Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/16/2011, LIAISON REPORT - LIAISON REPORT-VARIOUS MEETINGS �iED FILE MEtt fING AGENDA DATE /( //ITEM #u OI&Wac- swa• counc,l hAison jzEpoizt ;city of san.!uis owspo._oFflce of tihe—ci� DATE: August 15, 2011 TO: Mayor& Cit C hard CDD DU y y o COUNCIL o CCDD R o CITY MGR o M DDt FROM: John Ashbaugh c ATTTTORRNNEY o PW DU o WMWORIG o POLICECHW C PIH a PAW&RECDIR SUBJECT: Liaison Report-Jarii Meetings o NIMMMU o HRD R� o 9DMYNEM o COUNCIL o CITYMGR o CLERK Since the July 19 Council meeting, I have attended nine meetings on behalf of the City, in an official capacity. I've summarized the basic content of these meetings in chronological order. In some cases, I also sent memos to staff to follow up on the meetings. Some of these memos are appended at the end, in chronological order. Thursday 7/21: Student-Community Liaison Committee Major discussion items: Resignation of RQN representative; consensus to ask that Frank Kossack represent RQN (see note re: meeting of Thursday, 8/11 below). Significant discussion of neighborhood quality program. Changes to Supervisorial District lines also discussed; Jim Patterson's District 5 would lose about 2600 students in Poly Canyon to District 2. Friday 7/22: Welcomed PG&E Chief Executive Officer Chris Johns PG&E contributed $113K to Habitat for Humanity project (and significant "sweat equity" for finishing touches)on the two H4H homes on Phillips Lane in SLO. Sunday 7/24: Volunteered at SLO City Triathlon in afternoon after completing course in 1:58:03 in the morning. Wednesday 7/27: Attended meeting of Air Pollution Control District on behalf of Mayor. Major concern by South County residents from Oceano and Nipomo critical of the APCD failure to reduce particulate emissions from OHVs at Oceano Dunes SVRA. Staff indicated that a draft fugitive dust rule would be released in late August for public review and return at the 9/28 meeting. The budget was presented in which several graduated fee increases were proposed in order to enable the APCD to have a "soft landing" when the Morro Bay Power Plant is closed for good (anticipated in 2015 -though the current MB Mayor Bill Yates has vowed that it will remain open). A motion was passed to approve the budget with proposed fee increases with 3-4 dissenting votes (including Mayor Yates); I voted with the majority. Thursday 7/28:Represented City to new County Grand Jury ''Introduction to municipal government" presentations by Mayors and top administrators. Provided copies of the organizational chart, contact information for Council and key staff members, Council-adopted Major Goals, and selected budget graphics(thanks to Amy Lopez for assistance in this). Additional copies of this material can be distributed to Council members, if desired. Major emphasis on the transparency and high participation rates that characterize our COUNCIL Liau•oa Report 8-15-11 Council Memorandum August 15, 2011 Page 2 city. Took issue with allegations of Brown Act violations. Pointed out electoral activity with balloting through August for Measures A & B, and the upcoming election for Orcutt Area annexation. Reminded them of Measure Y and need for renewal by 2014. Wednesday 8/3: Attended SLOCOG meeting on behalf of Mayor (Could not serve as alternate for RTA board,however, on advice of Counsel). It was a highly interesting meeting for many reasons, and resulted in three memos sent by me to various staff members to recap various aspects of the meeting. The memos are appended below - the first is to Jay Walter and Tim Bochum regarding transportation funding; the second is to Claire Clark and Kim Murry regarding the regional growth forecast; and the third memo is to Mary Bradley inquiring about use of a new reporting standard for local government reserve funds. For the last item, I've also appended Mary's reply as well as my original e-mail, since it is quite detailed. Friday 8/5: Attended Mayors' Monthly meeting on behalf of Mayor in Arroyo Grande Heard presentations from Sam Blakeslee and Katcho Achadjian. Learned that both legislators had voted against the "Amazon tax" requiring out-of-state online retailers to collect and pay retail sales tax for California purchasers in order to level the playing field with our "bricks and mortar" retailers. I voiced concern that our local retailers would probably support a measure that helps them regain market share against online retailers, who currently enjoy an unfair advantage and seem to expect that the State of California would be able to do without the sales tax that they would otherwise be required to report and return, if they had any physical presence in California. Much discussion of the League of California Cities lawsuit against the State "takeaway" of redevelopment agencies' funding. Wednesday 8/10: Attended Zone 9 Advisory committee meeting County and City staff presented the budget for this "zone of benefit" of the County's Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Significant confusion resulted from a highly- disorganized presentation by County Public Works staff of the budget. I followed up with 8/10 memo to Matt Horn, appended at very end of this memo, reporting that our Council has committed to building the Mid-Higuera Flood Control project with $500,000 in grant fluids in 2013. Emphasized need for this project timeline to be maintained. Thursday 8/11: Student Community Liaison Committee Yes, the SCLC held a second meeting within the four weeks between our Council meetings. Again, the absence of RQN was noted. Significant discussion of"Night Out With Your Neighbors" event scheduled for October 3. Cal Poly ASI President Kiyana Tabrizi is concerned that there is too little participation from too few students for whom this event is targeted. Almost the only students who attended the 7 parties held in 2010 were those already involved in leadership. Major problems appear to be the issue of how to get students to "go over the wall" to their long-term resident neighbors to get acquainted. Social media(including"flash mob" techniques)were discussed. No action was taken; however Ardith Tregenza agreed to explore the possibility of sending out appeals to those on her"neighborhood stewards" list (about 150 names)to promote interest in the event. Kiyana will also request feedback from SCLC members (note: all Council members are on this list!) to solicit ideas for how to make the event more attractive to students in the neighborhoods. Additional discussion centered on the recent letter ' � U Council Memorandum August 15, 2011 Page 3 from RQN complaining of"soft" enforcement of the Noise Ordinance and Unruly Gathering ordinance. Chief Linden's recent (8/10) letter in response to RQN was presented and discussed in general terms. Student representatives appear to be satisfied with the approach we are taken. Again, RQN was absent and appears to have no representative to replace Brett Cross (unless Frank Kossack or another individual steps up). We'll see what happens at the next meeting on 9/15. As you can see,this mid-summer schedule has been keeping me busy. I'll be very glad to have the Mayor back as well as some reinforcements from the rest of you. Call or email with any questions. Appended Memos 8/3: Memo to Jay Walter & Tim Bochum re: SLOCOG meeting At the SLOCOG meeting Wednesday, in Item C1, we were informed of the prioritization of$1.4 billion in STIP funding that will be allocated over the period of 2011-12 through 2016-17. This translates to a county share estimate of$12.5 million. We were assured that US 101/LOV Rd is still in that list of top priorities and is not expected to be further delayed. Additionally, there was discussion of some$1.6 million in Transportation Enhancement $$ that are going to be made available to local agencies as a result of the Federal SAFETEA-LU Transportation bill, which SLOCOG distributes for bicycle and pedestrian improvements and streetscape enhancements. A call for projects will go out this month from SLOCOG for eligible project nominations for agencies such as ours. In a private conversation with Ron DeCarli, I asked whether our Downtown Improvement project might be eligible for such funding, which typically is allocated in increments the low six-figures; it had occurred to me that this would be one means by which we could fund the original full 3-block project, even if our bidders continue to exceed the estimate that we have set. Ron indicated that a project of this nature could be eligible for these TE funds, and encouraged us to consider it. The schedule is provided on page C-1-3 culminating with Board action in December, 2011. Board members contributed some ideas about how to evaluate the nominated projects; these included public safety, connectivity, deliverability, and vulnerability to climate change. (On reflection, I do not think any of these considerations, with the possible exception of the last item, would be considered when SLOCOG staff reviews the project nominations -the TE funds are allocated based on alignment with the SLOCOG Sustainable Community Strategies adopted under SB 375, and our downtown project would probably rank quite high based on its ability to enhance walkability, contribute to intensification and infill, etc. If you'd like more information about this item, please feel free to contact Ron DeCarli or his staff directly. I assume that you guys have a copy of the 8/3 agenda and staff reports in your office, but if not I'll have one at the Council office later this morning. 8/5 memo to Claire Clark and Kim Murry re SLOCOG Growth Forecast In case you did not receive it, I wanted to be sure that both of you received a copy of the AECOM Final Draft SLO County 2040 Forecast of Population, Housing and Employment. The Council Memorandum August 15, 2011 Page 4 Forecast provides a low, medium, and high estimate; SLOCOG staff recommended the "medium" scenario and the Board agreed. (As Katie might say, the "Goldilocks" solution). I'll leave a copy in the Council office, and if needed you may have it, copy it, share it, ritually burn it or conduct other meaningful scientific exercises with it as you wish. Actually, it's pretty interesting: SLO is estimated to grow our household population only "marginally" over the next 30 years - from 43,937 (2010) through 49,487 (2040). This equates to a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 0.40%. Employment growth,however, is another matter: Jobs in SLO are estimated to grow substantially. Our current (2010) employment of 33,000 is estimated to grow to 44,200. This is a much higher growth rate, of course(although the actual CAGR is not given) the result is that we are expected to add only about 5,500 people but over 11,000 jobs. The staff report also noted that the City of SLO is anticipated to remain the employment center of the County. As to the conservative projection for our household population growth, it is also noted that "The City of SLO may be able to attract more residents than its historic norm - although the Orcutt Area expansion faces a potential challenge that may hinder the city's growth potential." I spoke up to challenge that part of the staff report, noting that the annexation would go forward even in a slightly reduced form in order to omit objecting landowners, but in the long term that would have little effect on the scale or timing of residential development within this major expansion area. The forecast will be in the Councill office later this morning for your perusal, and I'd be happy to talk about it further with you. 8/5 Memo to Mary Bradley and Debbie Malicoat SLOCOG had a consent item on our agenda Wednesday that I thought might have some bearing on our financial reporting. It's item E-3 and it concerns GASB Statement#54 "Fund Balanace Reporting and Government Fund Type Definitions." Basically, the SLOCOG fund balance will now be broken down into five classifications: Non-spendable, restricted, committeed, assigned, and unassigned. These five classifications replace the previous "Reserved" v. "Unreserved and Undesignated." Will we be adopting the same statement for our future Financial Plan? Could this breakdown be applied to the fund reserve for which we receive regular reports from Debbie, and which has been the subject of so much (overblown) controversy? If so, I think it would be a good idea to schedule a briefing on this matter for the entire council, at an open session. If you'd like more information about the SLOCOG action, I'll have the agenda and staff report in the Council office later this morning. Mary's reply of 8/11: GASB 54 will apply to the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report that we are currently preparing for 2010-11. GASB 54 describes how fund balance is classified on Council Memorandum August 15, 2011 Page 5 the City's Balance Sheet for financial reporting purposes. As you know, fund balance represents the difference between a fund's assets and liabilities. Often, however, the fund balance does not represent amounts that can actually be spent and under the current system it is often unclear if any of the reserved or designated fund balances can be used to help balance an agency's budget. The new statement seeks to isolate the portion of fund balance that is available to support the budget by use of the five classifications and to help readers to better understand the constraints on existing fund balance. When we prepare the budget we are focusing on the unassigned fund balance that should be maintained to adequately provide for economic uncertainties, contingencies, and cash flow requirements and how much is left after that (if any) to spend on one-time or ongoing programs or projects. So we show fund balance reserved at 20% of operating costs and the amount that is over or below that policy level. We do not show any fund balance that is not spendable oris not available, which is different from the financial statements. The investment reports that you receive from Finance show our cash and investment assets on a periodic basis, which does not correlate to fund balance. For example, we may get a large property tax payment in December which can be invested on a short term basis since it will be used to pay our bills over the next several months. I agree with you that this has certainly caused a great deal of confusion and probably should be clarified. We are in the midst of closing our books for 2011-12 and are working to reclassify our fund balance per GASB 54. I'll talk to Katie about the best.way to address all of these confusing accounting and financial issues when she returns. 8/10 Memo to Matt Horn re: Zone 9 advisory committee meeting Earlier today in the meeting of the Zone 9 Committee, County Public Works staff presented the approved budget for Zone 9 which includes continued funding to support environmental and engineering work on the Mid-Higuera Bypass. In our deliberations, I noted that the City had also budgeted for this project in our Five-Year CIP, and I just confirmed that to be the case—page 3- 201 in the CII' (Appendix B of our Financial Plan, adopted last June). We're committed to spending$500,000 in 2013-14 with the funding source expected to be grant funds. If you think it would be helpful,please pass on this information to Jill Ogren at County Public Works. I know that Dave Romero and Christine Mulholland will also be interested in knowing of the City's commitment to this project, so if you'd like to route it to them as well, please do so. That's the"good news,"but of course the "news not known"at this time is whether any grant sources would be there. It would be advisable, I believe, for the City to begin thinking about a benefit assessment district or some similar locally-based source of funding to be sure that this project is ready to be built as soon as it is "shovel ready."As we also discussed in the meeting, this project could be of significant benefit not only for flood protection to nearby properties, but for the community as a whole if we include with it amenities such as a bicycle-pedestrian path as called out in the Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan.