HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/03/1990, LP-1 - LIAISON REPORT - SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING TASK FORCE k!Fr",NG ` �� AGENDA
-
►Iillllli�!�i�
city of sAn WIS ON "
S
PO
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
June 27, 1990
TO: Council Colleagues
FROM: Penny Rappa
SUBJECT: LIAISON REPORT - SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING TASK FORCE
As the Council representative on the Supplemental Funding Task Force (1/2 cent sales tax),
I have attached the survey results for your information.
If there are any questions, please contact me.
Attachment
c: John Dunn
Arnold Jonas
Je•`Vss arWn by lead Person
Respond^'r
''wOunCl''
Ally.
jp:
21
i
• f
i
Summary y of Survey Results
J. Moore, of J. Moore Methods begins describing the survey results by
noting that even though overall Support for an increase in the sales tax
is 608, with 298 strong mWort, it is desirable to have at least 658
overall Support arra 408 strong support. In addition, he notes that for a
1°"Q"e to Proceed (fly) Several other major conditions should
exist, including the following:
1. Me public should have a good opinion of the region's governing
bodies.
2. Mose regional improvement projects that are considered "stars"
have Very high public support (ie. 708) . re should
3. community interests 'should be in agreement on the major direction the
region should be moving in.
4. Mere should exist a source of fairly substantial funding to pay for a
cangDaign to Promote the measure.
According to the survey, the top five ism that public officials need to
put more effort into include the following:
1. Planning for Present and future water supplies (938) .
2. Preserving and eago+ing the emdrGam1ent (85%) .
3. Managing new growth (858) .
4. Plami g and managing future growth (84%) .
5. Maintaining and iRPrOving air Quality (838) .
The survey shows that yang voters are generally optimistic and older
voters are pessimistic. Mere is little difference between those who
identify themselves as Democrats or Republicans. Most of the differences
Of opinions relate to the age of the respondent and how long they have
lived in the area. The significant difference in approval for people
perouved asenviromDentallsts (628) vs ists (248)
shows that voters dislike extremists.
Regarding the nine various project types,, even though five have support in
the 608 to 708 Targe, the fact that now have been prioritized by at least
508 shows that ncm are "star" projects. 7he tap five project types that
the public would support raising the sales tax for include the following:
1. Maintaining existing streets and reads (76%).
2. Protecting open space (728).
3. Road and highway improvements (688).
4. Acqn-re new parklands and develop present o®nmnity parks (65%) .
2
5. Improve public transit (64%) .
Me respondents did not very highly Nand most of the 14 major regional
state hicgh;gy and local road Improvements. The lack of support could be
due to a fear of the possible growthi�rlucing impacts. It is important to
note,, however, that 04*K t for raising the sales tax increased from 52%
to 60% follawang this gtnestian set. It is possible that the level of
support could be even higher if the least popular or most controversial
road and highway improvement projects were dropped from the list. Only
three pMects had support above 60%. 7hesse projects are as follows:
10 tan of a grade separated ;*terdhw� on Highway Route 1 at
Ouesta Oollegs (68% overall, 20% priority) . 1P
2- Widening Highway 46 to four lanes east of Route 101 (63% overall, 30%
priority). .
3- Constructuxj an additional southbound and northbound lane oars Westa
Grade (61% overall, 29% priority) .
Major road improvement prorjects in the four subregions of the qty also
received limited support.
Of the nine projects in the north county (Atascadero, Templeton & Paso
Robles), only four were supported by over 50$, includug the following:
1. Providing bus service to the Train cities Hospital (71%) .
2- Oonst wting an interdMrP on Highway 46 east in Paso Robles at
Golden Hill Road (55$) .
3- Providing an additional bridge adjacent to the 13th Street bridge in
Paso Robles (52%) .
4. Replacing the Highway 41 east bridge over the Salinas River (52%) .
Of the six projects in the central area (San Luis Obispo) , only one was
supported by over 50$, extending South Street over the railroad tracks to
Johnson Avenue (52%) . The fact that there was very low support for most
toad improvements shows that there is a very high concern among voters
over building or expanding roads.
Of the five projects in the northooast (Morro Bay, Ios Osos, Cayuoos &
Cambria), only one was supported by over 50%, widening South Bay Blvd.
from Twin Bridges to Highway 1 (58%).
Of the seven projects in the south county, three were supported by over
50%. These include the following:
1. GuaranteeiM state finding for three improvement projects: the Oak
Park Road, T+efft Street and R=th Street/Five cities Drive
intexrharges (69%) .
3
J
2. Widening West Branch Street for additicanal lanes from Oak Park road to
Grand Averme in Arroyo Marde (55*) .
3. Widening 4th Street in Grover City from 2 to 4 lanes from Gram Avenue
to Highway 101 (51%).
At this point the overall level of support for an increase in the sales
tax mains at 60$, but st=V sWport increases to 32$ from the 28% level
before road and highway improvements were identified.
Projects to uVrove Public transportation received a more favorable level
of sport that road and highway ice. All of the 11
prorJects
wexe 044=ted by at least 55$. Zine top five projects included:,
1. Reduce transit fares far seniors and handl '
pr'�ity) • handicapped (83$ overall, 31$
2• Egress bus service between San Iris Obispo and outlying areas (68$
overall, 11$ priority) .
3. F3cpard carpool, vanpool and ridedWirg programs (66$ overall, 13$
priority) •
4. Provide funds to prawte use of the public bus system (66$ overall, 8%
priority) .
5. Develop park-n-ride lots (63% overall, 20$ priority) .
The resPWdents showed a very high regard, in general, far amnxonmmytal
Protection,, open space preservation and development of local parks; of
the 11 projects, 10 had the support of at least 64%. lowest of the 11
projects, purchasing rights-of-%ay along and to beaches to provide more
public access, received 54$ support. The top five projects included:
1. Operate and maintain existing
priority) • a>mnity d (82$ overall. 15$
2. Preserve and restore wildlife habitat (80$ Overall, 30% priority) .
3. Provide geek, stream and river protectioan and restoratioan (80$
overall, 15$ priority).
4. Protect Prime agricultural lands (77$ overall, 19$ priority) .
5. Protect scenic open space from d8velcpment (76$ overall, 18$
priority) .
Support for the acquisitiacn and development of specific regional and
oomaamity Parks was not nearly as high# however. Of the twelve projects,
only 4 received at least 50$. This shows that while voters support Parks
in principle,, they do not genexaly want to spend sales tax funds an them.
Zhe top four projects included:
1. Provide funds to local oomunities to develop parks (58% overall, 14$
Priority) .
4
/�p
4
i
2. ceding recreational facilities at county lakes (52% overall, 14$
priority)
3. F4anding Atascadexo Lake Park and Zoo (50% overall, 23$ priority) .
4. DVwxUng the clessta OMMIUnity park in San Luis Obispo (50$ overall,
16$ priority) .
Based on the strength of concern about environmental protection and other
issues, according to J. Moore, the survey shows that voters are looking
for a contract with public officials. They will accept certain high
priority road and highway improvements but will require certain measures
to assure protection and ff hanOel eI*z. There is also a very
strong desire for better growth management actions.
The responses . show that voters are "fiercely" trying to protect the
quality of life. Unlike other parts of the state where crime, drugs,
81=tIont d transportation are the major concerns, here it is the
envlrcrm*nand growth control. when asked if they would support a sales
tax increase if various types of actions were required of local
jurisdictions, all were supported by over 65%. The top five actions
include:
1. Require conservation of water resources (85%) .
2. Require new development to pay its fair share for parks and recreation
facilities (79%) .
3. Adopt a rescurce management plan (77%) .
4. Adopt a dive program to reduce traffic congestion (76%) .
5. Adopt a program to ensure that new development pays its fair shame for
transportation improvements (75%) .
when asked if they agree or disagree with arguments against a sales tax
increase, only two of 14 arguments were agreed to by at least 50% TlLer+e
were 57$ that felt it would be unfair to the poor and older people on
fixed incomes: and 51% felt that highway improvements should be paid for
by the state and federal govexr=Mts. After hearing the arguments against
a tax increase the overall level of support dropped from 60$ to 58%. on
the other ham, when asked if they agree or disagree with arguments in
support of a sales tax increase, 7 of 10 arguments were agreed to by at
least 55%.
Following the supporting arguments,. overall support for the increase
retuned to 60% and strong support increased to 33%. Based on the small
changes in support for the tax increase throughout the survey, according
to J. Moore, people here are very firm about what they feel and want.
They want to be assured that growth won't get out of hand and have high
expectations about how things sh 1d be. There are competing factions in
the coaunty. Based on the survey results, all (voters) recognize a commas
desire to maintain and improve the quality of life.
5
iP_ ;_t
• f
TOWNSEND&CON►,ANY
_ 717 1 STREET ANALYSIS OF SURVEY RESEARCH
_ ;UITE B
SACRAMENTO ON VOTER OPINIONS IN
_ CALIFORNIA 95814
116.444.5701 Y7t+ TV
ELECOPIE0.916.444.0381 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
Presented to
SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA
COORDINATING COUNCIL
by
TOWNSEND & COMPANY
J.MOORE METHODS
D.J. SMITH ASSOCIATES
June 19, 1990
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. METHODOLOGY 2
III. DEMOGRAPHICS 3
IV. ANALYSIS 4
A. General Impressions 4
B. Growth 4
C. Taxes 5
D. Confidence in Local Government 5
E. Endorsements 5
F. Water 5
G. The June 1990 State Ballot Election Results 6
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7
VI. APPENDIX 8
-i-
I.
IMODUMON
Townsend & Company is pleased to present to the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating
Council the final report on the April, 1990,public opinion survey. This report was prepared
after close examination of the poll results and the compiled cross-tabulations results.
At the first meeting, we indicated that ourexperience in other counties established five
important criteria to be met before undertaking a campaign to the voters to pass a sales tax
measure for transportation projects:
1. 65 percent of the voters must support the tax and 40+ percent must
support the tax strongly;
2. Local governing bodies must be respected by the voters;
3. There should be at least one "star" project, i.e., a project that is very
popular with all voters;
4. There can be no serious opposition by organized groups to the tax
measure; and
5. You must have sufficient funding for a campaign to communicate
complex messages to the voters.
IL
METHODOLOGY
J-Moore Methods sampled 600 registered voters in the county of San Luis Obispo who
either voted in the 1988 general election or were newly registered to vote after that
election. Each survey took approximately thirty-five minutes to complete. The margin of
error in this survey is +4 percent.
Townsend & Company and DJ. Smith Associates supervised the creation of the
questionnaire and the overall implementation of the survey.
The analysis of the survey data is a joint effort of the three firms.
2
III.
DEMOGRAPHICS
The demographic breakdown of the people surveyed is as follows:
Age — 34 percent of the respondents are between the
ages of 18 and 39,18 percent are between the ages
of 40 and 49 and 53 percent are 50 years and
older.
Education — 71 percent of the respondents have either attended
college or graduated from college.
Commuters — 53 percent of the respondents are commuters,with
36 percent travelling on Highway 101 and 24
percent travelling on Highway 1.
Length of
Residence — 42 percent of the respondents have lived in San
Luis Obispo County less than 10 years and 32
percent have lived in the County for more than 20
years.
Sea — 48 percent of the respondents are males and 52
percent of the respondents are females.
Political
Party — 48 percent of the respondents are Republicans,42
percent are Democrats and 10 percent are
registered as independents or other parties.
3
IV.
ANALYSIS
This analysis highlights key points and significant trends from the survey results..
A. General Impressions
San Luis Obispo County is at a critical juncture. The voters are concerned about
the direction the County is headed—a slim plurality, 46 percent, believe the County
is headed in the right direction versus 43 percent who believe the county is headed
in wrong direction. Only slightly more voters have confidence in the direction their
local communities are headed — 53 to 38 percent.
B. Growth
The voters believe that a very important reason to oppose a sales tax for
transportation is the fear that it- will encourage growth. Voters are seriously
concerned about unmanaged growth and the associated risks new development
poses to San Luis Obispo County.
For example:
> > 84 percent believe public officials need to put more effort into
planning and managing future growth;
> > 85 percent believe more effort should be put into preserving and
enhancing the environment;
>> 85 percent of the respondents seek to have public officials focus
on managing new growth;
> > 93 percent of the respondents believe more effortneeds to be
put into planning for future and present water supplies.
And, while the voters want a major focus on growth issues, the rejection of both
growth control measures on the June 1990 ballot indicates the voters did not
approve of the proposals presented. The defeat of these measures does not mean
that strong concern and worry over growth issues are going away.
4
C. Taxes
It is important to remember that if you do not have at least 65 percent of the voters
in support of a tax increase and over 40 percent strongly supporting the measure, the
voters will most likely= pas a simple-majority-vote tax increase.
The poll results after testing all proposed projects and positive and negative
arguments showed only 33 percent "strongly supports" and 60 percent "supports."
Do not be lulled into believing the 60 percent "supports" figure. Our experience
Shows that the real measure of support for a tax increase is the "strongly supports."
D. Confidence in Local Government
In order for taxpayers to increase the level of taxes that they must pay, they must
feel that the people who spend the tax dollars are doing a good job.
The results do not show much confidence in local government. The Board of
Supervisors-was rated 37 percent favorable to 34 percent unfavorable. The San Luis
Obispo city council also received 9 very low rating of 28 percent favorable and 22
percent unfavorable. Other city councils were rated a little better — 42 percent
favorable compared to 28 percent unfavorable.
E. Endorsements
There are a few organizations that could positively contribute to a sales tax
campaign effort and affect voters opinions about a sales tax.
The local Chambers of Commerce have a 65 percent favorable rating, topped by
Cuesta College's favorable rating of 88 percent and followed by the farm bureau's
favorable rating of 63 percent.
F. Water
Although clearly not a transportation issue, water issues polled so strongly that they
must bwmentioned. Ninety-three percent of the respondents believe more attention
needs to be put forth in planning for present and future water supplies.
Water is priority number one for the people of San Luis Obispo County. This issue
could make or break any sales tax campaign effort because of its dramatic
` importance. If it is legally possible, it would be advantageous to the sales tax effort
to include some funding for water projects.
5
G. The June 1990 State Ballot Election Results
The 1990 Primary election results should be weighed against the prospects of
successfully passing a sales tax increase.
Voters of San Luis Obispo County rejected the three successful transportation-
related issues on the California ballot:
• SLO Statewide
Proposition 108 48.7/513 562/43.8
Proposition 111 47.4/52.6 52.4/47.6
Proposition 116 452/54.8 532/46.8
These results, coupled with the survey results,point to the fiscal conservative
nature of San Luis Obispo County voters.
6
���i3
V.
CONCLUSIONS awns gZCpJJbJEhMAn0NS
The majority of voters in San Luis Obispo County are not ready to pass a sales tax
increase for transportation programs.
They lack confidence in local government.. They are worried about unmanaged
growth. They do not see any%Ue projects that must be built And it appears that
the community at large is not in total sync as to the balance between growth, land
use, water and transportation needs.
The chances of winning a*November 1990 election do not look very encouraging.
The odds of winning a 1991 or 1992 election are not any better unless some work
is done immediately.
Older, more conservative voters who have resided in the county for a longer period
of time are more likely to vote in an off-year 1991 election campaign. They are
more opposed than their younger, more moderate counterparts. The difference is
not so great as to rule out 1991, although 1992 may offer greater opportunity if
educational work is undertaken now.
We would strongly recommend the establishment of a privately- funded foundation
to bring together the various factions and groups in the county under one umbrella
to iron out a deal that answers everyone's major needs and complaints.
This foundation would then send speakers to every organization to educate the
people of the needs and possible solutions.
A foundation is tax deductible and outside the government bureaucracy.
Government plays a role, but not the only role.
Education. Compromise. An Agreement. Then consider a campaign to the voters
in either 1991 or 1992.
7
Discussion and Quest;ons
A major focus of the discussion is on the issue of water and what mold be
da the sales ening ihe strOxith s for dfei� � should we dedicate a portion
of opt• Chris Christensen asks about
the possibility of a wet year in the future. The consultants nate that
the MortereY qty measure didn't include funds for water and the first
questionof the SIO rand e public asked was � nothing thing was dam about it. Jahn
Asbbaugh,
arcY suggest putting mosey in the program
to retrofit houses. J. 12"Cre sets the need for several different
water development projects. If we were to out a deal with water people,
environmentalists,, open space advocates and builders, a mamm„b could
pass. If an arrangement can be made to provide a guaranteed water
allocation to existing residents of the Cotasty thrcrgh the sales tax, it
win require fewer new hookups. This will reduce the dependent' an new
gbh to fur4 the Cost of the state water project. The survey clearly
shows that while the respondents are very concerned about growth, they
want certain amenities, such as enough water to have plants and take a
bath or shower.
The Task Force asks about open space preservation and parks development.
The survey seems to show a concern but no strong willingness to use sales
tax furls. David Townsend nates that while voters are concerned about
open space and local parks, they don't necessarily want to buy regional
parks. He notes that it may be necessary to aansdsrct another, more
focussed, poll to determine exactly what the public will support.
The Task Force MEMbers ask what a proposed excpetsditure plan should
include. David Townsend suggesrts that it dxmld include transit, open
space, water, growth management and some state hicghway inprovments and
fords for local roads.
The Task Force members ask what kind of schedule we should set for a sales
tax measure. can we put it together for the November, 1990 ballot? idnen
is the best time to have this on the ballot? The comitants disagree on
when would best. Cnse says that even with a special or off-year election,
with a good plan it will pass. Tire other says that it would be best at a
general election with the highest possible Ummut. It is further noted
that the June election will be critical in regard to Measure A or B being
apporved. David Towns nd recommends that we try to put together a plan
for the November, 1990 election and try to cit deals with builders and
environmentalfists. If we can't make it, either have a special elections .
next year or go in November, 1991.
The Task Force asks Area cmmcil to prepare a preliminary mgpenditure plan
to be reviewed at its next meeting in two or three weeks. There being m
other business, the meeting is adjnrtsed at 4:00 P.M.
Notes prepared by Mike Hamm
5
Z7 . :z
SAN LUIS OBISPO CLUSTER POINT
MM-90-0403 INTERVIEWER
J.MOORE METHODS INTERVIEWER
1127 11th St. #1050
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916-444-2727)
(FAX-444-6457)
Hello, I'm with JMM Research. We're conducting a public opinion pol
among voters in San Luis Obispo County. May I please speak with
Can you give me about thirty minutes to answer some questions 7
NOTE : ONLY THE NAME ON THE SAMPLE SHEET QUALIFIES FOR THE INTERVIEW.
1. Generally speaking, do you think things in . . . . are going
in the right direction or do you feel things are seriously off on
the wrong track ?
RGHT WRNG DONT
DIRC TRCK KNOW
1. the United States. . . . . . . . . . . 49 38 13
2. the State of California. 47 44 9
3. San Luis Obispo County. . . . . : 46 43 11
4 . your local community. . . . . . . . 53 38 9
1.
2. Do you think San Luis Obispo City and County public officials need
to put more effort into ?
YES NO
providing police protection. 47 47 10
1. rovidin more , , , , , , , , , , . • . . .
2. maintaining streets and roads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 34 7
3 . providing more shopping opportunities. . . . . . . . . . . 28 70 2
4. preventing crime. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 32 8
5. preserving more open space. 72 24 8
6. planning for present & future water supplies. . . . 93 6 35
7. providing more affordable housing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 23 7
8. creating more job opportunities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 32 4
9. increasing tourism. 38 59 1
10. providing more fire protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 48 1
11. planning and managing future growth. . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 15 17
12. making developers pay their fair share. 82 14 4
13 . attracting new businesses to the County. . . . . . . . . 54 40 2
14 . planning for commercial and industrial
development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 41 4
15. preserving and enhancing the environment. . . . . . . . 85 14 15
16. managing new growth. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 13 12
17, solving traffic problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 22 6
18. managing your tax money. . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 18 6
19. protecting agricultural lands from development. . 81 16 8
20. acquiring new parks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 38 2
21. improving existing parks. 73 25 2
22. constructing new jail facilities. 51 40 1
23 . constructing a new hospital. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 49 2
24. improving County highway and freeway interchanges 63 33 6
25. constructing new bike ways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 33 2
26. expanding and improving alternative
transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 22 3
27. assisting the poor, homeless and disadvantaged. ,. 73 23 9
28. maintaining and improving air quality. . . . . . . . . . . 83 16 8
29. working to solve regional problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 17 2
2b. Which TWO of those items are most important to you ?
(READ "YES" CHOICES - ROTATE START ) - CIRCLE RIGHT
2• IZ/1/
Now I'd like to read you the names of several groups who are active
in public life. I'd like you to rate your opinion toward each one
as favorable or unfavorable.
3. Do you have an overall favorable or UN- DONT
unfavorable opinion of ? FAV FAV KNOW
1. the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors. 37 34 29
2. the San Luis Obispo City Council. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 22 50
3. your City Council. . . . . . . . . .: . . . . . 0 . 060 . . . . . . . . . . 42 28 30
4. the Sierra Club . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 20 28
5. the real estate and development community . . . . . . . 27 55 18
6. environmentalists. 62 24 14
7. your Chamber of' Commerce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 13 22
S. the League of Women Voters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 6 30
9. slow-growth environmentalists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 23 17
10. labor unions 39 33 28
11. no-growth environmentalists. 24 59 17
12. the Building Contractors Association. 31 37 32
13. the farm bureau. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 7 30
14. the City of San Luis Obispo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 15 14
15. the City of Arroyo Grande. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 12 37
16. the City of Pismo Beach. 42 29 29
17. the City of Atascadero. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 14 27
18. the City of Paso Robles. 55 18 27
19. the City of Morro Bay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 15 20
20. the City of Grover City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . „ . . 40 20 40
21. the City of Santa Maria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 23 34
22 . the City of Santa Barbara. 47 16 37
23 . the City of Los Angeles. 12 68 20
24 . the County of Monterey. 63 4 33
25. Cal-Poly, San Luis Obispo.
26. 83 10 7
Cuesta College. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 3 9
27. the Visitors and Conference Bureau. 35 5 60
28. the Air Pollution Control District. 49 14 37
29. the San;Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council. . . 16 6 78
i
E PENOTIURE PIAN ISSUES
A. Docent Pr's and funding needs considering results of the June,
1990 election.
RE0390M T CNS:
1. SIDPM staff to evaluate and docent transportation need in
cooperation with affected jurisdictions in Financial Element of
the 1990 laegiOnal Transportation Plan Update.
2. County Parks and Recreation staff to evaluate and docent park
funding shortfalls in cooperation with ally affected
jurisdictions.
B.. DeterminatiGn of pez'oentage of tax revenues to be reserved for
different programs based upon the Public opinion poll results,
regional priorities, and Consultant reoc omendatu= (fcrthoaming) .
Major Programs include:
1. State Highway and Regionally Significant Street and Road
Projects.
2. Local Streets and Roads.
3. Alternative Transportation Inprovement Programs: (Congestion
Management)
a. Public Transit Service Enhancements
b. Public Transit Fare Subsidies
C. Paxatransit Coordination and Services
d. Ridesharirg/parq=ls
e. Park and Ride lots
f. Expanded Bikelane Program
9. Local Passenger Rail Services
h. Downtown Bus Trolley Services
i. Traffic Congestion Management Programs (Traffic counts,
modeling, trip re3y-ticn ordinances) .
4. Park Acquisition arci/cr Development.
a. O=muiity Parks
b. Regional Parks
5. Open Space Protection and Ehvi r rnantal &twnesennt:
a. Wildlife Habitat Restoration and Protection.
b. Creek, Stream, and riparian restoration and protection.
c. Prime Agricultural Lands.
d. Soenic Open Space Acquisition and/or Protection.
e. Historical Protection and Restoration.
f. DUMB Habitat Protection.
g. Urban Greenbelts.
5-1
d-L
6. Qoordination, planning and RPso uce Management.
R!XU404DTICNS•
1. ApPoint Task Mance Subootanittee to develop apportionment
reoommerdatiar. SIGAW and County Prarks and Recreation Staff to
Prepare aPPorti111 oPUCM based an survey results and
consultant
2. Task Force to consider of Subcommittee and
interest group input and forward recommendation for SIQACC
endorsement.
C. Determine a formula far apportioning funding, to the cities and the
county for local projects. These projects could include local street,
road or highway prorjects, qty park enhancements or local open
spa Phar and envirarmental enhancements, and alternative
transportation
projects.
Determining an acceptable funding formula for apportioning the local
allocation funds among the cities and the county can be very difficult
and contentious. Three factors have been identified utuzh can be used
either Singularly Or in CoMbination in the development of a formula,
they include:
1. Population.
2. Sales Tax Generation.
3. Roadway Lane Miles.
REQ2d NDATICNS:
Refer to County/City Managers Committee to develop and recommend
allocation formula for Task Force and srioAG1C endorsement.
E. Address the "Quality of Life and Growth Managements concerns that
were strongly supported in the survey. The consultant has noted
verbally that if these issues are inadequately addressed in the
Pry Program. the *eaQ+*o may fail. The following major concerns
and 'conditions for funding" were identified in the survey:
1. Planning for Present and Future Water Supplies. The survey found
that 93% of respndents agreed that Public officials needed to
Put more effort into this. Finding: require water conservation
(question 14b(1)).
2. Planning and Munging New ihvwth. The survey identified strong
support
for a number of programs that address growth (question
set 14b) , including: adoption of a resource management plan,
working together to reduce the cumulative regional impacts of
develaPment, working towards a jcbs/housing balance, and adaption
of a growth management eluent in local general plans.
5-2
3. Maintaining and Igzwilg Air Quality. nle survey found Strong
su;4=t for alternative transportation programs (question lla)
and for setting aside funding for air quality (question 14a(1)) .
4. making developers pay the
ir Fair Share. Survey ford strong
support for. developers to pay their fair share of both
transportation PrOj8&-s (question 14b(2)) and park and recreation
improvements (question 14b(8)) .
5. Solving Traffic problems. Survey findings support a limited
number of major roadw4y expansions and strong support for
maintaining existing streets and roads. The
survey indicated
fairly strong support for alternative ttansportation programs
(question set ila) , and mandatary adoption of a program to reduce
traffic CmVestion (question 14b(4)) and adapt a traffic
mon program, (question 14b(8)) .
RECUgJ NDATIONS Refer to Planning Directors and Public Works
Directors to develop recommended actions for Task Force and SIAADC
endorsement.
F. Dete=ine criteria for allocating revenues for open space and
environmental enhancement Prams. The Land Conservancy has
suggested a three tier grant program:
1. Specified Essential Characteristics (willing sellers only, and
demonstration of regional benefit) .
2. Specified Resource Criteria.
3. Sponsorship Criteria.
RE034EJDATIONS•• Refer to County Parks and Recreation to develop
recommendations for Task Force consideration.
5-3
� 7�