'c c o : c c d • a u • 6 p Q i i n _ ] U > c + • ° -- ° E i 7 p j o E e °c CL t c a m e - e p °o ■ e am CL c o c D ' = 9 c ° 9 c e 'o ° a 0 o C e ^ c a a • e i a 2 : a e a o : < o T o a 9 E w c o _c u °e 9 9 i • : 7 + : . u E = c ° • s° a ° a e E = v c ° ' > ` e e c c d u y 0 c c 2 a ►` CL° V m w i ° E m° C. w ae P n E o 7 E 0 a ° • e = p a ~ e e e o 'o e o E cc t ° .0 ° • E c < ° ca c °V •� �_' . • c • 0 • u • _ Z j ] _ N 0 C 0 i e W K • > • • "i u O W • i F C a • p _ i • _ C • • - < C V 0 ■ 7 c 9 c a i i i s a a ° e . • i i o o W 3 n c r w b L V 0 < Z L c7 n D i : • y • Y ^ • c c c c c d o d o c c : c C c %0 C `o E s E e ° E c ° E a e E e E • E :, E E e E e C3 a 0 E a n 'v S E e a E v a E n 2 c i a E n E n E o f < Ea < Ed < E E u EeE < : • e a eu T ac u 3 0 0 � = DL a7 oEc Z a d s e = i• d i c ° a o ° ^ ° c c o w c e c a a c w a is c • E e 0 D c . • ] a° >. n a e a a o ° ° o c a o ° c V ° G 3 • L = L V ° - c ] 6 L O • Y ° u 0 _ u o _ ■ E E o o a a = a c c ^ v e ° u O n ° C j : V o ! i � E y O Wo ; T O D Q : p O • c > > i 7 • C L ] O D a • C O C > • • C • 0 • i D 0 E ? v ¢ c i ° : c ¢ c V p ° c D `e 3 ¢ O • - _ u O u o ^ E ► • r • • C + y O Y = G G 9 6 q O O ! O �'' e • i ] ° ] o . i o w 6 O L ] i� a r O Q O • 0 0 ; O C c n c n 0 ° Y O ° a Y C C Y O e L ! u C c i O e • i • Ol j O a C • a • a a __ L ! D O u ! • a t c 0 7 p ° C • ° • c C c o c e e • ^ = 3 • e = 3 5 = c L - > ] e t o • c ° • • • -e • o p ^ O ° v n° E6 x u E z e o c i u z E u z 3 z u z U y . o ° u c o a o e ► a ' 2 cc 0 0 0 o a o a ° e n o S o cc < = y p p o U, ulC. ! t • m • o O i o w e O N e u C • O O L • O C1 • 0 . C c ] • O 0 c 0 C Y O • V • T • • y C C C L C p C O • �_ > c D 2 o Z U z 2 0 Z D U ] + w y u w W U 2 CO N c 0 : T G p = 0 p r 0 0 F ° C y - a S I:J • • p O : C C G ~ r C CC 0 • p L O O O • C • O • - J d 3 < C • Y Y • • u ° • - - � Z 0 Z i � � ° 7 • �_ 0 7 F � • ° Y • j ° • > � • > Y V u u u = ° ° 6 c C C • y D • t c 9 w c Q w U U V c u - - - c j a � D : • • 3 C L C ! • 6 Y c C � � L G L i t c c T c E n - C o e = n n 9 0 0 a o n d Cc E E 0 C : y r • r C 0• d Y 6 C 6 C n • •• r • Y ° � S C n> 0 °• - i i V > - • O � O � O1 • r'E = O n c O n . O • O O i 6 v U `e 6 ¢ • . 0 • a • c 24 a • n o r • c •a • : o ° a • • ° °cc 13 L a S = • ° e E mt: gS ° _ E eE ° E ate • ao 'e D L > u D • o = • • • C • O eMd 0 i L • O C .0 C > a C • C O Y Y L 6 > p D O 6 • D ° • • • •n oED Vdda of �Y C Z O n d o o ee ° e 0 r o • •C o_ O eps • 0 • °• • u < L ° • ° E o e E 0 • n a i 7 9 i F : r i F ¢ • • i e u u o. s Y i ° a • ° ° ° i Y e • o di a • • o S - i C a m Exhibit Community Forum on Financing Open Space Preservation July 189 1994 COMMENTS, SUGGESTIONS AND IDEAS FROM FORUM PARTICIPANTS The following is a compilation of the comments, suggestions and ideas generated by the participants at the community forum on financing open space preservation held on July 18, 1994. ■ Resources for financing open space should come from a broad community-wide revenue base, since the whole community will benefit. This supports the concept of using an assessment district as a primary resource in financing open space preservation. ■ In identifying key pieces of open space to preserve, we should consider cultural resources as a high priority (for example, converting a farmhouse to a community resource; preserving native american resources). ■ Increasing the transient occupancy tax (TOT) would be an acceptable source of financing open space acquisitions. This would enable a significant portion of our open space acquisition to be paid by those who visit our community. It would have a minimal impact on tourism since the TOT rate is not a major factor considered by tourists in determining their travel plans. • The utility users tax would be a good source of funding open space, since it is also a broad based financing source. • Written materials distributed by Dr. Lauren Brown at the forum identify a number of concept. His proposal would: Fund a broad range of "quality of life" programs, including open space preservation. Raise between $3-4 million annually for this purpose, an increase of about 10% in the City's current budget. Set a 10 year program that would need to be renewed if it is to continue beyond this period. - Use a "pay-as-you-go" approach for funding capital improvements because of the I0 year time frame. Create an advisory body of 7 to 9 members representing a broad range of interests in the community to develop this program. • Financing programs should be as broad based as possible, which argues against an increase in the property transfer tax. Would it be possible to place a fee or tax for this purpose on our water and sewer bill? ■ Small pocket parks should be part of our open space preservation program. ■ We should consider the financial goals of land owners from whom we might purchase property. For example, creating an income stream for them through a life estate or other method might result in overall lower costs than direct acquisition. ■ The property transfer tax should not be used as a primary funding source; we need to consider the economic impact of additional closing costs on buyers and others who sell to new property owners (ie. large appliances; landscaping). ■ We should focus our open space preservation efforts on what the City can do. The City has been much more successful than the County in preserving open space. Although regional wide efforts are desirable, we shouldn't allow our ability to act to be constrained by others. In considering the "comprehensive" versus "do something now" approach to financing open space, we need to consider the following: - the financing source needs to be broadly based - increasing the transient occupancy tax is not easy, especially in terms of its potential impact on our tourist economy - increasing the property transfer tax is not fair because it would be so narrowly based - in considering general obligation bonds, the need to achieve a two thirds voter approval is not so bad, because it assures that there is in fact broad based support for the program - in developing support for new revenue sources, we need to be site specific in identifying the open space properties we would buy - the financing source should not be specific to individual groups; it needs to be broadly based, to involve the whole community. ■ In crafting an open space preservation financing program, we need to ask ourselves: what approaches have others taken in successfully generating community support for financing open space acquisitions (ie. Sonoma County has a quarter cent sales tax; an assessment district for open space preservation was recently approved in Los Angeles County)? what works best for the landowner (ie. creating an income stream, installment sale, life estate, trust fund, etc.)? ■ Before developing new resources, we need to wisely use the funds we currently have available for open space acquisition [$1.4 million currently available]. ■ Increasing the county-wide sales tax by one half or one quarter percent would be a good financing source. ■ The utility users tax should not be considered as a primary funding source for open space acquisition since it shifts a disproportionate share of financing to business, where utilities are an important resource in the manufacturing process. ■ Even though an assessment district approach would be broad based, it can be very regressive on a flat basis; as such, perhaps it should be used in combination with other sources. ■ We should consider allocating a specific percentage of the budget for open space acquisition. ■ Until we have some demonstrated successesin in open space acquisition, we should use pay-as-you-go financing rather than debt financing. ■ We need to move along in our open space acquisition - we need to accomplish something specific; then we will be able to generate community support for future long- term financings. ■ We should seriously consider the concepts outlined in Dr. Brown's proposal. ■ We should focus any initial purchases in the greenbelt area using existing resources that are available [$1.4 million]. ■ We need to identify the most important parcels that need to be acquired in order to complete the greenbelt. ■ We need to demonstrate tangible success in acquiring important pieces of open space before proceeding with a major financing program ■ Property should only be purchased from willing sellers. ■ We need to solicit interest from land owners and involve them in the planning process. ■ We need to develop more youth athletic facilities. In creating the above listing' we listened and listed and gave equal weight to everyone's input. While there was a great deal of consistency in the suggestions, there needs to be a follow-up process, as incorporation into the staff recommendations. OW-1 SCUNS." Exhibit�c. _.. .. . A Quality of Life Action Plan for San Luis Obispo The Need The city of San Luis Obispo has established itself as a city that is firmly committed to maintaining its environment and quality of life. Specific examples include proposals to maintain a green belt around the city including farm land and hillsides, to maintain a large amount of open space within the city, to construct bicycle and walking paths along the San Luis Creek in an extension of downtown creek-side park and plaza, and to preserve historical buildings. All of these projects, and more like them, if executed properly would not only maintain, but greatly enhance our environment and quality of life and ensure its continuance for future generations. Such projects have a significant monetary cost. In recent years the primary meansby which San Luis Obispo has used to finance such projects are the traditional ones that put the main burden on businesses and landowners, either through taxation or through restrictions on the ways in which landowners are permitted to use their land. These approaches have the effect of placing the burden of the large financial costs for the projects on a relatively small part of the population. A Proposal for a New Approach in San Luis Obispo This is the city that has voted repeatedly, often with large majorities, to adopt various proposals that are seen as protecting our quality of life or our environment. A list of such votes are summarized in the Land-Use Element as adopted by the City Council recently. Further, during the recent debates regarding the various provisions of the Land-Use Element there has been strong input from the business community that it, too, is very concerned about the protection of the quality of life in San Luis Obispo. In turn, many in the environmental groups have indicated that they are serious about maintaining an environment that is supportive of healthy businesses. Consequently, I believe that the city of San Luis Obispo, if effectively led by a coalition of business, environmental, neighborhood, agricultural and other groups, would respond positively at the ballot box to approve a measure that would provide financing to be used for a broad'quality of life program that would include acquisition of open space or development rights. But it should also address broader opportunities, such as an extension of the Mission Plaza, bike paths, parks, and other improvements-in the community. This should be a long-tern-4 comprehensive program. It should be bold. It should challenge our whole city to be willing to put real money where we have professed our hearts to be. It should be a broad-based revenue-raising measure so that everyone in the community is making a contribution. It should be discussed widely, with full public input, culminated with voter approval. There are several specific elements to this proposal: 1. The mayor and city council should appoint a broad-based advisory committee of 7 - 9 people with representation from business, environmental, neighborhood, agricultural and other groups to evaluate and prioritize various proposals to enhance the quality of life. This committee should be constituted following the November elections in order to avoid politicizing the process and in order to make this a project to be shepherded by the 1995-96 city council. 2. The committee would also consider various revenue-raising measures that would raise sufficient funds to finance the list of projects. Cost-effectiveness should be a paramount concern. I believe serious consideration should be given to a combination of taxes, including increases in sales tax, property tax, motel and restaurant taxes and other so that all who benefit from the enhancements to,the community would contribute financially and so that the burden is not concentrated on any single group. The total raised from San Luis Obispo should be $3,000,000 to $4,000,000 annually, which is approximately 10% of our current city budget. 3. Contact with other cities and with the county should be made to encourage them to participate in a county-wide program. This would enable a regional approach and make possible consideration of bold county-wide programs, as well as individual city projects. This would also make possible the utilization of a sales tax increase, which can only be implemented on a county-wide basis. 4. The levy should have a sunset after 10 years, with continuance of the program requiring fresh voter approval. 5. The funds so raised must be restricted only to the approved projects and not be used to cover general city expenses. 6. The committee would also prepare proposed language for the ballot measure. 7. The city council would be consulted at appropriate times as to progress of the committee's deliberations and would ultimately approve the list of projects, the proposed revenue measures and the wording of the ballot measure. 6. Following approval by the city council, the proposed measure would be circulated as widely as possible with interested groups, businesses, and interested individuals taking the lead in obtaining adequate signatures to place the measure on the ballot for the June, 1996 primary election. This process would be utilized as an essential part of educating the public about the opportunity and be an important step toward generating the broad support needed for the program. 7. The advisory committee would also periodically update the list of approved projects and work closely to advise the city council of new opportunities. Advantages Approval of this concept would place San Luis Obispo in a leadership position as a community with the willingness to put its money where its heart has been. If supported by all segments of our community this could do much to unify the city behind a common vision. It could increase pride that we were willing to adopt the most broadly based taxes to achieve special projects that most communities only dream about. It could create an excitement about what choices our community might make in using these funds. We could think realistically of targeting completion of a large number of projects to create parks, preserve scenic hillsides and a greenbelt around the city, create bicycle and hiking paths and a variety of other projects that seem out of reach now. It could enhance our county as a destination for'green tourism', particularly if the entire county were interested to participate. Progress could be tracked with public displays that would allow the community to see where its money is going and how much progress has been made. Solicitations for individuals to make dedications of land or development rights could be sought to supplement the program and might be more likely to occur if the whole - community was also contributing. This proposal would not create additional bureaucracy because each of the proposed taxes is already being collected and no extra machinery would be needed. Annual retail sales in the city of San Luis Obispo have been in the range of$400,000,000 to $500,000,000. Therefore, a 0.5% sales tax alone could raise approximately $2,000,000. The other taxes could raise a comparable amount and make sure that the total package is not seen to be regressive taxation. A fund of the magnitude of $3,000,000 to $4,000,000 annually could allow San Luis Obispo to achieve some very significant, bold goals. Our example could be used to challenge the county to approve a similar tax which could be used in a broader program to preserve many of the natural resources throughout the county. Offsetting the Disadvantage The obvious disadvantage is that these taxes represents an additional cost that voters in this state have been very reluctant to approve. There may be concern among retail businesses, motels and restaurants that customers would make the decision to go elsewhere. I believe this possibility could be offset by public programs to inform and to instill a pride in what our community is doing. This is a special city, and has led the way before, in matters such as the no-smoking in public places ordinance. This is an idealistic concept, but if effectively presented to our citizens, I believe our voters would approve such a bold proposal. Respectively submitted by Lauren R. Brown Community Forum on Financing Open Space Preservation Exhibit D July 18, 1994 SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESPONSES The following summarizes survey responses from participants at the community forum on financing open space preservation held on July 18, 1994: © Should we set money aside now for purchasing open space? Yes 26 No 6 © If yes, what are the best sources for buying open space? . . . . . and if you don't necessarily think it's a "best source", which sources would you support? Best Would Source Source Support General obligation bonds 0 19 Sales tax increase 12 28 Assessment district 24 30 Utility users tax increase 0 9 Transient occupancy tax increase 4 13 Property transfer tax increase 2 10 Program suggested by Lauren Brown 25 33 Use existing resources 4 19 Use funds set aside for water supply 2 6 development for combination open space reservation &groundwater © Should parkland purchases be part of an open space financing program? (purchase only—not developmen; maintenance or programs) • Passive use parks? (nature reserves, trails) Yes 29 No 1 • Active use parks? (neighborhood parks,playing Selds) Yes 725No LOSSURV Exhibit ��►►�d��������i�i��►��►III�I llf p��11°°� IIII Cityo SM WIs OBISPO 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 July 28, 1994 Dear "Financing Open Space Preservation Forum" Participants, I want to thank you for your participation at the recent community forum on financing open space preservation. Attached for your information is a compilation of the comments, suggestions and ideas generated by forum participants. Also attached is a summary of responses.from the brief survey conducted at the end of the forum. One question asked at the forum that we did not have an answer for at that time was the size of the greenbelt area in the City's open space element. We have since measured this area, and the total comes to about 33,400 acres. As we discussed at the forum, it would not be necessary, desirable, or financially feasible to purchase all of this property as open space; obviously, other strategies will need to be used in protecting these areas. . We plan to bring the results of the forum to the Council at their August 16 meeting and seek direction on where to go from here. 'We will be happy to provide you with a copy of the agenda report upon your request. Again, thank you for your participation at this forum. If you have any questions on the attached materials, or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. We appreciate your being there and offering your thoughts on commencing this most important activity in preserving and enhancing the special qualities of San Luis Obispo. Sincerely, John D inistrative Officer P.S. If we have made an error in your mailing address or the spelling of your name, please contact Ella Goven, Department of Finance, at 781-7130 so we can correct this information for future updates on the City's open space program. ATTACHIDIENTS ■ Comments, suggestions and ideas generated by forum participants ■ Summary of survey responses OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services. programs and activities. L� Telecommunications Deviee for the Deaf (805) 781.7410.