HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/00/1990, 3 - CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST BY SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL TO ENDORSE PROPOSITIONS 111 SAME REPORT AS r-t3WT OUT ON 05/01/90.
�IIH�iuII�IIIIIII�I���IhMEMNO DAT
p�u��►
city of san tuts oBispo
WHOW COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT "Em
FROM: John Dunn, City Administrative Offic@X550�1�
Prepared by: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative officerw
SUBJECT: Consideration of request by San Luis Obispo Area
Coordinating Council to endorse Propositions 111 (SCA 1) and 116.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt a resolution endorsing Propositions 111 (SCA 1) and 108
to increase funding for transportation purposes and to adjust
the methodology for computing the appropriation limit for
State and local government-(Attachment 1) .
2. Adopt a resolution endorsing Proposition 116, which will
allocate funds for rail related transportation projects
(Attachment 2) .
DISCUSSION:
Background
On March 16, 1990 the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council
(SLOACC) approved resolutions in support of Propositions 111 (SCA
1) and 116. The SLOACC also directed Area Council staff to solicit
endorsements for these propositions from members agencies.
SLOCAA's formal request for City support, along with descriptions
of the propositions, are provided in Attachment 3. Additional
background information prepared by the CAO is provided as
Attachment 4. Attachment 7 has been prepared by the "Yes on 111 i
and 108" organization and includes a listing of current supporters
of the propositions. (Note: While SLOACC did not specifically
request support for Proposition 108, staff has included this
proposition in the resolution since it provides the funding
mechanism necessary to support the rail programs established by
Proposition 111. )
Limitations and Reasons to Support the Propositions
Included in the attached materials are descriptions of the numerous
ways in which propositions will affect the state and local
transportation system. Specific projects in San Luis Obispo County
for which funding will become available if Proposition 111 is
passed are identified, including improvements to Routes 46 and 41.
However, in terms of specific projects and future transportation
programs, the proposed legislation is much more favorable to urban
counties and larger cities. In addition, the propositions have
been crafted to acquire support from a broad coalition of
interests, including the California Taxpayers' Association, the
League of Women Voters, the Governor, and organizations
iilll city of San Luis OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Agenda Report
Page Two
representing the education, business, local government, and law
enforcement communities. Therefore, from any one perspective, the
propositions undoubtedly include elements which are not entirely
satisfactory.
However, from a larger statewide perspective, staff believes the
propositions should be supported. In addition, particularly with
respect to the appropriation limitation adjustments, staff believes
there are significant benefits to be derived for the City of San
Luis Obispo. In summary, staff recommends adoption of resolutions
in support of the propositions for the following reasons:
• The methodology for computing state and local government
appropriation limits needs to be changed As outlined in a
May 1989 memorandum prepared by the Finance Director as a part
of the development of the 1989-91 Financial Plan (Attachment
5) , the City is expected to exceed its appropriation limit
by FY 1991-92. This projection excludes any changes in tax
rates, such as the proposed increase in the transient
occupancy tax or any "1/2 sales tax" initiative. Increases
in these areas would only accelerate the timeframe for
reaching our limit, and would therefore preclude using the
increased revenues for their intended purposes.
The adjustments in computing the appropriation limit will
allow state government and local governments to benefit from
economic growth and to have more flexibility in meeting
pressing needs - many of which were not anticipated at the
time the original appropriation limit was established in 1979
(e.g. , increased jail capacity; increased educational
facilities; homeless needs; costs related to AIDS research,
testing, and health care; open space acquisition; D.A.R.E. and
other drug prevention programs) . The Finance Director has
prepared a memorandum evaluating the general impact of
Proposition 111 on the City's appropriation limit (Attachment
5) .
• The State's inability to cope with increasing public and
social service needs las a result of the existing limitation)
ultimately places great demands on cities: demands which
cities are generally unable to meet For example, State
cutbacks in social program support severely limits what
counties can do. As a result, cities such as San Luis Obispo
are receiving more and more requests to deal with such issues
as the homeless, battered women, and other social service
needs.
a-Z
�� ►�IIIIIIIIIpn�'����DI city of san lues osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Agencia Report
Page Three
• With respect to transportation and highways the State of
California has gone from being one of the most progressive
states in the nation to one of the most "gridlocked" states
in the nation. This has had a significant effect on the
overall economy and productivity of the state. In addition,
the deficiencies in the major metropolitan areas have placed
substantial growth pressures on more rural areas, such as San
Luis Obispo County.
• Although a substantial amount of the funds will be used to
increase roadway capacity other funds are specifically
earmarked for programs to relieve traffic congestion without
adding traffic lanes, including improved transit, rail, and
safety programs.
• As a result of the gas tax increase. the City will receive an
additional subvention of approximately $250.000 which can be
used to maintain existing city streets. This will help the
City provide a stronger transit program without underfunding
our street maintenance requirements.
CONCURRENCES:
The Public Works Director, Finance Director, and Transit Manager
concur with the staff recommendation.
CONCLUSION:
In summary, the State and its local governments need increased
flexibility and the ability to use additional resources in order
to cope with numerous demands - demands in addition to only
transportation related needs. While Propositions 111, 108, and 116
are not a "perfect solution", they do represent a significant
improvement over the status quo and are recommended for support by
the City Council.
ALTERNATIVE:
The City Council can go on record in opposition to the propositions
or remain neutral on the matter. Staff does not recommend this
alternative. In particular, if the appropriation limit adjustment
does not pass in June, it is likely that the City will reach its
appropriation limitation prior to the time that the City would wish
to retain a status quo service level. Based on Council approved
policy (page B-9 of the 1989-91 Financial Plan) , the City will then
"seek a vote of the public to amend its appropriation limit at such
time that tax proceeds are in excess of allowable limits." This
approach will be both costly and complicated.
�3
�► ►►�Illll��p�������IIII city of San LUIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Agenda Report
Page Four
ATTACffiKBNTS:
1. Resolution in Support of Propositions 111 and 108
2. Resolution in Support of Proposition 116
3. Back-up Material from SLOACC
4. Back-up Material from CAO
5. May 1989 Finance Director Memo Related to Appropriation Limit
6. April 1990 Finance Director Memo
7. "Yes on 111 and 108" Information/List of Supporters
KH\propo
' _ t
RESOLUTION NO. (1990 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ENDORSING PROPOSITIONS 111 (SCA 1) AND 108:
THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF AND
SPENDING LIMITATION ACT OF 1990
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo concurs that the State
of California faces serious fiscal policy problems which threaten
the critical areas of education, transportation, health services,
law enforcement, senior programs and other taxpayer services
thereby endangering the state's current and future economic health;
and
WHEREAS. SCA 1 would alter the Gann spending limit to allow
the state greater flexibility in making use of all available.
revenues generated by California's strong economy; and
WHEREAS, SCA 1 would allow the state to raise the gasoline tax
and truck weight fees as approved in SB 300 and AB 471 (1989) to
provide increased funding for maintenance and improvement of
highway and mass transit projects without reducing funds for other
state programs; and
WHEREAS, SCA 1 would provide approximately $16 million to fund
currently programmed State Highway projects, another $71 million
for other necessary long term transportation improvements in San
Luis Obispo County, an increase in gas tax subventions to local
jurisdictions, an environmental enhancement grant fund, and provide
a guarantee of County Minimum funding pursuant to Section 188 of
the Streets and Highways Code; and
ATTACHMENT 1
J
Resolution No. (1990 Series)
Page Two
WHEREAS, Proposition 108 will provide the funding needed to
support the rail programs outlined under Proposition 111; and
WHEREAS, SCA 1 would continue the guarantee of Proposition 98
that R-12 and the community colleges receive 40% of the state
budget; and
WHEREAS, without a change in the Gann spending limit, it will
be impossible to maintain and improve local streets and roads and
state highways; and
WHEREAS, SCA 1 is supported by a board coalition including
Governor George Deukmejian, State Superintendent of Schools Bill
Honig, California Taxpayers Association, California League of Women
Voters, California Assocation of Highway Patrolmen, California
School Boards Association, County Supervisors Association of
California, California Transportation Association, California
Chamber of Commerce, League of California Cities, University of
California Board of Regents, California State University Board of
Trustees, and many others; and
WHEREAS, reduction in the state's traffic congestion will
require substantial investments in alternative methods of
transportation including the expansion and construction of mass
transit facilities;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of San Luis
Obispo does hereby endorse the passage of Propositions 111 (SCA 1)
and 108, the Traffic congestion Relief and Spending Limitation Act
of 1990 on the June 1990 ballot.
Resolution No. (1990 Series)
Page Three
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
1990.
MAYOR RON DUNIN
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK PAM VOGES
CI O F JORGENSEN
�� 7
RESOLUTION NO. (1990 SERIES) ^
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ENDORSING PROPOSITION 116, THE CLEAN AIR
AND TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1990 (INITIATIVE)
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo finds that public
transportation improvements result in enhanced public safety and
mobility, cleaner air, less energy use, and less congestion on
already overcrowded streets and highways; and
WHEREAS, the Clean Air and. Transportation Improvement Act of
1990 (Act) would provide $1990 million to improve and expand public
transportation throughout California; and
WHEREAS, the Act is compatible and consistent with the
transportation package placed on the ballot by the Governor and
State Legislature, and will thereby result in implementation of
part of an overall transportation plan which will provide cleaner �-
air and better transportation for all Californians; and
WHEREAS, the Act would benefit San Luis Obispo County by
. providing approximately ten million dollars to the region for
critically needed transportation improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Act creates a trust fund for the Transportation
Planning and Development Account which will prohibit the current
practice of reappropriating transit funds to the General Fund and
which will .provide full appropriation of state Transit Assistance
Funds to all counties including San Luis Obispo County;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of San Luis
Obispo does hereby endorse the passage of the Clean Air and
Transportation Improvement Act on the June 1990 ballot.
ATTACHMENT 2 �eQ'
Resolution No. (1990 Series)
�.` Page Two
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
1990.
MAYOR RON DUNIN
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK PAM VOGES
Ant-
TT
JE JORGENSEN
O
� 9
San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating-Council Arroyo a Grande
Grover City-
Morro P
and Regional Transportation Planning Agency Paso Rol..
Pismo Beach
Paul C. Crawford, AICP, Executive Director San Luis Obispo
_ Ronald L. De Carli, Program Manager San Luis Obispo County
Match 29, 1990 n
Jahn D= RLECEIVED
City Aftinistrator .
City of San Iuis Cbispo i i r� _ ;.1990
P.O. Box 8100 ADMINISTRATION
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 SAN Luis Q_g1SPO, 0
Dear Mr. Daum:
At their regular meeting on March 16, 1990, the San Iris Obispo Area
Coordinating Council approved a resolution supporting SCA 1 (Proposition
111) and a resolution supporting Proposition 116. The Area Council also
approved staff's recamnendation to distribute the staff reports and
resolutions to member jurisdictions for endorsement. Enclosed please find
the following items:
* Staff report on SCA 1
* Resolution on SCA 1
* Staff report on Proposition 116
* Resolution on Proposition 116
SCA 1, if approved by the voters in June, will increase the state gas tax
by nine cents and truck weight fees by 55% to provide bzxllM to meet
California's grading transportation needs. Cities should expect a local
fuel subvention increase of approximately $6.00 per capita. If SCA 1 is
not approved by the voters, existing STIP projects noted in the enclosed
staff report an SCA 1 will be delayed well into the decade arra no funding
will be available for new highway projects.
Proposition 116, if approved by the voters in June, will provide $1990
million statewide, primarily for rail projects. San Luis Obispo county
would receive approximately $10 million for rail and public transportation
projects.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions
regarding either of these propositions please contact me at 549-5714.
Sincerely,
i
Ronald L. DeCarli,
Program age'
County Government Center, San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 (805) 549-5612
ATTAr wmpvT 4
SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL
' STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: -
MARCH 16, 1990 -
SUBJECT:
SEMM aoKsrrtvrl , AMUMO r (SCA) 1
SUMMARY
Senate A endIm*+* 1 (Proposition 111) will appear before
California voters on the June 1990 ballot. It has been described as the
most significant public firm= and budget legislation of the decade. The
primary purpose of the aimer&aent is to increase the state gas tax by nine
omits and truck weight fees by 55% to provide fin ding to meet California's
gmWing ttansportation needs. If passed, net revenues statewide frcmm the
tax and fee increases will generate as estimated $15.5 billion during the
ten year period from July 1, 1990 to June 30, 2000. Its passage will
guarantee funding for approadmately $16 million 1 i rn, for currently programmed
State Highway projects in San Luis Cbispo county, give a high probability
of funding for another $71 million for high priority, longer range state
gftmY pro]eats and puede Q, atant'ial funds for local road projects.
i
Staff: a) Approve Attached Resolution Endorsing SCS, 1 (Prop. 111)
b) Authorize Distribution of Staff Report and a Draft
Resolution to Member Jurisdictions for Endorsement
TTAC:
CTAC:
DISCUSS
The State of California is facing a severe shortage of funis to pay for
current arra long term transportation iaquwements. The
Governor and Legislature have agreed on SCA 1 as a significant means of
raising the necessary flmding. The program, including $3 billion in bands
for passenger rail transportation, would raise a total of $18.5 billion
over- ten years for the following programs: .
1. $3.5 billion to fund the dmrtall in the ming state higIrway
capital lq=vvment program. These funds will guarantee the state
share of already programmed STIP projects.
2. $1.25 billion for interregional roads in rural counties. Caltrans'
proposed plan limits funding under this program to improvements for
Route 101, Route 46 East and Route 41 West.
A-3-1
3. $3.0 billion for passenger rail transit projects thrazlicut the
state. San Luis Obispo County has no rail projects included in the
plan.
U
4. $3.0 billion for flexible congestion relief, one of the only programs
San Luis Obispo County can apply for, will provide funding ona
competitive basis for any capacity atmioement project designed to
reduce or eliminate traffic c ngesU n, including on local roads and
mass transit guideway improvements.
S. $1.0 billion for the Highway Systems Operation and Protection Plan
(HSOPP) for maintenance, rehabilitation, safety and minor projects on
state highways, programmed by Caltrans. Miese funds count against
finding allocated to the region and thereby reduce funding for new
capital projects.
6. $1.0 billion for Traffic System Management (TSI) projects which are
limited to urban counties.
7. $2.0 billion for state-local tri-amportati.on partnership program which
is largely limited to counties that have Passed'a local option sales
tax increase for transportation improvements.
8. $3.0 billion for annual subventions to cities and counties, based on
population to the cities and an apportionment formula to the
counties. This would provide an estimated total of $935,000 in the
first year and up to $2.1 million in the tenth year for San Luis
Obispo County.
n
9. $100 mi l l i m- ($10 million l ion annually) for envirortmental enhancement J
projects on a statewide grant basis.
10. $650 million for construction of sourdwalls and public transit in
urban counties.
The funding programs of SCA 1 largely limit the opportunity for this
cotnty to receive any substantial additional state funding for a wide
range of necessary highway improvements (such as additional interchange
improvements, passing lanes, bypasses, widenings) without a significant
local fond contribution. Moreover, they provide only nominal state relief
for local street and road maintenance and construction. Passage of SCA 1
will, however, guarantee designated "Canty Minim=" State highway funds
for San Luis Obispo county and the state share of finding for currently
pmograimned State Highway projects in San Luis Obispo County, includuq:
1. Expansion and inWovement of the Oak Park Road Interchange ($3.4
million) ;
2. Construction of --passing In on Route 46 East fry Airport Road to
the East Junction of 41/46 ($3.3 million) ;
3. A real igrment of Route 41 East from Route 101 to the Salinas River in
Atascadero ($3.3 million) ; �}
A-3-2
4. Expansion and improvement of the Tefft Street intex -mage in Nipcmo
($2 million) :
5. Expansion and improvement of the 4th Street/5 Cities Drive interchange
in Pismo Beach ($2 million) ;
6. A curve improvement project on Route 1 at Callendar Black rake Road
near Nipamo ($2 million) .
In addition, Caltrans has noted that there are several other longer range,
high priority state highway projects in San Luis Obispo County which will
have a high probability of being funded, including:
1. Construction of a northbound truck climbing lane. on Cuesta Grade ($26
million) .
2. Additional_ widening of Route 46 East to four lanes from Airport Road
to almond Drive ($22 million)
3. Construction of passing lanes on Route 41 tbetween Monro Bay and
Atascadero ($3 million) .
4. Widening of Route 101 to six lanes in the south county between Grand
Avenue and the Fourth Street/5 Cities Drive ($20 million) .
The attached resolution will be sent to all local jurisdictions in the
Canty asking for their endorsement and various lobby groups throughout
i .
the State for their use in promoting the measure.
i Staff Report Prepared by Mike Harte, 2-28-90
A-3-3
3s//
SAN IDIS OBISPO ARFA 00ORDIN2GING COUNCIL
RESOIITPION NO. 90-01
RESOLLY171ON END RSING PROPOSITION 111 (SCA 1)
THE TRAFFIC CATION REM.'QE' AND SPENDING I M'MMON ACT OF 1990
The following Resolution is now offered and reads:
VREMAS, the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council concurs that
the State of California faces serious fiscal policy problems which
threaten the critical areas of education, tiansportaticn, health services,
law enforcement, senior programs and other taxpayer services thereby
endangering the states's current and future economic health; and
SSS, SCA 1 would alter. the Gann spending limit to allow the state
greater flexibility in making use of all available revenues generated by
California's strong economy; and
WMUAS, SCA 1 would allow the state to raise the gasoline tax and
truck weight fees as approved in SB 300 and AB 471 (1989) to provide
increased funding for maintenance and improvement of highway arra mass
transit projects without reducing funds for other state programs; and
WWZEASI SCA 1 would.provide approximately $16 million to fund
a=wtly pr meed State Highway projects, another $71 million for other
necessary long term transportation improvements in San Luis Obispo County,
an increase in gas tax subventions to local jurisdictions, an
envi r ar manta l enhancement grant fund, and provide a guarantee of C=-rty
Minim= funding pursuant to Section 188 of the Streets arra Highways Code;
arra
WHEREAS; SCA 1 would continue the guarantee of Proposition 98 that 1
K-12 and the comimmi, colleges receive 40% of the st.,_ , budget; and
VaU REAS, without a change in the Gann spending limit, it will be
impossible to maintain and improve local streets and roads arra state
highways; and
WMEAS, SCA 1 is supported by a broad coalition including Governor
George DeW=jian, State Superintendent of Schools Bill Honig, California
Taxpayers Association, California League of Women Voters, California
Association of Highway Patrolmen, California School Boards Association, _
County Supervisors Association of California, California Transportation
Association, California Qiember of Q=eree, League of California Cities,
University of California Board of Regents, California State University
Board of Trustees, and many others; and
WHEREAS, redbi�5on in the state's traffic congestion will require
substantial invest vents in alternative methods of transportation including
the expansion and construction of. mass transit facilities;
NOW, ZHEREFWE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Luis Obispo Area
Coordinating Council does hereby endorse the passage of Proposition 111
(SCA 1) , The Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation Act of 1990
on the June 1990 ballot.
On motion by Delegate Blakely seconded by
Delegate Ovitt _. and on the following roll
call vote, to wit:
AYES: Delegates Blakely, Ovitt, coy, Ekbom, Johnson, Moots, Morrow,
Sheets, and President Delany.
NOES: Delegates Borgeson and Rappa
ABSENT: Delegate Russell
ABSTAIN: None
ghe foregoing resolution is hereby adopted on the 16th day of March, 1990
Evelyn Delany, President
SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA OOCEMU Z'M COUNCIL
APPROVED AS TO FORM APED TEGM EFFECT:
4 1 Date: 4.0
Deputy C=ity
Attest:
Ronald L. DeCarli, Program Manager
1
SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: QED
1�RQi 16, 1990
SUBJECT:
PROPOSITICi 116, Tim CLEAN AIR AND TRANSP03�'ATZC;J
IlMPF40VIIMENT ACT OF 1990
sunoRY
Prcposition 116,. the Clean Air and Transportation Iuqzwement Act of 1990,
is an initiative which will appear on the June, 1990 statewide ballot. If
approved it will provide $1990 million statewide primarily far rail.
projects. San This Obispo County would receive TYimately $10 million
for rail and public transportation projects.
ITZON
Staff: - Approve attached resolution endorsing Proposition 116.
Distribute sample staff report and draft resolut .an to member
jurisdictions for endorsement.
' THC:
CTAC:
DISCOSSI�i
The funds available if Proposition 116 passes would be limited to capital
experrlitures and may not be allocated for street or highway iaguvvements,
operations, maintenance or- construction. Californians for Transportation
Solutions, an organization promoting Proposition 116, noted the following
key pLvvisians pe ain � to San LUIS Obispo Cmmty:.
*
$100000,,000 to the Regional Ttanspo=taticai Planning Agency for any of
the following eq:esses
- railroad grade crossings;
- acquisition of railroad rights of way for railroad purposes;
- rail passenger or other rail statu=;
- railroad Vis;
- other rail safety improvements;
- other public facilities for public tnanmportaticn (Section 99628) .
* Funding under this section does not reguire local matching funds.
* Other Features include the following:
i
- compatible with Gam revision gas tax (SCA 1) ;
A-4-1
- complements $1 billion legislative rail bond measure (AB 973 Costa) ;
- does riot Oount against County m;nimms;
- funds will be appropriated to the California Transportation
Coam;«ion. RTFA will be granted funds upon receipt and approval of ,
expenditure plans;
- creates trust fund for Transportation Planning and Development
A x=,mt to prohibit the current practice of reappropriating transit
funds to the General Fled; thereby providing solvency to the State
Transit Assistance Fluid. This fund, in 1985, provided over $300,000
to San Iuis Cbispo County, since that time the SPA fund has been
continually no-ppropriated for other oar purposes. San
Iris Obispo County received only $10,000 from this fund last year.
The proposed change would allow full appropriation of this fund.
- provides that TP&D funds be used only for transportation planning
and mass transportation purposess.
Additionally, , Proposition 116 would provide $20 million to fund a program
of competitive grants to local agencies for capital outlay for bicycle
iagprovement projects which improve safety and convenience for bicycle
commuters. Cxzq3etitive programs will also be available for the
acquisition of both commuter and intercity rail cars and locomotives
($100,000,000) and for capital expenditures associated with water-borne
ferry operations ($20,000,000) .
Staff report prepared by C. Corliss, 2/24/90.
A-4-2 �
SAN .errs OBISPO AREA 00ORDIWEI16 COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 90
RESOLUTION ENDORSING PROPOSITION 116,
THE CLEAN AIR AND TRANSPORTATION nanovaou ACT OF 1990 (IIJTFIAT m
The following Resolution is now offered and reads:
WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo Area OoordinatiM Council finds that
public transportation improvements result in enhanced public safety and
mobility, cleaner air, less energy use, and less congestion on already
overcrowded streets and highways; and
WHMMD..S, the Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Act of 1990
(Act) would provide $1990 million to improve and expand Public
transportation throughout California; and
WHEREAS, the Act is compatible and consistent with the transportation
package placed on the ballot by the Governor arra State Legislature, and
will thereby result in in lementation of part of an overall transportation
plan which will Provide cleaner oar and better transportation for all
Californians; and
WHEREAS, the Act would benefit - San Luis Obispo County by praviduxj
approximately ten million dollars to the region for critically needed
transportation improvements; and
VMMA.S, the Act creates a trust fund for the Transportation Planning
and Development. Ac=unt which will prohibit the torrent practice of
reapprcpriating transit funds to the General Fund and which will provide
lr full appropriation of state Transit Assistance Funds to all counties
including San Luis Obispo County;
NOW, ARE, IT F4WEVED, that the Sar - TA is Obispo Area
Qoorrlinating C=icil does hereby endorse the passage of the Clean Air and
Transportation Improvement Act on the June 1990 ballot. l
On motion by Delegate R1akPlX , seconded by J
Delegate Rappa , and on the following roll call vote, to wit:
YES: Delegates Blakely, Rappa, Borgeson, Coy, Johnson, Moots, Morrow,
Ovitt, Sheetz and President Delany
WESS: Delegate Ekbom
ABS : Delegate Russell
ABSTAIN: None
The foregoing resolution is hereby adopted on the 16th day of March, 1990.
Evelyn Delany, President
SAN WI.S OBISPO AREA CDORDINAM G 0OUNCIL
APPROVED AS TO FURM AND =M EF'F=:
By. Date: 4 Ssto
Deputy CCounty
ATTEST:
A,va JC. Arm.•
Ronald L. De Carli, Program Manager
� Zl7
1
���a���►Qiii�IIiIIIIIIIII �i►������►i
�IIIII III cityo5�11� x,115 oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100
April 3, 1990
Mayors/City Managers of cities within San Luis Obispo County
Chairman of the Board/County Administrator:
As indicated at the last Mayors/Managers meeting I attended. the.
Legislative update in Sacramento on Wednesday, March 28, and
obtained the attached information about a State Constitutional
Amendment (SCA 1) which is now known as Propositions 111 and 108.
I. have attached three documents that deal with these propositions:
1. League of California Cities Questions and Answers to
Propositions 111 and 108
2. Sample resolution of support for Propositions 111 and 108
3. My notes on these matters from the speeches of Governor
Deukmejian and Dick Woodward.
The League will be
qu putting out further information in the
League Bulletin in the near future.
Hope this information helps.
Sincerely,
unn
City Administrative Officer-
JD•mc
Attachments
b:mayormgr
ATTACHMENT 4
IMMK
;;s; League of California Cities
;:=` 1400 K STREET • SACRAMENTO.CA 95614 • (916)4445790 /
California Cities /
Work rogetlrer YOUR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS TO
PROPOSITIONS 111 AND 108
June 1990 Ballot
What is Proposition 111?
Appearing on the June 1990 ballot wll.be a measure,titled Proposition 111 (titled "The
Traffic Congestion Relief and SpendingLimitation Act of 1990"and formerly known as
SCAT). It contains three elements:
-It revises the spending limit calculations for local government and the state.The revisions
will allow for your appropriations limit to be adjusted annually at a rate to keep pace with the
economic growth in your city.
-It allows for increases in vehicle fuel tazes.and truck weight fees to fund State,county and
city transportation improvements. These new funds,which come from increases in the gas
and diesel tax and commercial vehicle weight fees,would be exempt from state and local ap-
propriations limits.
- It revises the school funding initiative passed in 1988 to balance the state's educational needs
with the needs of other state services.
Impact on: Spending Limit within the city. Legislation passed (Senate Bill
88)to implement Proposition 111 would allow
Q. How would setting my city's limit be for one of two methods to change the limit
dif j`erent? based on population increases: either l)
changes in population in the city, or 2) the
A. Currently, cities adjust their limits based on percentage increase in population for the entire
the change in the cost-of-living only. If Prop. county.
I 1 I is passed, a city would adjust its"Gann
Limit," or spending limit, by either 1) the Finally, Prop. 111 would exclude from the
change in California's per capita personal spending limit any appropriations for certain
income or 2) the percentage change of growth capital expenses, defined as land, capital im-
in total assessed value due to non-residential provements or equipment that exceed $100,000
construction. and have a life expectancy of ten years or more.
In addition, cities currently may adjust their It would also exclude from the state limit any
spending limits based on changes in population future increases in the gas tax or truck weight J
fees.
Q. What if my city has an emergency Impact on: Transportation
and needs any surpluses it might `
have? Q. What does Prop. 111 do to relieve
A. Prop.. 111 allows for funds to be spent in congestion?
excess of the limit for emergencies declared by A. In conjunction with Prop. 108, a rail bonds
the governor without reducing subsequent years' measure,$18.5 billion will be provided over the
limits. next ten years to do the following:
Q. How is the spending limit checked? . Funding the 1988 State Transportation Im-
provement Program(STIP)shortfall-$3.5
A. The annual calculation of the appropriation bflhon. Projects to be funded are in the cur-
limit will be reviewed as part of an annual audit. rent 1988 plan.
The nature of this review will be defined by
statute, and it is intended that cities will be ' Subvention to cities and counties-$3 bit-
involved in the drafting of this statute. lion. Half the fund is for cities and half for ,
counties, to be distributed to cities based on
Q. If it passes, when would the population. Cities will have to maintain their
provisions go into effect? local contributions to the transportation
system and in counties with an urbanized area
A. The base year for determining a city's limit of 50,000 or more, develop a Congestion
would be the 1986/87 year. The provisions will Management Plan in order to receive the
go into effect on July 1, 1990. funds.
- Q. What is the impact of Proposition Cities can expect to receive an average of
111 if our city is not at its Gann $6.68 per capita annually once the full tax
Limit? increase is in place. The first year will result in
about half that amount,with the subvention
A. First, it is expected that many cities not at increasing each year until it reaches the full
their Gann limit will reach the limit in just a few amount in five years.
years.
• Flexible Congestion Relief Program-$3
Second, Proposition 111 excludes gas taxes from billion. Highways, local roads and transit
the State Gann Limit which is the only way to guideway projects are eligible for funds under
provide the opportunity for the state to raise this program. Funds would be spent on the
new gas tax money. Without this Proposition, most cost-effective project designed to reduce
there will be no increases in the state gas tax. congestion as determined by the California
Transportation Commission.
,Third, the passage of Proposition 111 provides
direct money for the local transportation system State-local transportation partnership pro-
as well as providing new money for which local gram-$2 btlhon. The money in this fund can
governments can compete. be used entirely by local government for local
highway, local road or transit guideway proj-
ects, and must be matched at least on a dollar-
for-dollar basis with local funds.
f' Intercity rail, commuter rail and urban railtransit-$3 billion. Also on the June ballot is
2 �'
i
Proposition 108,which authorizes the sale of :.annual increases of one cent per gallon until the.;
$1 billion in general obligation bonds to be -total reaches nine cents per gallon. In addition,
used for mass transit guideways, on specified it will come from an increase of 40 percent in
rail corridors, including urban rail,commuter weight fees for trucks over 4,000 pounds starting
rail and intercity rail. Two additional$1 Aug. 1, 1990 and another 10 percent increase on
billion bond measures for the same purposes Jan. 1, 1995.
are scheduled to go before the voters in No-
vember, 1992 and November, 1994. Fifteen Net revenues from the tax and fee increases will
percent of the$3 billion is specifically allo- generate an estimated$15.5 billion during the
cated for intercity rail projects. ten-year period from July 1, 1990 to June 30,
2000.
Inter-regional roads-$1.25 billion. This
would be for specified state highway routes Q, Wftm does the additional$3 billion
primarily outside urban areas. come from?
Traffic system management-$1 billion. For A: drop:i08 would authorize the state to sell i
use on transportation systems management the first$1 billion of a total of$3 billion in
projects on state highways and local roadsgeneral raise funding for
obligation bonds to
designed to increase carrying capacity without -.passenger rail transportation. The second $1
increasing lanes, as determined by the CTC, billion bond authorization will be
placed on the
Retrofit soundwalls-$150 million. To November 1992 general election ballot and the
complete all remaining soundwalls designated third on the November 1994 general election
in the current soundwall program. ballot
-
Environmental enhancement and mitigation What's the Con g mfwn Mawgement
-$100 million. For use on urban reforestation Plan?
and other environmental mitigation measures A. The Congestion Management.Plan (CMP)
to ease the environmental effects of transpor- would be required in every county with an
tation facilities. urbanized area of 50,000 citizens or more as a
• Transit operation and/or capital-$500 mil- condition to compete for and receive the funds.
hom This would fund the State Transit Assis The CMP would have to be developed and
tante Program and would be apportioned to adopted annually and must contain the follow-
all areas of the state with half the apportion- ing:
ment based on population and half on transit a) The CMP would be prepared by a public
operator revenues. agency designated by the county board of
Maintenance and rehabilitation of state supervisors and a majority of cities repre-
highways-$1 billion. To be used on additional senting a majority of the incorporated popu-
state highway maintenance and rehabilitation lation in the county. This could either be an
costs. existing agency or the local governments
could create a new agency. The CMP would
Q. Where does the money come from? be prepared in cooperation with regional
transportation planning agencies, Caltrans,
A. The"money will come from anincrease in air pollution districts, and other local govern-
the gasoline and diesel user tax rate of five cents ments.
per gallon effective Aug. 1, 1990 and additional
3 ���
The agency that will produce the CMP must nance,safety,state-local partnership monies,
be designated by a vote of the county and a transportation systems management monies,
majority of the cities representing a majority intercity rail,and expenditures for the Transpor-
of the population. tation Planning and Development Account.
Counties not receiving their minimums during
b) CMP elements would include service the 1988-93 period would have these minimums
standards for roads,.highways and public carried forward to the 1993-1998 period of the
transit, trip reduction efforts to promote funding proposal. After adopting the 1992
alternative transportation methods, pro- STIP,the California Transportation Commis-
grams to measure impacts of development sion is prohibited from allocating any funds for
on regional transportation systems, and a any project if the STIP is not programmed in a
seven-year capital improvement program
manner that guarantees every county its county
that maintains or improves service stan- minimum.
dards, mitigates transportation impacts of
development, and conforms vehicle emis- Impact On: Schools
sions reductions and mitigation measures.
c) The CMP capital program would become Q How does Prop. 111 change funding
the basis for the Regional Transportation for schools approved by Prop. 98?
Improvement Program (RTIP) adopted for A. Prop. 98,approved by voters in 1988,guar-
the region by the regional transportation . anteed K-14 schools would receive a share of
planning agency. the state general fund and determined what
portion of the state's annual surplus, if any,
d) The regional transportation planning would go to schools. This amount then became
agency would evaluate the CMP for consis- part of the school's base funding.Prop. 111
tency with regional transportation plans and provides that 50 percent of any state surplus
could exclude inconsistent projects from the over the state's limit will go to schools,but this
RTIP. amount will not become a part of the school's
base funding. The remainder of any surplus
e) The agency responsible for developing would be returned to the taxpayers..
the CMP would monitor implementation of
the CMP by cities and counties and could
recommend that the new gas tax subventions
for local entities be withheld if cities are not
in compliance. For Copies of
Propositions 111 and 108
f) Authorizes the California Transportation contact the
Commission to give priority projects to cities Secretary of State
and counties in compliance with their CMP. Elections and political
Q. How is the north/south split handled? Reform Division
9161445-0820
A. All of the expenditures in the transportation
package would be subject to the current method
for determining the "north/south split"and
,county minimums,"except highway mainte- MARCH 1990
4 �—��
��►��������������iiii►Iiill�llllla������►����� III city of luis
,
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
April 3, 1990
To: Mayors/City Managers
From: John Dunn
Subject: Speech o League of California Cities members by
Governor Deukmejian and Dick Woodward in relation to
Propositions 111 and 108
Governor Deukmejian stated that the State has 650,000 new State
residents each year, which is twice the national average of growth.
He stated that we need to take some bold step, that we need to
improve our transportation network. He said that Propositions 108
and 111 would provide $18 and one-half billion over ten years
which, in addition to roadway improvements, would be used to expand
transit, to improve the railroad system, and to increase the
effectiveness of Caltrans. He cited the revenue-raising capacity
of both the transit bond program and increasing the truck fees.
He said that spending for the State transportation improvements
would cost 16 cents per day per resident of California.
Dick Woodward is a member of the advertising agency which will be
promoting Propositions 111 and 108. He said that an excellent ten-
minute video has been done for our use (the League will notify us
as to its availability) . He said that we're asking for a tax
increase, and that is not a popular situation. The public is
willing to approve a tax that is going to help them. What they
want to know is where is the money going, what is it going to do?
He says that they are creating a statewide campaign that will have
a local flavor. He added that the more specific we get as to what
we are going to do with the money, the more we point out the
benefits, the better we will do in the campaign. When people
understand what's involved, we'll do surprisingly well. He said
that we can't buy this election through the paid media, that we
'have to have local support and maximize use of the free media. He
said, "You need not worry about being on the wrong side of this
issue, " that polling (over sampling in certain counties) gives more
support for a 9-cent gas tax than for a 5-cent gas tax. Voters
understand the magnitude of the problem. The two propositions
represent a unique package, for the first time gas tax will go for
something other than pouring concrete. We have learned that we
can't build ourselves out of our transportation dilemma. He said
that rail transit will be an important part of the package. The
local level will have decision-making power over how this money
gets allocated. He said that cynicism toward government in
;3-z6
general, at all levels, people not trusting politicians, must be
addressed, that we need accountability language, which is being
placed in trailer legislation.
He said that Propositions 111 and 108 are very complex initiatives,
that they are based on some grand compromises in Sacramento. He
said that in order to win, we have to talk transportation, even
though there are other items in the initiative package. He said
that it is important that we don't lose focus with the public,
making it sound too complex; he said, "Transportation is -where the
electorate is, and where the media is."
JD:mc
b/maymgrl
w
a� City Of sa 'Luis OBispo MEEnNG1047- 989
COUNCIL, AGENDA R PORT ----------------
FROM; William C. Statler, Director of Finance
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE CITY'S APPROPRIATION LIMIT
GAO RECO bMATION
Receive and file this report on the City's appropriation limit.
OVERVIEW
The purpose of this report is to review the status of the City's appropriation limit and
to discuss the implications of projected treads. The following are key findings from the
City's Comprehensive Financial Management Plan (which will be formally presented to the
City Council at its May 24, 1989 meeting on budget issues) regarding the City's
appropriation limit:
• The City's favorable variance from its limit has decreased significantly since
the base year of 1978-79.
• A favorable variance from the limit of $1.4 million is projected for 1988-89.
• Projected.growth in the City's.tax base (exclusive of any changes in tax rates
such as Transient Occupancy Taxes) will cause the City to exceed its
appropriations limit by 1991-92.
BACKGROUND
The Gann Spending-Limitation Initiative was approved -by the voters on November b, 1979
(establishing Article XIIIB of the State Constitution), which provided for the limitation
of state and local governmental appropriations. As discussed in the following summary of
the major provisions of the Gann Initiative as they relate to the City of San Luis
Obispo, the Gann Initiative is actually a limitation on tax revenues rather than a direct
limitation on appropriations:
• Appropriations subject to limitation may not exceed appropriations made in
1978-79 except as adjusted for increases in the cost of living, population, and
service responsibility transfers. Increases in the cost of living are defined
as the lesser of the changes in the U.S. Consumer Price Index or California
Personal Per Capita Income.
• Appropriations financed through service fees (to the degree that they do not ..
exceed the budgeted cost of performing the service), grant programs, fines and
forfeitures, and other 'non-tax• sources as defined by the Initiative and SB
1352, are not subject to the Appropriations Limit. Additionally, appropriations
for long-term indebtedness incurred prior to FY 1978-79 as well as increased
costs as a result of federally-mandated programs are also excluded from the
limit. Essentially, with the exception of expenditures for debt service
incurred prior to FY 1978-79, all appropriations funded through the proceeds of
taxes are subject to limitation.
• For the purposes of identifying proceeds from taxes under the Gann Initiative,
state subventions which are unrestricted as to their use (such as Motor Vehicle
ATTACHMENTS
city o f sar"-_ uis oBlspo
Mai COUNCIL AGENOA REPORT
and Cigarette Tax In-Lieu revenues) are considered to be tax sources. Gas Tax,
Local Transportation Fund, and SB 300 subventions are identified as non-tax
.sources as their use is restricted by the State.
• All proceeds from taxes received in excess of the Appropriations Limit must be
returned through refunds or revisions in taxrates or fee schedules within the
next two fiscal years; or approval by the voters of an increase in the City's
Appropriations Limit would be required. Any voter approved increase in the !
Appropriations Limit would be valid fora maximum of four years and would !
require another vote at the end of that period for continuance.
• The Gann Initiative is self-executing"; to the extent feasible, local agencies
are expected to implement the initiative without further legislative direction
(other than SB 1352) or administrative auditing by the State. The
Appropriations Limit computations and subsequent implementation of these limits
is the sole responsibility of the City, and no formal review by another
governmental agency is required.
• Major concepts in implementing the Gann Initiative include: appropriations
funded through tax sources are subject to the limit, not actual expenditures;
and any excess of actual tax revenues over the Appropriations Limit, not actual
expenditures or appropriations, must be returned.
FINDINGS
Provided in Attachment A.is a summary of the City's Appropriations Limit and actual
proceeds from taxes subject to limitation from 1978-79 (the base year) through 1987-88
along with projections for 1988-89 through 1999-00 These projections have been made
based on the following assumptions:
• Annual increases in the cost of living of 5%.
• Population increases consistent with the General Plan of approximately 1%
annually beginning with 1990-91.
• Real growth in the tax base of approximately 6% annually based on historical j
trends over the past 10 years.
As reflected by Attachment A and the graphic summary provided in Attachment B, the City's
variance from its limit has consistently declined since the base ,year (1978-79), and the
limit is projected to be exceeded by 1991-92. This timetable would be negatively
impacted by the proposed increase of 2% to 3% in the Transient Occupancy Tax, which is
estimated to generate between $400,000 to $600,000 in additional revenues subject to
limitation.
The impact of the Gann Initiative on local government finance is emerging as a critical
issue throughout the State. Ultimately, any community which is experiencing real growth
in its local economy will be faced with exceeding its appropriations limit. To date,
60 agencies have sought an override election. All overrides that were not linked to an
increase in tax rates have been successful; .and 63% of all overrides related to tax
increases have been successful.
C�
city of sa— luis mispo
COUNCIL AGENDA PEPOFM
POTENTIAL.MODIFICATIONS TO THE GANN LIMIT
In November of 1988, several ballot initiatives aimed at changing the Gann Appropriations
Limit to better accommodate economic growth were submitted for voter approval. These
initiatives were sponsored or supported by a number of groups including the League of I
California Cities, County Supervisors Association, the University and College Systems,
California Tax Payers Association (Cal Tax), National Association of Realtors, the
Chamber of Commerce and others. Several of these supporters were the initial authors of
the Gann Initiative in 1979. All of these initiatives were narrowly defeated.
Presently, a coalition referred to as 'Project 90' and led by the California Tax Payers
Association is developing a legislative measure which would modify Article XIIIB of the I
Gann appropriation limit and its effect on State and local government. Their analysis
indicates its impact is not what was originally contemplated by the 1979 authors and, in
fact, compromises economic growth and entrepreneurial actions by public jurisdictions.
The Project 90 coalition presently includes Cal Tax, the California Chamber of Commerce,
representatives of major public employee organizations, the University and College
Systems, and the medical and health industry.
As presently drafted, the Project 90 proposal is consistent with the League of California
Cities$ policy of favoring modifications to Gann which better accommodate economic growth
and allows for the length of voter overrides to be determined in the ballot measure. I
Several sources indicate there is strong legislative support for the Project 90
proposal. However, should the proposal not be approved by the legislature, the coalition
is prepared to pursue a ballot initiative in June of 1990. i
RECOMMENDED GANN POLICIES ,I I
The Comprehensive Financial Management Plan includes the following recommendations
regarding the City's appropriations limit:
1. The City shall strive to develop revenue sources, both new and existing, which
are considered non-tax proceeds and, therefore, not restricted by the
expenditure limitation.
2 The City shall annually review user fees and charges and report to the City
Council the amount of program subsidy, if any, that is being provided by the
General or Enterprise Funds.
3. The City shall seek a vote of the public to amend its appropriations limit at
such time that tax proceeds are in excess of allowable limits.
4. The City shall actively support League of California sponsored or supported
legislation or initiatives which would. modify Article XIIIB of the Constitution
in a manner which would allow the City to retain projected tax revenues
resulting from growth in the local economy for use as determined by the City
Council.
I
1,
�? 3�
_ MY of sar 4 uis amspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
;- SL=asz
The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the City's Appropriations Limit
and to review the implications of projected trends on the City's future.financial
capacity to fund existing levels of service and projected capital programs.
I.
ATTACHMENTS.-
1.
TTACHMENTS1. Attachment A - Summary of the City's Appropriations Limit and tax proceeds
subject to limitation 0 1978-79 through 1999-00.
2 Attachment B - Graphic summary of the City's appropriations limit trends.
/ 1
r.
000/
ATTACHMENT a
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT AND
TAX PROCEEDS , SUBJECT TO LIMITITATION
ACTUAL AND PROJECTED • 1978-89 THROUGH 1999-00
PROCEEDS FROM VARIANCE-
APPROPRIATIONS TAXES SUBJECT FAVORABLE
LIMIT TO LIMITATION (UNFAVORABLE)
---------------------------
ACTUAL
1978-79 $8,220,471 $8,220,471
$0
1979-80 9, 025,701 6,355,807 21669,894
1980-81 10,171,331 6,057,803 4,113,528
1981-82 11,213,275 8,577,460 2,635,815
1982-83 12,284,800 8,5510198 3,733,602
1983-84 12,752,036 91798,697 2,953,339
1984-85 13, 640,976 10,739,997 21900,979
1985-86 14,4390832 11,877,293 - 2,562,539
1986-87 151210, 675 13,476,829 1,733,846
1987-88 151784,358 14,854,111 930,247
PROJECTED
1988-89 17,077,276 15,666,454 1,410,822
1989-90 18,252,192 17,136,012 18116, 180
1990-91 19, 360,100 18,819,448 540,652
1991-92 20,533,322 20,6791220 (145,898)
1992-93 21,773,535 22,713, 103 (939,568)
1993-94 23, 068,479 241990, 612 (1,922, 133)
1994-95 24,476,285 271519,411 (3,043,126)
1995-96 25,959,548 30,347,508 (4,387,960)
1996-97 27,530,101 33,446,364 (5,916,263)
1997-98 29,192,919 36,886,527 (7,693,608)
1998-99 30,953,252 40,697,256 (91744, 004)
1999-00 32,816,638 45,066,226 (12,249,588)
420 c�
ATTacMeNT s
' o
°f o
vs —
�o �
Z �N ,
o ,
M
W
0 w m
Z
U w
H
Omo Q
LU
CL
O W
O ' LUO
CC JZ
IL
DZU' i
> 0
QW � a� m
LLZW
� i CL
Q2
CL
y � a
O �
1= da ,
ac
a ;
0 c
� o
_
IL i
OO O O O O rfV-
10 C9 N r
i
MEMORANDUM
April 17, 1990
TO: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative ficsr
FROM: William C. Statler, Director of Finance V/
SUBJECT: FINANCIAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSITION I I I
The following is a brief summary of the impacts of Proposition III (SCA 1) as it affects the
City's:
■ Appropriations Limit
7 Gas Tax Revenues
Appropriations Limit Modifications
Passage of proposition I I I will positively impact the calculation of the City's Appropriations
Limit. As discussed with the Council during the 1989-91 Financial Plan preparation process,
the effect of the initiative (Proposition 4 - Gann Spending Limit) which established the
concept of appropriation limitation is to limit the City's tax revenues to 1978-79 levels except
as adjusted for increases in population and cost of living. Under current procedures for
calculating the appropriations limit,it is projected that the City will exceed its Appropriations
Limit by Fiscal Year 1991-92.
Although the quantitative impact of Proposition 111 on the City's Appropriation Limit can not
be calculated at this time, the following features are included in its provisions which are
favorable to the City:
■ Increases in the limit due to changes in population can be based on either the
percentage increase in the City's population or the County-wide population,
whichever is greater.
■ Increases in the limit due to changes in the "cost of living" will be based on the
percentage increase in personal income. Currently, an increase in the "cost of
living" is defined as the Ila=of changes in the consumer price index (CPI) or
personal income. Historically, changes in personal income have been greater
than changes in the CPI.
■ Appropriations for capital improvements and acquisitions with a cost of
$100,000 or greater and a life in excess of 10 years are excluded from the
Appropriations Limit.
It is anticipated that guidance will be received from a broad variety of sources (State
Controller, State Department of Finance, League of California Cities, California Society of
Municipal Finance Officers) regarding the procedures to be followed in calculating the City's
Appropriations Limit if Proposition 111 is adopted. Until that time, it is not possible to
accurately calculate the specific impact of Proposition 1 I I on the City's Appropriations Limit.
However,it can be anticipated that the proposed,revisions will significantly improve the City's
position relative to its current Appropriations Limit as calculated under existing constitutional
and legislative provisions.
ATTACHMENT 6
Gas Tax Revenues
i
With the additional gas tax revenues permitted under Proposition 111,subventions to cities and
counties from this revenue source are projected to increase by approximately $6.00 per capita.
For the City of San Luis Obispo, this will result in approximately $250,000 annually in
additional revenues. This revenue increase is especially valuable in light of the results of the
City's long-term financial planning efforts which indicate the need for additional revenues
if current service levels are to be maintained and capital facility goals achieved. Specifically,
the additional revenues would address two key issues:
■ Under the City's Pavement Management Plan adopted in February of 1988, the
level of funding allocated to street resurfacing and reconstruction has increased
by approximately$370,000 annually(from$250,000 to$620,000). The additional
$250,000 in street-related funds can be used to offset a significant portion of
this increase.
■ The additional revenues are excluded from the City's Appropriations Limit.
SUMMARY
Although the exact impact of Proposition 1.11 is difficult to project, it will positively affect
the City's long-term financial health in two key areas:
E Improve the City's variance from its Appropriations Limit.
E Generate additional revenues($250,000 annually)to offset higher levels of street
maintenance previously approved by Council.
If you have any questions concerning this initial review of the financial impacts of
Proposition 111 in the City,or require additional information,please do not hesitate to contact
me.
P MD/PR0P111.YPF
r
YESON ;-
III J08
THERE'S A LOT RIDING ON IT!
..........
.:. JUSTTHE FACTS
Proposition 11L• The Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation Act
Proposition 108: ..The Passenger Rail and Clean Air Bond Act
Transportation Package Specifically,new revenues will be used to:
New Revenues: Earthquake-safe freeways, bridges and streets —
A total of 5185 billion will be raised over the next Every major earthquake uncovers new ways of
10 years from the following sources: reinforcing our existing transportation system to
prevent future tragedies. We have the know-how
• 9-Cent-Per-Gallon Fuel Tax Increase (5 cents on August and technology,but lack the funds to undertake the
1, 1990,additional 1 teat on January 1, 1991, 1992, 1993 seismic retrofitting necessary to improve the safety —
and 1994) of all our bridges and overpasses.
• 55%Truck weight Fee Increase Complete already authorized, but unfunded
• Rail Transit Bonds[Sl billion bond in 1990(Proposition projects— There is currently a S35 billion shortfall
108);additional$1 billion bond measures will be placed on in the state transportation improvement program.
1942 and 19%ballots] Hundreds of already-authorized freeway widening,
interchange improvement, general safety
New Expenditures: reinforcements, transit and other projects have
(in billion dollars) been halted for lack of funds. Proposition 111 will
3-5 Complete already-authorized projecm enable these projects to proceed.
3.0 Maintenance and repair of local streets and roads. Fix potholes and increase maintenance of local
3.0 (Prop.108 and future bonds)Build and-expand streets and roads— A full two-thirds of our main
intercity,commuter and urban rail transit. roads are in fair to very poor condition and in need
3.0 Construct projects specifically designed to reduce of resurfacing or reconstruction, according to The
congestion on existing routes. Road Information Program (TRIP).
20 Matching funds for dry and county priority
transportation projects. Reduce peak-hour traffic by expanding van,
L25 Improve interregional roads outside urban areas. carpool and staggered work hour programs—The
1.0 Peak-hour reduction projects,such as vanpools. best way to decrease traffic congestion is to reduce
the number of vehicles using the system. More
1.0 Highway repair,maintenance and safety. programs and incentives are needed to encourage
0.5 Transit expansion.operation and maintenance. the private sector to promote carpool and flextime
0.25 Environmental enhancements and soundwall to get folks off the highways during peak hours.
retrofitting.
S18S billion
�ESON111&108111"!An:aSCmMa/C Suae406 5umroane CA940108-415i310.0470 Fax,a•5i340.'392
i4w west a m m aw evarc S.-ie 2-8 Las A^ge-es CA 90064 0,313!445.6885 Fax.3'3,==5.8800
"21 L S:•W. Su-te'OGW sac-are' . :A}.3'A at9r61=.8%G Fax-916,"i..'34
A T TAC:-1f-Wirr 7
Build and expand rail transit systems — While The plan must outline a program for reducing
S3.5 billion is earmarked exclusively for transit traffic and address important land use, air quality
projects,another$5 billion in congestion relief and and other issues. The Congestion Management
matching funds will be available for local Program will also encourage coordination with the
governments to use on rail projects as well. private sector to promote van pools, staggered
Together,Proposition 111 and 108 will provide the work hours and other peak-hour traffic relief
funds needed to expand existing light rail, programs.
commuter and intercity lines and start new services
where they are needed. TaypayerAccountability,
Improve traffic flow— In some cases, getting cars The propositions will require the Auditor General
moving faster is simply a matter of making to conduct an annual review of the state s
expenditure of these new funds.
relatively small investments to improve the existing
system. Wider use of synchronized signals on
major thoroughfares, re-directing traffic with Spending Limitation Modifications
highway alert signs and ramp meters to control
freeway flow are just a few of the ways we can make Exempts increased fuel taxes —Without a change
the most of what we've already got. in the existing government spending limit,the new
revenues could not be spent. Proposition 111 will
Improvements to and maintenance of state ensure that new revenues that coine in from the use
highways — Built decades ago, California's of state and local roads are spent on improving the
impressive highway system now suffers from transportation system.
overuse, everyday wear and lack of adequate
funding. As a result of inflation, increased fuel Exempts emergency expenditures — Proposition
efficiency and skyrocketing construction and 111 will exempt one-time expenditures for
material costs,we are actually spending less on our earthquakes and other emergencies.
highways today than we were decades ago.
Proposition 111 will provide the funds necessary to Reflects growth in the economy — The existing,
ensure the endurance and safety of our world ten-year-old limit is still tied to an inflation factor
renowned highways. (the National Consumer Price Index). Proposition
111 will allow it to keep pace with our economy by
Congestion Management Program: permitting the limit to grow with California's per
A fundamental objective of the transportation capita personal income.
package is to promote a coordinated regional Reflect school population growth —The measure
approach to reduce congestion and to ensure new will require the state limit reflect the annual growth
transportation funds are properly used on projects in average daily attendance in our public schools.
that will have the maximum impact on congestion
reliefl Exempts capital outlay projects — Capital outlay
To receive the new revenues provided for local expenditures (school buildings, etc.) tend to be
p cyclical and do not readily fit within a limit designed
congestion relief and other improvements, a to control annual spending. To prevent capital
transportation commission (or appropriate outlays from resulting in significant service cuts,
regional agency) in every urban county must work Proposition 11.1 will remove them from the
with air quality management and other relevant limitation.
i local government agencies to prepare a congestion
management plan.
YESON
111&108
THERE'S A LOT RIDING ON IT!
ProposWon 1f:
The Passenger Rail and Clean Air Bond Act
Moving California into a New Era of Rail Transit
Proposition 108 is the rail transit bonding portion of the comprehensive transportation blueprint
outlined in Proposition 111 —the Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation Act.
As required by this visionary package,over the next four years,voters will be asked to approve three
separate $1 billion rail transit bond measures,totalling S3 billion.Proposition 108 on the June ballot
is the first of these measures.
Although the law requires that Proposition 108—because it is a bond measure—appear separately
on the ballot, it will NOT go into effect .unless BOTH Propositions 111 AND 108 receive voter
approval in June. --
Proposition 108 will fund high priority capital outlay rail projects on intercity (Amtrak), commuter
and urban corridors throughout the state. (Eligible corridors are listed on the reverse side.)
Proposition-108 will usher California into a new era of rail transit. It will:
• Provide frustrated commuters and everyday citizens with real,and safe, alternatives to battling
traffic.
• Remove thousands of automobiles from our congested streets and highways. In fact,experience
shows that every rail car removes 75 to 125 automobiles from traffic.
• Reduce dangerous pollution levels in the air we breathe.
• Prove cost-effective. light rail can be built at one-tenth the cost of highways.
• Keep California prosperous. Accordin&to fiscally conservative State Treasurer Thomas Hayes,
;he
108 is exactly the kind of investment we should be making and is vital to keeping
the California economy healthy and prosperous".
Join the movement toward a SAFER, CLEANER and MORE EFFICIENT
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM! VOTE YES on 108 and YES on 111!
•ES�N.••S+OB 9muny^a^eC-943`0 a ::i �:J:='0°cx.:•5.3-J-'332
•110C Hes:Dvma:3a•.e.arc S—'-= ° -:e Ange-es CA k0&4 @ 0!3i::�aSE5 rA,
.., L 511ee! knie'C00 Va.-a.,.. Aa 8: 4919:b. --:1J00 --%10
The following corridors will be eligible for Proposition 108 funds:
INTERCITY RAIL Santa Clara:
Los Angeles-San Diego Sunnyvale-Santa Clara
Santa Barbara-Los Angeles San Jose-Vasona
Los Angeles-Fresno-Bay Area/Sacramento Route 237 s
Bay Area-Sacramento-Auburn
San Francisco-Eureka San Francisco:
Extensions, improvements and additions to the
COMMUTER RAIL San Francisco Municipal Railway.
San Francisco-San Jose
San Jose-Gilroy San Francisco-Santa Rosa-Sonoma
Gilroy-Monterey Santa Cruz County:
Stockton-Livermore Boardwalk-University of California, Santa
Orange County-Los Angeles Cruz
Riverside County-Orange County
San Bernardino County-Los Angeles Los Angeles Metro Rail:
Ventura-San Fernando Valley-Loos Angeles Wilshire/Alvarado-Wilshire/Western
Saugus-Los Angeles Wilshire/Alvarado-Lankershim/Chandler
Oceanside-San Diego San Fernando Valley Extension
Escondido-Oceanside Union Station-State Routes 5 and 710
Wilshire/Western-Wilshire/Route 405
URBAN RAIL TRANSIT
Los Angeles County Rail Corridors:
Sacramento: San Fernando Valley
Roseville extension Pasadena- Los Angeles
Hazel extension Coastal Corridor (Torrance-Santa Monica)
Meadowview extension Santa Monica Los Angeles
Arena extension Route 5
BART. Route 110
Bayfair-East Livermore San Diego:
Concord -East Antioch El Cajon- Santee
Fremont -Warm Springs Downtown-Old Town
Daly City-SF Airport Airport- Point Loma
Coliseum-Oakland Airport Old Town- Mission Valley
Richmond Crockett Mission.Vallev- La Mesa
Warm Springs - San Jose La Jolla Miramar
Alameda and Contra Costa: Old Town- Del Mar
Pleasanton-Concord Downtown- Escondido
Chula Vista- Otay Mesa.
3-39'
YES on PROPOSITIONS 111 & 108
WHY CALIFORNIA BUSINESS SUPPORTS 111 & 108I
California has reached a lxossroada. We enter arww osive dpo�e� �health care
—managing
unprecedented traffic c%dr!0 � addressing
costs,ensuring adsq Ws taw Wforcerrwit and Wjk safety protection and teacw+o our clAdniri the skills
necessary to compete In the modem worktorm
The nature and magnitude of these demands call for an innovative and comPrahensw•plan-a blueprint
to move California toward the start of a new century.
That's why the Cardor*chamber of Commerce.calffomla Taxpayers Assodstion.calfforNa Business
Roundtable. California Manufacturers Association.Cailfomla Association Of HViway Patrolmen. League of
Women Voters of California.California State Automobile Association and scores of other business.taxpayer•
transportation, senior. health cam labor and education organtmft is aro rallying behind the Traffic
Congestion Relief and Spending Umbtion Ad d 1990—Pmposalon 111 on the June 5 bdaL
Proposition 111 contains two major components that w0 provide the resources and direction necessary
to address today$ challenges: a traffic congestion rdW package and a modification of the existing
government spending nmtL
Traffic congestion Reset
An efikient transportation system is critical to maintain a strong and dynamic California economy. Current
congestion levels have become unbearable.t No long r concentratedlot ��on is expected urban
r areas.
e s.gridlock
now plagues us an and irs only going oworse.
even triple in some areas—in just io years.
Even If revenues were available.we can no longer expect to simply build our way out of gridlock. Those
days are long gone. We need a dramatic change in direction. Proposition 11 t outlines a sensible,tar-reaching
transportation package that utilizes innovative strategies to tattle todays unique traffic problems and better
prepare for tomorrov✓s needs. h sets new priorities. It represents a whole new comprehensive approach to
solving our traffic nightmares it will require$t S.S billion be spent over the next ten years to:
• Make our freeways,bridges and streets earthquake sate.
• Complete highway and mass transit projects authorized but not funded.
• Fbk pothdes and Increase maintenance of local streets and state highways.
• Reduce peak-hour traffic by expanding van.carpool and staggered work hour programs.
• Expand local rail transit systems In Los Angeles.the Bay Area.San Diego.Sacramento. Santa para,
San Joaquin Vasey.Riverside.San Bernardino.Orange.the coastal counties and elsewhere.
• Improve traffic flow through synchronized signals. freeway ramp signals. electronic traffic message 1
stns and other modem devices ..
• improve state highways.
111 Mut Boulevard.Sub 406.Su"Alm.CA94010 • Piton.(415) one 70 Fax:(415)340 I=
Ecekxrrive Town Building.11400 w.Olympic Boulevard.Los Angeles.G 90054 • Phone:(213)445$885 Fax: (213)445-M �
1121 L Street sone 1000.Sacramento,CA 95814 • Phone:(Dig)4444= Fix(918)448-7104
Gowrncr George Deukmellan.Chair•Tom mttichk Treasurer.IOI 891894
whore wm tfre new Morwy cornu born? M-@Wy from those who use Ms roads tMuugh Increased user
tea—a Sent-W-gallon W to Increase this year and an addbwW 1 csK each of the nVd lour years(a
total Increase of ti ants) and Increased truck weight fess. The Passenger Rd and Oeen Air Bond Act —
Proposltlon 108 —will prvAde the remshlar of the neoassM funds. Whough an Int0WW part d the
Proposition 111 package,for tec r"rsgsoru these ral ftu-k bonds will appear separately on the b")
The gasoline tax Increase will total about$W a year for the average drkw. It's an Yxresss we can afford.
Spending Limit Modiftatlorm
The existing spending limiton state and local government threatens essentlel government "Mm
needed to maintain economic growth. It prevent us from using the revenues generated by growth to meet
the demands d grow0L
Proposition 11 t will exempt the new gas tax revenues from the Inst and will require state and tical limits
to grow with our economy, but no faster. This will keep strong taxpayer corwols on government spending
but will enable already-collected taxes to be used to meet pressing law enforcement,senior. education and
other needs
The choice is simple: We can hit our traffic and other problems get worse or wi can do something
about it NOW. .
We have the technology and the know-how to tactile these concems. Now-In Propositions 1116108
—we have a consensus pian of action.
VOTE YES ON PROPOSITIONS 111 6108
r ;
YES ON
111J08
THERE'S A LOT RIDING ON IT 1
VVHY EDUCATION SUPPORTS
PROPOSITIONS 111 and 108!
Propositions 111 and 108 represent a consensus It will:
blueprint to move California into the 21st 9 Increase the dollars for our schools by
Ceniury. requiring current spending limits on education
They are supported by California's education spending to reflect both the growth in our
community — educators, school boards, parents economy and the growth in school population.
and student associations — as well as a diverse This will enable the use of already-collected taxes
coalition that includes California's highway to meet our education and other vital service
patrol officers, police chiefs, taxpayer needs.
associations,health care and senior associations, Without these changes, according to the
the Chamber of Commerce, Governor Commission on State Finance — even though
Deukmejian and the leadership of BOTH the funds will be available — the existing limit will
Democratic and Republican parties. deny$22 billion in revenues to vital service cuts
Just what are Propositions 111 and 108 that over the next 10 years. -�
make them so widely supported? • Strengthens the 40%general fund minimum
Proposition 111 contains two major funding guarantees provided to our kindergarten
components: through community colleges. In lean economic
1) an update of the existing government years, Proposition 111 requires that any
spending limitation; and legislative suspension of education's guaranteed
minium be paid back is future yearns.
2)a comprehensive transportation package. a Exempts capital outlay expenditures for
Updating the Spending Limit for Our Schools: school buildings and facilities from the spending
limit. This will be a tremendous benefit to
The current spending limit has become overcrowded districts.
outdated. It fails to reflect the growth of our 9 Provides for annual cost of living adjustments
economy and could prevent the expenditure of for the following categorical programs which are
already-collected revenues to meet our growing not currently permitted to keep pace with
needs. inflation:
It fails to reflect the dramatic increase in the -Child Care
number of kids entering our schools every year. -Instructional Materials
Finally,itpits the funding needs of kindergarten -Special Education
through community college against every other -Regional Occupational Programs
service in the state. -School Improvement
While keeping strong taxpayer controls on -Economic Impact Aid
government spending,Proposition 111 will make -Staff Development
several changes in the existing limit. -Gifted and Talented Education
MESON 1118 a a 111 Ansa Bow"ata.su:e 406 BurMngame.CA 94010.14151340.0+'0 FAX 141513,*•392
11400 west O"vsc Bowe+aro.Swie 278 ws Angoes CA 90064.12131"54685 FAA 1213,445-88uu — '7
1121 L Suer Sucre 1000.Saaamml0 CA 95814 2(916)"4.8060.FAX 19161"6.7104 (�
An Innovative and Comprehensive Join the Following Groups in Support of the
Transportation Package Campaign to Pass Propositions 111 & 108:
Getting our kids to and from school is becoming Superintendent of Public Instruction Bill Honig
more and more dangerous. Our local streets and California Federation of Teachers
roads are in dire need of repair and congestion California School Boards Association
levels, already unbearable, are expected to
double and triple in the next 10 years. _ California Community College Trustees and
Propositions 111 and 108 outline a far-reaching Board of Governors
transportation blueprint. The first will raise the Faculty Association of California Community
fuel tax by 9 cents per gallon(as a user fee,it will Colleges
be exempt from the spending limit).That's about California Retired Teachers Association
a$60 annual increase for the average commuter.
The second will authorize the first of three $1 California State Student Association
billion rail transit bonds. University of California Board of Regents
Together, they will provide $183 billion over U.C.President David Gardner
the next ten years to: California Faculty Association
e Make our streets, highways, bridges and California State University Board of Trustees
overpasses earthquake-safe.
e Double our commitment to fixing potholes American Association of University Women
and increasing streets and road maintenance in Californians for Higher Education
every county in the state. Association of Independent California
e Complete.already authorized,but unfunded, Colleges and Universities
rail and highway projects that will reduce traffic Academic Senate of California State
congestion. University
e Build and expand rail transit systems University of California Student Association
throughout the state to get more people off our
highways and onto safe, clean and California Association of Highway Patrolmen
environmentally sound alternatives. League of Women Voters of California
e Expand vanpool and staggered business hour California Transportation Commission
programs. California Chamber of Commerce
e Maximize the existing system by increasing California Police Chiefs Association
the use of synchronized signals, electronic
message aiert signs and other modern devices. Autorno;LUjie...uu-OL OVu►=M,U %,aL"U&=..a
e Improve and maintain our highways and California State Automobile Association
freeways. California Seniors Coalition
Together,Propositions 111 and 108 will ensure American Association of Retired Persons
our commitment to public education and move (AARP)
California safely toward a new century.
YES ON
111&108
THERE'S A LOT RIDING ON IT!
Propositions 111 & 108 are Good for the Ewdwriment!
Propositions 111 and 108 will.improve the quality of life and the environment in California and will
begin the reorientation of our transportation system towards rail and transit
They represent a dramatic change in direction in our state transportation policy;a growing awareness
of the critical relationship between our transportation systems and the environment and 'a
commitment to better managing growth and getting more people off our highways and onto safe,clean
and environmentally sound alternatives.
Proposition .111 — the Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation Act — outlines a
comprehensive blueprint to move California into the 21st Century. It contains two major components:
1) an update of the government spending limitation;and 2)an innovative transportation package.
A Visionary Transportation Package: -
Traffic congestion has become unbearable and is expected to get worse— two and three times as
bad in the next 10 years! And its impact on the environment is becoming more visible than ever.
Vehicles traveling in bumper-to-bumper traffic spew out three times the pollutants as those traveling
at maximum legal speeds.
Propositions 111 and 108 outline a far-reaching, innovative and comprehensive transportation
blueprint Together,these measures represent the largest commitment of funds to rail transit ever
before proposed in the State of California. A total of$85 billion—more than one-half of the total
proposed new project dollars—will be available for new building,expansion and operation of transit
systems throughout the state.
The measures will raise$18.5 billion over the next ten years which will be expended as follows:
• $3 billion bonds — Exclusively for expansion of commuter, intercity and urban rail transit
corridors, including: new commuter rail along major Southern California corridors; BART
extensions;light rail extensions in Sacramento,Santa Clara and San Diego; new rail transit lines in
Los Angeles;and intercity rail throughout the state.
•$500 million—Direct transit operating subsidies.This doubles the current state support for transit
operations and provides a critical margin for local transit systems. Currently, the state is providing
no operating and only some capital subsidies for transit
e$5 billion—Competitive between highway and rail. For the first time in California history, there
will be competition at the regional and local levels between rail and highways. This part of the package
provides a tremendous opportunity for effective local advocacy for transit alternatives. ($3 billion in
"flexible congestion relief"funds which local governments must use to reduce traffic and air pollution.
$2 billion in state matching funds for local projects.)
• $35 billion — Complete already-approved transit and highway projects contained in the State
Transportation Improvement Program. i
YES ON 11,a 1088111 Anza80u"ara.sude.M.aosngame.CA 96010 a 0/51340400 FAX l::5j343-392 7
1u00 vied 0wrac 9axvara.Sure 276.Los AngeKs.CA 90064 012131 aa54W5 FAA 1211+45.8800
1121 L Sued.S de 1000.S=Ml erso.CA 95614 8(916)44+•8060.FAX(9161446.710A f�
• $1 billion — Expansion of carpooling, promotion of staggered business hour programs, signal
synchronization and other traffic flow improvements.These innovative programs will improve air
quality and gas mileage by maximizing the efficiency of the existing system,without adding any new
lanes.
• $250 million — Environmental enhancement and mitigation and soundwalls retrofitting.
For urban forestation and other evironmental mitigation measures to ease the environmental effects
of transportation facilities.
•$4 billion—Earthquake safety,rehabilitation and maintenance.$1 billion at the state level and
$3 billion for cities and counties.
•$125 billion—Interregional (mostly rural) road improvements.
Where will these new fiusds come from?
Proposition 111 will raise the fuel tax by 9 cents per gallon.That's about a$60 annual increase for
the average commuter.
Proposition 108—the Passenger Rail and Clean Air Act—will authorize the first of three$1 billion
rail transit bonds. (Although an intergral part of the entire transportation package,as abond measure
Proposition 108 must appear separately on the ballot.It will take effect only if Proposition 111 passes
as well.)
Proposition 111 also includes a congestion management program. This unique feature requires
regional cooperation among transportation agencies,air districts,and local governments to provide
for transportation needs in advance of growth, and sets stringent standards for the use of new.
transportation funds. .
New growth will have to be combined with transportation investments which reduce congestion and
improve air quality. All current environmental safeguards remain in place as well, so this program
provides unprecedented environmental protections.
Updating the Spending Limit to Protect the.Environment:
The problem:The existing limit on government spending—more than a decade old—fads to reflect
the growth in our economy.
The result: According to the Commission on State Finance—even though.funds will be available
—the limit will deny$22 billion in vital services over the next 10 years. That means the limit could
shortchange critical programs to clean up mounting air and water pollution—programs such as the
Wildlands Program, Hazardous Waste Control, water quality efforts to investigate groundwater
contamination and prevent leaks from solid waste facilities and the Bay Protection and Toxic Cleanup
Program.
Proposition 111 will allow state and local spending Iimits to grow with the state's economy and
thereby enable us to use already-collected revenues to meet pressing needs for health,education,social
and environmental programs.
At a time when booming population and economic growth place further strains on the environment,
we should be increasing, not eroding, state support for clean air and water and land and coastal
protection.
VOTE YFS on PROPOSITIONS 111 & 108
on JUNE 5!
�-yS
Chamman:Goremor -
t3eorge Dewmenan :
MESON
S(atewtce Go-Chaim:
'set Donato i Burnell
Remittent; ureroma III
108
Police Cne!s
Rssocww
C Doane D.Ca d
r.
Presroem.Ca•'oma '
Association,of mosows
am"Caar.Svstems THERE'S A LOT RIDING ON IT!
!Raween D;Marco
P+eaoem.Ca 4oma ENDORSERS AS OF 03/28/90
Sorrod Soar°'
ASSOpaI;On (IN WRITING)
Dav;c Garotte- Prestorem.
T.."Lmt•amgrt or
Caaforna Constitutional Officers
Camorrsa Transoonanon
Commm;on Governor George Deu)cmej ian
CanOV Lpntnr Founcer. Treasurer Thomas Hayes
Mornem Against Drunk
Ornnng(MADD) Superintendent of Public Instruction Bill Honig
Larfv G Lutz.Chairman.
California Aging cprtmgStW, Gubernatorial. Candidates
:arry McCanry Prewcent
Cati,oma Tat pavers
Assocawr . . Former Mayor Dianne Feinstein
-cm Noce P,ewAssoc, im Senator Pete Wilson _
Marna Assouatwn at
--^av Pa'ro;men
^'F-PI
_araie vvagrr:aufnos. statewide Organizations
Ptescent.Leaoue of
Women voters Of
Carcoma ILM) *AARP, California State Legislative Committee
Kak West.wet.
Camorrva Crampramoer of (American Association of Retired Persons)
Cornteme Academic Senate of the California State University
rwcoctl,rrs: *Alliance of Trades and Maintenance
Atchar°A Clarke. American Association of University Women, California
Ce .vacntcGas
Faearic a *American Electronics Association
r¢
LoowickCook Chairman. *American Federation of State, County and Municipal
AceL Employees, AFL-CIO (AFSCME)
Bruce
Lee.Regional
*Associated General Contractors of California
WalterShorerlstetn. Association of California School Administrators
`mss ens,rnc, Association of California State. Attorneys and
Cal4omm Assocatton or Administrative Law Judges
"gnra,Patrolmen Association of California Water Agencies
' SSOC.Ta.naves
AAssociation of Independent California Colleges and
SS«at:pn
a""'"a`"a^oe'of
Zofnn±erce Universities
=amama Po.;ce Criers Association of Motor Vehicle Investigators
ASSOC;8fO"
League of women voters *Automobile Club of Southern California
of Caufoma
;.attorrm Assocatron of California. Asphalt Pavement Association
"050WSa^C"°arm *California Association of Area Agencies on Aging
Systems
Caf4oma ecrrecttona; *California Association of Highway Patrolmen
Aeace,altttcem
*California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems
Assocafror,"
manorp skier;rs Sh&,"s"`u otPmCe
anCalifornia Association of Professional Scientists
:aiaorroa State Autommoe *California Association of .Public Hospitals
ASSOCtai;ott
=atttomtansto,Bette, *California Association of Special Investigators
'rarlsoona(ro
:amorroa Tracsa *California Building Industry Association
Assocaupr
Cak,orrva Umc.^or Salty California Business Roundtable
ernoioyeet *California Chamber of Commerce
Cataormans tc�.+•prier - -
ECucahor *California Commission On Aging
State ca"c California Common Cause
..onniumisutxtc^'tapes
c° ^P°° "so'stta
sucet. California Community Colleges Board of Governors
c.,wn,r -sp
AsSpC is V Camorn;a California Community College Trustees Association
_eaguc of Cam•orn.a C.t•es
.AW Aeg•cr6 *California Confederation of the Arts -- r,
-innec Au:cnoo•e *California Correctional Peace Officers Association
:
r _J,
Arosoace aro
z ircu;Wa.tmoement
'.toners e•Arne,-ca
=st=.afec Gerota; `SON1i16 1089111 Anza Bowevare,Suae406 Burt ngame.CA 1:010 a i-:513-0-0-'O FAX:-nE,
Ccr!rac-,C•s V Cautom,a i 1-00 Pvest Ogino¢Bomevaro.Surae 278.Los Ange:es.CA 90064■1213;.1.05.6665 Pat(2!3j_-4;.88C0
a:
PanLs:-c: :12L S
1 ree:.Suite1000.Sacramento CA 95814 a(91E;—.8060.FA}!9';1 e-6.710-
(Statewide Organizations - Continued)
*California Council for Environmental & Economic Balance
*California Council of Civil Engineers .& Land Surveyors
*California Council of Police & Sheriffs
California Department of Forestry Employees Association
*California Dump Truck owners Association
*California Farm Bureau Federation
*California Federation of Teachers
California Faculty Association
California Highway Users Conference
*California Manufacturers Association
California Nurses Association
California Park and Recreation Society
*California Police Chiefs Association
California Postsecondary Education Commission
California Probation, Parole and Correctional
Association
California Professional Firefighters
*California. Republican Party
*California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
California Retired Teachers Association
California School Boards Association -
*California School Employees Association
*California Senior Legislature
*California Seniors Coalition
California Special Districts Association
*California State Automobile Association
California State Board of Education
California State Employees Association
California State Firemen's Association
California State Park and Recreation Commission
California State Police Association
California State Student Association
California State University Board of Trustees
*California Taxpayers' Association
California Tax Reform Association
*California Teachers Association
*California Transit Association
*California Transportation Commission
*California Union of Safety Employees
*Californians For Better Transportation.
*Californians For Higher Education.
Coalition For Project Delivery
*Consulting Engineers Association Of California
*County Supervisors Association of California
Faculty Association of California Community_ Colleges
Health Access of California
Laborers' International Union of North America
*League of California Cities
*League of Women Voters of California
Lutheran Office of Public Policy - California
*Motor Vehicle Conference
(Statewide Organizations - Continued)
*Older Women's League of California
Professional Engineers in California Government
*Project 90, A Coalition of Organizations Representing
Business, Labor and Health
Retired Public Employees Association
*State Building and Construction Trades Council of
California
Statewide University Police Association
*Triple A Council of California
*UAW Region 6, International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America
United Domestic Workers of America
University of California Board of Regents
UCLA Alumni Association Board of Directors
UCSC Alumni Association Council
University of California Student Association
Regional organizations
*Aggregate Producers Association of. Northern California
*Bay Area Council
*Building Owners and Managers Association of the East Bay
International. Union of Operating Engineers, Local 12,
AFL-CIO
*Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
*Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, AFL-CIO
Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
Southern California Association of Governments
*Southern California Contractors Association, Inc.
*Southern California Ready Mixed Concrete Association
*Southern California Rock Products Association
Southern California Transportation Action Committee
County/Local organizations
*Alameda County Fire Chief's Association
Alameda County Transportation Authority
Burlingame, Plumbers Local 4467
*Central City Association of Los Angeles
*Gardena Valley Chamber of Commerce
Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce
*Indio Chamber of Commerce
Kern County Taxpayers Association
Los Angeles County Transportation Commission
*Los Angeles Taxpayers Association
*Merced County Association of Governments
*Monterey County Transportation Commission
Moreno Valley Chamber of Commerce
Nevada County Transportation Commission
North of the River Municipal Water District
*Orange County Division - League of California Cities
��Y O
(County/Local Organizations - Continued)
Palm Springs ' Chamber of Commerce
*Rancho Cordova Area Chamber of Commerce
Redlands Chamber of Commerce
*Riverside Sher-iff's Association
*Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs Association
*Sacramento Transportation Coalition
*San Bernardino Associated Governments
San Diego Highway Development Association
*San Joaquin Council of Governments
*San Mateo Chamber of Commerce
San Rafael Chamber of Commerce
Santa Clara County Manufacturing Group
Santa Clara County Traffic Authority
*Santa Cruz County Transportation Commission
United Way of Greater Los Angeles
Valley Industry and Commerce Association
Visalia Chamber of Commerce
Legislators
Assemblyman Jim Costa
Assemblyman Richard Katz
Assemblyman Ted Lempert
State Senator John Garamendi
State Senator Quentin Kopp
Board of Supervisors '
Fresno County Board of Supervisors
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
*Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
*Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
*Shasta County Board of Supervisors
*Solano County Board of Supervisors
Tehama County Board of Supervisors
city councils
*City of Brisbane
City of Dublin
*City of Hollister
*City of Los Angeles
*City of Palo Alto
*City of Rialto
City of Saratoga
City of Visalia
City and County Officials
Alameda County, Director of Public Works
Donald J. LaBelle
Benicia, Director of Public Works, Don Curtis
Buena Park, Councilmember Donna L. Chessen
Burbank, Director of Public Works, Ora Lampman
Ceres, Director of Public Works, Joe Hollstein
Claremont, Councilmember Judy Wright
Contra Costa County, Supervisor Robert Z. Schroder
Daly City, Councilmember Albert M. Teglia
Daly City, Mayor James J. Tucker
Davis, Director of Public Works, David B. Pelz
Dublin, Vice Mayor Georgean M. Vonheeder
El Dorado County, Transportation Director, Scott Chadd
El Dorado County, Supervisor Robert E. Dorr
Fontana, Administrative Analyst, Lee Ann Overstreet
Fresno, Director of Public Works, Richard Conrad
Half Moon Bay, City Council Member Larry A. Patterson
Hayward, Deputy State Fire Marshall Carol D. Jordan
Humboldt County, Supervisor Stan Dixon
Lake County, Supervisor Voris Brumfield
Lancaster, Director of Public Works, Jeff L. Long
Long Beach, Councilmember Jan Hall
Los Angeles, Legislative Analyst Michael P. Karsch
Los Gatos, Town Engineer, Christine L. Fischer .
Marin County, Supervisor Bob Roumiguiere
Mariposa County, Supervisor George P. Radanovich
F
Merced County, Supervisor Anthony R. Whitehurst
Merced County, Assistant CAO Greg B. Wellman
Monterey County, Supervisor Dusan M. Petrovic
Moreno Valley., Planning Commissioner Theresa Canady
Millbrae, Councilmember Doris Morse
Newark, Assistant City Engineer, Glenn Gebhardt
Orange, City Engineer, Gary D. Johnson
Orinda, Councilmember, Richard G. Heggie
Pacifica, Mayor Peter Loeb
Palm Desert, Asst. City Manager Richard Folkers
Placer County, Supervisor Susan Hogg
Plumas County, Supervisor John Schramel
Port. Hueneme, Councilmember James F. Daniels
Rancho Palos Verdes, Councilmember Jacki Bacharach
Redondo Beach, Planning Commissioner, Tony Cole
San Bernardino County, Assistant Director of
Transportation, Charles L. Laird
San Bernardino County, Director of Transportation
Ken A. Miller
San Bruno, Director of Public Works, Lee R. Ritzman
San Diego County, Supervisor John MacDonald
San Francisco County, Supervisor Tom Hsieh
San Francisco County, Supervisor Willie B. Kennedy
San Jose, Councilmember Jim Beall
San Mateo, Councilmember Paul J. Gumbinger
San Mateo, Mayor Tom Mack _
,�?-S8
(City and County Officials - Continued)
San Mateo County, Supervisor Tom Nolan
Santa Barbara County, Supervisor E. Dianne Owens
Santa Clara County, Supervisor Dianne McKenna
Santa Cruz, Principal Admin. Analyst Carol H. Girvetz
Santa Cruz, HSA Administrator Elinor Hall
Santa Cruz, Supervisor, Fred Keeley
Santa Monica, Councilmember, Christine E. Reed
Susanville, City Engineer, Danny Graham
Tehama County, Supervisor Burt Bundy
Tuolumne County, Supervisor Charles H. Walter
Turlock, Deputy Director of Public Works
Gary A. Stockhoff.
Tustin, Mayor Richard B. Edgar
Visalia, Deputy City :Manager/Public Works Director
Bill Carr
Westminster, Councilmember Lyn Gillespie
Yorba Linda, Assistant City Engineer
Fernando C. Saldivar
Transportation Leaders
Rod Diridon, President, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission
Joseph A. Duffel, Commissioner, California
Transportation Commission
David R. Fadness, Chairman, Santa Clara County
Transportation Commission
Robert Fitzgerald, President, San Mateo County
Transportation Authority
Margie Handley, Commissioner, California Transportation
Commission
J. T. Hawthorne, Commissioner, California Transportation
Commission
Stanley W. Hulett, Commissioner, California
Transportation Commission
W. E. (Bill) Leonard, Chairman, California
Transportation Commission
Jerome F. Lipp, Commissioner, California Transportation
Commission
Joe Levy, Commissioner, California Transportation
Commission
Bruce Nestande, Commissioner, California
Transportation Commission
Patricia S. Price, Regional Manager, Commuter Transport
Services
James P. Reichert, General Manager, orange County
Transit District
Steve Ruggenberg, General Manager, Golden Empire Transit
Albert M. Teglia, Board of Directors, San Mateo County
Transit District
�-SI
Business Leaders
Alta Loma, Member of Governmental Affairs, Chamber of
Commerce, Don Donnelly
Burlingame, President of Commercial Leasing &
Development Luciano Giampa
Burlingame, Vice President of Commercial Leasing &
Development Greg Kuhl
Chico, Chief Executive Officer of Greater Chico Chamber
Bob Linscheid
Concord, Associate, Harris & Associates
Robert S. Guletz
Concord, Principal of Reynolds & Brown, Jon Q. Reynolds
Costa Mesa, Principal of Wood-Mahan Insurance Brokers
Bob Mahan
Danville, President of C.W. Roen Construction
Bruce A. Roen
Encino, President of Transcon Property Services, Inc.
Stuart M. Solomon
Encino, Senior Business Developer of The Money Store
Investment Corp. , Todd G. Tanner
Fairfield, Member of Fairfield-Suisun Chamber of
Commerce, Elwin C. Beane
Fairfield, President of Marie Calenders' , Dennis Landis
Fresno, President of Mauldin-Dorfineier, Patrick Mauldin
Irvine, Vice President Public Relations of United
Agribusiness League, Frank Caterinicchio
Irvine, Vice President Corporate Relations of Fluor
Daniel Corporation, J. Robert Fluor
Irvine, Manager of Fluor Daniel, Inc. , Kent A. Olsen
Long Beach, President of Griffith Company
Donald L. McGrew
Long Beach, Executive Vice President of Herman Weissker,
Incorporated, Peter J. Van Emon
Los Angeles, Vice President of Merrill Lynch Capital
Markets - Public Finance Group - Western Region
Stephen R. Coma
Los Angeles, Vice President of Carter Hawley Hale
Bill Dombrowski
Los Angeles, Senior Project Manager of HCB Contractors
Dennis A. Watsabaugh
Marysville, President of Yuba Trucking, Mike Lindeman
Menlo Park, Managing Partner of Ford Land Company
Thomas W. Ford
Menlo Park, Manager of Government & Community Relations
and Transportation Coordinator of Raychem Corp.
Michal S. Mendelsohn
Modesto, Vice President/General Manager of Western Stone
Products, John M. Jefferies
Modesto, President of George Reed Inc. , Wendell Reed
Newport Beach, President of The Tarnutzer Companies,
Inc. , Byron M. Tarnutzer
i
(Transportation Leaders - Continued)
Leo J. Trombatore, Former 'Cal Trans Director
Jim Wilkinson, Chairman, San Mateo Economic Development
Association Transportation Council
Linda J. Wilshusen, Executive Director, Santa Cruz
County Transportation Commission
Association officers
Aptos, Chamber of Commerce, Director Karen Hibble
Atwater, Chamber of Commerce, Executive Director
Terry C. Easley
Century City, Chamber of. Commerce, Executive Vice
President, Joel Baker
Concord, Chamber. of Commerce, Executive Vice President
Harry L. York
Encino, Chamber of Commerce, Executive Director
Jan Sobel
Fairfield/Suisun, Chamber of Commerce, Director
Jeffrey Hopkins
Gardena, Chamber of Commerce, Executive Vice President
Tom H. Parks
Humboldt County, League of Women Voters President
Judy Bennett
Indio, Chamber of Commerce, Chief Executive Officer
Jeep Shelton
La Quints, Chamber of Commerce, Korryn Friestad
Los Angeles, President of Los Angeles Area Chamber of
Commerce, Ray Remy
Marin County, League of Women Voters President
Anne H. Layzer
Marin County, League of Women Voters Vice President
Robyn Prud'homme-Bauer
Merced, AAUW Education Chair, Bettylou George
Napa County, Republican Central Committee, Member
Diane I. Mitchell
Newport Harbor Area, Chamber of Commerce, President
Richard Luehrs
San Francisco, Chamber of Commerce, Vice President
James Lazarus
San Mateo, Chamber of Commerce, Executive Director
Anne H. LeClair
San Mateo County, League of Women Voters Board of
Director's State & National Action Chair
Mary A. Steiner
Southern California Association of Governments
President, Christine E. Read-
USF
eedUSF College Republicans, President, Tammy Eglinlon
Vista, Chamber of Commerce, Executive Vice President
Virginia R. Tapia
(Business Leaders - Continued)
Sun Valley, Vice President of Kruse Construction
Jon R. Kruse
Thousand Oaks, President of California Solar, Rick White
Ventura, Account Executive of Commuter Transportation
Services, Patricia Sheckells
Walnut Creek, Vice President of Nolte & Associates
Rick Cole
Wells Fargo and Company
K-12 Education
Burbank Board of Education, President, Vivian Kaufman
Chaffey Joint Union High School District, Board Vice
President, Kathy Kinley
Chico Unified School District, Board Member,
Mary Anne Houx
Coast Joint Union High School Board of Trustees
President, Louis E. Barnes
Del Paso Heights School District, Board Member
Susan L. Scott
Dixie School District Board of Trustees
Escondido Union High School District, Board Vice
President John L. D'Amelio
Inyo County School District, Board President
Emilie Martin
Lake Elsinore Unified School District, Board Member
Sonja Wilson
Lancaster School District, Board President --
Frank D. Astourian
Livermore School District, Board Member, Joyce E. Brown
Los Alamitos Unified School District, Board President
Virginia F. Wilson
Los Altos School District, Board Member, Ann G. Baker
Los Angeles County Board of Education, Member
Roberta Weintraub
Millbrae Elementary School District, Board Member
Donna L. Ravaglia
Monrovia Unified School District, Board Member,
Christine Goudy
Mountain View-Los Altos Unified High School -District
Board Member, Judy Hannemann
Napa Valley Unified School District, Board President
Jana K. Jack
Newport-Mesa School District, Board President
Judith A. Franco
Novato Unified School District, Board President
Kerry Mazzoni
Oakland Unified School District, Board Member
Kathleen Crawford
Piedmont Board of Education, Former Member
Tamra C. Hege
(Business Leaders - Continued)
Oakland, Vice President .of ICF Raiser Engineers
- Gerald V. Gibney
Paramount, President of Concrete Coring, Ted .W. Page
Pleasanton, President of TJRM Transportation Consultants
Chris D. Rinzel
Rancho Cucamonga, President of L. S. Hawley Corp.
L. D. Hawley
Rancho Cucamonga, President of Security Investment
Management Company, George D. Voigt
Redwood City, President of Grove & Associates
Michael I. Grove
Rialto, Regional Manager of Southern California Edison
Robert Stranger
Sacramento, Director of Transportation of Nolte &
Associates, Richard L. De Rosa
Sacramento, Partner, Price Waterhouse, Eric G. Juline
Sacramento., President of Roy Heatly Associates
Roy F. Heatly
Sacramento, President of John F. Otto, Incorporated
Carl R. Otto
San Diego, President of Federhart & Assoc.
James W. Federhart -
San Francisco, Vice President of Bay Area Council
James Bourgart
San Francisco, Executive Vice President of Nationwide
Construction, Dorothy A. Erickson
San Francisco, Chief Executive Officer of The Gap
Donald G. Fisher
San Francisco, Principal of Damner Pike and Company
Peter Pike
San Jose, President of Biggs Cardosa Associates
Stephen A. Biggs
San Jose, President/Chief. Executive Officer of
Technology Centre of Silicon Valley, Peter B. Giles
San Jose, Vice President of HMH Inc. , James T. Harper
San Jose, President/Chief Executive Officer of San Jose
Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, Steven J. Tedesco
San Mateo, President of C-Rem Engineers
Robert R. Eppler
SanMateo County, President of San Mateo Economic
Development Association, Paul Shepherd
San Ramon, Operations Manager of Majors Engineering
Patrick J. Flynn
Santa Ana, CH2M Hill of California, Incorporated
Santa Ana, Senior Vice President of Steve P. Rados, Inc.
Stephen S. Rados
Santa Barbara, President of J. W. Bailey Construction
Co. J. W. Bailey
Santa Clara, President of Arcadia Contractors Inc.
Joe Sweeney
Santa Clara, President of Brero Construction
Claudette Weber
i
(Higher Education - Continued)
University of California - State Student Association, ;
Executive Director, Dale Kelly Bankhead
University of California - Santa Cruz, Chancellor
Robert Stevens
Senior Leaders
Clarence F. Nedom, President, Triple-A Council of
California
Senior Assemblyman Joseph M. Crowell, California Senior
Legislature
Senior Senator Ed Kramer, California Senior Legislature
Newspapers
Los Angeles Times
Sacramento Bee
San Bernardino Sun
San Diego Tribune
Ukiah Daily Journal
* Denotes organizations that have endorsed both Propositions
108 and ill.
oo
(K-12 Education - Continued)
Pleasanton- Unified School District, Board Clerk
Juanita Haugen
Porterville Elementary Schools, Board President
Barbara R. Job .
Robla School District, Board Member, Gary Miller
Santa Clara County School Board Association. President
and Saratoga Union School District Member
Mary Ellen Comport
Savanna School District, Board President, Gary R. Fite
Scotts Valley Union School District, Board President
Jeanne E. MacLaren
Sunnyvale School District, Board Member, Jeanne Gonzales
Sunnyvale School District, Representative of Parent
Group Council, Margaret Quillinan
Tustin Unified School District, Board Member
Merlin L. Henry Jr.
Ukiah Unified School District, Board Member
Patricia A. Hartley
Ukiah School District, Board Member, Peggy Smart
Ukiah Unified School District, Board Vice President
Barry Vogel
Whisman Elementary School District, Board President
Dave Hem
Woodland Joint Unified School District, Board Member
Brenda Jones
Hiaher Education.
California State University Academic Senate, Chair -
Government Affairs Committee, Bernice Biggs
California State University Academic Senate, Professor
of Economics Erwin L. Kelly, Jr.
California State University Academic Senate, Professor
Sandra Wilcox
California State University - Sacramento, President -
Donald R. Gerth
California State University - Sacramento, Professor
Dennis Huff
California State University - Sacramento, Associate vice
President William Pickens
California State University - Sacramento, Dean, School
of Arts and Sciences Dr. William J. Sullivan, Jr.
California State University - Sacramento, Professor
Marilyn Winters
Fresno County, State Center Community College District
Glendale Community College District - Board of Trustees
Redwoods Community College District - Board of Trustees
San Jose/Evergreen Community College District Governing
Board
State Center Community College District Governing Board
* GNCY o/.* Cltl- ! � SAn - tuis:-OBISPO
.,.
H Qa0 it O COUNCIL HEARING ROOM • CITY HALL • 990 PALM STREET • SAN LUIS OBISPO
J
**Lead peuon - Item to come back.
�t� S 0�� *Denotes action by lead penton
No adteAizk - inbanmati.on only
A G E N D A
CLOSED SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
MONDAY, MAY 21, 1990 - 12: 10 P.M.
COUNCIL HEARING ROOM, CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET
ROLL CALL: Vice-Mayor Jerry Reiss, Councilmembers Peg Pinard,
Penny Rappa, Bill Roalman, and Mayor Ron Dunin
PUBLIC COMMENT
Immediately prior to scheduled public hearings, members of the
public may address the City Council on items that DO NOT appear on ;
the printed agenda. Please observe the time limit of three
minutes. A speaker slip (available in the Foyer) must be filed
with the City Clerk prior to the beginning of the meeting.
As a general rule, action will not be taken on issues not listed
on the agenda. Staff will generally be asked to follow-up on such
items. The Council is interested in hearing from the public
regarding issues or concerns of the community and welcomes your
input.
CLOSED SESSION
�J
1. APPOINTED OFFICIAL EVALUATION (JORGENSEN/301 - 45 min. ) +�
Review and discussion with the City Attorney, of goals, and f
objectives for six month period and proposed goals thru *.
10/1/90.
FINAL ACTION: Fva2uati.an made.
2. APPOINTED OFFICIAL EVALUATION (VOGES/674 - 45 min. )
Review and 'discussion with the Cit Clerk of
City goals, and
objectives for six month period and proposed goals thru
10/1/90.
FINAL ACTION: Fva2uctti.on made.
Page 1 of 2
Council Agenda May 21, 1990
COMMUNICATIONS
During the balance of the meeting, any Councilmember or the City
Administrative Officer may informally update the City Council of
written or oral communications and ask for comment and/or
discussion. State law provides that Council take action only on
such matters which have been noticed at least three days in advance
of the meeting unless special circumstances are found to exist.
Formal action or approval is not preferred and such items should
be continued to the next regular meeting.
A. ADJOURN TO TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1990 AT 7:00 P.M.
Page 2 of 2