HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-20-12 BAC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Regular meeting of the
SAN LUIS OBISPO BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Council Hearing Room, City Hall
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
September 20, 2012 Thursday 7 p.m.
MISSION:
The purpose of the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) is to provide oversight and policy
direction on matters related to bicycle transportation in San Luis Obispo and its relationship to
bicycling outside the City.
ROLL CALL: Bill Bradlee (Chair), Peter Deragon (Vice Chair), Chris Black, Catherine
Machado, Howard Weisenthal, Arlene Winn, and Jim Woolf.
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, the public is invited to address the Committee concerning
items not on the agenda but are of interest to the public and within the subject matter jurisdiction
of the Bicycle Advisory Committee. The Committee may not discuss or take action on issues
that are not on the agenda other than to briefly respond to statements made or questions raised,
or to ask staff to follow up on such issues.
MINUTES: June 14, 2012 (Attachment 1)
ACTION ITEMS:
1. City Budget Goals, draft BAC recommendations
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
2. Committee Items:
3. Staff Items:
• Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
• Annual Bicycle Rodeo
• LOVR Bike Path Update
• Bob Jones Trail Updates
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including the disabled in all of its services, programs, and
activities. Please contact the Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
ACTION ITEMS:
Agenda Item #1: City Budget Goals - draft BAC recommendations
Introduction: Every two years the City Council adopts a Financial Plan (sometimes called a two-
year budget). This Plan spells out how the City will spend money on programs and projects for
the next two years. As part of this process, all advisory groups are invited to submit budget
goals for Council consideration. The process for providing this information is a two-step process.
In the first step, the advisory body develops preliminary goals, due November 10 (the subject of
this meeting). In the second step, the advisory body reviews the preliminary recommendations
of the other advisory bodies and finalizes its recommendations.
Council goals, by their nature, usually tend to be broader in scope than the work programs
developed by advisory bodies. City Council is seeking advisory body input on:
• What are the most important goals the City should pursue in the next two years?
• Why is each goal important as a community priority?
• How might the goal be accomplished (creative funding or implementation ideas)?
Using the Bicycle Transportation Plan projects and policies as a general guide, the focus of the
BAC’s recommendations is to identify the most important bicycling related activities to pursue.
To help guide this effort, Committee members should review the following:
• Top ranked draft 2012 Bicycle Transportation Plan projects (Attachment 2). This lists the top
three ranked projects by project “class”, as well as the top ten overall. The top three listing
was previously presented to the BAC following the June, 2012 meeting. For full project
descriptions, view the draft plan projects on the City’s web site (page numbers have been
provided).
• “Budget-In-Brief, 2011-13 Financial Plan”. The “Major City Goals” outlines the City’s current
priorities. (Attachment 3)
• Final Bicycle Advisory Committee Budget Goals for FY 2011-13. (Attachment 4)
• 2011-13 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) approved projects. Note that while projects listed
here have been approved by City Council for inclusion in the CIP, any costs identified in
2013-2014 or later have not received funding approvals. (Attachment 5)
The Bob Jones City-to-Sea Trail connection to LOVR and the Railroad Safety Trail- Hathway
to Taft are not included on this list because they have been funded and scheduled for
construction in 2013.
Next Steps: The BAC’s preliminary goals will be transmitted to the Finance Department. The
Finance staff will assemble a master list of all preliminary advisory body goals for a final review
by the Committee at its November 15, 2012 meeting. At that time, the BAC can review the goal
statements, provide additional refinements or identify new goals, and forward final
recommendations to the City Council.
Staff Recommendation: The BAC should formulate preliminary goals to be forwarded to the
Finance Department.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Agenda Item # 2: Committee Items
•
Agenda Item # 3: Staff Items
• Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
• Annual Bicycle Rodeo
• LOVR Bike Path Update
• Bob Jones Trail Updates
• Items for next meeting
o _____________________________
o _____________________________
The next meeting will be held: November 15, 2012
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Minutes of June 14, 2012
2. Top ranked draft 2012 Bicycle Transportation Plan projects
3. “Budget-In-Brief, 2011-13 Financial Plan”
4. Final Bicycle Advisory Committee Budget Goals for FY 2011-13
5. Current year CIP approved projects
G:\Transportation-Data\_Unsorted Stuff\Transportation\Transportation Committees\Bike Committee\BACAgendas\2012
DRAFT MINUTES 1
Special Meeting of the 2
SAN LUIS OBISPO BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3
Conference Room #1 4
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo 5
6
7
June 14, 2012 Thursday 7 p.m. 8
9
MISSION: 10
The purpose of the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) is to provide oversight and policy 11
direction on matters related to bicycle transportation in San Luis Obispo and its relationship to 12
bicycling outside the City. 13
14
ROLL CALL: Bill Bradlee (Chair), Pete Deragon (Vice Chair), Chris Black, Catherine 15
Machado, Howard Weisenthal, Arlene Winn, and Jim Woolf 16
17
STAFF MEMBERS: Kevin Christian, Jennifer Milam, and Peggy Mandeville 18
19
20
PUBLIC COMMENT: 21
22
There was no public comment. 23
24
MINUTES: May 31, 2012 25
26
Action: CM Bradlee moved to approve the minutes as submitted. CM Weisenthal seconded 27
the motion. CM Deragon and CM Woolf abstained due to absence at the meeting. The motion 28
passed. 29
30
ACTION ITEMS: 31
32
Agenda Item #1. 2012 Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) Update 33
34
Staff presented an overview of the changes to the BTP Update to date and a recap of member 35
comments. There was general Committee discussion. 36
37
CM Weisenthal felt strongly the document should reflect that a strong, vital bicycle community 38
exists. 39
40
Summary of Discussion Points: 41
42
Introduction 43
44
• Clean-up the document further to ensure the text/direction is consistent 45
• List Morro St. Bike Blvd. as a completed project 46
• Re Maps: review the content and insure colors and symbols represent well in both color and 47
Black and White, that naming be consistent with text, and defined areas are referenced. 48
• List “Downtown” first under “Attractions” 49
• Define “head of household” 50
Attachment 1 1
• Include actual number of riders where available and beneficial 1
• Include national and/or state statistics in the Economic Development section. Chair Bradlee 2
to provide sources. 3
• Define “multimodal” 4
5
Chapter 1, Bicycle Transportation Network 6
7
• Change Objective #4 to read “20% bike mode share” 8
• Modify design to highlight Policies 9
• Include a graphic or other info. to help users find the City Web Site “Report a Problem” 10
button 11
• Supply the BAC with a listing of the top project priorities by type. Using this listing and BAC 12
feedback, include the top two priority projects for each facility type in the BTP facility type 13
general discussion (draft plan pages 23, 24, 25). 14
o Bike Blvd. Discussion 15
CM Bradlee requested that the BTP include discussion on the cost 16
effectiveness of bicycle boulevards, their ability to be fit in to a built-out 17
environment, and the attraction they have for new bike transportation users. 18
Staff agreed to expand the language/discussion on bike boulevards to 19
highlight their benefit. 20
21
Chapter 2, Bicycle Parking and Support Facilities 22
23
• Include parking garages and transit centers in to policy 2.19 under “Long-term Bicycle 24
Parking” 25
26
Chapter 3, Bicycle Education and Promotion 27
28
• Modify design to help highlight objectives 29
• Include specific numbers/counts whenever possible 30
• Evaluate policies 3.3 and 3.4 under “Citywide Partnerships” for redundancy and/or 31
separation 32
• “Enforcement” section should be more substantive and equal 33
34
Chapter 4, Implementation 35
36
• Modify design to help highlight objectives 37
• Include a sentence re the priority of the Grand Jury response 38
• Include additional ranking process and score creation discussion from pg. 41 of the 2007 39
BTP under the Implementation of Projects/Project Priority Criteria sections 40
41
General 42
43
• Include “Draft 2012 Bicycle Transportation Plan Introduction” summary of changes in the 44
final BTP. 45
• Include more photos 46
• Include a statement clarifying boundaries of project areas 47
• Create Appendix B to be an “actions matrix” 48
49
50
51
Attachment 1 2
Due to the lateness of the hour, staff proposed that the Committee email further comments to 1
staff, who will then publish a public hearing document. Once that is finalized, that document 2
would be forwarded to the Planning Commission. 3
4
CM Bradlee moved to approve the staff recommendation as outlined. CM Machado seconded 5
the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6
7
8
9
DISCUSSION ITEMS: 10
11
Agenda Item #2: Committee Items 12
13
14
15
Agenda Item #3: Staff Items 16
17
There was brief discussion concerning if there was a need to meet at the regular July meeting. 18
19
CM Machado moved to cancel the regular July meeting. CM Weisenthal seconded the motion. 20
The motion passed unanimously. 21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Action: CM Black motioned to adjourn. CM Machado seconded the motion. The motion 29
passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. to the regular meeting to be held 30
September 20, 2012. 31
32
33
34
35
Respectfully submitted, 36
37
Lisa Woske 38
Recording Secretary 39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
G:\Transportation-Data\_Unsorted Stuff\Transportation\Transportation Committees\Bike Committee\BAC Minutes\2012\061412 50
Attachment 1 3
This page intentionally left blank.
Dr
a
f
t
2
0
1
2
B
T
P
-
T
o
p
3
r
a
n
k
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
b
y
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
t
y
p
e
(
C
l
a
s
s
)
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
/
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
* Page in 2012 draft plan
Class
Priority
School Zone Pavement Area Length (feet)
Estimated Cost
Commuting
Safety
RecreationalTraffic Flow
Educates
EncouragesImplementationLinks
Schools
Regional
Project Rank
Ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
S
a
f
e
t
y
T
r
a
i
l
(
R
R
S
T
)
A3
9
I,
I
I
,
I
I
I
Fi
r
s
t
BP
1
26
7
7
3
$1
6
,
9
5
6
,
5
0
0
4.
6
7
4.
5
0
4.
3
3
3.
8
3
2.
0
0
4.
5
0
2.
8
3
4.
5
0
4.
3
3
4.
0
0
39
.
5
0
Hw
y
1
0
1
C
l
a
s
s
I
-
N
o
r
t
h
B
r
o
a
d
t
o
1
0
1
a
t
M
a
r
s
h
S
t
.
A3
5
I
Fi
r
s
t
BP
7
33
2
0
$2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
4.
7
1
4.
5
7
4.
4
3
3.
5
7
1.
7
1
4.
2
9
2.
4
3
4.
7
1
4.
1
4
2.
8
6
37
.
4
3
Bo
b
J
o
n
e
s
C
i
t
y
-
t
o
-
S
e
a
T
r
a
i
l
(
B
J
T
)
A7
6
I,
I
I
,
I
I
I
Fi
r
s
t
HA
4
17
1
3
8
$6
,
0
0
5
,
6
0
0
3.
8
3
4.
1
7
4.
8
3
3.
0
0
2.
1
7
4.
1
7
2.
8
3
4.
3
3
3.
1
7
4.
3
3
36
.
8
3
So
u
t
h
S
t
.
C
h
a
n
n
e
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
t
B
r
o
a
d
A9
1
II
Fi
r
s
t
HA
4
10
0
$5
0
0
4.
1
4
4.
2
9
3.
5
7
3.
7
1
2.
4
3
3.
2
9
3.
2
9
3.
4
3
2.
8
6
2.
4
3
33
.
4
3
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
/
H
i
g
u
e
r
a
/
S
o
u
t
h
C
h
a
n
n
e
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
A9
2
II
Fi
r
s
t
HA
4
20
0
$1
,
0
0
0
4.
4
3
4.
5
7
3.
4
3
3.
5
7
2.
4
3
3.
4
3
3.
2
9
3.
4
3
2.
2
9
2.
4
3
33
.
2
9
Hw
y
1
0
1
/
M
a
r
s
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
U
n
d
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
A1
5
II
Fi
r
s
t
HA
4
14
3
0
$1
6
,
0
0
0
3.
1
7
4.
5
0
4.
1
7
3.
3
3
2.
0
0
3.
6
7
2.
5
0
3.
3
3
2.
6
7
1.
8
3
31
.
1
7
Br
o
a
d
S
t
.
B
i
k
e
B
l
v
d
.
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
H
w
y
.
1
0
1
A9
BB
Fi
r
s
t
HA
4
5,
3
4
5
$5
,
0
2
5
,
0
0
0
4.
7
1
4.
0
0
4.
0
0
3.
2
9
1.
8
6
3.
5
7
2.
1
4
3.
8
6
4.
4
3
2.
4
3
34
.
2
9
Ce
r
r
o
R
o
m
a
u
l
d
o
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
B
l
v
d
.
A2
4
BB
Fi
r
s
t
BP
7
2,
8
9
0
$1
5
,
0
0
0
4.
0
0
4.
5
7
3.
4
3
2.
8
6
2.
5
7
4.
0
0
3.
4
3
3.
4
3
4.
7
1
1.
0
0
34
.
0
0
Ca
s
a
t
o
T
o
r
o
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
B
l
v
d
.
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
H
w
y
1
0
1
A4
BB
Fi
r
s
t
BP
1
1,
5
1
5
$4
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
4.
8
3
4.
5
0
3.
1
7
3.
1
7
1.
3
3
4.
3
3
1.
5
0
3.
8
3
4.
3
3
2.
1
7
33
.
1
7
No
t
e
:
T
h
e
"
o
t
h
e
r
"
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
i
s
a
c
a
t
c
h
-
a
l
l
.
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
b
e
l
o
w
a
r
e
t
o
p
r
a
n
k
e
d
G
S
X
,
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
a
n
d
a
c
c
e
s
s
p
o
i
n
t
s
.
No
r
t
h
C
h
o
r
r
o
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
A3
1
ot
h
e
r
Fi
r
s
t
BP
7
20
0
$5
,
0
0
0
3.
8
6
4.
5
7
3.
1
4
3.
5
7
2.
5
7
3.
7
1
3.
4
3
3.
1
4
3.
8
6
2.
0
0
33
.
8
6
Sa
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
a
t
B
o
y
s
e
n
,
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
d
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
A2
7
ot
h
e
r
Fi
r
s
t
BP
7
17
0
$1
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
4.
1
4
4.
8
6
3.
1
4
4.
0
0
1.
2
9
4.
1
4
2.
0
0
4.
0
0
4.
2
9
1.
7
1
33
.
5
7
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
/
F
e
r
r
i
n
i
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
A2
9
ot
h
e
r
Fi
r
s
t
BP
7
N/
A
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
4.
2
9
4.
8
6
2.
5
7
3.
2
9
2.
0
0
4.
0
0
2.
2
9
4.
0
0
4.
4
3
0.
8
6
32
.
5
7
So
u
t
h
H
i
l
l
s
/
M
a
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
A
r
e
a
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
A9
4
ot
h
e
r
Fi
r
s
t
HA
3
3,
2
9
0
$8
0
0
,
0
0
0
2.
8
6
2.
8
6
4.
7
1
2.
7
1
1.
4
3
3.
5
7
2.
7
1
4.
0
0
3.
2
9
2.
0
0
30
.
1
4
Vi
s
t
a
L
a
g
o
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
A1
2
2
ot
h
e
r
Se
c
o
n
d
SM
6
51
5
n/
a
2.
8
3
4.
1
7
3.
1
7
2.
3
3
1.
5
0
3.
1
7
3.
1
7
3.
5
0
4.
8
3
1.
3
3
30
.
0
0
Pa
t
r
i
c
i
a
/
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
/
L
a
E
n
t
r
a
d
a
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
A2
8
ot
h
e
r
Se
c
o
n
d
BP
7
N/
A
$5
0
,
0
0
0
3.
2
9
4.
8
6
2.
2
9
2.
7
1
1.
8
6
3.
4
3
2.
1
4
3.
4
3
4.
8
6
1.
0
0
28
.
8
6
Je
n
n
i
f
e
r
S
t
.
b
r
i
d
g
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
M
o
r
r
o
S
t
.
A1
7
ot
h
e
r
Se
c
o
n
d
HA
2
30
0
$1
2
0
,
0
0
0
3.
0
0
3.
5
7
2.
8
6
2.
8
6
1.
1
4
3.
0
0
2.
4
3
3.
0
0
2.
0
0
1.
4
3
25
.
2
9
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
d
e
l
C
a
m
p
o
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
A6
8
ot
h
e
r
Se
c
o
n
d
SI
2
40
$1
0
,
0
0
0
2.
5
0
2.
6
7
3.
3
3
1.
0
0
0.
6
7
2.
6
7
2.
6
7
2.
5
0
2.
5
0
0.
5
0
21
.
0
0
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
D
r
i
v
e
/
H
w
y
1
0
1
a
c
c
e
s
s
A5
9
ot
h
e
r
Se
c
o
n
d
HA
1
N/
A
mi
n
i
m
a
l
2.
0
0
2.
7
1
3.
0
0
2.
0
0
0.
5
7
1.
8
6
1.
2
9
2.
8
6
0.
2
9
4.
0
0
20
.
5
7
*
N
o
t
e
:
D
r
a
f
t
p
l
a
n
p
a
g
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
s
m
a
y
c
h
a
n
g
e
.
U
p
d
a
t
e
d
8
/
2
1
/
1
2
.
Attachment 2 1
Dr
a
f
t
2
0
1
2
B
T
P
-
T
o
p
1
0
r
a
n
k
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
/
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
* Page in 2012 draft plan
Class
Priority
School Zone Pavement Area Length (feet)
Estimated Cost
Commuting
Safety
RecreationalTraffic Flow
Educates
Encourages
ImplementationLinks
Schools
Regional
Project Rank
Ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
S
a
f
e
t
y
T
r
a
i
l
(
R
R
S
T
)
A3
9
I,
I
I
,
I
I
I
Fi
r
s
t
BP
1
26
,
7
7
3
$1
6
,
9
5
6
,
5
0
0
4.
6
7
4.
5
0
4.
3
3
3.
8
3
2.
0
0
4.
5
0
2.
8
3
4.
5
0
4.
3
3
4.
0
0
39
.
5
0
Hw
y
1
0
1
C
l
a
s
s
I
-
N
o
r
t
h
B
r
o
a
d
t
o
1
0
1
a
t
M
a
r
s
h
S
t
.
A3
5
I
Fi
r
s
t
BP
7
3,
3
2
0
$2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
4.
7
1
4.
5
7
4.
4
3
3.
5
7
1.
7
1
4.
2
9
2.
4
3
4.
7
1
4.
1
4
2.
8
6
37
.
4
3
Bo
b
J
o
n
e
s
C
i
t
y
-
t
o
-
S
e
a
T
r
a
i
l
(
B
J
T
)
A7
6
I,
I
I
,
I
I
I
Fi
r
s
t
HA
4
17
,
1
3
8
$6
,
0
0
5
,
6
0
0
3.
8
3
4.
1
7
4.
8
3
3.
0
0
2.
1
7
4.
1
7
2.
8
3
4.
3
3
3.
1
7
4.
3
3
36
.
8
3
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
t
o
L
a
g
u
n
a
L
a
k
e
T
r
a
v
e
r
s
e
,
C
l
a
s
s
I
T
r
a
i
l
A1
2
3
I
Fi
r
s
t
SM
6
1,
6
5
0
$8
2
5
,
0
0
0
4.
0
0
4.
4
3
4.
4
3
3.
1
4
1.
7
1
4.
5
7
2.
3
3
4.
2
9
3.
8
6
2.
4
3
34
.
8
6
Br
o
a
d
S
t
.
B
i
k
e
B
l
v
d
.
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
H
w
y
.
1
0
1
A9
BB
Fi
r
s
t
HA
4
5,
3
4
5
$5
,
0
2
5
,
0
0
0
4.
7
1
4.
0
0
4.
0
0
3.
2
9
1.
8
6
3.
5
7
2.
1
4
3.
8
6
4.
4
3
2.
4
3
34
.
2
9
MA
S
P
P
r
a
d
o
E
a
s
t
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
t
o
B
r
o
a
d
A9
6
I
a
n
d
I
I
Fi
r
s
t
HA
3
17
,
5
0
0
$4
,
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
4.
5
7
4.
0
0
4.
2
9
3.
7
1
1.
2
9
3.
5
7
2.
7
1
4.
5
7
3.
2
9
2.
2
9
34
.
2
9
Ce
r
r
o
R
o
m
a
u
l
d
o
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
B
l
v
d
.
A2
4
BB
Fi
r
s
t
BP
7
2,
8
9
0
$1
5
,
0
0
0
4.
0
0
4.
5
7
3.
4
3
2.
8
6
2.
5
7
4.
0
0
3.
4
3
3.
4
3
4.
7
1
1.
0
0
34
.
0
0
No
r
t
h
C
h
o
r
r
o
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
A3
1
ot
h
e
r
Fi
r
s
t
BP
7
20
0
$5
,
0
0
0
3.
8
6
4.
5
7
3.
1
4
3.
5
7
2.
5
7
3.
7
1
3.
4
3
3.
1
4
3.
8
6
2.
0
0
33
.
8
6
La
g
u
n
a
L
a
k
e
B
i
k
e
w
a
y
s
A
A1
1
8
I
Fi
r
s
t
SM
6
10
,
0
0
0
$5
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
4.
3
3
4.
1
7
4.
5
0
2.
8
3
1.
3
3
4.
1
7
1.
5
0
3.
8
3
4.
1
7
2.
8
3
33
.
6
7
Sa
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
a
t
B
o
y
s
e
n
,
G
r
a
d
e
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
d
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
A2
7
ot
h
e
r
Fi
r
s
t
BP
7
17
0
$1
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
4.
1
4
4.
8
6
3.
1
4
4.
0
0
1.
2
9
4.
1
4
2.
0
0
4.
0
0
4.
2
9
1.
7
1
33
.
5
7
*
N
o
t
e
:
D
r
a
f
t
p
l
a
n
p
a
g
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
s
m
a
y
c
h
a
n
g
e
.
U
p
d
a
t
e
d
8
/
2
1
/
1
2
.
Attachment 2 2
Budget-In-Brief
2011-13 Financial Plan
The purpose of this budget-in-brief is to
summarize the City’s 2011-13 Financial Plan and
2011-12 Budget. If you have any questions about
the City's budget or would like a complete copy of
the Financial Plan, please call us at 781-7125 or
isit our web site at www.slocity.orgv.
urpose of the City's Two-Year Financial Plan
P
The fundamental purpose of the City's Financial
Plan is to link what we want to accomplish for the
community with the resources necessary to do so.
Our two-year Financial Plan process does this by:
clearly setting major City goals and other
important objectives; establishing reasonable
timeframes and organizational responsibility for
achieving them; and then allocating the resources
quired for implementation.
on for preparing the budget in the second
ear.
ajor City Goals
re
While appropriations are still made annually under
this two-year process, the Financial Plan is the
foundati
y
M
Linking important objectives with necessary
resources requires a process that identifies key
goals at the very beginning of budget preparation.
Setting goals and priorities should drive the
udget process, not follow it.
set and
rioritized goals for the next two years.
the Council identified four Major
f Essential Services and
Traffic Congestion Relief
inancial Highlights
b
For this reason, the City began the 2011-13
Financial Plan process with a series of in-depth
workshops where Council members
p
For 2011-13,
City Goals:
Economic Development
Preservation o
Fiscal Health
Neighborhood Wellness
F
The total appropriations for 2011-12 are $99.8
illion summarized as follows:
m
Governmental
Funds
Enterprise
Funds Total
Operating Programs51,653,90028,979,40080,633,300
CIP 5,099,2004,340,5009,439,700
Debt Service 2,705,2007,071,5009,776,700
Total $59,458,300$40,391,400$99,849,700
Appropriations for operating programs—day-to-
day delivery of services—total $80.6 million for
011-12 as summarized below:
2
Governmental Enterprise
FundsFundsTotal
Public Safety 25,090,000 25,090,000
Public Utilities 20,442,20020,442,200
Transportation3,169,7004,674,9007,844,600
Leisure, Cultural &
Social Services7,130,500 7,130,500
Community
Development7,729,300 7,729,300
General Government8,534,4003,862,30012,396,700
T otal $51,653,900$28,979,400$80,633,300
General Fiscal Environment
The City continues to experience economic
challenges and without corrective action, faced a
$4.4 million annual budget gap. Revenue
enhancements, operating budget reductions,
operational efficiencies and employee
concessions will each play a role in balancing the
2011-13 Financial Plan as we align the City’s
delivery of services with our ongoing revenue
ase over the long term.
eneral Fund Operating Budget Reductions
b
G
Operating budget reductions affect all
departments and levels of the organization.
Organization-wide, these reductions included
staffing cuts of 13.7 full-time equivalent
employees, of which 10.25 were regular positions.
Attachment 3 1
BUDGET FACTS
BUDGET REDUCTION SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT
TempRegular
StaffingStaffing2011-122012-13
Administration (0.23) 1.00 158,700 188,000
City Attorney
Comm. Dev. 1.00 109,000 109,300
Fire 1.25 170,500 212,400
Finance & IT 0.48 182,500 137,800
Human Resources 0.40 65,400 65,400
Parks & Rec. 1.33 1.00 190,400 190,700
Police 4.00 467,100 578,100
Public Works 1.44 2.00 469,000 474,900
Total 3.42 10.25 1,812,600 1,956,600
Annual Savings
Use of Measure Y Revenues
In 2011-12, Measure Y is expected to generate
approximately $5.7 million in revenues. These
revenues continue to play an important part in
providing valued services and capital
improvement projects to the community which are
closely associated with the Major City Goals.
As reflected below, over 43% of Measure Y
revenues will be devoted to maintaining the
City’s infrastructure.
Approximately 26% of the Measure Y revenues
will be used for Public Safety services.
2011-13 Measure Y Uses
Public Safety
26%
Infrastructure
Maintenance
43%
Maintenance
Services
19%
Neighborhood
Wellness
5%
Open Space
Preservation
2%
Traffic
Congestion
Relief
5%
Budget Highlights
General Fund Revenues 2011-12: $51.5 million
General Sales
Tax
23%
Measure Y
Sales Tax
11%
Property Tax
17%
TOT
9%
Other Taxes
9%
Utility Users
Tax
10%
Prop tax in lieu
of VLF
7%
Service
Charges
11%
All Other
Revenues
3%
General Fund Operating: $50.3 million
Public Safety
50%
Leisure,
Cultural &
Social
Services
14%
Community
Development
13%
General
Government
17%
Transportation
6%
Administration 9.3
City Attorney 3.0
Human Resources 5.0
Finance & Information Technology 22.0
Community Development 22.3
Parks & Recreation 16.0
Public Works 75.8
Utilities 63.8
Police 83.5
Fire 51.8
Total 352.5
Authorized Regular Positions by Department 2011-
12
Attachment 3 2
Page 1 of 2
DATE: November 23, 2010
TO: Debbie Malicoat, Finance Manager
FROM: Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planner
Staff Liaison to the Bicycle Advisory Committee
SUBJECT: Final Bicycle Advisory Committee Budget Goals for FY 2011-13
On November 18, 2010 the Bicycle Advisory Committee finalized its recommended FY 2011-13
goals for Council consideration. The following table is ranked by high, medium and low
priority. All goals are designed to implement Measure Y priorities of Traffic Congestion Relief,
maintain the City’s silver level “Bicycle Friendly City” designation by the League of American
Bicyclists and make the best use of the City’s limited financial resources.
Recommended Goal Why Goal is
Important
Measure Y/Major
City Goal
Relationship
Candidate
Funding
HIGH
Maintain part-time
temporary staffing
position for
Transportation
Programs
Implementation
(approximately $38,000
annually).
Consistent with MTC
draft recommendation
This bicycle/transit
funded position seeks
out and applies for
grants as well as assists
in the implementation of
the Bicycle
Transportation Plan and
Short Range Transit
Plan.
Direct relationship:
Traffic Congestion
Relief & Bikeway
Improvements
Supplemental
relationship: Public
Safety Service
Levels & Downtown
Improvements
- ½ General Fund
- ½ Transit Fund
Continue improving the
maintenance & safety
of bicycling &
pedestrian facilities in
conjunction with
Pavement Management
projects. Funding
(previously budgeted at
$25,000 annually) can be
reduced proportionately
with reductions in the
Pavement Management
CIP.
Consistent with PCC
signage draft rec. & PC
infrastructure maint.
This goal increases the
usability and safety of
bicycle and pedestrian
facilities which in turn
promotes alternative
transportation. The 2008
bi-annual bike counts
indicate the demand for
these facilities is
increasing. By including
these improvements in
each years Pavement
Management cycle,
substantial cost savings
are realized.
Direct relationship:
Bikeway
Improvements &
Traffic Congestion
Relief
Supplemental
relationship: Public
Safety Service
Levels & Downtown
Improvements
- Streets
Maintenance
Budget
- Pavement
Management
Program Funds
- General Fund
- Transit Fund
Attachment 4 1
Page 2 of 2
MEDIUM
Continue design and
construction of the
Railroad Safety Trail:
Marsh Street to
Hathway.
Consistent with PC and
PRC draft
recommendations
This goal provides a huge
safety enhancement for a
large volume of bicyclists,
a safe bike route to the
University, schools, &
parks: implements
General Plan goals to
increase bicycle use and
supports Grand Jury
recommendations to
close gaps.
Direct relationship:
Traffic Congestion
Relief & Bikeway
Improvements
Supplemental
relationship: Public
Safety Service
Levels & Downtown
Improvements
- BTA grants
- STIP funding
- City debt financing
for construction
- Fundraising efforts
Develop a specific
design for the Bob
Jones City to Sea Trail
alignment, from the
existing section, to a
County connection at the
Octagon Barn. Design
should be done in
conjunction with the
LOVR interchange
project, and include a
grade separated
crossing.
Consistent with PC,
PRC and JUC draft
recommendations.
Public input at two
meetings has identified
the need to connect the
existing trail to LOVR and
provide a grade
separated crossing. The
Land Conservancy, in
concert with SLO County,
is working to begin the
county section of the trail
at the Octagon Barn.
Without a specific design,
a gap in the trail may
result.
Direct relationship:
Bikeway
Improvements,
Goals of four other
Council Advisory
bodies
Supplemental
relationship: Public
Safety Service
Levels
- Prop. 1e funds
- Transportation
Planning grant
LOW
Maintain $7,500 in
funding (50% of previous
levels) for Bicycling
Safety Education.
Reduction proposed in
response to budget
constraints only.
Funding will continue the
momentum established
in FY 2007-09, help to
meet the increased need
reflected in the 2009
Traffic Safety Report,
increased 20 bike count,
and support the Grand
Jury goal of promoting
safe cycling.
Public Safety Service
Levels (traffic safety)
and Traffic
Congestion Relief
- General Fund with
a portion coming
from
Transportation
Development Act
(TDA) funds
Attachment 4 2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - TRANSPORTATION
RAILROAD SAFETY TRAIL EXTENSION - TAFT TO PEPPER
3-166
Project Description
Extending the Railroad Safety Trail from Taft Street south on the west side of the California Boulevard bridge and continuing through the
California Highway Patrol property to a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Union Pacific Railroad corridor to Pepper Street will cost $280,000 in
2011-12 for land acquisition and design and $1,004,000 for construction and construction management in 2013-14.
Maintenance/Replacement New project Fleet Replacement New Fleet Request
Council Goal / Measure Y Priority - List: Traffic Congestion Relief
Need and Urgency
In November 2000, the Council adopted the preliminary alignment plan for the Railroad Safety Trail. Since that time Public Works staff has
been applying for grants and working with Union Pacific Railroad to receive their approval for specific segments. In 2009 the City
constructed the bike path and installed fencing along California Boulevard between Foothill Boulevard and Hathway Street, but was not able
to extend the path farther south as planned on Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) property because the necessary easement was not granted.
City staff has developed an alternate alignment utilizing City and State property with a bridge crossing over the railroad corridor. This
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project pursues the necessary approvals to permit the construction of the alternate alignment.
The City received an $890,000 Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) grant to design and construct the Railroad Safety Trail from the
Amtrak Station to Marsh Street and a $495,000 BTA grant to design and construct the Railroad Safety Trail bridge over Highway 101. When
design plans and easements were not approved by UPRR, the City developed an alternative alignment from the current terminus of the bike
path at Hathway Street and applied for and received a time extension for the $495,000 grant until April 1, 2015 (the time extension request for
the $890,000 is pending) to provide the City the time needed to obtain approvals from UPRR, the California Public Utilities Commission and
the California Highway Patrol to design and construct the project. In order to be eligible for future grant funding, it is imperative that the City
utilize these grant funds in a timely manner.
Attachment 5 1
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - TRANSPORTATION
RAILROAD SAFETY TRAIL EXTENSION - TAFT TO PEPPER
3-167
Readiness to Build
Study complete or n/a
Equipment purchased or n/a
Property owned or property agreement in place
Environmental approval and permits complete or n/a
Specifications or construction documents complete
Environmental Review and Permits Required
Environmental Review- Mitigated Negative Declaration anticipated
Building Permit
Waterway Permits (Fish & Game, Water Quality, Army Corps)
Railroad- UPRR approval
Other: Possible Caltrans Encroachment Permit
CPUC approval
Easement from California Highway Patrol
Operating Program Number and Title:
50500 Transportation Planning and Engineering
Project Phasing and Funding Sources
Initial Project Costs by Phase
Budget to Date 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Total
Land Acquisition $80,000 $80,000
Design $200,000 $200,000
Construction $616,000 $884,000 $1,500,000
Construction Management $120,000 $120,000
Total $616,000 $280,000 $0 $1,004,000 $0 $0 $1,900,000
Attachment 5 2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - TRANSPORTATION
RAILROAD SAFETY TRAIL EXTENSION - TAFT TO PEPPER
3-168
Detail of ongoing costs and alternatives to ongoing costs:
Budget to Date 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Total
Contract Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $6,000
Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $6,000
Ongoing Costs by Type
Once constructed, the bike path signing, striping and paving will have to be maintained.
Budget to Date 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Total
BTA Grant- Phase 3 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
BTA Grant- Hwy 101 bridge $416,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $416,000
BTA or other Grant - future $0 $122,000 $0 $1,004,000 $0 $0 $1,126,000
SHA grant- approved $0 $158,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $158,000
Total $616,000 $280,000 $0 $1,004,000 $0 $0 $1,900,000
Project Funding by Source
Reduced / Enhanced Project Alternatives
Reduced project is feasible – Cost of reduced project:
Project can be phased – Number of years for phasing: Project is presented as a phased project. Grant deadline April 1, 2015
Project Team
Assignment Program Estimated Hours
Project Management CIP Engineering Design 400
Environmental Review Planning Development Review 40
Project Proponent Transportation Planning & Eng. 120
Construction Inspection CIP Engineering – Inspection 240
Contract Admin PW Administration 100
Attachment 5 3
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - TRANSPORTATION
BICYCLE FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
3-169
Project Description
Constructing small-scale, miscellaneous bicycle facility improvements identified in the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan will cost $25,000
annually.
Maintenance/Replacement New project Fleet Replacement New Fleet Request
Council Goal / Measure Y Priority - List: Traffic Congestion Relief
Need and Urgency
Issues regarding traffic congestion and the development of bikeways were two high priority concerns received from public comments as part
of the goal setting process of the 2011-13 Financial Plan. This funding allows the City to complete small-scale bicycle facility improvements
in a cost efficient manner by incorporating them into larger projects such as the City’s annual pavement maintenance project. Past projects
include removal of storm drain grates that impact bike lanes, bike lane signing and striping, shared lane markings, and striping for on-street
bike parking downtown.
Readiness to Build
Study complete or n/a
Equipment purchased or n/a
Property owned or property agreement in place
Environmental approval and permits complete or n/a
Specifications or construction documents complete
Attachment 5 4
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - TRANSPORTATION
BICYCLE FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
3-170
Environmental Review and Permits Required
Environmental Review: Bicycle facility improvements typically receive Notice of Exemptions
Building Permit
Waterway Permits (Fish & Game, Water Quality, Army Corps)
Railroad
Other: City encroachment permit
Operating Program Number and Title:
50500 Transportation Planning and Engineering
Project Phasing and Funding Sources
Initial Project Costs by Phase
Budget to Date 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Total
Construction on-going $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $125,000
Total $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $125,000
Detail of ongoing costs and alternatives to ongoing costs: No increase in operating costs is anticipated from the work. Project extends life
cycle of existing improvements.
Budget to Date 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Total
Traffic Impact Fees *on-going $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $125,000
Total $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $125,000
Project Funding by Source
* Project work will only be undertaken if adequate TIF funds are available.
Attachment 5 5
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - TRANSPORTATION
BICYCLE FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
3-171
Reduced / Enhanced Project Alternatives
Reduced project is feasible – Cost of reduced project: $10,000 annually
Project can be phased – Number of years for phasing:
Project Team
Assignment Program Estimated Hours
Project Management CIP Engineering Design 40
Construction Management CIP Engineering Construction 50
Project Administration PW Administration 16
Project Proponent Transportation Planning & Eng. 10
Site List – For multi-year projects
Location
Estimated Year of Construction
Pavement Area
(for projects in right-of-way)
Various Locations 2012 Area 5
Various Locations 2013 Area 6
Various Locations 2014 Area 7
Various Locations 2015 Area 8
Various Locations 2016 Area 1
Attachment 5 6
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - TRANSPORTATION
BOB JONES TRAIL: OCTAGON BARN CONNECTION
3-175
Project Description
Completing the planning effort, environmental and permitting work, and land acquisition for the extension of the Bob Jones City-to-Sea trail
between the Octagon Barn and Los Osos Valley Road will cost $40,000 in 2012-13, $125,000 in 2013-14, $40,000 in 2014-15, and $345,000
in 2015-16.
Maintenance/Replacement New project Fleet Replacement New Fleet Request
Council Goal / Measure Y Priority - List: Traffic Congestion Relief
Need and Urgency
Currently the County’s conceptual plan for the Bob Jones City-to-Sea Trail terminates at the Octagon Barn and the City’s plan begins at Los
Osos Valley Road (LOVR). Planning for this section between the Octagon Barn and LOVR is needed to ensure a continuous trail is
developed. A joint City/County CalTrans grant application is proposed to fund the planning effort.
Readiness to Build
Study complete or n/a
Equipment purchased or n/a
Property owned or property agreement in place
Environmental approval and permits complete or n/a
Specifications or construction documents complete
Environmental Review and Permits Required
Environmental Review
Building Permit
Waterway Permits (Fish & Game, Water Quality, Army Corps)
Railroad
Other: Land acquisitions or easements will be required.
Attachment 5 7
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - TRANSPORTATION
BOB JONES TRAIL: OCTAGON BARN CONNECTION
3-176
Operating Program Number and Title:
50500 Transportation Planning/Engineering
Project Phasing and Funding Sources
Initial Project Costs by Phase
Budget to Date 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Total
Study $0 $0 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $40,000
Environmental / Permit $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 $25,000
Land Acquisition $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000
Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,000 $0 $40,000
Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $300,000
Construction Management $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $45,000 $45,000
Total $0 $0 $40,000 $125,000 $40,000 $345,000 $550,000
Detail of ongoing costs and alternatives to ongoing costs
Budget to Date 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Total
Contract Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,500 $2,500
Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,500 $2,500
Ongoing Costs by Type
Costs include general maintenance of the facility and assume no landscaping will be installed with the project.
Budget to Date 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Total
General Fund $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Grant $0 $0 $40,000 $125,000 $40,000 $345,000 $550,000
Total $0 $0 $40,000 $125,000 $40,000 $345,000 $550,000
Project Funding by Source
Attachment 5 8
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - TRANSPORTATION
BOB JONES TRAIL: OCTAGON BARN CONNECTION
3-177
The project is dependent on the City/County receiving a grant from CalTrans to pay for the initial study, environmental review, and land
acquisition (if needed). Future grants would be sought to pay for the design and construction. General Fund would assume ongoing
maintenance costs.
Reduced / Enhanced Project Alternatives
Reduced project is feasible – Cost of reduced project:
Project can be phased – Number of years for phasing: Project is presented as a phased project.
Project Team
Assignment Program Estimated Hours
Project Management CIP Engineering Design 160
Environmental Review Planning Development Review 40
Project Proponent Transportation Planning & Eng. 40
Contract Administration PW Administration 100
Construction Inspection CIP Engineering 80
Attachment 5 9
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - TRANSPORTATION
PATHWAY MAINTENANCE
3-178
Project Description
Performing pavement maintenance on Class 1 bicycle and pedestrian pathways throughout the City will cost $60,000 annually beginning in
2013-14.
Project Phasing and Funding Sources
Initial Project Costs by Phase
Budget to Date 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Total
Construction on-going $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $180,000
Total $0 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $180,000
Budget to Date 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Total
General Fund on-going $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $180,000
Total $0 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $180,000
Project Funding by Source
Attachment 5 10